Re: Age....Bonding...and 'Modsavage Spice'

John J. Hlavaty ([email protected])
Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:32:12 -0400

Dan in TheDesert wrote:
>...hopefully there won't be any future lame, blanket-takes in the future.

Shame on you Dan! Sweeping generalizations are what
made this country great! :-)

Dan then wrote:
>Well, props to the artist formerly known as Modsavage for being 37....before
>you know it, we'll be watching him wheel his oxygen container into Furr's for
>the Senior Citizen Sunday Brunch.

and then, U2girl ([email protected]) wrote:
> and before all you 30+ something's get out of your wheelchairs and
>start typing like there's no tomorrow in defence of your wisdom,

O.K.! That's it! You know, those of us in our 30's (I'm 34)
resent all of this old age nonsense. Just because we are
old, it doesn't mean we use wheelchairs. Besides, back in my day,
we didn't even have these fancy, schmancy wheelchairs.
We used to use rocks on a board. We used to say, "Ooh!
I can't walk. Get my rocks on a board out!" And oxygen??
Phooey! That's over-rated. We've been breathing in all
these carbon monoxide fumes for years now and it
hasn't hurt us one bit. Ow! My lungs!

Dan then wrote:
>I mean, exactly what kind of bond are you referring to?...and what kind of
>bond do you, and those in your age-bracket, have that younger people don't

ModSavage's basic point was lost in his writing. That's
unfortunate as he did have an interesting point. What he
was TRYING to say (or so I believe) is that those of us
close in age to the members of U2 can relate to them more
simply because we all experienced the same world events. We
recall the Carter- Iran Hostage crisis. We recall the escalation
of the Reagan Cold War era. We not only recall disco,
but we probably danced to it in some fashion (I was only
14 in 1978, so my dances were not in discotheques but
in school gymnasiums.). We recall the "hippie" days,
Watergate, bell bottoms, Culture Club, the start of MTV,
the start of cable, the start of video games (pong??) and
the start of VCRs (beta??). Heck, in the early 70's,
my parents finally got their first color TV. Back then, it
was still considered a luxury to have a "color" TV.

So with all of these items in mind, we are able to relate
to U2 on this level. We were able to relate to the
pseudo-punk, rebel era of "War". We loved the fact
that U2 were political and stood for anti-commercialism
when the rest of the U.S. was caught up in the "me
generation". By the start of the 90's, just like U2, we longed
for a change and U2 provided it. In an era filled with
depressing grunge music, U2 stood out. They weren't
the U2 of "old" nor were they the sounds of the present.
They were unique - something that people their age
needed. Still, this hardly means that U2's music couldn't
have reached younger people (or older). And this
is a crucial point ModSavage failed to make.

ModSavage's post was condenscending and insulting to
all younger U2 fans. There are certain things we cannot control
in life and our birth is one of them. To even come close
to suggesting that a younger U2 fan can never "really"
appreciate U2 is wrong. I feel I am just as big of a Beatles'
fan as a person born 10-20 years before me, so I know
I would be insulted for someone to say something
analogous to me regarding the Beatles. Starting when I
was 18 (back in the 17th century), I went and bought many albums
released in the 60's, including all of the U.K. released Beatles' albums.
I learned about that era and like people of today often do, I
glorified the positive images of that time while ignoring the bad.
The point is, if I was able to go back and learn about
that era, young U2 fans do the same today. And
just as I can never *truly* relate to what people felt
during 1968 (I turned an adorable 4 that year :-D ), younger
U2 fans cannot truly relate to events from the 70's and 80's.
But does that make any of us less of a fan? No.

>Well guess lived through the Captain and Tenielle, Elton John's
>'dress like Donald Duck'-phase, Disco, Menudomania, and cheesy porn....

Um... "cheesy porn"? I don't know about you, but in 1977
I was 13 and "wild sex" wasn't exactly a part of my life (is this
a good thing or bad?).

Plus, there weren't video stores everywhere and I wasn't exactly welcome
in adult theaters. :-) Also, while I haven't watched a porn movie
in ages (something about them being derogatory to women...),
from those I have seen, they are ALL cheesy, regardless of the time.

I will also state that any of the "cheesy" music you can pick
from the 70's, we could all pick from today. People mock
Captain and Tennille, Barry Manilow, disco, etc. But
lets discuss Tiffany and big hair bands from the 80's or
today's Spice Girls, Puff Daddy's and Hansons. Why
Puff Daddy is considered "hot" when most of what he
does is steal other people's songs and techniques perverting
them into some horrid "new" song is a mystery to me. So
just as you can mock that, in 10 years, people will mock
this. Remember Dan, sweeping generalizations aren't a good thing... ;-D

>so when
>your kid sits on your lap and says 'Daddy, whose that man in the duck
>costume', you can tell him about the emotional bond you have to EJ and that
>bond is something he will never be able to have.....'Ba, Ba, Ba, Benny and the

And you'll have the privilege of singing "MmmmBop, shooby dooby,
do bop" to yours. Why, it brings tears to my eyes now. Sweep, sweep... :-D

U2girl ([email protected]) wrote:
>I have a few things to say. I have met U2 fans of many ages, older, and
>younger and I think it is too generalized a statement to suggest *older fans
>are far superior in their U2 facts* like who really wants to know what
>colour jocks Bono wears? or how many Vita-Brits Edge has for breakfast? I
>just get slightly agitated about this whole *age* issue and the 'I know more
>than you' mentality.

I didn't get this interpretation from ModSavage's post. He
was condenscending, but he didn't declare to "know all".
He just felt he had a "better bond" with U2. Unfortunately,
he didn't articulate his thoughts very well. As I discussed
above, it is possible for one to have this "bond" with a
band from a certain era. Those of you who are huge fans of groups like
Pearl Jam or Savage Garden or even some new up and
coming band may be able to relate in the same fashion.
You are experiencing the same emotions at the same time
and as such, you feel as if the band is "talking to you".
Of course, this doesn't mean that an "older" band
like Aerosmith or U2 or even the Stones can't "talk"
to a younger person today. U2's "POP" hit home with
a lot of today's youth. I find that it's the *older* fans
that weren't as happy with it (this excludes those
on WIRE as we are die-hard fanatics).

As for an "older" fan feeling they know more about U2,
that's just nonsense. I continue to learn new things
about U2 every day. I may have been a fan longer, but
it doesn't mean I know more. It's at this point where
a younger fan often has an advantage as they will go
back and "research" a band. To be honest, the most
knowledgeable people I have come across are the collectors.
And collectors can be of any age.

Speaking only for myself, this old fogey loves the fact
that U2 are attracting new, younger fans and I am always
anxious to read what you have to say. But if you punks
get out of line, watch out! I'll throw my false teeth at
you. Dang whippersnappers!



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Tue Aug 11 1998 - 09:41:28 PDT