Coming to accept that U2 is an aging rock band

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
RobH said:
You're right...music's not just for the young. Rock and Roll is. (Please get the quote right) My loss started ten years ago and has slowly, sadly hung on. Every once in a while my friend wakes up and recognizes me. But mostly, he just lays there while I remember the fun we had.

Man, hell hath no fury like an old fart with an armful of records from his youth.
 
bgmckinney said:
Bands experiment when they don't know where else to go. Masters don't have to experiment - they are where they want to go.

No, bands experiment when they want to push the boundaries of their creative limits, when they want to see how far they can go. That's why Eno was brought in back in 84, to help they get to where the hell didn't know they were going to get to.
 
very interesting thread.

i think the fact that we can have this debate -- as opposed to the fact that even fans of the great Springsteen are all at the general consensus that, well, it isn't 1978 anymore -- is a testament to the fact that U2 are still making music that is comparable to their supposed peak of '87-93.

i think ATYCLB is a song or two short of an artful, sophisticated pop masterpiece (and while people seem to like to harsh on "stuck," i think it's every bit as extraordinary and timeless as Eno does). HTDAAB is a series of hits and misses, an album dripping with effort, too much effort, with many of the hits (live COBL, OOTS, Bono's singing in "sometimes...") equal to anything that they have ever done.

are they who they were? no. but how boring it would be if they were. who they are now is still most assuredly comparable to their past selves, which must be viewed as validation, if not victory.
 
Irvine511 said:
very interesting thread.

i think the fact that we can have this debate -- as opposed to the fact that even fans of the great Springsteen are all at the general consensus that, well, it isn't 1978 anymore -- is a testament to the fact that U2 are still making music that is comparable to their supposed peak of '87-93.

Actually, the defensive responses and personal attacks from some of those claiming that this decade has seen some of the band's best work suggests something quite the opposite. If the band is releasing material equal that made in their peak, why is there so much division in the fandom over it?
 
Screwtape2 said:


Actually, the defensive responses and personal attacks from some of those claiming that this decade has seen some of the band's best work suggests something quite the opposite. If the band is releasing material equal that made in their peak, why is there so much division in the fandom over it?

Because by now every fan has their own version of U2 that they idolize, and wish U2 could be more like that.
 
Re: pigeonholing U2

rihannsu said:


I find that with U2 since every album is different which albums you like says more about you than it does about them. One of the best reviews I remember reading was a post 911 review, or re-review actually. This was a music critic from New York who hated ATYCLB and trashed it as rehashed 80's U2 blah, blah. After 911 he re reviewed the album admitting that the problem was not the album but his perspective on the album. Songs that he thought were weak and bland before became powerful and moving from the post 911 perspective. He concluded by saying that he truly felt that U2 never writes bad music just that it may not be the music you need then. He couldn't see the music properly because it didn't apply to his life but he conceded that was not the band's fault. So not every U2 album touchs you, so what.

:up: your whole post was good, but I especially liked this point

the problem with U2 fans is that they're soooo into the band that they feel like U2 has committed a personal wrong against them if they don't like the new album. Nevermind all the people that do like it.

Originally posted by Screwtape2
If the band is releasing material equal that made in their peak, why is there so much division in the fandom over it?

There's always been division. The internets weren't around to discuss The Joshua Tree in 1987, but I'm sure there were fans that thought it sucked. There still might be one guy somewhere that thinks it sucks :wink:

if U2 were really on such a downward spiral, they wouldn't be selling eleventy billion albums and selling out every tour
 
Screwtape2 said:


Actually, the defensive responses and personal attacks from some of those claiming that this decade has seen some of the band's best work suggests something quite the opposite. If the band is releasing material equal that made in their peak, why is there so much division in the fandom over it?

Because aside from JT and AB, very few U2 fans here actually agree on what is U2's "peak" and their best work.
That, and the individual bias comes into play.
 
Screwtape2 said:
, why is there so much division in the fandom over it?

There's division in the fandom on message boards, but that ain't the whole fan base.

And, as people have pointed out, if the fans here had their way, U2 would be remaking every album from the first 10 years, and not moving forward at all.
 
RobH said:
It's been fun Brau. Contrary to my earlier comments, I do actually have to get up early with my kids tomorrow. You obviously have strong opinions and a good knowledge of the music you like. But you should really try and refrain from the personal attacks. It's debate at it's lowest form and it comes across as being very mean-spirited instead of light-hearted and in the spirit of a good musical argument. I'm going to put my new Pussycat Dolls album on now while I fall asleep.

cheers Rob. That was fun.
 
U2girl said:


Because aside from JT and AB, very few U2 fans here actually agree on what is U2's "peak" and their best work.
That, and the individual bias comes into play.

Well, if the fan base IS united on AB and JT being their best work, then the fan base is united in the opinion that their best work has been in the 1st half of their career.
 
That still doesn't mean there aren't people who think any given post-AB U2 album is great, too. Or that there aren't people who don't think JT and AB are their best. Again, matter of taste and bias coming in.

But, no one is in any position to predict how good the next album(s) they make might be. Or in fact, how much of U2 career there is left.
 
I haven't yet read the full thread yet, but it looks to be an interesting one.

U2 are aging. So are each and every one of us. Who among us (U2 included) does not change as they age? At some point, U2's path might diverge from what I want as a fan ... if it hasn't already, in some of our cases.

While it's disappointing to most people to no longer like what their favorite band is doing, there's not much that can be done about it. I honestly think that if you haven't liked anything U2 has done in recent years, and yet you spend tons of time moaning about it online, it might be time to find a new hobby. Yeah, of course you're disappointed and still love the old stuff, but why waste your time complaining about everything online? (I could say the same thing for people who think U2 are money-grubbing greedy bastards now ... if you really and truly think that, maybe it's time to bid adieu to U2.)

Think of it like a relationship: sometimes saying goodbye is for the best. You've grown apart, and while it's sad and a difficult decision to make, you'll always have fond memories of the good times ... and if you're like a lot of us, loads of CDs, bootlegs and videos to keep you happy. :wink:

Me, I still like what they're doing and have been able to accept that they're an aging rock band. If they put out an album I absolutely hate next year, I suspect I'll be angsting a lot more than I am now. But even if that happens, I'll still hold out hope that they'll do something I absolutely love in the future.
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: pigeonholing U2

AtomicBono said:

the problem with U2 fans is that they're soooo into the band that they feel like U2 has committed a personal wrong against them if they don't like the new album. Nevermind all the people that do like it.


This is a fantastic point.

It also bears repeating that even if a message board on the internet has 2,000 members, it's by no means a representation of U2's entire fanbase. Or even a majority.
 
Screwtape2 said:

If the band is releasing material equal that made in their peak, why is there so much division in the fandom over it?

As AtomicBono said, there's always been division. Have you ever seen the infamous 1992 post by a guy who had just seen ZooTV in Atlanta? He hated ZooTV, he hated the music, and he thought that AB was the worst thing U2 had ever done. Even at this so-called peak, there was division. There's no problem with people now feeling that current stuff stands up to the peak, even in the presence of division. How many Pop lovers will say that Pop was a peak---and yet there was a ton of division at that time.


Honestly, I think it all has to do with what time you got into U2 and/or what time you got into music. I've seen a ton of Pop fans on here whose first U2 album was Pop. Gee, no wonder. I've seen a ton of pure 90s fans on here who got into U2 in the 90s. And it's the same for the other eras. For me, I'd been pretty well exposed to 80s U2 as a kid, I was 11-12 for AB and was getting into music then & old enough to recognize that U2 were something great, and I became an uber-fan post-Elevation Tour. I think my spread-out introduction to U2 is one reason why I fully appreciate and enjoy each era of the band.

If you focus on one or two eras as the greatest, I guarantee that you will be disappointed with anything and everything to come.
 
Last edited:
Division

Screwtape2 said:


Actually, the defensive responses and personal attacks from some of those claiming that this decade has seen some of the band's best work suggests something quite the opposite. If the band is releasing material equal that made in their peak, why is there so much division in the fandom over it?

The reason there is so much division is because of the diversity of U2's fanbase. Unlike most bands who tend to draw fans from a particular demographic U2 draws people from all over the place, mentally, musically, physically and otherwise. The differences in each of the albums is what makes this possible. Each album or era brings in a different section of fans. Bono says it best "We are ONE but not the same." That song is especially relavent to U2's fanbase. We need to recognize that all U2 fans are not the same so taste can and does vary drastically and that is why there is so much division over what is the best U2 album, era, etc. I like to see when the fans get to the point where they can appreciate the differences and enjoy them because that is where we need to be in order to truly get the idea of ONE. Not the Dali Lama's version which is washing away differences to make a universal one but more like the IDIC from original Star Trek. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Not only recognize differences but celebrate them and embrace them. That is also the idea behind the Co-exist message in the concerts. Not just tolerance for peoples differences but true acceptance and joy and love. If we all love U2 then what does it matter which album is your personal favorite.

Love and Peace

Dana
 
If the year 2000 and everything after material that U2 has released is so bad and so adult contemporary then how come they acquired so many new and younger fans during this period?
 
david said:
If the year 2000 and everything after material that U2 has released is so bad and so adult contemporary then how come they acquired so many new and younger fans during this period?

I'd be willing to bet if you were somehow able to check out how many young fans U2 attracted in the 80s, 90s, and 00s, that the 00s is the decade in which they attracted the least amount of young fans.

I have no evidence or proof to back this up though, just a hunch.
 
david said:
If the year 2000 and everything after material that U2 has released is so bad and so adult contemporary then how come they acquired so many new and younger fans during this period?

That's how it is for me! I was completely indifferent towards U2 before this year. I'd heard "Vertigo" and "BD" and that was about it. I actually used to change the station if they came on (I feel so stupid now, those songs are awesome!). I really wanted to expand my music beyond the crap on the radio now, it was all I really knew because I just turned 18, and it's being marketed towards people like me. I bought "HTDAAB" on what I thought was a whim. One listen, and I was hooked. I started collecting every album, the DVDs, books, etc. The same goes for Madonna who I got as majorly into as U2 this year. I have all the albums now, and for me "Bomb" still ranks as Number 1. I LOVE the 90s work, but for me the 2000 and beyond work is simply more creative, because they're allowing themselves to be who they are. They're not hiding behind characters or technology (although, obviously it's still used, as it is with any artist/band today), but it's not as pronounced as it was then. Now, they're exposed again; they can't hide behind The Fly, or Macphisto (who were both misunderstood by many fans and non-fans alike,) or the characters from the POPmart tour and the "Discotheque" video. Now, they're finally able to stand up, and say "This is who we are". That to me takes much more courage and creativity to write from your own point of view at the moment, than to possibly write from someone elses' while hiding (and I don't mean that in a bad way, I love all the 90s "incarnations") behind a facade that doesn't exist. They're doing what they do best right now, baring their hearts, souls, and beliefs into songs that to me, are some of the best the world has known. (Although I think that about basically any U2 song :wink: )
 
david said:
If the year 2000 and everything after material that U2 has released is so bad and so adult contemporary then how come they acquired so many new and younger fans during this period?

I became a fan in 2000 because, comparitively speaking, everything else on MTV stunk. I was at that age when it wasn't cool to listen to my parents' music anymore (which is what I'd done before then.) Unfortunately, everything my friends listened to did nothing for me. Then, one day, I flipped on the TV and saw the video for Beautiful Day... I liked the band because they still had that classic rock sound of the music I had grown up on, and I liked them because my parents didn't. So I went out and bought ATYCLB with some pocket money. Then I found out that U2 had even MORE albums. And after buying them, found that they were collectively a million times better than All That You Can't Leave Behind!

Once I discovered AB, JT, and UF, I hardly even listened to ATYCLB. It did nothing more than pick up dust in my CD rack. Therefore, I don't really think the "you're a fan of the genre you grew up with" theory is very accurate. The ATYCLB/HTDAAB era is my least-favourite by far.
 
Chizip said:


I'd be willing to bet if you were somehow able to check out how many young fans U2 attracted in the 80s, 90s, and 00s, that the 00s is the decade in which they attracted the least amount of young fans.

I have no evidence or proof to back this up though, just a hunch.

I'd say the opposite. The 00's have produced a new rising of U2 fans. BD brought in the first batch, than the ATYCLB blow up in 01- 02 brought in some more.(including me) Vertigo and HTDAAB brought in loads of new fans. Now with this GD collab, many kids who never heard a thing about U2 are getting to know the band. Just because U2 havent had a #1 hit in forever doesnt mean the young generation is ingoring them.
 
Back
Top Bottom