Does U2 Have Any Gas Left In Their Tank?

[jick]

The Best Of 1980-1990 came in a good time. It came after POP which was a commercial failure by U2's standards. Despite POP's unmeasurable artistic value and musical evolution, the truth is it wasn't melodic and accessible enough to many. So when U2 came up with Sweetest Thing, it was indeed a candy of a single that was catchy and cheesy -- good enough for the teenyboppers. Long-time U2 fans never owned the old albums in CD because they had LP's and cassettes for the early albums and did not find it feasible to repurchase the entire back catalogue in CD but they felt that the Best Of 1980-1990 was the perfect time to update their old collections. All songs in the Best Of 1980-1990, except Bad, were commercially released singles. The album was also released 8 years after the cut-off date which is 1990.

Now, the situation is the opposite. The Best Of 1990-2000 is released a mere two years after the cut-off date. A number of songs were never released as singles (Until The End Of The World, The First Time, Gone an Numb - except for the video single). Virtually every fans's collection of the 90's stuff are already in CD so no need to update. Also let's face it, Electrical Storm is not even close to Sweetest Thing when it comes to a sugar-sweet catchy tune so you can take the tennyboppers out of the equation. Finally, this album comes right after an overexposure of U2 with the two straight Grammy high-profile appearances, Superbowl mania, and their biggest selling album worlwide in a decade. Surely, the Best Of 1990-2000 won't even come close to the sales of the previous Best Of because the circumstances are different. It will also be released around the same time high-profile releases by Christina Aguilera and Justin Timberlake will be released.

Recent history has also shown that the elder artists who have swept the Grammies (Clapton, Santana, Sting) or made successful "comeback" albums (Eagles) have been ill-fated to commercial failure thereafter. Moreover, the buying public now more than ever are more fickle. For years U2 have beaten the odds, but do they still have any more left in their tank for another massive commercial success?

My guess is that All That You Can't Leave Behind was their last commercial mega-hit. I honestly don't think U2 still has another 4-million-in-America and 12-million-worldwide album left in the bag. So many of you will think, U2 are musicians and that's all they've done - they won't quit easily. Well, I will beg to differ. Bono is all about ego and commercial success matters to U2 more than other bands. U2 will never allow themselves to go on making albums forever and look like the Rolling Stones, Rush, REM, Aerosmith, or Depeche Mode -- all of whom are just mere shadows or parodies of their old selves. U2 will never make albums when they know no one is buying.

So my guess is this. All That You Can't Leave Behind was U2's goodbye to the world. They will never make an album as successful as that. The Best Of 1990-2000 is their last installment of a collection of their past glories. Then the studio album after that will be sort of a goodbye to their hardcore fans. It won't be commercially successful but it will be art, it will be great, and it could be their best - and it will be something designed with their hardcore fans in mind. After that it could be goodbye.

The Best Of 1980-1990 sold 2 million in the USA and 10 million worldwide. I don't think the Best Of 1990-2000 will top that or come close to it. ATYCLB sold 4 million in the USA and 12 million worldwide. I don't think U2 has any album left in the bag that can match that success.

To the touring aspect, I don't think anything will top Elevation and I doubt U2 will even try to. U2 will definitely still tour, but I don't think they have a massive globe-hopping non-stop year-round tour left in them. Also, in the music industry concerts are down. Ticket prices have gone crazier so less people can afford it. Indirectly, the DVD-media has taken some of the steam of concerts. Unlike before when all we had was VHS, or Betamax, DVD's can now give many something that approximates the concert experience at a fifth of the price and something permanent.

So, I'm just saying I don't think U2 still has gas in the tank left for commercial success. I sure think they have a lot of gas left in producing great music but what's the use of great music if you can't hear it in the radio or see it in MTV? U2 will never allow themselves to be a purely artistic but commercially not viable band like Radiohead and Pearl Jam are now. It is commercial success that drives U2.

U2 are unique in the sense that they are the only band that have stayed relevant for so long. They will also be unique in the sense that they will quit while on top, and it will be a voluntary quite. (The Beatles and The Police quit while on top but not exactly on the best of terms or on their own terms)

Something is about to give, I can feel it coming ..I think I know what it is.

Cheers,

J

 

[ishkash]

U2 supports Greenpeace, so they are an eco-friendly band.This means they dont use gas/ gasoline. Hence your question is irrelevant thus your argument is null and void.

Cheers Mate!

 

[doctorwho]

The 80's "Best Of" - Single CD version is Double Platinum in the U.S., meaning it sold 2 million copies.

The 80's "Best Of" - Double CD version is also Double Platinum in the U.S. However, since this is a 2-CD set, it's certified twice, meaning it actually sold 1 million copies to consumers.

Therefore, the 80's "Best Of" has sold *at least* 3 million copies in the U.S. Both versions of the CD continue to sell well too. The Single CD version sells between 3-11,000 copies per week. The Double CD version floats around 1,800-2,500 copies a week.

These type of sales suggest that the 90's "Best Of" has a lot of hope.

There has been a enormous amount of press and fan interest in the 90's "Best Of.'' How many groups would have this much consumer interest in a "Best Of" release? As you eloquently stated, people already have this music - yet look at the interest! My suspicion is that this 90's "Best Of" will debut just as strongly as the 80's "Best Of" did.

"Best Of" releases are great for the casual fans too - those who want some of the popular songs without having to buy all the other albums. Therefore, this 90's "Best Of" will probably linger on, like the 80's "Best Of", for sometime, selling thousands of copies week after week.

Regarding U2's future releases...

A few years ago I agreed with you. I stated that with the so-so success of "Pop", U2 probably has one big album left in them and that their next release MUST be it. If U2 didn't hit it big with ATYCLB they would never be big again.

Of course, as we all know, U2 achieved phenomenal success with ATYCLB. Some may state that U2 should try to capitalize on that success with a quick studio follow-up. However, I believe this is one reason why a lot of big Grammy winners fail. Those artists have big sales and critical success with one album - so they try to capitalize on it with a quick follow-up album. Trouble is, that follow-up is a poor offering, and the public knows it. Additionally, because the public has been saturated with that artist, they want no more.

U2 is VERY wise to release this 90's "Best Of" now. By releasing an album of their past hits, the public will be interested because they just enjoyed U2's recent successful studio album. That is, the public, who enjoyed U2's last offering, may now want to revisit some of U2's prior work. U2 are also making the release interesting by including some songs that *could* have possibly been on ATYCLB. As such, those who liked U2's last studio album will be more inclined to check out the 90's "Best Of." That's good marketing. Also, by releasing an album of past hits, the public won't be inundated with U2. They'll see new U2 in the background, but they won't be saturated with U2 (as they would with a new studio album release and tour). In other words, the timing and marketing of this album couldn't be better.

If there's one thing U2 learned from "Pop" - it's how to time the release and how to market an album. In the 80's, having good music was still enough to score a #1 album. But now, even the top teeny-boppers need constant exposure to sell. U2 have found a way to give themselves enormous exposure for their studio albums, but just the "hint"of exposure they need for the "Best Of" releases. This is why "Zooropa" and "Pop" sold about 12 million copies worldwide, while the 80's "Best Of" and ATYCLB sold about 24 million copies worldwide.

With this in mind, can U2 make one more monster album? I think they can - but perhaps with not quite the success of ATYCLB. I do believe U2 can release an album that may go 2x or 3x Platinum in the U.S. and still sell 8-10 million copies worldwide. Being older is one thing that works against them. It's not fair, but it's the truth. Teenagers, the biggest music buying population, are more likely to spend $$ on a teeny-bopper or the new hot young group as opposed to an established group of 40-somethings. But if U2 can find that one "relevant" yet "hip" song - as they did with "Beautiful Day" - they can still get big sales.

I do think that we have to be prepared for future U2 albums to sell less, but not just yet. I believe this 90's "Best Of" and U2's next studio release will ride the coattails of ATYCLB to an extent. They are still seen as relevant by *most* people and an interesting band, even if they are older, because you never know what they are going to do. I predict at least Triple Platinum for both the 90's "Best Of" and the next studio release.

 

[jick]

The 80's "Best Of" - Single CD version is Double Platinum in the U.S., meaning it sold 2 million copies.

The 80's "Best Of" - Double CD version is also Double Platinum in the U.S. However, since this is a 2-CD set, it's certified twice, meaning it actually sold 1 million copies to consumers.

Therefore, the 80's "Best Of" has sold *at least* 3 million copies in the U.S.

With this in mind, can U2 make one more monster album? I think they can - but perhaps with not quite the success of ATYCLB. I do believe U2 can release an album that may go 2x or 3x Platinum in the U.S. and still sell 8-10 million copies worldwide. Being older is one thing that works against them. It's not fair, but it's the truth. Teenagers, the biggest music buying population, are more likely to spend $$ on a teeny-bopper or the new hot young group as opposed to an established group of 40-somethings. But if U2 can find that one "relevant" yet "hip" song - as they did with "Beautiful Day" - they can still get big sales.

Your points are very well taken. Actually, my error in quoting the Best Of 1980-1990 sales figures bolsters my reasoning even more. Now that I know it really sold 3 million in the US, it makes me even more doubtful the Best Of 1990-2000 will be close to that mark. I am looking more at a POP-sales ballpark. Let me summarize my reasons and add some I did not include in my previous post:

-Electrical Storm isn't exactly a storming U2 song like Sweetest Thing was
-The decision to remix the POP songs will get a mixed reactions
-The CD era means that "lukewarm" U2 fans who have the songs they like in CD will probably not buy it, while the same "lukewarm" fans bought the Best Of 1980-1990 to update their cassettes and vinyl recordings
-If the public rejects Electrical Storm and they have the U2 albums they like, they have the option of just buying the Gangs Of New York soundtrack to get the additional song
-Too many songs are unfamiliar to the regular joe since there are so many non-singles (Miss Sarajevo, Gone, Until The End Of The World, The First Time)
-The period 1990-2000 is still too fresh for some to start reminiscing and buying a Best Of
-The Joshua Tree, U2's best selling album ever and Rattle And Hum (2nd best or 3rd best?) has already been represented in the 1980-1990 release
-The B-Sides aren't as appealing as the 1980-1990 B-sides, since in the latter many songs were not previously released on CD yet, so while the Best Of + B-Sides 1980-1990 had a big role in the total sales figures of the previous disc, the current disc does not have that advantage

Factor all those things together, there is NO CHANCE the Best Of 1990-2000 will even come close to the sales of the Best Of 1980-1990 (and I mean aggregate sales which include the limited releases). Now that you actually corrected my figures and that the Best Of 1980-1990 actually sold 3 million US and not the 2 million I previously thought, this only makes it a much tougher mountain to climb, and mathematically and logically it seems insurmountable.

BUT ... a very very well-taken point about how other artists burned out after the Grammies but trying to come out with quick follow-up releases to cash-in while U2 is taking their sweet time. I thought a follow-up to ATYCLB will have a tough time getting 2 million US (a status POP failed miserably to achieve), but after reading your post, I am shifting my view. I think a follow-up could sell decently (2 million US, 7 million worldwide) but it will by no means be a monster. Even ATYCLB was hardly a monster in sales when compared to Achtung, Rattle and Hum, or The Joshua Tree. But ATYCLB got monster status because those sales figures are virtually impossible for a band of 40-year old members who have been around for more than 20 years non-stop (the Eagles stopped for so long that's why Hell Freezes Over did so well)! SO yes, I think U2 still have a successful studio album ahead of them and I think this because of what you posted. But I think they will never ever sell an album like ATYCLB again, more so for a Joshua Tree ballpark.

I think melting point for U2 is when they will have an album that can't hit 1 million US or 3 million worldwide. But thanks to your enlightened posts about how U2 are timing their releases, I think U2 will stick around for at least 2 more studio albums. And by the way, I think there is no way U2 will release the next studio album by March/April 2003 as speculated. Knowing U2, once they get to the studio, they will take forever always tweaking and improving their songs. During the Zooropa session, U2 said they came up with around 30 songs and so many leftovers, yet they claimed POP was a hurried effort. Now they claim they have so many leftovers that are virtually finished from the ATYCLB sessions, but come to think of it, these leftovers actually add to the delay. Zooropa was such a fast album because it wasn't based on leftovers but on a sudden burst of ideas and energy while touring. At the earliest, the next studio album from U2 will be fall 2003 ...and really, this can only be a good thing.

Cheers,

J

 

[zoocarolina]

I agree with a lot of the points made, but I believe U2's desire to have commercial success above anything else is not true. Bono said he doesn't measure success as the number of album sales, but in the quality music produced and he said that the second that U2 becomes a crap band, they'll all pack it up. This was from an interview he did 1-2 years ago and dowwplayed the commercial aspect. Selling albums and having commerical success is definitely a +, but they have enough $ for generations to come, have achieved a great deal of respect over the last few years, and you have to admit, they will be riding their newfound success for awhile. Releasing the Best Of right now is a good move to not oversaturate fans and reinrtoduce some of their previous work. They'll be atleast 2-3 more studio albums + another best of according to their contract and that's probably a good 30 years!!!

 

[wertsie]

I agree with a lot of the points made, but I believe U2's desire to have commercial success above anything else is not true. Bono said he doesn't measure success as the number of album sales, but in the quality music produced and he said that the second that U2 becomes a crap band, they'll all pack it up. This was from an interview he did 1-2 years ago and dowwplayed the commercial aspect. Selling albums and having commerical success is definitely a +, but they have enough $ for generations to come, have achieved a great deal of respect over the last few years, and you have to admit, they will be riding their newfound success for awhile. Releasing the Best Of right now is a good move to not oversaturate fans and reinrtoduce some of their previous work. They'll be atleast 2-3 more studio albums + another best of according to their contract and that's probably a good 30 years!!!

Yes! I agree with everything you said!

 

[Savannah]

It's inevitable that as a band or artist gets older, they will sell less commercially but that doesn't mean they aren't relevant or important or 'good' anymore. Look at McCartney, Dylan, Robert Plant, even the Stones. Their albums aren't exactly burning up the charts, but they're still around, still making noise, and they've still got something to say if anyone will listen. I believe that will happen to U2, but not just yet. Give them until they hit 50 maybe. But they have defied the odds all along and are the only intact band after so many years, so they might just surprise us and not end up like the rest. They could also end up playing county fairs, but I doubt it. Only time will tell, no need to speculate really.

 

[womanfish]

Just to throw in my two cents. I agree with different statements that have been made. And here are my feelings on the issue.

*Will the new best of sell as well as the last? - No, but probably not a whole lot less. I am thinking about 2 million in sales after a year or so of release, around 8 million worldwide. It's important to remember that U2's popularity and success really took off WORLDWIDE in the 90's. I think Pop and ATYCLB were U2's most successful albums in Canada (at least singles-wise) Look at The Joshua Tree, at current certification, it has sold 10 million in the U.S. and only 15 worldwide. Achtung Baby, 8 million sold in the U.S., but only 12 to 13 worldwide. ATYCLB sold 4 million in the U.S. and 11 million worldwide. Worldwide they continue to sell more. So I think globally the new best of will do quite well. U.S. is always a fickle crowd.

*Will U2 have another big commercial release? - I think we will be looking at sales of about 2 million in the U.S. and 8 or 9 million worldwide for the next proper U2 album. It's hard to say. We don't know what direction they will go, if they will tour, or what promotion they will do. ATYCLB probably would have only sold 2 to 3 million if it weren't for their promotion, successful tour, and boatload of awards.

I'm hoping Electrical Storm can make a little noise on Rock/Modern Rock radio, and most likely adult top 40. Hopefully the video will be great and get some MTV/VH1 exposure.

Unfortunately I heard that it is being released the same day as Faith Hill or something, so they can kiss number 1 goodbye. But number 2 aint bad. I hope.

 

[U2girl]

I have thought on this too right at the ATYCLB/Elevation success and i think it will be hard to match or even surpass it.

However...i do think U2 still has great albums (great in the eyes of U2 fanbase, not necessarily great in the public eye) in them - i would be more concerned with the touring part (not the other 3, i wonder how much longer Bono's voice can take.)
Of course follow-up albums after big hits are very likely to not keep up the success (or be as well accepted): R&H didn't sell as good as JT, Zooroopa didn't sell as well as AB.

I think that ATYCLB may very well be the push into U2's third decade of career, just like AB pushed them into the second. I for one am really interested where they will go next.

There's always the dillema for bands: keep going or quit, possibly with a good (if not great) album. I don't know if there's a definite answer, both theories have worked well (Beatles for example called it quits, even stopped touring before their career ended. On other hand, Stones may have not been relevant musically and their albums don't sell well, but are still one of the best live acts around.)

 

[Zoocifer]

Someone save this thread so we can shove it up jick's ass when U2 proves him wrong.

- z -

 

[jick]

This is where I strongly disagree

It's inevitable that as a band or artist gets older, they will sell less commercially but that doesn't mean they aren't relevant or important or 'good' anymore. Look at McCartney, Dylan, Robert Plant, even the Stones. Their albums aren't exactly burning up the charts, but they're still around, still making noise, and they've still got something to say if anyone will listen. I believe that will happen to U2, but not just yet. Give them until they hit 50 maybe. But they have defied the odds all along and are the only intact band after so many years, so they might just surprise us and not end up like the rest. They could also end up playing county fairs, but I doubt it. Only time will tell, no need to speculate really.

I don't think U2 will ever stoop to the level of Dylan, McCartney, Rober Plant or the Stones now - all of whom are mere shadows ad parodies of their past selves. U2 will never make music for the sake of being arty and satisfying their own artistic exploratory ambitions. U2 feed off the fans more than any band I know, and I am sure Stones, Mcartney sales numbers are unacceptible for them. U2 will never be around "something to say if anyone will listen". U2 wants everyone to listen. I don't want to see U2 end up like the Rolling Stones by staying around way past their time. But I still think U2's time now still has a little more gas left in its tank.

Cheers,

J

 

[Zoocifer]

The problem that Dylan, McCartney, and the Stones face is that they've tried to re-invent themselves (not so much Sir Paul) with the newer generations that they happened to inspire. U2 never really defined a generation, therefore it is easier for them to change colors. Well... that's what I think, at least.

- z -

 

[wertsie]

The problem that Dylan, McCartney, and the Stones face is that they've tried to re-invent themselves (not so much Sir Paul) with the newer generations that they happened to inspire. U2 never really defined a generation, therefore it is easier for them to change colors. Well... that's what I think, at least.

- z -

I think it's also the nature of the way U2 has changed over the years. I don't feel like their changes have been to impress a certain generation or fit into a certain "type" of music...They change in a way that is natural for them. It's not phony. It's genuine because we're seeing the way they have changed as individuals reflected in their music over the years. Sometimes the change is harder than others...Like with AB. They knew they didn't want to make another JT or R&H, but they had some trouble at first deciding what change they wanted to make.

For me, U2 has always been about truth and about being genuine.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Wasn't U2 supposed to drop off the face of the earth after 1989?



Oh, that's right... they released Achtung Baby. When they were supposedly done after POPMart, they released ATYCLB. TWICE they have demonstrated that they can beat the odds and revive what some would call a stagnating career.

And you now predict that they'll be done after the next album?

Hubris, man. Hubris.

 

[wertsie]

Wasn't U2 supposed to drop off the face of the earth after 1989?



Oh, that's right... they released Achtung Baby. When they were supposedly done after POPMart, they released ATYCLB. TWICE they have demonstrated that they can beat the odds and revive what some would call a stagnating career.

And you now predict that they'll be done after the next album?

Hubris, man. Hubris.

I have a magazine cover from over a year ago that reads "U2 Cheats Death...Saves Rock!"

 

[pr0digy]

"The essence of what we do has always been, and probably always will be, very daunting. It's always in the back of your mind that one day you might just draw a blank." -- Edge, in 1992

"The greatest threat to the career of this band, or any other band, is financial success." -- Edge, 1985

There was one Larry said also about that "day the band becomes a chore, is the day I pack it in".

 

[doctorwho]

Re: This is where I strongly disagree

I don't think U2 will ever stoop to the level of Dylan, McCartney, Rober Plant or the Stones now - all of whom are mere shadows ad parodies of their past selves. U2 will never make music for the sake of being arty and satisfying their own artistic exploratory ambitions.

Hmmm... I don't agree here. It's very arguable that U2 made AB, "Zooropa" and "Pop" for themselves, not their fans. The fans wanted JT Part 2, instead U2 came with AB. Then, once AB was a huge hit, fans wanted AB Part 2, but U2 came with "Zooropa". In other words, I feel that the entire 90's were spent with U2 satisfying their own artistic ambitions.

But let's not forget the 80's. U2 came out of the punk movement - which clearly did not cater to fans. And, after U2 worked hard to build up a strong fan-base over the first three albums, instead of coming with a "War Part 2", they created UF! Therefore, one might argue that at least part (if not most) of the 80's were done for U2's own artistic ambitions, not their fans.

And of course, let's not forget OS1. True, it's not an "official" U2 release, but clearly with all 4 members of U2 involved, and Eno producing, it may as well be a U2 release. That was clearly music done to satisfy their own artistic ambitions.

In other words, I think U2 have been doing almost nothing but satiating their own musical desires.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Wasn't U2 supposed to drop off the face of the earth after 1989?



Oh, that's right... they released Achtung Baby. When they were supposedly done after POPMart, they released ATYCLB. TWICE they have demonstrated that they can beat the odds and revive what some would call a stagnating career.

And you now predict that they'll be done after the next album?

Hubris, man. Hubris.

Bubba! Short replies suit you

Very accurate statements I think.

 

[Diemen]

Re: This is where I strongly disagree

U2 will never make music for the sake of being arty and satisfying their own artistic exploratory ambitions.

And this is where I disagree with you.

Now U2 may never make music solely for the sake of being arty and satisfying their own artistic exploratory ambitions, but in my eyes that is their main goal - to satisfy their ambitions, not their fans. In terms of catering to their fans, Achtung Baby came as a complete surprise. Honestly, you can't tell me that Achtung Baby was an album made to cater to the fans. It was a drastic change in the sound and feel of U2. Had U2 been mainly concerned with catering to the fans, they would've released Joshua Tree 2.

Zooropa, even more so than Achtung Baby, was an album driven by "artistic exploratory ambitions" as you say. Heck, they even kept Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me off the album because they thought it sounded too much like a hit (Flannagan mentions this in U2 At The End Of The World). That right there is not a step taken by a band concerned with catering to the adoring fans. That album was as far away from catering to the fans as I can imagine from a mega-successful rock band.

Come to think of it, much of U2's career has been leaps in new directions that clearly were taken because artistic ambition won out over purely catering to the fans. No one expected The Unforgettable Fire. Indeed I'm sure many were disappointed with it when it first came out. No one really expected the Joshua Tree, especially after the atmospheric, impressionistic tone of UF. No one expected Achtung Baby, no one expected Zooropa, no one expected Pop, etc, etc.

The difference with U2's exploration of their artistic ambition is that they manage to still make great music while doing it, hence the fans love it and the music becomes popular.

 

[u2sangel]

Yet another redundent "lets bash u2"post from you.Do you really think u2 cares if they sell millions of records and make lots of money?(as they ever did)anymore.They have already sold millions of records and made more money than they can spend in a lifetime.It is not about that for them anymore.You are one of these people that thinks u2 are old geezers and should hang it up.How absolutely ridiculous!Congratulations on totally missing the point!

 

[pinkfloyd]

I Can't get no Satisfaction !!!!!!!!

i want U2 to rock , to be a rock band , to become angry on themselves again , last album was a good letter from heaven of mega stars and millioneers . Partys , families etc etc etc Where is the band ?????? , i don't see it , why Rolling Stones at their 60's !!!! can afford to do a world tour really big with all countries and types of venues , and u2 goes like some sort Elton John 's band or something to do gigs in 10000000$$$$$ areas only !!!!!!!



oh yeah and PLEABa section goes nuts when new pics arriving , eekk

 

[Salome]

I want U2 to rock my ass

i don't see it

they must be doing something right then

 

[GypsyHeartgirl]

U2 never really defined a generation, therefore it is easier for them to change colors.

- z -

Oh but they DID! You weren't around in the 80's. They were very much the band of my generation, who else did we have? I have nothing against hair metal, I like it even, but those bands just aren't taken seriously enough to be the one. It was cool having someone good, and someone with something to say, at last a band my age who would do something! In 1987 they were called by Time 'the voice of their generation' and I thought, oh cool, we got U2!! Of course, they dumped us and stabbed us in the back in the 90's, especially the later 90's, and I did feel so betrayed, like they were trying to destroy everything they were to people just for the sake of saying they did. But a lot of people a lot of different ages felt that way too and weren't happy. I forgive them, but I still know people who will not listen to any post 80's U2. No, I don't think ATYCLB is an old fart album, lots of young people love it, but I can see some of the things they are feeling as they get older, because I'm that age too. Summer Rain and Always too. It's nice to have someone to 'grow old' with even if they refuse to define your generation. Bono was quoted once as saying, he didn't want to be the spokesperson for a generation because all he had to say was 'help.'

 

[cell]

U2 supports Greenpeace, so they are an eco-friendly band.This means they dont use gas/ gasoline. Hence your question is irrelevant thus your argument is null and void.

Cheers Mate!

 

[pinkfloyd]

ode to Gypsyheartgirl

speaking of 80's , i really do believe that era was terrible for music society and other rock poets . too much crap pop shit came up with MTV as the headliner , music itself went down in quality , 90's 70' s were much better , oo's ??? we shall see .....

 

[GypsyHeartgirl]

Well really the 80's was the golden age of MTV. Mostly music, almost all good, and not much talking or commercials. Used to be I could watch it for an hour and only see one thing I didn't like. By the mid 90's, I had to watch it an hour to see something I DID like, so I gave it up. It got to be all rap, crap, stupid shows and biased news reports. I hardly ever even turn it on anymore unless someone says U2 is on. Even my 13 year old daughter has gotten sick of the lameness of TRL. VH-1 was good for awhile but it's gone downhill too. Sigh.

Yes, the 70's were cool (all except that pathetic disco crap- I was the first in my high school with a disco sucks t-shirt and its dominance on the radio drove me to get an FM converter for my car) but music was hardly on TV! There was no cable in most places, we didn't get it until 1978 and it was very few channels, mostly repeats of networks. I remember staying up until 1 AM on Fridays to see The Midnight Special- the only place you could really see rock on TV unless there was a TV special. The FM radio was very cool back then, lots rock specials, King Biscuit Flower Hour, mostly AOR (album oriented rock if you didn't know, more deep cuts, not just the charted hits), few commercials. All that changed when greed and commercialism hit in the 80's. Stations became much more hit oriented and added tons of commercials. Sigh, enough of the ramblings of an old woman

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

-Electrical Storm isn't exactly a storming U2 song like Sweetest Thing was

electrical storm...storming...

-The Joshua Tree, U2's best selling album ever and Rattle And Hum (2nd best or 3rd best?) has already been represented in the 1980-1990 release

jigga wha?

 

[pinkfloyd]

fuck mtv , i can buy videos of my favourite artists , they give you one view side , Rap , rock , music watever is very interesting APART from Mtv , MTV is a crap box . VH1 is the same , except older , duller , etc etc etc

 

[jick]

Well...

Yet another redundent "lets bash u2"post from you.Do you really think u2 cares if they sell millions of records and make lots of money?(as they ever did)anymore.

Yes they do care. If they couldn't sell records it will be a big putdown to Bono's massive ego and I am sure he can't take it. That is also why the reasons athletes retire. Surely many athletes would make good subs or role players but they would rather retire when they still get playing time and exposure even though they're not exactly at the top of their game. U2 aren't at the top of their game now anyway.

Cheers,

J

 

[kingofsorrow]

dude any true blue U2 fan has seen those early interviews where U2 admitted to wanting to be the biggest band in the world, and bono has admitted having a big ego, they have put the commercial aspect of the band forward, never hiding it behind phrases like " we're in it for the music". they stated what they wanted, went after what they wanted, and got what they wanted.