Anyone have their doubt that U2 wasn't going to make it big again?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

theu2fly

Refugee
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
2,258
After 'All That You Can't Leave Behind' it seemed U2 was again, the number one band in the world. No other band was coming close to selling out arenas and stadiums across the world, and U2's music was making a strong comeback after the band's disappointing Popmart tour in America, globally it was a success.

So U2 embarked on a tour that was "stripped down to the basics" featuring dramatic lighting, and a color wall behind them. It seemed the boys had let success get to their heads, and full of big ideas with Zoo TV and Popmart. Elevation was one where they realized that playing old tunes, and new tunes that resembled new life, hope and optimism as well as passion captiviated audiences.

After the success of the Elevation tour, U2 went into a break for nearly 4 years. During this time, A Best of compliation was released, featuring two new songs, The Hands That Built America and Electrical Storm. That lead us to believe U2 was heading in a direction of ambient rock, one that was much softer.

U2 announced a new album in the works, which Bono said "This is the album we've been waiting to make for years." Which is described also as Edge reinventing himself and being a maniac on this record, U2 wrote 11 new songs. Still my doubts were that U2 wasn't going to make it as big as they used to be, I always had some optimism that they would be big, but not huge.

Like the Elevation tour, it had small clubs played, U2 did private radio shows, Top of Pops, Saturday Night Live. Audiences connected with Vertigo, and the classic I Will Follow. Had U2 finally done it? Did they achieve success again? The answer is yes.

In early 2004, U2 hit the streets of New York, traveling on a flat bed, headed towards the Brooklyn Bridge, to play a concert. Like the video shot in Los Angeles, Where The Streets Have No Name, this video captured people going nuts over U2. The show at the Brooklyn Bridge had nearly 6,000 people attending as it was the top story of many news programs.

With all this anticipation, the tour dates were announced, and immediately following, days and a week later it seemed, all the legs were completely sold out. Yes, U2 had done it, they had sold out three legs of their new tour, which included many stadiums in Europe as well. As if that was not enough, How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb debuted on the Billboard Top 200 at No. 1, selling over 890,000 copies and remained there for 3 weeks. The total to date records sold in America is nearly 4 million.

So what was it about U2 in 2004/2005 that made them such a success? If not, U2 is stronger than they were in 1992, the demand for U2 has not been this big, tickets are sold immediately, and people are trying to get their hands on them. People are saying the songs and vocals from the band are absolutely perfect this tour, and U2 plays with more confidence and pride, promoting their messages, as well as dipping back into their catalouge.

Many bands that try to come back for a revival don't see the big light, bands like the Rolling Stones say they go away, and come back, and play stadiums, but when was the last time the Rolling Stones had a No. 1 album? What about Duran Duran, who played MSG for the first time in a while, not since the 80s did they achieve that success. Many 80s bands, who are one hit wonders, only wrote their music for the mainstream audience, with the mind of making millions, not playing to millions. U2 still has a passion for music, and writes and performs quality music, because they have respect for themselves, the world and the fans. Such a rarity, they aren't ashamed to play older songs, because they were written with a thought provoking, insight idea.

If U2 is this huge now, there's no telling how much bigger than can get by next year. Rumors are saying they'll play American stadiums, as well as heading to Japan and South America, as well as Europe again. Will we see new and hear material? Possibly, after all -- it has been done sucessfully before, Zooropa. U2 will be the band from the 80s, the 90s and the 00s, that will continue to dominate. The Beatles called it quits after 9 years, Pink Floyd called it quits, Sting and the Police are no more, Paul McCartney is still a popular act, while he continues to play older Beatles hits. U2 seems to be the only band who can play both old and new material, and still captivate audiences worldwide, and that is why U2 is the best band in the world.
 
:applaud:

That would have taken you a while to write and it is great to see some genuine positivity about U2 and on the latest album.

The only thing I disagree with there is that U2 seem a little to me like they too want to play for millions now, not to millions, otherwise they would have toured South America, Asia and Australia, where they have big fanbases.

One comment of yours I really liked was about how the new album was The Edge reinventing himself, and a new ambient soft rock sound. And then you mentioned the successes of Brooklyn Bridge, HTDAAB, tours, etc.

Well done. :up:
 
Is also true that U2 get a lot of advertisement, that helps, too.
They stay a lot on tv, they want to search new fans and they find them, but not only because they´re called u2 and because they have a great history behind them (and hopefully in front of them), but mainly because they always have great ideas, the right ideas.
It´s all about what you have in your mind.........................but the media resonance is very important. If you´re good and no one says a thing about, many will ignore your talent
 
Last edited:
:up:

It's also worth noting that while I don't think majority of fans think Rattle and Hum is better than Joshua Tree or that Zooropa is better than Achtung Baby, U2 fanbase seems to appreciate Bomb more than ATYCLB. (I also think War has a better status than UF in U2's discograhy)

First time they made a better album after a very popular record.
 
Last edited:
This question gets asked all the time. Uhh, No would be the answer. Since all of the record companies are pretty much down to three big ones, U2's continued success didn't surprise me.
Most of the artisits today are pretty disposable. But, their are a number of exceptions.
For the most part, Bono could fart to a drum machine and folks would gobble it up. Hell, they probably would try to sell you an import CD of it for $19.99!
 
MrPryck2U said:
This question gets asked all the time. Uhh, No would be the answer. Since all of the record companies are pretty much down to three big ones, U2's continued success didn't surprise me.
Most of the artisits today are pretty disposable. But, their are a number of exceptions.
For the most part, Bono could fart to a drum machine and folks would gobble it up. Hell, they probably would try to sell you an import CD of it for $19.99!


That's not neccessarily true though - with huge bands like u2 the only way is down since they have already hit the top, and if something they make isn't quite as good as what they have made in the past they could come crashing down. But u2 have maintained their high standards throughout (in my opinion, throughout the 90's also) and have earned the respect other musicians give them. I just hope the carry on making such brilliant music and don't turn into the rolling stones and another big band which has failed to continue making new and innovative music.
 
I really would like them to do a stadium tour because more seats means I may actually get tickets this time! :lol:
 
no way a positive post about U2? jeesus

wont be long till the usual crowd come in and claim the band are "past there best bla bla"
 
KUEFC09U2 said:
no way a positive post about U2? jeesus

wont be long till the usual crowd come in and claim the band are "past there best bla bla"

If such a positive post exists, then why even make such a reply? If the pot is fine, don't stir it.
 
why do people care if u2 make it "big"? are you concerned they won't be able to pay the bills?
 
Zoomerang96 said:
why do people care if u2 make it "big"? are you concerned they won't be able to pay the bills?

If they were as concerned about being "great" as they are about being "big", we might have had a 3rd classic album on our hands

The question was a bit of a misnomer, they were never "not big"
 
I don't even think they care their philosphy is 3 crap albums and they're done. They have said that at this point in their career they are not making music for the money. They do it because they love it.

I actually thought they were pretty big.:shifty:
 
u2 are stronger now than when they were in 97 but not in 92. They are mentally scared by pop and popmart i think.
 
JCOSTER said:
I don't even think they care their philosphy is 3 crap albums and they're done. They have said that at this point in their career they are not making music for the money. They do it because they love it.

I actually thought they were pretty big.:shifty:

True, the money situation is taken care of. But I think it is also true that they are trying to hard to be successful and recognized rather than great. They do want to be "big."
 
I also think that big is bigger than great. I also think they'd agree and defend that. I think the closest they were ever at to a comfort zone was what created Zooropa. I sincerely hope they are feeling the same way now with the ATYCLB/HTDAAB 'big' buffer.
 
theu2fly said:
The Beatles called it quits after 9 years, Pink Floyd called it quits, Sting and the Police are no more, Paul McCartney is still a popular act, while he continues to play older Beatles hits. U2 seems to be the only band who can play both old and new material, and still captivate audiences worldwide, and that is why U2 is the best band in the world.

My thoughts exactly. Before U2, I had always thought there were two truly great bands - The Beatles and Pink Floyd. U2 joined them in the 90's with the release of Achtung Baby and the unparalelled Zoo TV Tour. By surviving this long and continuing to make excellent music that is relevent and chart-topping I believe U2 have surpassed even those two great bands to become the greatest musical act of all-time. I would not have been able to say that 10 years ago, but today I feel more comfortable making such a bold statement.

The fact that U2 still cares more about its new music than money at this point in their careers is testimony to their greatness. They could easily go the way of McCartney and the Petrified Stones and charge $300-400 a ticket to sell out huge stage shows and play their old hits til old age robs them of the abilityto physically make it onto the stage anymore. But that is not what U2 is, or hopefully ever will be about. U2 will never, ever, be their own tribute band. I look forward to U2 pushing the envelope even further. The future looks bright indeed. :)
 
I don't know...I would consider U2 in the all-time greats if they pulled off at least the 3rd masterpiece or, better yet, make two albums that would match JT-AB.
 
U2girl said:
I don't know...I would consider U2 in the all-time greats if they pulled off at least the 3rd masterpiece or, better yet, make two albums that would match JT-AB.

I 100% agree with this post. I often think that one more amazing album like AB or JT would put them over the top and into the pantheon of all time greats. Every album that comes out, I hoping that this will be the one.

I do believe that they will be considered one of the best regardless of what they put out in the future but one more great one would solidify thier place in history.
 
Zoomerang96 said:
why do people care if u2 make it "big"? are you concerned they won't be able to pay the bills?

It's not about money, I just think it's cool that U2 can still flex their muscles after all these years... they pretty much dominate the music world, and are a leading example of what a band should be.
 
Back
Top Bottom