Are U2's Top40/MTV Days behind them?

[Zoomerang96]

That's rude! The only FACT here is that you discount everybody who disagrees with you and label your taste fact. Even if you're joking it's not funny.

Calling Bon Jovi "shit" IS a matter of personal taste, because "shit" does not continue to have a large following for 20 years. As 2001 proved, Bon Jovi, along with U2, are the only 2 "80's" bands who still have the fans and the popularity to sell out arenas as a headliner. (RHCP did not hit big until the very late 80's so I don't count them as an '80's band'.) So even though you don't like them, it's not nice to discount the opinions of the millions of fans who love them. "Shit" may sell, but not for very long. As you can see, Britney and the boy bands are already fading, and will - yes I state this as fact not opinion- NOT still be around selling millions of records and filling arenas in 15 or 20 years. By then, dozens of other "shit" stars will have come and gone, all to be forgotten and ridiculed as U2's legend lives on and Bon Jovi is still loved. To keep fans and fame for that long, there has to be something of substance there, regardless of if it suits your personal taste or not.

the truth stings, doesnt it trebek?

just cause bon jovi has stuck around for a long time DOES NOT MEAN THEYRE GOOD. ***** will be around forever, and nickelback too. does that mean theyre good? hell no!

bon jovi is trash and should never be compared to u2. end of story.

 

[Danospano]

I used to worry about U2. When Zooropa was considered a dud, when Pop barely sold a million copies domestically, when The Ground Beneath Her Feet single went largely unnoticed, when every single from ATYCLB with the exception of Beautiful Day vanished into oblivion.

Now, the chart success is meaningless. With so many people downloading music, nixing radio altogether, etc, I'm not confident that Top 40 radio means anything to anyone besides the new corporately endorsed, Madison Avenue bunch.

U2 is always be heard by millions, so let's all strap the idea that charts reflect the popularity of the band.

 

[EvolutionMonkey]

I used to worry about U2. When Zooropa was considered a dud, when Pop barely sold a million copies domestically, when The Ground Beneath Her Feet single went largely unnoticed, when every single from ATYCLB with the exception of Beautiful Day vanished into oblivion.

Now, the chart success is meaningless. With so many people downloading music, nixing radio altogether, etc, I'm not confident that Top 40 radio means anything to anyone besides the new corporately endorsed, Madison Avenue bunch.

U2 is always be heard by millions, so let's all strap the idea that charts reflect the popularity of the band.

I agree with you, I think the internet is already changing the way people are perceiving the music industry. Most people are finally figuring MTV is a shell of what it used to be and the same can be said for rock radio stations. I hope U2 doesn't take the #'s as seriously as they have before. Even if they sell around 6 million worldwide it should be good enough for them. The real money is in touring.

 

[jick]

I agree with you, I think the internet is already changing the way people are perceiving the music industry. Most people are finally figuring MTV is a shell of what it used to be and the same can be said for rock radio stations. I hope U2 doesn't take the #'s as seriously as they have before. Even if they sell around 6 million worldwide it should be good enough for them. The real money is in touring.

The real money is in touring so you must be resigned that U2 will have the same fate as the Rolling Stones nowadays, and they will not have the same exposure with their new albums as Bon Jovi and RHCP still have, eh?

In short, the consensus I have gathered from all the replies to my queries is "Yes, U2's top40 MTV days are behind them but we hardcore fans don't care much because we will still buy the CD."

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[Zoomerang96]

u2 gets way more exposure than those two groups mentioned combined. i dont know what your on.

 

[womanfish]

I used to worry about U2. When Zooropa was considered a dud, when Pop barely sold a million copies domestically, when The Ground Beneath Her Feet single went largely unnoticed, when every single from ATYCLB with the exception of Beautiful Day vanished into oblivion.

Now, the chart success is meaningless. With so many people downloading music, nixing radio altogether, etc, I'm not confident that Top 40 radio means anything to anyone besides the new corporately endorsed, Madison Avenue bunch.

U2 is always be heard by millions, so let's all strap the idea that charts reflect the popularity of the band.

I have to disagree somewhat with this. Things definitely are changing on the music scene, but a hit song is a hit song, and the power of that hit song is tremendous. Charts and airplay are closely interwoven.

- we can all agree that the sales of singles in the store is pretty worthless and only matter about every 5 years or so when some "special" single comes out like Kelly Clarkson or Elton John's Candle in the Wind -

That being said, let's look at just a few examples of how hit singles drive album sales. Nickleback was mentioned - They had one of the most played songs of 2001-2002 with How You Remind Me.. This translated into multiplatinum sales for their album.

Avril Levigne had 3 hit songs including the most played song on Top 40 radio in 2002 with Complicated. Her album has sold 6 million copies, only behind Eminem in 2002-2003 for sales.

Nora Jones hit song, Come Away With Me sky-rocketed her album to be in the top 10 for months. Got her major attention which helped her to sweep the grammys and go on to even higher sales. She is still in the top 5 after 1 year on the charts and 6 million sold.

Dixie Chicks sold a bundle because of the success of their cover of Landslide.

Kid Rock's album was pretty much off the charts when a little single called Picture hit the airwaves. The success of that song rocketed the album back into the top ten and helped it sell 2 million more albums than it would have without the hit.

Audioslave is an album that I thought would sell ok to die hard Rage and Cornell fans, but slide off the charts quickly. But with the success of the single, Like a Stone, the album is still in the top 30 after 24 weeks and has already hit platinum.

Then there are some big names like Faith Hill and Shania Twain that failed to have a hit single and their albums slid quickly off the charts which is unusual for them.

So the hit single lives on, and continues to break new bands and breath new life into veterans. You can't discount this.

 

[u2head]

I'm happy ES gets heavy rotation on MTV/Top 40.... because?


***draws a blank***


------------------------------------------------
Do they really know what it's all about....

 

[Seabird]

apparently none of you have ever been on wire if you were you'd be aware Bon Jovi and U2 being old are J's second and third favorite shit stirring subjects after pop

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

the truth stings, doesnt it trebek?

So you think they suck, that doesn't make it the truth.

Originally posted by Zoomerang96
just cause bon jovi has stuck around for a long time DOES NOT MEAN THEYRE GOOD. ***** will be around forever, and nickelback too. does that mean theyre good? hell no!

Actually, I don't think ***** or Nickelback will last for a long time, but...

And so if a band has longevity, then what exactly does it mean?

Originally posted by Zoomerang
bon jovi is trash

In your opinion...

Originally posted by Zoomerang
and should never be compared to u2. end of story.

I wouldn't compare U2 and Bon Jovi...I think U2 has a lot more to them than Bon Jovi does and Bon Jovi and U2 aren't on the same level of the music tree.

But some people out there like them. You may not get why, but they do.

And they aren't wrong for liking them.

And that is the end of the story.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Angela

 

[Zoomerang96]

it is not a matter of opinion. u2 wales over bon jovi's sorry ass like george bush does on the invisible clowns that constantly bother him in the oval office.

it is not just my opinion. anyone with ANY music credibility will tell you bon jovi sucks and it isnt a matter of personal opinion - it is the truth.

 

[Zoomerang96]

and if i didnt say it enough in my previous post, saying bon jovi sucks ISNT A PERSONAL OPINION.

 

[Ali Rose]

EUGH. u2 AND BON JOVI? honestly, people.



as for the top 40 stuff...i dont give a flying woolenda. I hope the albums good. If so, i'll like it whether it hits the top 40 or not.

 

[jick]

Let's all not veer topic and change this into another U2 vs. Bon Jovi debate. Let's go back to the original topic: Do you guys think U2 still have a top40 hit remaining in their career? Well, not just top 40 in one country, but top40 in many countries including America.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[Zoomerang96]

yes, one more. all that you cant leave behind was as radio friendly as it gets, and aside from beautiful day, it's singles didnt chart that well. dont know why really.

 

[MrBrau1]

I think they will have 1 or 2 more top 40 single in America. They will hit #1 or #2 on singles charts in other countries with several songs, as they've done in the past w/ ATYCLB and Pop.

With that said Top 40 chart success means nothing to me. It means the record companies put the most $$$ behind the songs on the chart. It's a sham when guys in suits fuck with my life love: music.

 

[david]

I would rather U2 have a breakthrough album that gets a lot of critical praise, and sells well without the aid of having a top 40 song on the charts. It's possible, Radiohead's been doing it for years.

 

[jinn77]

Bon Jovi are shit, thats a fact, but there is no denying as a kid I used to sing You give love a bad name and living on a prayer till my lungs nearly burst. Just for that i hope they still sell records. And no, never compare them with U2. If U2s top 40 days are numbered, I feel sorry for MTV viewers quite frankly.

 

[Chizip]

i dont want u2 to become a radiohead

 

[Zoomerang96]

they couldnt if they tried their hardest.

i wouldnt want them to be radiohead anyway, i like u2 for being u2 and radiohead for being radiohead.

i just want u2 to do what u2 wants to do, not what they think the public will want.

 

[Kariann]

I personally do not pay attention to the Top 40 nor do I listen to Top 40 radio. As for MTV it has basically become a reality channel with very little of what made it in the first place...music. While its not on a top 40 radio station here it never fails that everytime I decide to listen to the radio vs. cd I end up hearing some sort of U2 song.

Top 40 days behind them? Maybe. Maybe not. I dont necessarily feel its a necessity for them. All I ask for is quality music without compromising integrity.