maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
U2DMfan said:
So to answer your question, yes I think U2 are adding fans to their fanbase, but it's not a quantifiable number, it's more about interest, passion, effort, and sheer attraction all rolled into one. The fanbase is volatile, if they made a metal record to follow up Bomb, the same cycle would turn over again, but they would lose the crowd, I initially talked about which is the heart of the adult mainstream. Maybe some of the odler crowd come back into the fold and so on. U2 are so big, I think their following defies any precendented logic about the industry of rock and roll.
The most important step is the next step.
And what determines that will be the band's goal.
Is the goal to add even more fans? Then they probably have to change again, and hopefully they have learned from past mistakes.
I dunno....something like that.
But here's the question. Does it matter whether U2 are picking up YOUNG fans? The underlying issue is what do with the whole concept of rock n' roll as it ages. Rock was born as the music of youth--of the things associated with youth--rebelling, sex etc, and now the rock and roll generation is definitely old. You can take that in the shallow, "party sense" or the deeper "dark loner searching through the hypocrisy for what's real and true" but it still represented what typically happens when people are younger. What does rock look like when it's old? Hopefully not the Rolling Stones. Perhaps U2 will answer that question.
What is it. . .kids want to listen to music that pisses their parents off? Usually (for white kids anyway) it's black music. Well that's not rock anymore. Rock is your parents music. And it's certainly not black anymore. What music fits that bill now? Hip-hop. Defintiely irritates those old fogey parents. And it's definitely black (notwithstanding the potential of Eminem to be the rap's Elvis).
So the question is should U2 risk trying to resonate with young listeners? Wouldn't that inherently mean pissing off older fans (like they did during the 90's)? But wouldn't we come back around eventually? I don't really know the answer to this question. I'm just wondering out loud.
The one thing that is certain--the most recent material is not going to pick up too many new, younger fans (though definitely 80's people who FINALLY realized U2 is where it's at). It's not breaking any new ground, not really making anyone mad, it's not particularly fresh. Whether that's good or bad is up for debate.
Another thought is that U2's music expresses where they are in their lives. I look back at U2 and their musical journey really seems to mirror my own way of relating to life. Since they're about 10 years older than me, I've been about 10 years "behind." I don't think it is coincidence that only now, in my thirties that I began to finally relate to and appreciate the 90's U2 music--the music they recorded when they were the age I am now. (I'm speaking primarily lyrically and spiritually). Does that mean that in ten years I'll finally "get" their albums of the early 21st century? And does that also mean that I surely won't get whatever comes out in the next ten years because I haven't gotten there in my own life?