A Discussion About U2's Longetivity

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
J

JOFO

Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Joined
Dec 2, 2000
Messages
4,422
I've been trying to think about this topic since it's been mentioned alot lately how U2 remains relevant and few bands are still around of their stature.

U2's 1st album came out in 1980.
3 years later, they got bigger (with their 3rd album).
4 years after that, they exploded with their 5th album (Joshua Tree). That makes it took 7 years since their 1st album was released for them to become superstars.

Now, what band or artist since then has even HAD the chance to put out 5 albums before becoming huge? Since the early 90's, if your 1st 2 albums don't hit it big, you're dropped from your label.

I'm trying to think of REM, who also came out in 1980, right? really, they didn't become a household name until 1991, although they were known before that.

Now, Bruce Springsteen's 1st album came out in what, 1973? He became an icon in 1984, at least 10 years after his 1st album, and is still releasing what people would call "relevant" music (2002's The Rising).

Today, who is huge? Coldplay? Their 1st album was a hit, and their 2nd made them huge.
Bands that are popular now like The Strokes, The White Stripes, etc. have all become big on their 1st albums, but will they continue or be old news in 2 years?

The only observation I make is it seems older bands were given a chance even if they were not an overnight success, whereas that's not the case today.

Any thoughts?
 
I think you're right. If U2, REM, or Springsteen were starting out today, they be dropped after album #2. It's the sad, sad state of the industry, go for the quick $, and almost no career development. What's ever more upsetting is to think of what many great bands out there could develop into by their 3rd, 4th or 5th albums, but are dropped at #2. So much great music never to be heard so marketing $ can be spent on Clay Aiken or Britney.
 
Yes it is sad but true they would have been:( Things suck today!

But U2 were very lucky. They were the right guys at the right time with the right manager from the right place. Yes I think being Irish helped. If they had been American or English I think there might have been more competition in their home regions and they might not have gotten ahead so quickly. Not to say they weren't good enough, of course they were, but I'm saying hundreds of American bands die without ever really taking off because they don't get a break and maybe some of them might have been stars too, we'll never know. But I'm so glad everything worked out and we have U2: They're special.

Also, Bruce Springsteen might not have become an 'icon' until '84, but he was a superstar from the time he put out Born to Run, probably even Thunder Road. I don't know what album those are on because I am not a fan, but my sister had a lot of old magazines with big stuff on him back in the 70's so it's not right to say he didn't break big until 1984. He had lots of stuff on the radio and big concert tours, so he was very famous and big before 1984.

Like U2 were world famous in 1983,(yes I was there, don't try to tell me they were an underground band who 'broke out' with JT. They may have been somewhat underground until War, but after that they were very famous.) BIG in 1987, but were they really 'icons' until they attained their legendary status with the Elevation tour?;)
 
I just read yesterday that October was awarded album of the year by dutch critics back then
 
I think the music scene saw some changes since the 80's too and it shows - we had the arrival and breakthrough into the mainstream of r&B, hip hop, rap and techno was quite big in the 90's.
Even now, there is a difference between US music market - where urban music styles have a huge influence on the mainstream music, even pop - and the European market, where I think traditional songwriting pop/rock is more common.

And also, with the coming of boybands and manufactured pop, quantity replaced quality - but the problem is in music industry things move so quickly you can be No.1 on the charts and be gone in a year or two. Where are boybands now? Britney and Christina also aren't "in" like they used to be, now it's Beyonce's turn it seems.

One of the most interesting things in music is how incredibly hard it is for non-American acts to suceed in US. I mean, take Robbie Williams, who is HUGE in Europe and Australia, or Kylie Minogue - who could not make it in US.
On the other hand, Justin Timberlake or Britney &clones have it so much easier.
 
U2Kitten said:
But U2 were very lucky. They were the right guys at the right time with the right manager from the right place. Yes I think being Irish helped. If they had been American or English I think there might have been more competition in their home regions and they might not have gotten ahead so quickly. Not to say they weren't good enough, of course they were, but I'm saying hundreds of American bands die without ever really taking off because they don't get a break and maybe some of them might have been stars too, we'll never know. But I'm so glad everything worked out and we have U2: They're special.
Click to expand...

:yes:. McGuinness is probably one of the smartest managers I've ever seen. In that "Best of Propaganda" book, there's an interview with him, and he was talking about how where most bands had a thing where they had to immediately release a song, and if it wasn't a hit, they'd get dropped, he decided to have U2 gain a following first, then go after the singles and stuff, that way if they weren't a hit automatically, the record labels couldn't really drop them, because they did have a following. I thought that was an excellent way of doing things-more bands should try something like that, see how well it goes.

But my parents talk about that all the time-bands and actors and people along those lines, as well as TV shows and stuff, were given a chance back then. If somebody really believed in somebody or something, they pushed like nothing else to make sure it got known. And they didn't just throw a group of people together and see how well things worked out, they didn't go for the people who were hot at the time and just throw them together. They made sure the chemistry between the people involved was perfect. U2's got excellent chemistry, that's one reason out of many why they've managed to stick around so long. McGuinness and the record label and stuff really believed in U2, they really liked them, got along well with the guys and everything, so that's why they've been able to do what they've done. So much thanks to McGuinness and the record label-without their help, who knows what would've happened to U2?

Originally posted by U2girl
One of the most interesting things in music is how incredibly hard it is for non-American acts to suceed in US. I mean, take Robbie Williams, who is HUGE in Europe and Australia, or Kylie Minogue - who could not make it in US.
On the other hand, Justin Timberlake or Britney &clones have it so much easier.
Click to expand...

That is weird, isn't it? My dad and I have talked about that before, though, and he thinks the main reason why that is is because over here in the U.S., we're so quick to put everything into formats, so anything that doesn't really fit a set format would have a hard time breaking through, 'cause nobody'd know where to put it, and we tend to be kinda picky about what we consider to be good music and everything. Whereas in Europe, they don't follow formats, they aren't so picky-they like everything from bubblegum pop to punk.

:shrug:. Just a theory...perhaps European people can help confirm or deny this. :).

I also agree with the rest of your post, too.

Angela
 
Last edited:
:shrug: I don't know why that happens.

I would say maybe partially MTV helps out a lot (I don't know how many non US acts get their videos played on American MTV, if they're not in a huge league a la U2), also US music has a very big market of its own - also count in country music - that is hard bo break into. I also think radio airplay has a bigger role in America as it is one big country as opposed to Europe where you have many countries with worldwide famous bands for sure, but you also have local artists on the charts.

Another element to longetivity that came up in the last 20 years is the arrival of MTV and videos - which could have contributed to the armies of manufactured acts, TV Idols etc...maybe right now it's easier to be famous than ever, to have a no.1 single and/or album - but it's all too much focused on the sales and the "here and now" aspect of music.
Who knows where Beyonce or Justin Timberlake or 50 Cent or Eminem will be in 10, 20 years? I don't think they will be anywhere near their current popularity.
 
That's the bad thing now, no one wants to give a band time to develop when they can get quick and easy money on pop junk and replacement clones :sigh:
 
How about their longevity in sticking together as a band. How many bands keep the same members. (When they changed their name to U2, it was Bono, Edge, Adam and Larry).
 
they were lucky and that's it , + some hype , some talent (as a band and developing process ) and business skills from PaUL .
there is a big difference between october and war , then goes UF which is better then war , then comes joshua tree which way better then uf , and live schedule , now U2 need to write a concept double album , and do something big with touring ( like the stonesand peter gabriel did ) or call it quits .
 
u2 change, that is why they have been so huge for so long. They never churn out the same material over and over. Expect the Unexpected, with every u2 album.

I love REM, fantastic band, masters of the craft. however personally, I feel REM's only period where they were on top of the world was probably 88-94. Since Berry left, their albums have still sold, yet are not much anticipated, or successful in attracting new fans. They've maintained the fans they gained in their most successful period, and thats enough to call them one of the leading bands in the world.

Longetivity will be hard to come by for Coldplay. They must attempt something as audacious as POP or ACHTUNG BABY after their 3rd album, or they will be doomed.

I hope the white stripes dissolve into nothing soon.......cant stand them....

I feel u2 are reaching the end, 2 more albums maybe , and they will hang up their boots. With such a vast gap between album releases, i feel there is not many more musical avenues they wasnt to explore.

U2 along with the Beatles, are probably the only bands who deserve ultimate legendary status, and u2's longetivity is the main reason they deserve such high regard.
 
thrillme said:
How about their longevity in sticking together as a band. How many bands keep the same members. (When they changed their name to U2, it was Bono, Edge, Adam and Larry).
Click to expand...

Yep, that?s amazing. Friendship is the key word here. I only recently got to see them in the VH1 Legends special, it hadn?t been shown here before. And I got moved when I saw Larry talking about Bono, the way the young Bono stuck with him when Larry?s mom died, the way he could relate to Larry?s suffering, all support Bono gave him during that dark period. He said that, even if Bono could hurt him deeply one day, he would be still his beloved friend, he would forgive him. And it?s not only Larry and Bono, it happens to the four of them, it?s truly a brotherhood. That explains it all, their relevance, their longevity, their comradeship, the joy they find in what they do for living. Their true friendship fascinates me and intrigues me at the same time. I wish I had friends like that.

Sorry for deviating from the original subject. I have nothing to say about longevity in the music scene or market. I don?t care for that actually.

Cheers
MT
 
I don't think anyone these days is allowed three or four albums to break through the way U2 were. Their success was very gradual. They were lucky to have a manager as smart as McGuinness. It was due to their presence with a devoted following that "War" debuted at #1 on the U.K. charts in 1983. I became a fan shortly after this when I saw the SBS video from Red Rocks, then the whole Red Rocks show on MTV. That show blew me away, and I started buying the albums shortly after this. I had no idea these guys were going to be around 20 years later, but they are! Other bands ran out of gas and burned out, but not these guys. I think it's because they really love what they do, and also they lack some of the heavy-duty personal insecurities that have plagued other rock stars and caused them all sorts of traumas like drug addiction and drug busts, which caused them to burn out or even die.
 
U2's first radio performance in the netherlands was before the release of Boy

I don't think U2's rise to fame - though indeed it wasn't spectacular compared to some other artists - hasn't been as gradual as it is made out to be in this thread

October was voted album of the year over here back then like I posted earlier

though War was an important step to help them to become the phenomenon they are now, it's not like it would have meant they'd be without a record deal and no one would ever have heard about them if it hadn't been
 
I remember my cousin and I watching MTV when they started playing gloria and I Will Follow....he just laughed and said they wont be around to long...well here we are 20 some years later...Thank god they were able to develope their talent and wernt just dropped.....
 
the thing that amazes me the most about u2's longevity... think of all the different genere's that have "ruled the world," as vh1 would put it, over the span of u2's career...

the final days of disco... new wave... hair metal... grunge... gangsta rap... boy bands... rap-rock hybrids... and today's music scene, which can only really be described as a mish-mosh of every musical genre ever created...

and through it all, really only u2 and springsteen survived... not only survived, prospered. u2 even more than springsteen, who sort of topped off his popularity by the early 90s. how many acts can be around for 20+ years and can still gain millions of young fans with new material, like what atyclb did? the stones? they were still halfway relevant in the 80's... 20 years in for them. who else? i challange anyone to name 5 acts in the history of rock and roll besides u2 that are/were still relevant 20+ years into existance.
 
What is also fascinating is that U2 is now entering new grounds for a (rock) band, and this is perhaps the most exciting time of their career.
With a little luck, they just might be the first band that will be commercially and critically succesful in 3 decades. :hyper:
 
Salome said:
though War was an important step to help them to become the phenomenon they are now, it's not like it would have meant they'd be without a record deal and no one would ever have heard about them if it hadn't been
Click to expand...

So Boy and October were big in other places in Europe and that helped them, I didn't think of that! Interesting point!

It was War that really broke them in the US, and Red Rocks being on TV that got them so much exposure. As you said, and I posted earlier, their rise to fame was not as gradual as a myth has somehow risen to claim they were. They became HUGE with JT but they were already big stars with War, and what about Live Aid? Would nobodys have even been asked to take the stage with all those great stars? U2 were famous and very well known worldwide years before JT, JT only made them enormous and the biggest band in the world, but it wasn't like they were little and insignificant before that, no way.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
the thing that amazes me the most about u2's longevity... think of all the different genere's that have "ruled the world," as vh1 would put it, over the span of u2's career...

the final days of disco... new wave... hair metal... grunge... gangsta rap... boy bands... rap-rock hybrids... and today's music scene, which can only really be described as a mish-mosh of every musical genre ever created...

and through it all, really only u2 and springsteen survived... not only survived, prospered. u2 even more than springsteen, who sort of topped off his popularity by the early 90s. how many acts can be around for 20+ years and can still gain millions of young fans with new material, like what atyclb did? the stones? they were still halfway relevant in the 80's... 20 years in for them. who else? i challange anyone to name 5 acts in the history of rock and roll besides u2 that are/were still relevant 20+ years into existance.
Click to expand...

:yes: :up:. Very true.

Angela
 
I also noticed an interesting comment somewhere on the internet, that "most bands get one big commercial/critical peak in their career, while U2 has had three."
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
the thing that amazes me the most about u2's longevity... think of all the different genere's that have "ruled the world," as vh1 would put it, over the span of u2's career...

the final days of disco... new wave... hair metal... grunge... gangsta rap... boy bands... rap-rock hybrids... and today's music scene, which can only really be described as a mish-mosh of every musical genre ever created...

and through it all, really only u2 and springsteen survived... not only survived, prospered. u2 even more than springsteen, who sort of topped off his popularity by the early 90s. how many acts can be around for 20+ years and can still gain millions of young fans with new material, like what atyclb did? the stones? they were still halfway relevant in the 80's... 20 years in for them. who else? i challange anyone to name 5 acts in the history of rock and roll besides u2 that are/were still relevant 20+ years into existance.
Click to expand...

Well said and very true!
 
Yes, just as Lou Bega and Hansen swept America with just one song, but it sucked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Atomic City
Replies
11
Views
1K
HeartlandGirl
HeartlandGirl
Z
Hello!
Replies
3
Views
822
zoo skis
Z
C
Hello from the Twin Cities!
Replies
3
Views
779
trevgreg
trevgreg
prbiker15
U2:UV Boxscore Discussion
Replies
20
Views
1K
DeVaul
DeVaul
U
Hello, From Dallas, Texas
Replies
3
Views
540
TheFlyZooTV
T

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom