Did U2 change the U.S. charts??

womanfish · 02-21-2002, 05:10 PM

From about 1996 to 2000 Pop music (Britney, nsync, BSB, 98degrees, etc...) ruled the charts BIG time. Rock was "Dead".

In late 2000 U2 comes along with a straight ahead rock record and declares that they want to put rock back on the charts with pop and hip hop/rap. Their album is embraced, they win grammys, they have the biggest tour of the year. Now look at the charts, there is more rock on the charts right now than I have seen in a LOOOOOOONNNNNG time. MTV's show Chart Attack had a whole segment on the return of rock to the charts.

I can't help but notice the timing of events. Was this something that U2 set in motion?

kobayashi · 02-21-2002, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by womanfish:
From about 1996 to 2000 Pop music (Britney, nsync, BSB, 98degrees, etc...) ruled the charts BIG time. Rock was "Dead".

In late 2000 U2 comes along with a straight ahead rock record and declares that they want to put rock back on the charts with pop and hip hop/rap. Their album is embraced, they win grammys, they have the biggest tour of the year. Now look at the charts, there is more rock on the charts right now than I have seen in a LOOOOOOONNNNNG time. MTV's show Chart Attack had a whole segment on the return of rock to the charts.

I can't help but notice the timing of events. Was this something that U2 set in motion?

well they might have affected a change in what *type* of music was up top, but aside from their own selves most of it is still junk.

womanfish · 02-21-2002, 06:04 PM

I know what you mean, but I would still take Linkin Park over nsync ANY day

karl · 02-21-2002, 06:14 PM

No, U2 hasn't changed the charts and I view their success as unique, just like their music.

I disagree with your characterization of U2's album being a "straight ahead rock record" ATYCLB was very much a pop album, although in a different sense than NSYNC, Brittany Spears and the like. It was pop in the sense that U2 focused much more on the art of creating the perfect 3-4 minute song, with catchy hook, but not manufactured/cooky cutter like the aformentioned. Not since the 80s has U2 put out a straight ahead rock record. They probably never will again.

I don't think you can make the comparison of U2 to the other rock bands that are popular at the moment and that are on the charts. Most of these bands are hard rock/heavy metal or a fusion of the two. In other words, nothing like U2 in a musical sense and nothing like U2 in terms of the musical demographic they cater to.

I think what the chart sucess of ATYCLB shows is that good, more sophisticated pop music sells well. Lately, it appears that U2 are one of the very few (only?) groups that can do it.

Karl

kobayashi · 02-21-2002, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by womanfish:
I know what you mean, but I would still take Linkin Park over nsync ANY day

to an extent yes there is 'better' content within linkin park than, and this hurts, a lot of other music out there.

womanfish · 02-21-2002, 06:28 PM

I must admit, even while typing, I realized that ATYCLB is definitely not a straight rock record. More of a pop-rock record. But I don't think anyone can argue that it is being portrayed in the media as that. "U2 back to their roots" bullshit. U2 has no roots in my opinion and that is what makes them great.

But I do think they were a catalyst to rock becoming more "ok" for the general public to buy again. They were on the cover of Rolling Stone, Spin and Q, with captions saying - They are here to save rock and roll, etc...

Again huge expectations laid on them just like POP was supposed to save the lagging music industry. But this time, they put out an album that was a transition for people to go from their sweet pop to more real rock. And this got people more into the rock mode. I also think Sept. 11 just made people realize that listening to sticky sweet pop just wasn't really fullfilling or "real". and that's what they wanted.

U2 may have nothing to do with it, it could be all radio programmers for all I know. It just seems that U2 were put out there by the media to "save rock and roll" and now rock is back in full force a year and a half later.

STING2 · 02-22-2002, 02:45 AM

I can see maybe a couple of songs on this record being maybe in the direction of POP, like Stuck In A Moment, but the rest is more of a mix of different styles of music.

spanisheyes · 02-22-2002, 08:35 PM

If U2's music was based on how they have done on the charts these last 20 years, many would consider them a failure, except for the fans that see U2's music above the charts, above what the status quo sees as great music. I'm glad for one that U2 has never seen the need to align their music with what the charts dictated they needed to do to be successful.

Chris

02-21-2002, 05:10 PM	#1
womanfish Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: moons of Zooropa Posts: 7,683 Local Time: 05:21 AM	Did U2 change the U.S. charts?? From about 1996 to 2000 Pop music (Britney, nsync, BSB, 98degrees, etc...) ruled the charts BIG time. Rock was "Dead". In late 2000 U2 comes along with a straight ahead rock record and declares that they want to put rock back on the charts with pop and hip hop/rap. Their album is embraced, they win grammys, they have the biggest tour of the year. Now look at the charts, there is more rock on the charts right now than I have seen in a LOOOOOOONNNNNG time. MTV's show Chart Attack had a whole segment on the return of rock to the charts. I can't help but notice the timing of events. Was this something that U2 set in motion? __________________

02-22-2002, 08:35 PM	#8
spanisheyes Forum Moderator The Goal Is Soul Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Miami, New Orleans, London, Belfast, and Berlin Posts: 861 Local Time: 09:21 PM	If U2's music was based on how they have done on the charts these last 20 years, many would consider them a failure, except for the fans that see U2's music above the charts, above what the status quo sees as great music. I'm glad for one that U2 has never seen the need to align their music with what the charts dictated they needed to do to be successful. Chris __________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
I need some happy U2 lovin'	Mrs.Clayton	PLEBA Archive	10	04-13-2002 01:55 PM
The U2 obsession EXPAINED!	Mrs. Edge	Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive	25	01-25-2002 01:39 PM
DirectTV U2 Month Press Release	ChangeTheTemperature	Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive	11	11-29-2001 10:15 PM
Week 45- 47 Chart News	doctorwho	Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive	13	09-29-2001 08:15 PM
Week 41	voxson	Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive	9	08-20-2001 06:02 PM

02-21-2002, 06:04 PM	#3
womanfish Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: moons of Zooropa Posts: 7,683 Local Time: 05:21 AM	I know what you mean, but I would still take Linkin Park over nsync ANY day

02-21-2002, 06:14 PM	#4
karl The Fly Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: the "city" Posts: 48 Local Time: 05:21 AM	No, U2 hasn't changed the charts and I view their success as unique, just like their music. I disagree with your characterization of U2's album being a "straight ahead rock record" ATYCLB was very much a pop album, although in a different sense than NSYNC, Brittany Spears and the like. It was pop in the sense that U2 focused much more on the art of creating the perfect 3-4 minute song, with catchy hook, but not manufactured/cooky cutter like the aformentioned. Not since the 80s has U2 put out a straight ahead rock record. They probably never will again. I don't think you can make the comparison of U2 to the other rock bands that are popular at the moment and that are on the charts. Most of these bands are hard rock/heavy metal or a fusion of the two. In other words, nothing like U2 in a musical sense and nothing like U2 in terms of the musical demographic they cater to. I think what the chart sucess of ATYCLB shows is that good, more sophisticated pop music sells well. Lately, it appears that U2 are one of the very few (only?) groups that can do it. Karl

02-21-2002, 06:28 PM	#6
womanfish Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: moons of Zooropa Posts: 7,683 Local Time: 05:21 AM	I must admit, even while typing, I realized that ATYCLB is definitely not a straight rock record. More of a pop-rock record. But I don't think anyone can argue that it is being portrayed in the media as that. "U2 back to their roots" bullshit. U2 has no roots in my opinion and that is what makes them great. But I do think they were a catalyst to rock becoming more "ok" for the general public to buy again. They were on the cover of Rolling Stone, Spin and Q, with captions saying - They are here to save rock and roll, etc... Again huge expectations laid on them just like POP was supposed to save the lagging music industry. But this time, they put out an album that was a transition for people to go from their sweet pop to more real rock. And this got people more into the rock mode. I also think Sept. 11 just made people realize that listening to sticky sweet pop just wasn't really fullfilling or "real". and that's what they wanted. U2 may have nothing to do with it, it could be all radio programmers for all I know. It just seems that U2 were put out there by the media to "save rock and roll" and now rock is back in full force a year and a half later.

02-22-2002, 02:45 AM	#7
STING2 Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 8,876 Local Time: 05:21 AM	I can see maybe a couple of songs on this record being maybe in the direction of POP, like Stuck In A Moment, but the rest is more of a mix of different styles of music.