GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by popmarter:This time 35 years ago U2 went to number 1 in the states with JT for 9 weeks were on the cover of Time magazine and were basically omnipresent on Radio,TV and were playing the biggest stadiums 🏟 I wonder did that level of attention and fame affect them in latter years for eg the ITunes fiasco with SOI having the 9 hot shot producers on SOE spending millions on promotion,doing another JT tour and now all this talk of releasing their old classic songs in a stripped back arrangement just stinks of desperation and attempt at trying to be relevant .
    I think the negative effects the SOI release had on their image cannot be understated. It was a major fuck up, the biggest in their career. 8 years later people are still bitching about it whenever U2’s name is mentioned. It will forever be a huge blemish on their career. Unfortunately one of their most highly publicized moments.
  2. . Just because a few trolls moan about it ..
  3. I was with a friend yesterday and I put U2 on the car , the first thing he said was "Oh I remember they put an album on my I-phone, and those were not good songs"
  4. Originally posted by podiumboy:[..]
    I think the negative effects the SOI release had on their image cannot be understated. It was a major fuck up, the biggest in their career. 8 years later people are still bitching about it whenever U2’s name is mentioned. It will forever be a huge blemish on their career. Unfortunately one of their most highly publicized moments.
    Would anyone still be talking about “Songs of Innocence” if they hadn’t done the whole phone thing?
  5. No. But it caused people to hate the album by association. I think it’s a really good album, and I don’t see what there is to hate about it. But people hate it with a passion. It’s not just a few trolls either. I talk to people all the time who hate U2 because of that incident. It’s like it erased 30 previous years of great music for the general public.
  6. A lot of people love to hate on U2… always have. When they were having mediocre attendance at some of the Popmart concerts, the media latched onto that story and were practically frothing at the mouth. Meanwhile if Guns n Roses play to a half empty stadium nobody says shit about it.

    Just like if the Foo Fighters had released an album the same way SOI was released, everyone would be kissing Dave GROHL’S ass and talking about what innovators they are.

    But in the case of the SOI incident, U2 themselves threw the fuel on the fire. This isn’t like a few other blunders they’ve had, like Rattle and Hum underperforming at the box office, orPopmart’s opening night being a disaster. This was a major cultural event, and permanently gave U2 a bad name in the eyes of many people and media sources. I don’t think many people realize how damaging that was for them.
  7. Originally posted by podiumboy:[..]
    No. But it caused people to hate the album by association. I think it’s a really good album, and I don’t see what there is to hate about it. But people hate it with a passion. It’s not just a few trolls either. I talk to people all the time who hate U2 because of that incident. It’s like it erased 30 previous years of great music for the general public.
    The people hating on it probably were never going to give it a listen anyway. Same with the people who hate on Bono for his taxes, they probably weren’t going to tune in anyway…

    My cousin got a copy on her phone and actually enjoyed it. Said she hadn’t listened to anything they had done since Achtung Baby. Asked me if I’d arranged it for her. LOL. I hear from all kinds of people who know the album because of the “stunt” who don’t seem to hate that it’s on their phones. But yeah I do hear the negative side of it all frequently as well.

    It’s my least favourite album they’ve done in a long time. I really disliked the first handful of tracks. Liked a few things they did with Dangermouse towards the end of the album. And the phone stunt didn’t play into that opinion as I struggled to get it onto my phone because I had turned off the setting that allowed Apple to download and install items automatically. Just not a fan of the album.
  8. Originally posted by podiumboy:A lot of people love to hate on U2… always have. When they were having mediocre attendance at some of the Popmart concerts, the media latched onto that story and were practically frothing at the mouth. Meanwhile if Guns n Roses play to a half empty stadium nobody says shit about it.

    Just like if the Foo Fighters had released an album the same way SOI was released, everyone would be kissing Dave GROHL’S ass and talking about what innovators they are.

    But in the case of the SOI incident, U2 themselves threw the fuel on the fire. This isn’t like a few other blunders they’ve had, like Rattle and Hum underperforming at the box office, orPopmart’s opening night being a disaster. This was a major cultural event, and permanently gave U2 a bad name in the eyes of many people and media sources. I don’t think many people realize how damaging that was for them.
    It wasn't damaging commercially for them all their albums went back into the charts and stayed there for weeks 80 million heard the album in the first month and 26 million downloaded it ,every high school kid from Harlem to Hanover now knew who U2 were and most probably had their album on their ITunes playlist even if some of them didn't want it 🤣I
    I knew some people who objected to getting it forced on them but they'd say well I actually like Every Breaking wave ,The Troubles or California.
  9. all those who criticize Bono for evading taxes are in favor of political theft through them.
  10. Originally posted by Sydney_MIke:I'm a big fan of Wolf Alice who have now released three really good albums and attracted a lot of media buzz. Last night they played in Sydney to a crowd of about 3,000 and it struck me that at a similar stage in their career, U2 played 5 nights at a venue that held 12,000 fans. That's not to diminish Wolf Alice who, again I think are brilliant; but it does remind me of how big U2 got so quickly.
    The times they are a' changing, aren't they? No other band, current or past, can withstand the comparison with U2's career nowadays.

    Oasis got pretty big in the mid 90s (similar to U2 in the mid 80s) but they faded away just as quickly. Radiohead got big too but they're too weird/artsy to be the mainstream force that U2 were. Pearl Jam could have been just as big as U2 but they consciously chose to get away from media and not embrace massive popularity (unlike U2). Muse grew just as much, as healthily and as quickly as U2, selling out arenas around Europe after their 3rd album and stadiums after their 4th, but their timing wasn't right as their peak of popularity happened around the same time as the change in paradigm in music, with people's interest drifting from rock to hip hop and electronic pop. Muse tried (are still trying) to follow that trend but they're now too old for the newer generations to get genuinely interested in them.

    Unless the popularity of rock music starts growing massively again (which I don't think will happen in the foreseeable future), "big" new rock bands like Wolf Alice will be constrained to filling out smaller arenas and theatres, and just won't be able to jump to stadiums like U2 did in 1987. It's a shame.
  11. Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]
    The times they are a' changing, aren't they? No other band, current or past, can withstand the comparison with U2's career nowadays.

    Oasis got pretty big in the mid 90s (similar to U2 in the mid 80s) but they faded away just as quickly. Radiohead got big too but they're too weird/artsy to be the mainstream force that U2 were. Pearl Jam could have been just as big as U2 but they consciously chose to get away from media and not embrace massive popularity (unlike U2). Muse grew just as much, as healthily and as quickly as U2, selling out arenas around Europe after their 3rd album and stadiums after their 4th, but their timing wasn't right as their peak of popularity happened around the same time as the change in paradigm in music, with people's interest drifting from rock to hip hop and electronic pop. Muse tried (are still trying) to follow that trend but they're now too old for the newer generations to get genuinely interested in them.

    Unless the popularity of rock music starts growing massively again (which I don't think will happen in the foreseeable future), "big" new rock bands like Wolf Alice will be constrained to filling out smaller arenas and theatres, and just won't be able to jump to stadiums like U2 did in 1987. It's a shame.
    The biggest difference between U2 and the others mentioned (and most others in general) is how big they made it everywhere at pretty much the same time. Oasis were playing big shows in Europe in 95/96 and still supported u2 in the states in 97 at half empty venues for their third album.

    Coldplay are the only ones that I can quickly think of (at recently) with a similar timeline to U2 and even then their move to full time stadiums was 12 years since first album rather than U2 at seven.
  12. In saying that Dire Straits popularity in Australia in 85/86 odd was astronomical probably to the likes of being some of the craziest numbers ever seen around the world especially per capita. And they were big elsewhere then too.