Coming to accept that U2 is an aging rock band

[Jeannieco]

no need for but I do agree with you Mr. B!!!

Ya, what she said!

 

[indra]

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 that's a given that the 80s attracted the greatest number of young fans and most likely the greatest number of any age of fan, considering the band started the 80s virtually unknown and ending it huge. They haven't had that large an increase in fans since.

 

[angelordevil]

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.

Sorry Chizip, I've always thought exactly the opposite, as well.

It just seems like they've deliberately tried to attract young fans in a carefully executed way since 2000. I think it was the head of Interscope records who said how they actually set out to completely re-brand U2 following the 'failure' of Pop. I think it definitely worked. I wonder if it worked so well, that now, instead of reaching for new sonic territory, we have a band that's afraid to fall flat on its face and pick up the pieces.

I'll say this: U2 are damn smart, and smarter than me. But sometimes smarts and savviness don't necessarily equate with great art. Then, of course, you get into the whole 'taste' thing, which is very subjective.

I also think GibsonGirl makes a great point about how a band's recent output can act as a portal to their earlier stuff. That's bound to happen again with U2:18, even though it's nothing new and exciting for most of us.

 

[Zoots]

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.

Very interesting post. Proves people wrong in this thread. Hence will create further discussion.

 

[Zoots]

It just seems like they've deliberately tried to attract young fans in a carefully executed way since 2000. I think it was the head of Interscope records who said how they actually set out to completely re-brand U2 following the 'failure' of Pop. I think it definitely worked. I wonder if it worked so well, that now, instead of reaching for new sonic territory, we have a band that's afraid to fall flat on its face and pick up the pieces.

I'll say this: U2 are damn smart, and smarter than me. But sometimes smarts and savviness don't necessarily equate with great art. Then, of course, you get into the whole 'taste' thing, which is very subjective.

I also think GibsonGirl makes a great point about how a band's recent output can act as a portal to their earlier stuff. That's bound to happen again with U2:18, even though it's nothing new and exciting for most of us.

I agree with this. Re-brand U2, that's a good way to put it. It seems like they completely re-thought their business approach after Pop, doesn't it? Too bad, certain artists cannot simply make songs that naturally flow from within anymore. They have to analyze their work and see if it'll sell. Calculated.

 

[xaviMF22]

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.

same here

 

[DreamOutLoud13]

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.

I had pretty much the same experience, except with How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb. I'd known of U2 since the early 90s, and way back when, my brother had Zooropa on cassette, but I was too young to really pay attention at the time.
I noticed Vertigo, and liked it, and thought "Hey, U2, I remember them!", and then I started discovering a few of the 90s songs I could vaguely remember, and my mother was pushing specific 80s songs on me.
How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb was the first U2 CD I bought, and I really, really liked it at the time. But I also really, really liked the random 80s and 90s songs I was picking up (the 90s more so).
But everything changed when I finally bought my second and third U2 albums. Achtung Baby and Pop, on the same day. Both albums blew me away (Achtung Baby slightly more so), and then I stopped liking HTDAAB. The 90s have been my favourite ever since, with Pop being my favourite album.

 

[Irvine511]

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?

i disagree -- if we can even make legitimate comparisons, if there's a debate to be had, then clearly the stuff coming out today is as relevant to the fans as the old stuff, even if only through comparison. the fact that there's a discussion -- whereas pretty much no one is going to compare "The Rising" to "Born to Run" and most won't even talk about, say, "Lucky Town" -- is evidence of U2's unique ability to compete with themselves.

 

[JCOSTER]

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.

Been a fan since 1980. At age 14, my favorite song became Beautiful Day, and is still my favorite song. I have favorite songs from each era. Just as they have changed, I have changed with them. If you are someone who grew up with them, you might think differently. I don't consider myself aging nor them. We are definately more experienced!!!

 

[corianderstem]

This is neither here nor there, but JCOSTER, based on what you said in another thread in regards to your age ... I'd say that you were nowhere near age 14 when Beautiful Day came out.

Or am I horribly, horribly confused?

 

[JCOSTER]

This is neither here nor there, but JCOSTER, based on what you said in another thread in regards to your age ... I'd say that you were nowhere near age 14 when Beautiful Day came out.

Or am I horribly, horribly confused?

Confused...I knew that didn't sound right. I meant I have been a fan since 1980 and then in 2000 Beautiful Day became and remains my favorite song.

 

[Bono's shades]

I think I've gone through my denial and anger phases when it comes to U2's becoming more complacent. I'm now entering the acceptance stage. I still stand by my belief that their current work doesn't hold a candle to their '80s and '90s work, but I just don't see the point of getting all worked up over it anymore. It's not like it's going to change anything.

(Edited to take out the word "aging" because a musician can become complacent at any age).

 

[corianderstem]

Confused...I knew that didn't sound right. I meant I have been a fan since 1980 and then in 2000 Beautiful Day became and remains my favorite song.

I had to make sure ... I thought maybe you had a teenager posting under your name, like Lila's daughter.

 

[Val]

Look at us...posting like crazy about an old band on their way out...
I don't think so!

 

[bgmckinney]

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.

I know what you mean. I think in a way we're saying the same thing - they didn't know where to go in '84; they got Eno; he gave them a new experimental direction. It took more than a little daring to do that. But as someone else pointed out, it also takes daring now for them not to have the desire to present themselves in a new guise with each new album.
What I meant to suggest is that experimentation, as a thing by itself, is often overrated. We sometimes assume that experimentation is a sign of creative vitality; but I don't believe it is. I'd rather hear a U2 album where all the song structures and production values are conventional, but the songs themselves are perfect, than an envelope-pushing U2 album with aimless or second-rate songcraft. I don't think they've made one of those yet, although I know many people would describe Pop that way.
I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that U2 never make bad music; it's just that it's not always the music we want to hear just then.
As a closing note, when HTDAAB came out, I was quietly disappointed, because I wanted something dark and edgy and different. Today HTDAAB is one of my top 3 U2 albums, along with JT and AB. I don't feel a sense of adventure or edginess listening to it - and even lesser albums, like Zooropa and Pop, definitely excite me in a way that Bomb doesn't. But the quality of the songcraft on Bomb is simply so high (despite one or two small missteps) that I find myself returning to it again, and again, and again. For someone whose thinks his favorite U2 songs are all in the vein of Acrobat, Ultraviolet, Exit, and Bad, the fact that SYCMIOYO is far and away the most played song on my iPod tells me a lot about how I really feel about it.

 

[Utoo]

Very interesting post. Proves people wrong in this thread. Hence will create further discussion.

Doesn't "prove" anything wrong. Zoots, I think you really are "tryin' to bug" people.

If you read my post, I say that it's the time you got into U2 and/or the time you got into music. That latter part was meant to imply that the genre of music popular at the time you got into music in general influences the version of U2--and other music, at that--that you like. If, like GG (and myself), when you got into music you got right into classic rock, then it seems feasible that the classic rock version of U2 will be among your favorite. UF and JT certainly fit that bill (even AB, for some 70s bands). Thus, I think that GG's post actually supports my claim. If you read what I say, the second half implies that it's the genre of music you got into that can be a big factor in the genre of U2 that you like.

There, I took your bait. But next time, please actually think about what other people write before you post and munch popcorn.

What was the first U2 cd you bought, btw?

 

[Chile]

u2 are an aging rock band.

With that said, though, any of the current crop of young supergroups could only dream to age as gracefully as the guys in u2.

If anything, age has sharpened u2's collective wit, made them more precise, more articulate, more poetic, and more true to the tune.

 

[Saracene]

I've no problem with U2 ageing. I got into them with ATYCLB (still my favourite U2 album) when they were already ageing,

I agree that their newer music doesn't quite have that sort of edgy restlessness to it; but personally I'm just as happy with good songwriting and good tunes.

 

[hcbiggs2002]

Re: Re: pigeonholing U2

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

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

That would be me! Coz even though JT contains some of U2s best songs but I've always found the album, as a whole, to be over-rated!! Infact there are several songs on JT that I absolutely hate and skip everytime I listen to it. So the assumption that ALL us U2 fans think JT is a classic is simply not true!!!

Also U2 lost alot of fans when Achtung Baby came out coz it was just soooo different from any thing they'd done before and some of the older fans just couldn't get they're heads around it! Especially the whole 'Fly' concept! But U2 also gained a lot of new fans at the time!!

U2s music has always been 'on the move' so to speak. And some fans just 'go with the flow' while others are left by the way side and new fans 'come on board'!!

 

[pentax]

Their future is in the hands of their next release!

 

[An Cat Gav]

got to agree with Canadiens post 100%

 

[tomtom]

I agree with Canadaman. I think that there is some food for that in my hunch (I'll have to leave it that in case people like Mr Brau start launching personal attacks on me for not being able to substantiate that with Gallup surveys) that this is the most divided the U2 fanbase has ever been.

I simply don't feel U2 are artists anymore. They used to be. The sense of vision, subtlety, and mystery that a lot of their best music has for me is not quite there on the 00's stuff. That said I sort of understand what they are interested in doing right now (maxing out the "hummability" factor) which I can see as a challenge and an interesting thing. It's just that there are loads of people doing that and almost no one doing what U2 used to: make music with balls, soul, substance, complexity, subtlety, texture, mystery, depth, integrity, humanity.

Some of their new work does have that for me - namely Kite, IALW, Fast Cars, Xanax and Wine, Smile. But for the most part, its great tunes. But let Neil Diamond do that my heart says. I want U2 to take me on a fucking mind-body-soul trip.

 

[U2girl]

They were probably quite divided during the Rattle and Hum/Lovetown - AB/Zoo TV shakeup too.

 

[Zoots]

I agree with Canadaman. I think that there is some food for that in my hunch (I'll have to leave it that in case people like Mr Brau start launching personal attacks on me for not being able to substantiate that with Gallup surveys) that this is the most divided the U2 fanbase has ever been.

I simply don't feel U2 are artists anymore. They used to be. The sense of vision, subtlety, and mystery that a lot of their best music has for me is not quite there on the 00's stuff. That said I sort of understand what they are interested in doing right now (maxing out the "hummability" factor) which I can see as a challenge and an interesting thing. It's just that there are loads of people doing that and almost no one doing what U2 used to: make music with balls, soul, substance, complexity, subtlety, texture, mystery, depth, integrity, humanity.

Some of their new work does have that for me - namely Kite, IALW, Fast Cars, Xanax and Wine, Smile. But for the most part, its great tunes. But let Neil Diamond do that my heart says. I want U2 to take me on a fucking mind-body-soul trip.

What was the first U2 cd you bought, btw?

um.. first album I bought was I think Achtung Baby on cassette. And then The Joshua Tree. Those are my Top 2 albums followed by Pop which I got next.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

u2 already are the stones.

and there's nothing wrong with that... the bigger bang show that i went to was fantastic... more daring and risky than anything u2 have done since popmart.

 

[martha]

Re: Re: Re: pigeonholing U2

Also U2 lost alot of fans when Achtung Baby came out coz it was just soooo different from any thing they'd done before and some of the older fans just couldn't get they're heads around it!

I was lost for a while at this point.

 

[martha]

If anything, age has sharpened u2's collective wit, made them more precise, more articulate, more poetic, and more true to the tune.

And more hotter.

 

[JCOSTER]

I had to make sure ... I thought maybe you had a teenager posting under your name, like Lila's daughter.

Not yet anyway

 

[MrPryck2U]

Yes, U2 are getting old. But, there's plenty of gas left in the tank. No one's putting a gun to my head and saying "Buy the new Best Of or else!". Look at The Stones. They've put out several Best Ofs and I'm certain no one gives a shit.

 

[schnumi]

U2 can still do it.

Prove = the unreleased work. Most of there stuff, like mercy etc are much more of my taste, more raw.

I like the alternate All because of you version a lot better then the original one, same goes for Yaweh. Smile, xanax and whine etc i love them all.