How did U2 coexist with the boybands in the '90s?

[skelter]

Usually, U2 then releases a more daring record (but still mainstream enough), by mid-decade, as to not completely lose those kids. And by the end of each decade, they release a more arty and experimental album (like Pop and NLOTH), which doesn't appeal much to new kids, but broadens the taste of the ones they won at the start of the decade; while at the same time pleasing older and more experimental fans.

That has been the pattern in the '90s and the '00s. I wonder if they'll repeat the trick on this decade...

I love it when they go mainstream and high profile, while still making good music.

Totes agree! Vertigo and SYCMIOYO received heavy radio airplay, and the band themselves have acknowledged new, younger audiences coming on board during the Vertigo Tour. The more experimental/meditative NLOTH did not win over many young'ins.

The band could have been thinking like you said. Maybe that's why they were looking to try Lady Gaga's producer for the dancy-trancy album to win the '10s kids over? (to the best of my knowledge, that direction has been scrapped)

[So Cruel]

ATYCLB had nothing to do with the demise of the 90's boy bands. Time is never on the side of any boy band or bubblegum pop act. Their core audience is young girls between the ages of 8 -13. Once these kids get older and into high school they don't like the things they did at the age of 10.  It happens to all those artists, and once one is done their is another act just around the corner.  New Kids popular in early 90's, their audience grows up a bit and they are done; then it's Backstreet Boys and N Syncs turn, then they are done; then it's Miley Cyrus, now shes done; enter Justin Bieber, and his reign is coming to an end.

When my niece was around 10 she loved Justin Bieber. His posters were all over her wall. I remember telling her that in a few years she wouldn't like him anymore and she told me I was crazy. She's 14 and in high school school now and can't stand Justin Bieber.  It happens to all those acts. Hopefully their parents didn't spend all their money.

U2's problem wasn't that kids weren't into If God Will Send His Angels or Staring at the Sun; their problem was that rock fans weren't into them.

Good points, with the obvious exceptions of Madonna, Kylie Minogue and Michael Jackson. Three bubblegum pop acts which continue to sell records, in spite of one of them being dead (...or is he?). 

But my point was that, at the beginning of each decade ('90s and '00s), U2 managed to attract a new generation of kids (regardless of them being rock or pop fans), which is vital to make a leap forward, and renew their audience. In the case of ATYCLB, I think the hits were strong enough to actually help make kids say: "I'm tired of this pop crap, I want some real band". And of course, the tragedy of 9/11 made a lot of people turn to music with a bit more content, which suited U2 just fine. So I disagree with you on that; ATYCLB played a big part in the demise of boy-bands, in my opinion.

Usually, U2 then releases a more daring record (but still mainstream enough), by mid-decade, as to not completely lose those kids. And by the end of each decade, they release a more arty and experimental album (like Pop and NLOTH), which doesn't appeal much to new kids, but broadens the taste of the ones they won at the start of the decade; while at the same time pleasing older and more experimental fans.

That has been the pattern in the '90s and the '00s. I wonder if they'll repeat the trick on this decade...

I love it when they go mainstream and high profile, while still making good music.

Michael Jackson was not bubblegum pop, he was just pop and catered to people young and old. Madonna may have started out bubblegum, but quickly changed and was able to grow. Kylie was pop, not bubblegum pop. Bubblegum pop is aimed at young girls (8 - 13), and that was the target audience of the boy bands. You mention U2 were able to bring in kids with albums like ATYCLB, but it wasn't the same kids (young girls) that the boy bands were after. U2 were able to get high school kids and college kids with their popular albums. The question was how did U2 coexist with boy bands in the 90's, and the answer is that boy bands had zero effect on U2. They were going after a different target market then what U2 were after.

[Tumbling Dice]

12 year old single malts can co-exist with alcopops, so I don’t see the problem.

[Starman]

Interesting thread. I think they've been able to easily coexist because of different styles. U2 isn't a boy band, but they have pop songs so they have been able to coexist with the cheesy boy bands.

[Drummer Boy]

Michael Jackson was not bubblegum pop, he was just pop and catered to people young and old. Madonna may have started out bubblegum, but quickly changed and was able to grow. Kylie was pop, not bubblegum pop. Bubblegum pop is aimed at young girls (8 - 13), and that was the target audience of the boy bands. You mention U2 were able to bring in kids with albums like ATYCLB, but it wasn't the same kids (young girls) that the boy bands were after. U2 were able to get high school kids and college kids with their popular albums. The question was how did U2 coexist with boy bands in the 90's, and the answer is that boy bands had zero effect on U2. They were going after a different target market then what U2 were after.

Ok, I get your point about "target markets", I tend to lump all the kids in the same bag, but you are correct.

But I have to disagree with you on one thing...

So in your view, this was "bubblegum pop":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBt8fN7mJNg

And this wasn't?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkN4J2l1UaA

I'll be eagerly waiting for your reply. 

 

[jick]

Boybands were the fad in the late 90's.

U2 had POP which was a flop but had a nice tour that was setting records up until they were foolish enough to do another leg in America in the small market venues.

Album-wise, POP could not answer the boyband onslaught.

U2 coexisted by following up POP with a greatest hits compilation featuring one of their most accessible b-sisdes - Sweetest Thing - being reworked then released as a single complete with Boyzone in the music video.

Then they released All That Your Can't Leave Behind - which brought rock back to the limelight, and saved and entire music genre from being obliterated by boybands.

Cheers,

J

[skelter]

omg, I still love BSB! (I use the word love loosely). The instrumental bits were catchy, though of course the boyband had no input on that.

I believed there was a slight fan demographic overlap, because boy band pre-teen fans age 8-13 did not have the allowance nor curfew to attend concerts. I believed the people we see it the crowd were older than 14, and could have easily been young U2 fans too. From the responses here, it seems not. Maybe the teen crowd need their heroes/idols to be conventionally hot or something 

[Tumbling Dice]

Boybands were the fad in the late 90's.

Album-wise, POP could not answer the boyband onslaught.

LOL 

I wonder how their next album will fare against the onslaught of One Direction?

[So Cruel]

omg, I still love BSB! (I use the word love loosely). The instrumental bits were catchy, though of course the boyband had no input on that.

I believed there was a slight fan demographic overlap, because boy band pre-teen fans age 8-13 did not have the allowance nor curfew to attend concerts. I believed the people we see it the crowd were older than 14, and could have easily been young U2 fans too. From the responses here, it seems not. Maybe the teen crowd need their heroes/idols to be conventionally hot or something 

Their parents brought them to the concerts. My sister in law brought my niece along with a few of her friends to Justin Bieber and a few other shows.

[So Cruel]

Michael Jackson was not bubblegum pop, he was just pop and catered to people young and old. Madonna may have started out bubblegum, but quickly changed and was able to grow. Kylie was pop, not bubblegum pop. Bubblegum pop is aimed at young girls (8 - 13), and that was the target audience of the boy bands. You mention U2 were able to bring in kids with albums like ATYCLB, but it wasn't the same kids (young girls) that the boy bands were after. U2 were able to get high school kids and college kids with their popular albums. The question was how did U2 coexist with boy bands in the 90's, and the answer is that boy bands had zero effect on U2. They were going after a different target market then what U2 were after.

Ok, I get your point about "target markets", I tend to lump all the kids in the same bag, but you are correct.

But I have to disagree with you on one thing...

So in your view, this was "bubblegum pop":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBt8fN7mJNg

And this wasn't?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkN4J2l1UaA

I'll be eagerly waiting for your reply. 

 

I was thinking more of Kylie Minogue's later 90's stuff which was dance music. You are right about the Locomotion, it was bubblegum but the point still stands that it had no effect at all on U2 or other rock bands. She definately wasn't going after U2 fans with the Locomotion.

[Starman]

Maybe it's because I'm an American or because I hate most pop music, but I never understood the big amount of worship that Kylie Minogue gets. She has a couple of good decent songs, but Madonna is better IMO.

[xy]

U2 has a different fan demographic.

That said, any act that is around long enough (Madonna, M. Jackson, U2, Springsteen) can get new fans each decade.