Legends or not (yet) ?
- Thread starter U2girl
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
gman
New Yorker
According to the official RIAA site........wacko jacko has sold 60M albums in total in USA......10M more than the yoo-twoers.
xaviMF22
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
mysterious_jen said:
they are not bigger than Pink Floyd
Caroni
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
if they're not Legends, then just what does one have to do to become a Legend?
the only thing that holds U2 back is the excessive nostalgia for the 60s/70s as a time when music "mattered" more. and maybe it did. but that's not U2's fault.
the only thing that holds U2 back is the excessive nostalgia for the 60s/70s as a time when music "mattered" more. and maybe it did. but that's not U2's fault.
Screwtape2
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
But wasn't it those artists who made the music matter? By that logic, U2 can't be legends because they didn't change music or elevate it.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Screwtape2 said:
Not exactly.
The audience and record companies hold the majority of blame for this.
There are still bands who want to make music matter, but companies don't care. And the audience is pretty indifferent.
Bono's said many times they wouldn't have made it in today's music environment, no one develops artist or allow artists to develop anymore.
Screwtape2
Blue Crack Addict
BonoVoxSupastar said:
That is what it was like in the 50 and early 60's too. Artists like the Beatles, Pink Floyd and so on allowed unique artists to be signed. More than that the subject matter and universal themes employed by those artists created the sense that music mattered. U2 have never been able to put those things across to the masses.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Screwtape2 said:
You may want to take a brief music history lesson. The likes of Johnny Cash or Chuck Berry weren't pop sensations. Both signed regardless of perceptions and racism. The 50's were full of musicians that mattered, artists were signed to grow.The 60's were jam packed with bands. Bands that mattered way before Pink Floyd.
Screwtape2 said:
I think that probably has to be one of the most WTF comments I've seen in interference. Are you serious? You ask anyone to name a band in the last 3 decades that made social commentaries, spoke of spirituality, universal themes, or personal tragedies and U2 would be on the top of that list. Look at any bio on the internet and I'll be suprised if you can find one that doesn't mention the subject matter or universal themes of U2's music.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Screwtape2 said:
so is, say, Nabokov less of a writer because he isn't Shakespeare?
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Screwtape2 said:
i would posit that U2's audience largely believes that there are things -- Greenpeace, Amnesty, ONE, just to name the obvious -- that matter more than music, that the music is just a jumping off point as opposed to an end. Bono will never have the cultural impact of John Lennon; but he has surely surpassed Lennon in terms of tangible political influence.
i think the question becomes, then, does any of this matter a shit? or is it only/just about the music?
Screwtape2
Blue Crack Addict
BonoVoxSupastar said:
The 60's were jam packed with bands. Bands that mattered way before Pink Floyd.
I think that probably has to be one of the most WTF comments I've seen in interference. Are you serious? You ask anyone to name a band in the last 3 decades that made social commentaries, spoke of spirituality, universal themes, or personal tragedies and U2 would be on the top of that list. Look at any bio on the internet and I'll be suprised if you can find one that doesn't mention the subject matter or universal themes of U2's music.
The 50's weren't filled with musicians that mattered. Most of the artists that were of musical importance were signed because they had a very similiar sound to what was popular. It was about money not the music like it is today. The early 60's were like that too.
You misunderstand what I was saying about U2. The band has made music with those themes and subject matter but have not been able to affect the masses with it. They have never been able to energize the masses with a message or make them contemplate big questions.
Screwtape2
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511 said:
You said it held them back from legend status but that it wasn't the band's fault. U2 has had the ability to make music that "mattered" in the way the music of the late 60's and 70's mattered they just never did. So you've actually answered your own question with a yes.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
The music industry has been and always will be about money, there are few occupations or industries that aren't.Screwtape2 said:
That being said, there were many more risks being taken with signing musicians in the 50's than there are today. Hell even Elvis was somewhat of a risk, he was probably one of the first "controversial" artist. He was a white guy singing black music, this didn't go over too well with the parents at the time. This was before signing a Marilyn Manson was guaranteed money maker.
Bands were allowed to grow then. If you don't sell the way the company expects you to these days, you're simply dropped.
Screwtape2 said:
Ok, other than the 60's when has that ever really occured? The 60's was a unique time, the music reflected the times. It wasn't the other way around, the music didn't shape the times.
catlhere
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Why should U2 be compared to 60's music when they aren't a 60's band? Is it a pre-requisite to be formed in the 60's to be considered legendary? It's astonishing someone could argue with a straight face that U2 can't be legends or have never made music that "mattered."
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Screwtape2 said:
well, maybe i should have been more clear, but what i meant to say was that the only thing that prevents the answer to the question from being a resouding YES is the fact that they didn't come of age in the 1960s.
so, no, i didn't answer the question. i'm wondering why it's even a question to begin with.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
BonoVoxSupastar said:
this gets at my point.
it's more the circumstance surrounding the bands of the 60s -- yes, they were important, but these bands didn't get the US in Vietnam, didn't start the feminist movement, didn't start the Civil Rights movement -- created a soundtrack to a momentous period, thus imbuing the music with a sense of purpose and urgency that it doesn't necessarily have without it's context. certainly music was a part of all of this, but music wasn't the genesis of the social upheval.
BoyStupidBoy88
The Fly
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 70
Legends, baby.
MullenGirl
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Most definitely living legends. (my humble opinion 
)
)
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Latent racism in music. Kind of like many, many years later with Eminem or Justin Timberlake or Britney, except Elvis had talent and didn't need big time producers covering his back all the time.
JCOSTER
ONE love, blood, life
Legendary....especially Bono. I think in the last 7 years or so he rose to being a legend.
The Sad Punk
Blue Crack Addict
I'm going to be blunt and say the last four shouldn't even be listed next to the Beatles. Not even the Stones. The only 60s band that I think frankly matched the Beatles in any way was the Beach Boys (who I personally prefer).
I'm not sure exactly how one would define musical 'legends', but if this is just rock music we're talking about, then I think it's pretty clear with their successes - critically and commercially - that U2 are rock 'legends'.
'Legends' is such a silly term, though.
Well to me a legend is someone that has classic songs and strongly influences the following generations. Someone that leaves a big impact on the music, like the bands mentioned in my first post.
For me, I'd like one more album like JT or AB. Then I think they'd be entitled to be named alongside such acts.
For me, I'd like one more album like JT or AB. Then I think they'd be entitled to be named alongside such acts.
DevilsShoes
War Child
JCOSTER said:
Yes I think you're right there JCOSTER, since ATYCLB I think Bono has had more cultural relevance than he ever had in the past. His involvment with Jubilee 2000 and Make Poverty History, plus being able to call up Blair and Bush whenever he wants has meant that his presence today is more significant and important than ever, he's more than just the singer in a rock band he's acquired a far greater relevance. Which when you think about it is a very hard thing to do, if he keeps going he'll be up there with the Lennons, Dylans and Elvis' of the world in terms of cultural icons.
It's very difficult to compare U2 with the Beatles, the latter actually went a good way to inventing rock music, which I think ultimately will always count for more, very tough for any subsequent band to compete with that level of achievement.
Last edited:
Yes U2 are legends and were the only act in Rock History to have a #1 hit at the same time they entered the Rock Hall Of Fame. U2 are legends for probably being the best Live act over an extended period of time, they would blow The Beatles or Pink Floyd off the stage, and I actually have seen Pink Floyd live.
As far as consistantly being in the music scene there is nobody that matches U2s record of consistancy. If this doesnt make them legends nothing ever will.
Did U2 elevate music for their fans I am sure they did, otherwise they wouldnt be here or shouldnt be here.
As far as consistantly being in the music scene there is nobody that matches U2s record of consistancy. If this doesnt make them legends nothing ever will.
Did U2 elevate music for their fans I am sure they did, otherwise they wouldnt be here or shouldnt be here.
vaz02
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
The day u2 stormed Live Aid was the day they became legends in a vast majority of the publics eye.
phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
The Sad Punk said:
In terms of success or talent? Because the Beach Boys, I believe, are the most overrated musicians in history.
schnumi
Refugee
Legends they are.
Similar threads
- Locked
