U2 and Madonna - Giants in their genres!

[GibsonGirl]

Edgedonna!

 

[Aygo]

Oh Father. Probably my favorite Madonna song ever.

Are you serious???
"Oh Father" is my favourite Madonna song too!
Is just so emotive, and I praise that David Lynch video, it's so sad...

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Yes, BUT I don't think anyone was saying that their music is similar. Zoots specifically said Giants of THEIR genres, as in, respective genres--Madonna, vocal-based pop and dance, U2, 4 piece rock music. And, like it or not, U2 IS about image as well as the music. They are probably one of the most image conscious bands out there. This is where the two are similar---their longevity is based on experimenting with musical styles and different images.

Now, I'm starting to think a pic of Madonna with a U2 member does not exist. Am I correct?

U2 made it because of their music, Madonna made it because of her image. That is a serious difference. U2 were hard at work touring the United States before MTV came into existence. U2 made it on being themselves, not using sex to sell their product like Madonna. They didn't have costume changes after every song in the 1980s. Edge often remarked how simple they really were when it came to all that back in the 1980s. In the 1990s, they may have toyed with all of that image stuff a bit, but in retrospect, that backfired commercially for them, at least in the late 90s. For them, playing a little with their image was a risk, for Madonna, its how she maintains her popularity.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Yes, pretty true! Madonna is about image mostly, but U2? U2 is not only music, or do you think that music made it all for U2? Where do you place the folk-rock image in the late 80's, the white flage rebel, the ZooTv and Popmart extravaganza full of huge screens and bizarre charaters, the Bono's poses and his association to humanitary causes and... to sunglasses? Doesn't that all count?

If Madonna plays an instrument? Yes!
Before going on solo and become a disco-dance singer in 1983, Madonna was the drummer of a band and then the vocals+rhythm guitar in another band.
Madonna has never made an acoustic show, but in the Drowned World Tour (2001), Re-Invention Tour (2004) and Confessions Tour (2006) there were always acoustic sets and in the last two shows there were even a "rock" set. Madonna played electric guitar and acoustic guitar in the last three world tours in 3-6 songs per show. She may not be a good guitar player, but she's not that untalented musically as many think.
Those who doubt should have seen her singing very well "The Lament" sitting in an electric chair after a 4 minute fast-dance'n'singing in "Die Another Day".

And I'm sorry but... would U2 be the U2 we know today if it weren't MTV, music videos, grossing tour starting in 1983? Of course not!

That is the proof that despite playing rock songs, U2 is not a rock band, is more like a pop/rock band and they're not imune to the media highlights. Perhaps not in a sooo exposed way Madonna is, but they certainly do...

Most people did not have MTV back in 1983. By 1985, most people did, and Madonna was in heavy rotation unlike U2. U2 were still refered to as an "underground band" in the United States back in 1985.

U2's humanitarian work was NOT about image or selling albums. It was a genuine attempt to help other people. U2 were never a folk rock band or any other band for that matter, they were U2 and were unique for not having an image, chasing styles, or other NON-musical image and selling activities.

U2, primarily BONO played with sort of an image thing in the 1990s, which was a shock to many fans and cost them commercially in the late 1990s.

Look at the writing credits for the "Like A Virgin" Album and see how many songs Madonna actually wrote herself or even contributed to. She made it with the help of other people and her sex appeal. U2 made it without any sexappeal and wrote all their music. They toured aggressively and made it back they were a GREAT LIVE Band where as Madonna would often lype sync in many of her shows while dancing around and showing her body.

Once again, who were Britney Spears and the Spice Girls influenced by? Who were Coldplay and Snow Patrol influenced by? Just one more way of showing the difference.

U2 broke into the industry on their own, someone saw that Madonna had the looks that would sell millions of copies and paired her up with songwriters, producers and others to help her immediately dominate much of the industry back in 1985.

U2 slowly from the late 1970s built their own career independenty and conquered the industry without the help of looks, sex, and other non-musical factors. Their music has been well received by the critics and they have won 22 Grammy awards, compared to Madonna who has only won 5, two of which were for video's.

 

[Lemonfix]

U2's humanitarian work was NOT about image or selling albums. It was a genuine attempt to help other people. U2 were never a folk rock band or any other band for that matter, they were U2 and were unique for not having an image, chasing styles, or other NON-musical image and selling activities.

Uh, no one ever said that U2's humanitarian work was about image. U2 has had a MUSICAL image from day one--they came to America partly because they knew (or Paul McG knew) than an Irish band would sell well there. Bono's flag-waving during the war tour contributed to an iconic image in the early 80's. The JT/R&H look? Image as well. Obviously image was a smaller part of their career but it has always been there. And that isn't a bad thing.

Look at the writing credits for the "Like A Virgin" Album and see how many songs Madonna actually wrote herself or even contributed to. She made it with the help of other people and her sex appeal. U2 made it without any sexappeal and wrote all their music. They toured aggressively and made it back they were a GREAT LIVE Band where as Madonna would often lype sync in many of her shows while dancing around and showing her body.

No one is saying that U2 and Madonna are EXACTLY THE SAME. They are just saying that SOME ASPECTS of their careers have similarities. U2 is a rock band--live performances are part of the game. Madonna is a pop singer--sex appeal and a different kind of live show is part of that game. And c'mon, U2 had sex appeal too--all rock bands do to some extent.

Once again, who were Britney Spears and the Spice Girls influenced by? Who were Coldplay and Snow Patrol influenced by? Just one more way of showing the difference.

U2 has inspired some crap as well. But that's irrelevant to judging the actual artist.

U2 broke into the industry on their own, someone saw that Madonna had the looks that would sell millions of copies and paired her up with songwriters, producers and others to help her immediately dominate much of the industry back in 1985.

Actually, Madonna broke into the business almost all on her own. She had to fight very hard to break into the industry--and she definatly did not have the classical good looks to sell albums. What she did have was an image, self-confidence, and a whole lot of ambition. Hmmm, sounds familiar.

U2 slowly from the late 1970s built their own career independenty and conquered the industry without the help of looks, sex, and other non-musical factors. Their music has been well received by the critics and they have won 22 Grammy awards, compared to Madonna who has only won 5, two of which were for video's.

Grammies mean next to nothing. Some of the best artists in music history have never won grammies--or only did later in their careers for sub-standard work. While Lenny Kravitz has a whole trophy case full.

And again, U2 and Madonna are in some aspects, very different. You think U2 is awesome and Madonna is crappy? That's fine. We were just pointing out a few similarities regarding how they continue to stay on top.

 

[Aygo]

Come on boy!...
Let me enumerate a bunch of things that I find them very important to clear you about this comparison...

1) Madonna started to in heavy rotation in MTV at the same time as U2. "New Year's Day" was aired several times at the time of its releasement. Madonna started even later with "Lucky Star", "Holiday" and "Borderline" by late 1983/early 1984. what happens is that her big breakthrough came first than U2. Yes, they were seen by an emergent band in 1985, but in 1987 they appeared in the covers of the most important magazines and were called the only important big band in the 1980's.

2) I'm not talking about image selling albums. I'm talking about image being primal to stablish as an important artist and to become an image icon (in the case of Madonna), and U2 don't escape from that atribute, whether fans like it or not. I didn't say they were a folk-rock band in the late 80's, but the fact is that their music and image at the time were afected by that or you haven't seen videos from "Baby Please Come Home", "Jesus Christ" or even the videos from JT or R&H? What U2 made in the 90's with their image led them to what they are today, or do you think that without all the image importance the band carries U2 would be what we know? Probably not, probably they'd be another band that had 2 big successfull albums in the late 80's and then a few minor hits in the 90's and then probably would fade in popularity.

3) U2's humanitarian work is not innocent of carrying advantages (or not) to their image and their status of "biggest band", of course that having songs and speeches about God and poverty and appearing handshaking with the Pope or with George W. Bush was benefic for the increasement of popularity of the frontman and for his band.

4) "Madonna/The First Album" and "Like A Virgin" are the only albums in which Madonna didn't wrote and produce her own songs, but even in the first album she's credited in 5 of the 8 songs, because some of them were written by her by the times she didn't even met any producer. From "True Blue" until today, Madonna wrote (or co-wrote) and produced (or co-produced) 95% of her catalogue. You should ckeck those information before stating anything as a fact. Check the booklets, for instance as an easier way. As a fact, Madonna admited to dislike most of the songs from "Like A Virgin".

5) Madonna shows and roots are made of dancing and not only singing, and she's been proving that she's capable to dance and sing in stage. Madonna stared to add samples of her own voice in her shows since the 1993 The Girlie Show Tour, sometimes to support her own vocals, and sometimes to substitute a few lines on a song that were impossible to sing because of her movements (ex: the beginning of "Vogue" in 2004 where she got in the stage making yoga acrobatic moves). Her last live CD had tones of post production, but naturally it was worse singing than that. As I said, you should check some bootleg live performances, in some songs you'll see that she's not that bad live. This doesn't mean that Madonna lipsynchs half of 100% of her show. I saw her live and those who saw her too can tell you that is not true.

6) Madonna's albums not always were well received, but she always appear in lists of Best Albums with (almost the same ones) "Like A Prayer" and "Ray Of Light".
At the time, "Erotica" was devastated by critics due to the nature of the first promotional single/videoclip and because of the trilogy Erotica album + Sex book (that was a sucess) + Body Of Evidence movie (failure). Today, that album is acclaimed as one of her best ones in her career, and I agree.
The same happened with "American Life" because of the video with a George Bush impressionator that she suspended (I don't believe in her excuse, but that's okay). "American Life" is in my opinion her best album, the most cohesive and the most deep and introspective.
Her worse albums? The two first ones, for sure!

7) Grammies having been proving to be just another award, and many people do not give much credibility to them. Why do you think that she just got her first award with "Ray Of Light"? Because it was the less risky and promiscuous one at date? Of course it was!

 

[vaz02]

as a u2 fan we must respect someone like madonna for surving just like us in the business.

 

[DignityPassesBy]

HAHAHAHAHAHA edges head looks like its been photoshopped in on that photo its look completly out of proportion ... i just found that funny

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Uh, no one ever said that U2's humanitarian work was about image. U2 has had a MUSICAL image from day one--they came to America partly because they knew (or Paul McG knew) than an Irish band would sell well there. Bono's flag-waving during the war tour contributed to an iconic image in the early 80's. The JT/R&H look? Image as well. Obviously image was a smaller part of their career but it has always been there. And that isn't a bad thing.



No one is saying that U2 and Madonna are EXACTLY THE SAME. They are just saying that SOME ASPECTS of their careers have similarities. U2 is a rock band--live performances are part of the game. Madonna is a pop singer--sex appeal and a different kind of live show is part of that game. And c'mon, U2 had sex appeal too--all rock bands do to some extent.



U2 has inspired some crap as well. But that's irrelevant to judging the actual artist.



Actually, Madonna broke into the business almost all on her own. She had to fight very hard to break into the industry--and she definatly did not have the classical good looks to sell albums. What she did have was an image, self-confidence, and a whole lot of ambition. Hmmm, sounds familiar.



Grammies mean next to nothing. Some of the best artists in music history have never won grammies--or only did later in their careers for sub-standard work. While Lenny Kravitz has a whole trophy case full.

And again, U2 and Madonna are in some aspects, very different. You think U2 is awesome and Madonna is crappy? That's fine. We were just pointing out a few similarities regarding how they continue to stay on top.

U2 came to the USA because they knew any Irish Band would sell well there? Sure, I mean after all, there have been hundreds of Irish bands succeeding in the United States prior to U2?

U2 came to the United States because its the largest market on the planet. The first album only sold 100,000 copies in the USA when it was release. The second album did the same. They received little radio airplay. This is huge contrast to Madonna's first album that went platinum because of heavy radio airplay and heavy MTV rotation. U2's first platinum album would not be until 1985 with the Unforgettable Fire and it would go platinum because of their strong live performances, and not because of blanket radio or video airplay.

Bono's flag waving on the War tour was not meant to create an image in the media. It was his way of communicating a point to the crowd on that night.

No matter what U2 would have done, or the clothes they put on, you could always make the naive claim that this was somehow and image making plan. But the fact is, the band had no image or style in the 80s except creations and claims by the media and others. Madonna on the other carefully calculated her every move in this regard.

Well, you could say anyone has sex appeal to some degree if you think U2 had sex appeal in the 1980s.

So what is this crap that U2 has inspired? How about some names.

Madonna's first album went platinum and then turned multi-platinum once her second album was released. She was hot and thats why the record company new they could sell her. She had posed in nude magazines and new she had selling points in this regard. She sings, stars in video's and has her picture taken, while other people create most of the music. Thats how she got into the industry. U2 had to do things the old fashioned way, they toured and played sometimes to only 10 people. They spent years on the road in the early days without making a cent. Madonna was already a millionaire by the time she went on her first full scale tour.

I don't see any similarity's in how they broke into the industry at all. She used sex appeal and got in quickly, U2 used the genuine art of the music they created and struggled for years to get into the industry. It took U2 7 years to have a multi-platinum album in the United States, it took Madonna less than 18 months once her first album was released. Heavy rotation on MTV did most of her work and she arguably reached the height of her popularity by the end of 1985 only two years after her first album was released.


It never surprises me to see people who are fans of artist who have yet to win a Grammy or very few grammy's dismiss the awards. But the fact is, the nominees and winners are picked by the academy which is made up of artist, songwriters, musicians, and other people involved in the production of music. No awards show can every be perfect, but this one is the opinion of people actually involved with the creation of music and in terms of finding an awards show that awards quality as opposed to raw popularity, its probably the best one.

 

[Aygo]

Dude, there are two options: or you don't understand why Zootlesque started this thread and don't want to assume the comparison between U2 and Madonna or... we're not writting the same English!

1) U2 came to the US market because Island Records at the time and Paul McGuiness knew they would succed with the right promotion. Bono's flag probably was not meant to cause impact on the media, but when they saw that the media payed attention to it, I'm sure the marketing machine started to work right here. Just look (for instance) at the covers of the 1983 live singles of the band and the promotional posters of the tours.
U2 never was just about the music, and image (even if in a small way) always made part of the U2 machine. Just look at the intentions in With Or Without You where a visual change in a sexier way gave another image of Bono, and the intentions in the Streets video... can't it be more explicit? U2 is a calculated machine since looong ago!

Then, do you think that in the 1980's it was easy to get in stardom being a waitress and dancing in gay clubs? Mate, in 1982 there were no Mickey Mouse Club's kind of to put Britney's selling millions.

Madonna's first album was not a success in the first releasement, and her two first singles only succeded in dance charts. Only after the Like A Virgin releasement and with a name change to an eponymous name of the album and the re-releasement of its singles the album started to sell as much as Like A Virgin. By the time her first singles was released, many people thought that she was just another african-american disco singer.

Madonna started in heavy rotation in MTV after U2. I'm going to repeat it to you: the New Year's Day video was highly aired in the channel at the time and so did Sunday Bloody Sunday. This is all 1983. Madonna started being highly aired after Lucky Star, in the beggining of 1984. And then, the success of Madonna in the european market was not so high as in the american one. The proof is that Like A Virgin "only" reached #3 in the UK, and #1 in the US.
Don't tell that The Unforgettable fire had success because of radio airplay, because the Pride (In The Name Of Love) promotional video was very sucessfull in music channel and so it was the title track in Europe. Then, you had Live Aid that was honey in their tongues to push The Unforgettable Fire even higher.

You can't see much differences in U2's image in the 80's? Well, image is not just physical image, the imagery that music puts on the public sphere is sometimes even more important (see Coldplay, for example). Certainly, the U2 of 1981 was very different from the ones of 1984 and the others of 1987/9.
The first ones had some kind of post-punk image, highly influenced by the early 80's rock fashion, they only were not known. In 1983/4, they started to adopt a more independent image, but still influenced by the 1980's style, and by the late 80's U2 seemed a rock band that wanted to become folk and sometimes influenced by the country style.
You can see and confirm their atitude and their outfits in pictures, videos, the R&H movie the posture in live concerts...

Yeah, it took 7 years since Boy to become "the biggest band of the 1980's" and Madonna made it in 2 years, but since they were in the spotlight, it was never the same for both, and both had lots of similarities in their careers since then. That's what we're discussing.

U2 never stopped in one physical style and never got stuck in an musical genre or influence. Neither Madonna.

U2 has had several albums that could be called their masterpieces (ok, that's discussable, but try to see my point). Madonna too.

U2 has been in the highlights for the third decade and when things went wrong, the marketing machine saved them. This fact fits even better in Madonna.

U2 still puts singles and albums in the #1 spot of the world charts after being 30 years in the business. Madonna too, after almost 25 years.

U2 still is a big influence in the music business and they are highly rated and respected, seen by many as the "biggest band in the world". Madonna too (despite the hatred she sets in many people and institutions) and she is still called "the queen of pop". Both seem not to give up from their "titles" easily, and both seem to have always new to show and to prove to the viewers/listeners.

U2 existed to "make a difference" - as Bono likes to say - in the music scene, in the humanity and brought another sense to rock music each album they release. Madonna is known to shake the social conventions and to break structures, or at least to fight against them provoking controversy or talking about themes that no one want to talk about.

Well, I could still enumerate other points to explain you what this thread is really about. I hope you understand now what we've been trying to say all this time.

This is not about Madonna using sex, religion and polemics to sell and U2 about the art and the music. Well, Madonna has been involved in artistic scenes (probably more than U2, but less in music ans more in the concept of image). This is mostly about the evident coincidences in both careers.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Dude, there are two options: or you don't understand why Zootlesque started this thread and don't want to assume the comparison between U2 and Madonna or... we're not writting the same English!

1) U2 came to the US market because Island Records at the time and Paul McGuiness knew they would succed with the right promotion. Bono's flag probably was not meant to cause impact on the media, but when they saw that the media payed attention to it, I'm sure the marketing machine started to work right here. Just look (for instance) at the covers of the 1983 live singles of the band and the promotional posters of the tours.
U2 never was just about the music, and image (even if in a small way) always made part of the U2 machine. Just look at the intentions in With Or Without You where a visual change in a sexier way gave another image of Bono, and the intentions in the Streets video... can't it be more explicit? U2 is a calculated machine since looong ago!

Then, do you think that in the 1980's it was easy to get in stardom being a waitress and dancing in gay clubs? Mate, in 1982 there were no Mickey Mouse Club's kind of to put Britney's selling millions.

Madonna's first album was not a success in the first releasement, and her two first singles only succeded in dance charts. Only after the Like A Virgin releasement and with a name change to an eponymous name of the album and the re-releasement of its singles the album started to sell as much as Like A Virgin. By the time her first singles was released, many people thought that she was just another african-american disco singer.

Madonna started in heavy rotation in MTV after U2. I'm going to repeat it to you: the New Year's Day video was highly aired in the channel at the time and so did Sunday Bloody Sunday. This is all 1983. Madonna started being highly aired after Lucky Star, in the beggining of 1984. And then, the success of Madonna in the european market was not so high as in the american one. The proof is that Like A Virgin "only" reached #3 in the UK, and #1 in the US.
Don't tell that The Unforgettable fire had success because of radio airplay, because the Pride (In The Name Of Love) promotional video was very sucessfull in music channel and so it was the title track in Europe. Then, you had Live Aid that was honey in their tongues to push The Unforgettable Fire even higher.

You can't see much differences in U2's image in the 80's? Well, image is not just physical image, the imagery that music puts on the public sphere is sometimes even more important (see Coldplay, for example). Certainly, the U2 of 1981 was very different from the ones of 1984 and the others of 1987/9.
The first ones had some kind of post-punk image, highly influenced by the early 80's rock fashion, they only were not known. In 1983/4, they started to adopt a more independent image, but still influenced by the 1980's style, and by the late 80's U2 seemed a rock band that wanted to become folk and sometimes influenced by the country style.
You can see and confirm their atitude and their outfits in pictures, videos, the R&H movie the posture in live concerts...

Yeah, it took 7 years since Boy to become "the biggest band of the 1980's" and Madonna made it in 2 years, but since they were in the spotlight, it was never the same for both, and both had lots of similarities in their careers since then. That's what we're discussing.

U2 never stopped in one physical style and never got stuck in an musical genre or influence. Neither Madonna.

U2 has had several albums that could be called their masterpieces (ok, that's discussable, but try to see my point). Madonna too.

U2 has been in the highlights for the third decade and when things went wrong, the marketing machine saved them. This fact fits even better in Madonna.

U2 still puts singles and albums in the #1 spot of the world charts after being 30 years in the business. Madonna too, after almost 25 years.

U2 still is a big influence in the music business and they are highly rated and respected, seen by many as the "biggest band in the world". Madonna too (despite the hatred she sets in many people and institutions) and she is still called "the queen of pop". Both seem not to give up from their "titles" easily, and both seem to have always new to show and to prove to the viewers/listeners.

U2 existed to "make a difference" - as Bono likes to say - in the music scene, in the humanity and brought another sense to rock music each album they release. Madonna is known to shake the social conventions and to break structures, or at least to fight against them provoking controversy or talking about themes that no one want to talk about.

Well, I could still enumerate other points to explain you what this thread is really about. I hope you understand now what we've been trying to say all this time.

This is not about Madonna using sex, religion and polemics to sell and U2 about the art and the music. Well, Madonna has been involved in artistic scenes (probably more than U2, but less in music ans more in the concept of image). This is mostly about the evident coincidences in both careers.

U2 came to the United States just like every band does, because the United States is the biggest market on the planet, and the rewards from breaking into that market can be enormous. Bono, McGuinness and others will be the first to tell you that they really had no idea what to expect when they came to America, and were actually shocked by some of the reactions they received.

The promotion the band received on the first tour was limited and for the most part non-existent. The band only drew crowds based on the word of mouth about the power of their live set. On the next tour for October, U2's distributer in the United States, Warner, actually cut off funding for the tour. Did Madonna ever experience something like that after the release of her first album? I don't think so.

Madonna's first album was released in September 1983. It went double platinum in the United States on December 5, 1984. In just 15 months, Madonna already had a multi-platinum album without even a full scale tour of the United States. U2 in December of 1984 had been going at it for over 4 years, and were on their 4th world tour. Yet, in December of 1984, U2 had yet to even go platinum with any of their albums in the United States.

Madonna rocketed to multi-platinum status in only 15 months after the first release of her album because of heavy rotation on MTV and on radio across the United States. She received this heavy rotation because she was easy to market as a sex symbol. After all "sex sells". The fact is, Madonna's rise in the United States is the opposite of what U2 went through.

Most albums have some sort of art work. The fact that they had a white flag on their single covers or on anything else is rather meaningless when it comes to this discussion. Everyone wears clothes and has some form of art work on their albums and posters. That does not make them calculated or some how overly serious about their image. Am I calculated and serious about my image because I'm wearing shorts right now instead of pants? Is wearing a cowboy hat a seriously calculated move? Do you think they had meetings about whether or not Bono should wear a cowboy hat during the Joshua Tree tour? The idea that U2 attempted to have any sort of image or style during the 1980s is just absurd. All your doing is judging the band by the clothes they where and claiming that its this or that. It was fully acknowledged that the bands first small attempts to do anything serious in the image realm was during the 1990s, and this actually cost them commercially, at least in the late 1990s.


In 1983, there was NO video for "Sunday Bloody Sunday". "Under A Blood Red Sky" was not released until December 1983, and MTV did not have the video of the song to play until 1984. New Years Day and "Two Hearts Beat As One" got limited play on MTV during 1983. At the time, the number of people with access to the channel was limited. This changed in 1984 and by 1985, nearly everyone across the country had access. The WAR album only made it to the GOLD level in the United States in 1983, mainly because of the success the band had playing live on their tour, NOT because they were receiving heavy video play and radio airplay. U2 built their following initially from their live performances, not from the media. That is why there were people in the industry(radio DJs) in 1985 who still did not know who U2 were. Thats why people still thought of U2 has an underground band in 1985. U2 did not have any songs crack the top 40 until 1985 when "PRIDE" barely made it to #33. A huge contrast all the top 10 and #1 songs Madonna would have because of all of the airplay she would receive in 1984 and 1985.

When U2 launched their first world tour, the only people in the United States that owned any U2 albums were a small number of people that had bought the album on import. When Madonna launched her first world tour, she already had two multi-platinum albums.

The chart position of Unforgettable Fire in the United States did not change at all because of Live Aid. Live Aid for U2 is an event that is more talked about in documentaries. Its immediate commercial effect, at least in the United States was non-existent. Besides, U2 were not there to sell albums, they were there to help a continent.

 

[Aygo]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


You're turning this in to a personal thing.
First, because you still comment points that are no longer in discussion and that we already explained that they're minor differences between the similarities we are trying to point. If you're so blind and don't want to understand it, fine, that's your problem, not mine!

Second, I don't want to take my sentences and comments about Madonna as facts, but I think that you should take me more seriously, since I'm the same kind of fan as I am with U2, having complete discography, registered in internet boards (like Interference), knowing demos and unofficial releasements and canceled projects.
I think that you're just trying to be right at force, and we're only trying to state a few points.
You shouldn't trust that much in Wikipedia's and stuff like that...

Now:

1) I insist that when U2 tried the US market, they probably didn't expect such reception, but they knew what they were doing. That's why publishers and management exist. You should know it by other artists history. The huge boost in 1987 was not that innocent, and the Conspiracy Of Hope was a big help too.
I was refering to the early years, if you read it, I didn't mention 1980-2 in U2. You don't have to remind me that U2 didn't tour the US during Boy and that it only came in October, I think we all know it.

2) Madonna's first album was not released in September 1983, it was in fact, a few months earlier, in July 1983, but by that time a few tracks existed already in the single format, such as "Everybody" and "Burning Up", but they weren't not that successful, it only stated to gain a few popularity after the "Holiday" single, and then with the last two singles. The album only went double platinum, by the time Like A Virgin was released, when she put the two albums in the top 10.
And then, she was not selling much a sexual image by that time, since she was not that known, and she was seen as a new rebel pop singer that was trying to make a few millions by singing.
Sexual image already existed in the covers and in few videos, but it was such in a small way that no one payed attention to it. In fact, the "Borderline" and "Lucky Star" videos have almost nothing sexual about it, comparing to her "sexual breakthrough" in the 1984 MTV Awards. It's from here that you can talk about sexual breathings in bride outfits, the BoyToy belts and the sexy videos.

At last, Madonna didn't tour until 1985 and it only reached North America. You're talkning like the US market was the only one. Thank God no. The proof is that many albums that don't suceed in the US become huge success in the ROW and famous because of that.

3) Don't be ridiculous saying such things like " Am I calculated and serious about my image because I'm wearing shorts right now instead of pants?"...
In 1983, by the War tour they were in the music and showbusiness almost 7 years, and despite their first album only had 3 years, they knew that image and atitude has its importance. Well, at least Bono knew, just see the live performances, mate...
Don't you think that the "American culture fascination" image helped to get their objectives? Of course it helped! Well, association with high rated artists like The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Woody Guthrie was not that innocent, and naturally adopting a posture and physical image that could please the american listener/viewer really helped. This is not so innocent as you think, it has its bits of planning.
Then, you don't have insist that beting in image in the 1990's cost them commercially. That's not true! In fact, I think it's the opposite. Do you think that only having sound changing the Achtung Baby album would've help them so succeed commercially? Get down on Earth, boy!
And it was the image, the extravaganza, the Bono's alter-ego's, the more sensual image of the band, the beting in consumerism satire that helped them to get relevance, appear in the press. Do you really think that Pop without the Popmart tour and the newly image would've be like that? No. Probably it would even get worse.

4) The live performance of "Sunday Bloody Sunday" was highly aired in TV channels at the time for a unkwown band. That was another little catapult for U2.
In 1985 U2 was not the band they were by the JT times, but they were not an underground band. In 1985, they already the War album with a known single and TUF with "Pride" that America knew already. Then, you had the highlight in Live Aid. Do you think that the "biggest band of the 1980's" tittle came suddenly in 1987? No, there was already a good background behind it, to say that.
Then, if you play the argument of limited number of people having cable tv (and consequently, MTV) for U2 not being known... well, it has got be valid for Madonna too!

5) No need to present chart position of singles, because it's been proved that many times that is irrelevant. "Sunday Bloody Sunday" didn't chart... because there was no physical single in the US! Check out the chart positions in the rest of the world and you'll see that it suceeded at the time. "Pride" didn't became famous just because of the boost 3 years later.

6) Finally...
" The chart position of Unforgettable Fire in the United States did not change at all because of Live Aid. Live Aid for U2 is an event that is more talked about in documentaries. Its immediate commercial effect, at least in the United States was non-existent. Besides, U2 were not there to sell albums, they were there to help a continent."

In which world do you live? Live Aid more talked in documentaries??? Live Aid was seen in television by millions of people across the planet. Ah, you can't remember the U2 performance? Make an effort. It was naturally a big landmark at the time to increase popularity.
Then, I never said exactily that it was a big for commercial sales of TUF, but why do you think that so many people know "Bad" without being released as a single?

Come on, don't be head-strong, you're not getting our point just because you don't want to accept it.
One thing is to have different opinion, another one is contrasting with statements that are no justication for the point. They didn't really help here...

 

[Zoots]

 

[vaz02]

Is that the idea you have of pop music?

yep thats my idea of pop music.

cheap , quick, 3 min wonders.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


You're turning this in to a personal thing.
First, because you still comment points that are no longer in discussion and that we already explained that they're minor differences between the similarities we are trying to point. If you're so blind and don't want to understand it, fine, that's your problem, not mine!

Second, I don't want to take my sentences and comments about Madonna as facts, but I think that you should take me more seriously, since I'm the same kind of fan as I am with U2, having complete discography, registered in internet boards (like Interference), knowing demos and unofficial releasements and canceled projects.
I think that you're just trying to be right at force, and we're only trying to state a few points.
You shouldn't trust that much in Wikipedia's and stuff like that...

Now:

1) I insist that when U2 tried the US market, they probably didn't expect such reception, but they knew what they were doing. That's why publishers and management exist. You should know it by other artists history. The huge boost in 1987 was not that innocent, and the Conspiracy Of Hope was a big help too.
I was refering to the early years, if you read it, I didn't mention 1980-2 in U2. You don't have to remind me that U2 didn't tour the US during Boy and that it only came in October, I think we all know it.

2) Madonna's first album was not released in September 1983, it was in fact, a few months earlier, in July 1983, but by that time a few tracks existed already in the single format, such as "Everybody" and "Burning Up", but they weren't not that successful, it only stated to gain a few popularity after the "Holiday" single, and then with the last two singles. The album only went double platinum, by the time Like A Virgin was released, when she put the two albums in the top 10.
And then, she was not selling much a sexual image by that time, since she was not that known, and she was seen as a new rebel pop singer that was trying to make a few millions by singing.
Sexual image already existed in the covers and in few videos, but it was such in a small way that no one payed attention to it. In fact, the "Borderline" and "Lucky Star" videos have almost nothing sexual about it, comparing to her "sexual breakthrough" in the 1984 MTV Awards. It's from here that you can talk about sexual breathings in bride outfits, the BoyToy belts and the sexy videos.

At last, Madonna didn't tour until 1985 and it only reached North America. You're talkning like the US market was the only one. Thank God no. The proof is that many albums that don't suceed in the US become huge success in the ROW and famous because of that.

3) Don't be ridiculous saying such things like " Am I calculated and serious about my image because I'm wearing shorts right now instead of pants?"...
In 1983, by the War tour they were in the music and showbusiness almost 7 years, and despite their first album only had 3 years, they knew that image and atitude has its importance. Well, at least Bono knew, just see the live performances, mate...
Don't you think that the "American culture fascination" image helped to get their objectives? Of course it helped! Well, association with high rated artists like The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Woody Guthrie was not that innocent, and naturally adopting a posture and physical image that could please the american listener/viewer really helped. This is not so innocent as you think, it has its bits of planning.
Then, you don't have insist that beting in image in the 1990's cost them commercially. That's not true! In fact, I think it's the opposite. Do you think that only having sound changing the Achtung Baby album would've help them so succeed commercially? Get down on Earth, boy!
And it was the image, the extravaganza, the Bono's alter-ego's, the more sensual image of the band, the beting in consumerism satire that helped them to get relevance, appear in the press. Do you really think that Pop without the Popmart tour and the newly image would've be like that? No. Probably it would even get worse.

4) The live performance of "Sunday Bloody Sunday" was highly aired in TV channels at the time for a unkwown band. That was another little catapult for U2.
In 1985 U2 was not the band they were by the JT times, but they were not an underground band. In 1985, they already the War album with a known single and TUF with "Pride" that America knew already. Then, you had the highlight in Live Aid. Do you think that the "biggest band of the 1980's" tittle came suddenly in 1987? No, there was already a good background behind it, to say that.
Then, if you play the argument of limited number of people having cable tv (and consequently, MTV) for U2 not being known... well, it has got be valid for Madonna too!

5) No need to present chart position of singles, because it's been proved that many times that is irrelevant. "Sunday Bloody Sunday" didn't chart... because there was no physical single in the US! Check out the chart positions in the rest of the world and you'll see that it suceeded at the time. "Pride" didn't became famous just because of the boost 3 years later.

6) Finally...
" The chart position of Unforgettable Fire in the United States did not change at all because of Live Aid. Live Aid for U2 is an event that is more talked about in documentaries. Its immediate commercial effect, at least in the United States was non-existent. Besides, U2 were not there to sell albums, they were there to help a continent."

In which world do you live? Live Aid more talked in documentaries??? Live Aid was seen in television by millions of people across the planet. Ah, you can't remember the U2 performance? Make an effort. It was naturally a big landmark at the time to increase popularity.
Then, I never said exactily that it was a big for commercial sales of TUF, but why do you think that so many people know "Bad" without being released as a single?

Come on, don't be head-strong, you're not getting our point just because you don't want to accept it.
One thing is to have different opinion, another one is contrasting with statements that are no justication for the point. They didn't really help here...

I've not said anything "personal" at all. On the other hand, comments like these by yourself:

"you're so blind and don't want to understand it"

"I think that you're just trying to be right at force"

"You shouldn't trust that much in Wikipedia's and stuff like that"

"Get down on Earth, boy"

"Come on, don't be head-strong, you're not getting our point just because you don't want to accept it."


In regards to getting "personal", the above comments are personal and have nothing to do with the discussion of the topic.



1.) U2 did not know anymore about what they were doing than the Police or Def Leppard when they came over here or several other bands that never broke into the industry. Any success they had early was because of the power of their live music and the word of mouth spread by fans about how good they were. No radio airplay in 1980 or early 1981 and MTV was still months away from going on for the first time. When MTV first went on the air, they actually did not have any U2 videos. Yes, every artist who gets signed to a record lable has management of some type, but few of those artist ever succeed in the business.

The conspiracy of Hope tour was seen by diehard U2 fans over 6 concerts. For the last three concerts, The Police were the headlining band. It was too small in scale to cause any meaningful increase in popularity. Once again, album sales in the United States should no change in chart position after the concerts in early June 1986.

By the way, U2 did tour the United States for BOY. They played over 60 shows in the United States all across the country from December 1980 through May 1981. They also played Europe during that time on the tour.

2.) So the album was released in July 1983 which means it went double platinum in 17 months instead of 15. The point remains the same. In December of 1984, U2 did not even have a single Platinum album while Madonna already had a multi-platinum album and would have two multi-platinum albums by January 1985.

Madonna "not that well known"? She was a staple on MTV and people were already starting to copy her style of dress. She was a sex symbol indeed, and became even more so after her MTV performance in September 1984 which was all about sex. 3 months later her first album went double paltinum and her second album would achieve multi-platinum success by January 1985. All of this within 18 months of release of the first album and NO tour to promote either of the albums yet.

U2 on the other hand were starting their fourth tour, and had already played more actual live shows than Madonna would in her career up to 1994. They were working hard but their albums had only achieved GOLD status after over 4 years in the industry. Madonna was multi-platinum in under 18 months of release without any tour. Her appearences on MTV in video's, based on her sexual attractivness is what did the trick. Everyone in the industry knows that sex sells, and that is part of the reason Madonna was able to climb to multi-platinum status so quickly. The other of course was having other people write and produce most of her album. Typical industry formula, find a very physically attractive person, get some of the best pop song writers to write music for them, produce good video's, and months later you have multi-platinum albums. Its the playbook followed by the boy bands and Britney Spears.


3.) BONO spent 1983 in interviews discussing the fact that they were only about the music and were not another "haircut band" from England. The band members could not be more different in their style of dress and hair. If your going for some sort of an image, everyone in the band is suppose to adopt the same style, ie Duran Duran, Poison etc.

No matter what U2 would have said or the clothes they put on, many people would claim it was some sort of image when in fact it was not. A person can be interested in a certain type of music or a certain type of beer without it being some sort of caculated image selling drive. Honestly, no matter what the band said or did, you could claim it was an image.

The only attempt at any sort of an image came with Achtung Baby, and the band went at lengths to explain why they decided for the first time to dress up and have a themes that were out front just as much as the music. Achtung Baby succeeded despite all of this image stuff because the album was probably their best work. Zooropa failed miserably by comparison, it sits at 2 million copies sold while Achtung Baby has done over 8 million in the USA. With POP, the band tried for another major album and tour, and demand for tickets was only 50% of what it was for ZOO TV in the USA, and the album only sold 1.5 million copies. People across the United States trashed the band just as much for all the gadgets and strange things that went along with the tour as they did for the music itself.

The band took off all of the 90s image make over stuff for the 00s and were back to just being themselves in terms of image. The focus was again 100% on the music.


4.) War was released in March 1983 and MTV did not have the live video of Sunday Bloody Sunday until 1984 after the album had already fallen from the upper reaches of the charts. In the United States, RADIO DJ's were curious about this band that was playing Madison Square Garden because they had never heard of them before! You defefinitely are underground in a way if people in the industry like Radio DJ's do not even know who you are. The fact is, only one U2 single had cracked the top 40 in 1985, and they was mainly because of the sell of the single rather than radio airplay. Pride got some video play, but UF single got little if any. Whats more, the UF single failed to even chart in the United States. Contrast that with all the top 10 and #1 airplay Madonna was receiving in 1984-1985.

There were a limited number of people with MTV in 1983, which is part of the reason why Madonna had little if any success in 1983 because her video's were not being seen. As 1984 went on though, cable and MTV became much more common throughout the United States. Madonna throughout 1984 sold more and more albums and by the end of 1984, she had a multi-platinum album. By the start of 1985, most households in the United States had cable and MTV. This is when Madonna really took off selling over 6 million copies of Like A Virgin by the end of 1985.

U2 on the other hand did not experience any of the benefits that Madonna did from MTV becoming more available in households across the United States because they were NOT receiving the level of video play that she was. U2 eventually made it to platinum in 1985, but that was because of years of hard live work on the road, not because of a sudden explosion of airplay and video play. By the end of 1985, UF had sold 1 million in the USA, while "Like A Virgin" had sold over 6 million. Another interesting point is that more people bought the UF album after 1987, while most people bought "Like A Virgin" before the end of 1985.


5.) chart positions of singles is very relevant because 50% of it back then was based on AIRPLAY! Most people bought the UF album after 1987, not before and certainly not in 1984/1985. "Sunday Bloody Sunday" received limited airplay on rock radio stations, but not on the top 40 radio stations which the majority of the population listens to.


6.) Most people Know "Bad" because it was a concert staple at their live shows. They would play it at every show. You need to understand that U2 is a LIVE band and much of their popularity is based on their LIVE performance at their shows. Madonna on the other hand has her popularity based on her video's and how she SHOCKS people by the images and things she does. Those things create controversy, and controversy creates media attention which helps album sales.


If you wanna compare someone to U2, try another artist like REM, or The Police. You'll find plenty of similarities in their growth as a band and what they had to do to break into the industry. Madonna is essentially the opposite of U2 in this regard.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

.

 

[Aygo]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Boy, you're funny! Now I don't know anymore what your point is, because I've talking about a period where MTV and such media ressources existed already and you come to answer me with 1980/1 U2 where it was about to air its first emition.
Then, it's laughable that I tell A and you answer me B. That text doesn't make any sense and an argumentation to what's been said and seems like puting your feet behind your hands...

It still amazes me how you can be so sure how you can claim such facts about Madonna (that are not accurate, naturally) when I already said that I'm a hardcore fan of her (yeah mate, just like with U2!), and so, I'd probably be a more reliable source for those kind of facts. You don't want to accept it, that's okay, because I'm sure of what I say about Madonna are REAL FACTS and known by all the fan community... just like it happens here or in other U2 boards and fansites. If you wanted to make contrast with that, you're not going well, but hey... that's up to you.

At last, you still can't reach the point and objective of this thread and I'm not seeing that happening. You're still missing the message and it seems that you don't even want to make a little effort to understand it, then, you should you agree with it? Of course it's impossible...

That's why I don't even know how to comment that, because it seems that even if I make a scheme of what has been said, well, you're not going to understand it and you'll refuse it with statements and innacurate sentences that are not much related with what was explained in that post...