1. I didn't actually know about the 5th LA show until I saw a commercial for it during Fallon. Later that night I bought my ticket.
  2. Originally posted by ahn1991:Bono talks a lot about being relevant, but I think we misinterpret what that actually means for them. I mean, a lot of their recent moves are the exact opposite of seeking relevance. They put their album out for free and pretty much dropped all promo points after bono's injury. Most people probably didn't know U2 was even on tour until they showed up on Fallon.
    Not sure if that was just bad strategy or really it was that they're not that obsessive with being relevant, though...
    (the "dropping all promotion" I mean; I actually believe that the release method was a good thing)
  3. Originally posted by ahn1991:Bono talks a lot about being relevant, but I think we misinterpret what that actually means for them. I mean, a lot of their recent moves are the exact opposite of seeking relevance. They put their album out for free and pretty much dropped all promo points after bono's injury. Most people probably didn't know U2 was even on tour until they showed up on Fallon.

    lol, just no.
  4. What measures have they taken to try and become more relevant? Releasing the album for free? Sure it's was a new thing and put them in the news, but releasing any album whatsoever would have done that. Was it the tour? Not really... We didn't know any details about the tour itself until opening night. Sure, they have a segment where they stream a part of it, but it's linked to U2's twitter account, so the only people getting that are fans already.

    The last thing U2 tried to do to make themselves relevant was back in 2009 when they streamed their Rose Bowl concert on YouTube for anyone to see. Aside from that, they haven't done anything that they wouldn't have done years ago.
  5. The album release is a bad example. It literally put the record on 800 million+ devices. With 800M accounts, the odds are pretty big of gaining new fans, and thus staying relevant.

    But their biggest attempt of staying relevant, is of course the setlist that pleases the mainstream fans.
  6. I think you should amend your last sentence to say that their setlist is designed to please the majority of the people who bought tickets. I've said it before and I'll say it again. U2 don't perform to please people who download the bootleg a couple days later and say "wow that was a cool setlist." They are performing for the people who show up to the venue for the concert. It's not about being relevant. It's about paying attention to the people who actually care enough to physically show up.
  7. Right, and if they would stop caring, they'd stop being relevant.

    You know, the reason those people (general audiences) keep coming to the shows, is because they know U2 will cater to them.
  8. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Pretty much everyone knows that U2 exists for their live performances. If they decide to stop caring about the people who show up for those performances I don't see how they can continue to be U2.
  9. People will always come, 100%, no matter what they play. The last thing U2 should be worried about is how to sustain themselves hehe.

    (btw its not a bad thing, its just an example of them trying to stay relevant)
  10. Also they released an album recently, which is clearly a way to stay relevant.

    If they didn't care about being relevant they would stop recording and releasing new albums.
  11. Not true. JAMES don't care about relevancy but continue putting out a new album every few years. Ditto many other bands. The only bands seeking relevancy are the ones that think the Grammys and Billboard matter in their life.
  12. Bring this thread back to life and keep the show threads related to the shows ??