Thing is in 97 u2 were in their 30's, they were very much about new music. They were still seen as a current band, new music was getting played on all current radio stations. They were apart of the MTV culture. Kids were listening to u2 and getting into u2. They were relevant. Pop did 10 million copies didn't it, had hit singles.
Well, U2 were in their 30s in 1997, but I would say their interest in new music was about the same as it is today. They were viewed as an older band, but still had radio and MTV attached at the hip willing to at least play whatever they released to those formats, at least initially. But at the start of 1997, U2 had been away for a while and left on what many consider to be a sour note with the Zooropa album which at the time was not well liked and sold well below what Achtung Baby, Rattle And Hum and Joshua Tree had the time. At least this was the case in the United States. Zooropa was not an album that had brought in significant numbers of new fans, so in way, many people viewed the new U2 album as a comeback album. The massive numbers of new fans that were coming on board every year from 1987 through the start of 1993 had stopped. They were indeed relevant but had taken a bit of a misstep with Zooropa. So the new album POP was needed to get them back on track. Unfortunately for the band, it did the opposite. The album sold 1.3 million copies by the end of 1997 in the United States which was apart of the global total of 5.5 million by the end of 1997. Today's POP's numbers stand at 6 million worldwide with 1.6 million of those sales from the USA.
The U2 brand overall was weakened by Pop and Popmart. As Larry said in the VH1 Legends show about the band in late 1998, "most bands would not of survived what they had just gone through with Pop. The album and tour did not bring in any significant number of new fans and seems to have pushed most casual fans away from the band provided they had not already left the train after Zooropa. The only reason Discotheque made the top 10 was that the POP album had yet to be released yet and the single was out and it was one of the first new things by U2 you could buy. They sold 50,000 singles that first week and came straight in at #2 on the sales chart which feeds into the HOT 100 chart. In terms of airplay though it peaked at #22. Those averaged out for a #10 entry on the HOT 100, but after that first week it dropped like a rock. Staring at the Sun actually received more airplay even though it did not chart as high on the Hot 100. Staring at the Sun was a minor hit. Last Night On Earth failed to make the top 50 though and IGWSHA and Please did not chart.
The band was in a much weaker position then, late 90s. Their resurgence and rise back to mega popularity with their new music occurred after the year 2000 in the 00s when the band were in their 40s. New and old fans got back on the train during the 00s.
Fast forward 20 years and u2 are in their 50's
, Bono is a fairly hated figure, u2 are seen as a vintage act and all most people say is Joshua tree this Joshua tree that. Nothing the bands done wrong, it's just age has caught up with them. Happens to everyone.
Bono is certainly a better known figure which amazing considering how well known he was in 1997. Obviously that level of recognition and his public work outside of U2 has generated some hostility. Because the past few albums have not generated much interest like theirs 00s work did, plus the fact that the band are older now, means yes that they are now tagged with that vintage act lable more than at any time in their career. Its much harder to make a comeback now with their new music and there is resistance to any sort of a comeback as they get older. Yet their comeback in the 00s succeeded when the odds were against them then.
The band in reality are not old at all, but the perception in the music industry where the average age of most artist with songs in the HOT 100 is 25 is very different. 40 is unfairly seen as over the hill, and you'll rarely see many artist over the age of 40 getting significant airplay for their new music. U2 successfully beat that fact in the 00s, but unfortunately in the 10s the going has got a lot more difficult. They are sort of parked with the old fanbase that stayed with them through the POP days, but the new and old fans that came back on in the 00s seem to have left the train.
That's the casual view, obviously people like us are well into their new stuff. Soe has nearly done a million copies. Demands still there to a certain extent but in general they aren't about new music.
U2 don't need a new record to tour, they haven't for a while now. Their in that bracket of bands.that's just the way it is. They could release a record 100 times better then the Joshua tree but people wouldn't care apart from us fans.
Which for me makes it an even more of an achievement that there creating records as good as soe even though let's face it they really don't need to. They still want i
If they ever want to see the demand levels they had on the 360 tour, and Vertigo Tours, they will need to release new music that becomes popular in brings in more people. The demand to see them on the Songs Of Innocence tour was huge drop off from 360. Similar to the drop off seen between Zoo TV and Popmart.
Sure they can tour, but they can't tour and see record or equal to record attendance numbers unless it is with a new album that is received really well by the public. Doing a nostalgia tour with the Joshua Tree might be the only exception, but that's been done now.
