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

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Messages
10,770
Location
Kettering, Ohio
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...
 
Last edited:
I went with '83-'93... although, I was born in '83 so I don't "remember when" but I'd say this period covers U2's explosion, and it includes UF which gets a :up:

They have and always will be glorious though :love:
 
Good poll namkcuR. I voted for 1987-1993. Maybe if you take out Zooropa and replace it with some other years... because there are better years than Zooropa - in my opinion.

But with the exception of The Unforgettable Fire I think those are U2's best years. Two exceptional albums, another live album, great tours to follow both Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree... not to mention ZooTV is in there. What more could you ask for? :)
 
You could make a strong argument for 2000 to present too. While chartwise, not as big as JT thru AB (not zoo), currently they are becoming more pop cultural icons than ever.
 
in tearms of music masterpieces, 87-93

but right now, u2 is everywhere, there great, you cant turn anywhere without them
 
91-97 Achtung Baby-Pop, or 83-87 War-Joshua Tree is comperable i think. I view rattle and hum as a down point, so i can't really have 83-97
 
87-93.

Think about it: they went from roots rock, to R&B, to Euro-rock, to Europop in five years (roughly). And every single one of those albums was a hit.
 
I was juggling between '87-'93 and '83-'93 for a while, but in the end went with the latter. "War" and its accompanying tour were so full of angst, which propelled their career so much imo. It should be regarded among the best for all that harnessed energy.
 
Snowlock said:
You could make a strong argument for 2000 to present too. While chartwise, not as big as JT thru AB (not zoo), currently they are becoming more pop cultural icons than ever.

agreed, and they're really as popular as ever. Shows sell out the second tickets go on sale. They are quite possibly the biggest band in the world right now. Doesn't that qualify for glory years?

I said 87-97 simply because I had to include Pop and Zooropa (and of course JT and AB). Rattle and Hum really isn't that great, but Lovetown tour was. Pop was unfortunatley badly recieved, but I still think it's the best thing they've ever done, and Popmart tour was amazing. Plus U2 were so fucking badass in the 90's.

But I'd say U2 are going just as strong today as they were in 87-93 (which are probably the true glory years, but I love Pop too much to omit it :wink: ).
 
I would say The Unforgettable Fire to Achtung Baby and Zoo TV is the period when U2 solidified a certain mystique and hit on something completely unique...really like nothing else...and completely dialed into something very, very special.

I guess that would be 1984-1992.
 
just to vote i chose 1983-93. The problem with the choices have to do with their ranges. I think U2's "glory years" started in 1985 precisely at the Live Aid concert. That put them on the rise to stardom. Joshua Tree put them on top of the world and AB reaffirmed their position. They went into a lull immediately following the end of the Zoo TV tour. Pop and Popmart, nomatter what we hardcore U2 fans think of it, was a huge P.R. disaster.

With the release of ATYCLB, however, U2 have been on the rise again. Bomb, IMO, is U2's 3rd best album ever. So I would say that U2 is now into their "2nd coming" so to speak. They are as popular worldwide as ever and have a huge amount of momentum after Bomb and the Vertigo Tour.

It is now up to the band and their management to keep it going without compromising what makes U2 great. As always, this is a major challenge for U2.
 
I have a few problems with this thread.

First, "glory years" refers to something that was fantastic years ago, but not now. A sports player has glory years, but due to age and injuries, he/she may not be as sharp. A company may have glory years when products abound, but they can hit a slump (for a variety of reasons). And yes, artists of all type can have glory years, but then become not as interesting or relevant.

However, I do not feel this is true for U2. U2 aren't in that "glory year" mode. They aren't looking back reflecting on what great things they've done.

Furthermore, I feel that much of U2's current work, especially on HTDAAB, is FAR better than that on past work. Granted this is just my opinion. But album sales, concert grosses and the endless awards strongly suggest that U2 is perhaps as big or even bigger than many eras of their past. The world today is not the same as it was in 1987. Bootlegging and illegal downloading have changed that. This is why it's all the more impressive that U2 still have Triple Platinum and Quadruple Platinum selling albums in the U.S.! That's up there with the "hot shots" of this era - not with some 25 year old band!

So for me, if there's a "glory year" period at all (and I'd argue there isn't one), then it would have to include current work. Hence, I voted "other".
 
This thread reminds me of a lyric:

You glorify the past while the future dries up.. bitches!

(I added the bitches part)

:)
 
doctorwho said:
I have a few problems with this thread.

First, "glory years" refers to something that was fantastic years ago, but not now. A sports player has glory years, but due to age and injuries, he/she may not be as sharp. A company may have glory years when products abound, but they can hit a slump (for a variety of reasons). And yes, artists of all type can have glory years, but then become not as interesting or relevant.

However, I do not feel this is true for U2. U2 aren't in that "glory year" mode. They aren't looking back reflecting on what great things they've done.

Furthermore, I feel that much of U2's current work, especially on HTDAAB, is FAR better than that on past work. Granted this is just my opinion. But album sales, concert grosses and the endless awards strongly suggest that U2 is perhaps as big or even bigger than many eras of their past. The world today is not the same as it was in 1987. Bootlegging and illegal downloading have changed that. This is why it's all the more impressive that U2 still have Triple Platinum and Quadruple Platinum selling albums in the U.S.! That's up there with the "hot shots" of this era - not with some 25 year old band!

So for me, if there's a "glory year" period at all (and I'd argue there isn't one), then it would have to include current work. Hence, I voted "other".

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.
 
Last edited:
I have trouble believing U2 are just repeating themselves. I notice huge differences between HTDAAB and U2's earlier work.

The new U2 sound(the new era, from 2000 - who knows) is something totally different. I don't think U2 have glory days yet, personally and I don't see U2 going back to there "glory days" for inspiration. These new CD's are unique and powerful, and they continue to be forces of music. I see a totally different U2 in 2000 than I have ever seen, and personally, I'm sorry if you can't see that U2 are still a glorious rock band and just because this new style is more reminiscent of their 80's work (as in its not dance-europop influenced for the most part), it doesn't mean they are looking back on their 'glory years' and trying to relive them. I think U2 has had glorious years through there entire existence. It IS possible for artists/athletes/ect to break this mold. How can a band have specified 'glory days' when the glory isn't over?


Doing "new stuff" all the time doesnt make glory years. In sports, Athletes don't always do "new stuff" (like do a slam dunk with a large LED Lemon on their head). But their glory years are still in tact. It is how much quality is in the years. U2's new CD's have quality, just as much as their old ones, and their live performances are still incredible.

Just because U2 decided to stop using massive money chewing live rigs(well... less expensive than usual :)) doesn't mean their glory years are done.

Besides, aren't they they the first band to use those cool LED beads?

You can tell a band is still in its glory years when fans(and the band) get just as excited about new material as much as old material. Hearing the crowd responses to Vertigo, Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own, Original Of The Species, and City of Blinding Lights solidifies this.

I have seen lots of classic rock bands/artists - Def Leppard, Aerosmith, Bryan Adams, and an utterly pathetic Van Halen. And when they are like "heres a new song", its obvious people don't really want to hear the new stuff.

U2 are just as important as ever.

But I should respect your opinion. U2 are my favourite band and I personally see no stop to what they got. I have noticed only ascending quality in their music and performances. It is insulting to hear a band that is still incredible and is releasing music better than most 'younger' bands (as youth APPARENTLY = glory) is considered to be "expired".
 
namkcuR said:


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.

Bah thats crap. You're basically saying that 25 years after U2 disband, when people look back at U2's current phase all they'll say is "well they were Big!" and say it with a wink.

Of course most of the people going to shows got into them in the 80s and 90s, I mean they were a big act in the day! But there are alot of kids who got into them for "Beautiful day", "Vertigo" , the Superbowl or whatever. Maybe this is their "Glory Days" for U2-Let 'em have it.

Anyway, I voted 83-93 'Cos that period has what I thought was their 2 best albums( too date!) I have no problem with not having the current phase of the Band in the poll, because you can hardly judge how something will be viewed a few years down the road while it's happening. But don't take an era out of a poll 'cos you don't like it!
 
Sting said:
I have trouble believing U2 are just repeating themselves. I notice huge differences between HTDAAB and U2's earlier work.

The new U2 sound(the new era, from 2000 - who knows) is something totally different. I don't think U2 have glory days yet, personally and I don't see U2 going back to there "glory days" for inspiration. These new CD's are unique and powerful, and they continue to be forces of music. I see a totally different U2 in 2000 than I have ever seen, and personally, I'm sorry if you can't see that U2 are still a glorious rock band and just because this new style is more reminiscent of their 80's work (as in its not dance-europop influenced for the most part), it doesn't mean they are looking back on their 'glory years' and trying to relive them. I think U2 has had glorious years through there entire existence. It IS possible for artists/athletes/ect to break this mold. How can a band have specified 'glory days' when the glory isn't over?


Doing "new stuff" all the time doesnt make glory years. In sports, Athletes don't always do "new stuff" (like do a slam dunk with a large LED Lemon on their head). But their glory years are still in tact. It is how much quality is in the years. U2's new CD's have quality, just as much as their old ones, and their live performances are still incredible.

Just because U2 decided to stop using massive money chewing live rigs(well... less expensive than usual :)) doesn't mean their glory years are done.

Besides, aren't they they the first band to use those cool LED beads?

You can tell a band is still in its glory years when fans(and the band) get just as excited about new material as much as old material. Hearing the crowd responses to Vertigo, Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own, Original Of The Species, and City of Blinding Lights solidifies this.

I have seen lots of classic rock bands/artists - Def Leppard, Aerosmith, Bryan Adams, and an utterly pathetic Van Halen. And when they are like "heres a new song", its obvious people don't really want to hear the new stuff.

U2 are just as important as ever.

But I should respect your opinion. U2 are my favourite band and I personally see no stop to what they got. I have noticed only ascending quality in their music and performances. It is insulting to hear a band that is still incredible and is releasing music better than most 'younger' bands (as youth APPARENTLY = glory) is considered to be "expired".

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 have a hard time believing that U2's work this decade will be as or more influential on musical artists 15 years from now as their work in the 80s and 90s is/was on bands of today. I have a hard time believing that anything U2 have done this decade, a 'City Of Blinding Lights' or 'Miracle Drug', could be as or more influential on bands and musical artists of 2021 as a 'Where The Streets Have No Name', a 'With Or Without You', a 'Bad', a Pride', a 'One', an 'Even Better Than The Real Thing', a ZooTV with its b-stage - now an industry standard, or a Popmart is/has been on the bands and musical artists of 2006. That doesn't mean I think the music is crap, because I don't. U2 have made some great music this decade, but no matter how much you love COBL or MD, they are not very innovative, and influence and innovation go hand in hand. It just means that I really doubt - although I obviously can't be anymore sure than any of you are - that it will be as influential as U2's work from the 80s and 90s is/was. And since one of the pillars of my definition of 'glory years' is that the work in that period must be the most influential of the artist's career, the 00s don't qualify for me. I honestly didn't think anyone would even consider the 00s as 'glory years' or I would have put it on the poll. If you don't get what I'm saying now, I doubt you will.

I don't need to tell you that this is all based in my opinion. It obviously is.
 
Back
Top Bottom