I can feel it comin' - I think I know what it is

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

womanfish

Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Joined
Aug 3, 2000
Messages
7,893
Location
moons of Zooropa
Does anyone else feel a backlash brewing?? I don't know for sure, but everything was great in the press, on the net, etc... for the last year and a half. But after the Superbowl there seems to be a slight shift.

While there is still tons of positive views and opinions on the band and what a great job they did, there is now this little ball of people that are saying U2 "sold out" (Entertainment Weekly), there are newspapers like the Chicago Tribune who have always been supportive of the band that are allowing horrible, barely coherent, name-calling articles on the band. The Onion satire newspaper says Bono needs a punch in the crotch! Many threads on the net praise their performance but with a minority starting to make their negative voice heard.

this small ball of people could start to roll and gather steam. Does anyone else see U2's higher exposure causing a backlash in the near future. I hope not. But it's possible. The only way I can see the grammy awards really helping them is if they win maybe 3 or 4. If they win REALLY big, they are forced into the spotlight again and people will say "Oh great not U2 again" If they go away with 2 or fewer awards, people will say "I knew that they didn't deserve all those nominations, they are so over-rated"

Just my thoughts at the moment. Anyone else?

[This message has been edited by womanfish (edited 02-07-2002).]
 
I was kind of thinking the same thing too. But I don't care...I'll still love 'em!
smile.gif
 
I think the Grammies will probably be the last time we see U2 for a few months. They'll probably lay low until the rumored European tour this summer. I think U2 knows it's time to take a slight step back.
 
Well, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Of course there is backlash, there is going to be at least one loud person who "doesn't approve." But I really don't think that there is going to be a sudden, massive Anti-U2 movement. It is aggrevating and depressing to see the enormous ignorance that these people possess. These are the people who don't look below the surface, who just see four Irish guys playing at an American Football game. They don't see all the humanitarian and charity work that they do, the change they helped bring about in a global society.

Oh well, I've babbled enough...

------------------
Daisy :)

She's standing at the station with her face pressed up against the glass.

"Jon, why can't you do what Bono says"--The Daily Show
 
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing. I really hope that the bad press doesn't hurt their chances on winning a grammy. That would be a real shame, cause they really deserve it.
 
Originally posted by daisybean:
Well, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.


Hey, that's karma defined!

Mostly what I'm hearing is that U2 got a lot of new fans from the Superbowl, and the people who were always annoyed by them are now more annoyed, and those that have always loved them still love them. What can you do. They are in a position to do whatever they friggin' feel like with little long-term negative consequences. I wasn't crazy about their Superbowl performance (upon repeated viewings, that is) but it's a blip on the screen of their career and maybe they are making decisions now based on what's fun for them instead of what it means for their image. Isn't that what "selling out" really means--that a band is in a stage of their career where they do what they want instead of focusing on creating the "right" image? U2's fan base is so insanely solid, they can't lose and I think those that whine "sell out" are just cop outs at not being able to come up with a better reason to diss an artist.
 
Yes, I agree about the backlash. I think they should disappear after the Grammies. If they do tour Europe as rumoured, I would not expect them to release a new album until at least spring 2003. I think anything earlier would just be over exposure. However, if they just stay out of the media for 9 months & put out an album out in late Nov, maybe the day after Thanksgiving-the busiest day of the year in retail-that might be the way to go...I wouldn't keep my fingers crossed though. At least we'll see that soundtrack Bono is working on.(is this with U2?) Hopefully it will be similiar to MDH. That will tide me over. They definitely need to take a break though...
 
The bigger the target, the more people who will rise up "just to be different" and throw stones.

I don't see a backlash just yet. They haven't been "back" long enough for a major backlash like after JT, R&H.

If any group deserves a backlash right now;

I would start THAT loooooong list off with n*suck!!!
 
I would probably start my backlash list with these:

Britney
'nsuck
Creed
Creed
and Creed

Thankfully there's already been a little Backstreet Boys backlash
 
Well it's definately interesting how the mainstream Pop music don't seem to suffer from the same backlash of over exposure. Why is it that new N'Sync records and new Backstreet records are always welcomed with open arms? And these are groups that release albums every 12-14 months. So why can't U2 release another album this year? I see no reason in not, if the music is good. People will be people and there will always be those that question U2's motives and sincerity. I think for the most part, people are jealous and feel threatened by their enormous success.
I have to say though, that I wouldn't want it any other way. A band that's too loved can easily go in the wrong direction. A little criticism is certainly good for one's soul. Keeps you balanced and humble.
If they do tour this summer, perhaps they should keep it short and sweet though. Or donate a few gigs profits to Jubilee 2000 and related causes. Coming off the heals of one the most successful tours of all time, U2 could be perceived as greedy, and that would not be good for what they stand for. Just an opinion however.
 
Originally posted by Angel:
If they do tour this summer, perhaps they should keep it short and sweet though. Or donate a few gigs profits to Jubilee 2000 and related causes. Coming off the heals of one the most successful tours of all time, U2 could be perceived as greedy, and that would not be good for what they stand for. Just an opinion however.

How much of this tour do you think American media would even cover? Most (if not all) of the backlash you're referring to has American media sources. If the summer tour does happen, I see it being mentioned in the American media on/around the opening night, and maybe if there's a special show like Slane or Sarajevo. But, unless there's an accompanying album, I really wouldn't expect U2 to be in the spotlight in North America.
 
Originally posted by womanfish:
I would probably start my backlash list with these:

Britney
'nsuck
Creed
Creed
and Creed

Thankfully there's already been a little Backstreet Boys backlash

Yeah, I totally agree...

------------------
Such a nice day
Let it go...
 
I hate to admit it, but I've thought this myself on many anoccasion. I wonder if they've "peaked" in their careers at last...???

Originally posted by womanfish:
Does anyone else feel a backlash brewing?? I don't know for sure, but everything was great in the press, on the net, etc... for the last year and a half. But after the Superbowl there seems to be a slight shift.
 
Well in my experience there's always been a minority of people with their off views of the band. I went into a U2 chat on AOL after their superbowl performance and to say there was a great number of morons that entered and out numbered happy fans, wouldn't be a lie. I had to leave the chat that's how angry I got, every other line that came up was "u2 sucked" or "you people have no idea what good music is!" So I say screw the idiots and I love my band forever.
smile.gif


------------------
I can't stop the dance
Honey, this is my last chance
I said, can't stop the dance
Maybe this is my last chance
Fengche@aol.com
 
I don't see any backlash coming. Not even close. First, think of radio airplay. U2 has recieved about the same amount of radio airplay that they did during POPMART in 1997. It is surprising that they have sold so much more in the USA this time out.(two to 3 times as much)
Beautiful Day peaked at #21
Stuck In A Moment peaked at #52
Walk On failed to chart on HOT 100
Elevation failed to chart on HOT 100

The HOT 100 determines total radio airplay across the USA regardless of format Country, Rap, R&B, POP, Top 40, Modern Rock, Mainstream Rock, Classic Rock. It is the true measure of what most people are hearing when the listen to the radio.
Radio play is there every day of the week at every second, and is the real place where an artist could experience overexposure. But U2 certainly has not been overexposed on US radio despite impressive sales of ATYCLB.
That band does not get the much Video play in MTV although they get a good amount on VH1 and MTV2, but its not to the level of overexposure.
TV specials that happen every few weeks or months would never overexpose the band. It has certainly helped for a few weeks hear and there for sales.
I don't think there is an overexposure problem at all, and I hope they sweep the Grammy's and release KITE as 5th single in March with a new video. I hope the new album comes out before Christmas 2002. That would be the perfect time. Keep Momentum going! The band does not need to go away at all. That point is rarely achieved by any artist.
I'd hate to see a repeat of what happened in the mid to late 90s where in the space of 7 years saw only one Studio album released by U2. That had a damaging impact on the numbers of people following U2 both as far as people and radio programmers putting them on the air. Time away in the music business, is rarely a good thing.
In terms of sales, there was never a Rattle And Hum backlash.
 
I do think U2 will go away for a bit very soon, but I'm failing to see this "shift" against the band since the Super Bowl. I see the same press outlets that have always hated the band continuing to hate them, and I see more and more people paying attention to and talking about them, almost always in a positive manner. And I think it's pretty much a consensus from fans and critics (despite a couple naysayers) that the Super Bowl performance was heartfelt and quite possibly the best in the game's 35+ year history.

I think we have to keep things in perspective as fans. If U2 pop up, say, once every month on TV for a year or so, I don't think that's overexposure. I think we may perceive it that way because we watch them so closely. But really, the average joe probably has no idea U2's been on TV more this year than they were in 1999. Anyway, I don't see any hostility really building, but I do sense that the band is going to bow out of the spotlight for a short while soon.
 
I don't think there's a need to worry about the b-word just because of a string of nasty articles. I remember how people here were worrying about the backlash a few months ago when there was a couple of very critical articles in the Irish press.
 
A good backlash might not be bad, it will separate true fans from the people I see at concerts who come to shows hoping they wil play every strack off the joshua tree and BD.
 
thanks for the great comments guys. I know that it may seem that they are being a bit overexposed because we are fans watching their every move. But lets compare this to Britney right now.

Just this week she was on SNL, Oprah, a little thing on Rosie, a new promo video on MTV/VH1 along with her already new video, on three magazine covers, the whole Pepsi commercial at the SB, and more - so U2 isn't really overexposed like that.

Keep up the good work boys.
 
I think what they have done recently is good, but now its time for the boys to grow their balls again and start experimenting again. That is when they are in their trully best.

paul.
 
Back
Top Bottom