Is U2 is in danger of being over exposed???

[JimmyChicken]

I've been reading a few posts lately about people's concern that if U2 release too much material too soon they'll become "over exposed".

I'm not exactly sure how this is a bad thing, so could someone explain it to me?



Out of curiosity I decided to see what non U2 fans thought/general public. So I went into several regional chat rooms spanning the entire globe (basically every major English speaking region) asking people what they thought. I surveyed about 2 dosen people randomly.

Most of them didn't seem to be aware of what U2 are doing. They knew they existed and enjoyed their music, but the majority of them couldn't remember even remember Electrical Storm being released.

It seems non U2 fans/general public are oblivious to how frequently U2 releases new material. If the song didn't do very well, they just forgot about it and recalled the songs that did do well.

Artists like Kylie Minogue have released a new single every few months for the past 2 years and the exposure doesn't seem to be slowing her down. Maybe that's a bad example.

From my brief research I've concluded unless you're actually following the band, you're not going to care whether they release new material 3 months apart or 3 years apart. Of course I maybe be wrong!


Are people here being paranoid when they say they hope U2 don't release too much material too soon for fear of being over exposed? Coz its seems the non fans aren't gonna notice any difference

 

[Salome]

I don't think there is a realistic danger at the moment of U2 being overexposed

 

[The_acrobat]

Good point. "Hands" will go un-noticed, I bet. Then when they push out their new album, most people will think U2 has been gone for awhile, and think "oh, they're back!" They never left, but they'll think that. Maybe U2 planned it that way all along. Genius.......pure genius!

 

[Zoomerang96]

yes, to your question. is that a bad thing? the public can lick a bag. this is the same public who buys creed, nickelback, bon jovi and avril lavine albums. u2 can release as much as they want to -as long as its good.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Good point. "Hands" will go un-noticed, I bet. Then when they push out their new album, most people will think U2 has been gone for awhile, and think "oh, they're back!" They never left, but they'll think that. Maybe U2 planned it that way all along. Genius.......pure genius!

If that's the case, that's a smart way of going about it, I agree. Genius!

Angela

 

[Muad'zin]

If U2 is overexposed anywhere it must be in America. They raced through Europe in their mad rush to play even more shows there, not to mention the cancellation of the '02 European summer tour. Plus they hardly played the rest of the world at all. So I'd say with the possible exception of America they are underexposed.

 

[AdamsMango]

No. Most people i know wouldnt know who U2 is if it weren't for me..and i think they only seem like others might think they are overexposed because we (or atleast me) follow every bit of news about them. others wont hear any of it. so they think u2 are just doing nothing now. And I dont know how many times i head "complicated" by avril lavigne..and it sucked. And she is still popular! no worries here!

 

[wertsie]

No, I don't really think we have to worry about that. It's really bizarre. I mean, they are one of the most popular bands in the world, and yet I come across so many people who haven't even heard of them! Then I have to go into this long explanation of who they are and try to think of songs people might have heard by them.

 

[JimmyChicken]

Actually, it was posts like this which caused me to ask the question...

If U2 are serious about releasing an album in late '03, then they are seriously risking over-exposure. 2000, 2001, and really, 2002, have been big for U2. They've been in the spotlight almost constantly. In 2002, U2 received and attended several big award ceremonies, released a single, a greatest hits, and Bono has been in the public eye constantly. 2003 should be calmer, but half a year isn't long enough for the public to want new U2 material. 'Hands' is just not going to sell -- and if it's a failure, it just takes away time before U2 loses their place in the market for good. And, even if it DOES do fairly well, it could be even riskier because it might be followed by backlash, if they release new material within the same year.

After doing research, the random people who claim they know what U2's last single was usually reply with "Elevation".

Can't see that The Hands That Built America will be remembered a couple of months if its released as a single - is that confirmed yet?