Re: Band of The 90's?? (probably not)

Robbie Robinson ([email protected])
Sun, 12 Jul 1998 19:14:03 -0700

Craig Heyrman wrote:
> U2 was the band of the 80's, and they've most certainly been one of the most
> consistent, and best selling bands of the 90's, but will they win awards in
> about a year as the Band of the 90's. It would be great if the won it back
> to back. However, for whatever reason, they've fallen out of the "real
> cool" category, and I'm afraid that they won't win it. However, they've
> probably made more money touring than any band during the 90's. I'd say
> that there only chance to win the band of the 90's would be if they come out
> with another album in mid 99. (Realistically, this won't happen.)
> So what does everyone think. Who will win the award as best band of the
> 90s? (U2, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Dave Matthews, Beck, Oasis, Weird Al??????)
> As far as the rumors about U2 working furiously right now on a new album,
> isn't there ANYONE on the Wire who has serious connections, or anyone from
> Dublin????? If someone out there is in Dublin or nearby, just go drive
> around and find out. Rumors suck. I could probably make up a story that U2
> is making a Rap/Gospel album and in a week there probably would be a couple
> of hundred thousand people believing it. I would love for U2 to make a new
> album, but with their track record, I am not expecting one to finally come
> out until after the turn of the century. (Look at Pop-it was delayed, and
> delayed, and delayed...and we have yet to hear an official word that they
> are even working on an album. And let's not forget that Bono blamed the
> lack of mega-success of Pop on the fact that they were pushed to finish the
> album!) Unless everything just clicks, don't expect them to come out with
> another album for a while. However, I wish they would.
> Also, does anyone know who does the rap at the end of the Howie B, Hairy B
> Discotheque Mix? Is that Bono???
I really don't know what you mean by "band of the 90's".
This is usually a designation some big magazine or
better know critic decides to risk their neck declaring.
It's usually very infulenced by the agenda of that magazine
or that critic's taste in music. In the frist month of 1985,
shortly after the release of The Unforgettable Fire, Rolling
Stone Magazine was crazy enough to turst their instincts and
put U2 on the cover with "Our Choice: Band of the 80's"
and then U2 came out with Joshua Tree. Everything locked in
place. When ZooTV and AB came along, the press went ballistic
again. "Band of the 90's" was mentioned here and there.
Popmart was a different type of tour, but as big if not bigger
than ZooTV. The difference is the perception the American media
has created of it. This time the powerful American media did their
best to destroy the tour instead of supporting it like they had the
last two times. Even with the damage that an antagonistic press can
cause, they still had the biggest tour in the world in 1997 and
sold more tickets in the USA than any other rock band that toured
that year. Bad press in America hurt album sales and they had only
sold about 2 million here after 7 months, but it was at about 7
million in world-wide sales.
(that's the only numbers we have until Polygram pays to have
another sales audit done)
The bad press not only hurt CD sales, I'm also sure it hurt
ticket sales. Lower than expected CD and ticket sales hurt
radio airplay. They wouldn't play the singles much. This in turn
hurt the CD and ticket sales. A bad loop to be in. Why don't
people and critics stand back and take a clear look at how
well U2 did in America considering how much was working against
them. Thank God the rest of the world didn't listen to the
American media.

I see no reason to think we won't be seeing a lot more of U2
between now and 2000. They're finally ready to start filming
"The Billion Dollar Hotel" and when "Entrophy" is released,
it'll be a perfect time to release the official U2 video since
it ties in with the movie. Also, if they're going to, it'd be a
great time to release a live or mixed live and studio album.
A Rattle and Hum situataion without the over-hype.

I've read about the various things beyond U2's control that caused
the delays on Pop and made them have to start the tour before they
were ready. I don't think they're going to take a year vacation
this time, I don't think they're planing to do a Passangers album
before the official U2 one this time, I don't think they're planning
to incorporate a whole new genera of music into their style this time,
I don't think they'll have to stop when the album is 3/4 done and
re-do a lot of it, I hope Larry won't have to have another operation
and Bono won't get sick.

I can't see how any of the other bands you named could qualify to
be called "band of the 90's".
Maybe Nirvana could have, but one of my requirements is that the
band has to survive the 90's:p
I don't even know if anybody in the press is gonna take the plunge
and name any one band the "band of the 90's".
If they just stand back and take a dispassionate look at what's
been accomplished by U2 in the 90's, they would win. I'm not holding
my breath until somebody in the media does that, though.
I don't think anybody takes the music press as seriously now as
they did in the 80's. At least, not in America.
Most of the music mags here aren't held in very high esteem
and are obviously controlled by corporate interests that don't
care much about music. The writting quality's gone downhill.
I don't think anybody really cares what they say, now.
It's just a bunch of music writers talking to each other and thinking
they really make much of a difference.
I switched to reading Hot Press and British music magazines years


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Sun Jul 12 1998 - 19:20:14 PDT