In terms of collectibility or popularity that is. I believe sometime back in the mid-to-late 80s TIME magazine declared that U2 may be the second-most popular band in music history after The Beatles.

I think this may still indeed be true when looking at the entire scope of popular music history. Their world influence cannot be denied. Now, of course, I think the Stones are right there. However, I don't think Bono will ever pass Mick as an icon, although Bono is hard to top as a humanitarian.

So who comes in second after The Beatles? There will be the Zeppelin fans. But their popular influence simply does not touch U2. It's not close.

Oh...but let's not forget One Direction. (LOL!!!)

Views: 1927

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

True, an early, unfortunate death near the top of your game seems to solidify immortality.

But I think U2 has reached immortality in this life already. And, I believe that like Michael Jackson, Bono wants to make the world a better place.
The question was as far as collectability and popularity. So in that case, one has to remember that these guys are still around to sign. So I'm assuming obtaining isn't rare? Not familiar with their signing habits so I could be wrong. But as far as value- with that in mind, I wouldn't expect the value of a full set to be too outrageous. And popularity, whether you personally like them or not, the demand is obviously there for their sigs. Is that demand as strong as that of The Rolling Stones? Not from what I've seen. Even as a fellow U2 fan, I'd say they probably don't rank in the top 5 in this case. That's not to diminish the things they accomplished in their career, that's just (from what I've seen) the reality of it.

Bono and the Edge remain good signers to their fans. Adam has always been gracious to fans but was somewhat less accessible. Larry was the tough one, though I've seen some indications of him lightening up a bit on this tour.  Getting a full set has generally been a bit tougher the the past 10 - 15 years though.

I have heard (and saw a YouTube video) that Bono will go out of his way to sign for fans - that he likes to sign autographs for fans.

On top of that, I have heard that he is one of the nicest people in music. He is very friendly and really loves people. It is evidence that his humanitarianism is not just an act or gimmick for publicity. He really wants to help make the world a better place. He is a Christian who actually lives and practices Christianity out in the world.
I will agree that in terms of collectibility they are not in the Top 5. Their autographs are certainly not as valuable as the Stones or the Beatles or Queen and others. U2 autographs are not as rare.

But in terms of album sales and concert sales, only the Beatles rank higher.

And no band has as many Grammy Awards as U2.

Might depend a little on which signed items.  I have two Rolling Stones limited edition lithographs.  The Tattoo You is one of the gems of my entire collection.  Only 50 produced.  I also have a Bridges to Babylon.  That lithograph is not worth as much as 3 different U2 full sets that I have: Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum, both signed on the inside gatefold, and the iconic Joshua Tree lithograph.  If I consigned either LP and the Bridges to Babylon in the same auction, my guess is that the U2 would do better. 

I'm a big U2 fan and think this is a wonderfully interesting discussion.  In terms of music innovation, a band I've always admired is Dave Matthews Band.  Don't know that anyone will ever consider DMB iconic.  But musically they were unlike anything else.  Early DMB shows were unbelievable.  At the time, to bring out music with no real lead guitar and featuring sax and violin was very different.  When you add Tim Reynolds, it takes the acoustic performance to the highest level.  Dave and Tim Live at Luther College still one of my favorite albums. 

U2 superfan Mark Baker is on this forum, and he just this week had an experience I'm sure he'd love to share.  The band flew him (and some other bug fans) to Paris, brought him to the show, brought him on stage . . . experience of a lifetime.

Despite their magnitude, this band is good to their fans.

The Beatles have the distinction of being the only band that has the top selling album in two different decades. In the 60's with Sgt. Pepper and the 2000's with 1.

I am not being disrespectful of anyone's fandom. I openly admit I am not really into U2. I just look at The Beatles cultural significance and how they elevated other bands within the same decade and don't see a comparison with U2. They are for sure popular. Probably the top selling live band too.

Maybe I am basing it off my own taste, I apologize, I personally don't put them in my top 20. However while thinking about their global popularity is high...But then again so is One Direction too.

I think longevity, durability and the diversity of the fan base - among other things - differentiates them from OD a bit.

Always curious about the Beatles' legacy as a live act, as I never hear much about that aspect.  We know how many of the other greats stand as superior live acts - AC/DC, The Stones, Bruce, U2, etc all have earned a significant part of their towering legacies through superior live performances over the years.  I never hear much about the Beatles. Granted, it doesn't really seem to matter to anyone, but my guess is that they were no where near the upper echelon in terms of live presence. 

Well their setlists normally lasted 30 minutes and you couldn't hear them. That is why they stopped touring in 66. However in Hamburg they would play for hours at a time in the clubs.

U2 does owe it to The Beatles as they played the first stadium.

RSS

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2024   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service