U2's surge in popularity in 2000

[U2girl]

They "got the job" back.

But, especially for those from the US, what was the biggest factor ? The sucess of the single Beautiful day (and thus the album), the popularity of the tour, or the "official healing album" moment after 9/11 ?

And for those fortunate to see their other two majorly popular eras, how would you compare this to '87 and '92 ? Were they bigger/same/less popuar back then, compared to 2000?

 

[U2DMfan]

I have to say, as a disclaimer, popularity certainly speaks nothing to the quality of the music, that said, objectively:

In the U.S., just look at record sales and the singles charts. They weren't near as popular in 2000-2002 as from '87-'92.

Roughly, ATYCLB sold half of what Achtung did in the U.S. And the singles for Achtung were MUCH more successful.

It's not even worth comparing to Joshua Tree.

As for reasons, well. the U.S. probably like most markets is a fickle market. I think U2 being older hurt them, I think they lost a lot of people with the irony/electronica phase. It's hard for any rock band to compete these days, U2 is no exception. In the early 90's and before it was much easier.

Less competition, rock and roll was more interesting because there were still some avenues yet to explore, compared to today when it truly has all been done, once over and more.

I think U2 rebounded from the POP era because the album was much more mainstream, had a couple of bona fide singles and had a 'made over' U2, fit for heart the mainstream. You can go back even to the end of Zooropa into Passengers, and finally POP, clearly U2 had hit their commercial nadir by 1998. Nowhere else to go but up or out. That is, in terms of being popular or as Bono cops out "relevant".

Also, I think the post 9/11 feeling helped a bit but the album was pretty successful prior to then.

Lastly, I think U2 are probably considered the last of the 80's era rock bands that are willing to have ambition for critical and commercial success and be able to attain it.

(Generally speaking) That opens them up to a huge market of 35-45 year olds who don't have the time or effort to figure out who the fuck Radiohead or Arcade Fire are. It just so happens their music was easy enough on the ears to accomodate that market.

Above all else, in the eyes and ears of many people, they made their best album in 15 years. I don't agree but I think it's a fair consensus here in the U.S. The U.S. is a tough market to crack and just because you can crack it doesn't mean you will last more than one album.

 

[david]

I was suprised it didn't debut at #1 in the America. It was the first album of theirs since the Joshua Tree to not debut at #1

 

[sue4u2]

Above all else and including what U2DMfan and david said, people still want something to believe in (music wise, and otherwise).

Millions of people still believe U2.

 

[Aygo]

In the U.S., just look at record sales and the singles charts. They weren't near as popular in 2000-2002 as from '87-'92.

Roughly, ATYCLB sold half of what Achtung did in the U.S. And the singles for Achtung were MUCH more successful.

It's not even worth comparing to Joshua Tree.

However, don't forget that ATYCLB came in the era of the pop-princeses/hip-hop big explosion and that 2000 means the beggining of the big crisis in discographic industry. What does this mean?

That an album that sells 8M copies today, could've sell 14M fifteen or twenty years ago.
Plus, considering the States and the Billboard rules of today, a single that hits the Top 40 (of the Hot 100) is a big sucess; being #35 is the same of having hit #12 fifteen years ago. And this makes even more sense for rock music in the States.

ATYCLB and HTDAAB would've been bestsellers of the band two decades ago, and HTDAAB would've beaten the first week/month numbers of JT if released in 1987.

 

[MrBrau1]

ATYCLB and HTDAAB would've been bestsellers of the band two decades ago, and HTDAAB would've beaten the first week/month numbers of JT if released in 1987.

Remember, album sales were measured differently back in 87-92, compared to 00-04.

Today we have point of sale stats. In '87, it was measured by copies shipped, whether they sold or not.

It's very hard to trust sales numbers from before scan based stats.

 

[Zoots]

HTDAAB would've beaten the first week/month numbers of JT if released in 1987.

Hahahahahaha thanks for the laugh!

 

[MrBrau1]

Hahahahahaha thanks for the laugh!

he's probably right.

 

[U2DMfan]

However, don't forget that ATYCLB came in the era of the pop-princeses/hip-hop big explosion and that 2000 means the beggining of the big crisis in discographic industry. What does this mean?

That an album that sells 8M copies today, could've sell 14M fifteen or twenty years ago.
Plus, considering the States and the Billboard rules of today, a single that hits the Top 40 (of the Hot 100) is a big sucess; being #35 is the same of having hit #12 fifteen years ago. And this makes even more sense for rock music in the States.

ATYCLB and HTDAAB would've been bestsellers of the band two decades ago, and HTDAAB would've beaten the first week/month numbers of JT if released in 1987.

I know where you are coming from and I don't totally disagree but I think to try and figure out what the market correction would be is just sort of pissing in the wind or whatever.

You can say an album that sold 8M today would sell 14M fifteen or twenty years ago but we both know that is pure guesswork.

If we are just talking sheer popularity, you can only go by records sold. It's not like comparing the ticket gate of Star Wars to Titanic, where it's measured in dollars and you would certainly need to adjust for ticket price, with albums it's counted in a standard unit. Albums sold.

So while, as Brau said, the counting methods changed in 1991, we are still talking about records sold. The market itself changes but I think to make excuses on behalf of actual records sold (in a mere 13 year period 1987-2000) just doesn't hold up.

Linkin Park released Hybrid Theory a week before ATYCLB came out and sold 10.5 million copies in the U.S. Are you saying that this number would be upwards 15 or 16 million had it been released in 1987? That just doesn't make sense to me.

There were about 35 million more people in the U.S. in the year 2000 than in 1987. If anything, you'd think at least a slight market correction would need to be made swining back the other way. There were simply more consumers to buy it.

U2 was more exposed, more well known, had a better business plan and were simply better musicians in 2000 than 1987 and still couldn't come close. These albums sold what they sold, when they sold it.

It's like a car salesman who in one year sold 250 cars a decade ago and only sold 140 this last year going to his boss and saying "well, more people are walking, riding the bus, buying at other dealerships etc., so actually I am selling more!! Give me a raise!!!!"

Bossman:
"Yeah, right. That guy Chester from Linkin Park Chevrolet was able to sell 250 this year, guess you just aren't as popular as you used to be....."

 

[DevilsShoes]

Personally I think it was a combination of things really. Timing being the most important, just as they had done almost a decade before with AB and Zoo TV, U2 managed to judge the mood of the times a second or two before it actually happened. Zoo Tv fell into step with the whole multi-media, sensory overload explosion of MTV that had just started to take off which rejuvinated them and kept them relevant for the ninties, a smiliar thing happened in 2000, realising that perhaps they had gone too far with the irony of Popmart and the fact that the album hadn't set the world alight the way they had intended, they knew that people were expecting something more stripped back and straight to the heart.

Bono was clever here, he realised that the time for being ironic and smartarse had passed and that people were looking for something more substantial to get a hold of. In that sense ATYCLB was tailor-made for the 00's, it was much more direct and emotional, plus it was the first time since the JT that U2 had really sounded so much like U2.

During this era I think people were getting a little bit fed up with all the manufactured pop bands that were so prevalent back then, everything seemed far too plastic and produced, nothing was real there was no soul present. U2 made a clear statement that they wanted to oppose that and make rock music relevant again. In this aim I think they succeeded, there has been something of a turning of the tide for rock bands since ATYCLB. I don't know about the rest of the world but in the UK, manufactured pop (although still around) has declined significantly and acts like Artic Monkeys, Kaiser Cheifs, Pete Doherty and Amy Winehouse have become far more popular.

I think also people realised they had missed U2 a bit and were pleased that they had returned to their roots to a degree, that they had stopped with the OTT feel of POpmart and had returned to something clearer and more defined. It was like welcoming back an old friend after a long period of not seeing them. I still feel the songs on ATYCLB are pretty strong, (BD, Walk On, Kite, IALW, POE) they were very accessible, people could really relate to them, and I think the stronger tracks rescue the weaker, giving the impression that the albums more coherent then perhaps it really is (something I felt they didn't really achieve on HTDAAB).

Of course 9/11 was the turning point, it gave the album and U2 a whole new lease of life towards the end of the campaign. The warmth and emotionalism of the record struck a chord with people at just the right moment, it picked them up and gave them something to hold on to when they felt so vulnerable. Again timing works perfectly to U2's advantage, they could not have returned with a better album and a better tour during that period. It all worked out for them. Had they been promoting Zooropa or Pop in 2001, the effect it had on the bands fortunes could have been just the opposite.

 

[Aygo]

Remember, album sales were measured differently back in 87-92, compared to 00-04.

Today we have point of sale stats. In '87, it was measured by copies shipped, whether they sold or not.

It's very hard to trust sales numbers from before scan based stats.

Don't you remember? HTDAAB sold (in 2004, not in 1987) 840 000 copies in its 1st week in the US, doubling ATYCLB number. JT overpassed 1M in the 1st week, I know, but how many rock bands reach that number today?

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Don't underestimate the over 40+ yr old market that hated the 90s from start to finish and consider ATYCLB the band being 'back' from whatever ridiculous excursion that was. I know a guy, I work with him, who fits that mould. He's just over 40, considers everything 90s to not even really be true U2. True U2 is classic Edge echo guitars and save-the-world stadium anthems. The 90s were indulgent and silly and the 00s thus far have been them just returning to form exactly where they left off after the last notes of All I Want Is You. Seriously. When he found out I was a U2 fan he cornered me and went on and on about ATYCLB and HTDAAB, and how great it was that they were 'back', and how shit all that Pop/Zooropa/Achtung stuff was. I quietly told him that I preferred Pop to both the 00s albums combined and it was like he simply could not understand that. How could you profess to be a U2 fan, but like Pop at the same time? It just didn't make sense to him. Pop wasn't really U2, how could you like it as a U2 album???

Anyway, I think there probably is a U2-fan demographic there, one that isn't at all represented in forums like this so never has it's opinion made known to many of us, but you hear it around every now and then. I guess they're the 20somethings of the 80s who fell in love with that JT version of U2, and link something special to that sound and forever yearned for more of it. Bit of nostalgia as much as anything I suppose. I don't think this market makes THE difference, or even comes close, but I think it shouldn't be underestimated either. Once Edge fired up the echo again, and Bono came out from behind the distortion and started wailing for everyone to keep the faith and walk on or whatever, to many, they were 'back'. I think many people really craved that simplistic 'classic' image of U2, even if in reality it's only a 6 year/3 album period - the same as the 90s.

 

[digitize]

U2 have a lot of respect in the United States, even though not there are not a huge number of bona fide 'fans' out there anymore. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of music made in America nowadays is absolute crap, and people actually stomach it and, even more amazingly, enjoy it.

Nowadays, if I ask someone in America what U2 is, they think a bit of Sunday Bloody Sunday, a bit of Streets, but, above everything else, they think of Vertigo.