U2 is the biggest band in the world. If ticket sales are the measure, then The Edge and pals overtook The Rolling Stones earlier this week. So they really should be at the height of their powers. In fact, it could be argued they’re all but finished.
Look at the evidence. The last U2 album ‘No Line On The Horizon’ sold comparatively poorly and only produced a sole, meagre minor hit. This was despite an enormous marketing push and BBC2 being rebranded in support of the record. The official line from the band was that it wasn’t really written to have mass appeal and lacked obvious singles. This is disingenuous to say the least. Indeed, it's akin to Spinal Tap’s ‘more selective appeal’ argument. If there's one band that makes records with the intention of selling truckloads , it’s these fellows.
The fact is, U2’s commercial potential is now entirely split. As a touring rock and roll show, they have proved they can put more denim clad bums on more plastic seats than any other act. No contest. But as a recording unit – considered as ‘artists’ if you like – their stock is visibly and rapidly diminishing. Do people want to watch the foursome cavort under a huge lighting rig in an enormodome? Indeed they do. In their thousands. But do punters want to hear a selection of unfamiliar new tracks from Dublin's finest on CD or MP3. Mm, not particularly, no.
This is a syndrome increasingly affecting a number of acts. Funnily enough, it was U2’s ticket flogging rivals, The Rolling Stones, who probably first exhibited the malaise. It's widely accepted that the Stones have failed to produce an album of real note since … well … ‘Emotional Rescue’, at a push. They could float a new album on the industry’s most engorged marketing budget and still only anticipate a modest success. Nobody is breathless with anticipation, awaiting new material from the Glimmer Twins.
But put the Stones on the road and you are looking at the business end of half a billion dollars in tickets and merchandising, guaranteed sell out houses and records broken every night. What's more, you can be sure someone will bung the whole deal on a DVD and a clutch of TV networks will jump over each other to screen it.
The two offerings are utterly distinct and one is as dubious as the other is spectacular.
There is no doubt in my mind, that Jagger, Richards, Watts and Wood are very comfortable with this arrangement and record new albums out of habit and contractual obligation, rather than feeling they have anything profound left to add to their portfolio. In truth, they only really exist as truck-bound nostalgia fest, albeit an entertaining one.
However, U2 would strenuously resist any similar description. It’s clear that Bono is certain the outfit has much music still to make, songs to write and points to score. Apart from him being that sort of guy, the band is founded on a semi-punk credibility, a ‘something to say’ philosophy that demands new, listened to, material. Whereas The Stones have always flogged themselves as a ‘good time’ blues band and therefore exclude themselves from any ‘spokespeople for a generation' pretentions.
For the Irishmen, this is an unfortunate position. Of course, it’s entirely possible the next U2 album will be so compelling, such an extraordinary return to form, that its sales will match their touring income and they will truly rule the world. But is that likely? And will their audience really prefer a set of their new numbers to ‘Pride’, ‘Where The Streets Have No Name’ and ‘I Will Follow’?
I’d say, it’s highly probable their records will continue to deliver diminishing returns while their tours will sell like towels in a sauna.
Then U2 will either have to break up or accept they have become the Rolling Stones of the 21st century.
Look at the evidence. The last U2 album ‘No Line On The Horizon’ sold comparatively poorly and only produced a sole, meagre minor hit. This was despite an enormous marketing push and BBC2 being rebranded in support of the record. The official line from the band was that it wasn’t really written to have mass appeal and lacked obvious singles. This is disingenuous to say the least. Indeed, it's akin to Spinal Tap’s ‘more selective appeal’ argument. If there's one band that makes records with the intention of selling truckloads , it’s these fellows.
The fact is, U2’s commercial potential is now entirely split. As a touring rock and roll show, they have proved they can put more denim clad bums on more plastic seats than any other act. No contest. But as a recording unit – considered as ‘artists’ if you like – their stock is visibly and rapidly diminishing. Do people want to watch the foursome cavort under a huge lighting rig in an enormodome? Indeed they do. In their thousands. But do punters want to hear a selection of unfamiliar new tracks from Dublin's finest on CD or MP3. Mm, not particularly, no.
This is a syndrome increasingly affecting a number of acts. Funnily enough, it was U2’s ticket flogging rivals, The Rolling Stones, who probably first exhibited the malaise. It's widely accepted that the Stones have failed to produce an album of real note since … well … ‘Emotional Rescue’, at a push. They could float a new album on the industry’s most engorged marketing budget and still only anticipate a modest success. Nobody is breathless with anticipation, awaiting new material from the Glimmer Twins.
But put the Stones on the road and you are looking at the business end of half a billion dollars in tickets and merchandising, guaranteed sell out houses and records broken every night. What's more, you can be sure someone will bung the whole deal on a DVD and a clutch of TV networks will jump over each other to screen it.
The two offerings are utterly distinct and one is as dubious as the other is spectacular.
There is no doubt in my mind, that Jagger, Richards, Watts and Wood are very comfortable with this arrangement and record new albums out of habit and contractual obligation, rather than feeling they have anything profound left to add to their portfolio. In truth, they only really exist as truck-bound nostalgia fest, albeit an entertaining one.
However, U2 would strenuously resist any similar description. It’s clear that Bono is certain the outfit has much music still to make, songs to write and points to score. Apart from him being that sort of guy, the band is founded on a semi-punk credibility, a ‘something to say’ philosophy that demands new, listened to, material. Whereas The Stones have always flogged themselves as a ‘good time’ blues band and therefore exclude themselves from any ‘spokespeople for a generation' pretentions.
For the Irishmen, this is an unfortunate position. Of course, it’s entirely possible the next U2 album will be so compelling, such an extraordinary return to form, that its sales will match their touring income and they will truly rule the world. But is that likely? And will their audience really prefer a set of their new numbers to ‘Pride’, ‘Where The Streets Have No Name’ and ‘I Will Follow’?
I’d say, it’s highly probable their records will continue to deliver diminishing returns while their tours will sell like towels in a sauna.
Then U2 will either have to break up or accept they have become the Rolling Stones of the 21st century.
