U2, Last of the supergroups?

[Screwtape2]

I think you have it switched, PJ never had it in them; they could never get back to making albums like Ten. Metallica never seemed to want to expand musically but some of thier songs showed where they might have gone.

 

[Yahweh]

My definition of a supergroup is very simple, they have to have sold over 60 million albums world wide. How many bands have actually done this. Not that many.

So my list would include these groups as being truely super:

Beatles
Led Zeppelin
Eagles
Pink Floyd
AC/DC
Rolling Stones
Aerosmith
Metallica
U2
Van Halen
Fleetwood Mac

And thats it, and how many of those are from this era, nobody except U2.

To sell 60 million albums lots of people have to know about you and in the end that isnt going to happen today.

 

[Screwtape2]

The only issue I might take with you argument is the 60 million part. I mean certainly it is fair but sometimes bands have thier moment and kind of fade away before they can sell that many. Take The Police for example, in the early 80's there was no band bigger than them but they only made five albums. Overall I really like your list.

 

[Yahweh]

I wouldnt call The Police a Super Group but they are one step below one:

Here is a list of groups I would consider to have got close to the status but didnt make it for various reasons including breaking up far before their time.

The Police
Guns N Roses
Dire Straits
Journey
Chicago
Def Leppard
Bon Jovi
Queen
Boston
The Doors
Bee Gees
REM
Inxs
Nirvana

Again none of these bands that are listed are from this era ones that I would consider to have the greatest chance of getting there but never or havent yet are only a few:

Red Hot Chilli Peppers
Green Day
Coldplay
Pearl Jam

That is it and I dont think any of these bands could get into the top list but they could get into the honourable mentions that I have listed for sure.

 

[BVS]

I think you have it switched, PJ never had it in them; they could never get back to making albums like Ten. Metallica never seemed to want to expand musically but some of thier songs showed where they might have gone.

No, PJ made a conscious effort. Take a look at their B-sides and outtakes album, they have some amazing catchy, hooky tracks that could have easily made another 'Ten' album. There's a great interview in a recent Rolling Stone about this, how Vedder turned downed obvious hits because he was scared of the fame. He chose a different route and the band followed, some reluctanly, but they now all agree it was the best decision.

 

[Screwtape2]

First off, The Police I really think have to be considered a Supergroup.
A. They influenced so many bands during and after thier time.
B. They were huge around the world.
C. They still get as much radio play as any other group today.
D. From 1979-1984 they were the biggest band in the world.
E. They would have been called the band of the 80's if not for U2.

As for Pearl Jam, I didn't know about the Rolling Stone interview so tussah. They made great music but the albums were never as solid as 'Ten.' It isn't just the hits, the music just didn't evolve at all. And to tell you the truth, I'm not sure I believe Eddie Vedder after songs like; The Last Kiss, Betterman and Life Wasted. They are obviously 'hit'-able.

But again tussah.

 

[STING2]

Here we don't agree, PJ could have been the next U2 but made a conscious effort not to, Metallica just never had it in them. They're a supergroup amongst that style of music, but that's it.

PJ never had the global following needed to be a supergroup even when the made video's. When 80% of your album sales come from North America, you can't be considered a global supergroup. Whats more, the bands image of being anti-establishment and part of the heart of the grunge movement,(we won't promote ourselves in magazines or make video's etc.) actually helped them commercially at the time rather than hurt them.

Outside North America, Metallica sold and still sells more albums than PJ as well as having stronger concert attendance.

 

[BVS]

PJ never had the global following needed to be a supergroup even when the made video's. When 80% of your album sales come from North America, you can't be considered a global supergroup. Whats more, the bands image of being anti-establishment and part of the heart of the grunge movement,(we won't promote ourselves in magazines or make video's etc.) actually helped them commercially at the time rather than hurt them.

Outside North America, Metallica sold and still sells more albums than PJ as well as having stronger concert attendance.

But PJ decided this at a very early moment in their career. It wasn't like Boy was a big hit in America.

 

[STING2]

I wouldnt call The Police a Super Group but they are one step below one:

Here is a list of groups I would consider to have got close to the status but didnt make it for various reasons including breaking up far before their time.

The Police
Guns N Roses
Dire Straits
Journey
Chicago
Def Leppard
Bon Jovi
Queen
Boston
The Doors
Bee Gees
REM
Inxs
Nirvana

Again none of these bands that are listed are from this era ones that I would consider to have the greatest chance of getting there but never or havent yet are only a few:

Red Hot Chilli Peppers
Green Day
Coldplay
Pearl Jam

That is it and I dont think any of these bands could get into the top list but they could get into the honourable mentions that I have listed for sure.

Well, I'd just like to inform you that the Police have sold over 60 million albums worldwide, with Synchronicity accounting for about 1/3 of that total. So if your claiming that all you need is 60 million albums to be in the supergroup club, then the Police are in.

In 1983 and 1984 the Police were the most popular band in the world with the Synchronicity album and world tour. The Synchronicity Tour set concert attendance records in many venues back in 1983 and 1984 around the world. Its probably correct to say that no one was really more popular than they were until U2 came along with the Joshua Tree album and tour and it became more and more apparent that the Police were no longer a band by 1987 despite the lack of an official break up.

 

[shaun vox]

Did you pay for this show?

HELLO DUH i bought a ticket!!
they had fireworks and everything!!!

 

[BVS]

As for Pearl Jam, I didn't know about the Rolling Stone interview so tussah. They made great music but the albums were never as solid as 'Ten.' It isn't just the hits, the music just didn't evolve at all. And to tell you the truth, I'm not sure I believe Eddie Vedder after songs like; The Last Kiss, Betterman and Life Wasted. They are obviously 'hit'-able.

But again tussah.

Well, I'm not sure what "tussah" means, but oh well...

Yeah obviously they made hits here and there, but the point Ed was making was he didn't want to make another album like Ten. Which I understand and respect, but on another hand I wish they would have embraced what they had.

As far as evolving, they definately evolved. They are the only band that I know of that evolved throughout the 90's without embracing electronica...

They've evolved. Maybe not in the way that U2 did from JT to AB, but they evolved...

 

[BVS]

HELLO DUH i bought a ticket!!
they had fireworks and everything!!!

I'm sorry.

 

[Screwtape2]

Thank You Sting2, I didn't know that they surpassed 60 million in sales. Thanks for the backup!

"Tussah" is a mispelling of a word that is a show of respect usually in debate. I don't know what I was thinking when spelled it. Back to the dictionary.

When I say 'evolve' I mean take it to the next level. EV said he didn't want hits but hits don't always coincide with evolution. Look at Zooropa, there wasn't a single hit but it was certainly evolution. I respect your opinion but I don't believe they evolved.

But I agree with you I wish they had tried to go for an album comparable to Ten. I am a big Pearl Jam but I really wish they had done the evolution. No pun intended.

 

[STING2]

But PJ decided this at a very early moment in their career. It wasn't like Boy was a big hit in America.

Apart from not doing interviews and video's, and briefly avoiding ticketmaster, Pearl Jam has always been like any other group when it comes to promoting themselves. Whats more, MTV and other video channels started to become less of a factor in album sales towards the end of the 90s anyways as shows started to replace videos. Another album exactly like TEN may have done worse, its difficult to gauge such things. Another thing is that not doing video's helped to avoid a sense of overexposure at the time which can often decrease a bands popularity. Rather than turning away from popularity, it could be said that Eddie Vedder was genious in judging the situation and knowing how to ride the wave for all it was worth.

 

[Screwtape2]

But Sting2, for every single that didn't have a video, the video became a live performance mainly focused on the frontman Eddie Vedder?

 

[STING2]

But Sting2, for every single that didn't have a video, the video became a live performance mainly focused on the frontman Eddie Vedder?

I'm not sure what your asking here? Not doing the video's prevented the band from becoming overexposed, at least in North America. Eddie Vedder was doing this for the band, not himself. Despite not having video's, VS and Vitology did nearly as well as TEN did in sales back in the early 90s.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

They would have sold better with videos, no question. "Better Man" with airplay on something like VH1 would have been an even bigger monster than it was, and that's a single example. And Vs. with crossover appeal tracks like "Daughter" would've been just as big as Ten if given that video exposure. You have to remember just how big of a selling point the "Jeremy" video was for this band......before that, "Alive" and "Even Flow" were practically minor radio hits...

 

[Screwtape2]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to put a question mark. It's only my fourth day on the forum; I mastered punctation. You and BonoVox make great points. We're running in circles over little things, that's probably my fault. I've got to go, let's leave Pearl Jam alone and out of this thread. We're not going to convince the other. Beside's there are plenty of bands to talk about in this thread. No Police, Metallica and Pearl Jam.

 

[Screwtape2]

It's only my fourth day on the forum; I mastered punctation.

I mean I *haven't* mastered punctuation. Apparently I haven't mastered alot of things.

 

[MacPhistoPT]

just for the point, I think Vs, No Code and Yield are better than Ten. Vs is more consistent and better produced and No Code and Yield are much more interesting and artistic even Binaural is more interesting than Ten but it lacks something...

 

[prideofzootv]

E. They would have been called the band of the 80's if not for U2.

what are you talking about?

sorry to say but U2 werent the biggest in the 80's, and neither were The Police

i have a video clip from the Brit awards in 1989/1990 i think, from where Queen were officially warded for being the biggest band in the 1980's, plus another award from there contribution to music etc.

sorry but as the 80's go, the best bands were

1-Queen
2-U2 (U2 were very close to taking the title)

 

[gman]

Brit awards refer to british sales only. The reason this prob happened is that queen were an esablished act long before the 80s and u2 didnt really hit worldwide status till 87.
Also Brit awards are notoriously biased to british acts on things like that.
I cannot recall Queen selling out stadiums in usa and europe during the 80s although do remember the gig in Rio thing. Mind you tina turner did one also.

 

[vaz02]

Brit awards refer to british sales only. The reason this prob happened is that queen were an esablished act long before the 80s and u2 didnt really hit worldwide status till 87.
Also Brit awards are notoriously biased to british acts on things like that.
I cannot recall Queen selling out stadiums in usa and europe during the 80s although do remember the gig in Rio thing. Mind you tina turner did one also.

yeah queen only really did the real famous wembely gigs and in the US they did Arena's.

The Brits are a bunch of shit btw. They are as meaningful as the soap awards lol.

 

[CTU2fan]

A question for you guys, do you think a group can be a "supergroup" without selling out? A lot of people called U2 sellouts around the time they became a supergroup...and Pearl Jam gets a lot of credit for resisting selling out, but we've pretty much covered here why they're not a supergroup.

 

[angelordevil]

I'm a fan of super groups, rather than 'supergroups.'

*rolls eyes greatly at self*

A question for you guys, do you think a group can be a "supergroup" without selling out? A lot of people called U2 sellouts around the time they became a supergroup...and Pearl Jam gets a lot of credit for resisting selling out, but we've pretty much covered here why they're not a supergroup.

I think the main problem of 'supergroups' (I'm beginning to picture capes and special powers) is how they can become institutions instead of just generating great music. I think it would make for an interesting research paper, for sure.

Pearl Jam are an interesting example, because they walked away from the mainstream when they thought many of those attending the shows weren't there for the music--they were there to simply to be part of a 'hip scene of the moment.'

 

[Screwtape2]

A question for you guys, do you think a group can be a "supergroup" without selling out? A lot of people called U2 sellouts around the time they became a supergroup...and Pearl Jam gets a lot of credit for resisting selling out, but we've pretty much covered here why they're not a supergroup.

Did the Beatles sell out? Or Zepplin? Or any of the true supergroups? I don't think any supergroups selled out.

Just as a point of reference, when did U2 become a supergroup in your eyes?

And on a different note, how can Queen be considered the biggest band of the 80's when casual music fans usually only know four of thier songs.? Compare this to the Police and U2.

 

[gman]

A few ppl mentioned on here bands like pearl jam and radiohead choosing to turn a blind eye to "selling out"
Sure it wasnt just down to misjudgement. At the end of the day. the bands are still a business and can find themselves on the scrapheap if they not shifting records and making money. There still rules in survivng as a band, no matter how good you think you are. therfore it defies belief that a band would deliberatley alienate themselves by doing what they want and to hell with the consequences.

 

[Screwtape2]

A few ppl mentioned on here bands like pearl jam and radiohead choosing to turn a blind eye to "selling out"
Sure it wasnt just down to misjudgement. At the end of the day. the bands are still a business and can find themselves on the scrapheap if they not shifting records and making money. There still rules in survivng as a band, no matter how good you think you are. therfore it defies belief that a band would deliberatley alienate themselves by doing what they want and to hell with the consequences.

I agree that it isn't logical that a band could hide from the spotlight and survive as a popular band. If that's what you're saying.

 

[STING2]

They would have sold better with videos, no question. "Better Man" with airplay on something like VH1 would have been an even bigger monster than it was, and that's a single example. And Vs. with crossover appeal tracks like "Daughter" would've been just as big as Ten if given that video exposure. You have to remember just how big of a selling point the "Jeremy" video was for this band......before that, "Alive" and "Even Flow" were practically minor radio hits...

Alive and Even Flow were NEVER minor hits. Those two songs got outstanding radio airplay as did nearly every Pearl Jam single from TEN through Vitology. You also have to understand that part of the attraction and popularity of Pearl Jam was the fact that they appeared to be anti-establishment by not making video's or doing interviews. Go the other way and do the video's and interviews then at best you lose a lot of the crowd that supported or became attracted to you for not doing that stuff, at worst, you become overexposed which could have eventually back fired and led to a severe sales slump.

At radio the songs from the first three albums were everywhere. When your essentially the head of the Grunge movement, one could argue that video's could harm your image and popularity as much as help it. Whats more, by the late 1990s, Video time on MTV was starting to become very rare. It was no longer the selling mechanisim that it had been in the 1980s.

 

[STING2]

what are you talking about?

sorry to say but U2 werent the biggest in the 80's, and neither were The Police

i have a video clip from the Brit awards in 1989/1990 i think, from where Queen were officially warded for being the biggest band in the 1980's, plus another award from there contribution to music etc.

sorry but as the 80's go, the best bands were

1-Queen
2-U2 (U2 were very close to taking the title)

Were talking about in the global sense. Queen was never really that popular in certain parts of the world, especially the United States where several of their albums failed to go platinum at the time and arena tours often failed to sellout. In the United Kingdom, they may have become enormously popular toward the end of the 1980s, but they did not have an album that sold as well or as fast as Joshua Tree in the United Kingdom, at that particular time, and I'd argue that they did not have the concert drawing power of U2 at the end of the 1980s in the United Kingdom.

In any event, this is not about who was the biggest in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, or the United States. Its about the entire planet, not just one market.