New Album Discussion (Is Headache Going To The Superbowl?)

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
It depends on what their next few records are like. The stature of their recent work has already fallen, and REM are prime example of what a string of mediocre records can do to a legacy. Had they stopped in 1997 when Berry left they would be held much higher than they are now. The only way to avoid this is to be the Rolling Stones and to have put out so much unfuckwithable music that 30 years of mediocre to bad music and embarrassing tours can't dent it. They're unique in that respect.

oh for fucks sake

U2 just sold a kagillion tickets for a tour based around an album that really didn't hit the way they had hoped it would, 30 years into their career.

So I'd say their status in the pantheon of all time rock bands is pretty much set in stone.

In the same category as Bon Jovi? You're on crack.
 
lol I didn't even know Bon Jovi released an album this year.

It has a 50 metascore and sold 100,000 week 1. :lol:
 
For fucks sake. Not this again.

I'm sorry, you like these guys:

2005-11-21_U2_@_MSG_by_ZG.JPG


You're too cool for Rush!
 
LOL, the Rush detractors.

Just because Rush isn't part of your (apparently limited) musical world, doesn't mean they're only "big" in North America. Every time Rush tours they sell out. Everywhere. And in South America, they'll play multiple nights in pretty damn big stadiums. And yeah, they sell out all over Europe as well.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Rush are anywhere as big as U2. That's not up for debate...they're not. They don't occupy anywhere near the cultural space that U2 does. And musically, they couldn't be more different. But the bands do have some rather nice things in common. Like U2, Rush has been around for 30+ years with basically the same lineup intact (Peart joined on the second record). They all remain good friends to this day and like U2, are all pretty good people. Like U2, they've (mostly) avoided many of the cliches that surround rock bands...drug addiction, destructive infighting, trashing hotel rooms, etc. They split their royalties equally, like U2, and are very loyal to the people who work with them. The continue to put out new, vital music to a large, and very loyal fan base, while having a huge reservoir of hits to draw from. And they are one of the best selling, most successful rock acts in history. I don't see how you can say otherwise about a band that has sold 25+ million albums, has dozens of gold and platinum records, and has a few multi-platinum ones in there if I'm not mistaken.

Add to that the fact that Geddy Lee and and in particular Neil Peart are considered among the best at their respective instruments in rock history. And Alex Lifeson, while not quite on that level, is no slouch himself.

So yeah, the comments that they are only "big" in North America are mostly spoken out of ignorance.
 
Hollow Island... You have this problem of confusing subjective opinion with fact.

I love Pearl Jam. I hold them in as high esteem as U2 and Springsteen. Those are my holy trinity.

I could say that Pearl Jam are more proficient musicians than U2, and I'd probably be able to make a solid argument.

I could say that Pearl Jam are better live performers than U2, and it would be more subjective, but I could make the argument.

If I made the argument that Pearl Jam are on the same level as U2 as far as accomplishments and commercial and critical success, you'd be right to say I was smoking crack.
 
oh for fucks sake

U2 just sold a kagillion tickets for a tour based around an album that really didn't hit the way they had hoped it would, 30 years into their career.

So I'd say their status in the pantheon of all time rock bands is pretty much set in stone.

In the same category as Bon Jovi? You're on crack.

No, the millions of people who saw Bon Jovi this year are.

I don't know who the hell listens to them, but they're still massively popular 30 years in to their career, and the two bands have sold a comparable amount of records.

I don't like it either, but they occupy similar positions commercially, and isn't that what the discussion is about?
 
And what is this about U2 tarnishing their legacy in the 00's? Huh? If anything, by staying relevant an introducing themselves to a entire new new generation of listeners (especially w/the first two records), they've strengthened their legacy...at least with everyone except perhaps the Pitchfork crowd.

And R.E.M.'s legacy is secure as well, I'm pretty sure. Nothing U2, or R.E.M. ever put out was so bad that their legacy would be tarnished. Not even close. I can't remember who said it upthread, but I agree that while U2 didn't specifically influence a huge number of bands the way the Stones, or Zep, or Floyd did, they along with R.E.M. certainly defined what "alternative" rock was for quite a while.

And comparing U2 to Bon Jovi? Crikey. Way off base, and that just gives U2 a bad name.
 
Hollow Island... You have this problem of confusing subjective opinion with fact.

I love Pearl Jam. I hold them in as high esteem as U2 and Springsteen. Those are my holy trinity.

I could say that Pearl Jam are more proficient musicians than U2, and I'd probably be able to make a solid argument.

I could say that Pearl Jam are better live performers than U2, and it would be more subjective, but I could make the argument.

If I made the argument that Pearl Jam are on the same level as U2 as far as accomplishments and commercial and critical success, you'd be right to say I was smoking crack.

Absolutely, but I'm not speaking subjectively! I'm referring strictly to commercial achievement in the case of Bon Jovi. Everything I'm saying about them in relation to U2 is based on facts, on numbers. There are no opinions involved, just an interpretation of statistics.

With Rush I was taking in totality of their success, but I didn't consider that their popularity in Toronto is greater than that outside of this shithole. Nick explained the similarities quite well though.
 
I love Pearl Jam. I hold them in as high esteem as U2 and Springsteen. Those are my holy trinity.

I could say that Pearl Jam are more proficient musicians than U2, and I'd probably be able to make a solid argument.

I could say that Pearl Jam are better live performers than U2, and it would be more subjective, but I could make the argument.

If I made the argument that Pearl Jam are on the same level as U2 as far as accomplishments and commercial and critical success, you'd be right to say I was smoking crack.

Well said.
 
And what is this about U2 tarnishing their legacy in the 00's? Huh? If anything, by staying relevant an introducing themselves to a entire new new generation of listeners (especially w/the first two records), they've strengthened their legacy...at least with everyone except perhaps the Pitchfork crowd.

And R.E.M.'s legacy is secure as well, I'm pretty sure. Nothing U2, or R.E.M. ever put out was so bad that their legacy would be tarnished. Not even close. I can't remember who said it upthread, but I agree that while U2 didn't specifically influence a huge number of bands the way the Stones, or Zep, or Floyd did, they along with R.E.M. certainly defined what "alternative" rock was for quite a while.

And comparing U2 to Bon Jovi? Crikey. Way off base, and that just gives U2 a bad name.

Oh yeah, REM's leagacy is secure, but they're not held as highly as they would have been if they'd stopped after New Adventures In Hi-Fi,

And say what you want about the Pitchfork crowd, but it's unfortunately the tastemaker and has been for some time, and they and their followers are writing the narrative now. So if U2 keeps putting out the kind of material that they have been, expect their stock to fall. They love the old stuff, and not the new stuff.
 
Well said.

Not really, because I wasn't talking about accomplishments or critical standing. I was only talking about commercial success, and U2 and Bon Jovi are in very similar situations, more so than any other bands.
 
. Every time Rush tours they sell out. Everywhere.

Not trying to be a dick, but;
Clockwork Angels Tour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scroll near the bottom, you'll see they don't come close to selling out most venues, almost all at reduced capacities. They failed to crack 10,000 at most shows. They still do alright, but far from selling out everywhere.

Here are the figures for their previous tour, including more info on Europe and South America, which are also not very stellar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Machine_Tour
 
Not really, because I wasn't talking about accomplishments or critical standing. I was only talking about commercial success, and U2 and Bon Jovi are in very similar situations, more so than any other bands.

Didn't somebody post a city by city comparison of U2360 vs Bon Jovi's 2010-11 tour figures? U2 did better everywhere except NYC/Jersey (Bon Jovi's hometown), and Australia (somewhat surprisingly). Bon Jovi are also bigger than U2 in Japan.
 
Didn't somebody post a city by city comparison of U2360 vs Bon Jovi's 2010-11 tour figures? U2 did better everywhere except NYC/Jersey (Bon Jovi's hometown), and Australia (somewhat surprisingly). Bon Jovi are also bigger than U2 in Japan.

Yeah, U2 did better. Of course they did. They're more popular and they fit stadiums. They're still commercially comparable though, so U2 aren't as unique as some like to say. They're in a rare position, but Bon Jon and Depeche Mode are there with them, and even though Rush play half arenas I still put them in the same league as U2 because of the number of radio staples, because they've been around forever and still push in new directions, and because they are unquestionably massive. Rush are living legends. And unique to them, they can play 95% of their new album, in order, and everyone loves it. There's no dropping most of the new songs for them, no siree!
 
Didn't somebody post a city by city comparison of U2360 vs Bon Jovi's 2010-11 tour figures? U2 did better everywhere except NYC/Jersey (Bon Jovi's hometown), and Australia (somewhat surprisingly). Bon Jovi are also bigger than U2 in Japan.


As someone who's seen Bon Jovi in Europe, his status as a punch line in North America does not quite translate. People were nuts for him, and seemed to take him seriously.

I was, however, impressed with his showmanship. The man can command 60,000 Belgians on a muddy field in Flanders.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom