No-one took up the mantle

[digitize]

Yeah, Bono definitely loves Kid A, and expressed disappointment that songs from Kid A don't get radio/MTV play.

 

[mikal]

Coldplay isn't the first of their kind. no way. they're very close to Nickelback status.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

as i stated before, the red hot chili peppers can hold their own against u2's status. They have earned the right to be part of this discussion. Not because they are the band thats gonna pick up the mantle, because they are nearly as old. But because they have part of that mantle . Now, u2 is still bigger then chili peppers, but some credit needs to be given to them. If its radio airplay we are talking about, they have beaten and outlasted radiohead and rem. How they have never come up in these talks is puzzling. They have indeed grown since their early albums . They have had lineup changes. Have to battle worse issues then u2 ever have.

 

[dan_smee]

Edit: MaMa Mia Dan forgive me I must be half asleep

I am sure you already see my huge mistake

LOL

I was thinking of KOL when I read The Killers

Dustland Fairytale

Only song I like by them

Haha, its all good. I think the main similarity for me with U2 and the Killers is the way they polarise the consumer. People generally either love or hate them. They either "get" them, or the don't get it.

Also, they are a predominantly live band, and have a genuine quality that goes beyond talent as musicians or even the quality of their songs. They have that x-factor that U2 have

 

[dan_smee]

Coldplay isn't the first of their kind. no way. they're very close to Nickelback status.

Athlete do it better anyway. Athlete are the balls. Check them out if you don't know them.

 

[dan_smee]

as i stated before, the red hot chili peppers can hold their own against u2's status. They have earned the right to be part of this discussion. Not because they are the band thats gonna pick up the mantle, because they are nearly as old. But because they have part of that mantle . Now, u2 is still bigger then chili peppers, but some credit needs to be given to them. If its radio airplay we are talking about, they have beaten and outlasted radiohead and rem. How they have never come up in these talks is puzzling. They have indeed grown since their early albums . They have had lineup changes. Have to battle worse issues then u2 ever have.

RHCP have fallen from grace just like REM have. REMs last album was a triumph, that still didnt get a great deal of airplay. The difference between them in terms of longevity is that REM were more popular earlier. RHCP only had a niche market until BloodSugar in 91. REM were getting global recognition in 88. Stadium Arcadium serves only the purpose of a band clutching at the remaining threads of fame putting out 5 classic tunes, but not having the non-singles to back it up. They could have stayed relevant if they'd put out an EP or a short album, instead they chucked whatever crap they had on there and made a bomb.

The stench of death surrounds RHCP, whereas REM have rejuvenation around them, much like ATYCLB U2

 

[65980]

Yes, I think the closest thing to U2 in terms of mass popularity + longevity is either Depeche Mode or R.E.M. (I'm not counting the Rolling Stones, Neil Young, etc., since they're dinosaurs from the pre-punk 60s). But, as Vintage Punk has pointed out, it's not the same in the "mass popularity" aspect. U2 is simply bigger and has a broader appeal, than either.

As far as groups that appeared after the 80s go, there's simply nobody with the cultural weight of U2. I think groups like Pearl Jam and Radiohead could have made choices to be much 'bigger' than they are (though they're pretty 'big' anyway), but they consciously decided not to take that route, which is fine. Coldplay are clearly the closest thing to U2 of 2000's groups, but already they show signs of having peaked. I think A Rush of Blood to the Head was Coldplay's masterstroke, and since then they've been sort-of stuck in its wake. It would be comparable to U2 having done The Unforgettable Fire, and then just repeating it until the end of the 80s (instead of making JT and R&H). What I mean is that Coldplay hasn't shown the ability yet to change styles and maintain a huge audience; nor do they seem willing to give up the huge audience like Pearl Jam and Radiohead probably were.

One thing that seldom gets mentioned is how many styles U2 can perform, with conviction. I actually don't think that U2's musical/technical abillity as musicians is overly impressive, and I'm sure they are quite limited in what they can do instrumentally. But, they have shown an ability to perform post-punk angular rock, new-wave pop, American R&B, blues, Irish folk songs, Eurotrash dance-pop, techno, and more, quite impressively. I don't think the bands I've mentioned above can do that. A lot of their ability here is down to Bono's performance ability, and the flexibility of his vocal styles.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

SA was a hit. accelerate was not. I understand this topic was concerning hits and airplay. and rem hasn't had either since 1996's adventures in hi -fi. Since 1996, rhcp has had californcation, one of the great albums of the 90's. A huge seller. Then they had by the way and stadium arcadium. They sold well. In the us at least, i don;t see how you remotely have a case that rem is beating rhcp. If it comes to critical reviews, rem didn't fare too well either until last years album. Californacation's rise to the top and resurrection of the peppers from near break up is a bigger story then any of rem;s last 4 albums.

 

[dan_smee]

REM have been improving since 96. Up was a bit of a flop, Reveal, I hate to inform you had Imitation of Life, which was huge. Around the Sun had Leaving New York which was also fairly big. Accelerate is another that is a big song, that got fair rotation for a while. I don't think you'll find many, other than hardcore RHCP fans that would say Stadium Arcadium is nothing but a big self-indulgent wank. Seriously, apart from the singles (and including the abhorent Hump-de-Bump) which songs were even 1/8th as good as ANYTHING from Californication?

 

[VintagePunk]

Yes, I think the closest thing to U2 in terms of mass popularity + longevity is either Depeche Mode or R.E.M. (I'm not counting the Rolling Stones, Neil Young, etc., since they're dinosaurs from the pre-punk 60s). But, as Vintage Punk has pointed out, it's not the same in the "mass popularity" aspect. U2 is simply bigger and has a broader appeal, than either.

As far as groups that appeared after the 80s go, there's simply nobody with the cultural weight of U2. I think groups like Pearl Jam and Radiohead could have made choices to be much 'bigger' than they are (though they're pretty 'big' anyway), but they consciously decided not to take that route, which is fine. Coldplay are clearly the closest thing to U2 of 2000's groups, but already they show signs of having peaked. I think A Rush of Blood to the Head was Coldplay's masterstroke, and since then they've been sort-of stuck in its wake. It would be comparable to U2 having done The Unforgettable Fire, and then just repeating it until the end of the 80s (instead of making JT and R&H). What I mean is that Coldplay hasn't shown the ability yet to change styles and maintain a huge audience; nor do they seem willing to give up the huge audience like Pearl Jam and Radiohead probably were.

One thing that seldom gets mentioned is how many styles U2 can perform, with conviction. I actually don't think that U2's musical/technical abillity as musicians is overly impressive, and I'm sure they are quite limited in what they can do instrumentally. But, they have shown an ability to perform post-punk angular rock, new-wave pop, American R&B, blues, Irish folk songs, Eurotrash dance-pop, techno, and more, quite impressively. I don't think the bands I've mentioned above can do that. A lot of their ability here is down to Bono's performance ability, and the flexibility of his vocal styles.

I agree with all of this, and I especially like the part about the "cultural weight" that U2 have. Nicely put. I do think that's a huge factor too, that no other band of their era (80 - current) has come close to, and only a handful of acts before them have had it. They're in a very exclusive group.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

i suppose it depends on what critics you read. i understand that REM had almost LOST their identity until last years album. i enjoyed SA. while i felt their was not a blow away classic on the album, everything was good to very good. And in the us, rem has not compared to chili peppers in terms of sales since 1996. up and reveal was gold, and the last two albums less then gold. cali is 5 x platinum and SA and BTW are 2x. There has been no "huge" rem since monster. I do like rem alot, but these are the sales figure's.

 

[U2girl]

REM was big with Automatic for the people but they choose a different path. Radiohead never really wanted the mantle (though certainly the most critically acclaimed and arguably the most influential band of the 90's and 00's for the UK scene).

Coldplay are the closest thing to a modern-day worldwide popular band that may one day go for the stadiums.

 

[65980]

I don't think R.E.M. "chose a different path". I actually think they wanted, all along, to keep being as big as possible, but the departure of Bill Berry was a curveball that threw them sideways for years, and by the time they started to recover they had lost much of their commercial appeal. R.E.M. is an example of a great band that never should have gotten as big as they did. I think they should have stayed at the level of success they got by 1989 or so, and if they had, they would have been better off in the long run. But the alternative-rock explosion into the mainstream circa 1991 threw them even further up the charts, so that between 1991 and 1995 they sold about 100 million albums and topped charts all over the world. I think this ill-suited the modest character of the guys in the band, and led to problems they're still suffering from.

Re: the debate between Dam Smee and AllBecauseOfU2 --- I suspect that Dan Smee is in the UK and AllBecauseOfU2 is Stateside? I say this because R.E.M. have for years maintained a large profile in the UK and continental Europe, but haven't in the United States.

For example, prior to Accelerate's being a (fairly) big hit, Reveal hit #6 in the US and went Gold, but hit #1 in the UK and went platinum. Likewise, the single "Imitation of Life" went to #6 in the UK, but flopped at #83 in the USA. "Leaving New York" was a top-5 hit in the UK, but didn't even make the American charts. Around The Sun reached only #13 in the US and failed to even go Gold, but again was a #1 platinum seller in the UK.

While Accelerate received their best reviews in years, it hasn't really sold that much more than previous releases and none of its singles really took off.

By comparison, the Chili Peppers' last three studio LPs in the USA charted at #3, #2, and #1 (and similarly in the UK), showing that they are a much bigger group in the US these days than R.E.M.

 

[65980]

Just to add more thing, now that I'm thinking about R.E.M. Their popularity started to decline with New Adventures in Hi-Fi (1996), after which Bill Berry left. In the 2000s, at least in North America, their profile has been small. But why? In fact, the band is probably as good as ever. But sometimes people get tired of a band's sound and style. New Adventures in Hi-Fi was clearly better than Monster, but sold only a fraction as much. Of course, changing fashions and such influence this as well, but the point I'm trying to make is that sometimes people just get tired of a band, and it's easier to get tired of a band that doesn't really sound a lot different in 2001 than it did in 1991 or 1981. That is one way that U2 have lasted so long with mass popularity -- they still revisit and honor their back catalogue, but you certainly don't get the feeling that time has ever stood still for them.

 

[U2girl]

"chose a different path" - I meant that unlike U2 after JT and AB, REM wasn't never quite as big as they were in the early nineties with Automatic/Out of time - in comparison U2 is still a household name 20+years after JT and are probably as big as it gets in the download era.
Also they don't use the marketing machine with the release of their albums as much as U2.

 

[gman]

During the ZOOTV phase, there were two more or less concurrent tours that were probably of equivalent size and extravagance - Pink Floyd and the Rolling Stones. But significantly, both bands were of relatively advanced age (Pink Floyd have not released an album since 1994, and sadly one member has since died), whereas U2 were still only in their early thirties with a brace of decent albums ahead of them - Pop, Zooropa and NLOTH. (Some would add ATYCLB and HTDAAB but I cannot comment on this, as I have not listened to these albums.)

In the late 1990's, Bono mentioned how disappointed he was with regard to the Verve splitting as he thought they had the capability, the talent and the drive to take up the mantle.

Does anyone seriously think bands like the Kings of Leon or Snow Patrol are going to be equivalent to U2 in the years ahead? Sorry, but I don't.

Republic of Loose? Great band, but they will always be an acquired taste for a discerning audience, IMO, more of Velvet Prunes than a U2.

How come you havent listened to ATYCLB and HTDAAB?

In asnwer to your question, i often say to people that U2 are the last of the true supergroups. Today, the music scene is littered with disposable music.
In 3 yrs time....all things being well, U2 will be ablet to say they have been at the very top of their respective tree for 25 yrs, aided by a consistantly high level of sucsess in both album sales and touring. I cannot think of many acts that can make that claim. And i certainly dont see any act in the future being able to mirror that acheivement.
And one more thing...to get to where u2 have managed, you NEED to release a life changing album, one that will be mentioned in the same breath as Sgt Peppers, Dark Side Of The Moon, etc etc....albums that will still be remembered in 20-30 yrs time. Again, i dont see any such album from now on acheiving that status.

 

[AndrewCowley]

There's probably plenty of bands around today who could, in theory given their music, become mega. Muse and The Killers could. Placebo probably could too. All these bands have huge songs suited to stadiums. I just don't think the climate is right thesedays for any band like this to follow the U2 path from arenas into stadiums. No reflection on the quality of these bands. It just can't be done nowadays. Coldplay (as much as I don't like them) probably had the best chance given their mass appeal blandness safety first approach but even that didn't work. We might never see another U2. Doesn't really matter since it doesn't mean good music is going away.

 

[Irishteen]

Accelerate sold 1.3 million copies worldwide while Stadium Arcadium sold 7.5 million and it's a double album, how anyone can compare REM to the Chili Peppers in terms of popularity makes no sense. REM are finished in the mainstream, Accelerate had no hits and sold less than Around the Sun even if critics liked it more (I think they both suck). Stadium Arcadium has several huge hits, sure half the album was trash but every Chili Peppers album is half trash, even Californication (First half is amazing, last song is amazing, the rest can just disappear).


Anyway the obvious answer to this is Coldplay whether people want to hear it or not they're probably the biggest album band in the world right now, live it's still U2. Metallica too because they're probably the only other big 80s band who still sells well, Death Magnetic will most likely outsell NLOTH

 

[Morgoth321]

I just don't think the climate is right thesedays for any band like this to follow the U2 path from arenas into stadiums. No reflection on the quality of these bands. It just can't be done nowadays. Coldplay (as much as I don't like them) probably had the best chance given their mass appeal blandness safety first approach but even that didn't work. We might never see another U2. Doesn't really matter since it doesn't mean good music is going away.

Yes, you're right. Jon Bon Jovi of all people loves to lament the state of the music business now, where (and you need to imagine JBJ using all of his acting 'ability' here to wring out the pathos) kids from the backstreets are no longer gonna be able to pick up their guitars and sell 100 million records. He's correct - piracy and legal downloads have changed things so much now that the traditional notion of a megaselling album like Thriller or Dark Side Of The Moon seems inconceivable now.

But, in terms of worldwide appeal, let's look at some of the contenders:

Coldplay - probably will make the leap to stadium success, if they keep on going the way they are. I like them; plenty don't, but it's possible to like them while remaining a U2 fan! (Chris Martin's lyrics are astonisingly poor though, so they don't really have much to 'say' in a meaningful sense). Their music is the kind of thing that's used on sports shows, charity appeals, and glossy TV dramas interchangeably, and that's commercial golddust!

Snow Patrol - think they're destined to remain a support act rather than headliners. Can write good songs but have an anonymous, generic image, and also lack a charismatic and recognisable frontman. Gary Lightbody (who I went to school with, trivia fans!) all too often hides behind his guitar, and I don't think he has a particularly expressive or memorable singing voice.

RHCP - Can't argue with their album sales or live success. They ARE a stadium act, but other than their (admittedly sizeable) fanbase, they don't have the more general appeal of U2. Plenty of non-fans would go to a U2 concert, but I doubt if non-fans would go to see RHCP on a whim.

Killers / Kings of Leon / Keane (etc) - I think in terms of popularity, all of these acts have found their fanbases and aren't going to be able to get to the mythical 'next level'.

Muse - I know that they've played Wembley twice, but I note that they're supporting U2 in N America. Make of that what you will. Despite having Stephenie Meyer as their biggest fan, I don't think they'll ever be considered the biggest band in the world.

Radiohead - a group of men who increasingly only make music to suit themselves. Why do they seem to find being in a band so miserable? Their job is basically their hobby, so cheer up, for God's sake! After OK Computer, they could've risen even higher, but they deliberately chose a more personal, uncommercial approach.

REM - Their commercial heyday is long past, although they'll always remain a reliable live act.

Robbie Williams - one for all the non-Americans. Look at his last tour - he sold out U2-sized stadiums in Europe, S Africa, Dubai, Australasia, S America, Mexico. But, his total lack of a US profile and known hatred of touring make that level of success again distinctly unlikely.

Oasis - stadium-sized ambition in the 1990s weren't carried through, but I'd argue that - within their own particular niche - they're more popular now as a live group than they've ever been. They can fill stadiums in the UK and Ireland all day long, but are probably a large indoor arena act elsewhere.

Metallica / Foo Fighters - Holding up the reputation for big rock, but - like RHCP - you really have to like their music if you're going to go and see them live.

I think that, in order to be considered 'big', we have to accept that this
means having a sizeable US profile. Conversely though, there are artists who are content with being big in America, while neglecting other territories where they have plenty of fans. Happily, as this includes such dross as Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers, I think we can safely exclude them from this argument.

 

[BVS]

(Some would add ATYCLB and HTDAAB but I cannot comment on this, as I have not listened to these albums.)

Really? So your thread about U2 not being able to write to the marginalized was based on what they had written up to 97?

I'm curious as to why you never even gave them one listen through?

 

[mikal]

Athlete do it better anyway. Athlete are the balls. Check them out if you don't know them.

you know, i've heard some people talking about them, but never actually gave them a chance. thanks for the recommendation.

by the way, i demand that you all check out the new Yo La Tengo album. i hate to say it (sorry U2), but this may be my favorite album of 2009.

 

[BVS]

by the way, i demand that you all check out the new Yo La Tengo album. i hate to say it (sorry U2), but this may be my favorite album of 2009.

Time to update your sig then...

 

[An Cat Gav]

The thing with the verve was that Richard Ashcroft wrote ptrtty much everything, in fact urban hymns was almost an ashcroft solo album. Once they split, his stuff was very patchy and their comback album was far from perfect so in my opinion the verve got as far as they were going to go, though they were great when they were on form.
Hate to say it but in terms of live music, only coldplay will come close in the near future. In terms of quality of music, Radiohead took on that mantle a long time ago, though with NLOTH, U2 have returned.

 

[mikal]

Time to update your sig then...

i can't quite bring myself to do it yet.

 

[65980]

Completely agree 100% with every utterance of Morgoth321's post. My congratulations, sir.

 

[intedomine]

Arctic Monkeys and Bloc Party have been the best bands positioned in the noughties to achieve both the critical and commercial acclaim as U2 have recieved over 20 years. That said, with the failure of Bloc Party's Weekend In The City album to really be as massive at it had the potential to be (especially with a single like I Still Remember - made for stadiums, candy for mainstream radio), you wonder if the "next U2" is really possible for anyone at all. Killers' popularity has dived with Day&Age, and Arctic Monkeys would need to release something more accessible for the US of A to digest, and they COULD become become world-dominant.

 

[intedomine]

Athlete do it better anyway. Athlete are the balls. Check them out if you don't know them.

Athlete . I've got the WIRES single. Great tune that.

 

[UberBeaver]

And Coldplay didn't sell seats behind the stage, correct?

Further proof that Def Leppard > All.



Also, Metallica still sells out Arena's and makes albums (granted, they have had a good one since 1987...)

 

[Morgoth321]

Completely agree 100% with every utterance of Morgoth321's post. My congratulations, sir.

Thank you! You're very welcome.

 

[Morgoth321]

Arctic Monkeys and Bloc Party have been the best bands positioned in the noughties to achieve both the critical and commercial acclaim as U2 have recieved over 20 years. That said, with the failure of Bloc Party's Weekend In The City album to really be as massive at it had the potential to be (especially with a single like I Still Remember - made for stadiums, candy for mainstream radio), you wonder if the "next U2" is really possible for anyone at all. Killers' popularity has dived with Day&Age, and Arctic Monkeys would need to release something more accessible for the US of A to digest, and they COULD become become world-dominant.

Arctic Monkeys are the latest in a long line of British bands who won't make it in the USA, even if they wanted to (which I somehow doubt). It takes patience, hard work and a thick skin to crack the US, qualities that British bands generally don't seem to have - they just aren't prepared to swallow their pride and work hard on promotion. U2 did in the 80s, and look at them; The Smiths, Stone Roses, Echo and the Bunnymen thought that this was all beneath them, so there you go. I also imagine that US fans would find the Arctic Monkeys lyrics and band members to be incomprehensible, and - based on the attitude I've seen displayed in interviews - they're not going to win many fans across the Pond by being wilfully ignorant and obscure. The British music press seems to love this, but Americans won't - and I'm sure there's plenty of American guitar bands competing for attention in any case. I think that UK acts also struggle with the extremes of US radio - hence (and this is my perception) acts that are big in America maintain this by consistently releasing the same sort of music to ensure that they're on the right playlists. Whereas, to give an example, a UK band like The Coral are incredibly difficult to pigeonhole as it's virtually impossible to place them in any specific genre.