Have U2's 21st century releases done irreparable damage to their legacy?

[ascender_RS]

I don't think their legacy has really been defined yet, let alone examined by the musical and general press because they're still active, making objectively good records and selling out tours. It won't be, IMO until they retire.

I'll bet you anything, when that happens, their legacy will be absolutely fine because it will be based on the music they leave behind and their live reputation.

People's issues with Bono and the SOI debacle will be merely a footnote.

 

[lazarus]

And I don't mean "oh no, the kids won't listen to the new album or go to a show." That isn't happening regardless. But more of a respect for the aging rock gods kind of thing, vs. being seen as a punch line and warning about privacy and spam.

Right. They could have transitioned into elder statesmen more smoothly, and now it's preventing them from being the next generation's version of the Stones, Zeppelin, Queen, whoever.

 

[mikal]

Right. They could have transitioned into elder statesmen more smoothly, and now it's preventing them from being the next generation's version of the Stones, Zeppelin, Queen, whoever.

It really hasn’t though. They’re thought of in the same category. The general public doesn’t know that they switched producers five times or got cold feet. It’s easy to live inside the bubble of this place where we over analyze everything but in general people don’t really care about that.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

It really hasn’t though. They’re thought of in the same category. The general public doesn’t know that they switched producers five times or got cold feet. It’s easy to live inside the bubble of this place where we over analyze everything but in general people don’t really care about that.

See this is where I disagree. I think they WERE held in that standing, and now they're not - and it's completely related to the apple thing - as sad and dumb as that is.

It has absolutely nothing to do with their work, the number of producers they've used, or anything else.

In fact I think that if everything else was exactly the same BUT they simply offered the album as a free download? They'd still be held in that esteem (and in a higher esteem than some of the bands laz listed).

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Right. They could have transitioned into elder statesmen more smoothly, and now it's preventing them from being the next generation's version of the Stones, Zeppelin, Queen, whoever.

100%

This is exactly what I'm saying.

 

[lazarus]

See this is where I disagree. I think they WERE held in that standing, and now they're not - and it's completely related to the apple thing - as sad and dumb as that is.

It has absolutely nothing to do with their work, the number of producers they've used, or anything else.

In fact I think that if everything else was exactly the same BUT they simply offered the album as a free download? They'd still be held in that esteem (and in a higher esteem than some of the bands laz listed).

 

[mikal]

See this is where I disagree. I think they WERE held in that standing, and now they're not - and it's completely related to the apple thing - as sad and dumb as that is.

It has absolutely nothing to do with their work, the number of producers they've used, or anything else.

In fact I think that if everything else was exactly the same BUT they simply offered the album as a free download? They'd still be held in that esteem (and in a higher esteem than some of the bands laz listed).

I agree with you on most things but I can’t get on board with this one. It’s just not realistic to think that the general fan base would suddenly take them out of that category because of the Apple debacle. That’s a case of us living in the diehard bubble.

Probably best to agree to disagree on this one. Haha

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I agree with you on most things but I can’t get on board with this one. It’s just not realistic to think that the general fan base would suddenly take them out of that category because of the Apple debacle. That’s a case of us living in the diehard bubble.



Probably best to agree to disagree on this one. Haha

I don't think it changed the opinions of fans - just the general public.

 

[mikal]

One last thing. I think we need to keep in mind that sins are forgiven when artists retire or pass away. Hypothetically had Bono died in 2016, I really don’t think people would have been saying “ if it weren’t for them putting that album on our iPhones…” after that. So when I’m presenting this argument, I’m thinking long term, not in this very moment.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

One could die, or become a cartoon lion

 

[mikal]

One could die, or become a cartoon lion View attachment 12889

I heard he appears in every zoo without their permission.

 

[prbiker15]

I see the Lennon glasses have snuck their way in.

 

[DeVaul]

damn it, not again

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I see the Lennon glasses have snuck their way in.

I think those are aviators.

Should have gone with a guitar joke

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

damn it, not again

View attachment 12890

Stoooooohmy weathuhhhhh

 

[womanfish]

Well if you want some consultation to the Apple thing, go and read the comments on Every Breaking Wave on YouTube. Yes, those comments are usually much kinder than Twitter. But about 4000 comments, and almost all are over the top positive. Many saying things like - I only usually listen to hip hop, but this was on my phone and I cant believe how good it is. Or, I hadn’t listened to U2 in years, and i wondered why this was on my phone, but it brings me to tears listening to it. Dozens proclaiming it the most underrated song of all time.

So maybe in some way the stupid gambit actually paid off a bit in the end… seven years later. that’s playing the long game. LOL.

While i don’t think the next album would make or break the bands legacy. I do think an out of the blue surprise outstanding album, that critics fawned over for how they created magic again 44 years into their career, that then translated to popular attention and appeal (at least with the olds) aka Dylan’s Time Out of Mind, would be a crowning achievement that would leave no doubt in their greatness. Another mediocre or shit album would just be a wash or finally shake off even many die hards.

 

[lazarus]

I agree with you on most things but I can’t get on board with this one. It’s just not realistic to think that the general fan base would suddenly take them out of that category because of the Apple debacle. That’s a case of us living in the diehard bubble.

I don't think it changed the opinions of fans - just the general public.

Yeah the discrepancy is that legacy isn't just determined by the "fans", die hard or not. It's by the general public along with the media's perspective (big institutions like Rolling Stone, Mtv I suppose, New York Times, Grammys, etc.)

 

[The Panther]

I'm baffled by this take. What are you basing it on?

Hm, let's see:
-- the Grammy's performance of 'Get On Your Boots' was an embarrassment
-- the singles tanked
-- the album sold 1/2 as many copies as the previous one

I'm baffled by this take. What are you basing it on?The album which did "a lot of damage" that turned people off to the over exposed band, ending their 2000-2005 grace period was only accompanied by THE LARGEST, MOST ATTENDED CONCERT TOUR IN THE HISTORY OF CONCERT TOURS.

This is irrelevant. U2 were on the verge of becoming a legacy-act in 2000-01 when All That You Can't Leave Behind blew up, and that momentum carried them through 2005-06. But the release of the 2009 album cemented them as a legacy-act. 50,000 people weren't going to shows in 2009-10 because they all wanted to hear 'Stand Up Comedy'.

The Rolling Stones, who are 104 years old, can put tickets on sale now and sell more of them than they could in 1972 when they toured the US. It doesn't mean they're a hot, vital, artist releasing important work today.

 

[mikal]

Yeah the discrepancy is that legacy isn't just determined by the "fans", die hard or not. It's by the general public along with the media's perspective (big institutions like Rolling Stone, Mtv I suppose, New York Times, Grammys, etc.)

That’s my entire point.

 

[U2girl]

Enough of the Itunes moans. Generation who probably has no idea about JT, AB, ATYCLB resurgence...never really cared about them in the first place. 360 sold based on the stage design, not prior music.

They cannot hurt their legacy which is firmly set. Its simple and it happens to all bands. Too old to be on the radio combined with being past their prime. I also think the looong wait for NLOTH and SOI didnt help.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

because there's nothing interference does better than beating a dead horse...

i stumbled upon Rolling Stone's most recent update to their "Top 500 Albums" list, which apparently came out in the fall but i had no idea.

Alas... Rolling Stone being a fairly U2 friendly place, I wanted to check to see where they came in after a not so hot decade.

First time they show up on the list is at 124 with Achtung Baby. I thought they were in the top 50 the first time this list came out, so I went back and double checked. Here are the shifts on the three lists that Rolling Stone has put out...

2003
Joshua Tree - 26
Achtung Baby - 62
All That You Can't Leave Behind - 139
War - 221
Boy - 417

2012
Joshua Tree - 27
Achtung Baby - 63
All That You Can't Leave Behind - 280
War - 223
Boy - 417

2020
Joshua Tree - 135
Achtung Baby - 124
All That You Can't Leave Behind - n/a
War - n/a
Boy - n/a


now look - rolling stone's lists are dumb. all lists are dumb. they were dumb in 2003, they were dumb 2012, and they're dumb now. but it's still pretty eye opening to see how far U2's albums plummeted in the 8 years between lists - and the voters of this list in 2020 were a considerably more diverse group than the previous two times it was done. but still... 5 albums to 2. joshua tree dropping over 100 slots. pretty stark.

out of sheer curiosity (and boredom) - i wanted to see how a comparable artist did over the same 3 charts, so this is where springsteen rated.

2003
Born To Run - 18
Born in the USA - 85
The Wild, The Innocent & The E Street Shuffle - 132
Darkness on the Edge of Town - 151
Nebraska - 224
The River - 250
Greetings From Asbury Park, NJ - 379
Tunnel of Love - 475

2012
Born To Run - 18
Born in the USA - 86
The Wild, The Innocent & The E Street Shuffle - 133
Darkness on the Edge Of Town - 150
Nebraska - 226
The River - 253
The Rising - 424
Tunnel of Love - 467

2020
Born To Run - 21
Darkness on the Edge of Town - 91
Born in the USA - 142
Nebraska - 150
The Wild, The Innocent & The E Street Shuffle - 345

So Bruce went from 8 albums in 2003 and 2012 to 5 in the 2020 list. OK. similar to U2 dropping a few albums at the back end. it's inevitable that some at the end fall off.

But when you look at the really great albums - the all timers - Born to Run only fell 3 spots. Darkness actually gained 60 spots. Born in the USA fell but Nebraska jumped up.


So, yea - U2's standing has absolutely taken a hit in the last decade - specifically with where younger generations hold them in comparison to other great acts.


i'll shut up and actually do some work now.

 

[mikal]

because there's nothing interference does better than beating a dead horse...

i stumbled upon Rolling Stone's most recent update to their "Top 500 Albums" list, which apparently came out in the fall but i had no idea.

Alas... Rolling Stone being a fairly U2 friendly place, I wanted to check to see where they came in after a not so hot decade.

First time they show up on the list is at 124 with Achtung Baby. I thought they were in the top 50 the first time this list came out, so I went back and double checked. Here are the shifts on the three lists that Rolling Stone has put out...

2003
Joshua Tree - 26
Achtung Baby - 62
All That You Can't Leave Behind - 139
War - 221
Boy - 417

2012
Joshua Tree - 27
Achtung Baby - 63
All That You Can't Leave Behind - 280
War - 223
Boy - 417

2020
Joshua Tree - 135
Achtung Baby - 124
All That You Can't Leave Behind - n/a
War - n/a
Boy - n/a


now look - rolling stone's lists are dumb. all lists are dumb. they were dumb in 2003, they were dumb 2012, and they're dumb now. but it's still pretty eye opening to see how far U2's albums plummeted in the 8 years between lists - and the voters of this list in 2020 were a considerably more diverse group than the previous two times it was done. but still... 5 albums to 2. joshua tree dropping over 100 slots. pretty stark.

out of sheer curiosity (and boredom) - i wanted to see how a comparable artist did over the same 3 charts, so this is where springsteen rated.

2003
Born To Run - 18
Born in the USA - 85
The Wild, The Innocent & The E Street Shuffle - 132
Darkness on the Edge of Town - 151
Nebraska - 224
The River - 250
Greetings From Asbury Park, NJ - 379
Tunnel of Love - 475

2012
Born To Run - 18
Born in the USA - 86
The Wild, The Innocent & The E Street Shuffle - 133
Darkness on the Edge Of Town - 150
Nebraska - 226
The River - 253
The Rising - 424
Tunnel of Love - 467

2020
Born To Run - 21
Darkness on the Edge of Town - 91
Born in the USA - 142
Nebraska - 150
The Wild, The Innocent & The E Street Shuffle - 345

So Bruce went from 8 albums in 2003 and 2012 to 5 in the 2020 list. OK. similar to U2 dropping a few albums at the back end. it's inevitable that some at the end fall off.

But when you look at the really great albums - the all timers - Born to Run only fell 3 spots. Darkness actually gained 60 spots. Born in the USA fell but Nebraska jumped up.


So, yea - U2's standing has absolutely taken a hit in the last decade - specifically with where younger generations hold them in comparison to other great acts.


i'll shut up and actually do some work now.

Was it the same writers/people creating the list last year as it was in 2003 and 2012?

edit: nvm totally missed that it was voting. The only thing I'll say here, and yes that is eye opening, is that the placements are so different than they were 8 years prior that it almost seems like a poll that you completely throw out, not analyze. I'm no expert in polling, but I've always heard that when when you have an outlier like that, there's usually something not right with the poll itself.

 

[pacemaker]

It's hard to believe that 279 better albums came out in those 17 years to knock War completely out (after only a very small budge between 1 & 2). The hit that Joshua Tree takes from 2012 to 2020 is also absurd.

Something definitely seems fishy here. But, if the published polls are true to the results collected, it possibly points to something I don't think we've really touched on a whole lot, which is that people all throughout the industry don't think very highly of U2 anymore. The events between 2012 and 2020 - new management, iTunes debacle, Dangermouse, etc - could have potentially had ramifications within the industry. Who knows.

Or, they just diversified the pool of voters beyond a bunch of white dudes.

 

[mikal]

It's hard to believe that 279 better albums came out in those 17 years to knock War completely out (after only a very small budge between 1 & 2). The hit that Joshua Tree takes from 2012 to 2020 is also absurd.

Something definitely seems fishy here. But, if the published polls are true to the results collected, it possibly points to something I don't think we've really touched on a whole lot, which is that people all throughout the industry don't think very highly of U2 anymore. The events between 2012 and 2020 - new management, iTunes debacle, Dangermouse, etc - could have potentially had ramifications within the industry. Who knows.

Or, they just diversified the pool of voters beyond a bunch of white dudes.

Yeah for sure. That just tells me that the polling conditions weren’t the same this time around.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

It's hard to believe that 279 better albums came out in those 17 years to knock War completely out (after only a very small budge between 1 & 2). The hit that Joshua Tree takes from 2012 to 2020 is also absurd.

Something definitely seems fishy here. But, if the published polls are true to the results collected, it possibly points to something I don't think we've really touched on a whole lot, which is that people all throughout the industry don't think very highly of U2 anymore. The events between 2012 and 2020 - new management, iTunes debacle, Dangermouse, etc - could have potentially had ramifications within the industry. Who knows.

Or, they just diversified the pool of voters beyond a bunch of white dudes.

The diversified pool and different voters can explain the differences in, say, Springsteens numbers. Some up, some down, some off the list completely, and Born to Run still holding steady as a top 25 all time album.

The Beatles saw similar moves - some albums held on higher esteem than others, but with similar numbers and still recognizing the great albums for being great.

The huge differences in U2's standing just sticks out like a sore thumb. Clearly I didn't study everybody but I ran through a few artists and the only one with such a huge negative difference like that that I noticed was U2. I'm sure there are others but I didn't compare all 500 albums. I had some free time, not a free week.

 

[mikal]

The drastic difference just doesn't match reality. There's no way the Joshua Tree dropped that much in popularity when they literally sold out stadiums promoting the anniversary of that album. I think it's safe to say whatever happened in the poll is something that isn't a true measurement of if U2's legacy has taken a hit. I think it would have been a more compelling argument if all of their albums dropped 10-20 spots, not completely fallen off the map.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

See I don't think ticket sales means anything in regards to their legacy.

Yes, the in olds still love them, and the tickets sales will match that love.

It's more about whether or not future generations respect what they've accomplished or not. That's legacy.

 

[lazarus]

A disturbing turn of events for sure.

I thought at least JT had reached untouchable territory.

If U2 is passé for a new generation of people voting on this stuff, and it's not "just a bunch of white dudes" anymore, I can't imagine them listening to Born to Run either, to be honest. Or Darkness on the Edge of Town for that matter.

 

[mikal]

See I don't think ticket sales means anything in regards to their legacy.

Yes, the in olds still love them, and the tickets sales will match that love.

It's more about whether or not future generations respect what they've accomplished or not. That's legacy.

When they’re finished or Bono dies, all the kids will love them, so I’m not really worried about that.

 

[mikal]

See I don't think ticket sales means anything in regards to their legacy.

Yes, the in olds still love them, and the tickets sales will match that love.

It's more about whether or not future generations respect what they've accomplished or not. That's legacy.

I also do think ticket sales do define legacy. Legacy can be defined by a lot of things. The fact that they could decide to do a stadium tour for no reason and still sell out almost 20 years after they’ve had a radio hit, that’s legacy.