rihannsu
Refugee
The definition of relevant is "bearing upon or connected with the matter in hand; pertinent:"
The more important question would be "to whom are they relevant". There are as many kinds of relevance as there are genre's of music. They can be relevant to the mainstream or relevant to the alternative crowd or relevant to just their own fans, etc. What Bono talks about most often is being relevant to the mainstream culture and this is what they have succeeded in doing throughout their career. Every time the mainstream culture has threatened to turn away from them they have turned things around and gotten interest again through reinvention. In spite of the lackluster reception that Pop got in the US they never were totally out of it. Had they continued on in that direction they might have but they were smart enough to switch things up. U2 walks a tightrope at the edge of mainstream culture. They are never in the center of things but never too far over the edge either. Pop found them teetering on the precipice but ATYCLB brought them back to safer ground but it still was NOT what was mainstream at the time. If anything it triggered or at least boosted the 80's nostalgia but it was not a rejection of the 90's it was just that they stopped excorcizing the 80's.
The problem is that many of the fans try to keep putting them in the indie box or the alternative box and they don't really belong. They have become a genre of their own really because in spite of the number of bands who supposedly sound like U2 nobody really crossed as many boundaries as they do. You can't really slot them in to any particular spot. So whether they are relevant or not really depends on where you are coming from.
Dana
The more important question would be "to whom are they relevant". There are as many kinds of relevance as there are genre's of music. They can be relevant to the mainstream or relevant to the alternative crowd or relevant to just their own fans, etc. What Bono talks about most often is being relevant to the mainstream culture and this is what they have succeeded in doing throughout their career. Every time the mainstream culture has threatened to turn away from them they have turned things around and gotten interest again through reinvention. In spite of the lackluster reception that Pop got in the US they never were totally out of it. Had they continued on in that direction they might have but they were smart enough to switch things up. U2 walks a tightrope at the edge of mainstream culture. They are never in the center of things but never too far over the edge either. Pop found them teetering on the precipice but ATYCLB brought them back to safer ground but it still was NOT what was mainstream at the time. If anything it triggered or at least boosted the 80's nostalgia but it was not a rejection of the 90's it was just that they stopped excorcizing the 80's.
The problem is that many of the fans try to keep putting them in the indie box or the alternative box and they don't really belong. They have become a genre of their own really because in spite of the number of bands who supposedly sound like U2 nobody really crossed as many boundaries as they do. You can't really slot them in to any particular spot. So whether they are relevant or not really depends on where you are coming from.
Dana
. It normally means he was just kidding. You know that your tastes in music doesn't have nothing to do with credibilty! No need to get all upset for a joke.
?
Very good post, thanks, I agree with you.
)
