You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: From sebastianbach.com
Axlin08 wrote:AIC are has beens too.
I guess my standards are tough. To me, a U2 is NOT a has been, but is getting there. Slowly Metallica are slipping into has been territory.
Sorry U2's last album was good but wasn't that succesful commerically, has-been.
Metallica sorry by your logic they were has-beens when St Anger came out.
If we're using the Axlin kinda logic only the freshest of todays fresh music stars aren't has-beens.
Precisely. That's exactly how I feel.
I think people perceive it too much as a dirty word. But once you've hit the peak of commericial & cultural relevance, you're a has-been.
Obviously a Jerry Cantrell is going to be on a higher plane than a CC Deville. jmo
But Handsome's probably right too. I'm just ridiculous. 
Re: From sebastianbach.com
A legend cannot be a has been. Maybe his/her relvance comes from the glorious past, but a legend is always relevant. Cause he's a legend. Has beens the ones who once were relevant or hyped, but failed to reach the legendary status.
In the case of "legends", I suggest using the term "past their prime".
Look at Sly Stone. He may always be relevant, because he's obviously a legend. However, his recent slapdash performances don't really qualify as relevant.
There's a difference between the artists' legacy (no matter how illustrious) and their present-day impact in their respective field.
Re: From sebastianbach.com
In my eyes.. Fuck commericial & cultural relevance. Why would anyone in the area of hard rock or real music want to be relevant to a bunch of teen girls and MTV viewers? Maybe in the past when real music got the attention but not now. And if you are a Legend you are never a has been.
Plus being commerical and relevant has nothing to do with talent and quality of product.
Re: From sebastianbach.com
:haha::haha: U2, has beens? My god if having the second best selling album world wide in 2009 and the highest grossing(not profitable) tour in history makes you a has been than sign me up. Not to mention No Line on the Horizon got 5 stars in almost every review, the album is hailed by critics and U2 fans as one of their very best, and the tour is not only selling out everywhere it's getting massively positive reviews. U2 are far from has beens. To even suggest that is laughable. They had a #1 album in 30 countries in 2009 including the USA for christ's sake 
They sold 484 000 copies in the first 6 days in the United States alone which was their second highest first week sales ever. Has beens? Can someone explain this to me cause as far as I can tell U2 seems fine in 2009.
Re: From sebastianbach.com
Critics mean nothing. Charting means nothing. Brand names like that will still chart. Only reason Guns didn't go #1 is they chose to go head to head with Kanye West & Taylor Swift... in 2008.
Are people going to shows? Yes. Is it watercooler talk? No. Is the album good? Depends.
It's all how you look at it I guess. As I stated before, U2 are NOT has beens, solely on their ability to draw stadiums. But with sales of their last album, the consumer is starting to tell a tale of moving on. We'll see.
Like copper alluded to, maybe the legends need a different classification, such as "seen their day" or "past their prime" or maybe even "veteran".
Re: From sebastianbach.com
Critics mean nothing. Charting means nothing. Brand names like that will still chart. Only reason Guns didn't go #1 is they chose to go head to head with Kanye West & Taylor Swift... in 2008.
Are people going to shows? Yes. Is it watercooler talk? No. Is the album good? Depends.
It's all how you look at it I guess. As I stated before, U2 are NOT has beens, solely on their ability to draw stadiums. But with sales of their last album, the consumer is starting to tell a tale of moving on. We'll see.
Like copper alluded to, maybe the legends need a different classification, such as "seen their day" or "past their prime" or maybe even "veteran".
You can't compare album sales of today with the past though. It's a completely different animal.
Re: From sebastianbach.com
You're right. Forgot about that.
Illegal downloads + legal downloads + album sales are the true tellers of an album's success in the present day.
Then what the hell do you attribute U2 having the delux edition and the normal edition of No Line on the Horizon being simutaneously #1 on itunes before the album was even released to? You're saying brands will always sell yet the Stones don't debute at #1 anymore and their a bigger brand than U2. U2 is not a has been SOLELY on their ability to sell out stadiums? So debuting at #1 in 30 countries means nothing? Having the 2nd best selling album world wide in 2009 means nothing? Having their 2nd best opening week of sales ever despite having a lead single with mixed reviews means nothing? Having a critically acclaimed album means nothing? Having fans tout it as one of their very best means nothing? More than "people" are going to U2 shows dude. A fucking shitload are going. They played to over 3 million people in 43 shows in 2009 in this economic climate. All ages. Every ethnic group. Men, women in equal amounts. No joke they almost single handedly saved the touring industry this year .
I hate to go all fan boy on you guys but honestly U2 has hit a point in their career that no other band has ever seen. 30+ years in and they are arguably as popular as they've ever been. For various reasons no other band can lay claim to that the way U2 can. You can call them has beens or almost has beens all you want but if that's the case they are a brand fucking new breed of has beens that's for damn sure. They aren't like AC/DC or Rolling Stones or any of the big rock acts in the world touring the same setlist over and over, releasing the same album over and over. They're just different and in my fanboy opinion aren't even close to being in the same rock dinosaur category as those other big name acts
And saying the only reason Chinese Democracy didn't go #1 is cause it came out the same time as Kanye and Taylor Swift did would be like me saying the only reason the Cardinals didn't win the 2008 Super Bowl is cause the Steelers did.
