Have U2's 21st century releases done irreparable damage to their legacy?

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I also do think ticket sales do define legacy. Legacy can be defined by a lot of things. The fact that they could decide to do a stadium tour for no reason and still sell out almost 20 years after they’ve had a radio hit, that’s legacy.

Agree to disagree. That's not legacy - that's popularity.

U2 remain a very popular bands amongst the olds, who also have the most dependable income and aren't yet super olds and unable to show up to concerts en masse - largely thanks to the 2000s output extending the fan base to another generation.

BTS sells out stadiums. They don't have legacy. Bob Dylan isn't selling out stadiums as his base is super olds and or super dead. I don't think anyone would doubt that his legacy is rock solid.

 

[Irvine511]

I’d be curious to see comparisons between the charts/lists of U2’s only legitimate contemporaries — REM, Radiohead, and possibly Pearl Jam.

Springsteen is kind of an anomaly. He’s a band and a solo artist, and has been riding a wave of goodwill especially tied to his Broadway show. No one gives a shit about a new album, but his early albums have recently achieved a new hipster cred that’s probably only comparable to the weird resurgent popularity of Fleetwood Mac and Rumors. I remember FM being kind of a boomer joke when they reunited in 1997 … and now even I own “Rumors” on vinyl. I think the vinyl thing applies to Bruce’s first two albums.

I think rock and men in general took tumbles in that 2020 list, which is to be expected as they reach out to a more diverse voting pool. And it also shows you how limited the pre-Internet monoculture was. But if there’s anything straight white American men agree on, it’s Springsteen from ‘75-‘85.

Which is why these lists are kind of silly. At least ticket sales are quantifiable and comparable?

 

[mikal]

Maybe the discussion should be more about U2's current image than legacy. I think the "legacy" discussion is pretty silly. Their legacy has been cemented since the late 90's. And if the barometer of how to measure legacy is really how the younger generations view them, then every legacy act (see what I did there?) is fucked because it's not like a bunch of 15 year olds are heavily anticipating the next Bob Dylan album.

I think we're guilty of living in a smaller bubble where we overanalyze U2 and I'm sure other fanbases do the same. Many here are frustrated by U2's output post 90's where most people outside the bubble don't care at all but still consider U2 legends based on what they did from 84-05 which is an incredible run. Things like tracklist decisions or the iTunes issue, while annoying don't change anything regarding legacy, but they can temporarily damage their image.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I’d be curious to see comparisons between the charts/lists of U2’s only legitimate contemporaries — REM, Radiohead, and possibly Pearl Jam.

Springsteen is kind of an anomaly. He’s a band and a solo artist, and has been riding a wave of goodwill especially tied to his Broadway show. No one gives a shit about a new album, but his early albums have recently achieved a new hipster cred that’s probably only comparable to the weird resurgent popularity of Fleetwood Mac and Rumors. I remember FM being kind of a boomer joke when they reunited in 1997 … and now even I own “Rumors” on vinyl. I think the vinyl thing applies to Bruce’s first two albums.

I think rock and men in general took tumbles in that 2020 list, which is to be expected as they reach out to a more diverse voting pool. And it also shows you how limited the pre-Internet monoculture was. But if there’s anything straight white American men agree on, it’s Springsteen from ‘75-‘85.

Which is why these lists are kind of silly. At least ticket sales are quantifiable and comparable?

crazy what a guy on a skateboard drinking ocean spray cranberry juice can do, eh?

i believe the only two albums on the 2003/2012 list for Pearl Jam were Ten and Vitalogy - and in 2020 Ten was in a similar location but Vitalogy had dropped off the list. i'll look again when i have a chance.

radiohead i believe was MORE prevalent on the list in 2020 than the previous two - but again, i'll have to look.

and i don't put this ALL on iTunes - while i disagree that U2's post 2000 output has been bad, there is no doubt that they haven't pushed the envelope in over 20 years - and that will inevitably hurt them when you're talking about music critics and producers. i do put the itunes thing as the line in the sand, though. sure - they didn't push the envelope with their music on the three 2000s albums (although they tried a little on No Line and ultimately decided against it) - but the albums were still good, the tours were still amazing, and they were riding a high wave.

the iTunes thing kind of allowed the idea that U2 were a lame, out of touch institution that only old white dudes listen to as the mainstream line of thought. it amplified the bono hate, the tax thing, the lack of experimentation post pop, a backlash against the goody goody do-gooder nature of bono, etc. etc. it was the thing that broke the dam and allowed all of these other things that always existed with them to flood through.

alas...

two of the voters for the 2020 list present a bit of a wild card - and i'm not sure it's for a positive or negative impact on the list... adam and edge. on one side they may want to be more modest and not have all their albums on there, but on the flip side i can't imagine they'd want their seminal album dropping over 100 spots in a chart that they're involved in creating.


i also think the bubble impact is not clouding my thought process on this at all. if anything i think the bubble impact of being in a u2 fan community would lean more towards saying that their legacy is cemented, they're an all time great and nothing could ever damage that vs. actually questioning whether or not they've slipped in their standing.

 

[mikal]

i also think the bubble impact is not clouding my thought process on this at all. if anything i think the bubble impact of being in a u2 fan community would lean more towards saying that their legacy is cemented, they're an all time great and nothing could ever damage that vs. actually questioning whether or not they've slipped in their standing.

But have you ever visited Interference?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

But have you ever visited Interference?

once or twice

i get what you're saying, and yea this place is a bit more critical and nitpicky over little things than the general public. but it comes from a place of love - i.e. wanting the band we all love and have devoted WAYYYYY too much of our lives to to not fuck it all up.

but i do believe that because of this most here are more likely to say "what? u2's legacy is fine - it's only the modern stuff that's rubbish, the early stuff is all time classic and can never be thought of differently" because of that love and not necessarily see that the younger generations don't see things the same way largely because the band overstayed their welcome, got to the stage where the youngs were not interested anymore and couldn't take the hint.

once you become lame it's hard to become un-lame. you need to embrace your oldness or be forever thought of as the sad old guy at the club going on about how many touchdowns you once scored at polk high or how many albums you sold in 87.

it's as true for rock bands as it is for you and i, my friend.

 

[mikal]

once or twice

i get what you're saying, and yea this place is a bit more critical and nitpicky over little things than the general public. but it comes from a place of love - i.e. wanting the band we all love and have devoted WAYYYYY too much of our lives to to not fuck it all up.

but i do believe that because of this most here are more likely to say "what? u2's legacy is fine - it's only the modern stuff that's rubbish, the early stuff is all time classic and can never be thought of differently" because of that love and not necessarily see that the younger generations don't see things the same way largely because the band overstayed their welcome, got to the stage where the youngs were not interested anymore and couldn't take the hint.

once you become lame it's hard to become un-lame. you need to embrace your oldness or be forever thought of as the sad old guy at the club going on about how many touchdowns you once scored at polk high or how many albums you sold in 87.

it's as true for rock bands as it is for you and i, my friend.

FWIW, my daughter called me uncool about 2 years ago and the other day told me that I'm actually pretty cool for a 40 year old, but that's mostly because I pick her up listening to Metalcore and I'm getting a tattoo soon, lol.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

FWIW, my daughter called me uncool about 2 years ago and the other day told me that I'm actually pretty cool for a 40 year old, but that's mostly because I pick her up listening to Metalcore and I'm getting a tattoo soon, lol.

So what you're saying is Bono needs to get a tattoo and U2 should do metalcore

 

[mikal]

So what you're saying is Bono needs to get a tattoo and U2 should do metalcore

That would be a dream come true right there!

 

[pacemaker]

Having worked at a tattoo shop where there were a handful of clients in their 50s/60s who had just started getting tattoos, but were getting them IN EARNEST... if Bono caught the tattoo bug at this point in his life, amongst other things he'd probably have Lennon glasses tattooed on his face, and (RED) on his palm by decade's end.

Only joking. Kind of.

Re: a heavier turn - "heavy**" U2 is usually pretty great. Maybe it only works because it's relatively infrequent. Since he's a fan and there's mutual admiration, I've always wanted Trent Reznor to produce a U2 record. I've daydreamt about an album of songs along the lines of Fire/Exit/HMTMKMKM/LNOE - dark, heavy**, dare I say... (melo)dramatic in vibe?

Trent (and Atticus) are some of the busiest men in the 'biz, and U2's work ethic doesn't seem like it would jive with busy.


**using "heavy" relatively, of course

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I'm all in favor of a darker turn for U2. They went there a little on the last two albums - but didn't quite go all in. Go all in. It's a dark time. I don't need inspiration. I need brooding.

 

[Hewson]

FWIW, my daughter called me uncool about 2 years ago and the other day told me that I'm actually pretty cool for a 40 year old, but that's mostly because I pick her up listening to Metalcore and I'm getting a tattoo soon, lol.

You going to be the 4th member of this chain...

 

[mikal]

You going to be the 4th member of this chain...

[emoji7][emoji7][emoji7]

 

[Irvine511]

I'm all in favor of a darker turn for U2. They went there a little on the last two albums - but didn't quite go all in. Go all in. It's a dark time. I don't need inspiration. I need brooding.

Isn’t this what they tried to do on No Line? Aside from the hated Middle Three, wasn’t this supposed to be their return to artiness and instead of dark it just came out … boring?

What I’m saying is that the Songs Of era might be as much of a reaction/PTSD to the “failure” of No Line as AttyCab was to the “failure” of Pop.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Isn’t this what they tried to do on No Line? Aside from the hated Middle Three, wasn’t this supposed to be their return to artiness and instead of dark it just came out … boring?

What I’m saying is that the Songs Of era might be as much of a reaction/PTSD to the “failure” of No Line as AttyCab was to the “failure” of Pop.

No Line was supposed to be more experimental before they Lilywhite-washed it - but I don't know if it was necessarily dark.

When I think dark U2 I'm thinking large portions of Achtung Baby and Pop, Exit/Bullet, Wire... even Bad, which you don't think of as dark but the subject matter certainly is.

There were moments of that on these last two albums - and I think they were the best moments - Sleep Like A Baby, Cedarwood Road, Raised By Wolves, The Troubles, Iris, Blackout, 13, Little Things...

less "everything's great, we're great, we're inspirational, love love love" and more "ehh things kind of suck right now, and oh by the way there's some fucked up shit in our past and we're going to explore it."

 

[MrPryck2U]

Fuck Rolling Stone and they're revisionist history bullshit!

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I’d be curious to see comparisons between the charts/lists of U2’s only legitimate contemporaries — REM, Radiohead, and possibly Pearl Jam.

Springsteen is kind of an anomaly. He’s a band and a solo artist, and has been riding a wave of goodwill especially tied to his Broadway show. No one gives a shit about a new album, but his early albums have recently achieved a new hipster cred that’s probably only comparable to the weird resurgent popularity of Fleetwood Mac and Rumors. I remember FM being kind of a boomer joke when they reunited in 1997 … and now even I own “Rumors” on vinyl. I think the vinyl thing applies to Bruce’s first two albums.

I think rock and men in general took tumbles in that 2020 list, which is to be expected as they reach out to a more diverse voting pool. And it also shows you how limited the pre-Internet monoculture was. But if there’s anything straight white American men agree on, it’s Springsteen from ‘75-‘85.

Which is why these lists are kind of silly. At least ticket sales are quantifiable and comparable?

so because fridays are clearly the quiet day... i've checked into the other artists you mentioned - Pearl Jam, R.E.M., Radiohead and even Fleetwood Mac just for shits and giggles.

Radiohead
2003 - The Bends 110, OK Computer 162, Kid A 428
2012 - Kid A 67, The Bends 111, OK Computer 162, Amnesiac 320, In Rainbows 337
2020 - Kid A 20, OK Computer 47, The Bends 276, In Rainbows 387

so they have fewer albums this go around, but their top 2 albums have all jumped UP the list considerably.


Pearl Jam
2003 - Ten 207, Vitalogy 492
2012 - Ten 209, Vitalogy 485
2020 - Ten 160

same here - Vitalogy dropped off, but Ten jumped UP almost 50 spots

R.E.M.
2003 - Murmur 197, Automatic For The People 247, Document 470
2012 - Murmur 197, Automatic for the People 249, Document 462
2020 - Automatic for the People 96, Murmur 165

same story - one less album, but the two held as "classics" were ranked higher than on the previous two lists.

and why not - Fleetwood Mac
2003 - Rumors 25, Fleetwood Mac 183
2012 - Rumors 26, Fleetwood Mac 182
2020 - Rumors 7

and again - less albums overall, but the classic album is ranked higher.


so across the board the comparable rock artists all saw fewer albums on the 2020 list, but their classic albums all moved UP on the list - some significantly.

except for U2 - who had albums drop off the list and saw both Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby drop around 100 spots.

 

[Irvine511]

Kid A is fascinating and still completely overrated.

Everything else kind of makes sense.

The JT drop is what’s so odd to me. They literally did a global stadium tour based on that album. Fleetwood Mac can’t do that (arenas maybe), and Rumors has sold many, many more copies than JT.

 

[mikal]

Kid A is fascinating and still completely overrated.

Everything else kind of makes sense.

The JT drop is what’s so odd to me. They literally did a global stadium tour based on that album. Fleetwood Mac can’t do that (arenas maybe), and Rumors has sold many, many more copies than JT.

That's why I don't take the results of that poll seriously at all and it has no relevance to this conversation. It's such an oddball thing and there's nothing that damaging that's happened to U2's reputation that would result in literally all of their albums dropping that much. The iTunes thing, while bad, wouldn't do that kind of damage either, so really nothing to see there.

PS. No offense Headache and thanks for filling in your slow work day with that data. I just have always learned when polls have extreme results, there's usually something wrong with the poll or a condition of the poll changed somehow.

 

[Hewson]

The JT drop is what’s so odd to me. They literally did a global stadium tour based on that album. Fleetwood Mac can’t do that (arenas maybe), and Rumors has sold many, many more copies than JT.

Yeah a 100 plus spot drop for that album seems disingenuous to me. Obviously in 8 years you have a lot of new albums to add in to the equation, but were there around 100-110 that would be considered all time classics in those years?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Or maybe, and hear me out for a second, perhaps the respect level for U2 took a major hit during that decade.

Just a hunch. Might test it out.

 

[Irvine511]

How does the Apple release affect the quality of songs released in 1987 and 1991?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Kid A is fascinating and still completely overrated.

Everything else kind of makes sense.

The JT drop is what’s so odd to me. They literally did a global stadium tour based on that album. Fleetwood Mac can’t do that (arenas maybe), and Rumors has sold many, many more copies than JT.

This is all I'll say on that tour and touring in general - legacy and popularity are not the same.

BTS have no legacy. They are extremely popular with a specific age demographic, and sell out stadiums. Their popularity falls off a cliff once you get above the age of, oh, 18 ish.

U2 remain extremely popular with the olds. And the core of that roup of olds spreads across a larger than usual range - mis 30s to mid 60s. This age range also has the most expendable income.

Where they've damaged themselves over the last decade is in that crossover respect across generations that most older acts in their position gain. It's not just the itunes thing - it's the whole out of touch with their age and place and trying to hang around with the popular kids way too long thing, of which the itunes stunt plays a big part in hammering home.

I need to have busier Fridays.

 

[Hewson]

Or maybe, and hear me out for a second, perhaps the respect level for U2 took a major hit during that decade.

Just a hunch. Might test it out.

Exactly why I say the drop for Joshua Tree is disingenuous, its not because of the quality of the album.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Exactly why I say the drop for Joshua Tree is disingenuous, its not because of the quality of the album.

Right I mean obviously the album didn't change - it's merely the respect level for the band that has changed. I'm also not saying it's changed fairly, nor does it need to make sense or be logical. It's almost as if 2014 kicked open the door that was holding back a lot of negative opinions of the band that we all know were always there.

 

[mikal]

Or maybe, and hear me out for a second, perhaps the respect level for U2 took a major hit during that decade.

Just a hunch. Might test it out.

I think this is another one of those agree to disagree moments. Was it shaken slightly by the iTunes thing? Yeah, and I think we can all agree on that.

But not "Joshua Tree used to be one of the top 25 albums of all time" to "it doesn't even crack the top 100" kind of respect which is why I say that the Rolling Stones poll doesn't carry any weight due to it being a huge outlier that screams of data integrity issues.

 

[AndrewCowley]

Ironic that we criticise U2 for worrying too much about their popularity and we say their recent releases are lesser because of this, and yet we are obsessing over their popularity through the lens of this poll.

 

[Irvine511]

Ironic that we criticise U2 for worrying too much about their popularity and we say their recent releases are lesser because of this, and yet we are obsessing over their popularity through the lens of this poll.

There’s literally nothing else to talk about.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

There’s literally nothing else to talk about.

Right?

I mean it's a U2 fan forum. The fuck are you supposed to do other than obsess over insignificant band related things that literally nobody else gives a crap about? It's kind of the whole point.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I think this is another one of those agree to disagree moments. Was it shaken slightly by the iTunes thing? Yeah, and I think we can all agree on that.



But not "Joshua Tree used to be one of the top 25 albums of all time" to "it doesn't even crack the top 100" kind of respect which is why I say that the Rolling Stones poll doesn't carry any weight due to it being a huge outlier that screams of data integrity issues.

Where I disagree with this line of thought is that the poll is off only when related to U2. With every other band that we considered U2-esque it matched up fairly consistently.