True and you know what's ironic about this?

He pushed so much to be "relevant" so constantly and it actually hurt their brand a lot as he completely ruining the commercial appetite for general masses with albums and tours every 2-3 years instead of taking the U2 approach. In addition to ****ing up his pipes (or making it sooner), contributing to Richie's departure, it also prevented Jon from achieving that same goal - being big and relevant. But yeah, he added a lot of cash to his bank account, hopefully it was worth it to him...

I see what you're saying but it's not like U2 is selling albums right now either. As far as a relevant recording artist they're pretty dead in the water. Not as much as Bon Jovi but U2 has much bigger tours.

Dismantle sold incredibly well. The fact that U2 was 30 years old as a band and released that album and had a #1 song on the pop charts is incredible.

No Line on The Horizon was a flop, yes. Innocence everyone got for free, and is technically the most downloaded album of all time.

Also, U2 is incredibly relevant with younger people - Bon Jovi isn't. A lot of my friends are well acquainted with Achtung Baby, Joshua Tree, All That You Can't Leave Behind. Young people make fun of those who listen to Slippery.

There is absolutely ZERO factual evidence to back up this claim... and it's total rubbish like the rest of his posts...

Sent from my HTCD160LVW using Tapatalk

Agreed with Distmantle. Anything past that didn't connect as far as sales, radio play and radio relevance. Innocence being the most downloaded album of all time can't really been counted towards this. I understand alot of your friends consider them relevant but it doesn't change that a lot of people find U2 very uncool right now. You're using a kneejerk reaction to trash Bon Jovi as if anyone here is disagreeing that they're not hip right now.

Let's be real. U2 aren't relevant to younger people. Bon Jovi aren't relevant to younger people. You'll be hard pressed to find any band formed in the 80s or earlier who are still relevant with younger people. That is unless your definition of "relevant" is hits from over 10 years ago.

That's not to say that some young people aren't into older bands. But if they are, they are the exception, not the rule. Go up to any kid on the street and ask them to name a song from U2/Bon Jovi that was released in the last 5 years and 90% of them won't be able to answer you.

U2 may be more popular than Bon Jovi because they are more well respected in the music industry, but among the general population the only relevance both bands have these days is due to the legacy they have made in their past (which is actually something to be proud about).

It's been done to death. It's not just Jon's voice that has withered away either. He looks every bit his age. Loads of reasons why.

We'll never see him get back to those glory days. I've accepted it and still enjoy the new album.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Simple, yet perfect answer!!!

This....

The problem is, music genre popularity has drastically changed over the past few years. It's not just 80's bands... It's 90' and 00' bands as well..

This. Radio/TV give U2's new material much more of a chance than any new Bon Jovi releases over the last 7-8 years. Although they are pigeon-holed into the same stations BJ are nowadays, a new U2 release is greeted with much more fanfare than a BJ release which gets a cursory few plays for a week or so and then it's back to Prayer being in rotation.