U2 Still has a great album in them

[lazarus]

Agreed, but the pitch I’m making is the youngs (let’s say 14-23) don’t have ironic U2 t shirts on like the stones etc. because quite honestly they don’t know U2 as well. And it’s probably because the people who would’ve showed them U2 don’t respect U2.

For the record I’m neither a young nor an old. I’m the the.

Why would they know the Stones better than U2? They’re not listening to classic rock stations. U2 get played during sports broadcasts, in supermarkets, and the band makes a fair number of TV appearances including the Grammys. It was a big deal when Bono (or “featuring U2”) appeared on Kendrick’s album and youngs were posting/tweeting about it.

They don’t wear the t-shirts because the band hasn’t been considered cool by anyone since 2005, and yes, their older siblings or whoever don’t like them.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Why would they know the Stones better than U2? They’re not listening to classic rock stations. U2 get played during sports broadcasts, in supermarkets, and the band makes a fair number of TV appearances including the Grammys. It was a big deal when Bono (or “featuring U2”) appeared on Kendrick’s album and youngs were posting/tweeting about it.

They don’t wear the t-shirts because the band hasn’t been considered cool by anyone since 2005, and yes, their older siblings or whoever don’t like them.

They’d know them because the Stones are respected as legends like the Beatles. Oh and Mick Jagger has that “maybe gay” vibe. Kesha said his name once in a song. Adam Levine did too. The Stones are more socially relevant.

U2 playing in grocery stores and stadiums and whatever is totally valid, but people don’t know it’s U2. Conversely, people know who Mick Jagger and The Rolling Stones are, even if they can’t identify the songs at all.

 

[Hollow Island]

They'd know the Stones more than U2 because they're the fucking Rolling Stones. U2 are popular but the Stones are on another level entirely.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

They'd know the Stones more than U2 because they're the fucking Rolling Stones. U2 are popular but the Stones are on another level entirely.

Aye

 

[Hewson]

They'd know the Stones more than U2 because they're the fucking Rolling Stones. U2 are popular but the Stones are on another level entirely.

Yep.

 

[Irvine511]

Agreed, but the pitch I’m making is the youngs (let’s say 14-23) don’t have ironic U2 t shirts on like the stones etc. because quite honestly they don’t know U2 as well. And it’s probably because the people who would’ve showed them U2 don’t respect U2.

For the record I’m neither a young nor an old. I’m the the.

Another differences is that, with the exception of maybe 1991-1994, U2 has never been cool in the rock and roll kind of way. They were never about sex and drugs and piss off motherfuckers and all that.

They care. And caring is the opposite of cool. But that’s also why their fans love and believe in them in a way that I haven’t seen in any other band.

Maybe Bruce? Bruce cares a whole lot too. And no one cool thinks anything he’s done since 1985 is cool. And if you’re really cool, you only like the first two albums.

 

[Irvine511]

They'd know the Stones more than U2 because they're the fucking Rolling Stones. U2 are popular but the Stones are on another level entirely.

Yes. Popular music will never again matter culturally as much as it did from roughly 1964-1972.

Maybe early Elvis.

 

[Hollow Island]

their fans love and believe in them in a way that I haven’t seen in any other band.

There's nothing unique about how U2 fans feel about U2. I mean, go watch the documentary about the Stones' tour pf South America. You can't say that those fans don't love & believe in them at least as much as U2 fans. Or that Taylor Swift, or Beyonce, or the Beatles, pr John Coltrane, or the Dead, etc. don't have fans who love & believe in them the same way that U2 fans do their favorite band.

 

[rennowba]

Another differences is that, with the exception of maybe 1991-1994, U2 has never been cool in the rock and roll kind of way. They were never about sex and drugs and piss off motherfuckers and all that.

They care. And caring is the opposite of cool. But that’s also why their fans love and believe in them in a way that I haven’t seen in any other band.

Maybe Bruce? Bruce cares a whole lot too. And no one cool thinks anything he’s done since 1985 is cool. And if you’re really cool, you only like the first two albums.

I would say u2 were considered a cool band between 2000-2005. Atyclb era definitely, 2000-2003 maybe there biggest years.

 

[Irvine511]

There's nothing unique about how U2 fans feel about U2. I mean, go watch the documentary about the Stones' tour pf South America. You can't say that those fans don't love & believe in them at least as much as U2 fans. Or that Taylor Swift, or Beyonce, or the Beatles, pr John Coltrane, or the Dead, etc. don't have fans who love & believe in them the same way that U2 fans do their favorite band.

There’s no way to really measure this, and I’m not saying you’re wrong, but based on my unscientific observations but there does seem to be something a bit different about their fan base due to the content of their material, and Bono is much more messianic than most other rock stars.

 

[pacemaker]

Another important distinction is branding - U2 doesn't have an iconic logo like the Stones do with the Lips that can be licensed and sold at Target or Old Navy or Urban Outfitters.

The Rolling Stones are to Rock'n'Roll as the Dallas Cowboys and New York Yankees are to (american) football and baseball - every fan has a t-shirt, but not everyone who has a t-shirt is necessarily a fan, if that makes sense.

 

[Hollow Island]

There’s no way to really measure this, and I’m not saying you’re wrong, but based on my unscientific observations but there does seem to be something a bit different about their fan base due to the content of their material, and Bono is much more messianic than most other rock stars.

Fair enough, but I don't see it. I didn't experience 80s U2 though, and I bet that the fans from then were of a different breed than those who came around in the late 90s and onward.

The Popmart, Elevation and Vertigo shows I saw had regular arena rock crowds. Similar to REM of the era - there for the hits - but not nearly as passionate as Pearl Jam, Radiohead, NIN, or even Bowie, who was still very far from being cool. There was nothing about those shows that demonstrated a unique relationship. Could just have been the gigs I saw though.

 

[Hollow Island]

Another important distinction is branding - U2 doesn't have an iconic logo like the Stones do with the Lips that can be licensed and sold at Target or Old Navy or Urban Outfitters.

The Rolling Stones are to Rock'n'Roll as the Dallas Cowboys and New York Yankees are to (american) football and baseball - every fan has a t-shirt, but not everyone who has a t-shirt is necessarily a fan, if that makes sense.

I guarantee you that the amount of fans dwarfs the amount of t shirts.

 

[Hollow Island]

I would say u2 were considered a cool band between 2000-2005. Atyclb era definitely, 2000-2003 maybe there biggest years.

They were popular but by no means were they cool. Radiohead, they were cool.

 

[DeVaul]

I guarantee you that the amount of fans dwarfs the amount of t shirts.

I mean, shiiiit, have you seen U2’s t-shirts?
View attachment 12629

 

[rennowba]

They were popular but by no means were they cool. Radiohead, they were cool.

100% disagree , I was 14 at the time , so still in school. U2 were massive amongst my school year . When you could decorate school text books with various things kids decorated them with pics of Bono and the band.

I remember a couple of kids going to the elevation tour but not me , my biggest regret in my u2 fan life :-(

You couldn’t get away from the band in the U.K. in those years . Everything you could think of they were on .

The Brit award show in 2001 had the whole school year talking , one for how good u2 were and also that Bono poked fun at Craig David for not winning any awards on the night.

Totally disagree u2 were cool from 2000 onwards , when that ended is debatable. Vertigo tour seemed to be the turning point of all the Bono hate.

And yes Radiohead were cool , still are

 

[Hewson]

I mean, shiiiit, have you seen U2’s t-shirts?
View attachment 12629

That's the difference.
The Stones' logo is cool.
The Ramones' logo is cool.
The Nirvana drunk face logo is cool.
U2 doesn't have an iconic logo that is cool on a T-shirt. They should have kept and perpetuated the War era white flag logo, that might have caught on.
Hell even Kiss has a cooler logo and shirts than U2.

 

[wolbersu2]

That's the difference.
The Stones' logo is cool.
The Ramones' logo is cool.
The Nirvana drunk face logo is cool.
U2 doesn't have an iconic logo that is cool on a T-shirt. They should have kept and perpetuated the War era white flag logo, that might have caught on.
Hell even Kiss has a cooler logo and shirts than U2.

U2 has too many logos. JT, Cosmonaut, etc etc. I think they are very cool, but there are too much.
I agree the White Flag and War logos are the coolest and should show up regularly.

 

[rennowba]

My little girl is 5 , we went into a local clothes shop and she saw a Rolling Stones pink girls t shirt . She loved it , she loved the big tounge sequin logo on it . She wears it regularly.

 

[CosmoKramer]

twitter isn’t a good representation of all people.

This is a perfect take.

I find it hysterical when news organizations put tweets in articles as if they represent the sentiment of the majority. Half the time when you go to those tweets, the ratio and overwhelming comments attached to it indicate the opposite.

It’s like “people hate this product” and they provide 4 tweets. Not to mention the overwhelming amount of fake and duplicate accounts on most(if not all) social media platforms.

But hey, it allows people to cherry pick random peoples opinions to push whatever narrative they agree with....

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I'll be sure to tell the millions of marketers out there focused on social that they can stop now

 

[An Cat Gav]

They were popular but by no means were they cool. Radiohead, they were cool.

Totally. U2 have only come close to being cool around ZOO TV time and maybe around War/The Unforgettable Fire up to Live Aid.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Nobody hates U2 more than U2 fans

 

[Hewson]

Nobody hates U2 more than U2 fans

Maybe Henry Rollins.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Fair

 

[Irvine511]

Nobody hates U2 more than U2 fans

People are often fucking vicious in here.

As if anyone on Any U2 website could write The Joshua Tree.

Other than Fake Edge.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Oh, Dalkey Beach... the moment Interference's Innocence died.

 

[super fly guy]

What is this all about?

https://codarecords.co.uk/products/u2-war-the-concert-10-inch-double-album-on-blue-vinyl

 

[dan_smee]

It’s a bootleg