Has U2 Peaked?

[nielsgov]

In general, so for most people, U2 peaked between 1987 and 1993, starting with Joshua Tree and ending with ZOO TV/Zooropa. I don't think they'll ever reach that same level of brillliance again. I hope I'm wrong but I don't think so. Of course I wasn´t even born when ZOO TV ended so I cannot base that on a personal experience of a live show but that´s just how most people and critics think. That period will always be remembered as their best period.

I am also a big fan of NLOTH and I will probably love their next album too so I am not in the slightest disappointed in the band or anything and I think it is unbelievable that they played 2-3 new songs in Turin.

 

[U2387]

GodPart III and Salome, GREAT POSTS!

I have my share of complaints about the 360 set list, but to say it is a greatest hits show is objectively, not subjectively, non sense.

Salome, great job putting the differences in how U2 approaches projects in 1984-1988 and now into context.

I really do agree that the seemingly(of course, it was not) effortless magic produced in the 80s was replaced by hard work, grit and pushing the outer limits with AB, Zooropa and Zoo TV.

A band that is young and just getting mass exposure(War 1983) is going to feel pressure to keep up the momentum and climb to the top in subsequent years. Hence, the 2 year release pattern that we were seeing back then. Now, there is pressure, just not as much. They need to stay relevant, yes, and all who know them like we do know they are definitely feeling this pressure.

But with their fame, money, credibility, etc, they have bought the luxury of taking their time- they had been away for 3 years, no new album for almost 5- they were still able to set attendance records all over the place with 360.

You are 100% right, the marketing for NLOTH was definitely off. Granted, some of it probably is owed to the radio boycott of Magnificent, but that was not the 1st single and it was released 2 months after the album.

As for the original post in the thread, I have my days when I wonder why U2 leaves x or y song off an album or plays z or a song one way as opposed to another way. I don't think they are perfect- the original post brought up how Mysterious Ways and With or Without You are played now and I agree with him 100%.

As far as popularity and creativity goes, they are competing against themselves for damn sure and the period in question is 1984-1993, particularly JT and AB. Was that their peak? Who knows, if you want to call it that, it would be tough to argue. All of the objective numbers- album sales, frequency of albums released, cultural relevance- etc are on your side.

There really will never be another period like this with U2 again, it is impossible. They will never be in their mid 20s to early 30s again. They will never have that euphoric, growing by the day rise to the top of 1985-1987, they will never have the buzz that surrounded the JT tour again, and they will never top the legend that was their single handed invention of the elaborate stadium set on Zoo TV. And that is OK! They have come damn close the the "JT buzz" with the Elevation Tour and damn close to the innovative spectacle of Zoo Tv with the 360 tour.

It is just impossible for it to be the exact same, and that is ok.

However, as far as making enjoyable, quality music and putting on spectacular live shows, it is tough to identify a peak. I get frustrated with the 360 set lists ALOT, but I always say even when I complain that I see 100s of shows per yr(I do security at concerts at night), and no one in 2009 came close to 360. Pick the big tour of 2009, and I saw it, but again, no one close to U2. So for me, U2 are still a spectacular live band. On any given night this tour, 60-90K people agree with me.

Now onto albums, my top 5 are JT, War, AB, UF and NLOTH. So for me, no, I don't really see U2 declining in overall quality of late.

The only place I would say they are not living up to their potential in is set lists and how they perform a couple(MW, WOWY) songs in the 360 show.

Taken as a whole, that is a very minor complaint.

Looking forward to what they do in the coming months/years.

U2 has told us many times that if they ever lose it and its time for them to get the proverbial bullet to the head, they will do it themselves thank you very much. On that, I believe them and trust them. When U2 feels like they don't have the quality to compete with their earlier work, they'll hang it up.

 

[U2387]

Personally I'd be happy if they cut back on the touring and just recorded albums, ultimately historically this will be what their career will be judged on, but they love playing live so whatever makes them happy I suppose.

Its the nature of the music industry today that makes this impossible.

Everyone is well aware of the decline of the album and the rise of downloading and everything else that comes with the internet era.

Money these days is made on touring, touring and......oh,touring. That is how you compensate for it.

U2 always loved the live show, so they'd probably be doing it anyway, but if they wanted to slow it down and focus on albums, this barrier would not be able to be overcome.

 

[JoRu]

I haven't looked through all the posts, so someone may have already said this but I'm not going to say when I think they peaked before they have officially quit. Sure, everything between 86-93 was absolutely brilliant both critically and commercially in my opinion, so it's likely it will be considered their peak once they're done. But really, I think NLOTH was pretty damn close quality-wise overall to what they did back then and is proof to me that they still got it.

The 360-tour, which is rapidly closing in on the Vertigo-tour and which could roll the Rolling Stones off their podium (hilarious word joke, wasn't it ) for highest grossing concert tour is also proof of that U2 is doing fine economically as well and most certainly will the next couple of years as well. Anything's possible.

 

[corianderstem]

It looks like a well-thought-out post/thread, so I'm definitely going to head back and read later, but honestly?

Yeah, they've probably peaked. But you know what? I still enjoy the hell out of what they're doing, even if sometimes I find them frustrating. So it doesn't bother me that I think they've probably peaked.

That said, I'd love for them to come out and prove me wrong.

 

[mikal]

Yeah, they've probably peaked. But you know what? I still enjoy the hell out of what they're doing, even if sometimes I find them frustrating. So it doesn't bother me that I think they've probably peaked.

my feelings as well.

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

I think my interest in them has peaked.

 

[corianderstem]

And honestly, even if I find myself complaining a bit, or being disappointed in this, that or the-other-thing, I will still go to the concerts and enjoy the hell out of them. And sometimes they prove me wrong.

I was griping a bit in the days leading up to the Torino show, but I got over it and found myself amusingly (to me, anyway) and ridiculously excited about the show, and hearing how great a show it was. They seemed happy, and that made me happy.

 

[BluRmGrl]

What I wanted to say earlier in my earlier post - before I got sidetracked onto an entirely different tangent - was that while I don't ever expect them to return to the status they held during JT & AB, I'm not ready to write them off as has-beens. True, I was worried when HTDAAB came along - it underwhelmed me, to say the least. But then I heard NLOTH & I think it's at least as good an album as ATYCLB...possibly better.

Second, I really think the band would probably be more of a media/industry darling now if weren't so fashionable to hate Bono for his hunamitarian activities. Not that I want him to stop - my respect for him has only grown because he's risked so much to do something that he believes in. That takes balls, if you ask me.

 

[U2girl]

Let me preface this by saying I have been a huge fan from the day I got into music in high school. I probably fit the prototypical U2 fanactic category to a tee so it pains me to even bring up the topic. I am 37 years old so from an age perspective I also probably fit right into the sweet spot of a U2 fan having endured the highs and lows for 2 decades. Now if the answer is yes there is nothing wrong with that as there really are not any examples of bands at this age making the best music of their lives. If it is yes though I am bit depressed by it given how much the band has meant to me and how much they have been a part of my life.

Obviously music is very subjective but I think some U2 fanatics can't step back and evaluate things rationally so that is what I have done (I think). The final straw that brought me to this conclusion was opening night in Torino a few days ago and the quality of the 2 new songs debuted. Granted we have not heard studio versions of the songs so some context is missing but what I did hear really triggered what I have been thinking for the last year now. Its also just the first real performance of each but neither to me shows potential that I need for them to grown on me. I will say I commend and thank the band for taking a real risk to debut the songs which I think has been lacking in recent years.

The concerning part about the new songs is the fact that the band supposively has a ton of new material in the vault between the many projects that have started, stopped, retooled, and been revisited in just the last few years. So from a logical perspective I would think to debut songs live the band would have to feel the songs were very strong and would have to be at the top half of quality of what they have been working on. To add 2new songs to a set list in the low 20's is a decent part of the show so they need to work well. Personally I just don't feel that they are or did. So maybe the material they have been working on is not up to what I am expecting. Again given their age I would not be shocked and it would be understandable but as a fanatic I have to say I am disappointed.

So that is what triggered this for me but as I said its been brewing in my mind for a while. Here are the other factors that have led me to where I am at. Again i want to reiterate if the best is behind us I understand and hold no ill will towards the band. The ride has been tremendous and if its slowing down in terms of my enjoyment I am OK with that.

1. Too many projects- I don't think the band is as focused as in prior years. They seem to be very confused on what type of music to release and I am guessing they are not all in agreement on direction which is very important for them. I think the lack of focus may be a lack of confidence and possibly not feeling that their standards in material is being met. Understandable given their personal lives and what they have achieved. But I really think they need to lock themselves away together in a room and figure it out eliminating distractions as best as possible. Hopefully that will happen during the long break between the next leg.

2. The Edge- He is my favorite and to me is the most important ingredient. His creativity is the sole of the band. For the most part I love and dislike U2 songs based on the Edge's work. Looking at the last albums post POP I would say he is not as creative or is lacking in ideas. Again understandable given age, environment, and his guitar style. It could very well be he has run out of ways to skin the cat and needs to move in a different direction. However that is kind of a no win in that I love his trademark sounds so not sure a totally new direction would help me. I am not saying everything he produces lately is not creative or lacking but rather looking at the whole body of work. I hope the band is not holding him back in some way as I really think he creativity will always be the key.

3. Commercialism- I am not one of those fans that hates commercialism or trying to appeal to the masses. If the music is really good I could care less whether I am the only one that likes it or millions do. However I feel, particularly with the opening singles released on at least the last few albums the band is trying too hard to be relevant. I don't think it is natural for them and I think it holds them back from the creativity that truly inspires me and has made them so relevant for years. NLOTH for the most part was less about this however there were some glaring exceptions. It again points to lack of focus and direction for me. They need to be focused on totally cohesive records.

4. Live Shows- The spectacle is not an issue as I enjoy the creativity and trying to expand the visual aspect. The issue I see here is the song selection and execution. They have a huge catalogue yet continue to not stray too far from the classics. Sometimes that is OK but if you are going to do that you need to play those classics with the best presentation you can. WOWY and MW to me are shadows of their former performances and maybe this points to the Edge. I don't understand why he is leaving out the awesome solos that really make these songs what they are live. There is perhaps some passion or energy missing with these performances. I don't see how anyone can argue these songs are better w/out their solos so I am really confused by it. Again this is understandable with age but why keep playing them if you can't play them to the best of their standards. Part of this could be trying to fit everything neatly into a relatively scripted show. If that is the case they need to stop trying to fit everything so tightly into a neat package as it takes away from what they are capable of.

So that is where I stand on this. I am very thankful for the band and the fact they continue to produce quality music and performances for so long. They owe me nothing at this point and perhaps they truly have lost a little over the years which again is still better than most of what is out there today. It is their band and they can do whatever they want and I will continue to keep supporting them financially. I just think age may have gotten the best of them in different ways not just physically. I know they are capable of more and I hope I am wrong in my assessment.

Good and well put-together post.

1. I agree, once they pick the next project it will go faster. BTW McGuiness hinting at touring US in 2012 seems to hint at a new album fairly quick - late 2010 or early 2011.

2. Yes, yes, yes. The Edge needs to stay off the chimes/cliche rock riffs of the past decade. That said, I like the guitar tone in the new tour intro and Glastonbury. Also important, Bono has to find a clear lyrical theme (if SOA has this all the better).

3. I think they tried to have both over they year: cohesive yet creative music. Sometimes the craft may get a little ahead of the art, but they balance it well.

4. They are 50. There's no way Bono can sing the way he did in 1987 or 1992, and they can't play with the same energy as the years go by. The good thing is a tight theme seems to enhance, rather than hold back the tours.


I think they had 3 legitimate peak points: obviously JT and Zoo TV, and later with Elevation tour. They made classic albums, tours and songs. In some ways it's almost an impossible history to compete with, and it's impossible not do have big promotion and big tours if you're U2.

 

[jvdchicago]

Times They Are A'Changing

I want to echo the comments about the major upheaval in the way music is consumed these days, which I think is a major factor in U2's popularity and the public's perception of the band's music as "relevant."

Single track downloads have shifted the burden on the artist to create pre-packaged hits. No longer can a great single simply co-exist on its own amongst like-minded tracks on an album. That experience for the majority of music fans is now mostly a la carte, with iPods filled with a host of songs from different artists.

NLOTH was a great album as a whole, with some standout tracks and one or two clunkers, but there was no "Beautiful Day" on it or a "Vertigo," which U2 definitely tried to recreate in "Get on Your Boots." Without a hit single that can dominate radio, which also is favoring less rock these days and more pop, you're lacking that gateway to get younger people interested in U2. "GOYB" probably had about two months of play on the majority of Chicago radio stations before it disappeared, and not a single other track from NLOTH ever appeared on a station other than XRT, which is Chicago's more eclectic and less mainstream rock station.

Hell, I was at Lollapalooza this past weekend in Chicago, and you could feel the air deflate from the crowd when certain bands would play tracks from their albums that were lesser known. MGMT was a prime example of this. The second-to-last-song during their set was "Kids," a bona fide hit. By the time they started playing their closing tune "Congratulations," an admittedly great song, the majority of the crowd was uninterested or streaming toward the exits as if to say, "You gave us what we wanted...whatever you have left in the tank is irrelevant." Hell, you can feel the seismic shift when most fans would rather hold their cameras and cell phones in the air to record the experience to relive later at home on a small screen than give in to the moment and be fully present and allow the band to take them to great places. The whole process feels more like a transaction these days than an experience.

Part of the reason I think the U2360 set list feels like a greatest hits tour forsome people is that when average fans plunk down $100 on average to see a show they feel like they should get their moneys worth and consume their music the way they would on their own iPod. For many casual fans of U2 that means they better play "Pride" or "Vertigo" or "Beautiful Day." While I got giddy watching them play "Your Blue Room," a large portion of the crowd was lost and wondering when was the next time U2 was going to pull out a warhorse. The band realizes this. They are trying to straddle that tricky line between innovation and satisfying ticket-buyers.

Music is changing. U2 is amazing in that they've tried to stay ahead of the curve as much as possible, and they will likely be looked upon by future generations as having achieved something that may be practically impossible to do anymore -- have a 30-plus-year career filled with more peaks than valleys.

My apologies for this rambling post. I have loved U2 from Achtung Baby, which was the first cassette I ever purchased. And I'm full prepared to follow them to wherever they take their music in the future. But the ground has shifted beneath their feet, and the band is doing the best they can to adjust.

 

[No spoken words]

I want to echo the comments about the major upheaval in the way music is consumed these days, which I think is a major factor in U2's popularity and the public's perception of the band's music as "relevant."

Single track downloads have shifted the burden on the artist to create pre-packaged hits. No longer can a great single simply co-exist on its own amongst like-minded tracks on an album. That experience for the majority of music fans is now mostly a la carte, with iPods filled with a host of songs from different artists.

NLOTH was a great album as a whole, with some standout tracks and one or two clunkers, but there was no "Beautiful Day" on it or a "Vertigo," which U2 definitely tried to recreate in "Get on Your Boots." Without a hit single that can dominate radio, which also is favoring less rock these days and more pop, you're lacking that gateway to get younger people interested in U2. "GOYB" probably had about two months of play on the majority of Chicago radio stations before it disappeared, and not a single other track from NLOTH ever appeared on a station other than XRT, which is Chicago's more eclectic and less mainstream rock station.

Hell, I was at Lollapalooza this past weekend in Chicago, and you could feel the air deflate from the crowd when certain bands would play tracks from their albums that were lesser known. MGMT was a prime example of this. The second-to-last-song during their set was "Kids," a bona fide hit. By the time they started playing their closing tune "Congratulations," an admittedly great song, the majority of the crowd was uninterested or streaming toward the exits as if to say, "You gave us what we wanted...whatever you have left in the tank is irrelevant." Hell, you can feel the seismic shift when most fans would rather hold their cameras and cell phones in the air to record the experience to relive later at home on a small screen than give in to the moment and be fully present and allow the band to take them to great places. The whole process feels more like a transaction these days than an experience.

Part of the reason I think the U2360 set list feels like a greatest hits tour forsome people is that when average fans plunk down $100 on average to see a show they feel like they should get their moneys worth and consume their music the way they would on their own iPod. For many casual fans of U2 that means they better play "Pride" or "Vertigo" or "Beautiful Day." While I got giddy watching them play "Your Blue Room," a large portion of the crowd was lost and wondering when was the next time U2 was going to pull out a warhorse. The band realizes this. They are trying to straddle that tricky line between innovation and satisfying ticket-buyers.

Music is changing. U2 is amazing in that they've tried to stay ahead of the curve as much as possible, and they will likely be looked upon by future generations as having achieved something that may be practically impossible to do anymore -- have a 30-plus-year career filled with more peaks than valleys.

My apologies for this rambling post. I have loved U2 from Achtung Baby, which was the first cassette I ever purchased. And I'm full prepared to follow them to wherever they take their music in the future. But the ground has shifted beneath their feet, and the band is doing the best they can to adjust.

Don't apologize, you're dead on as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Saracene]

Yeah, they've probably peaked. But you know what? I still enjoy the hell out of what they're doing, even if sometimes I find them frustrating. So it doesn't bother me that I think they've probably peaked.

My feelings exactly.

I think also that people often tend to see things in a very black-and-white way, where a band can either be at the highest peak or in the lowest valley and there's nothing in between.

 

[purpleoscar]

the band is doing the best they can to adjust.

They certainly try hard :

YouTube - ‪Letterman - U2 Helps Out During The Snowstorm‬‎

 

[BVS]

Great post, jvdchicago.

For better or worse, I think what you're saying is very true. And I do think U2 is trying to straddle the line.

Some fans don't think they should bother, others understand why they are...

 

[VintagePunk]

I want to echo the comments about the major upheaval in the way music is consumed these days, which I think is a major factor in U2's popularity and the public's perception of the band's music as "relevant."

Single track downloads have shifted the burden on the artist to create pre-packaged hits. No longer can a great single simply co-exist on its own amongst like-minded tracks on an album. That experience for the majority of music fans is now mostly a la carte, with iPods filled with a host of songs from different artists.

NLOTH was a great album as a whole, with some standout tracks and one or two clunkers, but there was no "Beautiful Day" on it or a "Vertigo," which U2 definitely tried to recreate in "Get on Your Boots." Without a hit single that can dominate radio, which also is favoring less rock these days and more pop, you're lacking that gateway to get younger people interested in U2. "GOYB" probably had about two months of play on the majority of Chicago radio stations before it disappeared, and not a single other track from NLOTH ever appeared on a station other than XRT, which is Chicago's more eclectic and less mainstream rock station.

Hell, I was at Lollapalooza this past weekend in Chicago, and you could feel the air deflate from the crowd when certain bands would play tracks from their albums that were lesser known. MGMT was a prime example of this. The second-to-last-song during their set was "Kids," a bona fide hit. By the time they started playing their closing tune "Congratulations," an admittedly great song, the majority of the crowd was uninterested or streaming toward the exits as if to say, "You gave us what we wanted...whatever you have left in the tank is irrelevant." Hell, you can feel the seismic shift when most fans would rather hold their cameras and cell phones in the air to record the experience to relive later at home on a small screen than give in to the moment and be fully present and allow the band to take them to great places. The whole process feels more like a transaction these days than an experience.

Part of the reason I think the U2360 set list feels like a greatest hits tour forsome people is that when average fans plunk down $100 on average to see a show they feel like they should get their moneys worth and consume their music the way they would on their own iPod. For many casual fans of U2 that means they better play "Pride" or "Vertigo" or "Beautiful Day." While I got giddy watching them play "Your Blue Room," a large portion of the crowd was lost and wondering when was the next time U2 was going to pull out a warhorse. The band realizes this. They are trying to straddle that tricky line between innovation and satisfying ticket-buyers.

Music is changing. U2 is amazing in that they've tried to stay ahead of the curve as much as possible, and they will likely be looked upon by future generations as having achieved something that may be practically impossible to do anymore -- have a 30-plus-year career filled with more peaks than valleys.

My apologies for this rambling post. I have loved U2 from Achtung Baby, which was the first cassette I ever purchased. And I'm full prepared to follow them to wherever they take their music in the future. But the ground has shifted beneath their feet, and the band is doing the best they can to adjust.

Sadly, there is so much truth to this post. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

 

[65980]

Money these days is made on touring, touring and......oh,touring. That is how you compensate for it.

U2 always loved the live show, so they'd probably be doing it anyway, but if they wanted to slow it down and focus on albums, this barrier would not be able to be overcome.

You're right, of course, but the question remains: Does U2 need more money??

 

[corianderstem]

"Live is where we live." Wasn't that how that old quote went?

I don't think they're out there with the claw solely to be all money-grubbing and junk.

 

[65980]

Single track downloads have shifted the burden on the artist to create pre-packaged hits. No longer can a great single simply co-exist on its own amongst like-minded tracks on an album.

The thing is, this is exactly how the LP industry was in the 50s and 60s.

Back then, the format of choice (from 45 single to 33&1/3 LP) changed mainly for artistic reasons. Whereas today, the formats and even presentation of music changes because of the dictates of corporations. Which is a bit sad.

 

[BVS]

Back then, the format of choice (from 45 single to 33&1/3 LP) changed mainly for artistic reasons.

Not exactly, money was involved first and then artist found a way to use it, which is pretty much the history of almost all things art.

We moved from the 45 to the LP because recording cost came down and companies thought, well if they will buy one song they will buy 10. It wasn't until years later that artists started looking at the concept of the album.

 

[65980]

Not exactly, money was involved first and then artist found a way to use it, which is pretty much the history of almost all things art.

We moved from the 45 to the LP because recording cost came down and companies thought, well if they will buy one song they will buy 10. It wasn't until years later that artists started looking at the concept of the album.

Well, perhaps we could say that the two things occurred at the same time around the late 60s. 1969 was the first year that albums outsold 45 singles in the United States, at which point The Beatles were making their final album. Yet people like The Beatles and Bob Dylan had clearly made their major artistic statement on LPs in 1966, 1967, 1968. I would suggest that they chose to do so, but, as you say, it also has to do with industry production costs and the ability of emerging baby-boomers to spend more money than the kids of the 50s could.

 

[RedRocksU2]

Great thread, possibly one of the best ever.

The only comment I have is that my U2 experience peaked when I ended up enjoying it/sharing it with multiple people here in gatherings for the past 5 years. Hope that makes sense.

 

[U2387]

You're right, of course, but the question remains: Does U2 need more money??

Of course not, from a "live the rest of your life worry free" standpoint, they haven't since JT.

But does Exxon Mobil or Microsoft or any other big business need any more money? No, they're doing just fine money wise.

But U2 is a business like any other business.
where the money is relevant is in 2 places:

1.)It is how relevance/competitiveness/success is judged in most of the world. People are looking for 360 to eclipse the Bigger Bang Tour as the highest grossing in history. Music Industry magazines, business magazines, newspapers, entertainment shows, all have their segments written on it, just waiting to put a date on it. We love to rank things in terms of how well they did monetarily.

U2 will never give up that hunger to be on top, to have more people see them and buy their product than anyone else in the business.

2.)They're not all of a sudden going to start taking losses on their work, breaking even or making less than their competitors just so that they can put out 4 albums in a decade instead of 2.

I am sure you know all of this.

Not right, not wrong, I have no idea where I stand on it. Its just the way it is.

Like jvdchicago and BVS said, I understand why U2 is seeking to adapt to it.

 

[65980]

Of course not, from a "live the rest of your life worry free" standpoint, they haven't since JT.

But does Exxon Mobil or Microsoft or any other big business need any more money? No, they're doing just fine money wise.

But U2 is a business like any other business.

Again, you're probably right, but I find the comparison of U2 to Exxon Mobil rather disturbing.

Frankly, I don't judge music by how much money it makes, nor does anyone I know. I couldn't care less how many people the tour plays to or how much it grosses. I couldn't care less where U2 is in the charts, or even how popular they are.

As someone noted above, their legacy will be determined by their recorded output more than anything. I don't think many people will care about how big or technologically wonderful "the claw" was in 50 years -- such toys will appear old-hat in a few years, and will be outdone by younger, bigger artists signed to bigger corporations. What people will remember is the music.

I'm not saying that big, famous groups should move into a hole and come out once a year to play a pub-gig. I'm just saying that IF U2 wanted to, they could easily play to 12,000 people a night in a no-frills concert setting, with little or no corporate sponsorship -- much like they did in the mid 80s -- and still break even or make a profit.

But, as you rightly point out, they clearly don't want to do that. They want to be as BIG as possible, as much as they want to make great music or be great musicians. Which I don't understand, but that's just me.

 

[zooropop40]

Would you consider U2 a business from TUF to AB ?

I personally dont consider them a business at all, I like to think of them as artists (not to say that they cant be both). But I definitely dont like to think of U2 as some sort of giant corporation and sometimes I get that kind of vibe from them because of actions of Paul McGuine$$ and the marketing and desperation to be currently popular among the youth. I dont think they need any more money or fame, and I dont think they should try to further pursue either. Instead they should just write the type of music they like and not care about their popularity. At this point in their career, they deserve to do that. The best bands arent always the "biggest" ones.

 

[ramblin rose]

Would you consider U2 a business from TUF to AB ?

Absolutely.

 

[65980]

The best bands arent always the "biggest" ones.

Indeed, since the early 70s I would say that the biggest bands are usually amongst the worst!

 

[An Cat Gav]

Indeed, since the early 70s I would say that the biggest bands are usually amongst the worst!

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Wait? So, U2 are really a crap band and we've been sucked in to worship them?

I ALWAYS knew Paul McGuinne$$ was up to something.

 

[cobl04]

I'm just saying that IF U2 wanted to, they could easily play to 12,000 people a night in a no-frills concert setting, with little or no corporate sponsorship -- much like they did in the mid 80s -- and still break even or make a profit.

But, as you rightly point out, they clearly don't want to do that.

to reply seriously to one of your posts for a moment (and it kills me to do so), i think i must be the only person who would prefer it if U2 stopped making albums and did ^ just that. 12,000 people a night in a no-frills concert setting, varied setlists every night. because unfortunately i do find myself a little bummed that NLOTH has kind of flopped. anything they release from now on isn't going to sell as well as the crap that does, and it isn't going to be well received critically either. i think it would be awesome if they toured say three months on, three months off. all around the world.