U2 and the age thing

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

BrittanyNova

The Fly
Joined
Mar 13, 2003
Messages
134
Location
a champagne supernova in the sky
I was reading that U2 bashing page and a lot of those people called them "dad rock" and "stuff your dad likes." My Dad likes it, but so do I. I don't think there should be an age limit on taste. (I am 19) I have seen some of you post here you think U2 are going adult comtemporary or old and slowing down. Personally I like the stuff they did "old" best. ATYCLB and Electrical Storm, Hands, Summer Rain, those are among my favorites and the ones that really got me interested. But some of you don't like it and think they should be, I dunno, like wild radical kids again? I know they'll never be the angry young men who wrote Sunday Bloody Sunday again and that's okay. They've been though that, they've been through a lot of phases and what they are now tells a lot about their stage of life and their experiences. I would rather hear them doing what they're doing than trying to prove something by acting like one of the young bands. Wouldn't they be out of place singing something like the Atari's "being grown up isn't half as fun as growing up, these are the best days of our lives?" I mean, these guys are over 40 and some have teenager children. I think it's wrong to expect them to be like a younger band. But they still have a lot to give, and a lot to contribute to the music world if we will only listen. There is a place for bands their age and I wouldn't want them any other way.

So my question is, do you feel less connected to U2 because of their age in compared to yours (if they are a lot older that is) and do you think you expect them to be something they really aren't, because they are older than they used to be and you want them on the same level as a band 15 or 20 years younger? Is it really right to be frustrated with them when they aren't? Is this really fair to them? Can't we just love them for what they are, and have been? Just a thought, any comments?
 
Last edited:
:eyebrow:

do you think you expect them to be something they really aren't

If you do that, you are going to be greatly dissapointed.

I don't understand where you are going with this.

Yes, a lot of people are dissapointed with the musical path they have taken....but that is a matter of personal opinion.

I think you are too concerned with what other people are thinking about the band. Not everyone is going to love them, not every fan is going to love every single thing they put out. I think you should just focus your energies on why you like them, and what makes you happy.
 
I just want to know if maybe the reason some ppl don't like their 'musical path' is because of some kind of age difference or generation gap and has anybody ever thought that might be the problem that they can't relate to someone old enough to be their dad.
 
I like Ray Charles and Johnny Cash. So did my grandpappy. Great music is universal. The age question really only applies to MTV programmers and A&R men looking for the next Brittney or Linkin Park.
 
Yeah I think Sinatra is pretty sweet, and he's damn old. It just matters what your musical taste is. I don't really want U2 to have the kind of fans that would care how old U2 is. Like those teeny boppers on mtv trl or whatever, if they think U2 is not cool enough because they are too old, well then I'm glad they are staying away. It's hard enough getting concert tickets as is, keep these wanna be poser fans away please.


:shifty:
 
martha said:
I'm as old as the band is, and I'd like to see them rock harder next time. I'm a little sick of these teeny boppers thinking that over forty=smooth, boring music.

Usually, we do, but there are some groups that I personally don't think are boring- like U2 and Bruce Springsteen and the EStreet Band. I know people in my grade who listen to Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, and James Brown. It just depends on the person.
The majority of people I know listen to teenybopper music which I think absolutely sucks. I personally was introduced to u2 because my brothers and sisters who I look up to listen to them.I 've always looked up to , and wanted to be like them- especially when I ws younger( I had my 1st u2 CD- JT when I was 11), and I have become the mosst obsessed U2 fan in my family
 
The age of the musicians I listen to have never mattered to me. :shrug:

My parents had always been casual fans of U2...but it wasn't until I became a diehard fan that I really exposed them to the band. I helped make them bigger fans.
 
Personally I don't mind if the guys are at least 20 yrs older than me ..... I listen to Beatles, Sinatra from time to time..... so It's all about the music and YES without those screaming boyband groupies it would be a hell of alot easier to get tickets.


So really, don't worry about what others (non-fans) think about them.

.....sorry to get off-topic but i remember there was a thread about "weirdest thing a non u2 fan said to you", can someone let me know where it was ...there was some really funny anecdotes there, Thanks.......
 
Yes, they are quite a bit older than me (I am 24). Then again, the vast majority of music I listen to is made by people older than me.

To answer your questions, I never felt disconnected with them because of that. I never expect anything from them in general, but I will say I expected that the rest of the album sounds similar to the first single with ATYCLB. (even though that's not the case, it is still my favorite album)
It would be redicioulus IMO if at their age they'd be all about chasing girls, having big cars and partying 24/7 offstage and try to jump around like 20 year olds on stage. I like it how their music - and lyrics - changes as their lives go on.
 
Age doesn't make the least bit of different to me...:hmm: Most of the other music I listen to is classic rock/oldies. To me, if I like it, I like it. Period.
 
if you think u2 is old, check out some good ol' j.s. bach.
that cat is over 200.:faint:
 
Chizip said:
Yeah I think Sinatra is pretty sweet, and he's damn old.

Actually, he's dead!

I agree with martha...I'm also the same age as the band and I hope the next record will rock hard but if it doesn't, I don't think it's necessarily an age thing. I actually listen to more rock now than I did when I was younger. I mean, I've always been a rock chic but I used to listen to a lot more folksy singer-songwriter stuff than I do now.
 
Adam- 43
Bono- 42
Larry- 41
Edge- 41

Yeah, they're SO OLD!!!

Mick- 59
Keith- 59
Charlie- 63
Ronnie- 56
Bill Wyman (If he were still in the band)- 66
Stones are still doing fine.

Paul McCartney - 61 & still selling out shows

Ringo- 60 and planning a big tour this year.

Springsteen- 50+ and on top of the world right now.

Aerosmith- All members average age is about 55. Still doing alright.

Tom Petty- Not a hit on the radio anymore, but still packs the shows.

My point is...U2 is getting older, and so are there main fan base. I mean, younger fans are always welcomed...a fan is a fan. But for people to complain about U2 being an old person band is rediculous. Their fans are getting older, yes. And for you people to be upset at these people for thinking that, they are right. As they get older, they're gonna cater to an older crowd. Nothing wrong with that. I'm sure they'd rather play to adults who understand them, rather than high school kids who only know the new songs.
 
I honestly dont give a care about what age a musician is, tho I attend to listen to much older music then is typical for my age(20)

I listen every one from Bessie Smith (1920s singer and very good lots of emotion) to No Doubt!!

My music taste goes like this:

*emotion
*trying to change my thoughts on things
*want to have a good time
*love
*REAL sexuality(not this fake crap teeny boppers stuff) good one for this is: Marvin Gaye:heart:
*reaches down a grabs my attention

so basically any music that has one of those above or all of them, I listen too!!

Oh I never listen to what other have to say if its negative I always decide for myself if I like a band or if I dont:yes:
 
I'd reckon up until about 3 or 4 years ago the members of U2 didn't feel any different to when they were first starting out( well they may have some sense of success that wasn't there earlier).
What is it about 40 and the body? It is possible to feel physically the same....but geez, you have to work a bit harder at it.
I both admire and sympathise with them...RIP our youth:sad:

As far as the mind and inspiration for music goes, I think age and experience can only improve things for U2.
The music shall stand the test of time....classic.
 
BrittanyNova said:

So my question is, do you feel less connected to U2 because of their age in compared to yours (if they are a lot older that is) and do you think you expect them to be something they really aren't, because they are older than they used to be and you want them on the same level as a band 15 or 20 years younger? Is it really right to be frustrated with them when they aren't? Is this really fair to them? Can't we just love them for what they are, and have been? Just a thought, any comments?

actually the older i get the more i am able to connect with U2's music. I think it is more of a maturing factor on my end. i don't expect and don't want them to act like they were 15 - 20 years ago. what is the point? they are no longer the young guys who were unexposed to the life they live now. the times have changed for them and for us. so i would expect for them to write and play music that is mature in substance and in style and would also expect for them to continue to build from their past .
 
i wish they'd write more songs like nookie by limp bizkit.

i could just see bono up there singing, "i did it all for the nookie, yeah, the nookie."

i'm sure they'd connect with the younger kids again, and then hopefully be much more popular.


:shifty:
 
Age can be an issue...

Age can make a difference. As the band gets older, their perspectives change or "evolve." It affects their song writing to a certain degree. For instance they can't go back and delve into certain subjects b/c it just doesn't feel right or may not look as genuine/meaningful (unless they go by pseudonyms and try to make a concept album). I guess thats why they really don't delve into their back catalog (pre-War).

People also have to many preconceptions of what rock stars should sound like or act like. Thats why the Stones get criticized for touring. Geezers doing rock songs. "Ridiculous." I guess that was the rub against Pop. Guys in their late 30s/ early 40s trying to delve into dance music just brought the nastiness in some fans and critics.

I mean I don't connect to the lyrics of Kite for instance, b/c it deals with fatherhood. Being unmarried and in my twenties (w/ no kids) it just doesn't have that relevance to me. I have a hard time thinking anyone younger would not feel as I do. The songs about smoking them blunts, getting jiggy, or to party hard, etc. that symbolizes a form of "vitality" that young people can get. They won't get a great feel about a song that talks about hoping one's own children.

Anyways, if you feel frustrated with U2, listen to other bands.
 
Re: Age can be an issue...

Flying FuManchu said:


I mean I don't connect to the lyrics of Kite for instance, b/c it deals with fatherhood. Being unmarried and in my twenties (w/ no kids) it just doesn't have that relevance to me. I have a hard time thinking anyone younger would not feel as I do. The songs about smoking them blunts, getting jiggy, or to party hard, etc. that symbolizes a form of "vitality" that young people can get. They won't get a great feel about a song that talks about hoping one's own children.


I am not married and don't have kids either, but when Bono introduced that song as being about having to say goodbye to someone you're not ready to say goodbye to, just a few days after my best friend died, I felt like it was just for me. It's about much more than fatherhood. You can make it your own.
 
U2 still has the passion they had before..it's directed differently now though. Listen to Kite, Bono is giving it his all and i feel it just as much as when he sang SBS at red rocks. Of course they are doing different music now. They have evolved as people too. Bono is not going to sing about going from boy to man (twilight) any more. If they were singing about the same thing their entire career..who'd give a shit what they were doing..it'd be 10 albums of the same thing. they are different than they were in 1983, but so is everyone else. the reason they are still famous is because they can make beautiful, relevant music. Who gives a fuck about age when you hear the music!
 
it all depends on whether the music is good or not. not liking a band cos of their age is like not liking a band for their looks: the most lame pathetic and shallow thing, and people who do that have no right to be respected for their taste in music.
 
Back
Top Bottom