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.