GEN
Active topics
  1. Rock music may eternally belong to the young

    Will you still agree when you hit your mid 40's?

    More like rock music keeps us eternally young...
  2. Originally posted by blueeyedboy:Rock music may eternally belong to the young

    Will you still agree when you hit your mid 40's?

    More like rock music keeps us eternally young...
    If you think like that then you missed the whole point of the article

    Well, I will give you this: one thing is the artist (rockers past their 50s? uhm ) and other thing is the target audience (rockers in their 60s or more? Hell yeah! )
  3. I think the first part of the article makes it seem like U2 acting younger than they are is a bad thing. Personally, I think U2 plays the entire field by catering to both younger and older members of their audience. In this way, they operate like any successful organization who's purpose is longevity. They don't cater to a specific demographic knowing that members will eventually "phase out" nor do they seek to "grow up" alongside their audience. U2 has shown an amazing ability to grow up while still remaining young. In the same show, you see them playing around with technology while also pulling out heavy political, moral, and spiritual issues in many of their songs. This is something few, if any, other artists can do and I think U2 can do it because they actively sought to make this a part of their identity. October can be seen as U2's attempt at a Christian worship album and War is very clearly influenced by their political views. If I were a fan at the time listening to these albums, I would wonder how such a young band came to form such strong opinions about those topics. Where did the childish spirit of Boy go?


    Long story short, U2 doesn't act like their age because they've never acted like their age.
  4. You totally missed the point too
  5. I agree with some of what he says... but I don't think U2 is fully in that category (old stars trying ridiculously to cater to the young).

    They are indeed trying to reach a younger audience, and I agree that some songs totally fit in that (Boots and Miracle come to mind), but overall I think they're aging "gracefully" while still rocking.

    I submit AC-DC as exhibit A of what an old rockstar act can look... sorry but I can't see the comparison with U2. I enjoy AC-DC, but they're still wearing the same outfits and playing the exact same tunes the same way they've played all the time. I do think they're looking a bit ridiculous (and yet they keep a profile low enough that it's not cool to say something wrong about them).
    I don't want U2 to become a nostalgia act and keep on catering their old fans with their old songs (even if they're rarities). I want them to keep on writing new music and trying to use it to reach a new audience as much as their old one, even if that means trying to force themselves into everybody's iTunes again.

    And I submit Sting as exhibit B. I absolutely love Sting, but he has grown up and his music with him... and he now plays music for adults. And while I can appreciate the merit of it, I don't really care about him anymore.
    I think U2 has evolved his music a lot, Bomb, No Line and SOI sound a lot more mature and -experienced- than their 80s and 90s music, but it's still rock and roll, it has less energy and power, but it has more "quality", and I like that.

    The thing that I think U2 is doing wrong in this topic, is that they do seem to care too much about the public opinion, specially the younger audience opinion (since they are the ones turning songs into hits or turning them into nothing), and if they continue to put that much weight in it they'll end up frustrated about it.

    Their current music is great as is now, their focus is right, they just need to accept that they won't be as successful as they were anymore and that's fine.

    026
  6. Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]
    If you think like that then you missed the whole point of the article

    Well, I will give you this: one thing is the artist (rockers past their 50s? uhm ) and other thing is the target audience (rockers in their 60s or more? Hell yeah! )


    I don't believe I missed the point. I totally get it. I don't have to agree with ALL of it. I merely disagree with his last sentence. Actually, the first part of the last sentence... that's all. Rock and roll belongs to us all. It knows no age. The crap in the charts now... Now that shit the young can have!
  7. Originally posted by Bloodraven:I agree with some of what he says... but I don't think U2 is fully in that category (old stars trying ridiculously to cater to the young).

    They are indeed trying to reach a younger audience, and I agree that some songs totally fit in that (Boots and Miracle come to mind), but overall I think they're aging "gracefully" while still rocking.

    I submit AC-DC as exhibit A of what an old rockstar act can look... sorry but I can't see the comparison with U2. I enjoy AC-DC, but they're still wearing the same outfits and playing the exact same tunes the same way they've played all the time. I do think they're looking a bit ridiculous (and yet they keep a profile low enough that it's not cool to say something wrong about them).
    I don't want U2 to become a nostalgia act and keep on catering their old fans with their old songs (even if they're rarities). I want them to keep on writing new music and trying to use it to reach a new audience as much as their old one, even if that means trying to force themselves into everybody's iTunes again.

    And I submit Sting as exhibit B. I absolutely love Sting, but he has grown up and his music with him... and he now plays music for adults. And while I can appreciate the merit of it, I don't really care about him anymore.
    I think U2 has evolved his music a lot, Bomb, No Line and SOI sound a lot more mature and -experienced- than their 80s and 90s music, but it's still rock and roll, it has less energy and power, but it has more "quality", and I like that.

    The thing that I think U2 is doing wrong in this topic, is that they do seem to care too much about the public opinion, specially the younger audience opinion (since they are the ones turning songs into hits or turning them into nothing), and if they continue to put that much weight in it they'll end up frustrated about it.

    Their current music is great as is now, their focus is right, they just need to accept that they won't be as successful as they were anymore and that's fine.


    Exhibit C - Aerosmith. Blissfully releasing the same album over and over again with new lyrics knowing they will sell them and rack it up on a greatest hits show on the road...
  8. Originally posted by Bloodraven:
    I think U2 has evolved his music a lot, Bomb, No Line and SOI sound a lot more mature and -experienced- than their 80s and 90s music, but it's still rock and roll, it has less energy and power, but it has more "quality", and I like that.


    I fail to see where there's more "quality" in the Bomb or ATCLB than in TUF or The Joshua Tree, or even in Boy or War...... but hey, to each their own.


    What I'm saying is: nobody can't deny that the band, specially Bono, act like they still are thirtysomethings and have to prove themselves in front of the world (including their own fanbase AND the people who don't know or like them), instead of embracing what they have already achieved in the past (aka selling more albums and winnning more awards than most bands in history, reinventing the rock live act, defining the 80s, defining half of the 90s, reinventing themselves during the 00s, engaging with a whole new generation with the iPod and Vertigo, etc) and just accepting they have grown older and act as such. Not saying they should become another Sting's (which I somehow agree has gone a bit far with his classical experimentation) but surely NOT become another AC/DC or Rolling Stones. God forbid And my fear is (or was) that if they hadn't had the SOI backlash plus Bono's accident, they would have gone that route. Let's hope that's changed.
  9. I'm afraid that if they lose their thirst for "being relevant" they'll stop entirely, so I'm a little torn on this whole matter...
  10. Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]


    I fail to see where there's more "quality" in the Bomb or ATCLB than in TUF or The Joshua Tree, or even in Boy or War...... but hey, to each their own.


    What I'm saying is: nobody can't deny that the band, specially Bono, act like they still are thirtysomethings and have to prove themselves in front of the world (including their own fanbase AND the people who don't know or like them), instead of embracing what they have already achieved in the past (aka selling more albums and winnning more awards than most bands in history, reinventing the rock live act, defining the 80s, defining half of the 90s, reinventing themselves during the 00s, engaging with a whole new generation with the iPod and Vertigo, etc) and just accepting they have grown older and act as such. Not saying they should become another Sting's (which I somehow agree has gone a bit far with his classical experimentation) but surely NOT become another AC/DC or Rolling Stones. God forbid And my fear is (or was) that if they hadn't had the SOI backlash plus Bono's accident, they would have gone that route. Let's hope that's changed.
    Which brings us to the point I was trying to make. You're a twenty-something, right? When you hit your mid 40's revisit that statement (accepting they have grown older and act as such) and see how you feel about it then.

    Also, if they do act as such, that would put them on the path that you feared. Which they've never gone on, so I don't think they would have started, backlash or not.
  11. Originally posted by flowerchild:I'm afraid that if they lose their thirst for "being relevant" they'll stop entirely, so I'm a little torn on this whole matter...
    Right.

    U2 has always been about reinventing themselves. Keeping things interesting for themselves as well as their fans. Not an easy balance, obviously, as they still get blasted by fans and foes alike. Part of what has always defined U2 is their desire to push boundaries, keep things fresh, and in this day and age, with this generation, unfortunately I think this makes them focus too much on relevance sometimes... But it is a drive that keeps them excited and keeps them going.

    To lose along the way, the spark that set the flame...

    And I would still rather have this U2 than an alternate U2 that is touring for the Joshua Tree Part VI...
  12. Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
    Right.

    U2 has always been about reinventing themselves. Keeping things interesting for themselves as well as their fans. Not an easy balance, obviously, as they still get blasted by fans and foes alike. Part of what has always defined U2 is their desire to push boundaries, keep things fresh, and in this day and age, with this generation, unfortunately I think this makes them focus too much on relevance sometimes... But it is a drive that keeps them excited and keeps them going.

    To lose along the way, the spark that set the flame...

    And I would still rather have this U2 than an alternate U2 that is touring for the Joshua Tree Part VI...
    I think I wholeheartedly agree with this.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.