If you could choose which would you prefer?

[JCOSTER]

B - I'm getting too old to wait for new albums....time is running out. I need to see as many shows as I can while I can still keep up!

 

[ElectricalVoice]

A. Certainly. I've seen them live. Have not heard their three next albums. But I sure want to.

 

[silvrlvr]

A. Although I think they can pull off both. Maybe they can create a template for a new kind of mature rock band. I don't need to have a bouncing Bono and 10 stories of lights flash in my face to enjoy the music.

They can play a much more intimate style than they have and it might suit them better as they get older.

 

[Roland of Gilead]

I'll choose "B" ... with original material being played live for the first time.

I'll get my cake and eat it too!

 

[thankyou]

Seeing them live is beyond compare, could never give that up. But it would be ridiculous to assume that they would tour continuously and be gone that much time from their family. Especially when 3 out of the 4 have such small children still.

I really like the idea of silvrlvr. "Maybe they can create a template for a new kind of mature rock band. I don't need to have a bouncing Bono and 10 stories of lights flash in my face to enjoy the music.

They can play a much more intimate style than they have and it might suit them better as they get older."

I look forward to that day, for purely selfish reasons, when their tours would be a lot smaller scale, ~ and get to see them a lot closer up!! ~ although if you see what's going with the Rolling Stones, I think we will be waiting for that day for quite some years to come.
In the meanwhile, I continue to look forward to the shows where we can scream our lungs out and Bono is still able to jump up in the air and keep the excitement going as long as he can....

 

[Earnie Shavers]

A. Although I think they can pull off both. Maybe they can create a template for a new kind of mature rock band. I don't need to have a bouncing Bono and 10 stories of lights flash in my face to enjoy the music.

They can play a much more intimate style than they have and it might suit them better as they get older.

I look forward to this as well.

Honestly, I thought aside from COBL as a decent opener and Vertigo as a good crowd rev up at the beginning, the Bomb songs were the clunkers of the tour and I'm not all that keen on the possibility of hearing 10 x Window in the Skies live from the next few albums.

I love the idea of U2 making more intimate music as they age. Music that doesn't want to be played a lot on the radio, music that doesn't need to carry to the back rows of a stadium. The idea of songs that don't have me picturing Bono making grand gestures at the end of a ramp in front of a bank of lights but have him quietly crooning in a smokey room excites me. This kind of thing would also bring their musicianship straight to the front as well. Far, far more than anything on the Bomb. That kind of music has no room for Bono's crooning on Stateless, or Edge's guitar part on Velvet Dress etc etc.

Drop !!IMMEDIATE!! and get intimate. Edge is better than this, Bono is better than this. I don't think what they are doing now is anywhere near as great as they can be, and I think that won't be brought out until they feel like they don't have to prove themselves as relevant and huge.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

^ YES!!!!

Rather they go the bruce route.

And for them to go this way, reinvent themselves "smaller" if you will.

 

[thankyou]

^ YES!!!!



And for them to go this way, reinvent themselves "smaller" if you will.

Looks like there is quite of few of us thinking along the same line. And if there are that many, I guess the whole idea of "smaller venues" and "more intimate" concerts is going to be something we will have to just continue dreaming about. Their following is just too big. Unless.... they end up losing a great deal of the younger crowd they picked up from Bomb. I think a lot of it will depend on the next album?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Exactly, and I want to say this everytime someone says the Stones have become a nostalgia act. They pulled out more rarities in the past two tours, played a variety of different venues (small clubs, arenas and stadiums) than U2 has in the past ten years.

i obviously would rather see u2 than the stones, because, well, i'm a bigger u2 fan. but the stones, who's tours consistantly get slammed around these boards for being "boring hits parades" take a hell of a lot more risks in a live setting than u2 does... be it breaking out rareities that they haven't played in years, to their continuing to push the envelope with stage production in huge 50,000+ seat stadiums while at the same time playing intimate 1,000 seat club gigs.

u2 may be a better live act, but the rolling stones are certainly more ambitious.

 

[vaz02]

I much rather u2 forget about the big bucks and start being comfortable with the music they play again , if this means playing smaller venues and releasing a album every 2 years so be it.

 

[Lancemc]

we neeeeed an official poll for this. I'd say B, by a mile. They have so much material in their catalogue to explore, I'd love to see them just go nuts with it.

 

[J_NP]

B all way down

 

[blueeyedgirl]

Unless.... they end up losing a great deal of the younger crowd they picked up from Bomb. I think a lot of it will depend on the next album?

We can only hope!

 

[david]

They should just become a sandal wearing non-stop-touring jam band.

 

[U2girl]

I really like the idea of silvrlvr. "Maybe they can create a template for a new kind of mature rock band. I don't need to have a bouncing Bono and 10 stories of lights flash in my face to enjoy the music.

They can play a much more intimate style than they have and it might suit them better as they get older."

I can see the complaints now ... "I can't get tickets!" "I want my big show and BIG stage setup!"

That said I agree the "bigger is better" tour shtick can get old, and there might come a time when they stop doing massive size shows.

Good for Stones that they play various venues (and since they're 15 years or so U2's seniors, yes, I don't doubt they can pull out more out of their catalogue).
I think it's odd that at the tour that brought so many less known songs and oldies, Vertigo got slammed for the setlists as much as it did.

Anyway, back to the topic. I vote A. Touring is of course a big part of them, but at this stage of their career, I'd rather get more albums out of U2 than a never ending tour.

 

[MaxFisher]

U2 touring for sure. There's just nothing like U2 live and they've said a million times that they're primarily a live act.

Most bands tour to support an album. U2 makes albums to support the tour. (It just so happens that along that process they recorded two of the greatest rock albums ever.) At this point in their career, they have big enough catalog to tour with out releasing new songs.

That being said, I can't wait for the next album!

 

[Rachel D.]

I would much rather have new material than have them be on tour all the time. They would just be boring old guys who play their hits over and over again and they would have no chance of winning younger fans. Basically, they would be at a dead end in their career. And they never come to my town anyway, so I don't care if they tour at all or not. I choose A definitly because I don't want them to look old and stupid.

 

[adrball]

B without any doubt

 

[mandrake]

Option B

 

[Carmelu2fan]

B...I miss the tour already.

 

[BonosLil'Pal94]

B!!!! i can't wait to go to more shows!! and i'm fine with the songs they have

 

[dazzlingamy]

tour tour tour tour. Nothing beats seeing them perform right in front of you