No-one took up the mantle

[BVS]

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.

I don't think the argument is that it's easier to be big this decade than in the 80's is what anyone is saying, in fact you are correct that with illegal downloads you have a major obstacle.

But what I think people are saying is that when you have a playbook to play from it makes it easier. I think only the die-hards will deny that Coldplay have pretty much taken almost page by page U2's playbook, not to fault them but they do have coattails they are riding on. The only way we'll know if Coldplay can do it, is if they can make a departure and survive.

 

[VintagePunk]

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.

I remember when OTW was out. It was a big album, no doubt, but did it garner any more notice than any other big album that was out at the time? No, not really. I don't believe that on the strength of OTW itself he would have become a cultural icon, it took the insane hugeness of Thriller to do that. Had it not been for Thriller, OTW would have barely left a mark on our collective consciousness - we wouldn't even be discussing it right now. And Bad probably wouldn't have gotten made, at least not in the form that it did. In that way, Thriller affected what came before and after it.

 

[digitize]

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?

I'm a sixteen-year-old American high school student. VLV... I, being a pretty decent Coldplay fan before the album was released, had heard VLV (the song) and Violet Hill well before they were popular, and liked them. Last summer, VLV became a big hit, and, by the time I got back to school, the album was pretty well-listened-to. Now, that's a good thing in some ways, because it's very rare than an actual album is popular amongst people my age, and I think it's a halfway decent album at that (thank you, Mr. Eno). However, the album wasn't really ubiquitous, if you know what I mean. Nowadays, there are generally two types of people in music: people who like poppy crap (which VLV unfortunately ended up in the circles of), and people who don't like poppy crap and only like music from the 60s, grunge, and modern music that is only more indie than everyone else's indie music (which, for some reason, they lump Radiohead in with, again unfortunately). I don't really like either attitude, personally, because that poppy stuff is generally awful and the indie stuff is rarely any better. People have a lot of choice in our society nowadays, so for one artist to have any sustained popularity in the people of my age group, who are usually extremely tech-savvy and take advantage of those choices, is rare.

This is both a good thing and a bad thing, I guess... the good things about it are pretty obvious (CAPITALISM FTW!!!), but, conversely, it kind of cheapens the excitement that one can get out of music, and leads artists to try less hard to be good, in a sense. U2, the Stones, and Pink Floyd earned a certain amount of respect to be on the sustained touring plateau that they have ended up on (save Floyd, I guess). I really only like one of those three, but Floyd and the Stones really did earn what they ended up being. I think Bono has talked about the total lack of ambition in modern non-poppy-crap music, and I agree with him... it's very annoying to see bands basing their entire stature on not being popular.

I'm not sure if those paragraphs make any sense whatsoever, but... ehh, whatever.

 

[guill]

Coldplay can do it, they just need their moonwalk, live aid, whatever, something great on American Tv that millions and millions watch and comment the day after even if they're not big fans. Smashing pumpkins, oasis, rhcp, etc never had this moment, i think it's the reason why they didn't manage to take up the mantle in spite of their popular albums.

 

[gvox]

Had it not been for Thriller, OTW would have barely left a mark on our collective consciousness - we wouldn't even be discussing it right now.

Totally disagree here, but it's ok, we could just be from different backgrounds. By the time OTW came out, MJ was a household name to us. Between the Jackson 5 and then, as I mentioned, Don't Stop and Rock With You, he was already huge.

Yes, Thriller did have a huge retroactive impact, not disputing that, however even if it wasn't what it was, those two songs alone (in terms of his solo output) had him firmly on the 'dancefloor classics' map with or without Thriller.

 

[gvox]

I think the fact that U2 fucked up their second album compare to Coldplay's second record is better reason why they are bigger

Wrong, sorry. October is by no means a 'fuck up'. It was a great follow up album and was noted critically as such. The only thing they might have fucked up about it was the album jacket artwork

 

[subnet]

i liked James, like, 10 years ago

whatever happened to James

 

[nava1987]

I have stayed up til at least 4 am debating this very issue with my buddies. There is absolutely NO band at the level of stardom that bands like the Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin and U2 have reached. I guess the closest thing is Coldplay, but I'll get to them later. I see a few reasons for this lack of conquering the world stardom:

1. Lack of ambition. Bands today do not set out to be the biggest and best in the world. How do you not want to be at the very top??? I can't see anybody with this ambition, and to me its a major reason why we won't see another band of U2's stature.

2. Lack of frontman/guitar hero. There are no recognizable frontmen or guitarists today. To me, they're basically all interchangeable, no one stands out on their own. There's no duo's like John/Paul, Mick/Keith, Plant/Paige, Bono/Edge, or even Axl/Slash. You're definitely not gonna find a lead singer climbing up scaffolding, stopping mid-song for politics, or dancing around in leather and giant sunglasses

3. American radio. Boy does it ever suck. It is very hard for a rock band that doesn't sound like Nickleback to get played on mainstream radio. Radio is dominated by pop and hip hop/R&B. As for European bands, they have an even smaller chance of being played on American radio. Some of that is the American public's fault, but some of it still lies with the bands. The Beatles knew it. U2 knew it. You have to conquer America to reach global super star status.

As for Coldplay, they are the closet thing to a world-renowned superstar band. However, I think it has a lot more to do with their bland, inoffensive music that appeals to adult contemporary stations. They've also accomplished quite a feat: being a superstar rock band that doesn't rock. I'm no metalhead or anything, but Jesus Christ, rock at least once in a while. U2 is not Metallica by any stretch of the imagination, but they can bust out "The Fly" or even recent guitar driven singles like "Vertigo" or "Get on Your Boots."

Also, all of the bands I've heard, I'd have to nominate Kings of Leon. I liked what I saw of them on the Vertigo tour and the singles are pretty catchy. What I'm more suprised about is that people my age (I'm 21) really seem to like them. It's really hard to win over my age and younger unless you're playing emo music like Fallout Boy. I hope that KOL takes the momentum they have and pushes the boundries of their sound, like all the great world conquering bands have done.

 

[eviltwin]

Let's face it, if you want to rule the world, you'll have to crack the USA, so let's look at the official soundscan album sales ('91-'07. I don't have '08 at hand)

We'll take out the country shit: 5 spots in the top 10 (from Garth Brooks #1 to Shania #10) Also disregard oldies (Beatles #2, Floyd #9) retired boy bands and any solo artists. Note, Eminem (#12) ranks way behind people like Garth, Celine and Mariah, but ahead of Elvis (#16), Britney (#18), or Clapton (#19). Michael Jackson ranks a lowly 61st! Indeed, Sinatra (#31) has proven to be more relevant over the past two decades than Jackson.

This leaves proper, active, semi-relevant bands, some of them more metal than rock, no pop but there's a bit of hip-hop:

#5 - Metallica - 48.670m
13 - U2 - 32.087m
17 - Pearl Jam - 29.373m
27 - Creed - 25.922m
38 - Guns n Roses - 23.641m

41 - Green Day - 22.864m
46 - Red Hot Chilli Peppers - 21.547m
54 - Linkin Park - 19.709m
58 - Limp Bizkit - 19.264m
64 - Beastie Boys - 18.827m

67 - REM - 18.318m
74 - Van Halen - 17.909m
75 - Korn - 17.784m
80 - Outkast - 17.230m
92 - Nickelback - 16.185m

Note a complete absence of any UK based bands. I'll repeat, you cannot be taken seriously as a band, if you do not succeed in the US market. The Stones and Beatles did, as did Led Zep, AC/DC, even Queen.

Creed have just reunited. PJ, and Green Day could still challenge U2 if they get their act together. That ship has sailed for REM, GnR and RHCP. At the current rate it will probably take Coldplay another 10 years to crack the top 50.

This album-for-album comparison between two bands never really made much sense to me.

The only comparison that makes any sort of sense (worldwide numbers):

THE SUPER-PROMISING DEBUT
Boy (1980) 3mio
Kill Em All (1983) 3mio

LIVE CULT BAND, COLLEGE RADIO, BRINK OF EXPLOSION
October - War - UABRS - Unforgettable Fire + WAIA 3+8+8+8+2=27
Ride The Lightning - Master of Puppets - And Justice For All 5+6+1+9=21

MEGASTARDOM
Joshua Tree - Rattle & Hum - Achtung Baby 25+14+17=56
Metallica - Live Shit:B&P 17+15/3=22

FALL FROM "PUBLIC GRACE"
Zooropa - Pop 8+6=14
Load - Reload 7+5=16

RECLAIMING THE THRONE
ATYCLB - HTDAAB - NLOTH 12+9+?
St. Anger - Death Magnetic 4+ >2m

compilations
u2: 1980/90/00 16/2+5
garage inc 5/2
s&m 7/2

Worldwide Totals:
Metallica - 74,787,338
U2 - 160,5 million.

Note that Metallica didn't manage to cash in during their most popular era, and haven't really come back convincingly. The gap with any of the other bands on the list will be bigger in U2's favour.

Some random points:

Off the wall did not meet expectations, despite the ok-is singles success and some critical acclaim (does a grammy mean anything?). Most of its sales only came AFTER Thriller. They really tried everything, but back then black artists could not cross-over to white audiences yet. For Thriller MJ's record company had to blackmail MTV to get the Beat It and Billy Jean videos played.

U2, when recording their first songs, wanted to be like the Jam, the Police and the Clash, in terms of singles success, even contemplated being a singles only band. They quickly figured out it wasn't their thing, so they took a different route, building a live fan base and selling albums first and foremost. They used to mention the Jam a lot more than the Who, who obviously influenced the Jam. Note that neither the Who, nor the Police, nor the Clash can be found in the top 100, but the Police have sold as many albums as Coldplay and together they have sold as many as the Who.

Pure pop artists from Mariah (#3) to Madonna (#32) follow completely different rules anyway, there is no competition with real bands.

Having seen KoL live, I can only attest that they are talentless time wasters who produce the ultimate in faux alternative rubbish. They are not taking anyone's mantle, as they aren't even the new Matchbox 20 or Nickelback.

Coldplay are mind numbingly boring plagiarising MOR fools. I hope Joe Satriani takes them to the cleaners, gets their albums banned from sale, repossed from the public and destroyed, as well as a cease and desist order on them ever performing anything live.

 

[65980]

I'd be curious to know your source for the above statistics? Are you sure those stats are not US-only? I'm surprised not to see Oasis or Bon Jovi in the top 100...

Off the wall did not meet expectations, despite the ok-is singles success and some critical acclaim (does a grammy mean anything?). Most of its sales only came AFTER Thriller. They really tried everything, but back then black artists could not cross-over to white audiences yet.

Fail. Okay, let's get this straight once and for all -- yes, Thriller was much bigger than Off The Wall, and yes Thriller turned him into a cultural icon like Elvis on an unprecedented level. But, ya know, Thriller was also much bigger than, say, The Joshua Tree.

Some facts about Off The Wall:
-- first solo album ever to have 4 top-10 hits in the USA.
-- two #1 hits on the mainstream (aka 'white') chart in the USA.

If you live in the UK, you might not have noticed it as much because it wasn't as big there, but facts are facts. It was huge. The quote that it "did not meet expectations" couldn't be more wrong. It completely surpassed all expectations. The notion that black audiences could not cross over to white audiences in 1979/80 is also completely wrong, since black artists were having #1 hits in the USA back in the mid-50s. MJ himself has sung on 4 #1 hits as a child. What Thriller did was open up MTV to black pop artists (there was no MTV when Off The Wall came out), and yeah it helped make 'pop' by blacks (Lionel Richie, Whitney Houston) more easily programmable on mainstream radio, but this is long after albums like What's Goin' On and Songs In The Key of Life.

 

[65980]

For those who want a crash-course in the history of Off The Wall, read this: Michael Jackson Off The Wall Era

NOTE: 3rd-best selling LP of 1980 (though it was released in 1979 and had already sold a lot of copies then); almost one year in the US top-20; Jacksons' tour sold out the L.A. Forum four times in '80/81 -- all this two or three years before Thriller.

 

[gvox]

I'd be curious to know your source for the above statistics? Are you sure those stats are not US-only? I'm surprised not to see Oasis or Bon Jovi in the top 100...



Fail. Okay, let's get this straight once and for all -- yes, Thriller was much bigger than Off The Wall, and yes Thriller turned him into a cultural icon like Elvis on an unprecedented level. But, ya know, Thriller was also much bigger than, say, The Joshua Tree.

Some facts about Off The Wall:
-- first solo album ever to have 4 top-10 hits in the USA.
-- two #1 hits on the mainstream (aka 'white') chart in the USA.

If you live in the UK, you might not have noticed it as much because it wasn't as big there, but facts are facts. It was huge. The quote that it "did not meet expectations" couldn't be more wrong. It completely surpassed all expectations. The notion that black audiences could not cross over to white audiences in 1979/80 is also completely wrong, since black artists were having #1 hits in the USA back in the mid-50s. MJ himself has sung on 4 #1 hits as a child. What Thriller did was open up MTV to black pop artists (there was no MTV when Off The Wall came out), and yeah it helped make 'pop' by blacks (Lionel Richie, Whitney Houston) more easily programmable on mainstream radio, but this is long after albums like What's Goin' On and Songs In The Key of Life.

Very good points about Off The Wall. The only expectations I heard that it did not meet, were MJ's own. He wanted total world domination and he told I think it was Janet or Rebbie as much afterwards, and henceforth came Thriller.

A notable accomplishment of OTW that is rarely discussed is that the album contained the first songs written by MJ himself, and it just so happened that the song that charted biggest was his alone. Major accomplishment in his growth as a musician imo.

 

[financeguy]

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.

Would more or less agree. There were bands like the Rolling Stones, but U2, though they respect and admire the Rolling Stones, quite clearly were not following that particular template; for a start, their music was completely different. As for the Beatles, while they were obviously a huge influence on U2's music, they didn't tour for long enough to make them the role models in respect of U2's extraordinary touring career.

The odds on the future largest rock band in the world coming from north side lower middle class Dublin were not high back in the 1970s, in some ways U2 came from nowhere, they didn't even come from particularly musical backgrounds.

I used to work for someone that actually used to work with U2's accountants, and he told me that even in the early days, he had been told that this band were going to go places, so I guess enough people saw something in U2 back in those early years.

But in another sense, for bands like Coldplay, it makes it harder that it's all been done before, in the sense of a 'no new ideas in the house, and every book has been read' kind of way.

 

[No spoken words]

I don't know, it just seem to me that today, it's easier to achieve fame but also harder to sustain it.

 

[VintagePunk]

Gah! I'm not saying that OTW wasn't huge! What I'm saying is that I don't believe that OTW would have solidified MJs place as a cultural icon on its own, without a follow up like Thriller.

I can think of a LOT of albums that were huge in the 70s and 80s, those ubiquitous ones that pretty much everyone owned, but ones that didn't propel the artists that created them into the stratosphere of lasting music fame.

Look at this page List of best-selling albums worldwide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OTW sold 20 million albums. Now look at all those artists who sold more albums than him. How many have become cultural icons? Not that many. He became that on the back of Thriller, not OTW. That's all I'm trying to say.

I don't know, it just seem to me that today, it's easier to achieve fame but also harder to sustain it.

YES. And that's the crux of this thread.

 

[financeguy]

Wrong, sorry. October is by no means a 'fuck up'. It was a great follow up album and was noted critically as such. The only thing they might have fucked up about it was the album jacket artwork

That's tosh, to be honest. The album received mixed reviews, did not sell particularly well, some of the bands' backers were starting to think twice, and the bass player was starting to feel disconnected from the band and starting to think that maybe this wasn't the band he had joined.

If it wasn't for them signing with Chris Blackwell's Island Records, who was indulgent towards musicians with religious beliefs because of dealing with Bob Marley, they could easily have been dropped by the record label. Remember Bono's admission that when they performed Fire on Top of the Pops, the single went down in the charts. At the time of October, U2 weren't even the biggest band in Ireland, let alone the UK, and in the US were irrelevant apart from college radio and those that had seen them live. Gloria didn't even make the UK top 40 singles chart. Ok, they got in TOTP in the UK, but big deal. Most of the bands that were in TOTP in 1981/1982 are long since forgotten.

 

[65980]

Agree with finance-guy. October was not a 'fuck-up' but it certainly wasn't a success either. It just about was a "hold-steady", but it certainly didn't further U2's cause except in that there was another piece of plastic to promote.

 

[gvox]

I can think of a LOT of albums that were huge in the 70s and 80s, those ubiquitous ones that pretty much everyone owned, but ones that didn't propel the artists that created them into the stratosphere of lasting music fame.

... How many have become cultural icons? Not that many. He became that on the back of Thriller, not OTW. That's all I'm trying to say.

Easy now I fully get it, I just disagree. In my upbringing he was already an icon, not on the back of any one album such as OTW, but on the strength of his cumulative output since the Jackson 5 days. If he had stopped at OTW he would still have had lasting music fame and cultural status, for sure. He already had the dance moves, the flashy outfits, The Wiz, Ben, She's Out of My Life, I'll Be There, you name it, he was there already. Off The Wall firmly put him on the map in terms of a solo artist who would always be remembered.

Thriller sent him out of the universe completely.

 

[gvox]

That's tosh, to be honest. The album received mixed reviews,

Please re-read what I'm responding to:

"October was a massive fuck up" (or something similar)

That's a little misleading. Boy also received mixed reviews, every album of theirs save Joshua Tree and AB has, hasn't it? It also sold just as many, if not more, copies than Boy did, and I think peaked higher on the UK album chart than did Boy.

Noone's saying it was a grand slam, but on the other end of the spectrum it also wasn't a 'fuck up'

 

[Spoutnik]

Perhaps i should have specify that Bono himself,fucked up the album by losing the lyrics and having to improvise in a short period of time.But the point is that if October would have been a progression in the band career instead of couple steps back,they would have become an arena band with War.

Which Coldplay did manage to succeed with A rush of blood to the head.

 

[gvox]

I don't see any valid comparison, period. U2 were up against a different set of competitors and they were making a different style of music, clearly. U2 early 80s were a statement/political/spiritual band. What exactly is Coldplay, again? Commercial radio pap, basically.

 

[Snowlock]

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.

It could be anyone. Who are the legends today besides U2 that have any degree still of relevence? Metallica (maybe), Springsteen... Anyone else?

They all have one thing in common, they were little more than genre acts; to varying degrees of lesser renown until like a lightning bolt they released an album that grabbed everyone by the ear. Born In The USA, The Black Album, The Joshua Tree.

Before those albums, these guys weren't that successful and came almost out of nowhere. U2 were pigeonholed in with Brit New Wave or Post Punk and coming off a failed album. Springsteen was flirting with hasbeen/one hit wonder. And Metallica were unknowns with a little buzz building over an EP.

So, it could be anyone next. Coldplay seem the contender, but they could wind up having all the staying power of Huey Lewis and the News. They were super popular in their day as well.

All it takes is one giant album and one giant tour; and a fairly decent follow up.

I'd argue, we haven't seen a rock album that massive and with such wide appeal since The Black Album. There's nothing to say though, there isn't potentially another one down the road.

 

[No spoken words]

It could be anyone. Who are the legends today besides U2 that have any degree still of relevence? Metallica (maybe), Springsteen... Anyone else?

They all have one thing in common, they were little more than genre acts; to varying degrees of lesser renown until like a lightning bolt they released an album that grabbed everyone by the ear. Born In The USA, The Black Album, The Joshua Tree.

Before those albums, these guys weren't that successful and came almost out of nowhere. U2 were pigeonholed in with Brit New Wave or Post Punk and coming off a failed album. Springsteen was flirting with hasbeen/one hit wonder. And Metallica were unknowns with a little buzz building over an EP.

So, it could be anyone next. Coldplay seem the contender, but they could wind up having all the staying power of Huey Lewis and the News. They were super popular in their day as well.

All it takes is one giant album and one giant tour; and a fairly decent follow up.

I'd argue, we haven't seen a rock album that massive and with such wide appeal since The Black Album. There's nothing to say though, there isn't potentially another one down the road.

I don't think that you're answering his question, though.

Sure, yeah, it could be anyone. Lightning could strike me right now, too.

But do you REALLY think that it'll be either of those two bands?

 

[Snowlock]

I don't think that you're answering his question, though.

Sure, yeah, it could be anyone. Lightning could strike me right now, too.

But do you REALLY think that it'll be either of those two bands?

Well, I did answer the question. It could literally be anyone. No one would've predicted Springsteen, U2 or Metallica becoming the institutions they became prior to the release of those three albums.

FG said bands like those two bands (KoL, SP).. Meaning anyone of them that are well known now.. (killers, CP, John Mayer, Disturbed, Buckcherry and on and on) so well, yeah. It could be any of them. We won't know until it happens. Its completely impossible to predict.

 

[No spoken words]

Well, I did answer the question. It could literally be anyone. No one would've predicted Springsteen, U2 or Metallica becoming the institutions they became prior to the release of those three albums.

FG said bands like those two bands (KoL, SP).. Meaning anyone of them that are well known now.. (killers, CP, John Mayer, Disturbed, Buckcherry and on and on) so well, yeah. It could be any of them. We won't know until it happens. Its completely impossible to predict.

What a wonderful evasion.

 

[Snowlock]

How is that evading?

Is there life in outter space? Possibly. Is that an evasion too?

 

[ur i's make a O]

To answer the original question, based on what I've seen I'd have to go for MUSE

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

I think Muse are a little to "progressive" to become Mega-Mega... I could be wrong, I see them more like a Radiohead - popular but also having a very "cultish" fan base as well.

 

[No spoken words]

How is that evading?

Is there life in outter space? Possibly. Is that an evasion too?

It's an evasion because it's understood that none of us KNOW the future, but we can guess at things.

For example, the Yankees play the Red Sox tonight. I am predicting that the Sox win, sadly. I won't really know if I'm right until after the game, but, I'm making an educated guess here and picking the Sox.

And, now, I'm going to tell you that in a billion years, KOL nor Snow Patrol couldn't attain U2's heights. Am I right? Time will tell. Can I guess at this, though? Sure.

 

[AtomicBono]

As for Coldplay, they are the closet thing to a world-renowned superstar band. However, I think it has a lot more to do with their bland, inoffensive music that appeals to adult contemporary stations. They've also accomplished quite a feat: being a superstar rock band that doesn't rock. I'm no metalhead or anything, but Jesus Christ, rock at least once in a while. U2 is not Metallica by any stretch of the imagination, but they can bust out "The Fly" or even recent guitar driven singles like "Vertigo" or "Get on Your Boots."

This is my main problem with Coldplay. I do like them, but they don't rock by any stretch of the imagination. I Will Follow is more intense than anything Coldplay has ever recorded, and it's not like IWF is a balls-to-the-wall rocker.

Great discussion here. I honestly don't think anyone will ever achieve the longtime success of U2. I think in terms of talent and an amazing live show (and a band that actually rocks), Muse come the closest, but they're still not a household name in the US, and I think they're a little too "progressive" as elfa said to become as big as U2. But they do have that epic quality that helped bands like U2 and Queen, and while they do wear some of their influences on their sleeves, I think they've created a unique sound. And Matt is a guitar god, truly a guitar hero ... I have to say though, Muse have yet to create an album as good as any of U2's classics. I feel like every album has some filler (Absolution is probably the closest to perfection, but I still feel like it's missing something...). To even be considered, Muse would need an album with as much success and staying power as JT or AB. Of course even if that did happen, it's hard to say if Muse would still be making music and popular 20 years from now ... somehow I doubt it.

The market has changed, everyone knows it. There are many factors. There's the fact that rock isn't the dominating force it was in the 70's. There has always been disposable pop music, but now there's also rap/hip-hop and such, so rock bands have to compete with that as well. And of course there's the internet, which has made it much much easier for bands to get exposure. The result of this is a vast increase in niche markets. It's so easy to find music you like; people are no longer limited to the radio, TV, and buying random records at shops.... now you can go on last.fm, get some recommendations, then torrent entire discographies in minutes. With sooo much music available, it seems less and less likely that the whole world would listen to one band enough for a long enough time to make them as popular as U2, if that makes sense. It is now easier for bands to gain moderate success, but I think much harder to achieve long-lasting superstar status.

Last of the rockstars.