PDA

View Full Version : U2: Has any other rock band in history stayed more relevant to modern music?


jAZ
08-01-2006, 09:31 PM
I'm watching their Vertigo/Chicago DVD and it occured to me that I can't think of another band from the rock and roll era who had such a long and continually relevant career.

The Beatles?
Broke up before Lennon died.

Led Zeppelin?
Bonham died and they broke up. Page/Plant reunion was a disappointment.

Rolling Stones?
Never reached U2's level of success with with their recent (last 10 years) stuff.

Bruce Springsteen?
He's certainly stayed relevant, but not *quite* to the degee of U2. He was always a bit more niche in his appeal anyway.

Anyone else that might measure up in the area of lasting relevance, popularity and success?

Pitt Gorilla
08-01-2006, 09:35 PM
Ozzy? He's not a band, but neither is Bruce.

ZepSinger
08-01-2006, 09:36 PM
Jaz, I have to agree.

Also, they've been the single biggest influence on Christian rock bands for the last few years. Edge's guitar riffs reverberate thoughout the top acts...

Z

jAZ
08-01-2006, 09:42 PM
Ozzy? He's not a band, but neither is Bruce.
He's certainly been infulential in his genre. But that seems more due to his OzzFest touring and TV shows. Has he had much actual success with his new albums?

He certainly deserves to be mentioned, even if it's just for bringing back Heavy Metal with his tour.

jAZ
08-01-2006, 09:44 PM
Jaz, I have to agree.

Also, they've been the single biggest influence on Christian rock bands for the last few years. Edge's guitar riffs reverberate thoughout the top acts...

Z
I'm not at all suprised about Christian Rock. They are a band of Christians who never made it *all* about preaching "The Word", but rather allowed their faith to influence parts of their music (both obviously and not-so obviously).

I've noticed more and more Christian bands making the leap to popular radio by learning to use symbolism and imagery rather than explict references.

stevieray
08-01-2006, 09:47 PM
I'm not at all suprised about Christian Rock. They are a band of Christians who never made it *all* about preaching "The Word", but rather allowed their faith to influence parts of their music (both obviously and not-so obviously).

I've noticed more and more Christian bands making the leap to popular radio by learning to use symbolism and imagery rather than explict references.

There is a lot of spiritual overtone in their lyrics.

jAZ
08-01-2006, 09:57 PM
There is a lot of spiritual overtone in their lyrics.
Absolutely. Very much so. It's part of what makes them credible and lasting IMO. I think there is a very honest and sincere passion in their music and lyrics coming from very spiritual place for them.

Guru
08-01-2006, 09:58 PM
U2 = one of the greatest rock bands of all time.

Hoover
08-01-2006, 10:02 PM
I went to a Christian Concert and thought it was awesome that the band MercyMe covered where the streets have no name.

U2 rocks

Guru
08-01-2006, 10:06 PM
Little known fact, U2 came extremely close to a breakup back in 1991. A particular song they wrote inspired them and they stayed together.

First one to name that song gets rep.

MGRS13
08-01-2006, 10:10 PM
AC/DC

MGRS13
08-01-2006, 10:10 PM
Tom Petty

jAZ
08-01-2006, 10:12 PM
Little known fact, U2 came extremely close to a breakup back in 1991. A particular song they wrote inspired them and they stayed together.

First one to name that song gets rep.
"One"?

tk13
08-01-2006, 10:13 PM
The Who?

Pitt Gorilla
08-01-2006, 10:13 PM
Christian bands are fine as long as they don't use the word "sanctify."

Guru
08-01-2006, 10:15 PM
"One"?


You got it. I know it was really kind of obvious but most people are not aware how close this band came to breaking up. It is amazing how important that ONE song truly was.

Guru
08-01-2006, 10:15 PM
Christian bands are fine as long as they don't use the word "sanctify."


Not a Simple Minds fan eh?

jAZ
08-01-2006, 10:16 PM
Tom Petty
I'd say you could make an argument for TP. Though I'd say there is a pretty big gap between U2 and TP.
AC/DC
Similar to the Rolling Stones, I don't think AC/DC's been able to stay as relevant over time. We listen to their old stuff more than anything recent. And by a wide margin. I don't think that's quite the same with U2.

Pitt Gorilla
08-01-2006, 10:16 PM
He's certainly been infulential in his genre. But that seems more due to his OzzFest touring and TV shows. Has he had much actual success with his new albums?

He certainly deserves to be mentioned, even if it's just for bringing back Heavy Metal with his tour.His own albums (minus compilations like the essential) haven't been great. But his collaborations have been good and keep him going strong. Stillborn with Black Label Society and Shock the Monkey with (dang, I forget) were both quite good.

jAZ
08-01-2006, 10:16 PM
You got it. I know it was really kind of obvious but most people are not aware how close this band came to breaking up. It is amazing how important that ONE song truly was.
I had no idea, personally. And to be fair, my wife deserves the rep. It was her answer.

Pitt Gorilla
08-01-2006, 10:18 PM
Coal Chamber.

Guru
08-01-2006, 10:18 PM
I had no idea, personally. And to be fair, my wife deserves the rep. It was her answer.


Good job Mrs. Jaz. You got a good woman there Jaz.

Nzoner
08-01-2006, 10:20 PM
Halfcan should be along anytime now

Guru
08-01-2006, 10:21 PM
Halfcan should be along anytime now


Hey, Rush rocks too.

MGRS13
08-01-2006, 10:22 PM
I'd say you could make an argument for TP. Though I'd say there is a pretty big gap between U2 and TP.
Uh if there is a gap it's because Tom Petty is a better song writer then any one in U2.
Similar to the Rolling Stones, I don't think AC/DC's been able to stay as relevant over time. We listen to their old stuff more than anything recent. And by a wide margin. I don't think that's quite the same with U2.
Again I think AC/DC has stayed very relevant over time Thunderstruck is as good as Jailbreak and Baqck in Black. Besides if Bono died do you think they could replace him and continue to stay on the same pace they are still on?

jAZ
08-01-2006, 10:23 PM
Good job Mrs. Jaz. You got a good woman there Jaz.
I had to go do a search... here's a bit more detail on the song and the story you mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_(U2_song)

One (U2 song)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"One" is the third single from U2's 1991 album, Achtung Baby, and was released in 1992. A fan favourite, this rock ballad is considered to be one of the greatest U2 songs of all time. In 2006, it was voted as having Britain's Best Lyric, as voted by the public of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

Creation
During the recording of Achtung Baby, tensions in the band began to rise over the direction of the album. Bono and The Edge favored electronica and dance music explorations, while Larry Mullen Jr. and Adam Clayton did not. U2 was on the brink of breaking up when the band rallied around a riff The Edge was trying to write for the bridge of "Ultra Violet (Light My Way)". It inspired the band to write "One", and it changed the band's outlook on the album, helping bring a renewed sense of optimism towards the material they had already recorded. Leaving Berlin on a high note, the band was able to complete the rest of the album in Dublin.

Meaning
"One" has many debated meanings. The ambiguity is likely the main aspect that popularizes the song, allowing for many different interpretations. There are 3 video versions to the song which add to the discussions. One of them suggests that it's about a gay son confessing to his father that he is HIV-positive—largely assumed because of the content of the original video, directed by Anton Corbijn, in which Bono](dressed in drag) sings the song to his own father. It is filmed in Berlin and has footage of the band driving in Trabant cars. Also, a large amount of sales from the single went to AIDS charities. The second version has footage of blooming flowers and buffalos, interspersed with numerous black title cards featuring the word 'one' in white lettering, depicted in numerous languages. The buffalos in the video originate from photo by David Wojnarowicz, a gay artist who died of AIDS. The photo is on the cover of the single. Yet another version of the video shows Bono in a bar, smoking a cheroot and drinking beer. This video with moody lighting and camera angles has been criticised for looking too much like a Heineken commercial, though it proved to be popular with fans.

The most basic interpretation suggests the song to be about two people who love each other, but hurt each other too much to continue with their relationship, which is a prominent lyrical theme. The Edge in Q magazine said, "I often come across people who've told me they played it at their wedding, And I think, 'Have you listened to the lyrics? It's not that kind of a song'". Others interpret the song as achieving oneness in the spiritual sense, while yet another point of view suggests that it's about the reunification of East and West Germany and the subsequent, slow healing of past wounds as the Berlin Wall collapses. This particular one is popular due to the time the band spent in Germany during the album's creation.

However, the most popular interpretation suggests that the song is about Bono's lifelong relationship with his father, based on their shared experiences following the death of Bono's mother when he was 14.

Popularity
"One" was recently voted the 5th most popular song of all time, in a poll conducted by Sony. It has been covered by Johnny Cash on his 2000 album American III: Solitary Man, produced by Rick Rubin. Joe Cocker covered "One" on his 2005 album, Heart & Soul. It also featured as a regular song during his set on his Heart & Soul World Tour. The List of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time places it at #36 (the highest position for a U2 song), while a similar Q magazine poll has the song topping the chart.

In 2005, U2 performed "One" along with "Beautiful Day" and "Vertigo" at Live 8 in Hyde Park, London. On September 9, 2005, U2 performed "One" with Mary J. Blige for Shelter from the Storm: A Concert for the Gulf Coast and again at the 2006 Grammy Awards (alongside "Vertigo"). The collaboration was later reprised and released as a single.

The "Miss Sarajevo" single contains a different live version of the song, recorded at the Pavarotti and Friends concert in Modena, backed by an orchestra.

Due to its gentle musical-wise disposition, the song is often found played as a part of incidental background music in shopping malls and places of gathering. It is also known as the love theme in the TV series Melrose Place — a fun fact considering Edge's comment on its lyrical suitability to the subject matter.

The popular Israeli radio station Galgalatz ranked "One" as the best song of the 20th Century. In April 2006 it was voted as having Britain's number one lyric- "One life, with each other, sisters, brothers"- by a VH1 poll.[1]

Lighthouse Family (Free/One)
The song "(I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel To Be) Free - One" by the Lighthouse Family is related to this song. This band does use some of U2's "One" lyrics. This song was released in 2001 and reached to #6 in the UK charts. This song is also in the album "Whatever Gets You Through The Day", which has reached platinum status.

Guru
08-01-2006, 10:25 PM
I had to go do a search... here's a bit more detail on the song and the story you mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_(U2_song)

One (U2 song)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"One" is the third single from U2's 1991 album, Achtung Baby, and was released in 1992. A fan favourite, this rock ballad is considered to be one of the greatest U2 songs of all time. In 2006, it was voted as having Britain's Best Lyric, as voted by the public of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

Creation
During the recording of Achtung Baby, tensions in the band began to rise over the direction of the album. Bono and The Edge favored electronica and dance music explorations, while Larry Mullen Jr. and Adam Clayton did not. U2 was on the brink of breaking up when the band rallied around a riff The Edge was trying to write for the bridge of "Ultra Violet (Light My Way)". It inspired the band to write "One", and it changed the band's outlook on the album, helping bring a renewed sense of optimism towards the material they had already recorded. Leaving Berlin on a high note, the band was able to complete the rest of the album in Dublin.

Meaning
"One" has many debated meanings. The ambiguity is likely the main aspect that popularizes the song, allowing for many different interpretations. There are 3 video versions to the song which add to the discussions. One of them suggests that it's about a gay son confessing to his father that he is HIV-positive—largely assumed because of the content of the original video, directed by Anton Corbijn, in which Bono](dressed in drag) sings the song to his own father. It is filmed in Berlin and has footage of the band driving in Trabant cars. Also, a large amount of sales from the single went to AIDS charities. The second version has footage of blooming flowers and buffalos, interspersed with numerous black title cards featuring the word 'one' in white lettering, depicted in numerous languages. The buffalos in the video originate from photo by David Wojnarowicz, a gay artist who died of AIDS. The photo is on the cover of the single. Yet another version of the video shows Bono in a bar, smoking a cheroot and drinking beer. This video with moody lighting and camera angles has been criticised for looking too much like a Heineken commercial, though it proved to be popular with fans.

The most basic interpretation suggests the song to be about two people who love each other, but hurt each other too much to continue with their relationship, which is a prominent lyrical theme. The Edge in Q magazine said, "I often come across people who've told me they played it at their wedding, And I think, 'Have you listened to the lyrics? It's not that kind of a song'". Others interpret the song as achieving oneness in the spiritual sense, while yet another point of view suggests that it's about the reunification of East and West Germany and the subsequent, slow healing of past wounds as the Berlin Wall collapses. This particular one is popular due to the time the band spent in Germany during the album's creation.

However, the most popular interpretation suggests that the song is about Bono's lifelong relationship with his father, based on their shared experiences following the death of Bono's mother when he was 14.

Popularity
"One" was recently voted the 5th most popular song of all time, in a poll conducted by Sony. It has been covered by Johnny Cash on his 2000 album American III: Solitary Man, produced by Rick Rubin. Joe Cocker covered "One" on his 2005 album, Heart & Soul. It also featured as a regular song during his set on his Heart & Soul World Tour. The List of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time places it at #36 (the highest position for a U2 song), while a similar Q magazine poll has the song topping the chart.

In 2005, U2 performed "One" along with "Beautiful Day" and "Vertigo" at Live 8 in Hyde Park, London. On September 9, 2005, U2 performed "One" with Mary J. Blige for Shelter from the Storm: A Concert for the Gulf Coast and again at the 2006 Grammy Awards (alongside "Vertigo"). The collaboration was later reprised and released as a single.

The "Miss Sarajevo" single contains a different live version of the song, recorded at the Pavarotti and Friends concert in Modena, backed by an orchestra.

Due to its gentle musical-wise disposition, the song is often found played as a part of incidental background music in shopping malls and places of gathering. It is also known as the love theme in the TV series Melrose Place — a fun fact considering Edge's comment on its lyrical suitability to the subject matter.

The popular Israeli radio station Galgalatz ranked "One" as the best song of the 20th Century. In April 2006 it was voted as having Britain's number one lyric- "One life, with each other, sisters, brothers"- by a VH1 poll.[1]

Lighthouse Family (Free/One)
The song "(I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel To Be) Free - One" by the Lighthouse Family is related to this song. This band does use some of U2's "One" lyrics. This song was released in 2001 and reached to #6 in the UK charts. This song is also in the album "Whatever Gets You Through The Day", which has reached platinum status.

Wikipedia rocks.

KCinNY
08-01-2006, 10:25 PM
U2 was the first big arena concert that I ever attended. 1985 at the Meadowlands during the Unforgettable Fire tour--right before they took off to superstardom.

It was an incredible show.

Nzoner
08-01-2006, 10:25 PM
Hey, Rush rocks too.

I have nothing against Rush,in fact in regards to longevity they as well as ZZ Top deserve major props.

Guru
08-01-2006, 10:26 PM
U2 was the first big arena concert that I ever attended. 1985 at the Meadowlands during the Unforgettable Fire tour--right before they took off to superstardom.

It was an incredible show.


My first concert with them was 92 on the ZooTV tour. Oh my god, what a friggin show that was. Nothing has topped that since.

jAZ
08-01-2006, 10:28 PM
Again I think AC/DC has stayed very relevant over time Thunderstruck is as good as Jailbreak and Baqck in Black. Besides if Bono died do you think they could replace him and continue to stay on the same pace they are still on?
Not to disrespect AC/DC. Your point about replacing the lead is a good one. But Thunderstruck is now 15 years old. Had I asked this question 15 years ago, I think a better case could have been made for AC/DC.

tk13
08-01-2006, 10:31 PM
I don't think this is a very fair question. You can't bring up a bunch of bands that were popular a couple decades ago, and put their twenty some odd years of popularity up against U2's twenty some odd years of popularity in the modern era. Of course U2 is more relevant to modern music, they're not as old!

Demonpenz
08-01-2006, 10:33 PM
red hot chilli peppers have been around for awhile and still turn out music that somehow doesn't get labeled sellout

MGRS13
08-01-2006, 10:35 PM
Not to disrespect AC/DC. Your point about replacing the lead is a good one. But Thunderstruck is now 15 years old. Had I asked this question 15 years ago, I think a better case could have been made for AC/DC.
Yea but sunday bloody sunday is 15 years old too. Many of U2's fans only listen to either new or old U2. You may like all of U2's material but almost all of the people I know havent bought a U2 record since Joshua tree myself included. Yet most of my 15 year old niece and her friends think U2 have only been around 5 years.
I bring up T. Petty and AC/DC only because everytime I meet someone no matter what tipe of music they are into everyone seems to like those two bands.

Guru
08-01-2006, 10:35 PM
I don't think this is a very fair question. You can't bring up a bunch of bands that were popular a couple decades ago, and put their twenty some odd years of popularity up against U2's twenty some odd years of popularity in the modern era. Of course U2 is more relevant to modern music, they're not as old!


If I have heard correctly, no other band has kept all of their original members as long as they have. 26 years and still going with no signs of letting up either.

I think they can be compared in any time period.

Pitt Gorilla
08-01-2006, 10:37 PM
red hot chilli peppers have been around for awhile and still turn out music that somehow doesn't get labeled selloutGood one. Their new stuff is pretty good. They haven't been around quite as long, though.

Did anyone mention Aerosmith? I must admit I lost interest after all of their stuff went "soft."

Pitt Gorilla
08-01-2006, 10:39 PM
Not a "rock" band, but Beastie Boys have been relevant for years and were just on a late night show a while back. To the Five was just as good as Paul's Boutique back in the day.

Mile High Mania
08-01-2006, 10:42 PM
Aerosmith.

Nzoner
08-01-2006, 10:42 PM
If I have heard correctly, no other band has kept all of their original members as long as they have. 26 years and still going with no signs of letting up either.

ZZ Top is in year 36

greg63
08-01-2006, 10:44 PM
U2 has always had a great sound and I have always liked the lyrical content of they're songs.

Guru
08-01-2006, 10:44 PM
ZZ Top is in year 36


I sit corrected. Of course, I don't care much for ZZ Top either so it is easy for me to look over them.

Seems like I heard at one point one of them had passed away. Assuming that was not true.

Nzoner
08-01-2006, 10:58 PM
I sit corrected. Of course, I don't care much for ZZ Top either so it is easy for me to look over them.

Seems like I heard at one point one of them had passed away. Assuming that was not true.

No they're still around,as for not liking them much it's unfortunate(at least to me)as ZZ is one of those bands that will forever be judged by the commercial success of one album(Eliminator)that got played to death thus turning off more than a few people.

Their 70's work which alot of younger people haven't taken the time to explore is some of the best boogie & blues rock ever released.

Reaper16
08-01-2006, 11:01 PM
rofl @ thread

jAZ
08-01-2006, 11:04 PM
Yea but sunday bloody sunday is 15 years old too. Many of U2's fans only listen to either new or old U2. You may like all of U2's material but almost all of the people I know havent bought a U2 record since Joshua tree myself included. Yet most of my 15 year old niece and her friends think U2 have only been around 5 years.
I bring up T. Petty and AC/DC only because everytime I meet someone no matter what tipe of music they are into everyone seems to like those two bands.
I'm 33 and I think I represent the "core" of U2's audience. Boy was huge when I first started getting into music. Joshua Tree was huge when I was in HS. Achtung Baby was huge while I was in college. I love all of their new stuff too. How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb is truely, truely a great album.

You are probably right that they have picked up a whole group of fans that had no idea they were around 20 years ago... and probably don't know anything about Sunday Bloody Sunday either. But that's the exact point of my question on this thread. AC/DC can't really make such a claim, because they stopped being "relevenant to modern music". That's not to say that AC/DC is worthless, just not the same type of band.

AC/DC's songs from 20 years ago stand the test of time. But they haven't been able to keep up that level of appeal today. Same with the Rolling Stones. Same with Paul McCartney (and the Beatles). Though, I'd bet Lennon could have lasted in the same way as Bruce has.

tk13
08-01-2006, 11:09 PM
I'm 33 and I think I represent the "core" of U2's audience. Boy was huge when I first started getting into music. Joshua Tree was huge when I was in HS. Achtung Baby was huge while I was in college. I love all of their new stuff too. How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb is truely, truely a great album.

You are probably right that they have picked up a whole group of fans that had no idea they were around 20 years ago... and probably don't know anything about Sunday Bloody Sunday either. But that's the exact point of my question on this thread. AC/DC can't really make such a claim, because they stopped being "relevenant to modern music". That's not to say that AC/DC is worthless, just not the same type of band.

AC/DC's songs from 20 years ago stand the test of time. But they haven't been able to keep up that level of appeal today. Same with the Rolling Stones. Same with Paul McCartney (and the Beatles). Though, I'd bet Lennon could have lasted in the same way as Bruce has.
Yeah, but maybe in another 15 years, we'll be talking about Coldplay or somebody else the way you are U2 now. I think it's tough to compare bands who started in the 60's to a band who became famous in the 80's and use "modern music" as the criteria. Depends on what you mean by the initial question. There were bands in the 60's who made "modern" relevant music into the 80's that did it for a long time... like the Rolling Stones aren't as relevant now... but they were for a loooong time.

jAZ
08-01-2006, 11:13 PM
Aerosmith.
Yep... I'd say they fit. Though they are either in a dry spell now or something.

Guru
08-01-2006, 11:15 PM
No they're still around,as for not liking them much it's unfortunate(at least to me)as ZZ is one of those bands that will forever be judged by the commercial success of one album(Eliminator)that got played to death thus turning off more than a few people.

Their 70's work which alot of younger people haven't taken the time to explore is some of the best boogie & blues rock ever released.


I liked them on Eliminator and some of the old stuff. They just were not a band I wanted to buy the music from. Ok to listen to but couldn't fork the dough over for them.

jAZ
08-01-2006, 11:18 PM
Yeah, but maybe in another 15 years, we'll be talking about Coldplay or somebody else the way you are U2 now. I think it's tough to compare bands who started in the 60's to a band who became famous in the 80's and use "modern music" as the criteria. Depends on what you mean by the initial question. There were bands in the 60's who made "modern" relevant music into the 80's that did it for a long time... like the Rolling Stones aren't as relevant now... but they were for a loooong time.
Yeah, I was just talking to my wife about this question and in doing so I made the point (without realizing it) that you could look at "relevant to modern music" in one of at least 2 ways.

I've been looking at relevenat to today's music scene (2006).

But it's a similar question to roll the clock back 10 years before U2 started, look at those bands and see if they were "relevant" to "modern music" as it existed 10 years ago. Or 15 or 20 years.

What band was still relevant to any music scene 20+ years after they first became massively successful? Looking at it that way, I'd say AC/DC surely fits in that group. As does the Rolling Stones. Same with Aerosmith. And definately ZZ Top.

Quite a few more bands in fact.

Mile High Mania
08-01-2006, 11:19 PM
Yep... I'd say they fit. Though they are either in a dry spell now or something.

All bands do... there was a stretch of time when many wondered what was up with U2.

tk13
08-01-2006, 11:21 PM
Another group I'd throw in there.. and I'll get laughed at for this... but I would probably throw the Bee Gees in there. There's a band who changed tremendously over the years, definitely changing as trends in music changed, wrote tons of successful songs for other artists in all genres of music, and had new music of theirs get radio play in five different decades. That is tough. I'd probably have to think about it some more but they might be my answer to the question.

OnTheWarpath58
08-01-2006, 11:24 PM
Another group I'd throw in there.. and I'll get laughed at for this... but I would probably throw the Bee Gees in there. There's a band who changed tremendously over the years, definitely changing as trends in music changed, wrote tons of successful songs for other artists in all genres of music, and had new music of theirs get radio play in five different decades. That is tough. I'd probably have to think about it some more but they might be my answer to the question.

HA HA!

Guru
08-01-2006, 11:25 PM
HA HA!
ROFL ROFL

tk13
08-01-2006, 11:26 PM
Thank you, thank you.

Miles
08-01-2006, 11:27 PM
All bands do... there was a stretch of time when many wondered what was up with U2.

And it was a fairly long stretch. It was 9 years between Achtung Baby and All That You Can't Leave Behind. Hell I can't even think of a single song from that period other than the one used in Batman Forever.

Guru
08-01-2006, 11:30 PM
And it was a fairly long stretch. It was 9 years between Achtung Baby and All That You Can't Leave Behind. Hell I can't even think of a single song from that period other than the one used in Batman Forever.


That was the Zooropa album period. They won a Grammy for best Alternative performance on an album. 94 I believe. Then they released POP which was rushed. Still good though. They said they will never rush an album again after that.

tk13
08-01-2006, 11:30 PM
And it was a fairly long stretch. It was 9 years between Achtung Baby and All That You Can't Leave Behind. Hell I can't even think of a single song from that period other than the one used in Batman Forever.
Zooropa and Pop were the albums in there, weren't they? I was just a teenager, but I don't recall those albums being nearly as popular as the 80's stuff and the 2000's stuff. On their 1990-2000 greatest hits album, U2 re-did a lot of those songs.

Miles
08-01-2006, 11:35 PM
Zooropa and Pop were the albums in there, weren't they? I was just a teenager, but I don't recall those albums being nearly as popular as the 80's stuff and the 2000's stuff. On their 1990-2000 greatest hits album, U2 re-did a lot of those songs.

Yeah I had to look it up because I couldn't remember exactly. Granted I haven't listed to either in a long time but I don't really know anyone that really likes them and most of my friends hated both albums at the time. Definitly seemed less popular.

Guru
08-01-2006, 11:38 PM
Yeah I had to look it up because I couldn't remember exactly. Granted I haven't listed to either in a long time but I don't really know anyone that really likes them and most of my friends hated both albums at the time. Definitly seemed less popular.


I thought they were great, just not what the masses wanted from them.

I am biased though too. :)

jAZ
08-01-2006, 11:43 PM
Zooropa has aged well. It was underwhelming at the time, but it's sounds much better today.

Pitt Gorilla
08-01-2006, 11:51 PM
Not a "rock" band, but Beastie Boys have been relevant for years and were just on a late night show a while back. To the Five was just as good as Paul's Boutique back in the day.Anyone? Clearly I'm not still relevant...:)

The Dude Abides
08-02-2006, 02:01 AM
Sorry, U2 sucks. no offense

big nasty kcnut
08-02-2006, 02:16 AM
U2 is a greatest band ever. They bring many generations together.

KcMizzou
08-02-2006, 02:22 AM
I'm not a big U2 fan, but I respect what they've done.

alanm
08-02-2006, 02:24 AM
Another group I'd throw in there.. and I'll get laughed at for this... but I would probably throw the Bee Gees in there. There's a band who changed tremendously over the years, definitely changing as trends in music changed, wrote tons of successful songs for other artists in all genres of music, and had new music of theirs get radio play in five different decades. That is tough. I'd probably have to think about it some more but they might be my answer to the question.
Well if you're throwing the Bee Gees hat in the ring. I'd throw the Kinks in there as well. They were relevant from the mid 60's til the early 90's.

KcMizzou
08-02-2006, 02:27 AM
If tk13's has the balls to mention The Beegees... I've got to mention Aerosmith. Tyler and the boys have been at it since before I was born. I see them the way many people see The Rolling Stones.

Guru
08-02-2006, 02:28 AM
If tk13's has the balls to mention The Beegees... I've got to mention Aerosmith. Tyler and the boys have been at it since before I was born. I see them the way many people see The Rolling Stones.


Somebody already mentioned them. They were not ignored.

alanm
08-02-2006, 02:29 AM
If tk13's has the balls to mention The Beegees... I've got to mention Aerosmith. Tyler and the boys have been at it since before I was born. I see them the way many people see The Rolling Stones.
It's been mentioned. Thanks for playing. :) :D

KcMizzou
08-02-2006, 02:29 AM
Somebody already mentioned them. They were not ignored.Ah, thanks... that'll teach my lazy ass to read the thread.

PunkinDrublic
08-02-2006, 03:20 AM
No love for Neil Young?

el borracho
08-02-2006, 03:32 AM
Long, long careers with success throughout:
Elvis
Aerosmith
Madonna
Bob Dylan
Kiss

StcChief
08-02-2006, 06:48 AM
Disagree about the Rolling Stones. Last 10 years not as much influence.
what about the first 30 years.

Alot of bands 70s-80s band starting with Aerosmith etc built off the Rolling Stones.

jspchief
08-02-2006, 07:08 AM
I never got U2. IMO they are hands down the most over-rated band to ever hit the airwaves.

But cleally they have a fanbase (granted it's mostly Euro idiots at this stage)

Demonpenz
08-02-2006, 07:40 AM
Anyone? Clearly I'm not still relevant...:)


I never even hear beasties on the hip hop scene they are always on the alternative scene more than the hip hop. I like them they also have the best video ever sabatoge which was came out 10 years before all the retro movies and tv shows we have out now.

chagrin
08-02-2006, 07:58 AM
when you write this:

Rolling Stones?
Never reached U2's level of success with with their recent (last 10 years) stuff.

What do you mean, album sales, or revenue?

Rolling Stones have been in the top 5-10 revenue genrating bands (directly tied to their music, and including their tours) for over 20 years now. Obviously they have "styed relevant" for over 40 years. Once U2 does that, then go ahead and put them in the same breath as The Rolling Stones.

Based upon that, your statement is false.

But U2 has indeed "stayed relevant" for 20 years now, a damn fine achievement. Remember, in 1983 they just began to hit it big with "mainstream" USA kids, adults. You can try to tell me that everybody knew them before that, but that would be false as well.

Anyway, not trying to argue, just debate the facts

chagrin
08-02-2006, 08:00 AM
No love for Neil Young?


Even though I hate the guy, he has had a definite level of influence - although I don't think his albums light it up either.

chagrin
08-02-2006, 08:01 AM
Just noticed this, "I can't think of another band from the rock and roll era who had such a long and continually relevant career."

That's ridiculous! How old are you?

Zman
08-02-2006, 08:08 AM
I CAN'T BELIEVE ANYONE WOULD SAY ROCK BAND AND U2 IN THE SAME BREATH!!!

ISUJeff
08-02-2006, 08:26 AM
Although currently not as popular with the mainstream as U2, The Allman Brothers Band deserves mention. Probably the most influential American band in the 70's.
They did disappear in the 80's (rehab), but put out some very solid albums in the 90's, both commercially and critically.
Finally, Hittin' the Note, which came out in 2004 is probably their best album since the early 70's.

That's over 30 years of relevance, so figured somebody needed to mention them.

htismaqe
08-02-2006, 08:40 AM
Is U2 relevant to modern music? Absolutely.

That's because they suck, much like the rest of current popular music.

greg63
08-02-2006, 09:15 AM
Sorry, U2 sucks. no offense


Is U2 relevant to modern music? Absolutely.

That's because they suck, much like the rest of current popular music.

...BLASPHEMY!!! :p

Reaper16
08-02-2006, 12:23 PM
Is U2 relevant to modern music? Absolutely.

That's because they suck, much like the rest of current popular music.
A winner is you

jAZ
08-02-2006, 12:31 PM
...with with their recent (last 10 years) stuff.

What do you mean, album sales, or revenue?
By "recent stuff" I mean new album/song sales. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Rolling Stones most recent albums don't compare to U2's new stuff. I don't have numbers, but that's my impression anyway. That's not to say that the Rolling Stones don't sell lots of albums today. They just aren't their new music as much as is the case with U2.

jAZ
08-02-2006, 12:33 PM
Just noticed this, "I can't think of another band from the rock and roll era who had such a long and continually relevant career."

That's ridiculous! How old are you?
33 and I'm talking about new music... not lasting influence of a bands older music.

jAZ
08-02-2006, 12:34 PM
The Allman Brothers Band deserves mention. Probably the most influential American band in the 70's.
They did disappear in the 80's (rehab), but put out some very solid albums in the 90's, ... commercially ...
Really? I missed that.

vailpass
08-02-2006, 12:36 PM
I'm watching their Vertigo/Chicago DVD and it occured to me that I can't think of another band from the pop era who had such a long and continually commercial career.




Fixed.

jAZ
08-02-2006, 12:40 PM
I didn't see Metallica metioned, but they are trying evolve enough to stay relevant. They have some work to do if compare more with U2 in this respect.

Another example that I have to sadly agree with is Madonna. I haven't liked her music since I was 12 years old (hey, she was hot when I was in 6th grade), but she's evolved and been able to stay popular and relevant over the same period as U2.

In fact, they both came on the music scene at nearly the exact same time.

jAZ
08-02-2006, 12:42 PM
Fixed.
I'd assume that you'd also prefer to classify The Beatles as "pop" music too, then?

vailpass
08-02-2006, 12:42 PM
I didn't see Metallica metioned, but they are trying evolve enough to stay relevant. They have some work to do if compare more with U2 in this respect.

Another example that I have to sadly agree with is Madonna. I haven't liked her music since I was 12 years old (hey, she was hot when I was in 6th grade), but she's evolved and been able to stay popular and relevant over the same period as U2.

In fact, they both came on the music scene at nearly the exact same time.

Agreed except that, like U2, Madonna is not rock and roll she is pop.
NTTAWWT.

vailpass
08-02-2006, 12:43 PM
I'd assume that you'd also prefer to classify The Beatles as "pop" music too, then?

If you put U2 in the same class as the Beatles then you and I have nothing further to discuss on the subject.
My God.

jAZ
08-02-2006, 12:48 PM
If you put U2 in the same class as the Beatles then you and I have nothing further to discuss on the subject.
My God.
Get over yourself.

I'm not trying to put them "in the same class" and you know it. I'm pointing out that both bands fall into the catagory of "rock music" in the same wildly-popular, sell-out, heart-throb, yet-very-influential sort of way.

Along with a huge list of other much less relevant, and far less "substantial" bands as well.

htismaqe
08-02-2006, 12:58 PM
I didn't see Metallica metioned, but they are trying evolve enough to stay relevant. They have some work to do if compare more with U2 in this respect.

Another example that I have to sadly agree with is Madonna. I haven't liked her music since I was 12 years old (hey, she was hot when I was in 6th grade), but she's evolved and been able to stay popular and relevant over the same period as U2.

In fact, they both came on the music scene at nearly the exact same time.

Metallica has already evolved. They don't have anymore work to do to compare with U2 - they suck enough already.

vailpass
08-02-2006, 01:01 PM
Get over yourself.

I'm not trying to put them "in the same class" and you know it. I'm pointing out that both bands fall into the catagory of "rock music" in the same wildly-popular, sell-out, heart-throb, yet-very-influential sort of way.

Along with a huge list of other much less relevant, and far less "substantial" bands as well.

Sorry you mistook my post as hostile, it wasn't intended that way. Music is very much a matter of individual interpretation and is probably not a good thing to argue over.

IMHO the Beatles were innovators that fundamentally added to the way music was played and heard, both lyrically and instrumentally.
IMO U2 are not.

htismaqe
08-02-2006, 01:14 PM
jAZ loves U2 because of their politics, not their music...

jAZ
08-02-2006, 01:16 PM
IMHO the Beatles were innovators that fundamentally added to the way music was played and heard, both lyrically and instrumentally.
IMO U2 are not.
My point is that your assessment about this is completely unrelated to both being similar in style. Neither band was "Hard Rock", and both bands have a very similar sensiblity that many would refuse to classify as "Rock".

How "innovative" you might feel the Beatles were or U2 wasn't... dosen't relate at all to the comparison I was making between the two.

jAZ
08-02-2006, 01:16 PM
jAZ loves U2 because of their politics, not their music...
Ur Smhart!

ISUJeff
08-02-2006, 01:27 PM
Really? I missed that.


Not huge sellers, that's for pop music anyway, but "Seven Turns" reached #53, "Shades of Two Worlds" #85, and "Where it all Begins" #45.

Realize none of those are huge sellers, but their best studio album (in my opinion), "Idlewild South" only reached #38 in 1970.

htismaqe
08-02-2006, 01:55 PM
Ur Smhart!

I see I hit the nail right on the head.

vailpass
08-02-2006, 01:56 PM
My point is that your assessment about this is completely unrelated to both being similar in style. Neither band was "Hard Rock", and both bands have a very similar sensiblity that many would refuse to classify as "Rock".

How "innovative" you might feel the Beatles were or U2 wasn't... dosen't relate at all to the comparison I was making between the two.

It's all politics with you isn't it jiz? Conversation with you =useless.

Pitt Gorilla
08-02-2006, 01:58 PM
It's all politics with you isn't it jiz? Conversation with you =useless.
That was politics?!?

chagrin
08-02-2006, 02:00 PM
33 and I'm talking about new music... not lasting influence of a bands older music.

Well, if that's the case - How did I misinterpret this:

"I'm watching their Vertigo/Chicago DVD and it occured to me that I can't think of another band from the rock and roll era who had such a long and continually relevant career."

That's all. I am not truly trying to be argumentative but I do believe that the statement in bold is incorrect.

Now, if you meant to say that, U2's newer music, over the past 5 years is better than The Rolling Stones (stones I use as an example) than that's one thing (even though I disagree), but Voodoo Lounge in 1995 kicked ass on anything U2 has put out since that time.

They also consistently top almost every other band in money, attendance for every single tour they do - not to mention album sales? Are you kidding? I wouldn't be suprised if The Stones, even in the past 10 years, have outsold U2.

I understand U2 does also make the list, money makers, but influential? I don't really hear U2 music in any other band out there today, however, you will see Keith and Mick mentioned thousands of times by current and past "new" bands as inspiration, and the Stones music in plenty of music.

chagrin
08-02-2006, 02:02 PM
Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, does not equate to the Stones older music, it was totally different. Dirty Work in the 80s, Remeber the Song Undercover Of The Night. Tattoo You, all different from the previous.

vailpass
08-02-2006, 02:03 PM
That was politics?!?

U2=bleeding heart anti-bush politics=jiz

Baby Lee
08-02-2006, 02:14 PM
"I'm watching their Vertigo/Chicago DVD and it occured to me that I can't think of another band from the rock and roll era who had such a long and continually relevant career."

. . .

Now, if you meant to say that, U2's newer music, over the past 5 years is better than The Rolling Stones (stones I use as an example) than that's one thing (even though I disagree), but Voodoo Lounge in 1995 kicked ass on anything U2 has put out since that time.
I think relevant is a nod to the 18-24 demographic. Bono can be seen on TRL or the MTV video awards today, not so much with Mick.
Not a knock on the Stones, but they made their audience in the 60s and 70s and maintained them. While U2, like the Beasties, or Aerosmith, keep picking up young followers.

Guru
08-02-2006, 02:20 PM
U2=bleeding heart anti-bush politics=jiz


They are not anti-bush.

vailpass
08-02-2006, 02:25 PM
They are not anti-bush.

could have sworn I heard Boner speaking agaisnt Bush and the US for not signing the Kyoto treaty. If I'm mistaken I stand corrected.

Guru
08-02-2006, 02:28 PM
could have sworn I heard Boner speaking agaisnt Bush and the US for not signing the Kyoto treaty. If I'm mistaken I stand corrected.


Being against one decision does not make anyone anti-bush. Bono has spoken about this before.

vailpass
08-02-2006, 02:46 PM
Being against one decision does not make anyone anti-bush. Bono has spoken about this before.
I have never taken 5 seconds to listen to Bono so I defer to your apparently more extensive experience.
To me he is another mega-wealthy media figure crying for the starving kids from the hand-sown calf leather seat of his private jet.

Baby Lee
08-02-2006, 03:08 PM
I have never taken 5 seconds to listen to Bono so I defer to your apparently more extensive experience.
To me he is another mega-wealthy media figure crying for the starving kids from the hand-sown calf leather seat of his private jet.
I think you're off base. Sure he's rich, and enjoys his riches. But he's not a whine-a-lot who cares more about moral superiority than results.
He has causes he supports and uses his profile to get results. That means he goes to the person who can facilitate results, regardless of political stripe, and works on measures to further his causes. Look up his interactions with the Bush admin regarding AIDS relief in Africa. 99 out of 100 'cause celebrities' would write off the Admin and use their profile to bash and be satisfied with exposure for the problem. Bono said "you lobby the people who can actually do something" and worked out unprecedented relief.
I may not stand shoulder to shoulder with him on every issue, but he exemplifies the kind of PRAGMATIC progressivism I applaud.

ChiefFripp
08-02-2006, 03:09 PM
Bono and the other chimps just needs to start doing straight up Pepsi commercials since that's what U2's music reminds me of.

stevieray
08-02-2006, 03:17 PM
Whether you love them or hate them, they're still getting your attention.

usually, any great band has controversey surrounding it.

Donger
08-02-2006, 03:28 PM
Dang. I wasn't even aware that U2 had made an album since Joshua Tree.

I knew that they did the music for Mission Impossible, or something.

vailpass
08-02-2006, 03:40 PM
I think you're off base. Sure he's rich, and enjoys his riches. But he's not a whine-a-lot who cares more about moral superiority than results.
He has causes he supports and uses his profile to get results. That means he goes to the person who can facilitate results, regardless of political stripe, and works on measures to further his causes. Look up his interactions with the Bush admin regarding AIDS relief in Africa. 99 out of 100 'cause celebrities' would write off the Admin and use their profile to bash and be satisfied with exposure for the problem. Bono said "you lobby the people who can actually do something" and worked out unprecedented relief.
I may not stand shoulder to shoulder with him on every issue, but he exemplifies the kind of PRAGMATIC progressivism I applaud.

You seem to be familiar with the situation; it sounds like the guy goes beyond lip service and works for a cause. Good on him. Thanks for the insight.

patteeu
08-02-2006, 04:37 PM
... he exemplifies the kind of PRAGMATIC progressivism ...

I'll have to check with penchief on that to verify. ;)

chagrin
08-02-2006, 04:57 PM
Whether you love them or hate them, they're still getting your attention.

usually, any great band has controversey surrounding it.

Dude, I love ya but, this is not entirely true - Marylin Manson had controversy, not a great band, nor a supremely talented individual.

58-4ever
08-02-2006, 05:00 PM
U2 sucks.

stevieray
08-02-2006, 05:03 PM
Dude, I love ya but, this is not entirely true - Marylin Manson had controversy, not a great band, nor a supremely talented individual.

MM doesn't sell out stadiums.

And you said it yourself, not a great band, only the controversy.

chagrin
08-02-2006, 05:04 PM
Not a knock on the Stones, but they made their audience in the 60s and 70s and maintained them. While U2, like the Beasties, or Aerosmith, keep picking up young followers.

I will tell you why I disagree on this point, to a degree.

I am not a favorite of "polls" but in 1997, I was working a radio station in Michigan - say what you will about the midwest and upper midwest, Michigan has a very diverse population - and we had a contest to win tickets for a Stones concert at Camp Randall in Madison (they were riding the wave of "Has Anyobody Seen My Baby" on the Babylon release), I also was the chaperone (spelling?) for one of the buses. We took about 200 people there. Less than 50% of them were over the age of 35 and all of them were HUGE fans of the Stones.

That's a sampling of 200 people but, I don't think those people were on the bus because they enjoyed riding 4 hours on a bus in the middle of friggin Wisconsin.

I'm just sayin, the thread title was definitive, if not he should make the distinction. It's obvious he is speaking from a semi political point of view and a point of view of someone who isn't that well versed in the music world. Seriously, he's only 3 years younger than I am, he should know better.

chagrin
08-02-2006, 05:05 PM
MM doesn't sell out stadiums.

And you said it yourself, not a great band, only the controversy.

Right, I was specifically referring to these words:

"...any great band has controversey surrounding it."

That's all, basically I was being picky, heh.

Logical
08-02-2006, 06:28 PM
I think you are forgetting that the Rolling Stones appeared on the scene at least 15 years before U2 and therefore has actually had a longer relevant run even if you discount the last 10 years. I would also say the Beach Boys had a longer relevant run. I could probably think of more but that will be all for now.

greg63
08-02-2006, 11:09 PM
I think you're off base. Sure he's rich, and enjoys his riches. But he's not a whine-a-lot who cares more about moral superiority than results.
He has causes he supports and uses his profile to get results. That means he goes to the person who can facilitate results, regardless of political stripe, and works on measures to further his causes. Look up his interactions with the Bush admin regarding AIDS relief in Africa. 99 out of 100 'cause celebrities' would write off the Admin and use their profile to bash and be satisfied with exposure for the problem. Bono said "you lobby the people who can actually do something" and worked out unprecedented relief.
I may not stand shoulder to shoulder with him on every issue, but he exemplifies the kind of PRAGMATIC progressivism I applaud.

Good post. :thumb:

Rausch
08-02-2006, 11:12 PM
Metallica has already evolved. They don't have anymore work to do to compare with U2 - they suck enough already.
ROFL

Rausch
08-02-2006, 11:16 PM
Well, if that's the case - How did I misinterpret this:

"I'm watching their Vertigo/Chicago DVD and it occured to me that I can't think of another band from the rock and roll era who had such a long and continually relevant career."


Pink Floyd

Hank Williams Jr.

Willie Nelson

Neil Young

Paul Simon (**** anyone who doesn't like Paul Simon.)

Peter Gabriel

Rolling Stones

Bob Dylan

jAZ
08-02-2006, 11:56 PM
Well, if that's the case - How did I misinterpret this:

"I'm watching their Vertigo/Chicago DVD and it occured to me that I can't think of another band from the rock and roll era who had such a long and continually relevant career."

That's all. I am not truly trying to be argumentative but I do believe that the statement in bold is incorrect.

Now, if you meant to say that, U2's newer music, over the past 5 years is better than The Rolling Stones (stones I use as an example) than that's one thing (even though I disagree), but Voodoo Lounge in 1995 kicked ass on anything U2 has put out since that time.

They also consistently top almost every other band in money, attendance for every single tour they do - not to mention album sales? Are you kidding? I wouldn't be suprised if The Stones, even in the past 10 years, have outsold U2.

I understand U2 does also make the list, money makers, but influential? I don't really hear U2 music in any other band out there today, however, you will see Keith and Mick mentioned thousands of times by current and past "new" bands as inspiration, and the Stones music in plenty of music.
I'm really not sure why this is confusing, but I'll try again.

By "continually relevant" I was refering to a band that keeps making new music that is equally popular today (or possibly more so) as their older songs.

The Rolling Stones *might* sell more albums in a given year than U2, but that doesn't mean that the Rolling Stones latest album sold anywhere near as many as U2's latest album.

It's the distinction a band that might be living off their glory days (Pink Floyd might be the best example of this) vs a band who's found a way to write new music that 25 years later that equally (or more) popular as their first big album 25 years earlier (U2).

Does that help?

KC Dan
08-03-2006, 12:04 AM
I'm really not sure why this is confusing, but I'll try again.

By "continually relevant" I was refering to a band that keeps making new music that is equally popular today (or possibly more so) as their older songs.

The Rolling Stones *might* sell more albums in a given year than U2, but that doesn't mean that the Rolling Stones latest album sold anywhere near as many as U2's latest album.

It's the distinction a band that might be living off their glory days (Pink Floyd might be the best example of this) vs a band who's found a way to write new music that 25 years later that equally (or more) popular as their first big album 25 years earlier (U2).

Does that help?
jaZ, I agree with you that U2 continues to make new albums that are currently on equal or much better than current artists. however, I seem to think of relevant over time as a band thats music continues to influence current and new artists and their music stands the test of time. While 20 years from now, should i live that long I will sing U2's praises like other "relevant" bands before them such as The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, the Eagles, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, Jimi Hendrix and the like. Those older bands unlike U2 are in their 60's thus making new, relevant music as today's better groups may be too much to ask. But, their relevance to the music industry, music lovers, music makers and the world in general cannot be underestimated. My take only...

Rausch
08-03-2006, 12:05 AM
jaZ, I agree with you that U2 continues to make new albums that are currently on equal or much better than current artists. however, I seem to think of relevant over time as a band thats music continues to influence current and new artists and their music stands the test of time. While 20 years from now, should i live that long I will sing U2's praises like other "relevant" bands before them such as The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, the Eagles, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, Jimi Hendrix and the like. Those older bands unlike U2 are in their 60's thus making new, relevant music as today's better groups may be too much to ask. But, their relevance to the music industry, music lovers, music makers and the world in general cannot be underestimated. My take only...

Agreed.

Saggysack
08-03-2006, 01:14 AM
I'm watching their Vertigo/Chicago DVD and it occured to me that I can't think of another band from the rock and roll era who had such a long and continually relevant career.

Ummm...

Red Hot Chili Peppers

jAZ
08-03-2006, 01:55 AM
jaZ, I agree with you that U2 continues to make new albums that are currently on equal or much better than current artists. however, I seem to think of relevant over time as a band thats music continues to influence current and new artists and their music stands the test of time. While 20 years from now, should i live that long I will sing U2's praises like other "relevant" bands before them such as The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, the Eagles, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, Jimi Hendrix and the like. Those older bands unlike U2 are in their 60's thus making new, relevant music as today's better groups may be too much to ask. But, their relevance to the music industry, music lovers, music makers and the world in general cannot be underestimated. My take only...
This thread has gotten long, but I recongized in an earlier post that another way to look at it (not how I was doing so in my opening post, but a valid way none-the-less) is to look at what other significant bands were doing 20 years after first making a name for themselves.

For the Rolling Stones that would be 1985. In their 40+ years of music they've sold a total of 67M albums.

http://www.beatzenith.com/the_rolling_stones/rssalzcerts.htm

* In 1986 they came out with Dirty Work (1M sales)
* In 1989 it was Steel Wheels (2M sales)
* In 1994 it was Voodoo Lounge (2M sales)
* In 1996 it was Bridges to Babylon (1M sales)
* In 2005 it was A Bigger Bang (1M sales)

Based on these numbers, RS sold 7M copies of their new studio albums made between 1986 - 2006. Since they have sold about 67M discs total over 40+ years that leaves the other 60M discs to be based on the music they made in the first 20 years (but sold over a period of 40 years).



Let's look at U2.

According to this link, they sold over 7M copies combined between their last 2 most recent albums...

http://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=37023&forum=5
(see the 3rd post down)

They've sold 28M studio albums during their first 20 years (1980-2000) and 7M copies of their last 2 albums.

Point being that U2 has sold as many new studio albums since they "turned 20" (7M between 2 releases over 5 years) as the Rolling Stones did since they "turned 20" (7M between 5 albums over 20 years).

jAZ
08-03-2006, 02:00 AM
Ummm...

Red Hot Chili Peppers
Someone else mentioned them and I'd say that's pretty fair compairson but I don't think they have ever had the reach that U2 has. That doesn't mean they wouldn't fit the criteria.

mcan
08-03-2006, 02:08 AM
Pink Floyd. From the '60s to '94.

The Eagles. From '71 to '95.

Ray Charles. Still charting when he died at 73 years old.

Aerosmith. Still making radio hits every couple of years.

These are the ones that stick out to me. Certainly all of the above are more marketable than U2.


edit: These are OBVIOUS, and I spaced em.

Eric Clapton: Far and away tops all of these. He's popular in EVERY genre, and with every crowd. He's charted songs on every album that he's made with several different bands. He's so damned popular that movies ask him to do soundtracks just about every year. He has two or three albums that are considered masterpieces by even the most casual of fans, and every time you turn around, he is coming out with something new.

Neil Young: I'd say between old Neil and U2 it's a toss up. But Neil's body of work so heavily outweighs U2's that it's astonishing. Neil doesn't 'chart' a lot of songs, but he makes albums that sell very well every couple of years. As far as 'relevance' he doesn't make music that isn't relevant. Of course, his stuff is heavily political. Not necessarily popular. But he's a damned ugly guy, and that hasn't helped him win over the MTV crowd.

mcan
08-03-2006, 02:28 AM
Aerosmith

Edit: but yeah, I agree.


Now I feel like a dumbass though. :banghead:

KcMizzou
08-03-2006, 02:31 AM
I didn't see a thing... *whistles*

mcan
08-03-2006, 02:36 AM
I didn't see a thing... *whistles*


That's rep right there...

Miles
08-03-2006, 02:43 AM
Pink Floyd. From the '60s to '94.

The Eagles. From '71 to '95.

Ray Charles. Still charting when he died at 73 years old.

Aerosmith. Still making radio hits every couple of years.

These are the ones that stick out to me. Certainly all of the above are more marketable than U2.


edit: These are OBVIOUS, and I spaced em.

Eric Clapton: Far and away tops all of these. He's popular in EVERY genre, and with every crowd. He's charted songs on every album that he's made with several different bands. He's so damned popular that movies ask him to do soundtracks just about every year. He has two or three albums that are considered masterpieces by even the most casual of fans, and every time you turn around, he is coming out with something new.

Neil Young: I'd say between old Neil and U2 it's a toss up. But Neil's body of work so heavily outweighs U2's that it's astonishing. Neil doesn't 'chart' a lot of songs, but he makes albums that sell very well every couple of years. As far as 'relevance' he doesn't make music that isn't relevant. Of course, his stuff is heavily political. Not necessarily popular. But he's a damned ugly guy, and that hasn't helped him win over the MTV crowd.

Great post. Young and Clapton are two of them that have been puting out solid stuff for the last 30 years or so. Another solo artist I would throw in with them is Bowie. He has been fairly hit or miss as of late though.

Saggysack
08-03-2006, 04:33 AM
Someone else mentioned them and I'd say that's pretty fair compairson but I don't think they have ever had the reach that U2 has. That doesn't mean they wouldn't fit the criteria.

Don't have the reach? Sure, maybe in 1991. I think you might underestimate RHCP's "reach".

Did you know that RHCP's newest album, Stadium Arcadium, a double album BTW, sold over a million copies in it's first week worldwide. They are presently at the top of the charts. Did you also know they hold the record for most #1 modern rock hits with 9 and most weeks spent on top of the charts at 72 weeks.

Now I'm no expert, but that looks like a pretty damn good reach to me. Wouldn't you say?

Not too damn bad for a funk band.

Saggysack
08-03-2006, 04:58 AM
Good one. Their new stuff is pretty good. They haven't been around quite as long, though.

23yrs is long enough to be in this group.

I got a good test for everyone. What one band has gone through as many changes(musically and members) as RHCP's and still has had as much success?

Just name one.

jAZ
07-21-2007, 11:46 PM
bump for Jim. ;)

DaFace
07-21-2007, 11:49 PM
Weird Al

Dr. Facebook Fever
07-21-2007, 11:52 PM
Gochiefs says U2 is the greatest band EEEVVVVVAAAAAARRRRRRR!!!!

FAX
07-21-2007, 11:55 PM
Is it just me, or does their material sound sort of ... homogeneous?

FAX

Logical
07-21-2007, 11:56 PM
I only disagreed so strongly with you because you said U2 equals the Beatles in one post and then in your previous post said they were the only ones to reinvent themselves, have an iconic lead singer (which the Beatles did not have), fit the label of pop rock, , melody.

Dr. Facebook Fever
07-21-2007, 11:57 PM
Is it just me, or does their material sound sort of ... homogeneous?

FAX
It's just you.

FAX
07-22-2007, 12:00 AM
I have a bit of a problem, too, with the term "reinventing" as applied to the Beatles.

I never looked at it that way. Instead, I saw it as an evolution in their music as they progressed in talent, experience, and comfort in the studio. Their music changed over time, that much is quite true. But, it wasn't the kind of "reinvention" commonly associated with the marketing or packaging of todays "artists".

FAX

FAX
07-22-2007, 12:01 AM
It's just you.

Thanks, Mr. beer me. I was afraid of that. Then, I must be the only person who thinks Michael Jackson sounds like a girl.

FAX

Douche Baggins
07-22-2007, 12:03 AM
Weird Al is a true artist.

jAZ
07-22-2007, 12:04 AM
I only disagreed so strongly with you because you said U2 equals the Beatles in one post and then in your previous post said they were the only ones to reinvent themselves, have an iconic lead singer (which the Beatles did not have), fit the label of pop rock, , melody.
I wasn't bumping in response to your comment. In fact I didn't notice your reply until after I was off looking for and had bumped this. I just remembered that we had already had a similar discussion not long ago.

KcMizzou
07-22-2007, 12:23 AM
Weird Al is a true comedian.

Fixed that for ya.

luv
07-22-2007, 12:24 AM
Fixed that for ya.
I dunno. He may do parodies, but the man can really sing. And how many people do you know who still play the accordian? :)

KcMizzou
07-22-2007, 12:41 AM
I dunno. He may do parodies, but the man can really sing. And how many people do you know who still play the accordian? :)Hey, I'm a fan.

Logical
07-22-2007, 01:04 AM
I dunno. He may do parodies, but the man can really sing. And how many people do you know who still play the accordian? :)Actually what is amazing is his ability to sound like so many diverse singers in doing his parody music.

HMc
07-22-2007, 05:03 AM
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=11worst

Felch83
07-22-2007, 07:07 AM
F### U2. They are beyond overrated.

The Chilli Peppers have been more relevant than them and much more musically talented. John Frusiante on the guitar is untouchable.

memyselfI
07-22-2007, 07:42 AM
Page/Plant reunion tour(s) was a disappointment???? :hmmm: To whom? Teeny boopers who know three LZ songs and were disappointed when Stairway wasn't one of the songs they covered?

Give me a break. They made their critically acclaimed and one of the best accoustic albums of all time with their "No Quarter" covers of their classics. Their special on MTV (back when MTV was still MTV) was one of the top rated of all of the network's specials. They sold out many venues with a tour that was designed NOT to be a Led Zeppelin reunion tour.

You could argue that their albums have not made a big splash and that would diminish your ideal of relevancy but very few acts in any genre (save for possibly country) are selling albums at the rates they used to sell.

memyselfI
07-22-2007, 07:49 AM
jAZ loves U2 because of their politics, not their music...

Uh, for most people it is possible to seperate the two. I love Chaka Kahn's music...

I loathe that she is a RWNJ.

aturnis
07-22-2007, 10:18 AM
F*ck Bono...

Brock
07-22-2007, 11:50 AM
The Joshua Tree was a long, long time ago.

Mojo Rising
07-22-2007, 05:47 PM
I guess U2 is cool if you like christian rock bands that charge an arm and a leg for ticket prices. They are probably very likeable to the Oprah crowd.

Bono and Oprah fans also seem to appreciate being told to send their money to help the hungry in Africa. That Oprah edpisode will usually be preceded by the one that shows one of her many multi-million dollar pads.

The 2 will then lear jet it over for a photo opp with the hungry.

Douche Baggins
07-22-2007, 05:49 PM
The 2 will then lear jet it over for a photo opp with the hungry.

8. How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb - U2 - Crumbs From Your Table

This song is about how America and its wealthiest people don't do enough to help solve world hunger. The title suggests that crumbs from our table could help starving people in Africa. Bono indicts America for being hypocritical with these lines:

Would you deny for others
What you demand for yourself?

Bono could not be reached for comment as he was stepping off his private jet and into his limousine.

Mr Luzcious
07-22-2007, 06:22 PM
His own albums (minus compilations like the essential) haven't been great. But his collaborations have been good and keep him going strong. Stillborn with Black Label Society and Shock the Monkey with (dang, I forget) were both quite good.

Coal Chamber?

Chiefspants
07-22-2007, 07:42 PM
U2's a very solid band