No-one took up the mantle

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The reason why Coldplay rised up quicker than u2 after 4 album each,is that Coldplay had much more hits than U2 had.Don't forget, u2 built their fame has a live act early on,not has album sales."Sunday bloody Sunday","I will follow","New year's day", were not top 40 radio hits.They only began having little top radio commercial air play with "Pride".Coldplay on the other hand,they began very early with "Yellow".

Were you old enough to be into the music scene back then? Instant stardom just didn't happen then, the way it does now.
 
Were you old enough to be into the music scene back then? Instant stardom just didn't happen then, the way it does now.


You mean it took longer in the 80's to be big?How about Michael Jackson? Madonna?...,even Culture club was famous and big after one album.
 
You mean it took longer in the 80's to be big?How about Michael Jackson? Madonna?...,even Culture club was famous and big after one album.

Michael Jackson took off after Thriller. He had made a couple of solo albums before that, plus he was known for his work with his brothers, so he was hardly a newcomer. Madonna didn't climb into the stratosphere of fame with her first album, either. Culture Club"? Please.

Besides, rock has always had a different ethos than pop, anyway.
 
Michael Jackson took off after Thriller. He had made a couple of solo albums before that, plus he was known for his work with his brothers, so he was hardly a newcomer. Madonna didn't climb into the stratosphere of fame with her first album, either. Culture Club"? Please.

Besides, rock has always had a different ethos than pop, anyway.


Well,"Like a virgin" was all over MTV,which is surely wasn't the case with "I will follow"..or even "New years Day".And she was playing arenas with her second album "True Blue".
As for Culture club,of course i'm not comparing U2 to Boy George in terms of music quality,but like it or not ,he..(or she, take your pick) was more popular than U2 were with Boy.Now was it tougher to be big in rock format rather than pop?,maybe.

The fact of the matter though, is that U2 with their first 3 albums had their niche in college radio,while Coldplay was already on commercial top 40 radio with "Parachute".Particulary with the song "Yellow"
 
Now was it tougher to be big in rock format rather than pop?,maybe.

Make that a "yes."

The fact of the matter though, is that U2 with their first 3 albums had their niche in college radio,while Coldplay was already on commercial top 40 radio with "Parachute".Particulary with the song "Yellow"

Again, timing. Much easier to do in the late 90's - 2000s than in 1980.
 
Says who? The Billboard table? According to your perspective, this would mean that Justin Timberlake and Lady GaGa are charismatic performers. Not to me.

Yes, sales (tickets and albums) are measurers of popularity and consequently the performancer/band's charisma. Coldplay has the best selling rock album in the last times and even though they can't sell like U2 they still have better ticket sales than most artists.
And yes, Lady Gaga and Justin Timberlake are incredibly charismatic for a enourmous public. It doesn't matter if you or me think that, it matters that a lot of people do.
 
Well,"Like a virgin" was all over MTV,which is surely wasn't the case with "I will follow"..or even "New years Day".And she was playing arenas with her second album "True Blue".
As for Culture club,of course i'm not comparing U2 to Boy George in terms of music quality,but like it or not ,he..(or she, take your pick) was more popular than U2 were with Boy.Now was it tougher to be big in rock format rather than pop?,maybe.

The fact of the matter though, is that U2 with their first 3 albums had their niche in college radio,while Coldplay was already on commercial top 40 radio with "Parachute".Particulary with the song "Yellow"

Dude, you sound like a Young'un so we'll forgive your selective inaccuracies. Still, let's establish a few facts:

First, "New Year's Day" was a UK top 10 hit in 1982/83. "Sunday Bloody Sunday" was also a top 10 US hit on the Rock chart (no, not the mainstream chart). I'm not arguing with your point that Coldplay has a crossover international hit with "Yellow" on the first album, I'm just establishing the facts!

"Like A Virgin" is not from Madonna's first album -- it's from her second. Her first album already had top 10 hits in the USA. True Blue was her third album.

VintagePunk's point that Michael Jackson took off after Thriller is incredibly wrong. The album before that, Off The Wall, was an absolutely massive blockbuster (although even that technically wasn't his first album). In any case, has anyone heard of the Jackson Five and The Jacksons?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about Boy George and U2...? I mean, you can't really compare pure teenage pop to U2. What you can say is that a group that can conquer all markets/demographics with a single can more easily sell albums. This is not necessarily a good thing, however. I think the U2 camp understood this and, though frustrated back in '80 to '86 that they hadn't had a #1 hit like several of their (crappier) peers, they also knew that going by it honestly would probably pay off in the long run. Indeed, they've lasted a bit longer than Culture Club did!

The real issue, as I see it, is: Would Boy have been re-titled Boy George had George O'Dowd replaced Bono as singer? Further, would the line in 'God Pt. II' have read: "Instant Karma Chameleon's gonna get him if I don't get him first?"

Perhaps I need to start a new thread for these issues I have opened up...
 
Remind me again how many albums it took for the Beatles or the Stones to be big?




...............thank you.

I'm not talking about middling fame, I'm talking about stratospheric fame.

And don't forget, the Beatles were pumping out like 2 albums a year for the first few. Again, it was a very different time than 1980.


VintagePunk's point that Michael Jackson took off after Thriller is incredibly wrong. The album before that, Off The Wall, was an absolutely massive blockbuster (although even that technically wasn't his first album).

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't remember Off The Wall being nearly as huge as Thriller. I know that it did have chart success, but as far as I can remember, a lot of the attention for Off The Wall came in retrospect, after Thriller was released. Then again, I'm in Canada, so maybe that was only the case here - back then, poppier music wasn't nearly as pervasive here as it is now. But I'm sure anyone would agree that it was Thriller that really ensconced him as an icon. If Thriller hadn't happened, would Off The Wall have the notoriety that it currently does? That's questionable, IMO.
 
Good discussion! :up:

There really is nobody that compares... and I say this as a very impartial unbiased U2 fan, one that has complained numerous times about this band in the last 8 yrs or so.
 
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't remember Off The Wall being nearly as huge as Thriller. I know that it did have chart success, but as far as I can remember, a lot of the attention for Off The Wall came in retrospect, after Thriller was released. Then again, I'm in Canada, so maybe that was only the case here - back then, poppier music wasn't nearly as pervasive here as it is now. But I'm sure anyone would agree that it was Thriller that really ensconced him as an icon. If Thriller hadn't happened, would Off The Wall have the notoriety that it currently does? That's questionable, IMO.

To clarify, I guess what I'm trying to say (and what my original point was) is that I know OTW was a successful album by anyone's standards, but it was really Thriller that pushed him over the top.
 
no one the last decade+ has come close to bridging the gap between critical acclaim and mainstream fame
 
To be fair to Coldplay here,they are way bigger today that U2 were after their 4th album.U2 began to play arenas with TUF,while Coldplay started with their second album.

When U2 started out, they didn't have a 'U2' whose shoulders they stood on.

Coldplay, and their ilk, do. They've had an easier time because U2 more or less paved the way for acts of that sort to be able to find more immediate success than U2 was afforded back in the day. U2 basically made their own cake from scratch, while modern bands were left the recipe.

Makes things a little easier.
 
u2 after 20 years of being around suddenly had to deal with "their replacements". Rhcp dealt with it a little earlier . at the 15 year mark. 1999 with the likes of limp biscuit. safe to say the peppers still standing. Proly a little easier to get by limp then coldplay. I don't care how much you detest coldplay for whatever reason, agree they are better then limp. U2 has not mentored coldplay, say the same way neil young did for pearl jam.
 
Coldplay's 4th album came out 8 years after their first, U2's 4th album came out 4 years after their first. They had a longer period of build up, and a much more in your face media culture. Granted their success is in the face of a fractured music scene, but U2's early songs didn't take off by being heard on the latest CSI, and thrown at you by 500 cable channels, and CP are to this day are not as big as U2 was during the JT era. If they somehow start putting on shows and selling out the way U2 has done with their stadium shows and they're 5th album is their biggest selling, then they may reach that height, but in terms of cross-generation, cross-genre popularity and influence? No way. I like them, but they aren't in the same league, its simply because they emulate U2 and there's no one else even close nowadays that we make this comparison.
 
coldplay can't be in u2;s league BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A 1/3 OF THE TIME. lol. Also remember joshua tree help earlier albums sell. Coldplay destroys u2 if you went by the first 2 albums. Then 3 and 4 u2 took a big leap. then on the 5th album they took a historic leap. coldplay had a big leap on the first album and have more or less sustained the big leap thru now. coldplay have not taken a historic leap. as of now. So the comparison between each bands first decade is quite interesting. coldplay can go toe to toe with u2 if its by number of albums. cause joshua tree is not part of it. if its by years, then its weird. u2 had 2 under performers that sold later on, 2 strong albums, a historic album, and a big album. coldplay has 2 strong and 2 big. or somewhere in between.
 
Yes, sales (tickets and albums) are measurers of popularity and consequently the performancer/band's charisma. Coldplay has the best selling rock album in the last times and even though they can't sell like U2 they still have better ticket sales than most artists.
And yes, Lady Gaga and Justin Timberlake are incredibly charismatic for a enourmous public. It doesn't matter if you or me think that, it matters that a lot of people do.

Such a simplified, generalizing way of explaining things. How many "charismatic" performers don't have the opportunity and the resources to promote the hell out of their work? Millions?

Aggressive promotion and the shallow catchiness of today's pop/R&B songs that top these charts are one of the main reasons of their popularity. You think people listen to Lady GaGa because of Poker Face or because she has an amazing stage presence? I'm simply saying that "charisma" doesn't have necessarily have anything to do with today's music that tops the charts. You know that shitty Romanian boy-band hit about three years ago that ruled the European charts (don't know how well it did in America)? You think that all those kids who listened to that crap know how these guys even look like anymore?
 
To be fair to Coldplay here,they are way bigger today that U2 were after their 4th album.U2 began to play arenas with TUF,while Coldplay started with their second album.

Well, this just means that Coldplay made it to arena level in less albums than U2. It doesn't automatically mean that Coldplay will go on an upward curve like U2 have and begin to play stadiums around the world. They may achieve it, or it may turn out that they have reached their ceiling already, so to speak.

This album-for-album comparison between two bands never really made much sense to me.
 
Probably why hip-hop became so big for a while. People were tired of the Nickleback style songs (though weren't tired of the actual band.....).

Rolling Stone has been throwing a lot of love towards Rob Thomas and I just don't see it. He's bland, and his music and band was bland.

Hip hop at least started getting creative with some of their beats, even when they were sampling old songs.

Of course now the same thing has set in with that genre. I'm so tired of the computer-synth voice that every rap artist has to use in their songs.
Wise words. In the UK at least, Rob Thomas and Matchbox Twenty have never had much of a profile, but I know that he's huge in America - probably BECAUSE it's bland, pleasant music. The kind of stuff that's cynically written to sound equally good on the radio, or to soundtrack emotional moments on big TV drama shows. That's what sells to a wide audience, even if it could be performed by any number of equally faceless artists.

In truth, rap and r'n'b really do rule the world, especially in the US. But those artists market themselves far better than rock acts, in particular their desire to become 'moguls' rather than just musicians. Then, as rap in particular doesn't really work very well in the live setting, they have huge revenue streams coming in from merchandise, clothing, jewellery, films, and God knows what else.

Random anecdote, apropos of nothing. My wife's sister requested that Kanye West's 'Golddigga' be played at our wedding, and I've never seen a dance floor clear quicker. The only way the people could've disappeared faster would've been if the building had been on fire.
 
To clarify, I guess what I'm trying to say (and what my original point was) is that I know OTW was a successful album by anyone's standards, but it was really Thriller that pushed him over the top.

Off The Wall with the huge #1 hits Don't Stop Till You Get Enough and Rock With You was enough of a crowning achievement that he could be called ruler of the charts pretty much at that point.

Thriller was just insane. He and god morphed into each other for a bit there. :lol:
 
Fascinating thread. I want to commend 65980 for some of the most consistently excellent posting that I've ever seen on this site.

I've been thinking about whether the 10-year comparison or 4-album comparison is more just when lining up Coldplay and U2. Neither is completely ideal, but I think the time since first album is probably the best way to compare. Even in this regard, Coldplay isn't terribly far behind U2. They're not there, but they have sustained a pretty high level of popularity for the entire decade and they're still rising. A lot of people have suggested or predicted that they are on their way down, but based on album sales and VLV's single success, this sounds like unfounded speculation to me. If Coldplay's next album is bigger than VLV and it has 2-3 top 10 singles, then the discussion will be very interesting. I certainly have my doubts about their ability to deliver this type of album, but to suggest that there's any evidence that Coldplay's popularity has been doing anything but rising is groundless. I agree with most that their 2nd album is far and away their best, but I'm under the impression we're talking about pure popularity here. They don't seem to have what it takes to really reinvent themselves or develop any serious intrigue by rising above their over-earnest, nice-guy image. U2 has embraced that image now and again, but they have also seriously fucked with it in a way in which Coldplay seems incapable. A live show quality comparison also ends up pretty lopsided. But in the end, these types of 'cred' issues don't really factor into a discussion of a band's size/popularity and Coldplay could become even bigger than they are now regardless of whether we think they deserve it.
 
I think the fact that U2 fucked up their second album compare to Coldplay's second record is better reason why they are bigger after 4CD than u2 were.That arguement that it's easier in this decade to be big compare to the 80's is non-sense.As a matter of fact ,Coldplay have a bigger obstacle that U2 had back then...it's call the internet and more specifically downloading.Would u2 had sold 17 millions copies of the Joshua Tree if it had been release in 2007 rather than 1987?So when you think about it, it's quit remarquable what Coldplay accomplish in this era.
 
unfortunately, in the mid 80's, when U2 were on such a quick rise to the top, i was way too young to know what was going on. i'd be interested to hear from someone who witnessed U2's rise in the mid 80's, and then compare it to Coldplay present day. something tells me that the buzz around Coldplay doesn't even come close to the buzz U2 had in the mid 80's. i could be wrong though.
 
unfortunately, in the mid 80's, when U2 were on such a quick rise to the top, i was way too young to know what was going on. i'd be interested to hear from someone who witnessed U2's rise in the mid 80's, and then compare it to Coldplay present day. something tells me that the buzz around Coldplay doesn't even come close to the buzz U2 had in the mid 80's. i could be wrong though.

This is a great point. I have no idea how much I romanticize or underrate U2's size in the 80s. Or pretty much all of the 90s for that matter. Everything I know is ultimately second-hand. But even now, I am/was pretty oblivious to how popular VLV (the song) is/was. I know it was popular (in the same way I know Lady Gaga is popular) but I didn't really experience it. Any American high-schoolers out there who can weigh in? Or college students?
 
Rob Thomas and Matchbox Twenty have never had much of a profile, but I know that he's huge in America - probably BECAUSE it's bland, pleasant music. The kind of stuff that's cynically written to sound equally good on the radio, or to soundtrack emotional moments on big TV drama shows. That's what sells to a wide audience, even if it could be performed by any number of equally faceless artists.

OK, while they might be a bit bland, most of the music I've heard from Rob Thomas, and this is going back more than a decade since they took off, has been very earnest, he himself doesn't seem to be cynically writing these things just to be put on TV episodes, they aren't incredible musicians and songwriters but they are marketable, I bet it has a lot more to do with producers and the executives than with him.
 
Back
Top Bottom