“U2 ARE now very close to irrelevance” - Bono to Irish Times, Sept 10, 2011

[Tumbling Dice]

I would say 'are' too because a group of individuals make up the band.


 

[ABloodRedSky]

I was doing research on this very subject earlier (collective nouns) and found that in British English, 'U2 are' would be more common while in American English 'U2 is' would be the more common choice. Both are correct. If U2 was in plural form, like The Beatles, then it would only be correct to say 'are'.

I just can't help myself when it comes to grammar. >.<

[emalvick]

When the thread diverges into a grammar lesson, you know the band must be irrelevant.

[suppers ready]

The last time U2 put out an album that I listened to beyond the end of the tour (or even throughout the tour) was Pop (the last album that they made an attempt to not sound like U2).  If you're looking for reinvention, you're more likely to find it from Cold Play or some other band that broke 10 years ago.  Pop musicians beyond 40 are generally in brand maintenance mode.

[excidence]

When the thread diverges into a grammar lesson, you know the band must be irrelevant.

That was a very well-constructed sentence.

(notice "well-constructed" is hyphenated)

[excidence]

you're more likely to find it from Cold Play

Whoa! Dude! It's Coldplay. Yeah, let's keep it straight.

[The Exile]

you're more likely to find it from Cold Play

Whoa! Dude! It's Coldplay. Yeah, let's keep it straight.

I just wish they were more like Radio Head or Brokenbells.

[MarsGirl~Descends to Hell for a bottle of milk]

you're more likely to find it from Cold Play

Whoa! Dude! It's Coldplay. Yeah, let's keep it straight.

I just wish they were more like Radio Head or Brokenbells.

LOL.

[morph]

The last time U2 put out an album that I listened to beyond the end of the tour (or even throughout the tour) was Pop (the last album that they made an attempt to not sound like U2).  If you're looking for reinvention, you're more likely to find it from Cold Play or some other band that broke 10 years ago.  Pop musicians beyond 40 are generally in brand maintenance mode.

That's the best comment I've read on this thread and it defines the trap that U2 have to fight.

[singnomore]

"For a lot of bands it seems to be all important to get their single into the Top Ten. I guess we've always felt ourselves to be more of an albums band anyway."

-- Edge

This is off the soundbyte board on the main page - if this holds true then irrelevance shouldn't be an issue. If the thinking in the U2 camp really is changing....

[Alton Dalton]

"For a lot of bands it seems to be all important to get their single into the Top Ten. I guess we've always felt ourselves to be more of an albums band anyway."

-- Edge

This is off the soundbyte board on the main page - if this holds true then irrelevance shouldn't be an issue. If the thinking in the U2 camp really is changing....

Quite. Yet Bono says it is.

And I kinda feel there's a hint of sour grapes in that quote from Edge.  

Easy to say you're an albums band when your singles are charting badly.

[MarsGirl~Descends to Hell for a bottle of milk]

Depends on when that quote was taken... If it's Atomic Bomb era, the singles were charting.

[Alton Dalton]

Depends on when that quote was taken... If it's Atomic Bomb era, the singles were charting.

No, its an old quote from around ATYCLB, I think. (I prob shoulda checked that first   ) But it actually leads nicely into Bono's fear for the bands relevance.  

Its singles that pull the new fans aboard, and if the band want to remain relevant in that sense of the word, then they should concentrate on being a singles band. For the time being, anyway... Or until they release an album that actually does well.

Problem solved.

[zootv]

If I recall correctly, they released a single called " Get on your boots" not too long ago. How did that work out in terms of keeping them relevant ?  

[Alton Dalton]

If I recall correctly, they released a single called " Get on your boots" not too long ago. How did that work out in terms of keeping them relevant ?  

Very true  .

But seriously, if they want to stay "relevant", or to become "relevant" again, they need to start appealling to a wider audience, which means writing and releasing strong singles that chart well.

The sad thing is that U2 have been losing their relevancy for the past decade; that is, longer than a lot of people on this forum have been fans. Also, this isn't the first time that the relevancy issue has been mentioned by the band. I remember one of the members saying in an interview during the HTDAAB campaign (can't remember who, or where it was published/aired) that the band were finding it increasingly difficult to stay relevant in the current climate. It was also mentioned after "Rattle & Hum" and again shortly after NLOTH was released. (But not in that order!!  )
"ATYCLB" had one ripper of a single (in BD), and three perfectly adequate follow-ups which all charted well. "Bomb" had two strong singles in COBL and SYCMIOYO, and the record buying public (in this neck of the woods, at least) agreed. NLOTH had, in my opinion, none. And the record buying public also agreed.

How many strong singles did JT and AB have? The singles off these albums are instantly recognizable to those who consider themselves fans of music. But the singles from the last three albums (with the exception of Beautiful Day), are not as iconic. There's a pattern emerging here, and it's becoming more apparent with each album that is released.

I think they are (or were) more of a singles band than they would care to admit.

.
My 2 cents.