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.
U2 and ExxonMobil are both businesses and neither "need" more money from a traditional standpoint. Thats as far as it goes!
I should have clarified that.
Shoot me in the head if I ever, ever come close to making the 2 out to be comparable in terms of business practices, ethos, etc.
Good posts, however
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the argument that has taken over this thread, I don't have the reputation for the coolest head. As someone who has made the latest contribution to the banned members list, I have some wisdom to impart here!
Life is too short to personally attack people on forums, and no one will get anywhere attacking the moderators here.
I really have seen good points made by people who are at each other's throats in this thread. Monsieur Fly and 65980 take different sides than BVS, but all have made interesting posts in this thread.
As far as triggers for personal back and forths go, this one was pretty damn minor. No one ever suggested that U2 sucked or asked that they be judged on 1 night and 2 new songs in Torino, and by the same token, no one ever suggested that people could not make a thread or express their opinions.
I think we argue about enough here(myself included certainly) to let irrelevant, petty squabbles like this bring a great thread down to personal attacks.
I am not trying to be a moderator or step on the mods toes in any way here, just sharing what taking things too seriously and personally has taught me in the recent past.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back on topic.
My 1st post on the topic mentioned 1984-1993.
I briefly touched on the Elevation tour and ATYCLB as a resurgence, but I want to highlight that and ask a question:
With the band members all around 50(The Stones, Tina Turner, John Fogerty, McCartney, Bruce all being a lot older) and having plenty of gas left in the tank, what do we think about the chances of U2 having another album and era as big and relevant as ATYCLB/Elevation?
I think they are pretty damn good.
Obviously, North Star and Glastonbury are not sure fire anythings, never mind hits or even singles. We do not know what they are doing with the various projects. However, if they are writing songs similar to either, I could easily see something catching on!