BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
NKOTB ftw
thread
Just like the hill before him; this argument is won. Do your research.
threadJust like the hill before him; this argument is won. Do your research.
Is This It?
- Thread starter Iggy Fizz
- 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.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
It's hard to have a discussion with people that clearly have no grasp of what they're even talking about. There's a worthy debate here but when you throw out names at random with little consideration it just makes it pointless.
This is why Shuttlecock exists.
This is why Shuttlecock exists.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
Remember when The Verve were bigger than U2? And the Wallflowers?
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
That sad period when U2 relinquished their throne to Hootie & the Blowfish.
MrPryck2U
ONE love, blood, life
Is Hollow even a U2 "fan"?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Only redhill can answer that, well now that BMP has relinquished his throne.
Honestly, some days HI I find to be very sincere, others not so much, he'll just semantic or dodge an argument to death just for the sake of it.
iron yuppie
ONE love, blood, life
The entire argument about the "biggest" band is rooted in semantics. Unless someone wants to offer an objective definition of what that entails, everyone involved in the conversation was arguing semantics.
And honestly why is it so important that U2 be acknowledged as the biggest or most tenured band on the planet? Does that recognition really contribute to or detract from anyone's enjoyment of the music?
And honestly why is it so important that U2 be acknowledged as the biggest or most tenured band on the planet? Does that recognition really contribute to or detract from anyone's enjoyment of the music?
MrPryck2U
ONE love, blood, life
Only redhill can answer that, well now that BMP has relinquished his throne.
Honestly, some days HI I find to be very sincere, others not so much, he'll just semantic or dodge an argument to death just for the sake of it.
Well, if I weren't a fan, I sure as Hell wouldn't go to message board that's inspired by them and rail against them. Certainly there are more positive things to do in life and more productive ways to channel creativity.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
People here, including me, criticise U2 all the time. That's part of being a fan, and there's nothing wrong with it. But the criticism should come from a rational place (and frankly as a fan a place of love), and that place doesn't include "Smashing Pumpkins is bigger than U2" or whatever the hell redhill was arguing (I honestly can't even remember now).
As laz said, there is a reasonable debate to be had here regarding U2's popularity vs. their contemporaries, and U2's place in history. But this ain't it. Overstating U2's "bigness" is fanboyish, but grossly understating it is just obtuse.
MrPryck2U
ONE love, blood, life
Sure, there's perhaps objective criticism. But, honestly, they haven't really done much that I've been too critical of. I've enjoyed all of their albums and I especially loved SOI. The songs resonated for me on a personal level and I really took to the album quite quickly. I couldn't give a shit if they had an army of producers. I'm quite satisfied with the results regardless.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
Well you can say anything regarding art is subjective. You can claim that Bon Jovi is the biggest band of the last 30 years and I can't "disprove" it.
But it probably has something to do with a combination of album and tour sales, industry respect, being able to play a Super Bowl, open a Grammy telecast, play at a presidential inauguration for a country you're not a citizen of, a 5-night stand on mainstream Late Night TV, magazine covers, and google search hits.
I don't think any other artist mentioned above is able to claim all those things (and in respective higher amounts) for any significant period of time.
This isn't about bragging rights but about why it's difficult to compare other acts.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
Remember when Incubus took over the world?
Hollow Island
New Yorker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 2,947
Take it easy, Stan.
REM weren't as big at their peak as U2 at Pop? What the fuck kind of idiocy us that? Automatic sold 18 million copies! That's as many as Achtung. Pretty sure Out of Time sold a bit more than Zooropa too. REM were U2's equals in the early 90s
Record sales, cultural impact, musical impact & influence. Are you seriously going to dispute that Pearl Jam, Nirvana, GnR and Oasis weren't as big or bigger than U2 at their peaks? Be serious for a second. In the MCIS era, Smashing Pumpkins had more I escapable hits than U2 had off an album, and more than U2 have had in the last 20 years combined. REM and Depeche are more influential over all, DM played similar sized gigs at their peak and had several monstous hits. I live U2 but this place overestimates Thierry "size" so much it's a joke. Stans abound.
Oh I forgot about RHCP at the turn of the millennium.
Hollow Island
New Yorker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 2,947
Yeah, U2 sustained it. That's really impressive. But to say that they're unequivocally the biggest.. I mean, is any body going to say N Sync weren't way more popular than U2 during their peak? But I guess they'll be disqualified for some reason...
Hollow Island
New Yorker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 2,947
NKOTB ftw
Just like the hill before him; this argument is won. Do your research.
A band that sold 17 million copies can't be considered among the biggest bands? Interesting...
How about 30 million? (Appetite for Destruction)
Or 14 million (combined US sales for Use You Illusion)
It's absurd that saying that U2 haven't been unquestionably the biggest band is construed as shutting in tbem or held as evidence against being a fan. There's a world beyond U2, folks.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
DO keep trying
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
Smashmouth "All Star 20th Anniversary Tour" should be hot.
gvox
Ghost of Love
NKOTB is not a fucking band. Period.
And saying that is not a diss, because neither is New Edition or Boys II Men, who I love and are a gazillion times better.
They are a GROUP...a quintet, if you will. Big difference.
Carry on.
And saying that is not a diss, because neither is New Edition or Boys II Men, who I love and are a gazillion times better.
They are a GROUP...a quintet, if you will. Big difference.
Carry on.
Hollow Island
New Yorker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 2,947
Not what I was saying, but nice try
it seemed as though you were dismissing the notion that NKOTB's popularity was comparable to U2's during the late 80s. The demographics were surely different (among kids, my cohort, there was no competition!).
Hell, the Strokes were more culturally important than U2 in the early 00s. They didn't sell the records or play the gigs but they changed music (for the worse, but still...).
Hollow Island
New Yorker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 2,947
Hollow Island
New Yorker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 2,947
Smashmouth! Forgot about them! They had a much bigger footprint in the late 90s than U2! Same with Sugar Ray. They were pretty good!
But in all seriousness, talking about any living band being bigger than the Rolling Stones is foolishness. They're among the most important people of the 20th century. They transcend "being a band."
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
yes. holy shit.
trying to compare a band that writes its own music and plays its own instruments and strives for a mature artistic vision to sell to adults against a boy band that sings songs written for it by producers and does choreographed dances on stage for the primary purpose of making teenage girls scream is fucking stupid.
it's like trying to make a comparison between a south african diamond mine and verizon and claiming that it's perfectly valid and useful simply because they're both corporations.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Nope, not sure how you read that, gathered that, or comprehended that.
Once again, I have to just walk away and wash my hands from another HI conversation that drifts into oblivion.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
Well, if you want to talk about relevance, it's not foolishness. The Stones have been irrelevant culturally for quite some time.
cobl04
45:33
I would still argue that the Stones are more relevant than U2. No one hates the Stones. A lot of people hate U2. Definitely think U2 are (by a fair way) the better band, and they've put out extremely good music for a much longer period of time than the Stones - and that's really admirable, but outside of us and maybe one or two critics, no one gives a shit.
The Stones may have long ago gone the dinosaur route but it's paid off for them handsomely
The Stones may have long ago gone the dinosaur route but it's paid off for them handsomely
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
I would still argue that the Stones are more relevant than U2. No one hates the Stones. A lot of people hate U2. Definitely think U2 are (by a fair way) the better band, and they've put out extremely good music for a much longer period of time than the Stones - and that's really admirable, but outside of us and maybe one or two critics, no one gives a shit.
The Stones may have long ago gone the dinosaur route but it's paid off for them handsomely
The only argument I'd have there is that relevance could technically include bad press too. If U2 sparks more opinions (positive or negative) one could argue that U2 is more relevant.
Personally I'd put them around the same.
OP
OP
Iggy Fizz
War Child
Wow, this sounds like Bono, or the band's manager. "look gents, there's no such thing as bad press. sure most people hate me because yeah I am the most annoying man alive, but that just proves we're relevant. hey you - Ryan Tedder - get back to work!!!"
Similar threads
