?

Log in

No account? Create an account

U2 LiveJournal

Hello Hello!!


May 28th, 2006

Discuss @ 04:44 pm

Share  |  |

Comments

 
[User Picture Icon]
From:hbpen
Date:May 28th, 2006 08:49 pm (UTC)
(Link)
What's it from? And how did they come up w/the relevance for each year?
[User Picture Icon]
From:sellyoursoul
Date:May 28th, 2006 08:51 pm (UTC)
(Link)
BRILLIANT
[User Picture Icon]
From:volare
Date:May 28th, 2006 08:52 pm (UTC)
(Link)
source of data would add interest/amusement.

also, how does it influence your pants? >;P
[User Picture Icon]
From:marmarand
Date:May 28th, 2006 08:52 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Pretty much agree except I don't think they ever reached the levels of the Joshua Tree. While I certainly believe that AB is a better work and possibly more influential, they were not as relevant in the mainstream as during the JT years, particularly on the North American continent, which in that era really drove the majority of sales and earnings.
From:8linepoem
Date:May 28th, 2006 09:03 pm (UTC)
(Link)
major LOL. love it.
[User Picture Icon]
From:forsberg21
Date:May 28th, 2006 09:04 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Don't forget to note that it's year plotted against.. uh..
[User Picture Icon]
From:canadiens1160
Date:May 28th, 2006 09:06 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Year plotted against Absolute Relevance. A rating of 12 could only be attained by Rockwell or Cyndi Lauper.
[User Picture Icon]
From:canadanne
Date:May 28th, 2006 09:40 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Hardly.
From:amerrydeath
Date:May 28th, 2006 09:54 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Unfortunately, for the most part I agree (maybe not the 80/81 being the same as now, though...).
[User Picture Icon]
From:axver
Date:May 28th, 2006 10:58 pm (UTC)
(Link)
HA.
From:sandjampanda
Date:May 29th, 2006 12:03 am (UTC)
(Link)
I don't get it. At all.
[User Picture Icon]
From:ladyclayton
Date:May 29th, 2006 12:49 am (UTC)
(Link)
I would have placed them higher for 2005...maybe not as high as for 2001 (since 9/11 put ATYCLB in a new context), but definitely up there with AB. The Grammy haul can vouch for them. :)
[User Picture Icon]
From:axver
Date:May 29th, 2006 12:52 am (UTC)
(Link)
Awards do not equate to relevance.
[User Picture Icon]
From:ladyclayton
Date:May 30th, 2006 04:42 am (UTC)
(Link)
How do you define "relevance?"

From where I'm sitting, the Grammys confirmed HTDAAB as a musical force for the year, and the ceremony capped off a year of what was arguably U2's greatest popularity and visibility since AB. U2 was perhaps not as omnipresent as they were during the JT era, but with the extremely successful tour, Live 8, Bono's work for Africa, the iPod, and general media coverage of the band (show appearances, etc), they came pretty bloody close. In the political/social consciousness, U2 was probably more relevant in 2005 than they have been at any other time.
[User Picture Icon]
From:inklingfair
Date:May 29th, 2006 01:42 am (UTC)
(Link)
I'd have to agree. (Not that I'd like to!)

How about a different one for each of them? (relevance/contribution to U2's music)? But meh, I'd be biased.
[User Picture Icon]
From:mmmmjournal
Date:May 29th, 2006 03:21 am (UTC)
(Link)
Oh come on. Rattle and Hum wasn't THAT bad.

Besides, what units are we using? Relevance units? How does one measure relevance? In kilolarrykings?
[User Picture Icon]
From:canadiens1160
Date:May 29th, 2006 03:33 am (UTC)
(Link)
I think the Conan is the international unit, to be honest.

Image hosted by CashMoneyUploads.com
[User Picture Icon]
From:zoostation
Date:May 29th, 2006 04:26 am (UTC)
(Link)
Whay are you so awesome?
[User Picture Icon]
From:kashmir87
Date:May 29th, 2006 02:33 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Nice spelling.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rockstarsex
Date:May 29th, 2006 03:46 pm (UTC)
(Link)
lol @ people taking this so seriously

O___o

U2 LiveJournal

Hello Hello!!