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
Re: Re: Re: What Are U2's Glory Years?

jonnytakeawalk said:


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

Well, I have been a fan since 1987 and I totally disagree. I place ATYCLB and HTDAAB near the top of my U2 albums list and the greatest U2 show I ever saw was in Columbus on the Elevation tour.

To often, you have groups of fans who simply can't appreciate new material and gravitate to the old, well known material, the most played on classic rock radio. Typcially, the more casual the U2 fan, the more likely you are to hear that it was "all down hill after the Joshua Tree".
 
financeguy said:


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.

ATYCLB won 7 grammy awards, awards not voted on buy the record buying public, but 12,000 other musicians involved with the production of music. I think most people would look at that rather one individuals opinion that a piece of work is "inspid and a "cultural dead end".
 
How can anyone say how influencial U2's current work is when it's, well, current? Don't we have to wait for another 5 or 10 years to truly see what influence it had? It is true that there are probably more U2-influenced bands out and popular now than ever (Coldplay, The Killers, The Bravery, Snow Patrol, ect.) and that most of them were probably more infleunced by U2's older work that they grew up with, but those bands are eating up all of U2's new stuff too. And U2 are certainly the band, at this point, that everyone looks up to - over 25 years of success with the same four people (plus Paul!) selling out every venue they play and putting on electrifying live shows while continuing to make great, successful albums. Even bands not musically influenced by U2 look up to U2 like, "that's where I wanna be someday."

Really, though, I don't buy this definition of "glory years" as "influencial." Influence can be a part of it, but I don't think it's the main factor. I think for an artist it's whenever they're producing their best and most recognizable music, regardless of how influencial or innovative it is, and when they're at their most popular (which can be measured many different ways). U2 are arguably the most popular they've ever been and some people think they are making the best music they've ever made. Certainly their current music is recognizable. Most kids at my school have never heard of Sunday Bloody Sunday or With or Without You, but they know Vertigo, Elevation, and Beautiful Day. That's partially just because it's current, but Beautiful Day - that song is 5 years old and still stands up with anything they've made in the past. Ask the average person if they know a song from HTDAAB (one that was a single) and they'll say yes. Ask the average person if they know a song from A Bigger Bang (see, I don't even know the names of the songs!) and I'll bet they'd say no. So I think now could be their glory years just as much as any era.

I don't know if U2 has glory years, to be honest. I don't think we'll know for sure what their glory years were until their career is over.
 
AtomicBono said:
How can anyone say how influencial U2's current work is when it's, well, current? Don't we have to wait for another 5 or 10 years to truly see what influence it had?

:up:
 
AtomicBono said:
How can anyone say how influencial U2's current work is when it's, well, current? Don't we have to wait for another 5 or 10 years to truly see what influence it had?

I don't think it's outrageous to predict that U2's current work will have a strong legacy that is comparable to other eras of U2. U2 are breaking ground as to what kind of a place over 40 rock artists have in this modern era. I think many bands as they age will look closely at what U2 has done on their last 2 albums.

It's already began if you ask me. Madonna and Depeche Mode have just released their 'back to their roots' albums because they strayed to far from their established fanbase. From what I hear, Pearl Jam is going to do the same.

Also, Bono's impact in the world through his activist work I think helps assure that these last 2 albums will be listened to over time. By being honored with things like Man of the Year, it increases the chance of establishing historical significance to his current activities. ATYCLB and HTDAAB could be beneficiaries of this phenomenon because people will always look to them to get an idea of what was driving Bono's world-changing activities.

The numerous awards being bestowed on these last 2 albums are already a testament to this phenomenon. Bono's influence on a world stage brings a credibility to these last 2 albums that they might not have otherwise attained.
 
The only thing that the numerous awards U2 is receiving for its past two albums is a testament to is the utter lack or imagination on the part of people who bestow those awards. Does anyone here really believe Mariah Carey had one of the five best albums of the past year? The people who make Grammy nominations seem to think so.
 
Last edited:
Layton said:

It's already began if you ask me. Madonna and Depeche Mode have just released their 'back to their roots' albums because they strayed to far from their established fanbase. From what I hear, Pearl Jam is going to do the same.

Except that I find Depeche Mode's new album to be much more interesting than the Bomb, with all kinds of layers and sounds to discover! It really does not sound like Violator much.
 
Bono's shades said:
The only thing that the numerous awards U2 is receiving for its past two albums is a testament to is the utter lack or imagination on the part of people who bestow those awards. Does anyone here really believe Mariah Carey had one of the five best albums of the past year? The people who make Grammy nominations seem to think so.

Exactly! Now we've started justifying award show decisions just to support U2??? When it's a different band, the Grammy's suck! Right? :huh:
 
Bono's shades said:
The only thing that the numerous awards U2 is receiving for its past two albums is a testament to is the utter lack or imagination on the part of people who bestow those awards. Does anyone here really believe Mariah Carey had one of the five best albums of the past year? The people who make Grammy nominations seem to think so.

Is your opinion superior to the opinion of 12,000 musicians and producers involved with the production of music, or the general record buying public?

The fact of the matter is, this is all simply opinion, but it is interesting to see the opinion of people involved with the production of music which is what the Grammy awards are.
 
Zootlesque said:


Exactly! Now we've started justifying award show decisions just to support U2??? When it's a different band, the Grammy's suck! Right? :huh:

No its just a way of showing that the music is great instead of simply going with my own opinion or yours. At the end of the day, this is all opinion, and there is no sure way to prove that X album is good or bad. Besides ones own opinion, you have sales and awards, and thats it.
 
KhanadaRhodes said:

i disagree.

Care to elaborate? Did you simply not like the new album? Do you think it DOES sound like Violator?


STING2 said:

No its just a way of showing that the music is great instead of simply going with my own opinion or yours. At the end of the day, this is all opinion, and there is no sure way to prove that X album is good or bad. Besides ones own opinion, you have sales and awards, and thats it.

I agree. It's all opinion... music is subjective etc. blah blah. Nobody's trying to prove with statistical analysis that the last couple of albums are no good! Geez! At least, I'm not.

You're just pissed cos you like something that is 'clearly' not as good as their earlier work and you're trying to justify yourself! ;)
 
Last edited:
1987-1996 , glory days indeed , best albums , songs , singles , girls , tours , clothes , lyrics , songs , producers , attitude
and shades
 
Bono's shades said:
The only thing that the numerous awards U2 is receiving for its past two albums is a testament to is the utter lack or imagination on the part of people who bestow those awards. Does anyone here really believe Mariah Carey had one of the five best albums of the past year? The people who make Grammy nominations seem to think so.

Ok, maybe the bestowers are dumb. Remember though, ATYCLB and HTDAAB have also been honored on many critics year-end top whatever lists, also. Maybe, they're dumb too.

Unfortunatly for you, dumb people have the most influence. History happens to be being defined by those dumb people. In a few decades, when another generation looks back to these musical times they're going to rely on journalism and industry recordkeeping (awards) to sift through it all. That's pretty much how history in any area works.

Sadly for all of us, Mariah Carey will have historic relevance. Yet, I've come to the conclusion that these kind of nominations are a nod to a particular segment of the music-buying audience. M.C.'s art may be weak, but the aspirations of that audience are not. Hopefully, future generations will be able to tell the difference when disseminating this stuff.
 
Zootlesque said:

Except that I find Depeche Mode's new album to be much more interesting than the Bomb, with all kinds of layers and sounds to discover! It really does not sound like Violator much.

What does Violator have to do with anything?

The point I was making is that DM is following a trend U2 started with ATYCLB. The trend of finding yourself after a decade or so of straying in the name of musical/artistic exploration. Certainly, you don't believe Violator is where DM's 'roots' are, do you?

Album quality and tastes are not up for debate here. This is about leaders and followers. ATYCLB made U2 leaders, again. DM are following. This should come as no surprise, really. DM has been accused of being U2 followers since the Violator album. Gahan used to take criticism for his Bono-like posturing and looks in the Personal Jesus video.

I don't really blame DM, though. It's only natural to follow the lead of the greats. Usually, it's on a very subconcscious level. Sometimes not. Take the Beatles. Brian Wilson literally went crazy trying to keep up with them. Now, you might ask who's U2's Brian Wilson. It's Axl Rose!!!! He's literally gone crazy because he's failed to make his AB. He was a nutball groupie on the Zoo TV tour and now look what's happened to him.

Hmmm, excuse me I think I'm going to start a thread on that idea to see what others think of it. See ya!!!!
 
Zootlesque said:


Care to elaborate? Did you simply not like the new album? Do you think it DOES sound like Violator?




I agree. It's all opinion... music is subjective etc. blah blah. Nobody's trying to prove with statistical analysis that the last couple of albums are no good! Geez! At least, I'm not.

You're just pissed cos you like something that is 'clearly' not as good as their earlier work and you're trying to justify yourself! ;)

I liked Zooropa when it came out, but I knew that it was most likely the worst album the band had ever put out. So no, I don't have any conflict with liking something but being concerned that its not as good as previous work.

I think HTDAAB is their 3rd best album right behind Joshua Tree and Achtung. I put ATYCLB 5th right behind Unforgettable Fire at 4th.
 
Layton said:


It's Axl Rose!!!! He's literally gone crazy because he's failed to make his AB. He was a nutball groupie on the Zoo TV tour and now look what's happened to him.


Are you 100% sure that Axl followed U2 around during the Zoo TV Tour? Because Gun's N Roses were on tour from 1991 until 1993 and played 200 shows during their Use Your Illusion Tours.
 
david said:


Are you 100% sure that Axl followed U2 around during the Zoo TV Tour? Because Gun's N Roses were on tour from 1991 until 1993 and played 200 shows during their Use Your Illusion Tours.


He did follow U2 around on at least part of the tour, according to "U2 at the End of the World." I'm sure GNR took some extended breaks during a two-year tour, just like U2 did.
 
angelordevil said:


There was another thread about "eras" recently....I think :scratch:

I could be crazy, though :happy: <------ (see!) ;)

This thread isn't about favorite eras or anything like that, it's about 'glory years'. It is the lack of understanding of this difference that has led to my long-winded explanations in this thread.
 
namkcuR said:


This thread isn't about favorite eras or anything like that, it's about 'glory years'. It is the lack of understanding of this difference that has led to my long-winded explanations in this thread.

I was too lazy to read the earlier posts, until now :uhoh: Like some others here, I don't like the term 'glory years.' Besides implying that the best years are behind them, it's not really a term that's open to future greatness. Unlike other bands, which seem more like fixed targets, are more definable, or have had changes to their supporting cast, I still think U2 have the ability to show us something we haven't seen before.

I also don't think that your athlete analogy is right. While there's a natural, and predictable, curve to a sports performer's career, U2 have repeatedly shown the ability to reinvent and redefine—in the exact moment that they’re counted out.
 
Last edited:
STING2 said:
I liked Zooropa when it came out, but I knew that it was most likely the worst album the band had ever put out.


Interesting that when you express your view, it's expressed as fact - 'I knew' - when anyone else expresses an opinion they are reminded that their opinion acconts for little compared to the great arbiters of msical tastes in our era - the Grammy voters!

By the way Zooropa is not the worst album the band had ever put out in my opinion.

If the Grammy voters think an album by Maria Carey is among the best albums in recent years then they are wrong and it makes you look pretty ridiculous frankly citing the Grammy voters as some kind of grand arbiter of taste.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom