Are U2 as popular as we think they are?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Lara Mullen said:
Some ppl dont like U2 :shrug: nothing wrong with that each to their own :up:


:|
Click to expand...


I can't be like that... if people don't like them I have to go to exhaustive lenghths to try and convince them. I haven't slept for days...
 
I would think that U2 don't have to worry about "not having enough fans" or whatever. They've always been a controversial band. For 20 years I've been the only U2 fan in my family. My family thinks it's insane that I went to Atlanta twice to see them, and they really thought I was off the wall to go all the way to Cleveland to see the exhibit. There aren't that many U2 fans in my town. Still, their latest album went quadruple platinum and getting tickets for those arena shows were awfully tough. Could they sell tickets in 2001? You bet. I really don't care about any of this. I'd just like to be able to buy the album and go to the shows. As long as I can do this I don't give a damn what Person X thinks of my favorite band. They're still my favorite band.
 
Dr_Macphisto said:



I can't be like that... if people don't like them I have to go to exhaustive lenghths to try and convince them. I haven't slept for days...
Click to expand...

Why??? Whats the point???

I know my own mind I hate ppl convincing me of something Im stubborn I stick to my opinons and Im not gonna try and change anyone elses


Whats the big deal

Its just a band

People like different music - if we all liked the same music we would be boring



:shrug:


People never make fun of my music taste. :shrug:
 
I like U2, the truth I don't think much about the opinion of the others, sometimes until gets I to like me more the band when others "speak bad" about them... that already is pathological :huh:
 
We're all going to get a little bit defensive in a post like this, because we've all put so much into our favorite band.

In reality, I think U2 are still a very popular band. Are they as big as JT/AB days? Nope, and they won't be again. The biggest reason for that is their age. Regardless of your personal thoughts, there is a fairly big segment of the teen crowd that simply won't like U2 because they are over 30. That's the biggest disadvantage they have going for them.

The second problem is Bono, unfortunately. His political activism at BEST will still mean that 40-50% of the general public will disagree with whatever he's doing. That's the risk you run whenever you get into politics to the extent he has. Regardless of your take on his efforts, he's going to have a segment of the population that either disagrees with him, or thinks he shouldn't get involved.

These things aside, I think most people respect and like U2, and think they are a great band. They are not the mega-stars they once were, but I feel they are still very popular. It is true that they are a "household name" which says a lot by itself.

Also remember that whenever you cherish anything and make it public, there will ALWAYS be that group of people that will make fun of it simply to annoy you.
 
theSoulfulMofo said:
First of all, I get annoyed when people talk trash about how Bono is full of himself... Because judging by the antics since the ZooTV days, I'd say Bono's a performance artist, even when he's off the concert stage... Flanagan writes that U2 formed a bubble within themselves, so that they could satirize and cash in on their bigger-than-life celebrity status, and at the same time, keep their personal affairs private.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Plus, I hate to break it to people who say that about Bono, but practically every artist, when they're on stage, gets the, "I'm the best thing you'll ever see" attitude-and that's fine onstage, because they want you to walk away blown away by that show.

It's just a matter of if the artists can drop that attitude once they're offstage. Some can-and I think Bono's done that, as evidenced by his humble moments. Some can't.

As for the whole thing about people not liking a band because they're popular...I find that to be kind of a dumb reason to not like someone, personally.

And it does annoy me that people do get turned off to U2 because of Bono's political activities...why hate the band because of one person's activities outside of it, besides, considering these activities of his are kind of important and serious...I find it weird people hate him for what he does. Eh. Oh, well.

Anywho, in my old town U2 was not really popular among the kids there. I wondered the same thing some days when I lived there...wondered if U2 was still as popular among people.

But on some of the other teen boards I go to, if I talk about U2, there's kids who are also big fans of them, or who may not be nearly as diehard a fan as we are, but who do like the things they've heard by them so far, or who have respect for the band. And they seem rather popular here in my new town, at least more so than they did in my old one.

So I'd say that U2's still popular. It's just a matter of where you live and who you encounter. Millions of people haven't brought their albums for nothing.

Even if they lost some of that popularity, though, I'd still love 'em. And as pointed out already, hardcore fans would have an easier time obtaining tickets...which would be great. :).

Angela
 
Why are people saying U2 are not as popular as their Achtung Baby days? The last studio album will probably overtake that album in a couple of years in terms of sales, (11m+ so far, i believe) it isn't that far behind now!
 
Look at the Rolling Stones and where they are today. I'd say they have more fans than ever, because their fanbase is loyal and they're a great band that transcends ages. U2 is similar and is selling more records than the Stones sold at the same time in their career.

U2 is suffering a backlash from the younger, ignorant mass that believes that anything old is crap. The more mature listeners respect U2 and most would enjoy them if they listened, but these college, high school crowds reject it because it's the way things go. I'm happy that new bands and styles are coming out, otherwise all we'd be listening to was Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presely and more likely stuff much older than those croonies.

U2 is popular in most circles.
 
Whats The Story? said:
Why are people saying U2 are not as popular as their Achtung Baby days? The last studio album will probably overtake that album in a couple of years in terms of sales, (11m+ so far, i believe) it isn't that far behind now!
Click to expand...
i was wondering that too. while i may not *like* atyclb, i can't say it isn't successful. ab has also had 12 years to get the sales it has. i know it hasn't consistently sold high amounts, but i'm sure in 2012 atyclb will have sold as much or more than ab.
 
i don't know whats happening in the U.S., but at least in Mexico they're still very, very popular...

C'mon, their last album sold 12 million copies, that popularity, isn't? (Even when i consider it myself as an album for "adults", like us... :sexywink:
 
In reply to the post about the Rolling Stones. They Stones are a piece of American history. They are. They're basically a nostalgia act. Their setlist MIGHT contain 1-2 songs post-1981, and that's depending on the night. The Rolling Stones have become that human jukebox that Larry was afraid U2 would become in 1989. The stones are totally out of touch now. Of all the millions of people who attend their shows, who do you think still buys the new albums? Not many of them. That is what U2 are struggling against now.....staying relevant. It will get harder as they get older. They are going to want to go onstage and play the hell out of the new album, while the majority of the audience is going to want to hear Streets, Pride, New years day, etc.
 
I am aware that the Stones aren't American. They aren't just a piece of American history. World history is more like it.

And in reposne to my fellow ACROBAT, what is happening in the US right now is a musical revolution. A revolution in which artists with actual talent are being pushed down the priority list in favor of marketable teen idols with manufactured music and public images. If you want to learn more about this, listen to Tom Petty's song "Joe". It paints a perfect picture of the American music scene. It really sucks. I do not listen to the radio anymore. I'm tired of hearing the old songs so damn much, but there's nothing new coming in to replace them. So I just have tuned out. It's pathetic what is going on here.
 
The_acrobat said:
And in reposne to my fellow ACROBAT, what is happening in the US right now is a musical revolution. A revolution in which artists with actual talent are being pushed down the priority list in favor of marketable teen idols with manufactured music and public images. If you want to learn more about this, listen to Tom Petty's song "Joe". It paints a perfect picture of the American music scene. It really sucks. I do not listen to the radio anymore. I'm tired of hearing the old songs so damn much, but there's nothing new coming in to replace them. So I just have tuned out. It's pathetic what is going on here.
Click to expand...

*Nods*

While I do think there are a few talented artists here and there coming out now, for the most part, you're right. And Tom Petty's right in "Joe" (Tom Petty's such a smart guy...anyway...). It is sad.

I still listen to the radio at night when going to bed ('cause my CD player's being a beyotch right now and not working), and if I'm in the car going somewhere, but I certainly don't listen as often as I used to, because, like you said, it's the same 300 songs being played over and over and over again, with perhaps an occasional song I rarely hear on the radio thrown in.

And we can blame consultants and groups like Clear Channel and them for that. :angry:. They've totally messed around with radio. It ticks me off.

Angela
 
No, U2 aren't as popular as they were during JT or AB. Sure, ATYCLB was a big album and did well, and may even pass AB in the long run.

But if we're talking popularity, no. Think of the "mega" popular stars of the past few years. Brittney, Justin, etc. It almost makes you SICK how virtually EVERY screaming teenager blindly loves these performers.

That's where U2 was during JT/AB. They didn't hit that with ATYCLB and they won't again. As I stated before, the biggest drawback, unfortunately, is their age.
 
KhanadaRhodes said:

i was wondering that too. while i may not *like* atyclb, i can't say it isn't successful. ab has also had 12 years to get the sales it has. i know it hasn't consistently sold high amounts, but i'm sure in 2012 atyclb will have sold as much or more than ab.
Click to expand...


Exactly...and also U2 have maintained a high profile during the album release, ist subsequent tour and even long after the tour closed..They may not be getting quite so much critical accalim as the AB days, but the sales figures do not lie, U2 are pretty much at that early 90s level in terms of raw sales I would say. Also, if the new album is a great rock and roll album who is to say they won't repeat ATYCLB's success? Would they then be more popular than in the early part of the decade since Zooropa topped out at 7? million I think?:eeklaugh:
 
Zoocoustic said:
No, U2 aren't as popular as they were during JT or AB. Sure, ATYCLB was a big album and did well, and may even pass AB in the long run.

But if we're talking popularity, no. Think of the "mega" popular stars of the past few years. Brittney, Justin, etc. It almost makes you SICK how virtually EVERY screaming teenager blindly loves these performers.

That's where U2 was during JT/AB. They didn't hit that with ATYCLB and they won't again. As I stated before, the biggest drawback, unfortunately, is their age.
Click to expand...

Hmm... so basically you're saying that, unless an artist or a band is popular among -teenagers-, the actual sales, the amount of exposure, awards, all the usual measures of stardom, do not matter?

Gee, now I feel useless and irrelevant at my old age of 23, :)
 
The_acrobat said:
In reply to the post about the Rolling Stones. They Stones are a piece of American history. They are. They're basically a nostalgia act. Their setlist MIGHT contain 1-2 songs post-1981, and that's depending on the night. The Rolling Stones have become that human jukebox that Larry was afraid U2 would become in 1989. The stones are totally out of touch now. Of all the millions of people who attend their shows, who do you think still buys the new albums? Not many of them. That is what U2 are struggling against now.....staying relevant. It will get harder as they get older. They are going to want to go onstage and play the hell out of the new album, while the majority of the audience is going to want to hear Streets, Pride, New years day, etc.
Click to expand...

I have heard other bands, from Def Leppard to The Eagles, complain about this. They say they can play the hell out of a new album, and it will fall flat in concert every time. The majority of people who come to a show, and pay good money for that show, want the older stuff, the stuff they KNOW. Like it or not, bash these people or not, it's the way it is, and all bands have to cater to them since they make up probably 60-70% of all concert goers. If you or U2 call that a 'jukebox', so be it, but I seriously doubt any band would really rather give it up than become one. The money and the fame are too great to resisit. Besides, as a band becomes an established legend, all of their songs have become so well known it always gets like that, and I don't think that's a bad thing. It could be worse. They could be washed up, forgotten, and no one could care.
 
Saracene said:


Hmm... so basically you're saying that, unless an artist or a band is popular among -teenagers-, the actual sales, the amount of exposure, awards, all the usual measures of stardom, do not matter?

Gee, now I feel useless and irrelevant at my old age of 23, :)
Click to expand...

Oh don't feel like that. My Grandma is 67 and still keeps up with MTV and the like. She's a hip old lady! You are relevant and useful, my friend!

But what Zoocoustic said is actually true. When 1987 came around, it was an absolute frenzy. U2 were the biggest thing in America. They were the new thing. Back then rock was more prominate, and so many people got into U2 it's not funny. I imagine that U2's level of popularity in 1987 would make Britney and Justin's popularity look like a pile of shit. In the early 90s, the fans from the 80s were still riding full force. But after that, they grew up, quit on the band, whatever. The fan base is still huge, but not nearly as big as it was.

Teenagers make up the majority of the record buying public. So that's why these teen idols become so popular. It's a circular feeding frenzy between the artists, MTV, radio and the teenyboppers. However, teenagers do not make up the majority of the ticket buying/concert attending public, because they don't have any money or they don't have a license/car. Which is why older bands (Springsteen, U2, Rolling Stones) still remain big concert draws but don't as many records as Justin or Britney.
 
Saracene, what I'm saying is that people have made the claim that U2 were as popular with ATYCLB as they were during JT/AB.

They were not.

The reason is that the entire trendy teen crowd was with U2 during JT and AB, and they aren't now. Many of them (notice I said many, not all) weren't during ATYCLB because of U2's age.

It's reality. The majority of the trendy high school crowd simply won't associate themselves with a band who's age is over 30.
 
I'm quite positive that U2 around the time they did The Elevation tour were at least as popular as during the Zoo TV days
(not the hights of popularity they reached around the time they did the Joshua Tree tour and recorded Rattle & Hum though)

I think among the current fan base there is this very romantic notion of the Achtung Baby days (probably because it is the album that made a large portion of todays fan base get into U2)
but I really don't think U2 actually were more popular back then as during the Elevation days
 
They're still popular, but no one's talking about them now because they're in "hibernation." But wait 'til the new album is out and the videos, interviews, and all that are in full swing.
:)
 
If anyone's going to like or dislike a band just because of their age, I'm not sure I'd really want them as fans in the first place. It's so tremendously shallow to base your liking of a band on their age. Whatever happened to liking a band because they make good music? A band of U2's age, as we know, can produce perfectly good music, and to not want to associate yourself with them just because they're in their 40s is simply stupid.
 
Yes it is stupid, but some people are stupid. Unfortunately, I know some teens who are that way. If the band is as old as their parents, they simply can't accept them as anything but 'old.' Luckily, I also know smart teens with good taste, here on this board and in real life, who base their musical taste on the quality of the music and not age. Some people, regardless of age, are attracted to a band that has a long history and a legacy that will last forever. Some people, regardless of age, like crap music. Age never mattered to me. It didn't when I was a teenager and it still doesn't. The only thing that matters to me is if I like the music. Sadly the whole world isn't like that. U2 are there for those who appreciate them, and those who don't for whatever stupid reason (age, Bono's comments, etc.,) it's their loss.
 
Last edited:
Exactly right, Axver and U2Kitten.

Luckily, there's a good deal of teens I know that listen to music and don't care at all about the age of the artists, both online and off.

For those who don't like what their parents like, I wish they would give it a chance, too. Those artists' music deals with things that still relate to our age group today. It's kinda eerie, sometimes, how songs that deal with certain events, like war, for instance, can still work today.

Besides, there's a lot of great songs from our parents' generation. Seriously, I wish I could go back in time and be a part of some of the cool music scenes and things along that line that my parents' generation got to experience. I wish I could see some of the really big concerts of that time. I mean, I'm glad I was born in the time I was, but I still would love to have, like, a time machine or something and check out stuff from before I was born. Music history is something that interests me.

Meh, anywho, yeah, I agree, dismissing a band because of their age is a pretty stupid thing to do.

Angela
 
fans grew older , they're no longer interested in that extreme , hard on the edge , rock'n'roll , they want it safe , like ATYCLB , pure adult pop , pure market music .
 
the opinion on radiohead msg boards swat them around as pretentious sellouts

personally i listen to anything and everything the thing about u2 is the formula of making a certain song because it sounds a certain way, it can eventually grow tiring

oh and you'd never label u2 a 'cool' band anymore, that phase has well and truly passed us by
 
I kinda agree to an extent Winnie. Some fans as they age with a band get more mellow taste and if the band's release coincides with that then everyone is happy.
Of course that is not going to be true in all cases. I think if U2 release anything as relaxed as ATYCLB again, I might go mental lol.

Whats up Tabby?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
298
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
dan_smee
I listened to No Line on the Horizon right through tonight for the first time in about 10 years…
2 3
Replies
83
Views
2K
lazarus
lazarus
dont_turn_around
Hello everyone!
Replies
1
Views
134
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
Reggie Thee Dog
Are we NOT discussing the Dolby Atmos Mix of Achtung Baby?
Replies
13
Views
1K
count rushmore
count rushmore
K
U2 Show Logistics Question/Theories
Replies
7
Views
757
lazarus
lazarus

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom