U2's Future; Is this the home stretch?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

U2's Destiny?

  • Relevant into their 50's... ala Aerosmith (albeit with cheesey love songs, they still get played)

    Votes: 16 32.7%
  • Breaking up and reuniting every 2 years for one more "final" world tour... ala The Who

    Votes: 2 4.1%
  • Rocking in their rockers and depends... ala The Stones

    Votes: 27 55.1%
  • Sleezy Las Vegas lounge act.

    Votes: 4 8.2%

  • Total voters
    49

Headache in a Suitcase

Site Team
Staff member
Joined
Jul 16, 2000
Messages
75,652
Location
With the other morally corrupt bootlicking rubes.
U2's Futre; Is this the home stretch?

The boys are now in their early 40's, and Bono's already had a few problems with the ol' pipes... so are we at the point where the next album or two will be it? Can they stay relevant into their 50's like Aerosmith has (all be it by changing their style to sad sappy love songs, but hey it worked). Will they be like The Who... breaking up and reuniting for a world tour every two years to milk their past greatness? Or will they be the Stones part 2, rocking on until the day they die, not giving a crap what the critics say about them being too old, decrepid, and frankly scary lookin', and still selling out arenas and stadiums throughout the world? Or maybe they'll go their seperate ways... Edge will go work for NASA, Adam will retire to his spoon collection, and Larry will bike his way from New York to Vegas, to see Bono's sleazy lounge act at the Bilagio? Hmmmm...
 
While I don't want to really compare them to Aerosmith (they are good, however it's not the same caliber of music). I chose that their music will still be relevant. Not saying that they are going to produce all sappy movie soundtracks songs until one of them dies. Just saying that they have managed to reinvent themselves with just about every album, and who knows what the new album will bring us. They have always managed to stay a step ahead of everyone else and I don't see that changing.

On a :mad: note, I hate the fact that artists over 40 are considered on the downswing of their careers. Yes I know that the majority of music listeners are young kids and they wanna hear young kids. But I think it's stupid that just because an artist isn't 25 anymore means that they have to retire and start a fish farm.
[/stupid rant]
 
A quick point- Bono's had some rough vocal patches, but lately (ES, THTBA) it is sounding better. Of course, I do know that studio recordings do wonders and the true test is live. The Grammies performance last year displayed his voice in top form.
 
I picture them like the Stones with the exception that U2 will still be making important music well into their 50's.

All That... is a "Big 3" album (JT,AB,ATYCLB). Electical Storm is a great tune. The band has never sound tighter. The mp3s of Slane are evidence. The next ten years (2 of which are over) will be a breeze in terms of crafting songs. U2 are no longer scared of sounding like U2.
 
While you say U2 "are no longer afraid to sound like U2" I hope this does not mean they will spend the next 10 years putting out pseudo-80s style work like ATYCLB ( I like ATYCLB by the way but I want them to continue to try new things). Frankly, short of doing an epic/hard rock album in the classic 70s stlye of Led Zeppelin I can't see what else they can do..


Lokking forward to whatever comes out though!:yes: :drool:
 
KhanadaRhodes said:
what is the obsession lately with when they will retire, and how they will do it?

Well, I thought it was odd that the Best of 1990-2000 History Mix made "Beautiful Day" out to be the end of one era instead of the beginning of another. The band kind of feels in limbo now.
 
Last edited:
Being in your 40s is not old. The Elevation tour is the best tour I have seen and I have seen both ZOO TV and POPMART. The band keeps on getting better. People have been asking this question since 1987 and I find it strange that they do. Always seems like some people are saying this is the last album or tour and the fact is, its not. I'm confident the band will continue for a really long time and age will not be a factor, as it certainly isn't now.
 
UltravioletU2 said:
A quick point- Bono's had some rough vocal patches, but lately (ES, THTBA) it is sounding better. Of course, I do know that studio recordings do wonders and the true test is live. The Grammies performance last year displayed his voice in top form.


Bono has always had vocal trouble. At first I thought it was just recently. But go back and listen to the original "Sweetest thing", or any live recordings from the Joshua Tree era. They had to cancel a concert in Amsterdam in 1989 because Bono had vocal trouble. Bono's voice always sounds great with studio help, but he is just like everyone else....singing for 2 hours a night roughly every other night will take it's tole on anyone's voice. Especially someone like him who gives it all he's got. Sometimes he just has more than he does at other times. Bono has learned how to sing in a manner that can preserve his voice. Sometimes we don't get the "WIIIIIIIIIIDEEE AWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE!", but we still get "WIDE AWAKE!" He will be able to sing for years to come. I don't think that he should be doing 2 nights on, 1 night off, 2 night on etc. like he did on the Elevation tour. Just looking at that tour schedule made me tired.
 
Back
Top Bottom