Originally posted by LikeASong:This might very well be the funniest thing I've read this month, and by far the funniest U2 thing I have read this year.
I mean I've been laughing out loud, alone at home, for almost half an hour.
http://www.atu2.com/achtoon/2013c/
Just...
Originally posted by JuJuman:I actually think the article has a point. They're ageing, I think decline is somewhat inevitable. They can still pull out some great music, and they will. But it won't be JT or AB again.
What worries me, and what the article implicitly acknowledges, is that there's no new U2. Yes, there's Coldplay. But U2 were already huge at 27. Who is 27, huge, and does rock n roll?
Originally posted by LikeASong:This might very well be the funniest thing I've read this month, and by far the funniest U2 thing I have read this year.
I mean I've been laughing out loud, alone at home, for almost half an hour.
http://www.atu2.com/achtoon/2013c/
Just...
Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]
That precise age is only hit by Alex Turner (Arctic Monkeys' frontman), who was born in 1986, but Arctic Monkeys are much more "audience restricted" than U2 were with The Joshua Tree, and nowadays, audience is much more fragmented than it bas back in the 80s. There's no way Muse or Arctic Monkeys (only young rockers that could hold U2's crown in a sense) can pull out a song that appeals to the same amount of masses than were fascined with WOWY or Streets in 1987. No way. Rock is still appreciated by a big part of the music-consuming population, but it's not the main thing anymore. And both U2 and us have to deal with it.
Originally posted by LikeASong:A bit harsh although they might have some points here and there: http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/management-shuffle-signals-end-of-u2s-beautiful-day-1200888718/
Originally posted by BelgianBono:[..]
U2 must focus on being relevant live.
And on record doing what U2 is best at : being U2.