U2 and age

MISS PATRICIA M HEFNER ([email protected])
Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:30:33, -0500

-- [ From: Patricia Hefner * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] --

I want to comment on the age issue that several people have posted about
. I'm one of the people who was around to hear "I Will Follow" on the
radio and get their socks off; I remember Red Rocks, I heard "Pride" at
a famous church here in Birmingham that was bombed by the KKK in the
'60's, killing four little girls, at a 1987 celebration of Martin Luther
King's birthday.....those were magical experiences for me. But for the
younger fans who had their first U2 experience from Achtung Baby, or
Zooropa, or Pop, well, their "experience" is no less valid than ours;
it's just different. I just interpret difference as diversity and I
really think it's cool that everyone who's here is here, on Wire, or
listening to their fave U2 or whatever. I'm not pointing fingers but age
has been an issue in rock music for a long time because it's associated
with youth, or at least it started out that way!! :-) So, unfortunately,
some narrow-minded "Generation X" have lived up their stereotype and
dissed U2 as "old". Dumb, dumb.....they don't know what they're missing,
dammit! It's important to remember that that's a stereotype and we
shouldn't be writing them off in return. Very few groups have had U2's
versatility, which is why they still matter as much as they did at Red
Rocks in 1983, the first time I saw them on TV. There is no "ideal" U2
age. It's not fair to judge *anoyone* strictly by their age. This is
just my opinion, of course.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Tue Aug 11 1998 - 21:37:06 PDT