Is there nothing left?

[Whats The Story?]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there nothing left?

You contradict yourself, admitting you are not sure of overall UK sales figures for REM. ATYCLB debuted at #3 only in the USA but it sold better in its first week than POP's first week despite POP debuting at #1. It's all a matter of timing.

UK is only a small part of the world anyway.

REM's 5 million is not even in the POP ballpark figure, and to think POP was considered a commercial bomb-out for U2, it still handlity beat REM with a million to spare.

5 million for REM versus 10 million for Bon Jovi's Crush. Not even close.

Cheers,

J


The King Of POP

I'm comparing it to Bon Jovi's latest album, not Crush. Reveal had sold at least 300,000 in the UK before I couldn't find information on it....

For your information the UK is the second largest music-buying zone in the world too. And didn't POP do around 6million worldwide? Not too far from the 5 million of REM. Also, I'mnot saying REM are U2's comercial contemporaries anymore, I merely used their statistics to highlight why BON JOVI weren't U2's commercial contemporaries.

 

[Zoots]

Actually, I think this guy does like U2. I'd say he is a huge fan. His over-all knowledge of the band (exluding not knowing the exact release dates of War and UF) exemplify this. I just think he has a different perspective on U2 than most fans do. He is, after-all, a critic. His job is to be critical. And fair enough.

Totally agree with you, man.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Actually, to be fair (and to be fair to you as well, I'm not sure if you were saying this, but...), this critic wasn't actually saying ATYCLB sounded like JT. In fact, like you, he said the JT comparisons are wrong. He just said that ATYCLB is a distillation of the bands career. I agree to some extent with that, but I also believe that within that process, U2 made something entirely new. It's a soul record, in the traditional sense. Al Green, Otis Redding, John Lennon, Van Morrison kind of soul. U2 have never done that before.

Hi Michael,
I didn't actually read the article, so I expected I would be off base. I'm glad he didn't compare either the sound or the success of the 2 albums, so thats a plus for him I spose. My ramble was a bit aimless, much like it sounds this article perhaps was. I really should read it I guess! For me each album is always a new sound for them, there are smilarities sure, but people are just so harsh. I suppose i'm just whinging that people cannot accept they may not like something and leave it at that. Like someone said, it may have been you, he is a critic, and I guess its his job.

...More irrelevance from me...

 

[jick]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there nothing left?

I'm comparing it to Bon Jovi's latest album, not Crush. Reveal had sold at least 300,000 in the UK before I couldn't find information on it....

For your information the UK is the second largest music-buying zone in the world too. And didn't POP do around 6million worldwide? Not too far from the 5 million of REM. Also, I'mnot saying REM are U2's comercial contemporaries anymore, I merely used their statistics to highlight why BON JOVI weren't U2's commercial contemporaries.

Even in my posts about U2 and Bon Jovi sepratated at birth, I never made any misrepresentations about both bands having the same sales figures. I just said Bon Jovi is what is closest to U2 in terms of commercial success. I even said something like Bon Jovi was a mini-U2.

My point is that Bon Jovi is closer to U2 commercially than REM is closer to U2 commercially. That is fact. Now, when you talk about the quality of music, that is not fact but a matter of preference. I personally prefer U2's music over REM and Bon Jovi but your mileage may vary.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[Salome]

I still don't see why this article "needed" to be written
if you want to research some facts (and even then mess some of them up) to give your own twist about a subject then there must be something more worthwhile out there than U2

the man is entitled to his opinion
but that doesn't mean it should be published
I still don't see why this article "needed" to be written

 

[brettig]

I still don't see why this article "needed" to be written
if you want to research some facts (and even then mess some of them up) to give your own twist about a subject then there must be something more worthwhile out there than U2

the man is entitled to his opinion
but that doesn't mean it should be published
I still don't see why this article "needed" to be written

All I can say is if journalists waited for an obvious need before they acted they'd be pretty awful journalists...the profession requires initiative, whether that means following a story no-one else is or going out on an opinionated limb ala here...

 

[doctorwho]

You included Springsteen but omitted Bon Jovi! That is way cool! I always thought Bon Jovi is New Jersey's best anyway! But some people have gone on record tosay Bon Jovi has failed to revolutionize their sound. I disagree though.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

For the most part, I was listing artists that have been critically and/or commercially loved in recent years. Bon Jovi doesn't really qualify.

 

[pop_mofo]

I'm not even going to read this article. Anyone who writes that U2 should retire clearly has too much time on his/her hands or has absolutely no musical ear, despite what he/she may think.

U2 just won a whopping 7 Grammy's for one album! They had a wildly successful tour that probably could still be going on if they wanted. Their last album just sold 11 million copies worldwide and with 4 million copies sold in the U.S., it became their best selling album since AB. "Electrical Storm" is becoming a hit based on hype alone! Those types of sales, anticipation AND awards show that U2 are hardly ready to retire.

Even if U2's more recent work isn't quite as "adventurous" as it was in the past, does it mean they should retire? U2 have changed their sound again and again - and succeeded. Aren't they allowed one album to sound, well, like themselves?? Have we come to expect SO much from U2 that we are disappointed when they dare sound like U2? And if so, why is it acceptable for other artists to repeat themselves over and over? Aerosmith, Enya, the Stones, Springsteen, Spears, Backstreet Boys, Eminem, Cher - all of these artists have failed to revolutionize their sound over the years. But they are loved critically and/or commercially. Why the double standard for U2?

When U2 decide to retire, I'll be happy to have had them in my life for as long as I did. But I'll let U2 make that decision, thank you, not some wannabe critic.

I hvae not read the article, nor do I intend to. I don't feel U2 should retire. however, I just wanted to respond to one thing that you said here.

I think the simple reason there is a double standard for U2 regarding relevance and critical appeal is because they bring it on themselves. This is not to say other artists don't but I can't think of another mainstream group that is as vocal as U2 when it comes to their relevance. They have said repeatedly that when it gets crap, they want out. They have also changed, and rebuilt themselves umpteen times to remain relevant. The band have made it such a priority that I think they open themselves up a bit to this kind of criticism.

I don't know. This is just my opinion. I hope U2 continue for several more years simply because they are blowing their own minds as well as mine.

Peace.

 

[Salome]

All I can say is if journalists waited for an obvious need before they acted they'd be pretty awful journalists...the profession requires initiative, whether that means following a story no-one else is or going out on an opinionated limb ala here...

I agree
but there must have been a story more wortwhile out there
at least I hope so

 

[Saracene]

Re: Re: Is there nothing left?

U2 have done everything, achieved everything. The Elevation Tour was a fitting farewell tour. No matter how talented they are, they are no longer as hungry as an upstart band trying to make a name for themselves. U2 was hungry in 1983 but not anymore. Even if they claim they still want to make great music - they really have already made it in the past. What else can they do that they haven't done? Nothing. What have they to prove? Nothing.

Many other younger bands are still hungry. They still want to be as successful as U2. I don't think the public's tastes are fickle. It's just that it's hard for a band to stay hungry, so they become commercialized and think too highly of themselves.

I am of the opinion that U2 is already done. As successful as ATYCLB was, it paled in comparison to the Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree ballpark sales figures. Nevertheless, U2 does not have any album in their bag that can sell that much --- none, zip, zero. U2 will NEVER ever get to release a 4 million US and 12 million worldwide mega-selling album. They just don't have it in them. And U2 will never relegate themselves to be a band that sells only 500,000 albums in America and 1.5 million worldwide. They'd rather retire if that's the case. They don't want to be like Depeche Mode, REM, or the Rolling Stones who are nothing but mere shadows of their old selves.

The end of U2 is near, so be prepared.

Cheers,

J

I think you kinda contradict yourself here. First you say that U2 aren't longer hungry for success and don't have anything to prove anymore, then you turn around and say that U2 would rather retire than be a band with mediocre sales. To me that doesn't sound like something a band that has lost all ambition and hunger would do. If you look at the ATYCLB promotion they did, it's clear that they were willing to work as hard as any young band trying to make a name for itself.

 

[anitram]

Re: Re: Is there nothing left?

U2 will NEVER ever get to release a 4 million US and 12 million worldwide mega-selling album. They just don't have it in them.

I don't know if that's true, but I certainly wouldn't resort to making grand pronouncements of knowing what U2 may or may not have in them.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Amazingly, I have just finished reading this thread in its entirety.

A few points:

1. I think the commercial sales angle is a tad irrelevant. U2's star may be on the wane, should they choose to keep their show on the road so to speak for the next decade or so. But they are seriously huge. Really, think about it. They are not going to turn into Bon Jovi or the Beach Boys tribute show. I just hope they don't turn into the Strolling Bones.

2. I am not even sure why I bother defending REM since I frankly didn't think much of their last album... but they're hardly a disgrace to their former selves. If U2 ended up like REM only with better songs, I wouldn't be particularly upset.

3. To the topic at hand, I doubt even U2 know the answer. I agree their interviews can be taken with a grain of salt since every release in the last ten years or more has been promised as a 'return to raw rock n roll', 'titanium soul', 'the end of the world' or something of the like. I may be wrong but I believe Bono heralded even Passengers as 'more Iggy Pop than Iggy Pop' (That was tongue in cheek, don't worry).

My feeling, on the purely creative side, is that if you wanted to be a rock and roll band that 'matters', there's no better time than now. But even that is subjective. I deny that Coldplay's latest was any more than tangentally political, but I love it even so. So what 'matters' anyway? Overtly political songwriting isn't really U2's forte anyway, in my opinion (that may sound an insane thing to say, but really, it's the exceptions that have proven the rule). Probably my final word would be that U2 'matter' because they marry the political with the spiritual. Or rather the political is the spiritual. Or sexual. Or something.

I think there's probably a great deal left, but don't expect it to measure up to past glories. In the same way that it's probably still worth listening to a new Lou Reed album even though...

I'm rambling worse than Angie here, so I'll just shut up now.

 

[flaming june]

Why is this being discussed... again???

I just wanted to say that this people who say U2 is over, that the end is near, or whatever, really piss me off! This is them:

U2 is really over: Ta-Daaaaa! I told you so! Mwahahahahaha!

U2 releases a new album and kicks ass: I'm so glad I was wrong, I love U2! Bla, bla, bla!

It's like those preachers who set dates for the end of the world. When they miss, they just say it's because God has given us another chance They never lose!

 

[wertsie]

Why is this being discussed... again???

I just wanted to say that this people who say U2 is over, that the end is near, or whatever, really piss me off! This is them:

U2 is really over: Ta-Daaaaa! I told you so! Mwahahahahaha!

U2 releases a new album and kicks ass: I'm so glad I was wrong, I love U2! Bla, bla, bla!

It's like those preachers who set dates for the end of the world. When they miss, they just say it's because God has given us another chance They never lose!

That's the perfect anology!!!