If you could choose which would you prefer?

[U2girl]

a) U2 doesn't tour anymore but we get an album on 2/3 year period from now on

b) U2 stops making albums and focuses on touring; starts playing Asia, covers rest of Europe, plays Australia and S. America regularly and plays ALL of their albums' material, more rarities, B-sides etc.

 

[bono_man2002]

If I had to go for either option...I'd vote for them just to retire

I'd have to be leaning towards A.

 

[Axver]

Option B by a mile. Nowadays, I enjoy their live work much more than their studio work.

Though I'm sure most of this forum will swing towards Option A.

 

[PookaMacP]

Option A definitely. Live they're great, but what's the point in constantly wheeling out the same old songs over and over again to an audience that's heard them a million times before? Strolling Bones anyone?

 

[Axver]

Live they're great, but what's the point in constantly wheeling out the same old songs over and over again to an audience that's heard them a million times before?

Right now, I'd much rather hear them FINALLY play songs such as Treasure and Luminous Times live instead of hearing an album of 12 WITSes.

 

[PookaMacP]

Right now, I'd much rather hear them FINALLY play songs such as Treasure and Luminous Times live instead of hearing an album of 12 WITSes.

Fair enough. It's really a matter of opinion and a matter of what songs you prefer - which is, of course, the beauty of liking a band that's been around for so long. I don't think some of the b-sides or obscure album tracks would work live, but then nor do I think 12 WITS would work too well either. (Though 12 WITS would make a great album). I think that WITS shows that they've still got a lot of creativity left in them, so if the option was to keep hearing new stuff then I could do without seeing them once every four years.

 

[Bug]

B for sure.

I'm sure it wouldn't mean no new material anyway.
Sometimes you don't need to have an album to tour with new songs.

 

[coolian2]

Neither.


Although i'm open to them playing every Friday night down at the local.

 

[An Cat Gav]

A for sure.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Right now, I'd much rather hear them FINALLY play songs such as Treasure and Luminous Times live instead of hearing an album of 12 WITSes.

HAH! Hopefully you're just using the ol' Internet Humour, but if U2 were to tour with no new album they'd be touring a greatest hits parade.

I go with A, because I am a North American SOB who is spoiled with a shower of glourious U2 shows in intimate venues every tour. Eat my ass, rest of the world!

 

[U2girl]

With option b) do we assume U2 is featuring new songs on tour, as they happen ?

 

[Axver]

I think that WITS shows that they've still got a lot of creativity left in them, so if the option was to keep hearing new stuff then I could do without seeing them once every four years.

See, I feel the exact opposite, and that's part of what motivated me to choose Option B. I feel like WITS is a very "meh" song, neither bad nor good. U2 by the numbers, I suppose. It has all the elements that U2 have employed to great success before, but it seems to lack a spark. I can't quite put my finger on what it is that bothers me about the song, but it just doesn't do it for me, and if it's indicative of anything, then I'll gladly ditch the studio albums and take some Alex Descends Into Hell live goodness.

HAH! Hopefully you're just using the ol' Internet Humour, but if U2 were to tour with no new album they'd be touring a greatest hits parade.

Oh, I know that's what would happen in reality (hell, just look at the fifth leg setlists, it was already sort of happening), but I was responding to the hypothetical scenario in U2girl's post where U2 would play "ALL of their albums' material, more rarities, B-sides etc."

 

[Canadiens1131]

See, I feel the exact opposite, and that's part of what motivated me to choose Option B. I feel like WITS is a very "meh" song, neither bad nor good. U2 by the numbers, I suppose. It has all the elements that U2 have employed to great success before, but it seems to lack a spark.

Interesting sentiment. To me it seems like the song has the spark that is missing from by-the-numbers recent U2 such as Sometimes or Miracle Drug. There's actually an element of restraint behind the gushing melody and pop sensibilities in the production of WITS.

The breakdown at 2:32 is one of the most pleasant and restrained phrases U2 has put on record in recent memory with Adam's 8th note triplets holding it together very subtlety.

The song just doesn't seem forced to me. Much like Beautiful Day it comes off like a breath of fresh air and I think it works very nicely as a single release and not part of an album.

Of course it's all personal opinion. All they really need to do is hit Edge in the temple with a heavy guitar so that he forgets his signature sound and comes up with something brilliant and non U2-generic.

 

[MacPhistoPT]

B) of course

 

[WinnieThePoo]

B ,B , B!!!!!!!!
u2 tour is a great thing , they always perform , even when the things go wrong

 

[Aygo]

A) naturally
I'd rather have U2 "alive" for a few more years in the studio and creating at least something that to become earlier rock&roll dinossaurs like the Rolling Stones that are just a tribute for themselves

 

[RavenBlue]

Option B

I needs to see them live

 

[CTU2fan]

B

 

[Liesje]

B because they can still write/play new songs while touring, but option A limits them to studio work.

 

[martha]

A

Because B would mean they've become a nostalgia act.

 

[Bonochick]

A

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

B

and i liked their last two albums a lot, and i love window in the skies... so i wouldn't be happy with either choice. but if i had to make a choice between more studio albums with no tours or tours with no albums, i prefer the live experience.

i, for one, thought the rolling stones' bigger bang stadium show was spectacular and most certainly not a "boring hits parade."

not for nothing, the stones play more rare songs than u2 does.

 

[LemonMelon]

Neither. I'm happy with how things are going right now.

However....

A) does sound a bit better to me, especially since I've already witnessed U2 live. It was incredible, but to sacrifice U2's growth as a band for that? No way.

 

[bayou12780]

A - and then release more live concert cds and dvds. How 'bout a Live Best Of? We know they've got everything recorded - let some more of it out.

Still wondering why they couldn't offer a cd and dvd of every Vertigo concert. Would much rather have paid $25 for a dvd than $35 for a tshirt. If the bootleggers can do it...

Prediction on future of touring - pick a few prime locations and do pay-per-view then release it later on dvd.

 

[vaz02]

Rather they go the bruce route.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

B

and i liked their last two albums a lot, and i love window in the skies... so i wouldn't be happy with either choice. but if i had to make a choice between more studio albums with no tours or tours with no albums, i prefer the live experience.

i, for one, thought the rolling stones' bigger bang stadium show was spectacular and most certainly not a "boring hits parade."

not for nothing, the stones play more rare songs than u2 does.

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.

If I had the choice, give it to me live, baby.

Nothing compares to U2 live.

 

[*Ally*]

B. Seeing U2 live is an amazing experience that more people around the world should have the opportunity to witness. As long as they mix things up and bring out some rarities along with the standard favorites, i'd be ok with more touring and less new material.

ideally, though, it would be both A and B!

 

[GibsonGirl]

B.

 

[Varitek]

b) U2 stops making albums and focuses on touring; starts playing Asia, covers rest of Europe, plays Australia and S. America regularly and plays ALL of their albums' material, more rarities, B-sides etc.

If they actually did that I'd take B. Live RHMT Acrobat So Cruel

 

[No spoken words]

I like things as they are, but, if forced to choose....wow.....B. I want new stuff, still, but, yeah, nothing compares to seeing them LIVE. Tough call, though.