Is u2 relevant Today

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
S

smileymbcastard

War Child
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
975
Location
Canada
On the radio q107 in toronto the morning host John Derringer asked listners to write in if they felt if u2 were relevant today because according to him any band which makes a song like Get on your Boots is irrelevant. :doh:

So kindly and please go to the web site to the contact page and under the morning show email uncle johhnie and tell him what you think. Me thinks that uncle johhnie is now getting on in age and is becoming irrelevant himself
 
Define relevance?

That's the key thing, what does relevant mean?

TV On The Radio might have made what was critically regarded as the best album of '08, but they've hardly captivated millions of people like U2 or Coldplay do. Of course, TV On The Radio have nowhere near the commercial scope to captivate these millions of people, but if no one's hearing the songs, what relevance does the band and a song like Golden Age truly have?

This isn't a criticism of TVOTR, just a query as to whether they have the potential to be as relevant as a more established band.
 
The reason the word relevant came up is because Mr. Bono said that this is their best album and if it is not then U2 is not relevant anymore. So now the blame belongs to mr Bono .
 
They are still relevant to me and for the most part I could give 2 shites if they are "relevant" to anyone else. In fact to be totally honest with y'all, I wouldn't mind them being less relevant, I'll be able to see them this Tour for smaller amounts of money.
 
We're not gonna know whether it's their best album for a few months anyway. I have a strong feeling it isn't, but let's give it time to sink in, I have only been listening to the album for 5 days.

I believe U2 are relevant cause they tend to make better music then most bands out there. That's their gift, that's their relevance.
 
yep they are still relevant to me as well, so I don't care about the rest of the music world in general right now, because I find it all very irrelevent:wink:
 
Musically: No, they have done enough to grace the world with beauty and although NLOTH is a very good album it is hardly groundbreaking like Achtung Baby for instance. it is still better than 95% of what is comming out though, so it is a bit of a toss up.

For me they still are, they are my lifeband and it would take a lot to abandon them :)
 
edurban said:
Can I just say... U2 are a band, four members, plural !:|
Click to expand...

That's predominate in Commonwealth English, but here in 'merica, one would tend to say 'U2 is' instead of 'U2 are'. Spending as much time on this board as I do, around more Commonwealth English speakers than 'merican English speakers, I personally tend to use 'are' instead of 'is', although I do say 'is' occasionally. I used 'are' the other day in front of a friend of mine, though, and he gave me a really funny look and said that 'are' didn't make sense.

But, anyway, if U2 aren't relevant, than the mainstream is missing out... it's their loss.
 
smileymbcastard said:
On the radio q107 in toronto the morning host John Derringer asked listners to write in if they felt if u2 were relevant today because according to him any band which makes a song like Get on your Boots is irrelevant. :doh:

So kindly and please go to the web site to the contact page and under the morning show email uncle johhnie and tell him what you think. Me thinks that uncle johhnie is now getting on in age and is becoming irrelevant himself
Click to expand...

I think the guy is just looking for people who are willing to bash U2. Every time I have listened to his morning show he has done nothing but trash talk the band.
 
I don't get the whole "relevant" debate. Either you like their music, you don't care either way, or you don't like their music, as far as I'm concerned.
 
Do you notice how the only band that really generates this argument is U2?

You hardly ever hear this about contemporaries (in age) like REM or Bon Jovi or Depeche Mode, etc...

Or even slightly younger bands like Radiohead or Oasis or Pearl Jam, etc...
 
Relevant? Of course they're relevant.

Anyone else ever wonder why music generates so much hatred? I suppose it's because it generates so much love, which is probably equally as irrational. But read YouTube feedback, or this board, or reviews of any popular album. It's either treated like Tolstoy or it's a worthless, DESPICABLE waste of oxygen. *L*

I'm not a Jonas Brothers fan, but I understand their appeal. Consequently, I don't feel compelled to go on YouTube and tell their fans how much they suck. Anyway, it's just always baffled me why people feel so much need to express hate. It's just funny to me. It's entertainment! As Lennon once said, "it's nothing important."
 
Liesje said:
I don't get the whole "relevant" debate. Either you like their music, you don't care either way, or you don't like their music, as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...


Full-on agree. Ultimately, I think the tour will be a HUGE factor in determining their relevance, whatever that means. But, if they knock stadiums out of the park again, then it is hard to say that they don't matter.

If you're booking Letterman for a whole week, kinda hard to say that you're irrelevant. But, that doesn't mean you're relevant either.

In my eyes, relevance is constantly pushing forward trying to evolve and reach a substantial core of people. Are the boys breaking new ground? Probably not. It's not easy creating one masterpiece, let alone two. So, I think as long as a lot of people appreciate them for trying to get back there, they'll be relevant.

It could be worse ... we could be Stones fans.
 
Maybe they're just too worried about being "relevant"-whatever that is. If it's appealing to younger fans and the numerous mentions of that are real and not just a bunch of hype bs, well I think they (or at least Bono) might be.
 
People wouldn't be talking about them if they weren't relevant. I think this type of discussion rears its ugly head mainly because U2 has been such a huge group for such a long period of time; people are going to feel passionately about them in a positive or negative light.
 
Who gives a damn wether they're relevant or not?


Do you like their music? I assume you do, since you're on this forum and not banned. Then why care what others think about it?
 
zwervers2 said:
Musically: No, they have done enough to grace the world with beauty and although NLOTH is a very good album it is hardly groundbreaking like Achtung Baby for instance. it is still better than 95% of what is comming out though, so it is a bit of a toss up.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty narrow definition of "relevance", according to this I can't really think of anyone relevant since I can't think of anything "groundbreaking" recently...:shrug:
 
No. God no. U2 haven't been relevant since 1991. And that's debatable.
Great, yes. Best band in the world, yes. Relevant, no.
Relevant means that about a half dozen critics think you're special and 14 year old
girls (and some boys) masburbate to your poster on their wall. who the hell wants that?
 
Let's see:

This week U2 are on for 5 nights straight on the David Letterman Show. The mayor of NYC is temporarily renaming Broadway "U2 Way". Rolling Stone magazine has given U2's latest album 5 stars.

The question shouldn't be "are" U2 relevant. The question should be is every other artist relevant in comparison to U2.
 
I think..

While I didn't hear the on-air comment, I think what the radio host meant was... are U2 influencing and shaping what's happening NEXT in music? Musical relevance (to me), means that you're finding new paths and setting new trends. You're discovering new ways of making music or saying something in a previously un-done way. VERY, very few artists ever get close to doing this, in my opinion. Think:

Punk.
Electronica.
Ambient.
Metal.
Hip Hop.
Rap.
Grunge.
And so forth...

All the above may be subsets of "pop" or "rock" or "soul" music, but at one time - they didn't exist. Some brave explorers had to go there... first.

Is NLOTH setting musical trends? Come on, you can't tell me there's anything you've NEVER heard happening on this album. Sure, we can like the music, but is it relevant? That's open for debate.

And while I've been a die-hard fan for many years, I don't think U2 have EVER really been true innovators that way. They've synthesized, and co-opted others' musical adventures and experiments and brought them to the masses. And a brilliant job they've done, too! So to me, NLOTH is relevant in that it's an album of good music (rare, today no matter how you look at it), from a talented band - whom I've grown to love over 3 decades.

Oh, and I love TV on the Radio too.
 
Whether or not they are irrelevant today, I think they will inevitably become "irrelevant" (regardless of how great their music is or will be) especially going by the definition of the word as implied by popular culture. IMO, "relevance" as defined by pop culture is really about an artist's "reach", but reach is a combination of scale (big shows, album sales,etc.) and demographics (cool with the kids? younger consumers?). Eventually, they will see their reach become more and more biased to an older demographic, it will happen, its just a question of when. As others have said though, who cares? They are relevant to me today and have been for many years. :up:
 
I think a band that writes Get On Your Boots is more than relevant. The lyrics refer to the current world situation, the power of women and it's fun to listen and play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Bono To Receive Presidential Medal Of Freedom Today
Replies
14
Views
747
DeVaul
DeVaul
A
U2 fanzines and other ephemera
Replies
0
Views
295
Achtung Ya'll
A
G
U2 tribute band in Derby UK
Replies
0
Views
617
GMos
G
U2SJ
Finally.. We all have Mercy!!!!
Replies
4
Views
908
cm
C
pepokiss
20 years since the Mercy leak
Replies
25
Views
2K
lazarus
lazarus

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom