Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
When I was a teenager, ATYCLB and HTDAAB period, it was very, very uncool to like U2 here.. Seems like everyone hated Bono and nobody actually could explain why. They just did. And U2 sucked because of that.
Why they are doing this?
- Thread starter BoyOnTheHorizon
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
It's not an overexposure issue. That's always been there, and there have always been those who hate U2 simply for that reason.
It's just an age thing. And not their age. Our age.
Fans who were tweens/teens during the early and mid 90s were in their 20s and early 30s through the Elevation/Vertigo tours era - college and just out of college aged; able to still set trends and all and be hip and cool with the kids.
We're now in our 30s and beyond. We're not setting trends anymore. We're old fucks now.
That's it. There's no other big conspiracy theory as to why U2 aren't culturally relevant any longer. We're all just old.
It's just an age thing. And not their age. Our age.
Fans who were tweens/teens during the early and mid 90s were in their 20s and early 30s through the Elevation/Vertigo tours era - college and just out of college aged; able to still set trends and all and be hip and cool with the kids.
We're now in our 30s and beyond. We're not setting trends anymore. We're old fucks now.
That's it. There's no other big conspiracy theory as to why U2 aren't culturally relevant any longer. We're all just old.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
This.
We define "Dad Rock" now.
I have no problem admitting that I like U2 because most of the people I hang out with either like them or respect them and won't skip them on Pandora or whatever they use.
Exactly.
U2 isn't dad rock because of anything they're doing musically. They're dad rock because the younger end of the core fan base are parents or of parental age.
U2 isn't dad rock because of anything they're doing musically. They're dad rock because the younger end of the core fan base are parents or of parental age.
gvox
Ghost of Love
You sure 'bout that? These aged dad ears can hear a distinct musical difference between I Will Follow, 11 Oclock Tick Tock, Electric Co....and Window In the Skies, Joey Ramone, Cedarwood Road, etc
But I could be imagining it...
Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
Shit, I'm getting old now too...So how come this theory doesn't aplly to the Stones,then?
Because they have been around 18 more years than U2,but yet,the people in their 20's,30's 40'and 50's don't hate them.Even if their last relevant album was in 1977....39 years ago.
Last edited:
A) U2 aren't hated, U2 fans are just uber sensitive.
B) the Stones were/are mocked for their age
C) the extra vitrol that does get directed U2's way is more because they try too hard to still speak to a generation that isn't interested, which always makes you less cool.
Fair enough.
But what rock act doesn't soften a little as they get older? Other than, like, Motorhead.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
Peyton Manning didn't throw the ball as well as he did in his 20's.
#dadqb
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
#dadqb
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
Yeah, I don't see anybody getting mocked for liking the Stones, Springsteen, etc. Even old bands that have gone to shit or are lumbering around the world with only one or two original members trying to fund their retirement (like The Who), if somebody says "they're shit now" the emphasis is on "now" and they still recognise that the band in question was good or important back in the day.
I remember around 2008-09 U2 got some of that "they're shit now" thing, but now it seems like they're just unequivocally shit. I can think of people who eight years ago would happily put on With or Without You or Sunday Bloody Sunday now wouldn't admit to liking a single note of U2.
I suppose the distinction is that while bands like the Stones got handed down to the next generation as a definitive rock band, U2 for whatever reason haven't. So while both may get mocked as dad rock dinosaurs, there's even more space for vitriol towards U2.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
I think this viewpoint could be a bit tainted by personal experience though. I get made fun of sometimes but it's less about the band and more about the Fandom. I mean, you own a website archiving every setlist in U2's history. I'd make fun of you too (and I don't mean any offense).
Just saying that if I met someone that had an obsession over Bruce like many of us do over U2, I'm sure they get made fun of a lot as well, you just don't see it happen.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
gvox
Ghost of Love
True, and I'm not making the comparison derisively, per se...but in the context of their stated desire to stay relevant...imagine the following scenario in terms of a single dropping tomorrow and getting attention (relevance?) from younger people:
I Will Follow
Vs
Joey Ramone
My money's on I Will Follow, even to this day.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
cobl04
45:33
I don't think U2 have ever been cool, though. The Rolling Stones and The Who were cool at one point, so they get a pass now.
Achtung Baby era
Today? I'd say neither.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
Pretty much any time between 83-93, it was considered cool to be a U2 fan for those of younger ages. Then there was a second wave when ATYCLB was released, although not as much with the high school kids. I was in college when that album was released and a lot of people my age were listening to that album.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
Fair call, but in terms of the personal experience I'm drawing on within Melbourne's music scene, literally nobody knows that I run a U2 fansite, and among other friends and colleagues very few do. Not many people I hang out with even know I like the band, and among other musos that's usually thanks to drunken discussions about "embarrassing" bands we loved as teenagers. If there's a discussion of the Stones or Springsteen or whoever, there's either respect even if the person dislikes their newer material or just generic "lol dad rock" dismissiveness. But wow, the vitriol about U2 is unbelievable. Outside of the usual suspects of Creed, Nickelback, Limp Bizkit, etc., I can't think of any band that cops it so hard. Maybe Coldplay, or at least maybe they will when they reach the same age.
Of course, I don't help matters by happily heaping scorn on everything post-Pop, but that's the burnt-out, cynical fan in me.
cobl04
45:33
See I said this to someone who is your blokes' age the other day. He saw ZooTV in person. And he says even then, they weren't cool. That Achtung Baby's cultural impact couldn't hold a candle to the likes of Loveless or Nevermind or Screamadelica.
If you're asking if U2 ever speared a cultural revolution, than no... they didn't.
But they were insanely popular with mainstream audiences from Joshua Tree through Zooropa.
cobl04
45:33
Yes, that's what my friend was saying, I think.
Hewson
Blue Crack Supplier
I don't know about Oz, but in the States Loveless and Screamadelica had nowhere near the cultural impact of Achtung Baby, and more specifically the ZooTV tour. Nevermind I'll give you.
But U2 were considered quite cool in the 80's, and still reasonably so in the early 90's.
It ended with the Village People video. Folks didn't get and/or didn't want to get it.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Primal Scream were actually quite fuckin meh, and Loveless didn't even make a dent in the US.
The revisionism in this thread is quite funny.
Rolling Stones had a come back in the 90's, and they were liked and hated. The crowd(and their children) that grew up with them loved them, the "alternative" crowd laughed at them. They showed up in an episode of 90210, yes they were hated by some. Everyone needs perspective.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
The revisionism in this thread is quite funny.
Rolling Stones had a come back in the 90's, and they were liked and hated. The crowd(and their children) that grew up with them loved them, the "alternative" crowd laughed at them. They showed up in an episode of 90210, yes they were hated by some. Everyone needs perspective.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
cobl04
45:33
He was a Manchester raver in the early 90s, so that may go some way to explaining his stance 
MrPryck2U
ONE love, blood, life
By 1989, The Stones became a money making machine. They'd release their album and tour for it. They'd charge a shitload for tickets and merch for the Boomers and their kids. They did this throughout the 1990's. The Alternative crowd didn't laugh at them. They simply couldn't care less about them. I wasn't part of that crowd. I listened to everything...except for country.
. U2 are a well oiled machine. They pretty much do the same thing. Only difference is Bono allegedly striving for relevance , whereas Mick and Keith didn't really give a shit.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
By 1989, The Stones became a money making machine. They'd release their album and tour for it. They'd charge a shitload for tickets and merch for the Boomers and their kids. They did this throughout the 1990's. The Alternative crowd didn't laugh at them. They simply couldn't care less about them. I wasn't part of that crowd. I listened to everything...except for country.
Your recollection is much different than mine, I remember a lot of mocking.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
MrPryck2U
ONE love, blood, life
Mocking very well could have taken place for sure. But, I remember the people who were into New Wave/Modern Rock in my area not caring about the Stones at all. They just focused on their favorite genre(s) instead.
RoKKeR
Refugee
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,893
I'm in college now and I don't think people find it "uncool" to like U2 or anything, people my age just don't give a shit. If anything the few people I've talked to who know who they are are at least neutral or not outwardly negative towards them. I was hanging out with a friend the other day and was talking about my U2 fandom when he brought up Songs of Innocence. He said something to the effect that he'll take a free album any day of the week and actually liked a lot of the songs... he had no idea who U2 was or knew any of their music prior to Songs of Innocence, so they really just aren't on the minds of people my age. (unless they are making drive by Twitter posts about an album they can't* remove from their phone)
Anyways, I wear my U2 shirts around campus and honestly haven't ever been embarrassed to be a U2 fan or anything like that... most people my age just don't give a shit either way. *shrug*
I'm 21 entering my last year of undergrad btw.
Anyways, I wear my U2 shirts around campus and honestly haven't ever been embarrassed to be a U2 fan or anything like that... most people my age just don't give a shit either way. *shrug*
I'm 21 entering my last year of undergrad btw.
Last edited:
Salome
you are what you is
I don't think there's any need to be embarrassed about U2 anyway.
It's not like Bono is Trump or anything.
Now, that's a face I wouldn't want on a t-shirt.
It's not like Bono is Trump or anything.
Now, that's a face I wouldn't want on a t-shirt.
Similar threads
