Q Magazine named U2 "greatest act of the past quarter of a century"

[Earnie Shavers]

Don't Q always give U2 some award whenever U2 have something to sell? Isn't that standard?

(Rolling Stone gave their acceptance speech 5 stars and declared it a masterpiece.)

 

[powerhour24]

Well, at least you're making an argument and backing it up with facts & examples. This I can respect, even if we disagree on some points.

Yeah, your last sentence is exactly what I'm saying. There's nothing wrong with taking what other bands have done before, and created, and running it and being the best at it. But to be truly original, and define the genre so much that you band is instantly associated with it....there's only a handful of artists that have done that...David Bowie, The Velvet Underground, The Clash, The Virgin Prunes, Nirvana, Krafwerk, The Sex Pistols, Boby Dylan, The Pixes, Rage Against the Machine are some I can think of off the top of my head. And of course that's setting aside that obvious 50's & 60's artists like the Beatles.

Having a record that sells well and everyone agrees is a masterpiece and everyone loves does not mean it's particularly original or changed the musical landscape.

It's doesn't mean U2 isn't great, or talented, or influential (they've clearly influenced a lot of bands). I like them better than every band I listed there. But I'm not going to pretend that U2 totally changed the face of music and created a new genre or completely changed the genre, because they didn't. I think they pushed some boundaries, but really didn't change the musical landscape. I mean, what's the album? What's the U2 album that changed rock & roll? Is there anyone who thinks U2 has an album that changed the musical landscape the way, say, Nevermind did? (And I'm not even a Nirvana fan). Or London Calling?

Anyway, we can disagree, that's cool...but thanks for making your case and not making it personal.

Ugh, no. Did you really just say Nirvana defined a genre? Soundgarden were the breakthrough pioneers of the grunge movement, and Pearl Jam defined it, and then let it go. Bob Dylan, brilliant lyricist though he may be does not 'define' folk music/folk rock, he's a the forefront in terms of popularity, endurance and influence as a lyricist but his main sound wouldn't be distinguishable from many others if it weren't for his voice. You accuse U2 of being derivative, and yet include the Pixies as a pioneer, great great band, but their sound is their influences put lightly in a blender. Rage Against the Machine are from a short-lived era of rapcore, they're at the forefront but who inherited that legacy? Linkin Park? Bowie I will give you, he is the embodiment of Glam Rock, and Kraftwerk defines early electronic rock/industrial.

U2 may not 'define' any one sound to you because they never stuck with the same sound for multiple albums, but they certainly brought elements to the mainstream (and blended it well with their own tradition and message) that plenty of bands followed after, even though the band themselves were already on to the next thing.

I would say The Joshua Tree has had a far longer influence on rock music than any other album in the past 25 years, and certainly no guitarist's style has been more aped since than that era of the Edge's chimes. Nevermind was one of the best selling albums of a subgenre that exerted no influence past the late 90's (barring the recent sad reunion of post-grunge wannabes Bush). I will say that Cobain's big influence is of being unafraid to journal the trials of a difficult mental disorder in full view of the mainstream in his lyrics, but his actual sound has faded.

As others have mentioned, U2 was ahead of its time in the 90s, other bands have since taken credit for picking up where they left off (like Laz said about Zooropa-->Kid A). Since they inception they dared to (and very successfully pulled off) marry social justice advocacy/political outrage to optimism, religion and spirituality and didn't back away from that even as they became the most widely watched artist. They were clearly influenced at the start of their career as post punk wannabes, but even then they brought the one thing that makes them unique in alternative rock: heart on their sleeves emotion and earnestness, it's what to this day makes even their dark songs have even more power because you know their ethos and how real the sentiment must be for them to invoke it.

Also, from 1984 onwards, their sound has never fallen in line with the prevailing mainstream rock sound, for a long time they redefined what was mainstream every time out because their charisma brought something that was counterculture at the time to the widest possible audience (wall of sound, cathedral-esque rock music in the era of synth pop rock and hair metal? electronica/dance rock in the heyday of grunge-->singer-songwriters?, even their 'typical' sound of ATYCLB doesn't fit in at all with the rest of the biggest sounds of that era). And that is what makes them so influential like I said. No they didn't hover in one place long enough to be the definition of a particular sound, but that was never their goal, and if it had been they wouldn't have lasted more than a decade.

 

[lazarus]

This thread started because of Q's award. There are two things up for debate here: whether or not U2 is actually the greatest act of the last 25 years, and secondly what goes into defining "greatest" (influence, sales/popularity, critical respect, industry awards) and how those things should be weighed against each other.

Nick actually didn't really disagree with the initial sentiment of Q's award; he was the first to reply in this thread and called it an "accurate assessment". He later expounded on those ideas and said something about The Clash in comparison to U2 and how the former are far more influential, and brought up the "redefining a genre" and "breaking real ground".

And that's where my issues begin. Because if Zooropa isn't breaking new ground, I don't know what does in music in the last 25 years. And while U2 may not be credited with redefining a genre, I think Powerhour's point above is that they were too busy creating new hybrids and exploring new avenues every few years to really define anything specific. And it's not U2's fault that few artists were able to follow them successfully down any of the road they've taken. Radiohead is one, but they seem fairly limited by comparison, no?

That, to me, is where their real greatness lies. No single trend in music is going to be traceable back to U2, and that's ok. But in the future, when people look at this band's catalogue, they're going to be like "Holy shit, this is all the work of one band? The same four guys? Look at how many styles they tried out!"

There is no other band in history I can think of that has legitimately covered this much range.

 

[Nick66]

Ugh, no. Did you really just say Nirvana defined a genre? Soundgarden were the breakthrough pioneers of the grunge movement, and Pearl Jam defined it, and then let it go. Bob Dylan, brilliant lyricist though he may be does not 'define' folk music/folk rock, he's a the forefront in terms of popularity, endurance and influence as a lyricist but his main sound wouldn't be distinguishable from many others if it weren't for his voice. You accuse U2 of being derivative, and yet include the Pixies as a pioneer, great great band, but their sound is their influences put lightly in a blender. Rage Against the Machine are from a short-lived era of rapcore, they're at the forefront but who inherited that legacy? Linkin Park? Bowie I will give you, he is the embodiment of Glam Rock, and Kraftwerk defines early electronic rock/industrial.

U2 may not 'define' any one sound to you because they never stuck with the same sound for multiple albums, but they certainly brought elements to the mainstream (and blended it well with their own tradition and message) that plenty of bands followed after, even though the band themselves were already on to the next thing.

I would say The Joshua Tree has had a far longer influence on rock music than any other album in the past 25 years, and certainly no guitarist's style has been more aped since than that era of the Edge's chimes. Nevermind was one of the best selling albums of a subgenre that exerted no influence past the late 90's (barring the recent sad reunion of post-grunge wannabes Bush). I will say that Cobain's big influence is of being unafraid to journal the trials of a difficult mental disorder in full view of the mainstream in his lyrics, but his actual sound has faded.

As others have mentioned, U2 was ahead of its time in the 90s, other bands have since taken credit for picking up where they left off (like Laz said about Zooropa-->Kid A). Since they inception they dared to (and very successfully pulled off) marry social justice advocacy/political outrage to optimism, religion and spirituality and didn't back away from that even as they became the most widely watched artist. They were clearly influenced at the start of their career as post punk wannabes, but even then they brought the one thing that makes them unique in alternative rock: heart on their sleeves emotion and earnestness, it's what to this day makes even their dark songs have even more power because you know their ethos and how real the sentiment must be for them to invoke it.

Also, from 1984 onwards, their sound has never fallen in line with the prevailing mainstream rock sound, for a long time they redefined what was mainstream every time out because their charisma brought something that was counterculture at the time to the widest possible audience (wall of sound, cathedral-esque rock music in the era of synth pop rock and hair metal? electronica/dance rock in the heyday of grunge-->singer-songwriters?, even their 'typical' sound of ATYCLB doesn't fit in at all with the rest of the biggest sounds of that era). And that is what makes them so influential like I said. No they didn't hover in one place long enough to be the definition of a particular sound, but that was never their goal, and if it had been they wouldn't have lasted more than a decade.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

[Nick66]

This thread started because of Q's award. There are two things up for debate here: whether or not U2 is actually the greatest act of the last 25 years, and secondly what goes into defining "greatest" (influence, sales/popularity, critical respect, industry awards) and how those things should be weighed against each other.

Nick actually didn't really disagree with the initial sentiment of Q's award; he was the first to reply in this thread and called it an "accurate assessment". He later expounded on those ideas and said something about The Clash in comparison to U2 and how the former are far more influential, and brought up the "redefining a genre" and "breaking real ground".

And that's where my issues begin. Because if Zooropa isn't breaking new ground, I don't know what does in music in the last 25 years. And while U2 may not be credited with redefining a genre, I think Powerhour's point above is that they were too busy creating new hybrids and exploring new avenues every few years to really define anything specific. And it's not U2's fault that few artists were able to follow them successfully down any of the road they've taken. Radiohead is one, but they seem fairly limited by comparison, no?

That, to me, is where their real greatness lies. No single trend in music is going to be traceable back to U2, and that's ok. But in the future, when people look at this band's catalogue, they're going to be like "Holy shit, this is all the work of one band? The same four guys? Look at how many styles they tried out!"

There is no other band in history I can think of that has legitimately covered this much range.

I can't find much fault with what you've said...we definitely agree U2 has achieved a "greatness" that few other bands have, and have done so while experimenting in a large variety of "sounds." It's a big reason they're one of the best of all time, and my personal favourites.

 

[BVS]

Ugh, no. Did you really just say Nirvana defined a genre? Soundgarden were the breakthrough pioneers of the grunge movement, and Pearl Jam defined it, and then let it go. Bob Dylan, brilliant lyricist though he may be does not 'define' folk music/folk rock, he's a the forefront in terms of popularity, endurance and influence as a lyricist but his main sound wouldn't be distinguishable from many others if it weren't for his voice. You accuse U2 of being derivative, and yet include the Pixies as a pioneer, great great band, but their sound is their influences put lightly in a blender. Rage Against the Machine are from a short-lived era of rapcore, they're at the forefront but who inherited that legacy? Linkin Park? Bowie I will give you, he is the embodiment of Glam Rock, and Kraftwerk defines early electronic rock/industrial.

U2 may not 'define' any one sound to you because they never stuck with the same sound for multiple albums, but they certainly brought elements to the mainstream (and blended it well with their own tradition and message) that plenty of bands followed after, even though the band themselves were already on to the next thing.

I would say The Joshua Tree has had a far longer influence on rock music than any other album in the past 25 years, and certainly no guitarist's style has been more aped since than that era of the Edge's chimes. Nevermind was one of the best selling albums of a subgenre that exerted no influence past the late 90's (barring the recent sad reunion of post-grunge wannabes Bush). I will say that Cobain's big influence is of being unafraid to journal the trials of a difficult mental disorder in full view of the mainstream in his lyrics, but his actual sound has faded.

As others have mentioned, U2 was ahead of its time in the 90s, other bands have since taken credit for picking up where they left off (like Laz said about Zooropa-->Kid A). Since they inception they dared to (and very successfully pulled off) marry social justice advocacy/political outrage to optimism, religion and spirituality and didn't back away from that even as they became the most widely watched artist. They were clearly influenced at the start of their career as post punk wannabes, but even then they brought the one thing that makes them unique in alternative rock: heart on their sleeves emotion and earnestness, it's what to this day makes even their dark songs have even more power because you know their ethos and how real the sentiment must be for them to invoke it.

Also, from 1984 onwards, their sound has never fallen in line with the prevailing mainstream rock sound, for a long time they redefined what was mainstream every time out because their charisma brought something that was counterculture at the time to the widest possible audience (wall of sound, cathedral-esque rock music in the era of synth pop rock and hair metal? electronica/dance rock in the heyday of grunge-->singer-songwriters?, even their 'typical' sound of ATYCLB doesn't fit in at all with the rest of the biggest sounds of that era). And that is what makes them so influential like I said. No they didn't hover in one place long enough to be the definition of a particular sound, but that was never their goal, and if it had been they wouldn't have lasted more than a decade.

This is a much more accurate portrayal of history than Nick's, but I have to disagree with your take on Nirvana. You're correct in the sense that they didn't breakthrough, but for better or worse they are the ones that do get credit for it I think soundwise you're correct their influence quickly died, but I do think their approach and mostly Cobain's writing style will influence a few more generations to come. They'll be what punk was to my generation, everyone talked about how punk influenced them, but you couldn't hear it anyone's sound.

 

[Nick66]

This is a much more accurate portrayal of history than Nick's

You're also entitled to your "opinion" and "version" of history BVS.

Accurate or not.

 

[Saracene]

The title of the thread is IMO a tad misleading, as the winners are determined by the Q readers and not the writers/staff of the magazine itself. It just basically means that a great lot of Q readers really like U2; I doubt that influence or innovation or whatever factored in much.

 

[OpenG180]

Greatest act in the last 25 years? Yes.
Most influential? No. That would be Nirvana and some Rap-Hip-Hop act.
And even though Zoo Tv was groundbreaking and influential as a live act, DM's Violation Tour came before and U2 "stole" a lot from them. And Steel Wheels Tour was an influence too in terms of how big a live show can be.
So even in the live aspect, you have the Stones being even more influential than U2, IMO.

 

[LUNEDEMINUIT]

I will never argue that U2 as musicians are on par with any number of other members of other rock bands. They aren't. So if you want to argue that radiohead can play their instruments better? ya got me.

U2 have always been greater than the sum of their parts. Eno and Lanios certainly have a lot to due with the band shaping their sound and getting out of being pigeonholed into any one genre or style.

They want to be big. They've never argued that. Their biggest fear was becoming some washed up lounge act struggling in vegas to pay the bills.

Acts like radiohead and pearl jam made a clear, conscious decision to pull themselves out if the mainstream. They were also bands from the 90s, right after Kurt, in an ever changing social climate that cloud eat someone alive if they weren't ready for it.

So radiohead may be more influential amongst music junkies and insiders and more artsy types... and you're probably right. And they're probably better at playing their instruments. But because of the conscious decision in direction that they themselves decided to take, they aren't even in the same stratosphere that U2 are in when it comes to global reach and influence over a massive audience.

Many bands go the route u2 have gone. You can count the ones who's success can rival that of u2 on one hand. And they all have one thing in common. They've all been pretty damned good for a pretty damned long time. And even then, nobody has had the length that u2 have.

So if that's not greatness to you, then there's no reason to further continue this conversations because we clearly have differing opinions on the definition of the word.

Fair enough.I guess it's all come's down to which adjectif has priority in the definition of the word greatness:Bigger or better.There is no denial that U2 have been the biggest act in the last 25 years.And this is where numbers are important (records sale,tickets sale and radio hits) when you want to define that category.But other bands have been "Better" act and i took the Radiohead exemple because they represent the perfect package that define that category or adjectif.And there, you just can't measure it up with numbers,there, you have to put credibility, creativity musicianship ahead to records sale,tickets sale,ect...

And like i have stated,U2,in 2011, are a different animal than Radiohead, so it doesn't provent me to be a huge fan of U2,witnessing them live since the unforgettable fire tour.I even took a Red zone ticket(325$,thankyouverymuch) for a 360 show....and a great show it was.

I just wish the band would be aiming for credibility like they did from 1987 to 1993 instead being obsessed with being on the radio like they are since "All that you...."maybe those days are over,maybe i'm nostalgic.But i think U2 should aim higher than just be Bon Jovi or the Stones,because they proved it in that 87'-93' windown that they can.

I don't believe it makes me a Radiohead or Arcade fire troll to say or wish that.I like Beautiful day or vertigo as much as the next average u2 fan there is,but Zooropa(as an exemple) gives me more pleasure to my ears.

I want U2 to be the better act,not the biggest.Credibility over radio airplay,

**BTW,thank you for not making personal attacks on my opinion compared to the others who have done in here.**It's appreciate.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

but u2 are more than just huge... and please don't include bon jovi in there... bon jovi have not touched u2's consistent level of success...

but u2 have 25+ years of critical success as well. most of their albums get good reviews. say what you will about how to dismantle an atomic bomb, but that album mattered in the cultural mainstream, largely because of vertigo. that song and it's connection with the iPod helped bring the mainstream into a different way of buying and listening to mainstream. it was a cultural significant moment, 25 years into the band's career.

they have put themselves into the discussion with the beatles and the stones and the greatest acts of all time because they were able to be massively popular without shitting all over their credibility, and up until no line on the horizon, still put out records that mattered in the cultural landscape.

no line didn't matter, which is why they're probably all aloof right now with trying to figure out what to do.

 

[BVS]

Fair enough.I guess it's all come's down to which adjectif has priority in the definition of the word greatness:Bigger or better.There is no denial that U2 have been the biggest act in the last 25 years.And this is where numbers are important (records sale,tickets sale and radio hits) when you want to define that category.But other bands have been "Better" act and i took the Radiohead exemple because they represent the perfect package that define that category or adjectif.And there, you just can't measure it up with numbers,there, you have to put credibility, creativity musicianship ahead to records sale,tickets sale,ect...

And like i have stated,U2,in 2011, are a different animal than Radiohead, so it doesn't provent me to be a huge fan of U2,witnessing them live since the unforgettable fire tour.I even took a Red zone ticket(325$,thankyouverymuch) for a 360 show....and a great show it was.

I just wish the band would be aiming for credibility like they did from 1987 to 1993 instead being obsessed with being on the radio like they are since "All that you...."maybe those days are over,maybe i'm nostalgic.But i think U2 should aim higher than just be Bon Jovi or the Stones,because they proved it in that 87'-93' windown that they can.

I don't believe it makes me a Radiohead or Arcade fire troll to say or wish that.I like Beautiful day or vertigo as much as the next average u2 fan there is,but Zooropa(as an exemple) gives me more pleasure to my ears.

I want U2 to be the better act,not the biggest.Credibility over radio airplay,

**BTW,thank you for not making personal attacks on my opinion compared to the others who have done in here.**It's appreciate.

But you're still using terms like 'credibility' without any sense of measure or definition. How is Radiohead more credible than U2, because their goals are different?

I think you lost a lot of credibility in this thread by making an argument that albums like War, UF, or ATYCLB aren't influential but that somehow Amnesiac or King of Limbs are. It came off as fan-boyish and simply untrue if you look at all the bands that have listed these albums as influencing them.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

there's something to be said for being able to write a song that a vast number of people, across all demographics and musical tastes, can appreciate.

u2 have done that on any number of occasion throughout their career. that isn't "credible?"

artsy, experimental stuff doesn't always equal good. it can lead to some really amazing things that push the boundaries of art, but it can also lead to a steaming pile of pretensions dog crap, especially when you set out to be artsy and experimental and purposely deny any song that may sound too "commercial."

 

[LUNEDEMINUIT]

But you're still using terms like 'credibility' without any sense of measure or definition. How is Radiohead more credible than U2, because their goals are different?

I think you lost a lot of credibility in this thread by making an argument that albums like War, UF, or ATYCLB aren't influential but that somehow Amnesiac or King of Limbs are. It came off as fan-boyish and simply untrue if you look at all the bands that have listed these albums as influencing them.

How about the label "sell out" that U2 have been tag with for the past 10 years or so.Have you ever heard Radiohead (for exemple) to be associated with that label from the music industry or critics?...nope.Thats part of the credibility.When music fans hear Vertigo the raio ,they connect it as the ipod song for the most part.

 

[ElectricalVoice]

Just an example:



It's Depressing, But True - U2 Are The Most Influential Band Of The Last 25 Years

....

Still, the singer’s dismay at being down to his last £280 million will have been offset by the happier news that his band’s 1991 album ‘Achtung Baby’ has been named the most influential record of the past 25 years by US indie bible Spin - just ahead of Prince’s ‘Sign O’ The Times and The Smiths’ ‘The Queen Is Dead’.

...

But once I’d reset my face from a “beg pardon?” grimace, I realised that the Spin team were entirely correct. Rather than diminishing over time, U2’s influence has grown with each decade. Trouble is, that’s a cause for angst, not celebration.

With ‘Achtung Baby’, U2 set the default mode for the next two decades of guitar music - sonically expansive yet lyrically evasive, “emotive” yet essentially meaningless. Today, thanks to U2, all bands with vague designs on the mainstream sound broadly the same.

Coldplay, Keane, Snow Patrol, even the reborn Take That – all the biggest selling acts of the past ten years have adopted a U2-like sheen.

Noel Gallagher learned how to write anthems by listening to U2. Early tunes like ‘Live Forever’ and ‘Slide Away’ are essentially ‘One’ with a northern accent, communal, arms-aloft ballads that sound big and impassioned but frustratingly aren’t about anything at all.

...

In those verses lie the first traces of the billowing clouds of bullshit that would later waft from the vocal cords of Chris Martin, Liam Gallagher, Gary Lightbody et al.

Then there’s the guitar sound, of course. The Edge’s trademark chime, like a lot of the motifs that defined the 1980s, has never quite gone out of fashion. Today you still hear it everywhere, employed by every serious young band in possession of a delay pedal, from Chapel Club to Delphic.

It's Depressing, But True - U2 Are The Most Influential Band Of The Last 25 Years - In The NME Office - NME.COM - The world's fastest music news service, music videos, interviews, photos and free stuff to win



And this guy seems to hate U2.

 

[powerhour24]

U2 manages to adapt and change styles continuously all while taking very real individual feelings and moments and making them nearly universal in their lyrics, in terms of message and emotional connection, is there really any argument that another band is more 'credible'? Even when they're being sardonic or dark they're inherently earnest. Sure Radiohead have been more esoteric in terms of musical style as of late, but Yorke's vocals have been nearly indiscernable since the end of the 90's and they don't touch you on anything more than a primal level. Sure Coldplay have been on the radio more in the past 6 years, but do you want to argue that they're more 'real', than U2?

Also, Radiohead's only been a 'credible' band since 1995, we're going to define the last 25 years and discount the first 9 of them? Let's see where RH's influence is in 2020, by choice they've contracted their reach with each of their last few albums and I don't think they plan on changing that approach any time soon, Creep may very well be their only well known song outside of their core fans by the time they're done.

Look, I'm not saying RH aren't great musicians, but let's step out of the internet music nerdom for a moment and look at how the world at large perceives them, like I said, since Creep 90% of people probably couldn't name one song by them, if they've heard anything about RH in the past decade it's likely the name-your-own-price scheme of In Rainbows. If people want to bring Nirvana into the conversation at least they had an impact on a very, very wide audience, but even their reach was mostly concentrated in the United States alone.

 

[powerhour24]

Just an example:



It's Depressing, But True - U2 Are The Most Influential Band Of The Last 25 Years

....

Still, the singer’s dismay at being down to his last £280 million will have been offset by the happier news that his band’s 1991 album ‘Achtung Baby’ has been named the most influential record of the past 25 years by US indie bible Spin - just ahead of Prince’s ‘Sign O’ The Times and The Smiths’ ‘The Queen Is Dead’.

...

But once I’d reset my face from a “beg pardon?” grimace, I realised that the Spin team were entirely correct. Rather than diminishing over time, U2’s influence has grown with each decade. Trouble is, that’s a cause for angst, not celebration.

With ‘Achtung Baby’, U2 set the default mode for the next two decades of guitar music - sonically expansive yet lyrically evasive, “emotive” yet essentially meaningless. Today, thanks to U2, all bands with vague designs on the mainstream sound broadly the same.

Coldplay, Keane, Snow Patrol, even the reborn Take That – all the biggest selling acts of the past ten years have adopted a U2-like sheen.

Noel Gallagher learned how to write anthems by listening to U2. Early tunes like ‘Live Forever’ and ‘Slide Away’ are essentially ‘One’ with a northern accent, communal, arms-aloft ballads that sound big and impassioned but frustratingly aren’t about anything at all.

...

In those verses lie the first traces of the billowing clouds of bullshit that would later waft from the vocal cords of Chris Martin, Liam Gallagher, Gary Lightbody et al.

Then there’s the guitar sound, of course. The Edge’s trademark chime, like a lot of the motifs that defined the 1980s, has never quite gone out of fashion. Today you still hear it everywhere, employed by every serious young band in possession of a delay pedal, from Chapel Club to Delphic.

It's Depressing, But True - U2 Are The Most Influential Band Of The Last 25 Years - In The NME Office - NME.COM - The world's fastest music news service, music videos, interviews, photos and free stuff to win

Other than being anthemic, how exactly is U2 akin to Britpop? If any of their oeuvre was influential on that set it was The Joshua Tree. Oasis, Coldplay, et. al sounding like Achtung Baby? Please.

 

[powerhour24]

This thread started because of Q's award. There are two things up for debate here: whether or not U2 is actually the greatest act of the last 25 years, and secondly what goes into defining "greatest" (influence, sales/popularity, critical respect, industry awards) and how those things should be weighed against each other.

Nick actually didn't really disagree with the initial sentiment of Q's award; he was the first to reply in this thread and called it an "accurate assessment". He later expounded on those ideas and said something about The Clash in comparison to U2 and how the former are far more influential, and brought up the "redefining a genre" and "breaking real ground".

And that's where my issues begin. Because if Zooropa isn't breaking new ground, I don't know what does in music in the last 25 years. And while U2 may not be credited with redefining a genre, I think Powerhour's point above is that they were too busy creating new hybrids and exploring new avenues every few years to really define anything specific. And it's not U2's fault that few artists were able to follow them successfully down any of the road they've taken. Radiohead is one, but they seem fairly limited by comparison, no?

That, to me, is where their real greatness lies. No single trend in music is going to be traceable back to U2, and that's ok. But in the future, when people look at this band's catalogue, they're going to be like "Holy shit, this is all the work of one band? The same four guys? Look at how many styles they tried out!"

There is no other band in history I can think of that has legitimately covered this much range.

I'm glad one of the few things we can agree on around here is subject of the forums in the first place.

 

[BVS]

How about the label "sell out" that U2 have been tag with for the past 10 years or so.Have you ever heard Radiohead (for exemple) to be associated with that label from the music industry or critics?...nope.Thats part of the credibility.When music fans hear Vertigo the raio ,they connect it as the ipod song for the most part.

The most overused and overabused term ever used. It means nothing. People called u2 sellouts when they did MTV, they called them sellouts when they started doing remixes, they used it when they started incorporating electronic music... So that term means nothing to me.

I honestly think using a song in twilight is more of a sellout than not getting paid for an iPod commercial.

I think at the end of the what YOU are really talking about is that Radiohead have more streetcred with YOU. And that's fine but to pretend that u2 hasn't been more influential than Radiohead, to pretend that RH themselves weren't influenced by u2, and to continue to stand behind your original statement is absurd. Only a paid employee of atease would agree with that statement.

 

[ElectricalVoice]

Other than being anthemic, how exactly is U2 akin to Britpop? If any of their oeuvre was influential on that set it was The Joshua Tree. Oasis, Coldplay, et. al sounding like Achtung Baby? Please.

Well, I didn't write this. Someone asked for an example earlier in this thread.

 

[lazarus]

Greatest act in the last 25 years? Yes.
Most influential? No. That would be Nirvana and some Rap-Hip-Hop act.
And even though Zoo Tv was groundbreaking and influential as a live act, DM's Violation Tour came before and U2 "stole" a lot from them. And Steel Wheels Tour was an influence too in terms of how big a live show can be.
So even in the live aspect, you have the Stones being even more influential than U2, IMO.

...and Pink Floyd had big, conceptual shows before the Stones did. This isn't about U2 having the biggest show ever, or the first one to have anything thematic, or implementing technology. What was new was using the tech to comment on itself, and the satellite hookups provided occasionally spontaneous moments unheard of in the concert format. It was musical theatre, it was modern art (like an oversized video installation), it was political.

I saw Depeche Mode tour for Violator, and I don't recall there being anything very unique or new about that show, esp compared to what they did on the following Devotional tour.

 

[OpenG180]

...and Pink Floyd had big, conceptual shows before the Stones did. This isn't about U2 having the biggest show ever, or the first one to have anything thematic, or implementing technology. What was new was using the tech to comment on itself, and the satellite hookups provided occasionally spontaneous moments unheard of in the concert format. It was musical theatre, it was modern art (like an oversized video installation), it was political.

I saw Depeche Mode tour for Violator, and I don't recall there being anything very unique or new about that show, esp compared to what they did on the following Devotional tour.

World Violation had some visual aspects that U2 later used on Zoo TV (screens etc). But, of course, Zoo TV was bigger, better, bolder and much more groundbreaking.

 

[OpenG180]

BTW, where did you see DM? I saw them at Dodger Stadium. Electronic was the opener... I guess it was the first time they played live... Great show.

 

[BVS]

What aspects did they use? Video screens?

 

[OpenG180]

What aspects did they use? Video screens?

Yes. And the whole "vibe" i thought was similar to Zoo TV.
And, back in the day, i remember reading interviews with both Gahan and Gore talking about how they thought Violation influenced Zoo TV. But they both had Anton, so it's pretty normal...

 

[BVS]

Yes. And the whole "vibe" i thought was similar to Zoo TV.
And, back in the day, i remember reading interviews with both Gahan and Gore talking about how they thought Violation influenced Zoo TV. But they both had Anton, so it's pretty normal...

I don't remember any similar vibe. Other bands used monitors before DM, to understand zootv, you have to understand how they used them.

 

[OpenG180]

I don't remember any similar vibe. Other bands used monitors before DM, to understand zootv, you have to understand how they used them.

I like to believe i understand both Zoo TV and Violation Tour.

 

[BVS]

I like to believe i understand both Zoo TV and Violation Tour.

Well I was trying to get you to elaborate beyond, they both used monitors, that's all...

 

[PhilsFan]

You believe greatness is measure with numbers?.Then you make the point that Coldplay is greater than U2 in the last 5-6 years...if i follow that logic

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying greatness isn't measured by your opinion on credibility any more than it's measured by numbers. You seem to think your thoughts on credibility are much more reliable than numbers. My point is that neither are reliable.

 

[OpenG180]

Well I was trying to get you to elaborate beyond, they both used monitors, that's all...

Maybe you're right. That was a long time ago anyway... In my mind they had more in common than just the video screens but maybe my recollections are not quite accurate.
Anyway, Zoo TV was the best tour ever.