GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by KieranU2:Forgive me, has Interference shut down or something? I see a lot of similar attitudes here. I think people need to accept that U2 aren't going to be relevant anymore, even if Bono still bashes on about it (which he hasn't recently). They've only got a decade left in them if they're lucky, just accept it.

    And I'm all for an Achtung Baby tour. Why wouldn't I want to see my favourite album live?
    ↑ pretty much this
  2. Can somebody explain to me how U2 commemorating a 30 year old album is a dying grasp at relevance? This applies to any future Achtung Baby tour and the present Joshua Tree tour. Why can't people accept that maybe this is fun for the band? Plus, it's good news for us if they are willing to put their show on the road without having a new album to showcase.


    Also, can somebody explain to me how pressuring U2 to release new material on a regular basis does not equate to a pursuit of relevance?
  3. Originally posted by ahn1991:Can somebody explain to me how U2 commemorating a 30 year old album is a dying grasp at relevance? This applies to any future Achtung Baby tour and the present Joshua Tree tour. Why can't people accept that maybe this is fun for the band? Plus, it's good news for us if they are willing to put their show on the road without having a new album to showcase.


    Also, can somebody explain to me how pressuring U2 to release new material on a regular basis does not equate to a pursuit of relevance?
    This is more what I agree with.
  4. The entire discussion of relevance confuses the hell out of me. I mean, when people say they want U2 to stop caring about relevance, what does that actually mean? U2 is relevant to me and a lot of people here, otherwise the site would be very lonely. Are people saying they want U2 to stop caring about their fans? That's a very effective way to let people know they aren't concerned with relevance anymore.
  5. I couldn't give a toss if these tours are cash cows, I'm just glad they're still touring. It's obvious they aren't rolling out music quickly anymore, and when they do they have to develop a mega tour along with it. This JT tour is a great stopgap, if you will, before we head into the SOE era.

    As for relevance, "relevance" means U2 want to be of contemporary interest along with what's in at the moment - your Ed Sheeran's, your Beyonce's, etc. U2 will never be that anymore, as they've continuously been one of the biggest acts in the world. Not many bands of their age and experience can sell out entire tours in arenas and/or stadiums.

    As for the comment above (ahn), I think you're looking into it too much. I don't think people are saying they want U2 to stop caring about their fans at all. As long as U2 is relevant to their fans - which they are - then there's no problem. It's all because Bono has spoke of the band lacking "relevance" a handful of times that everyone has to join the bandwagon. The JT tour is the perfect moment for everyone to do that because of what it is. It's like the same old example I've seen on here before when people complain that Bono says 'Stay' is one of his favourite U2 tracks, so everyone pipes up and says it's in their top five too - it's jumping on the bandwagon. The word "relevance" means nothing these days. U2 are an established enough act to just plod along anyway, I think the band knows that. We also all know Bono spouts nonsense.

    I say Interference because I've seen a lot people on here whining recently. It's a shame. So yeah, can we please ban the word relevance?
  6. My take...

    Some fans (I among them) believe U2 are sometimes now more focused on $ grosses than the "art" of making music that really makes an artistic or even political statement. They play it safe. They are unwilling to "fail" by creating a song or album that they think might not have them be considered the biggest rock band in the world. Ironically, this has actually led to more bland and uninspiring records and less musical risk taking imo. It has led to touring old records and playing greatest hits shows.

    It seems the band members guess, second guess, third guess themselves and chase trends and producers to stay "popular" - as opposed to creating music and letting the chips fall where they may in terms of album sales, chart positions and concert grosses. The band seems less concerned with the fans they HAVE and more concerned with attracting some mythical new fan (at times).

    Not sure I've explained this well, but said another way...U2 sometimes has become more a corporation that markets music to please shareholders and less of a band that creates music to express themselves and their views, critical and fan reaction be damned.

    Maybe this has always been U2 to an extent, but in my eyes, after Pop and certainly sometime before the release of NLOTH they changed. They used to have an air about them of not giving a f@ck, now they seem more scared of what outsiders think.

    Just my 2 cents. Still love the band.
  7. Well to get back on topic achtung baby for me is the greatest album ever and if they do tour it I'll be going to see a show or two regardless of the reasons that brought them to touring it.
  8. Originally posted by KieranU2:I couldn't give a toss if these tours are cash cows, I'm just glad they're still touring. It's obvious they aren't rolling out music quickly anymore, and when they do they have to develop a mega tour along with it. This JT tour is a great stopgap, if you will, before we head into the SOE era.

    As for relevance, "relevance" means U2 want to be of contemporary interest along with what's in at the moment - your Ed Sheeran's, your Beyonce's, etc. U2 will never be that anymore, as they've continuously been one of the biggest acts in the world. Not many bands of their age and experience can sell out entire tours in arenas and/or stadiums.

    As for the comment above (ahn), I think you're looking into it too much. I don't think people are saying they want U2 to stop caring about their fans at all. As long as U2 is relevant to their fans - which they are - then there's no problem. It's all because Bono has spoke of the band lacking "relevance" a handful of times that everyone has to join the bandwagon. The JT tour is the perfect moment for everyone to do that because of what it is. It's like the same old example I've seen on here before when people complain that Bono says 'Stay' is one of his favourite U2 tracks, so everyone pipes up and says it's in their top five too - it's jumping on the bandwagon. The word "relevance" means nothing these days. U2 are an established enough act to just plod along anyway, I think the band knows that. We also all know Bono spouts nonsense.

    I say Interference because I've seen a lot people on here whining recently. It's a shame. So yeah, can we please ban the word relevance?
    I think your post is very releva...oh wait

    Couldn't agree more.
  9. U2 basically campaigned against Trump. Doesn't get more political than that.
  10. Do you mean "doesn't get more 'relevant'", here, too? I agree either way - a critical (yet unifying in the end) stance in the Trump Era is what I'm hoping the reinvented JT 2017 tour will be all about in the U.S.

    And despite what I've said in recent posts about being disappointed in the band finally succumbing to nostalgia tours, I can see your point above about maybe the band simply doing this because it's fun for them, and it being good news that they still enjoy touring enough to do so even without a new album yet. I keep hoping that the JT Tour acts a sort of bridge between the Innocence (SOI) and Experience (SOE) legs of the drawn-out I & E Tour.

    Anyway, to bring it back to Achtung Baby - I did absolutely love the Achtung Baby legacy portion of the 360 show back in 2011, so I guess I wouldn't mind even more of that in 2021...
  11. Everything you know is wrong
  12. fu*k the relevance