Are the band nearing the end of being a band or...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Well, like I said earlier, they're not getting any younger, but seeing them on this tour just reminded me of how great U2 present themselves in a live performance. Every tour, obviously, their goal is to present themselves in a new and entertaining way. No easy feat when they have been doing it for as long as they have. Let's face it, U2 "fans" are spoiled! There aren't too many artists left who are touring on the level that U2 is. The Stones have drastically reduced their touring and pretty much only tour when they wish to. Not because a new album dictates it. Roughly every 4 years, U2 are having a tour. And if they still enjoy performing, why should we begrudge them the opportunity to do so. I just haven't gotten the feeling that they're close to retiring yet.
 
Mods, please note this sentence (esp. the "Noel Gallagher" part) and I'm sure an instant ban from the forum will follow.


U2 seem determined to avoid the trappings of impending old-age. They're not releasing Songs of Impotence just yet. They have more energy for their career than almost any band half their age. They're not going anywhere.

He's right, none of them are talented enough to be good solo artists, and that's not a bad thing. They're collaborators, and they're much, much better when working together than with other people (see: Bono's "solo" stuff, Captice, Cold Dream Colour, Mission Impossible). None of them are visionaries or accomplished songwriters on their own, like Albarn, Yorke, or Gallagher. They all write the songs for their bands, determine the direction of the music, and are lead singers. U2 are better than all of those bands, but there's nothing to suggest that Bono or Edge are able to write 10 great songs on their own like the other guys are.

And yeah, they're not going anywhere. But really, U2 have more energy than almost any band half their age? There have been 4-5 years between albums since 2000. That's a leisurely pace, to put it kindly.
 
I just haven't gotten the feeling that they're close to retiring yet.

They already scaled down from U2 being a full time job to a part time job - if they quit they'd have nothing to do! Hobnobbing with the powerful, despoiling land with massive developments, pretending to be an actor, and collecting wrapping paper can only take up so much time.
 
He's right, none of them are talented enough to be good solo artists, and that's not a bad thing. They're collaborators, and they're much, much better when working together than with other people (see: Bono's "solo" stuff, Captice, Cold Dream Colour, Mission Impossible). None of them are visionaries or accomplished songwriters on their own, like Albarn, Yorke, or Gallagher. They all write the songs for their bands, determine the direction of the music, and are lead singers. U2 are better than all of those bands, but there's nothing to suggest that Bono or Edge are able to write 10 great songs on their own like the other guys are.

And yeah, they're not going anywhere. But really, U2 have more energy than almost any band half their age? There have been 4-5 years between albums since 2000. That's a leisurely pace, to put it kindly.

You certainly have a unique perspective about the band to put it mildly. :wink: But, as you may know, U2 don't just release an album and then take 4/5 years to release the next one. There's activity in the middle. I won't condescend to list the activity. You appear intelligent enough to figure it out. If given the opportunity, I'm certain that each member of U2 could record their own solo work. They simply just choose not to. They exist as U2. We haven't seen enough of anything that they have recorded on their own to determine their inability to record material individually. (New Day or the Mission Impossible soundtrack do NOT count :wink:)
 
He's right, none of them are talented enough to be good solo artists, and that's not a bad thing. They're collaborators, and they're much, much better when working together than with other people (see: Bono's "solo" stuff, Captice, Cold Dream Colour, Mission Impossible). None of them are visionaries or accomplished songwriters on their own, like Albarn, Yorke, or Gallagher. They all write the songs for their bands, determine the direction of the music, and are lead singers. U2 are better than all of those bands, but there's nothing to suggest that Bono or Edge are able to write 10 great songs on their own like the other guys are.

And yeah, they're not going anywhere. But really, U2 have more energy than almost any band half their age? There have been 4-5 years between albums since 2000. That's a leisurely pace, to put it kindly.
U2 are very much "a band" and a team of songwriters they (nowadays anyway) seem to struggle and fret with songwriting. The other artists listed are songwriters on their own who seem to have a natural talent and gift for melody and solo songwriting. In saying that, U2s back catalogue is better than the songwriters listed and live they blow any other band on the planet out of the water.

In terms of their age and finishing their career, I'm not sure if in another 10years I'd want to see Bono up on stage at 60odd churning out the same 30year old hits after releasing another average album it would be sad. I want them to be remembered for the multi-era defining band that they are.
 
I think they're at a place where they can take the time to make an album they feel good about and tour behind it and still be a relevant legendary band that can tour behind newer and older songs. Basically not become a touring hits machine. But yeah, things are slowing down. Eventually they'll hang it up. But right now they're touring with renewed energy, new songs and old songs sound great, and the older songs are rejuvenated. Live shows are still great, they're utilizing technology and pushing themselves still.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I think they're at a place where they can take the time to make an album they feel good about and tour behind it and still be a relevant legendary band that can tour behind newer and older songs. Basically not become a touring hits machine. But yeah, things are slowing down. Eventually they'll hang it up. But right now they're touring with renewed energy, new songs and old songs sound great, and the older songs are rejuvenated. Live shows are still great, they're utilizing technology and pushing themselves still.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
I know he's not "a band" but Bowie showed with his last album you can make good music into your 60s. I really admire what he did, went away and everyone thought he was in retirement then dropped a Suprise album which was great. Perhaps U2 should get away from the glare and press and make a truly great album at leisure.
 
I know he's not "a band" but Bowie showed with his last album you can make good music into your 60s. I really admire what he did, went away and everyone thought he was in retirement then dropped a Suprise album which was great. Perhaps U2 should get away from the glare and press and make a truly great album at leisure.

An artist like Bowie can get away with doing that because, while highly respected, he doesn't have the high profile of U2. Plus, one can argue that U2 put together SOI and possibly SOE "at their leisure". :wink:

It appears as if U2 feel that SOI is "truly a great album". Some may agree. Some may disagree. I think it's a great album and in my world, that's all that matters. :wink:
 
I think they're at a place where they can take the time to make an album they feel good about and tour behind it and still be a relevant legendary band that can tour behind newer and older songs. Basically not become a touring hits machine. But yeah, things are slowing down. Eventually they'll hang it up. But right now they're touring with renewed energy, new songs and old songs sound great, and the older songs are rejuvenated. Live shows are still great, they're utilizing technology and pushing themselves still.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I agree with this.

If they're near the end, it's not due to a lack of ability or energy, that's for damn sure.

Just going on Electric Co and Gloria alone, they're kicking the shit out of performances they did almost 30 years ago on JT Tour.

Someone mentioned Elevation and Vertigo.

Watch them play IWF or Electric Co or OOC on those tours and watch them now. Especially Larry.

It's not even close.

They only slow down now and half ass it when they feel like it, not because they're incapable.

The only half assing on this tour has been One and recently, parts of Pride where Bono stops singing.

And I disagree with that.

But choosing not to do it does not mean he can't do it.....
 
U2 should finish up the Songs of Innocence/Experience/Ascent trilogy, tour it and call it a day. That could take 10 years for all we know, so I wouldn't stress about U2 hanging it up any time soon.
 
While the album was received quite poorly here in The Netherlands, each and every source that rated the album 1 or 2 stars now writes euphoric reviews of the shows in Amsterdam. One of the reviewers said something that made sense to me: the live performance gives the new songs the power and the right perspective in relation to the earlier stuff. Something that is not obviously conveyed by the album. The concerts received unanimous 5 star ratings from each and every thinkable source, even the ones that tend to be overly "sour" when it comes to U2.

It feels U2 are at least more relevant now here in Holland, than they were during the 360 tour and that's also what I felt attending the first night in Amsterdam.
 
While the album was received quite poorly here in The Netherlands, each and every source that rated the album 1 or 2 stars now writes euphoric reviews of the shows in Amsterdam. One of the reviewers said something that made sense to me: the live performance gives the new songs the power and the right perspective in relation to the earlier stuff. Something that is not obviously conveyed by the album. The concerts received unanimous 5 star ratings from each and every thinkable source, even the ones that tend to be overly "sour" when it comes to U2.

It feels U2 are at least more relevant now here in Holland, than they were during the 360 tour and that's also what I felt attending the first night in Amsterdam.

Yep, that's exactly how it felt for me as well. Hearign the songs live put them all into the right place. And they do get raving reviews everywhere, including on the new songs!
 
Just going on Electric Co and Gloria alone, they're kicking the shit out of performances they did almost 30 years ago on JT Tour.


[\QUOTE]


this caught my attention, and it's something rarely discussed here. I feel like the JT tour was a low point for the band in terms of their musical performance. They weren't good enough to be as big of a band as they were. Im not talking about the videos from R&H, those were touched up and edited a thousand times over. Watch the R&H out takes or listen to some bootlegs, especially from earlier in the year. Pretty sloppy most of the time.

I feel like during the War Tour they had mastered being in a small-mid level band. Then it took awhile for them to get good at being an arena/stadium level band. By the end of Lovetown they were a well oiled machine. JT Tour had some growing pains. Bono especially.

I think all 4 of them are excellent performers now, and they are doing the old songs justice, and proudly strutting out their new stuff. Good time to be a fan, honestly.

E


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interferencek
 
Do you guys truly think Bono (or even Edge, if he were so inclined) couldn't have had a successful (Noel Gallagher-esque) 'solo' career up to now? I am certain Bono would have. Oasis had 1/4 U2's global audience, but Noel is managing a fairly successful (if thoroughly unexciting, musically & lyrically pointless) solo endeavour. Bono couldn't do this? All he'd have to do is write 5 or 6 good songs, hire a collaborator or two (as people like Morrissey do) to flesh out the songs musically, add a couple of covers in, and -- Voila! -- instant success. Bono would be way better at schmoozing the US media, too.

There is no doubt that Bono could have had a successful solo career if he'd been so inclined.
 
Do you guys truly think Bono (or even Edge, if he were so inclined) couldn't have had a successful (Noel Gallagher-esque) 'solo' career up to now? I am certain Bono would have. Oasis had 1/4 U2's global audience, but Noel is managing a fairly successful (if thoroughly unexciting, musically & lyrically pointless) solo endeavour. Bono couldn't do this? All he'd have to do is write 5 or 6 good songs, hire a collaborator or two (as people like Morrissey do) to flesh out the songs musically, add a couple of covers in, and -- Voila! -- instant success. Bono would be way better at schmoozing the US media, too.

There is no doubt that Bono could have had a successful solo career if he'd been so inclined.

I can picture Bono being solo like Morrissey does. And Edge being like Johnny Marr.
 
Just going on Electric Co and Gloria alone, they're kicking the shit out of performances they did almost 30 years ago on JT Tour.


[\QUOTE]


this caught my attention, and it's something rarely discussed here. I feel like the JT tour was a low point for the band in terms of their musical performance. They weren't good enough to be as big of a band as they were. Im not talking about the videos from R&H, those were touched up and edited a thousand times over. Watch the R&H out takes or listen to some bootlegs, especially from earlier in the year. Pretty sloppy most of the time.

I feel like during the War Tour they had mastered being in a small-mid level band. Then it took awhile for them to get good at being an arena/stadium level band. By the end of Lovetown they were a well oiled machine. JT Tour had some growing pains. Bono especially.

I think all 4 of them are excellent performers now, and they are doing the old songs justice, and proudly strutting out their new stuff. Good time to be a fan, honestly.

E



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interferencek

I agree with this on some level. There were definitely growing pains.

I still think overall, throughout their career, U2 has stood out as a spectacular live band.

JT Tour was no exception.


Just look at the performances of Streets, WOWY, In God's Country, Exit, Still Haven't Found, Running To Standstill, Trip Through Your Wires, MOTD, One Tree Hill.

Basically anything new was mind numbing good.

I think the growing pains showed in the back catalog performances- what to play, when to play it, where to place it in the set list among all these brand new songs that had driven them into the stratosphere, etc.

I Will Follow, Gloria and Electric Co had their weakest showings ever on JT.

NYD and Pride were both better on previous and subsequent tours, etc.

When you add it all together, I do agree with your observations. I would've killed to have seen JT in person, and it was I'm sure amazing for so many different reasons. That being said, it is probably their most overrated tour performance wise.

War, UF, Lovetown and Zoo TV all topped it pretty easily night in and night out.
 
On a good night, the Joshua Tree shows are probably my favorite moment in U2 live history. However, as has been noted, they were kind of hit-and-miss.

I think U2 in general were basically "perfect" up to about spring/summer 1987 (Bono's outfit at Live-Aid and mullet in general notwithstanding). Thereafter, the weight of being "the world's biggest band", the outdoor stadium shows, and their tendency towards pretension started to overtake the group. (A good indication of that trend coming was filming a theatrical movie while on tour.)

Anyway, before judging the hit-and-miss JT tour too harshly, we should remember that they were still pretty young then, and especially that they became "the world's biggest band" with a no-frills live show. I mean, in those days -- probably up to LoveTown -- they were doing it the hard way onstage. There wasn't a morass of digital technology to 'help' the production, there wasn't a guitar technician below stage to help Edge, there were no large screens to watch at 60,000-person shows.

I suspect that if U2 in 2015 were to strip back to the exact same minimal set-up they had for big shows in 1987, the shows would again be more hit-and-miss.
 
Completely disagree that Electric Co. was weak on the JT tour.

Some of those performances were fantastic.
 
Completely disagree that Electric Co. was weak on the JT tour.

Some of those performances were fantastic.

They were fantastic, no question about it.

I'm at work now so don't have time to look up the exact show, but one of the Hartford shows on the first leg in May 1987 had an excellent performance.

More on the well known side, the version done in Paris in July 1987 with the big guy holding Bono and the "Break on Through" snippet was very good.

However, they tended to be the weakest of the bunch. Especially Edge's guitar tone. It wasn't a song he did a lot of work on because it was performed a relative few times.

The guitar tone he gets now on that song is as good as or even better- crisper, clearer but still distorted in the right parts- than it was 1980-1984.

Weak is a relative term when it comes to U2.
 
Is this simply the "Vertigo tour, pt. 2" happening?



I can't help but think watching videos of the i+E tour, that this may be nearing the end of their time as a band. It seems with Bono's accident, the 50/50 reception of the album the death of Dennis Sheehan, and a select amount of dates (with multiple stays) that to me, it's almost like a "One last hurrah before we go"



They couldn't top 360, and don't think they ever wanted to, but I've been noticing that they've been giving away more guitars to fans on this tour, which kind of makes me wonder if it's not almost like downsizing of some sorts. More street / cover bands being brought on stage to sing their songs, as well as bringing some fans on stage (even during Streets) -- wonder if it's not bittersweet moments that they're creating.



Although it was reported today that they have another album in creation, is this simply a 'testing the waters' again or the 'reapplying for the biggest band in the world job' that they did with All That You Can't Leave Behind? As much as I liked the Vertigo tour, it definitely had it's awkward moments and Bono's voice definitely had it's highs and lows, but then they came back better than ever on the 360 tour.



Only my two cents, speculation here, I'm an avid fan and love the band immensely.


I thought 360 seemed like more of a "last hurrah," since they were visiting so many cities that they had either never played before or hadn't played for a long time. Plus the size of it and all the records it broke made it feel like a good stopping point.

As for giving guitars away, is that what bands do in lieu of a garage sale? Or a going-out-of-business sale? ;) To me, it looks like they are just trying to connect and interact with their fans more. They've brought a lot of people on stage and have started doing the Meerkat thing and even have an Instagram account now.

I think U2 are just trying new things, not preparing to quit at this point.


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
 
Back
Top Bottom