Is this U2's last chance of reaching out a wide audience? (Bono's getting old)

[voxson]

I think Bono already looks kind of old (at least in some pics/videos) but at least they managed to make him look good in the official vertigo video. But if the next album comes in another 4 years, then how will their style be? Will they look too old? How you look counts and it might be the distinguishing mark between what the rolling stones are for instance (old rockers) and what U2 are (contemporary rockers). And then will it be the time that they will no longer attract new fans?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

As long as their music is still good, who cares?

 

[U2girl]

Many people though U2 were "old rockers" back in ATYCLB, and reviewers liked that album, plus it did well commercially.

The general impression is HTDAAB is better, so I wouldn't fear about their music.

 

[starsforu2]

Hey Jick why are you posting as voxson?

Sorry, couldn't resist

 

[U2Kitten]

Man, that's really rude! If anyone would be so shallow as to judge a band and their music by how old they look, they're not the kind who'd appreciate quality music anyway, so who gives a flying fuck? U2 will always have an audience, a big one, remember at least half their fan base is ALSO OLD and there are a lot of young people who don't care about age. You can see from this forum new fans, young fans are coming in all the time.

 

[jick]

Mr. Voxson,

I take offense to your thread title. You have stolen my writing style, particularly my method of formulating titles for "post subject." I already own patents to the phrases "U2's last chance" and "Bono's getting old." And just for your reference, I also own patents for the following phrases, among others:

"Clayton's a hack"
"Flopmart"
"the end of U2"
"corporate sellout"
"Bono's publicity stunts"
"U2 marketing gimmicks"
"Bono's scripted sincerity"
"the logical end of U2"
"the POP fiasco"
"the POP debacle"
"U2 and Bon Jovi: Not Too Far Apart"

I reserve the right to use any of those phrases for future titles of threads I may start in this forum so be forewarned. I would like to request that you cease and desist from using a writing style of which I am already a U2 Forum Patent Holder of. Otherwise, I may be constrained to file charges against you for plagiarism and moral damages. I hope you will be more original next time in selecting your subject headings, as it would pain me to make you suffer from the expenses and embarrassment of litigation.

Cheers,

J

 

[tiny dancer]

Man, that's really rude! If anyone would be so shallow as to judge a band and their music by how old they look, they're not the kind who'd appreciate quality music anyway, so who gives a flying fuck? U2 will always have an audience, a big one, remember at least half their fan base is ALSO OLD and there are a lot of young people who don't care about age. You can see from this forum new fans, young fans are coming in all the time.

Well said U2Kitten.

 

[zoopop]

I think people are justing looking for good tunes right now. The music industry needed a solid rock album alot of people could relate to. Who cares what U2 looks like? They are still making relivant music at 25 years into their career. Hell, there making some of the best music in their careers. Bono will get older and the band will play less, but lets enjoy U2 for the moment now and not worry about what Bono will look like.

 

[Golightly Grrl]

I would not call U2 old. I call them seasoned. They are aging like a fine wine. I think the wrinkles, grey hair, or in Edge's case, lack of hair, adds to U2's appeal and character. They are still making relevant music that slips right into my blood stream and becomes a part of me.

My favorite musicians, actors, writers, etc. are all people who are in their thirties, forties and beyond. I do not see the appeal of young whippersnappers like Ashton Kutcher, Lindsay Lohan, or Justin Timberlake, and I can't even imagine liking them if I was in the "tweener" demographic.

 

[digsy]

Mr. Voxson,

I take offense to your thread title. You have stolen my writing style, particularly my method of formulating titles for "post subject." I already own patents to the phrases "U2's last chance" and "Bono's getting old." And just for your reference, I also own patents for the following phrases, among others:

"Clayton's a hack"
"Flopmart"
"the end of U2"
"corporate sellout"
"Bono's publicity stunts"
"U2 marketing gimmicks"
"Bono's scripted sincerity"
"the logical end of U2"
"the POP fiasco"
"the POP debacle"
"U2 and Bon Jovi: Not Too Far Apart"

I reserve the right to use any of those phrases for future titles of threads I may start in this forum so be forewarned. I would like to request that you cease and desist from using a writing style of which I am already a U2 Forum Patent Holder of. Otherwise, I may be constrained to file charges against you for plagiarism and moral damages. I hope you will be more original next time in selecting your subject headings, as it would pain me to make you suffer from the expenses and embarrassment of litigation.

Cheers,

J

 

[Mark Freedman]

Old? OLD??? I take great offence with your remarks! You must be a kid who thinks 30 is old.

Prove me wrong.

You are as young is you feel. I wonder how you would feel if you were their age and someone wanted to send you out to pasture.

Sheesh!

 

[szuchy]

Look at the rolling stones, they are how much older than U2? And they are still one of the best live bands out there.

 

[ZeroDude]

Jick is a hack

 

[BAW]

Old? OLD??? I take great offence with your remarks! You must be a kid who thinks 30 is old.

Prove me wrong.

You are as young is you feel. I wonder how you would feel if you were their age and someone wanted to send you out to pasture.

Sheesh!

No kidding! Bono is only 5 years older than me for crying out loud! Does that mean I'm almost old too?

What do looks have to do with the ability to make great music anyway?

 

[bonosleftone]

C'mon there's a point to this post. U2 are not getting any younger. While nothing is pointing to them slowing down or the quality suffering, they are getting older in younger music fans eyes. A lot of these young fans cannot relate to U2, some will grasp it but the majority of young music fans are more interested in who Eminem is dissing and what Beyonce is wearing. They weren't around for Live Aid and a DVD won't clue them in to the power of that performance. A lot of them weren't around or old enough to appreciate the magnitude of the Joshua Tree and what it did to the music world. A lot of them weren't around or old enough to appreciate Achtung Baby and how innovative it was at the time.

U2 are my favorite band, but the days of bands carrying over and gaining new fans the way say The Beatles do/did won't happen anymore especially when the band's members are all pushing 40 or over. Everything is decentralized and categorized into so many genres and sub-genres its sad. Too many people will not listen to something simply because of the label or genre.

The unfortunate fact is that the pop music scene in general today is not focused on music but more on image and sales. There's definitely a lot of pop music that is innovative but a lot of it is vacuous crap with no substance or staying power.

 

[fmattyh]

Everyone's jumping on voxson for saying U2 are getting old, but you know, it is true. In pop music terms.

With each passing album, U2 are getting older than the primary music-purchasing market. Of course, we will all grow older with U2 and be fans as they get older. But for younger people, especially teenagers, when is their age going to be too much of a hurdle to overcome? A just-over-40 year old band is one thing, but what about an almost-50-year-old band? Are their sales going to drop off due to being perceived as old and out of touch?

Those are valid questions everybody. Don't jump on voxson for simply pointing this out.

 

[4EVRU2]

U2 getting Old?!

Does anyone feel that way about the Rolling Stones? Or Paul McCartney? I don't think so, and those guys are almost geriatric! They're classic, vintage. They're the kinds of things that never go out of style!
How many of us still like to rock out to old 80's pop tunes, but think it's too cheesy to admit? Probably way more than ya'd think. Granted, I am sure they will hang up their hats/mic/drumsticks/pics before people start questioning their relevance or whatever, but it is much, much too soon. Forty-something is still very young, really. But when that day comes, I fear there will be a lot of grieving globally

 

[bonosleftone]

Re: U2 getting Old?!

Does anyone feel that way about the Rolling Stones? Or Paul McCartney? I don't think so, and those guys are almost geriatric! They're classic, vintage. They're the kinds of things that never go out of style!
How many of us still like to rock out to old 80's pop tunes, but think it's too cheesy to admit? Probably way more than ya'd think. Granted, I am sure they will hang up their hats/mic/drumsticks/pics before people start questioning their relevance or whatever, but it is much, much too soon. Forty-something is still very young, really. But when that day comes, I fear there will be a lot of grieving globally

You still dont get it. These artists (Macca and the Stones) dont generate the new fans anymore. There will ALWAYS be fanbases for these bands and sure there are occasions where a young person will latch on to these artists.

Even still I know plenty of young people who love the Beatles but cant stand Macca these days because they cannot relate to them.

U2 is the same as these artists. Young people cannot relate to them even now, theres always exceptions but as U2 gets older the majority of their fans do as well.

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

When U2 starts making albums that gon't go anywhere like the Stones from about 1980 onwards, that is the time to worry...right now, to me, they seem energised and purposeful, creating some of the best songs of their career...Macca and the Stones weren't matching their best work whn they were 40-44 sort of age.. and lets not forget U2 are VERY popular in terms of album sales right now, they don't rely on greatest hits tours.

 

[LiveFire]

Re: U2 getting Old?!

Does anyone feel that way about the Rolling Stones? Or Paul McCartney? I don't think so, and those guys are almost geriatric! They're classic, vintage. They're the kinds of things that never go out of style!

I think Bono would be terrified of turning into what Paul McCartney and the Rolling Stones are. They are larger than life artist that for the most part are confined to their past greatness. Paul McCartney has especially not released a truely earthshattering album since his days with Wings. The Rolling Stones haven't exactly changed the landscape of music since around that time either.

Meanwhile U2 is trying to stay fresh and relevant. If you look at the progression from Boy to HTDAAB you get a band that has the relevance of David Bowie. Sure Bowie could be slugging around playing Ziggy Stardust in drag still and he'd be one of the biggest artist around but he's trying to reinvent the wheel.

The point is not if Bono has a few more wrinkles. It's U2 becoming the Rolling Stones where they release an album that all their fans eat up and then have a huge tour and then rinse and repeat and no one outside of their fans really cares. Age has absolutely nothing to do with it contintment does.

As I've said before the next album better be the sound of four guys setting off the atomic bomb whatever that sound may sound like. Hopefully it will sound nothing like what they've done before.

 

[rjhbonovox]

I think Bono already looks kind of old (at least in some pics/videos) but at least they managed to make him look good in the official vertigo video. But if the next album comes in another 4 years, then how will their style be? Will they look too old? How you look counts and it might be the distinguishing mark between what the rolling stones are for instance (old rockers) and what U2 are (contemporary rockers). And then will it be the time that they will no longer attract new fans?

Don't really matter what they look like cos look at the Bee Gees there knocking out some good tunes and selling loads and U2 seem to be following their example and no doubt can still sell loads in 4 years time.

 

[rjhbonovox]

Oh and the reference to David Bowie might not be to far off the mark with this album. I remember 20 years ago when Bowie released the massive commercial Lets Dance album that sold millions worldwide then 10 years later admitted that he hated that album and style of music but only did it to get massive sales. And thats no bullshit either.

 

[BluRmGrl]

Frankly, I don't care if U2 ever generates another new fan for the rest of their career. There'll still be plenty of current fans to sell out venues & without newbies crowding things up, it'll be easier to get tix.

(No offense to new fans - the more, the merrier. I'm just making a point about an existing solid fan base versus an expanding one.)

 

[bonosleftone]

When U2 starts making albums that gon't go anywhere like the Stones from about 1980 onwards, that is the time to worry...right now, to me, they seem energised and purposeful, creating some of the best songs of their career...Macca and the Stones weren't matching their best work whn they were 40-44 sort of age.. and lets not forget U2 are VERY popular in terms of album sales right now, they don't rely on greatest hits tours.

Album sales don't equal relevance. Britney Spears and JoJo sell heaps of albums. Norah Jones sells heaps of albums as do tons of nameless rappers. Mainly artists I can't stand lol (I know Norah is talented but I hate her music).

U2 is relevant to a demographic, they arent crossing over to the young market or gaining new fans that will keep them relevant until they're geezers.

There will always be a fanbase.

As for U2's current music, it's my opinion that U2 have regressed. Not in a bad way, but the fact is that they are no longer cutting edge like they were from Joshua Tree until Pop. Since then they have just been content with making strong pop/rock records that shed nothing new in terms of sound and creation. It is in a sense formulaic, but by god that formula still works wonders.

That's fine and dandy but U2 are no longer the cream of the crop when it comes to innovation and forward thinking. They still may very well be the best band in the world, but its not via testing themselves and making that "kill your preconceptions" record.

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

I never said that sales=relevance, but you only have to look at the media coverage yesterday for the New York thing to see that there is a media interest in the band..as for your other remarks, I see this as U2's "traditionalist" phase of their career, they haven't really explored that before in full ( I know they did a bit during Rattle And Hum era) and I do not think this is how they will continue to make music 'till they quit.


Andheres news for some of you: many U2 songs of the past relied on "formulas"..they've never been the Velvet Underground in terms of re-inventing the rock and roll landscape.

 

[bonosleftone]

I never said that sales=relevance, but you only have to look at the media coverage yesterday for the New York thing to see that there is a media interest in the band..as for your other remarks, I see this as U2's "traditionalist" phase of their career, they haven't really explored that before in full ( I know they did a bit during Rattle And Hum era) and I do not think this is how they will continue to make music 'till they quit.


Andheres news for some of you: many U2 songs of the past relied on "formulas"..they've never been the Velvet Underground in terms of re-inventing the rock and roll landscape.

No of course they havent been. They've always had a formula but they've always been keen on changing that formula or at the very least tweaking it to find new inspiration. They're more akin to the Beatles than VU, as VU was never huge. And if you break it down, virtually every band has a formula.

U2 are a friendly band. What I mean by that is they have a politically active member who can cross all boundaries, good thing yes, but the media will report on them because of how big they are and they arent controversial. No matter how good or how much better a record may be, if the band doesnt have a track record that a U2 does they wont get coverage like that.

Lest we not forget that the whole NYC thing yesterday was a promotional stunt. It's no secret they were filming a video, and its not everyday you see a flatbed truck going around the streets with one of the biggest rock bands of the last 20 years on the back of it. It's also no secret that they had a new record coming out today, and the whole free show was in itself a promotion for the tour.

ATYCLB and HTDAAB are brother/sister records in my opinion. They both follow a "format" in terms of flow and how the records are put together. I think HTDAAB destroys ATYCLB in terms of quality as the songs to me are more relevant and have more heart. I think ATYCLB was too polished while this one has a more raw feel.

ATYCLB to me was "dad rock".

 

[Flying FuManchu]

I don't think ATYCLB was dad rock but I think the ambience or atmosphere laid out by the album (probably the production) made it sound soft.

With that said, U2's window could be closing but who knows... I don't think there has ever been a U2 type of band around before so we really don't have anything to compare them to. Maybe Metallica or Aerosmith (bands up there in age but retain some connection to the youth market). One thing U2 has over those bands is the critics generally look at U2 as always making "important" music and pretty resepectful of their work. So again who knows.

REM could be another but IMO they've lost touch/ connection with the youth of America... not that it matters.

 

[doctorwho]

Oh and the reference to David Bowie might not be to far off the mark with this album. I remember 20 years ago when Bowie released the massive commercial Lets Dance album that sold millions worldwide then 10 years later admitted that he hated that album and style of music but only did it to get massive sales. And thats no bullshit either.

I think you are slightly misquoting Bowie. He stated that it was by far his most commercial album - geared towards getting more sales.

That said, NO album is guaranteed anything. Just because one writes a catchy tune, it doesn't mean it will get played on the radio. Past successes don't guarantee future success.

Additionally, even though Bowie tried to write a more accessible album, it doesn't mean it is bad. Maybe that's not his style of music any more, but I never read him saying he "hates it".

Going back on topic, yes, U2 are aging. When "Pop" didn't have the strong sales U2 were used to, I recall writing on WIRE that U2's next album has to be a "huge hit", because if it also falls short of expectations, U2's career is definitely winding down.

It's almost as if U2 heeded that advice and made a more accessible album - with one super-powerful single. But just like Bowie, even though they made a more commercial sounding album, it doesn't mean it isn't a strong album.

One thing U2 was forced to do with ATYCLB, though, was advertise - far heavier than they did in the past. For the first time ever, U2 was on SNL. They did pre-tour mini-concerts. They appeared on more late night TV shows. And part of the reason they had to do this promotion was because they were competing with Britney Spears and N'Sync (remember, this was 2000).

In 2004, maybe N'Sync isn't around any more and Spears is "retired", but other artists have replaced them (some more talented, some not) on radio and MTV. U2 is once again forced to do their own promotion as they can't rely on MTV or radio. It's sad, but if U2 received that type of attention from MTV, we might not have deals with Apple.

I do think this might be U2's last "big hoorah". The band is now in their mid-40's. This might be their last big tour. This might be the last time they do this type of promotion. Future albums might be more "low-key" (well, low-key for U2). I think part of it depends on the success of this album and tour, part of it will be personal (do they want to make another album or go on tour?) and part of it will be if they really have more music in them. In other words, I might see some smaller albums released, but nothing of this magnitude again.

 

[U2Kitten]

Thanks Tiny Dancer

Bonosleftone I stand by the same thing I already said, that to the shallow people who would care, it's already too late, but it never will be for those with good taste of any age, so it doesn't matter.

 

[Diane L]

One aspect of U2's fanbase that's interesting is that in many families, there are now two generations that love this band. Teenagers who grew up hearing "The Joshua Tree" are now enjoying their latest work.

U2's 80's hits are also staples of classic rock stations that have a teen audience. On Long Island, we have rock stations that still play Blue Oyster Cult tracks as if they were released yesterday, but they also play U2. And whether these kids are into JT or HTDAAB, they'll still want to see them in concert.