A thought about U2 from a SPIN reader

[One Tree Still]

(paraphrased) From a letter to the editor...

"U2 used to create culture, now they just seem to glom onto it"

Your thoughts?

Incidentally, in a non-related poll, SPIN readers voted U2 as the #1 band who should retire.

Pretty harsh, but is there some truth to it?

 

[HelloAngel]

I'm sure there's plenty of truth to the Readers Poll results. But then again, that is coming from SPIN's audience who might not be U2 fans or even listen to U2. SPIN as a magazine has a history of being anti-U2 or at the very least, very critical of U2.

 

[indra]

I love the word glom.

 

[yimou]

I see no reason why they should retire,,,

Anyway, if U2 retired now then everybody including Spin magazine would properly be talking about a possible reunion. This happens everytime a great band retires.

 

[Axver]

I see no reason why they should retire,,,

Anyway, if U2 retired now then everybody including Spin magazine would properly be talking about a possible reunion. This happens everytime a great band retires.

Of course. In fact, I think the world, not just the U2 fan community, is filled with a gigantic pack of whiners. Let's say U2 announce their retirement tomorrow. Today: "Waaaa, U2 are soooo old, I wish they'd retire." Two days from now: "Waaaaaa, the legends of rock have retired, I wish they'd get back together!"

 

[MrBrau1]

Spin is still around?

 

[joerags]

I don't think SPIN is anti-U2. They put them on the cover at least twice. The first time, tney were proclaimed Best Band of the Year.

But I can understand how most people feel U2 should retire. They are not a top 40 band anymore. They really haven't had a hit song since One, I guess. Their last three albums (Pop, ATYCLB and HTDAAB) haven't really done well in terms of hit songs.

But IMO, those albums are really good. The songs are great. For a band who "should" retire, it's amazing that their latest album hit No. 1 and their concerts sell out like a bastard. They are not going to retire. As long as they sell albums and sell out shows, why should they retire?

I have come to recognize that U2 are a cult band. They have their die-hard fans like us Interlanders who will always stay loyal to them. I have stayed loyal to them since I was 12 years old; it's been 20 years now and counting.

 

[cmb737]

Spin is a fine work of jounalistic crap mostly. Not like its much finer cousin, Rolling Stone.

They are all shit. Sell your pop culture somewhere else.

 

[doctorwho]

But I can understand how most people feel U2 should retire. They are not a top 40 band anymore. They really haven't had a hit song since One, I guess. Their last three albums (Pop, ATYCLB and HTDAAB) haven't really done well in terms of hit songs.

Just a slight correction here... "Discotheque", "Staring at the Sun", "Beautiful Day" and "Vertigo" were all Top 40 hits in the U.S. with "Discotheque" entering the Top 10. "Vertigo" would've entered the Top 10 if Billboard had counted downloads (as they do now). Billboard started counting legal downloads several weeks after "Vertigo" peaked.

Prior to "Pop", "Zooropa" produced no Top 40 hits. AB produced and impressive 4, R&H only 2 and JT only 3. So "Pop" had as many Top 40 hits as R&H - when U2 was arguably at their "peak".

 

[doctorwho]

As for U2 retiring...

I'm not sure U2 ever "created culture". I'm not even sure what that means. I know of no ordinary people who saw U2 and suddenly dressed like they did or acted like they did. In contrast, this was true for artists like Madonna. U2 revived the political scene in the 80's and that may have seemed "fresh", but that's only because other bands did not focus on this area. However, as we all know, that was hardly new. ZOO TV was indeed great, but again Bowie and Pink Floyd had done similar things in the 90's. So again, where's the "creating culture" part?

Based on the success of the last album and tour, it seems TONS of fans are more than happy that U2 are still around. Given the success of the current album and the sold out tour, it seems these same fans - and more - are more than happy U2 are still around. And given that U2 can create a "Mofo" followed by a "Beautiful Day" and then a "Love and Peace or Else", I'd contend that U2's creativity is still high.

Lastly, given that U2 empowered the legal download world, becoming the first artist to truly advertise their work this way (and one of the reasons Billboard changed their charts to include downloads), I'd say U2 are "creating culture" more now than ever.

But then, I never thought SPIN readers were all that intelligent.

 

[TheFly84138]

who cares what anyone else thinks? if you like a band you like them, if not then that's cool too. U2 fans, for the most part, need to stop giving a shit about what anyone else thinks/says about U2.

 

[HelloAngel]

I don't think SPIN is anti-U2. They put them on the cover at least twice. The first time, tney were proclaimed Best Band of the Year.

I was more referring to how SPIN treated U2 in the 90s. They made up with U2 in the 2000's because it helps sell magazines.

 

[unosdostres14]

When most of the popular music in the country is ashlee simpson and lots of cRAP, i don't really worry much about people's opinion about u2.

 

[theu2fly]

People will think that U2 should retire, but U2 will amaze and wow audiences across the world with their upcoming tour. If U2 has made it 25 years, they can afford another 5 or 10 years.

 

[RademR]

Who was their competition in the poll? Bon Jovi, Aerosmith? I think if you ask people about "older" bands, the first thing they say is u2 because their getting older and they are still the biggest band in the world. So that's probably the popular pick because its so easy.

anyway, if you were in an "older" band, and just sold almost 10 millions records worldwide and sold out your tour in hours, would you think about retiring? Someone out there likes the new record...

 

[allbecauseofu2]

havn't had a hit since one ooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk. lol. yeah you guess? well you guessed wrong. vertigo is a hit, numb is a hit beatiful day is a hit, discotuqe is hit, hold thrill me is a hit, sweetest thing etc etc . i like when people say stuff about u2 bad or good and back it up with lies. i mean how can you say havn't had a hit since one? as far as spin goes. well they have prasied u2 before, i guess they go thru phases. u2 is the highest selling alterative band of all time. so if they retire so should cure, sonic youth, pearl jam, etc casue their not top 40 bands AT ALL! anymore. Has jick convinced everyone on his "u2 is going make a comeback casue mullen apolized" bs? witch he has now taken back. a band that sold this many copys this far of thier recent album should retire? sure they should. and kiss and posion and hackjobs like them should remain playing package tours with other shitty bands just to get a show going. (more in posions case, but kiss beyond done). i feel the people on this board need to realy learn to appreate stuff. don;t relize that HTDDAB has sales already that other bands would kill for at this age. i;m appreative the chili peppers last album at least went platium. thats a minor accomplshment. in the music you can big one sec and not be shit the next. so for anyone to do what u2 is doing is great. as far as this not had a hit since AB, casue another thread on here suggest a similar idea, well please tell me what your idea of a hit is? no album since AB has sold 8 million copys (us totals), so i guess a hit album has to sell that many to be a hit now. Pop was a hit, deal with it people. Is it huge hit or even a big hit? no. it's a decent hit. ands thats lowest of the abums since AB.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

As for U2 retiring...

I'm not sure U2 ever "created culture". I'm not even sure what that means. I know of no ordinary people who saw U2 and suddenly dressed like they did or acted like they did. In contrast, this was true for artists like Madonna. U2 revived the political scene in the 80's and that may have seemed "fresh", but that's only because other bands did not focus on this area. However, as we all know, that was hardly new. ZOO TV was indeed great, but again Bowie and Pink Floyd had done similar things in the 90's. So again, where's the "creating culture" part?

Based on the success of the last album and tour, it seems TONS of fans are more than happy that U2 are still around. Given the success of the current album and the sold out tour, it seems these same fans - and more - are more than happy U2 are still around. And given that U2 can create a "Mofo" followed by a "Beautiful Day" and then a "Love and Peace or Else", I'd contend that U2's creativity is still high.

Lastly, given that U2 empowered the legal download world, becoming the first artist to truly advertise their work this way (and one of the reasons Billboard changed their charts to include downloads), I'd say U2 are "creating culture" more now than ever.

Good points .

Also, I must wholeheartedly agree with this statement:

Originally posted by TheFly84138
U2 fans, for the most part, need to stop giving a shit about what anyone else thinks/says about U2.

Amen. Thank. You.

Angela

 

[allbecauseofu2]

but on here, its u2 fans saying stuff, and thats why we do care.

 

[LeafsNation]

I don't think SPIN is anti-U2. They put them on the cover at least twice. The first time, tney were proclaimed Best Band of the Year.

But I can understand how most people feel U2 should retire. They are not a top 40 band anymore. They really haven't had a hit song since One, I guess. Their last three albums (Pop, ATYCLB and HTDAAB) haven't really done well in terms of hit songs.

But IMO, those albums are really good. The songs are great. For a band who "should" retire, it's amazing that their latest album hit No. 1 and their concerts sell out like a bastard. They are not going to retire. As long as they sell albums and sell out shows, why should they retire?

I have come to recognize that U2 are a cult band. They have their die-hard fans like us Interlanders who will always stay loyal to them. I have stayed loyal to them since I was 12 years old; it's been 20 years now and counting.

Why are hit singles so important to you people? I'll say it again...Led Zep had only one hit their entire career, and is one of the most famous and respected bands of all time. Was Pink Floyd known for pumping out hit single after single? Queen? AC/DC? Who really cares about singles in this day and age when it's digital downloads that count the most anyways.

 

[TheFly84138]

Good points .

Also, I must wholeheartedly agree with this statement:



Amen. Thank. You.

Angela

You're welcome. I'm glad someone else sees it that way.

 

[Zoocoustic]

U2 haven't "created culture", IMO, but what they did do in the past was establish an aura of untouchability. That is to say, they were above basically everything that they now pander to. For example, these days they are on TV spots, late-night talk shows, award ceremonies - all the time. Back in the 80's and early 90's, U2 seemed to be above all of this...I remember thinking how they were so big that something like the Grammies or Letterman were beneath them. So that aspect of U2 definitely has changed.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

You're welcome. I'm glad someone else sees it that way.

Same here.

Also, good point, LeafsNation .

Angela

 

[U2girl]

Back in the 80's and early 90's, U2 seemed to be above all of this...I remember thinking how they were so big that something like the Grammies or Letterman were beneath them. So that aspect of U2 definitely has changed.

Yup, U2 didn't go to the Grammies when they won for Zooropa and JT, nor did they play MTV awards - the epitome of cool - in the 90's.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

As for U2 retiring...

I'm not sure U2 ever "created culture". I'm not even sure what that means. I know of no ordinary people who saw U2 and suddenly dressed like they did or acted like they did. In contrast, this was true for artists like Madonna. U2 revived the political scene in the 80's and that may have seemed "fresh", but that's only because other bands did not focus on this area. However, as we all know, that was hardly new. ZOO TV was indeed great, but again Bowie and Pink Floyd had done similar things in the 90's. So again, where's the "creating culture" part?

Based on the success of the last album and tour, it seems TONS of fans are more than happy that U2 are still around. Given the success of the current album and the sold out tour, it seems these same fans - and more - are more than happy U2 are still around. And given that U2 can create a "Mofo" followed by a "Beautiful Day" and then a "Love and Peace or Else", I'd contend that U2's creativity is still high.

Lastly, given that U2 empowered the legal download world, becoming the first artist to truly advertise their work this way (and one of the reasons Billboard changed their charts to include downloads), I'd say U2 are "creating culture" more now than ever.

But then, I never thought SPIN readers were all that intelligent.

By golly, I agree with doctorwho, especially with the only noticeable "cultures" that U2 could be credited with being the Boy-War era spiritual/ political posturing and the current IPod/ download deal.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

U2 haven't "created culture", IMO, but what they did do in the past was establish an aura of untouchability. That is to say, they were above basically everything that they now pander to. For example, these days they are on TV spots, late-night talk shows, award ceremonies - all the time. Back in the 80's and early 90's, U2 seemed to be above all of this...I remember thinking how they were so big that something like the Grammies or Letterman were beneath them. So that aspect of U2 definitely has changed.

Aura of untouchability????

I remember people teeing off on U2 and company b/c of Rattle & Hum and POP.... When I think of aura of untouchability, I think of someone like Jimi Hendrix but people still don't pull their punches on even Jimi. Hell, Jimi even opened for the Monkees... so I don't believe "pandering" is below any artist or even looked down upon.

 

[learn2kneel]

I thought it was funny that SPIN's editor said under the "band that should retire poll" something like: they've just released one of their best albums ever, but it seems that our readers still want U2 to retire, go figure. I'd also point to the Rolling Stone polls where U2 swept every category.

 

[bonosleftone]

I used to date Sarah Lewittinn lmaorofl

 

[STING2]

I don't think SPIN is anti-U2. They put them on the cover at least twice. The first time, tney were proclaimed Best Band of the Year.

But I can understand how most people feel U2 should retire. They are not a top 40 band anymore. They really haven't had a hit song since One, I guess. Their last three albums (Pop, ATYCLB and HTDAAB) haven't really done well in terms of hit songs.

But IMO, those albums are really good. The songs are great. For a band who "should" retire, it's amazing that their latest album hit No. 1 and their concerts sell out like a bastard. They are not going to retire. As long as they sell albums and sell out shows, why should they retire?

I have come to recognize that U2 are a cult band. They have their die-hard fans like us Interlanders who will always stay loyal to them. I have stayed loyal to them since I was 12 years old; it's been 20 years now and counting.

ATYCLB is one of the biggest 15 biggest selling albums of the decade with 12 million copies sold worldwide. HTDAAB is on track to equal or top that figure. With the exception of the Rolling Stones, U2 is the top drawing concert artist in the world. The purpose of hit songs is to sell albums and U2 are just as hot in the album selling arena as they have ever been in their career.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

cult band? its pretty fucking huge cult band.

 

[caragriff]

cult band? its pretty fucking huge cult band.

well, that is something that the band themsleves have said--u2 are the biggest cult band in the world. a lot of people know them and are into them (and a lot of people dislike them), but there is a subculture of people who feel a connection to the band that is IMO unlike relationships fans normally have with bands--be it musical, emotional, spiritual, whatever. there is an underground connection to u2 among fans that is very different than the perception other people have of the band.

a lot of people (such as those voting in the spin poll) just see bono on tv or in the news for a few seconds witha smirk or a peace sign--and maybe they are sick of seeing his mug or pissed he isn't criticizing bush, or angry he did a commercial--whatever. U2 has been very very in your face marketing this album, so a backlash is only natural. that's what pop culture is about these days--see whose face is up on the screen and throw whatever you can at it.

one of the letters in spin this month has a reader basically saying bono is pretentious and wrong to say his lobbying with DATA precluded him from having an opinion on the U.S election. the reader actually called bono "morally bankrupt."

a lot of people are not into the cult of u2 and they just don't want to hear what bono has to say. i think this influences anti-u2 feeling as much or more than the music.