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
bsp77 said:


Exactly. Coldplay is pure UF

I've said this for ages and been bashed for it. Clocks is such a ripoff of UF. But I don't like Coldplay, can't stand the lame lyrics or whiney voiced singer. U2 is best!
 
financeguy said:



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.



This is all a matter of opinion and no one is ever wrong when they claim album x is better than album y. Beyond ones own opinion, the Grammy voters are not a bad group of people to cite given the range of music they consider at the awards and the background of the people voting. That does not mean though that I agree with them on many of their choices for nominations and award winners.
 
angelordevil said:


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.

:up: okay, I honestly don't have anything to add this time, I just wanted everyone to know that I agree totally with this statement :wink:

I don't think we can truly judge U2's glory years until their career is entirely over. Some people seem to think U2 has lost their magic and are going to make the same album over and over again for the rest of their lives, but I strongly doubt this. First of all, I don't think ATYCLB and HTDAAB are the same album, just in a similar style, akin to Boy and October or UF and JT or whatever. Secondly, I believe that U2 is just in a phase, like any other previous phase of their career. They've said they're itching to experiment again. I don't know why people seem to have lost faith in U2, but I think they'll prove you [anyone who has lost faith in U2] wrong.
 
AtomicBono said:


:up: okay, I honestly don't have anything to add this time, I just wanted everyone to know that I agree totally with this statement :wink:

I don't think we can truly judge U2's glory years until their career is entirely over. Some people seem to think U2 has lost their magic and are going to make the same album over and over again for the rest of their lives, but I strongly doubt this. First of all, I don't think ATYCLB and HTDAAB are the same album, just in a similar style, akin to Boy and October or UF and JT or whatever. Secondly, I believe that U2 is just in a phase, like any other previous phase of their career. They've said they're itching to experiment again. I don't know why people seem to have lost faith in U2, but I think they'll prove you [anyone who has lost faith in U2] wrong.

Look at you, all right and shit.:up:
 
I consider myself to be a newer fan, I got into U2 about 2 years ago. I was burning my friend one of the Best Of discs and ATYCLB and liked what I heard, but didn't focus too much on U2. That same year U2 performed at the Superbowl and I was very interested in their music. After that, I went on to listen to Achtung Baby and I was hooked for life basically.

My point is that the recent work and performances drew me into the band, but the earlier work was captivating enough to make me an uber-fan.

It's hard to measure their glory years because:

1) They're not done yet
2) They've been able to influence the industry with stuff from all of their eras

(ex: Green Day's 'American Idiot' reminds me of 'War' in terms of content, not greatness, Coldplay's 'X&Y' is trying draws from 'The Unforgettable Fire', The Killer's 'Hot Fuss' reminds me of 'Boy', etc...)
 
namkcuR said:


That is a copout....a whole career can't be 'glory years'.

Hahaha! Thanks for making me laugh out loud at 01:10 in a house full of sleeping people! :lol:

anyway...

i voted 87-93. going past Zooropa is just glorifying bad music, regardless of the good concerts, etc.
 
LemonMacPhisto said:


My point is that the recent work and performances drew me into the band, but the earlier work was captivating enough to make me an uber-fan.


:up: Great comment...this has been a constant in their ability to attract new listeners.
 
This has to be 87-93. That is when U2 dominated the music scene.

80-83 they were just starting out. They were very up and coming 83-87. Popmart was their fall into irrelevancy. 2000 onward has been a "second coming" of sorts, but they certainly don't dominate in this age of rap and bubble gum pop. So I wouldn't include anything outside of 87-93.
 
And the old music of the past decade if u can survive that ur a genius more or less. So I don;t connect those years because it goes over a the 80's/90;'s border and I call AB a reinvention more then a continuation of the 80's. its weird. I think vertigo and beautiful day are up their with the 80's early 90's "classics". You know , saying it that way still implies that vertigo and beautiful day are still not quite as good. So how about this , "pride" and with or without you" are right up thier with "vertigo" and "beatiful day" (THATS HAS NEVER PROLY BEEN WRITTEN EVER IN THAT WAY). defenders of the 00-06 era need to start doing that. u2 dosn't have glory days casue they get broken up too much. i realize that pop and RAH are bashed and their not part of the "glory Days " .But the album before or after was. Etc. u also can go by the little things. When i was at some place where they had karaoke, and they have lists of songs by artists, they have only big recognizable hits. Beautiful day WAS listed with the Joshua tree and AB hits. Pop culture. When i see weird various tribute albums, they have some 00--06 stuff on their.

Also, when an old band plays shows, and they play new stuff, and the fans go to bathroom lol (poison,warrent,duran duran,neil young, bands like that that have a much more definable "glory years" record sales wise and critically, AND ITS NOT NOW!) u know for sure. Not the case with u2. Even pop /popmart tour is leagues above what other old bands suffer. You people need to start looking at the big picture.
 
allbecauseofu2 said:
Also, when an old band plays shows, and they play new stuff, and the fans go to bathroom lol (poison,warrent,duran duran,neil young, bands like that that have a much more definable "glory years" record sales wise and critically, AND ITS NOT NOW!) u know for sure. Not the case with u2. Even pop /popmart tour is leagues above what other old bands suffer. You people need to start looking at the big picture.

I've heard more bathroom break stories about Miracle Drug than any other song this tour.
 
i went to see alice cooper once and he had slaughter,warrent, dokken open for him. holy shit. lol. the definition of hack. thats somebody who didn;t quite cross over the next decade.
 
I do think that 87-93 will be remembered as their peak period. In 6 years they pumped out their two greatest albums, both so incredibly, wildly different from each other, plus R&H and Zooropa. Gone on what statisticaly may or may not be their biggest tours, but certainly their most attention getting. Definitely had their largest cultural impact. Their greatest critical success. Their greatest sales. Absolute top of their game. Think about that time period. That's the length of time from 2000 to today, which has given us ATYCLB/tour, HTDAAB/tour. 87-93 and they went through Joshua Tree/tour, Rattle & Hum/tour, complete fucking overhaul, Achtung Baby/tour/Zooropa/tour. Unbelievable. They never will be perceived the same way again either. They are these grand old legends of rock now, who are mostly feeding off accumulated respect, not current awe as they were then. If they pulled off a six year period like that now, I think it would absolutely shock us all to the core. An absolute explosion of creativity. I'd bow down and worship at their feet forever more if they just gave us 1/4 of that now.
 
allbecauseofu2 said:
i went to see alice cooper once and he had slaughter,warrent, dokken open for him. holy shit. lol. the definition of hack. thats somebody who didn;t quite cross over the next decade.
is it your goal to just slam every artist to put U2 at a higher pedestal? U2's already one of the biggest bands out there, you don't need to go knocking everyone else in the process. notice no one else in the thread is doing it.
 
i did that casue some people just don't have any gratitude. they complain about this and that bullshit. always trying to find something wrong. I'm saying how would u like to be a fan of these other bands whos fans REALY do have something to complain about. like breaks ups and half ass versions of the band going around (COUGHKISSCOUGH) . I'm only the reaction to people do everything to slam u2 yet thier on this board. Thiers been pleny of bringing other bands names up on this board. I'm just the one who thought it of it first on this thread.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
I do think that 87-93 will be remembered as their peak period. In 6 years they pumped out their two greatest albums, both so incredibly, wildly different from each other, plus R&H and Zooropa. Gone on what statisticaly may or may not be their biggest tours, but certainly their most attention getting. Definitely had their largest cultural impact. Their greatest critical success. Their greatest sales. Absolute top of their game. Think about that time period. That's the length of time from 2000 to today, which has given us ATYCLB/tour, HTDAAB/tour. 87-93 and they went through Joshua Tree/tour, Rattle & Hum/tour, complete fucking overhaul, Achtung Baby/tour/Zooropa/tour. Unbelievable. They never will be perceived the same way again either. They are these grand old legends of rock now, who are mostly feeding off accumulated respect, not current awe as they were then. If they pulled off a six year period like that now, I think it would absolutely shock us all to the core. An absolute explosion of creativity. I'd bow down and worship at their feet forever more if they just gave us 1/4 of that now.

Well, at the shows I went to on the Elevation/Vertigo tours, the "new stuff" of Beautiful Day and Vertigo got HUGE receptions from the crowd, probably only eclipsed by Streets.
 
allbecauseofu2 said:
i did that casue some people just don't have any gratitude. they complain about this and that bullshit. always trying to find something wrong. I'm saying how would u like to be a fan of these other bands whos fans REALY do have something to complain about. like breaks ups and half ass versions of the band going around (COUGHKISSCOUGH) . I'm only the reaction to people do everything to slam u2 yet thier on this board. Thiers been pleny of bringing other bands names up on this board. I'm just the one who thought it of it first on this thread.
this thread is about U2's supposed glory years, not who you think is a hack artist or half assed band compared to U2.

i think it'd be a safe venture to say most on this forum (i'd hope all but i won't assume like that) like other bands. it's kind of insulting because i know there are fans of some of the bands and artists you've been knocking. not only that, but it's got nothing to do with the topic at hand. knock it off, please.
 
fine, i might have been wrong to "trash" bands. But i will use other bands to show how far above the grade u2 is for being 25 years old. Casue most bands at the 25 year mark don;t even have to ask about what thier glory years are. The anwser would be a long time ago and now live off thier respected past. i will aplogize for talking negitive about other bands. i will however continue to use them as a standard to judge u2 ( and i also would use u2 when talking about a diffrent band and have). i just will not trash any band. i will simple point out the postive of u2 and not the other band;s negative.
 
Artistically, JT to POP era.

In terms of being the most celebrated/greatest band in the world? Today.
 
2000-2006 are their glory years. Constant critical praise and fame, and the music's quite good also (their second and eighth best albums, respectively).......
 
Back
Top Bottom