What Are U2's Glory Years?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

What Are U2's Glory Years?

  • 1987-1993(JT/JT Tour/R&H/Lovetown/AB/ZooTV/Zooropa)

    Votes: 80 36.4%
  • 1983-1993(War/War Tour/UF/UF Tour/JT/JT Tour/R&H/Lovetown/AB/ZooTV/Zooropa)

    Votes: 40 18.2%
  • 1987-1997(JT/JT Tour/R&H/Lovetown/AB/ZooTV/Zooropa/Passengers/Pop/Popmart)

    Votes: 56 25.5%
  • 1983-1997(War/War Tour/UF/UF Tour/JT/JT Tour/R&H/Lovetown/AB/ZooTV/Zooropa/Passengers/Pop/Popmart)

    Votes: 19 8.6%
  • Other(Specify)

    Votes: 25 11.4%

  • Total voters
    220
namkcuR said:
I'm just curious as to what you think are U2's 'glory years'...I think it's an interesting question because picking period A over Period B could, in some cases, mean giving up albums x & y in order to have album z in the 'glory years' period. Or you could think that it gets silly to specify more than a certain number of years as 'glory years'. Like I said, I just think it's an interesting question.

Have fun...

You forgot to mention 2000 to the present day! Many consider this period to be U2's "Glory" years.
 
U2 are the most remarkable, yet one of the most criticized bands in history. They change their sound each decade which is their strength, but the root of their problems as well.
 
Re: Re: What Are U2's Glory Years?

STING2 said:

You forgot to mention 2000 to the present day! Many consider this period to be U2's "Glory" years.

I seriously doubt any real fan familiar with all U2's major work would consider the noughties to be U2's glory years. Judged against what U2's albums, concerts etc were (particuarly from 83-97), the noughties stuff just doesn't live up imo
 
1987 - 1993 were undoubtedly their glory years. In that era there was -

- The Joshua Tree
- The Joshua Tree tour
- Rattle & Hum - CD and Movie
- Lovetown tour
- 'Dream it up again'
- Achtung Baby
- ZooTV
- Zooropa
- The Fly
- MacPhisto

I reckon that's a not too shabby six years. But you also have to remember the years that got them there - 1983-1984. In the space of two years they produced War and The Unforgettable Fire (which could be credited as their two 'breakthrough' albums). The Unforgettable Fire and the preceeding tour gave them the creative space they wanted, and after three years they hit back with The Joshua Tree.

And there is of course, my beloved '00' era. And despite some opinions they still must be doing okay - here in Oz the tickets for every show sold out in a combined 8 or so hours I believe.
 
I really hope you're not going to try to convince me that ATYCLB and Bomb or Elevation or Vertigo are or even will be more influential than UF and JT and AB and Pop and ZooTV and Popmart were. I don't think they've done anything in the last five years that can match the influence of the JT or AB records, songs like 'Bad', 'Pride', Streets', 'Still Haven't Found, 'WOWY', 'Bullet', 'Running To Stand Still', 'Desire', 'All I Want Is You', 'Even Better Than The Real Thing', 'One', 'Until The End Of The World', 'Mysterious Ways', 'The Fly', 'Stay(Faraway, So Close)',

I really don't know how Beautiful Day, Walk On, Vertigo (and possibly in the future Mercy) can be considered uninspirational and uninfluential.

Do you have any U2 DVD's? Have a listen to when they do Beautiful Day. The crowd screams just as loud (and as I have found sometimes even louder) as when U2 play One or Streets or Pride or SBS. Beautiful Day is as recognised as Pride is. I reckon if I played Beautiful Day to people walking down the street they would recognise it just as quickly as any other classic.

Walk On was played for the victims of 9/11. But hey, that certainly can't be considered influential. They might as well just have played Grace.

Vertigo was huge, I don't care what excuses people come up with. And for the record HTDAAB was experimental - LAPOE, AMAAW, OOTS, Fast Cars...

These arguments are getting more and more thin... next time I'll just be quiet.
 
namkcuR said:


I couldn't disagree more.

Judging by the responses so far to this thread, I should have clearly defined what 'glory years' meant, in my mind at least, in my original post.

Glory years have zilch to do with charts and awards. Glory years are the period of time in which the artist(or athlete or what have you) produced the work that had the most influence on other artists of the same kind(or atheletes etc), and the work that is most responsible for that fact that artist is still huge years(sometimes decades) later. I would like to clarify that when I say 'the work', that refers to ANYTHING the artist has done, NOT just the albums. We're talking albums, b-sides, tours, concert releases, etc.

I really hope you're not going to try to convince me that ATYCLB and Bomb or Elevation or Vertigo are or even will be more influential than UF and JT and AB and Pop and ZooTV and Popmart were. I don't think they've done anything in the last five years that can match the influence of the JT or AB records, songs like 'Bad', 'Pride', Streets', 'Still Haven't Found, 'WOWY', 'Bullet', 'Running To Stand Still', 'Desire', 'All I Want Is You', 'Even Better Than The Real Thing', 'One', 'Until The End Of The World', 'Mysterious Ways', 'The Fly', 'Stay(Faraway, So Close)', or the things that U2 did with the ZooTV and Popmart tours that HADN'T BEEN DONE BEFORE, PERIOD, like the advent of the 'B-Stage', the use of media in a rock concert, the use of the biggest LCD screen ever used(at least at the point) in a rock tour setting, etc. There are SO many bands coming around now that are directly influenced by what U2 did back then, that grew up with that stuff. And that 'stuff' was influential because it was new 'stuff' when U2 did it, it was 'stuff' that hadn't been done. But when U2 releases 'City Of Blinding Lights' or 'Miracle Drug', or does the Vertigo Tour, it's not new 'stuff' anymore. It's U2 doing or trying to do the same 'stuff' they did during their glory years.

And the other criteria I mentioned? "The work that is most responsible for that fact that artist is still huge years(sometimes decades) later" - let me give you a few examples:

Stevie Wonder: His glory years were 1966-1980, during which he recorded 'Talking Book', 'Innervisions', and 'Songs In The Key Of Life', among others. His work during 1966-1980 is largely the reason why he is a legend, and why he is adored. His most recent record, 'A Time To Love', has some great stuff on it, but let's not fool ourselves, when people think of Stevie Wonder, they think of his 70s work.

Pink Floyd: Their glory years were 1972-1981, during which they recorded 'Dark Side Of The Moon', 'Wish You Were Here', 'Animals', and 'The Wall'. Pink Floyd are still icons today, they are still HUGE, they are still adored by rock fans around the world. I think if they were still actively making and releasing music as a band today, they still be VERY popular, sell a LOT of records, and have ridiculously high-grossing tours, because they are Pink Floyd. It wouldn't matter if a new Floyd record in 2006 was great, good, average, bad, or terrible(though it is unlikely Floyd would ever make a terrible record), it would still sell because they have LEGIONS of fans who are Pink Floyd fans because of Dark Side Of The Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, and The Wall. That's the influence Floyd's glory years had, that's the pull the music of Floyd's glory years has on its fans.

The Rolling Stones: Possibly the most glaring example of what I'm talking about. Their glory years were roughly 1968-1978, during which they recorded 'Let It Bleed', 'Sticky Fingers', and 'Excile On Main St.' among others. Enter nearly forty years later, the Rolling Stones are still among the highest-grossing, most loved(not by me, I don't 'get' the Stones) bands in history. I certainly hope no one thinks this is because of their studio output between 1982 and 2006(although I haven't heard 'Bigger Bang'). 1968-1978 are the Stones' glory years because the work they did in those years gave the band what essentially amounts to a lifetime of success and was the most influential work they ever did.

We can apply this to the athletic world too. Michael Jordan has had more influence on the NBA and even professional sports than perhaps any other athelete short of Babe Ruth ever has. Were his 2001-02 and 2002-03 seasons with the Washington Wizards part of his glory years? HELL NO! His glory years were 1987-1998 with the Chicago Bulls. That's when he won his championships, MVPs, scoring titles, etc.

Back to U2. They are huge now because they are selling average(compared to their past work)/good(compared to what else is on the radio) records to, and playing tours with great performances to, legions of fans that fell in love with U2 for life with U2's 80s and 90s output. And yes, I still believe that the percentage of fans attending U2's show nowadays that 'got into' U2 prior to the millenium outweighs the percentage that 'got into' U2 after the millenium. And you can hardly question if U2's current work will ever be as influential as their work 1983-1997/8 was - at least I don't think you can - some of you might disagree. Just keep in mind that that legendary, mythical 'U2 Sound' is the sound that U2 had between 84 and 92, pretty much, which is a big chunk of my choice for 'glory years'. I think that'll be my eventual vote, btw - 1983-1997/8.

So, I hope that made clear how I define 'glory years', what my vote is, and why I vote that way.


If that's your definition of "glory years", then I stand by my comments even more.

I like ATYCLB and HTDAAB a LOT more than many of U2's prior works, from both the 80's and 90's. R&H, IMO, was a slump between JT and AB. JT was a slump between UF and AB.

If I were to pick U2's best three albums, they'd be AB, UF and HTDDAB. Each reflects the past, while creating new sounds. Each sounds exciting and fresh. Each explores new territory, while still creating familiar U2 songs that we can adore.

Now, in terms of influence... please. The new artists out there are drooling over this new stuff. You may not think awards and sales mean much, but the fact is - they do. When an artist's last two albums sell over 7M copies in the U.S., that draws attention. When the artist has back-to-back tours, that draws attention. New artists are trying to mimic the current U2. I hear a lot more of NEW U2 in artists like Franz Ferdinand, Coldplay, Snow Patrol, etc., etc., than I do of anyone trying to mimic a JT or UF era sound. This is why U2 is still relevant. This is why U2 can still sell boatloads of albums. They lead the way. The one time U2 failed to do this was with "Pop" - when they were trying to emulate sounds they heard. As a result, U2 had their poorest selling album in years. Odd that, huh?

So I stand by my statement, U2 are not in any "glory year" mode.
 
COBL_04 said:
1987 - 1993 were undoubtedly their glory years. In that era there was -

- The Joshua Tree
- The Joshua Tree tour
- Rattle & Hum - CD and Movie
- Lovetown tour
- 'Dream it up again'
- Achtung Baby
- ZooTV
- Zooropa
- The Fly
- MacPhisto

I reckon that's a not too shabby six years. But you also have to remember the years that got them there - 1983-1984. In the space of two years they produced War and The Unforgettable Fire (which could be credited as their two 'breakthrough' albums). The Unforgettable Fire and the preceeding tour gave them the creative space they wanted, and after three years they hit back with The Joshua Tree.

And there is of course, my beloved '00' era. And despite some opinions they still must be doing okay - here in Oz the tickets for every show sold out in a combined 8 or so hours I believe.


Absolutely! i totally agree! This was the era that catapulted them into stuff they are today, this is what shaped them they grew so much from this and it is that kind of talent that allows them to keep creating "new eras"
 
I voted 87-93, the absolute cream of the crop!

But I could be persuaded to choose 83-97 instead. War - Pop :drool:
Too bad it wasn't a proper choice here. :slant:
 
Well, for those who think that the glory years are in the past... You may remember that MANY PEOPLE do not remember songs like Streets, SBS, Pride, One, Mysterious Ways... But instead of that... they remember and can sing Beautiful Day, Elevation, Vertigo, Discotheque. Does this tell you something?
 
doctorwho said:
Now, in terms of influence... please. The new artists out there are drooling over this new stuff. You may not think awards and sales mean much, but the fact is - they do. When an artist's last two albums sell over 7M copies in the U.S., that draws attention. When the artist has back-to-back tours, that draws attention. New artists are trying to mimic the current U2. I hear a lot more of NEW U2 in artists like Franz Ferdinand, Coldplay, Snow Patrol, etc., etc., than I do of anyone trying to mimic a JT or UF era sound. This is why U2 is still relevant. This is why U2 can still sell boatloads of albums. They lead the way. The one time U2 failed to do this was with "Pop" - when they were trying to emulate sounds they heard. As a result, U2 had their poorest selling album in years. Odd that, huh?

I love the equation of 'relevance' with sales.:rolleyes:

Pop may not be U2's best album but it was certainly relevant in 1997. It was as relevant as the Chemical Brothers and the Prodigy and all the other dance oriented stuff that was being listened to then, at least in Europe. Of course the MOR element of US record buying public probably did not grasp that, preferring to stick with unoriginal grunge albums and the latest dross from Mariah Carey.

Of the three bands you mentioned I would say Coldplay are influenced far more by UF-era U2 than by current U2. Frank Ferdinand aren't particularly influenced by U2, in my view.

With inspid releases like ATYCLB U2 aren't 'leading the way' anywhere except a cultural dead end.
 
You can love HTDAAB or hate it but please don't tell me it has 'new sounds' on it. It doesn't.
 
financeguy said:


Of the three bands you mentioned I would say Coldplay are influenced far more by UF-era U2 than by current U2. Frank Ferdinand aren't particularly influenced by U2, in my view.

Exactly. Coldplay is pure UF (which is why I love Coldplay). If the new wave of Post-Punk bands (Franz, Killers, Interpol, Snow Patrol, etc.) are influenced by U2, it has more to do with Boy and Edge's trademark guitar.

I like ATYCLB and HTDAAB, but I don't think they have any musical influence. Any influence they now have has more to do with being ridiculously successful even after over 25 years.
 
namkcuR said:


I never said that they were expired, or that youth=glory, or that their music this decade is crap, or anything like that. You're totally missing one of my major points. One of the criteria for 'glory years' is that the band's work in that period is the most influential of their career on other bands/musical artists. I

We have no idea what the future brings. It has only been 5 years since U2 has released All That You Can't Leave Behind, and the people who will most be influenced by this are younger musicians who were maybe 16 at the time the album was released. They haven't had a chance to 'make it' yet and be heard alot. If you do more digging you will hear new U2's influence in many bands.

I suppose I cannot argue with the fact that new U2 most likely will not influence new bands as much as their older work did. Perhaps because I myself as a musician is influenced by all things U2, I am being biassed.

I think the term "Glory Days" was a bad choice. You should have asked when their most influential years were, because apparently, thats the only thing that isn't as 'glorious' as it used to be for U2.
 
Zootlesque said:
I voted 87-93, the absolute cream of the crop!

But I could be persuaded to choose 83-97 instead. War - Pop :drool:
Too bad it wasn't a proper choice here. :slant:

Um...it is...last option before 'Other'.
 
I voted "OTHER please specify" because I cannot click 1987, which I wanted to vote for, because you teamed it with the very ungood and unglorious 1997. I vote their glory years were 1987-1993.
 
I just noticed there IS an option for just 1987-93! So I used my alter here to vote again. You can discount the 'other' vote now.

I personally love War and UF, and they WERE big in those years while some claim they hadn't broken yet, they had and were very well known and liked. They were already big on MTV back then, but got even bigger. Considering everything, I have to go with the JT-AB era as the true pinnacle of their career.
 
Last edited:
financeguy said:
You can love HTDAAB or hate it but please don't tell me it has 'new sounds' on it. It doesn't.

Definitely. U2 have no eye on the future with their current music. Songs like LAPOE and Fast Cars are copies of the past.

:rolleyes:
 
MrBrau1 said:
The last 4 Johnny Cash records weren't "groundbreaking" or "revolutionary", but they were still very good records.

I would probably never have listened to Johnny Cash at all if it wasn't for the "American" albums he made.
 
U2Man said:


I would probably never have listened to Johnny Cash at all if it wasn't for the "American" albums he made.

Some of his best stuff. Some originals, some covers, his voice, and an acoustic guitar. Nothing new for him.

But it's really, really good.
 
COBL_04 said:


Definitely. U2 have no eye on the future with their current music. Songs like LAPOE and Fast Cars are copies of the past.

:rolleyes:

LAPOE is the only song from HTDAAB even remotely looking towards the future! And even that one has the 90s style distortion guitar and the glam stomp of DM's Personal Jesus. So it's nothing new really.

Yes, Fast Cars has something unique and interesting even though it resembles Mysterious Ways. That intro and whole groove has a sort of middle eastern vibe to it, that they haven't really explored much at all before.. except for the MW video!

But I don't consider Fast Cars to be a part of HTDAAB because not only does it sound nothing like the 11 songs on the album.. it's not on the US release! :down:
 
Regarding the influence of the last two albums...It is true that many a young person got into U2 after hearing Beautiful Day or Vertigo. But I doubt that these same young people, if they were truley interested in U2, didn't dig deeper into, at the very least, the greatest hits albums. ATYCLB and the Bomb provided a start off point for people, which is a great thing in and of itself. However that doesn't make it influencial musically. I think a lot of bands are influenced by the last two albums in the sense that they want to be like U2 when they are older--still making records and still relevant.

And just because the last two albums aren't part of "The Glory Years" doesn't make them bad. R&H is pretty weak but it was a weak point in the era of overall greatness/glory, whereas Boy is just an amazing and incredibly influencial album (I hear Boy sounds in so much of today's newer bands) but was put out at a time when U2 was (were?) still gaining momentum.

I personally am still deciding whether I want to choose 83-97 or 87-93, I guess it just depends how specific I wanna be, do I wanna choose the top of the mountain or the very tip of the mountain? The UF tour and Live Aid and at the very least the intent of Pop/Popmart really deserve respect. I'm still not sure.... :hmm:
 
One of the most biased polls I have ever seen. You are basing the poll choices on your own personal opinion. You should at least have a "00;s" option.

Anyway, the term "glory years" is highly subjective. I know you explained what you mean by it, but limiting people to use only your "official" version of that term is arrogant. 1987-1993 may well have produced U2's best music, but U2 are producing relevant music, playing to millions of people and have a fantastic image across the world. Many would say that now is their "glory time" because they are basking in the adoration of so many whilst still being relevant.
 
It just seems people can't say good things about JT or AB, w/o also throwing in a jab or 2 at ATYCLB or HTDAAB.

Which is really sad, cause there's lots of good things to say about JT and AB, or 87-93.

But they always wind up being the same old, well, same old.
 
Back
Top Bottom