Red Mosquito

Honest question: How many people here are legitimately old enough to remember anything of significance about how the world perceived culture in 1987?

mray10 wrote:And while they played a mix of stadiums in the states from Joshua Tree era on, they've always been big enough for stadiums. Note in areas where they did arena shows, they were typically doing multiple nights.

Could be b/c I was 5. I don't doubt that Joshua Tree made them huge, but they definitely hit a lull during the 90s and ATYCLB made them the unquestionable biggest band in the world.

Kevin Davis wrote:Honest question: How many people here are legitimately old enough to remember anything of significance about how the world perceived culture in 1987?

What's old enough? I was 14 and definitely recall them being the biggest band in the world at the time - and, I wasn't even a fan of theirs at the time. I really think if they wanted to do the stadium shows, they could have.

The only other band I can remember having a big impact was Guns 'n Roses, but they really only appealed to the hard rock fans. They were pretty polarizing.

Kevin Davis wrote:Honest question: How many people here are legitimately old enough to remember anything of significance about how the world perceived culture in 1987?

I was 21 and saw U2 in 87. Director John Hughes taught us all about culture back then

14 and 21 both seem like they would be old enough to get an accurate enough picture.

Mainly I just saw Warehouse's post and assumed it must have been written by a thirteen year-old female, who consequently wouldn't have had much remembrance of 1987.

Kevin Davis wrote:Mainly I just saw Warehouse's post and assumed it must have been written by a thirteen year-old female.

thats just how i internet

I think it's hard for bands to ruin their legacies. Putting out a bad record or two in no way wipes out having released landscape changing albums. Ali shit all over his legacy and he's still Ali and still The Champ.
The big difference between U2 and Pearl Jam is that U2 weren't wide eyed idealists in their earliest days. The grew slowly and they've held onto their biggest idea, help for the poorest of the poor. The didn't even truly latch onto this idea until after War. Whereas Pearl Jam has been all over the map on their ideals and adherence to them but I don't think that affects their legacy.

surfndestroy wrote:The big difference between U2 and Pearl Jam is that U2 weren't wide eyed idealists in their earliest days. The grew slowly and they've held onto their biggest idea, help for the poorest of the poor. The didn't even truly latch onto this idea until after War. Whereas Pearl Jam has been all over the map on their ideals and adherence to them but I don't think that affects their legacy.

What?

U2 has made plenty of questionable moves in adherence to their supposed ideals. Not that I give a shit but I just found it to be an odd comparison vis-a-vis Pearl Jam.

Pearl Jam's legacy - Hurr Durr

Applicable story to the top at hand: REM RIP: Thank You for Running it Into the Ground

Past a band's peak, it's simply hit or miss with songs and you can't count on an entire album of greatness. Or you simply get older and music isn't an integral part of your life any longer.

I remember INXS being more enjoyable than U2.

nomorecrackpipes wrote:Applicable story to the top at hand: REM RIP: Thank You for Running it Into the Ground

Past a band's peak, it's simply hit or miss with songs and you can't count on an entire album of greatness. Or you simply get older and music isn't an integral part of your life any longer.

Thank you for the link.

warehouse wrote:

mray10 wrote:

Oh, Jimmy wrote:

Lament wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

Oh, Jimmy wrote:Think what you will of U2's more recent stuff, but it's catapulted them into playing stadiums and that seems pretty farfetched for PJ at the moment.

Haven't U2 been playing stadiums since the '80's?

Yeah. They've been a stadium act in Europe since The Unforgettable Fire, and in the US since The Joshua Tree. In 2001 and 2005 they opted to do arenas instead of stadiums in most of the world, but that was as much because of the make-up of their stage show as anything else. They've never lacked the ability to fill a football stadium in pretty much every major market.

They didn't start playing stadiums consistently til the Popmart tour, and going by their setlist archive they didn't play many before that, in the States that is. Only one pops up on the Joshua Tree tour. Anyway, I don't really remember anyone calling them the biggest band in the world til ATYCLB, so the more recent stuff has done quite a bit to enhance their legacy.

If this is true, then it's the fault of your own experience. They were absolutely bigger in 1987 than they were in 2001.

And while they played a mix of stadiums in the states from Joshua Tree era on, they've always been big enough for stadiums. Note in areas where they did arena shows, they were typically doing multiple nights.

r u drunk? they might have been better, but they were not bigger

The Joshua Tree was the fastest selling album in UK history when it came out. It spent six weeks at #1 there, and nine weeks at #1 in America. It's sold 25 million copies worldwide at this point. They had 2 #1 singles in America that year. They became only the third band ever to appear on the cover of Time Magazine.

ATYCLB spent a single week at #1 in the UK, only got to #3 in the US, and has sold less than half of what The Joshua Tree sold (12 million copies).

Lament wrote:

warehouse wrote:

mray10 wrote:

Oh, Jimmy wrote:

Lament wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

Oh, Jimmy wrote:Think what you will of U2's more recent stuff, but it's catapulted them into playing stadiums and that seems pretty farfetched for PJ at the moment.

Haven't U2 been playing stadiums since the '80's?

Yeah. They've been a stadium act in Europe since The Unforgettable Fire, and in the US since The Joshua Tree. In 2001 and 2005 they opted to do arenas instead of stadiums in most of the world, but that was as much because of the make-up of their stage show as anything else. They've never lacked the ability to fill a football stadium in pretty much every major market.

They didn't start playing stadiums consistently til the Popmart tour, and going by their setlist archive they didn't play many before that, in the States that is. Only one pops up on the Joshua Tree tour. Anyway, I don't really remember anyone calling them the biggest band in the world til ATYCLB, so the more recent stuff has done quite a bit to enhance their legacy.

If this is true, then it's the fault of your own experience. They were absolutely bigger in 1987 than they were in 2001.

And while they played a mix of stadiums in the states from Joshua Tree era on, they've always been big enough for stadiums. Note in areas where they did arena shows, they were typically doing multiple nights.

r u drunk? they might have been better, but they were not bigger

The Joshua Tree was the fastest selling album in UK history when it came out. It spent six weeks at #1 there, and nine weeks at #1 in America. It's sold 25 million copies worldwide at this point. They had 2 #1 singles in America that year. They became only the third band ever to appear on the cover of Time Magazine.

ATYCLB spent a single week at #1 in the UK, only got to #3 in the US, and has sold less than half of what The Joshua Tree sold (12 million copies).

Thanks, those are interesting #s. I still think they are bigger (more popular, wider audience) in 2001 then they were in 1987.

warehouse wrote:

Lament wrote:

warehouse wrote:

mray10 wrote:

Oh, Jimmy wrote:

Lament wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

Oh, Jimmy wrote:Think what you will of U2's more recent stuff, but it's catapulted them into playing stadiums and that seems pretty farfetched for PJ at the moment.

Haven't U2 been playing stadiums since the '80's?

Yeah. They've been a stadium act in Europe since The Unforgettable Fire, and in the US since The Joshua Tree. In 2001 and 2005 they opted to do arenas instead of stadiums in most of the world, but that was as much because of the make-up of their stage show as anything else. They've never lacked the ability to fill a football stadium in pretty much every major market.

They didn't start playing stadiums consistently til the Popmart tour, and going by their setlist archive they didn't play many before that, in the States that is. Only one pops up on the Joshua Tree tour. Anyway, I don't really remember anyone calling them the biggest band in the world til ATYCLB, so the more recent stuff has done quite a bit to enhance their legacy.

If this is true, then it's the fault of your own experience. They were absolutely bigger in 1987 than they were in 2001.

And while they played a mix of stadiums in the states from Joshua Tree era on, they've always been big enough for stadiums. Note in areas where they did arena shows, they were typically doing multiple nights.

r u drunk? they might have been better, but they were not bigger

The Joshua Tree was the fastest selling album in UK history when it came out. It spent six weeks at #1 there, and nine weeks at #1 in America. It's sold 25 million copies worldwide at this point. They had 2 #1 singles in America that year. They became only the third band ever to appear on the cover of Time Magazine.

ATYCLB spent a single week at #1 in the UK, only got to #3 in the US, and has sold less than half of what The Joshua Tree sold (12 million copies).

Thanks, those are interesting #s. I still think they are bigger (more popular, wider audience) in 2001 then they were in 1987.

That's just not true. Joshua Tree was one of those once in a career phenoms. Zeitgeist grabbing, like, where a band is rising with no end in sight. ATYCLB was the "comeback", it was big but it just re-validated the bigness they had earlier acheived. No comparison. Kind of like how Adele's 21 was except bigger .....

Tuolumne wrote: That's just not true. Joshua Tree was one of those once in a career phenoms. Zeitgeist grabbing, like, where a band is rising with no end in sight. ATYCLB was the "comeback", it was big but it just re-validated the bigness they had earlier acheived. No comparison. Kind of like how Adele's 21 was except bigger .....

well said

evenslow wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:The big difference between U2 and Pearl Jam is that U2 weren't wide eyed idealists in their earliest days. The grew slowly and they've held onto their biggest idea, help for the poorest of the poor. The didn't even truly latch onto this idea until after War. Whereas Pearl Jam has been all over the map on their ideals and adherence to them but I don't think that affects their legacy.

What?

U2 has made plenty of questionable moves in adherence to their supposed ideals. Not that I give a shit but I just found it to be an odd comparison vis-a-vis Pearl Jam.

What ideals do U2 have other than helping the poorest of the poor and a few human right issues they've latched onto?

Tuolumne wrote:

warehouse wrote:

Lament wrote:

warehouse wrote:

mray10 wrote:

Oh, Jimmy wrote:

Lament wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

Oh, Jimmy wrote:Think what you will of U2's more recent stuff, but it's catapulted them into playing stadiums and that seems pretty farfetched for PJ at the moment.

Haven't U2 been playing stadiums since the '80's?

Yeah. They've been a stadium act in Europe since The Unforgettable Fire, and in the US since The Joshua Tree. In 2001 and 2005 they opted to do arenas instead of stadiums in most of the world, but that was as much because of the make-up of their stage show as anything else. They've never lacked the ability to fill a football stadium in pretty much every major market.

They didn't start playing stadiums consistently til the Popmart tour, and going by their setlist archive they didn't play many before that, in the States that is. Only one pops up on the Joshua Tree tour. Anyway, I don't really remember anyone calling them the biggest band in the world til ATYCLB, so the more recent stuff has done quite a bit to enhance their legacy.

If this is true, then it's the fault of your own experience. They were absolutely bigger in 1987 than they were in 2001.

And while they played a mix of stadiums in the states from Joshua Tree era on, they've always been big enough for stadiums. Note in areas where they did arena shows, they were typically doing multiple nights.

r u drunk? they might have been better, but they were not bigger

The Joshua Tree was the fastest selling album in UK history when it came out. It spent six weeks at #1 there, and nine weeks at #1 in America. It's sold 25 million copies worldwide at this point. They had 2 #1 singles in America that year. They became only the third band ever to appear on the cover of Time Magazine.

ATYCLB spent a single week at #1 in the UK, only got to #3 in the US, and has sold less than half of what The Joshua Tree sold (12 million copies).

Thanks, those are interesting #s. I still think they are bigger (more popular, wider audience) in 2001 then they were in 1987.

That's just not true. Joshua Tree was one of those once in a career phenoms. Zeitgeist grabbing, like, where a band is rising with no end in sight. ATYCLB was the "comeback", it was big but it just re-validated the bigness they had earlier acheived. No comparison. Kind of like how Adele's 21 was except bigger .....

that’s an awesome comparison, maybe I was too young to remember

surfndestroy wrote:

evenslow wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:The big difference between U2 and Pearl Jam is that U2 weren't wide eyed idealists in their earliest days. The grew slowly and they've held onto their biggest idea, help for the poorest of the poor. The didn't even truly latch onto this idea until after War. Whereas Pearl Jam has been all over the map on their ideals and adherence to them but I don't think that affects their legacy.

What?

U2 has made plenty of questionable moves in adherence to their supposed ideals. Not that I give a shit but I just found it to be an odd comparison vis-a-vis Pearl Jam.

What ideals do U2 have other than helping the poorest of the poor and a few human right issues they've latched onto?

I'm not sure the comparison you're making here.

If it's a corporate comparison, U2 is about as corporate as it gets, so it's not like they're "better than" Pearl Jam in that arena.

If it's simply about "human rights" causes and the like, well then Pearl Jam has a long track record of stepping up for causes of all kinds (choice, environment, vote for change, Hurricane Katrina, bridge school benefits... those are just off the top of my head).

U2 were famous almost from the very beginning for being super idealistic socially conscious flag waving rock stars. REM wrote a song making fun of them for it.