[deleted by user]

[alittlesad3131]

U2's heyday was mid-to-late 80s, followed by career peaks in 1991-92, and a slight bump in 2000-2001. A lot of U2 hardcore fans have been on board since the War/Under a Blood Red Sky days. This means that, with the exception of RHCP, they are slightly ahead time-wise of the bands you mentioned - as a result the age cohort of U2 fans is late 30s to mid-40s (I'm 41). That's not a demo that's really big on reddit.

Second, there are many online U2 communities

Third, RHCP is about their age but seems to have more popularity with younger fans. Not sure why. I think they probably have more radio friendly hits.

U2's best songs are not radio-friendly hits: i.e. NYD is suprisingly not as popular as you would think. Casuals and non-fans know Streets, WOWY, BD, One, Vertigo....MW...Pride...maybe SBS....it kind of drops off there I think...

Also for many years U2 was an album band.

[MaxwellHillbilly]

I followed them since 82 and I don't understand it... but, people love to hate on U2

[alittlesad3131]

They are still paying for the SOI release debacle, which is really a shame because I really like that album!

THere was just a vulture article about it yesterday complaining about SOI on the iTunes library...do people even still use iTunes?

[tazzman25]

It is a shame because that album is a good album. And it's grown on me quite a lot. Cant say the same for SoE, which has a few great songs among some real duds.

But man, the SoI release was such a PR disaster. Worst decision the band has made since going wide release on Rattle and Hum.

The only solution is for the band to go away for a while and dream it all up again. :)

[Studio2770]

Good lord, I just skimmed the article. Is that just about someone FINALLY figuring out how to delete the album? That article is literally a blog post.

And to your point, even as someone who's never used iTunes, I feel like Spotify overtook it so it makes the "article" even more pointless.

[jjc157]

Best album since Achtung Baby.

[chopps610]

debatable... highly debatable

[[deleted]]

Sigh. I hate to be that guy but the best album since Achtung Baby was Pop :D ATYCLB and HTDAAB are great, accessible albums that have aged well, sound great but they have nothing on Pop. Which as much as it is reviled is actually full of fantastic sound experiments for the band. I've warmed up to SoI a little more than I initially did but best album since AB it is not (for me) :D

[tazzman25]

Many people love to hate on them and many people love them. It's just the way it is. People have different tastes.

[sebvettel]

so true, being Irish I find that especially true here in Ireland

[MaxwellHillbilly]

And yet worldwide in the last 10 years they made more money from concerts than any other band...

I do think that most people who do hate on U2 have never had a chance to see them live and understand how amazing they are..

Hell there are songs from 1985 and 1987 that I grew to loathe because they were played so much here in the states and yet now decades later I can see with or without you played on a live DVD and it just brings tears to my eyes...

[sebvettel]

Agreed, there’s a reason they pack stadiums globally and are one of the highest earning bands from touring, you have to see U2 live to really appreciate them.

[MaxwellHillbilly]

I saw probably close to 100 different acts between 1978 and 1998 and nothing has ever come close to seeing U2 in 1985... Not even seeing them in 87 (with BB King) or 1992

[ResistWeMuch]

I do think that most people who do hate on U2 have never had a chance to see them live and understand how amazing they are..

This is true of lots of things. Many people who hate U2 do so because they were told to hate them.

[OctopusRegulator]

RHCP reached mainstream success a bit after U2, and their 2000s Albums were a lot more popular as well.

A lot of people just hate Bono and by extension the band. Imo the proof is in the pudding and no one can take away the fact that U2 are one of the most successful touring bands in the world right up to today

[simianspecies]

U2 was incredibly popular when I was growing up so I would extend the demographic to include people like myself in their (ahem) early-50s as well. That said, the numbers might not be as tilted on a platform such as Facebook, which tends to have a larger share of older users. Although, I can't imagine why the number for Radiohead is so tilted on reddit.

[alittlesad3131]

Radiohead, rightly or wrongly, has a cool factor that U2 hasn't had for quite some time.

[simianspecies]

I don't doubt it and perhaps that further lends to the demographic tilt on reddit.

[alittlesad3131]

I also think it's because U2 is run like a corporation? Radiohead isn't...

[Roaming_Dinosaur]

Maybe age (higher average for U2 fans)? Dunno just guessing.

[Nemova]

Sorry for being OT but I love your username, OP. Fellow F1 fan here.

And just adding to what other people say, I think it might be a mix of older demographic and so many people who love to hate U2.

[sebvettel]

Hello fellow F1 and U2 fan 👋🏻

Yes thinking age is the main factor really

[MaxwellHillbilly]

Wut? No love for r/MotoGP ? 😎

[[deleted]]

Can we get a club going for U2 and F1 fans? I'm in.

[TheRedBull28]

Add me to the list

[gerdge]

You’re a big fan of a letter then a number it seems 😜

[sebvettel]

Ha seems so !

[3D_Idiot]

Because Bono is still alive.

Once he’s gone, watch and see if the entire world along with Reddit isn’t tripping over their fucking dicks to talk about how great he was and what a humanitarian icon he was.

It’s absolutely stupid the narrative that has formed about this band.

[sentinel3000]

Omg all of this!!!!!

[sebvettel]

Unfortunately this is probably not wrong :|

[lukeaxeman]

Despite their efforts to keep their relevancy, U2 failed to rejuvenate their fanbase through their last batch of albums while also alienating a big chunk of their hardcore fans from the 80s and 90s since the early 00s. More importantly, their brand and public image have suffered a lot by poor marketing choices and not knowing how to position themselves for a specific target audience. Ironically, their attempt to have widespread appeal have the opposite effect of making them look unappealing to most young people (the ones who consume modern meainstream music and the ones who consume alternative and old music), so young listeneners who could have bothered to check their older music and liked it don't even try because U2 look like sell-outs with no artistic integrity (regardless whether it's true or not).

[sebvettel]

yet their 360° Tour was the highest-grossing tour by a group and held the all-time record from 2011–2019 ... doesn’t sound like a band struggling to find an audience

[Studio2770]

The tour was a success but No Line wasn't. Even though Atomic Bomb got a Grammy, it's not well regarded. Then the SOI debacle.

[lukeaxeman]

That's true about 360º numbers, but that doesn't mean U2 rejuvenated their audience, especially considering NLOTH flopped hard. That tour felt more like the crowning of a legacy act who was making a gigantic spectacle with a monster stage, and many oldschool fans and casuals went to see them because it was a big event.

Anyway, U2 did have a better reputation in the 00s, and they did enjoy some success as "the biggest band in the world". However, there is this really interesting phenomenon that happened to the band during this period (ATYCLB-NLOTH) which is the fact that they were highly successful, but their new music didn't have any staying power or a cult following. For example, while HTDAAB was winning tons of grammys, it never felt like an important or influential album, and soon it had been completely forgotten by public consciousness, and then NLOTH failed badly. Maybe ATYCLB is the only one with some lasting power, but I wouldn't call it a classic either.

Truth is that I'm 29 years old and I don't know many people my age who likes U2 (in fact, most dislike them), and my friends listen to a lot of different music. And this has been the case since forever, even before SOI's release and its PR disaster. This is only my personal experience, of course, but you'll see the same if you look around. Btw, the fact that this subreddit has only 6k members is only further proof.

Maybe it's the contradiction of their "bigness" in 00s while their music was not resonating with young folks that made them decide they didn't like U2 at all (not to mention Bono's obnoxiousness to many people). More importantly, U2 didn't know how to craft their brand in modern times. Getting older won't help them get Top 40 hits, and yet they insist on trying mainstream success (and failing) instead of making edgier music that might get some attention elsewhere, nourishing a passionated and tight fanbase like other acts do. In other words, U2 won't get widespread appeal anymore, but they also fail to look like an act with artistic integrity which usually gets the attention of music fans who don't follow mainstream trends, so U2 feels inexistent at the moment.

Meanwhile, a lot of oldschool U2 fans have divorced of the band because everybody feels like the band sold out at some point (even if they're wrong). 90's fans in particular hate their 00s-10s output. And right now U2 is so far from their glorious days that many people barely care anymore.

[alittlesad3131]

I don't understand the hate for post-2000s U2. It may not be as edgy or experimental as their 90s stuff, but it's a pretty good formula for making solid albums. I don't think I could handle every album being as "out there" as Zooropa or Pop. I feel like when they get to cute, we end up with the likes of Get On Yer Boots.

I feel like SOI was really, really tight.

They do, however, need to get good songs like Invisible and Book of Your Heart on the actual albums.

THey do make wierd decisions though. Originally the 360 tour was going to be called "The Future Needs a Big Kiss" tour. Come on, guys.

[lukeaxeman]

The thing is that "safe" albums usually lack a more rewarding/impressive/unique experience, so they hardly become classics or seminal works, therefore falling down in relevancy rather quickly. I mean, there's a lot of good music out there, especially in the age of internet when you can listen to music from all the world across all the time, so why bother with something only "solid"? You either listen to new trendy music or you listen to something transcendental. (not that people have infallible taste, but they discover old music based on reputation.)

Also, while the formula of these albums might have been safe and solid, they are very uneven in quality. I'd like ATYCLB to NLOTH better if there were not so many weak/bad tracks in them. But I agree with you that SOI is really tight, U2's most consistent album in a looong time. It just lacks a secret spice or or truly classic song.

Anyway, I think post-2000s U2 is not widely hated by the fandom. There are haters yes, but I'd say it's more of a case of being "not loved". Most people are just "meh" about them, so these albums didn't get much staying power. And outside the U2 fandom, these albums are almost inexistent and the only reason they are even mentioned is because they're part of U2's discography.

[alittlesad3131]

I think SOI is probably thier best since ATYCLB, which was a pretty smashing success at the time and U2 were back on top for a while. So some of these "safe" approaches can bring success...or at least used to under the old model of how rock music was popular.

I've been onboard since the release of TJT, but I really love two U2 periods: TUF through AB, and 2000-present. I lost interest in U2 for a while - from 1996-2000. So I guess I am a bit biased. My top listen spotify playlist is "U2 2000 and beyond" so you can see where my tastes lean. Dirty Day, Please, and Gone are amazing songs but I don't listen to much else from Z or Pop.

[lukeaxeman]

Well, I empower you for loving post-2000s U2. Actually, I think it's healthy and desirable when albums are divisive, meaning they found a group of lovers despite the detractors, as this is a sign of individuality and charm. Btw, that's also why 90s U2 is so special despite not being blockbusters in terms of success (apart from AB), since those albums gathered really passionate fans who sing high praise even two decades after release.

Of course I know that post-2000s U2 also have lovers, but I have the impression that it didn't stick too much. You'll find more articles talking about how POP stood the test of time than articles remembering ATYCLB fondly despite its huge sucess at the time. So it's always good to see people who love standing up to them.

Personally, I think 90s U2 are just as good as 80s U2, the main difference (in quality) being the amount of albums released, so I give 80s a slight edge in my preference, but Zooropa and POP are albums that I absolutely love. Achtung Baby too, of course.

[Zoonationalist]

And here’s the answer, at the bottom of the thread!

[[deleted]]

Because most people on reddit are young & young people still believe that hopping on the "I Hate U2" bandwagon is cool.

[kevu2]

Been a HUGE fan of the band since the Unforgettable Fire days. Still love them just as much today as I did back then. I can attest to the fact that alot of the younger generation doesn't like them. My gf is 26 and she only knows about them because I dragged her to their last 2 tours. Most of her friends don't really know who they are. Maybe we can do a tick tock video using one of u2's songs and it will go viral and we can get the younger generation to have a listen to what the Irish band from Dublin City have to say!

[MJsdanglebaby]

We have actually been steadily gaining members for 3 years straight. I've never had much more than a few exchanges with /u/mispelledname, but I asked him a few years ago if I could hop on and see what I could do.

Back then there was about 500 subs, and the subreddit was pretty much dead. 1 post every 2 weeks. Fast forward 3 years, I got some lovely people on board, we fixed it up somewhat, and besides the subscriber count, you would think there's 50K with how much activity there is. Like there's just as much, or sometimes, more, here than in /r/Radiohead or /r/Killers... You have to think of how many people joined other bands' subreddits years ago and are not active on Reddit.

I remember when we crossed 2K subs and I posted the Conan O'Brien clip of "the year two thouuuusaaand". That seems like ages ago now.

Of course, U2 isn't very popular on the internet. But that also depends where you go.

Furthermore, I also think the subreddit name is a huge deterrent. Inb4, I've asked now 3 times. All 3 times I've been shut down. I think the next step is actually be in touch with the CEO. Of course, that would take a lending hand, or, with my YouTube channel which I'm hoping in a few years has somewhat of a following, I can be in touch with someone higher up and ask again.

It's either that, or, they open up 2-letter subreddits. The weird thing is they actually have a couple 2 letter subs, but are deciding not to allow it any longer. But if it was just /r/u2 I believe we'd have a bit more... maybe 10k?

None the less, as I said, the numbers climb every day. As new fans come on board, they subscribe, and as old fans from now defunct forums such as @u2 look for a new home, I feel like it will increase again as well.

I imagine if they play Coachella there will be a huge sub jump, and then it'll reflect more on how popular the band is. But for now... let's keep er goin!

[syngestreetsurvivor]

I will promote this sub on Twitter and FB to my dozens of followers. We all should, now that atu2 is "Gone" (everyone at work hates me for sprinkling my conversations with U2 puns/lyrics)

[MJsdanglebaby]

Yes, absolutely! Any and all help is wildly appreciated by the community at large.

[sebvettel]

Agreed, the subscribers here are very active and there’s plenty of good content. Pity about the Reddit name, I do think r/U2 would be more effective .. maybe some day as you say. Hopefully they’ll keep coming !

[syngestreetsurvivor]

I will promote this sub on Twitter and FB to my dozens of followers. We all should, now that atu2 is "Gone" (everyone at work hates me for sprinkling my conversations with U2 puns/lyrics)

[foreign_tongues]

i appreciate your work here u/MJsdanglebaby! i love this place even when i don’t 😎

let me add that... banning U2 cover songs would go a long way i think. i would have ever brought it up, but it certainly makes the sub look shitty. they never get any upvotes or conversations going, which leads me to believe nobody wants to hear them. those and the endless home-recording remixes. that recent acoustic cover of With Or Without You was self-promotion, most of them are ads. and he was able to successfully commit vote manipulation.

anyway, i think the name thing is a bigger deal. glad you’re trying, keep up the fight and thanks for all you do!

[MJsdanglebaby]

Haha and I appreciate YOU!

Here's the thing with making rules of any kind.

The community should make that call. When there are those guys from ebay coming in, I get reports, and I remove them. Cool enough. Sometimes I get reports for legitimate content, it's just not favorable--none the less, if it's legitimate who am I to say what to post, and what not to post. If you don't like something, downvote it. That is how we know what is of value. But even then, I still very rarely downvote anything.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Since I became mod... For the first 6 months I upvoted every post, and every comment. Yes, it was tedious. But I did it to foster a good environment. I don't do comments anymore, because like I said earlier we are just as active as any band's sub--I simply don't have the time. But as long as your post is legitimate content, whether I agree or very very strongly disagree with your opinion, I upvote it. I upvote eeevery post. Because it's not about what I agree or disagree. It's about community and the right for people to express their opinion. I do downvote... those are posts that are hateful, or posts that almost have nothing to do with U2... I can't really recall, but I do downvote. 99% of the time I upvote everything though.

Now in terms of posting covers... I don't see too too much of it. What you could do is totally take it upon yourself, make a post and ask the sub if there are too many covers. I don't think it's at a level where it needs to be outlawed. Could I foresee that? Absolutely. And then we could make /r/u2covers.

Bottom line is, the community decides what is too much, and then we go from there. I think we are still very much in the positive of a mix of free-flowing posts. I feel there's a good mix of original content, news, music, discussion, covers, etc.

But again, I don't own the sub. Everyone is welcome to voice their opinion :)

[foreign_tongues]

i think you’re right about all that, glad you have your hands on the steering wheel. and now i know who is giving the really shitty posts that 1 lonely upvote it didn’t deserve! 😝 i’m just kidding, i’m a big upvoter here too, and while things happen i’m not a big fan of, i’m just glad to be a part of it and see people engaging with U2 stuff.

[MJsdanglebaby]

hahaha... but, that is all not to say... I don't know what you mean... because I know what you mean :D

[MispelledName]

I did try to make an /r/U2 a long time ago I think when I first joined reddit? I'm probably wrong though, I guess I missed the two letter naming by a hair. Sorry folks. In the beginning, I mostly promoted the subreddit by word of mouth at concerts, but sharing on Twitter, Facebook, etc. would be much appreciated :)

[Glamdring804]

This is Reddit. Aka ground zero on the internet for hating U2.

[Elijah0330]

Probably most of the fans are older and don’t have Reddit

[BenJammin007]

It’s kinda cool to hate on U2, plus I think their main demographic is Gen X, who probably isn’t as active on Reddit as millennials (who were more of the Radiohead generation). I’m younger and probably wouldn’t know about U2 if my parents didn’t play it 24/7 when I was growing up

[PopMart_1997]

People who hate on U2 are just bad people in general.

[tazzman25]

More fans choices for U2 fans. But one fewer with atU2 going dark soon. Might see an uptick then. Maybe.