beli said:I dont understand the need for journalists to mention U2s ages. Why is it relevant? Are these journalists 16 years old?
I wish they would stop it. I really dont care how old the members of U2 are. And the youngsters that may worry about this sort of thing aren't likely to be reading reviews in crusty magazines anyway so who cares?
PS Im old.
Bono's American Wife said:
I've always wondered the same thing. Why does age ALWAYS come into play? If the music is good, I don't care if the artist is 25 or 55. Good music is good music.
Yes, I'm old too
Originally posted by beli
PS Im old.
stray dog said:Roger CLemons, Barry Bonds, Randy Johnson....all in their forties... who is better?
doctorwho said:I've personally never said "after all they are in their 40's". What I am guilty of saying is that "this is good for a band that's been around for 25 years". And I'll stand by that statement. These types of sales are unheard of for a band that has been around this long - precious few artists can achieve those types of number period, let alone a band with this longevity.
To me, age has little to do with success. If anything, age should increase the odds of success (due to experience).