Rolling Stone: "U2 greatest hits comp, may drop before Christmas"

[Aygo]

100% agree with the post

Also I don't understand why some friends here think that releasing Box Sets, Anthologies, etc is equal to be finished as band. The only one way to be finished as a band is losing the relevance and albums quality. U2 have been doing wrong for years, wih lesser quality albums and increased lack of quality on songwriting, singles, lyrics, etc, etc.

When a band is going downhill as U2, you have 3 choices:

Keep the trend (sadly, U2 are doing that )
Dream it all up again
Definitely split up

I can imagine the music without U2. Sooner or later the band will broke up, and we'll have to accept that.
Nowadays everytime I think in these men getting older and colder, The Who's statement comes to mind "better die before get old". U2 have done excellent music for years, they proved the world they were the best already, so why keep going like a kinda by act, showing pass their prime with every new year?. I really don't understand that. They have enough money to make at least 3 generations from their families rich and comfortable.

If The Beatles wouldn't have broke up in 1970 and they were keep going in the 70s until Lennon's shot dead in 1980, I bet you they were nowhere near as legendary as they still are, and they relevance would be not even half of what actually is.

Hum, I guess I disagree. you should read again what me and Earnie Shavers posted in the last 2 pages. When the artist seems not to give up of the music/showbusiness even if he's trillionaire, it means that he really likes what he does and that he's got something more to show, that his message has got over yet. I think that's what happens with U2.
The guys are yet to prove that they're far from being dead and that their music still is listenble and that it reaches a large audience (even if the techniques are bad).

People (mostly the hardcore fans) have to understand something. Liking it or not, this phase in the band's career was essential to reach what the band wanted: deliver their music to all the people as possible. I think it has always been their big wish. And even if you are hating this decade's works... the strategy has been working.
It doesn't mean that things won't change.
Who said that being a involved activist, having big families and being millionaire means that the band is over and that their music will start to sound the same?

Yeah, The Beatles broke up after almost a decade, but that was the 60's... the scene was new and The Rolling Stones have become ghosts of themselves.

Instead, look at David Bowie (and I insist) and at Madonna or at Prince or other artists... The first one was still in a high pedestal by the late 90's. the second one - read my post in page 9 and the third one got back in stenght with his last works. Why? Easy, that's why I think this all makes sense.

 

[U2girl]

I think it will be interesting once U2 stops - and they will stop - selling their albums big time.
They showed it can be done at 40, maybe it can be done at 50 but I don't think they can still do it when they're 60.
Age will be a big factor too (next to Larry's wrists and Bono's voice), touring won't get easier each year, and they all have families.
I think they will quit rather than go on forever.

 

[Blue Room]

I think it will be interesting once U2 stops - and they will stop - selling their albums big time.
They showed it can be done at 40, maybe it can be done at 50 but I don't think they can still do it when they're 60.
Age will be a big factor too (next to Larry's wrists and Bono's voice), touring won't get easier each year, and they all have families.
I think they will quit rather than go on forever.

Bono, Edge and Larry have all indicated that they will continue to make music as long as they are physically able. The only thing under your scenario that fits that really is Larry's wrists. Which "supposedly" he has under control at this point despite what some were saying here during the tour.

Will they stop at some point, obviously. I think its going to be something drastic though, like a major impairment or death of a member for that to happen. World tours will end eventually, but even then I think they will play live in some form if they are physicially able. I think we have at least 15 more years of activity at the same level they currently are at. Then it may reduce somewhat beyond that.

 

[U2Man]

I have a feeling that Larry is the one that is going to take the decision. He's been looking like he has been forced to drink Bono's piss each morning for about 10 years now.

 

[Kildare]

Yeah, I'd like to chime in again and agree with the "Larry's wrists and Bono's voice" conditions. Those are the caveats, otherwise I'd say U2 is gonna be making music and touring for a while more to come.

During the press for HTDAAB, the band made it clear that it was their "first album," they are "just getting started," etc. On top of that, as several people have pointed out, they are having a new studio built. I'm sure the # of albums they have left easily outnumbers the amount of world tours they have left in them, but nevertheless, they are sticking around.

 

[mikal]

Bono, Edge and Larry have all indicated that they will continue to make music as long as they are physically able. The only thing under your scenario that fits that really is Larry's wrists. Which "supposedly" he has under control at this point despite what some were saying here during the tour.

Will they stop at some point, obviously. I think its going to be something drastic though, like a major impairment or death of a member for that to happen. World tours will end eventually, but even then I think they will play live in some form if they are physicially able. I think we have at least 15 more years of activity at the same level they currently are at. Then it may reduce somewhat beyond that.

good post. that's pretty much what i think, too.

 

[Tyagu_Anaykus]

Hum, I guess I disagree. you should read again what me and Earnie Shavers posted in the last 2 pages. When the artist seems not to give up of the music/showbusiness even if he's trillionaire, it means that he really likes what he does and that he's got something more to show, that his message has got over yet. I think that's what happens with U2.
The guys are yet to prove that they're far from being dead and that their music still is listenble and that it reaches a large audience (even if the techniques are bad).

People (mostly the hardcore fans) have to understand something. Liking it or not, this phase in the band's career was essential to reach what the band wanted: deliver their music to all the people as possible. I think it has always been their big wish. And even if you are hating this decade's works... the strategy has been working.
It doesn't mean that things won't change.

Great post!

 

[Tyagu_Anaykus]

they're only 46 and 45 years old. They're far from retiring. They're not young but they're not old please lets not think about such a dramatic day

 

[vaz02]

I have a feeling that Larry is the one that is going to take the decision. He's been looking like he has been forced to drink Bono's piss each morning for about 10 years now.

Quote of the day , so fucking true.

 

[Canadiens1131]

I have a feeling that Larry is the one that is going to take the decision. He's been looking like he has been forced to drink Bono's piss each morning for about 10 years now.

That is amazing.

Unfortunately they'll replace Larry with a drum machine, or possibly a desk fan.

 

[GibsonGirl]

At least the fan could probably do more than a standard, run-of-the-mill 4/4 rock beat...and it does make that cool sound when you sing into it.

But anyway, I'm not going to talk about U2's inevitable demise. If U2 releases another compilation right now, there is no way in hell I'm buying it. And if they have the audacity to sneak a few new songs onto it, thinking that they'll lure the dedicated fans in that way, they can forget about it. Honestly, how many times do I need Pride (In The Name Of Love) on my computer? I hope this is just a silly RS rumour, or that it has been misinterpreted by their journalists somehow. Most of the big music magazines have gone to shit anyway. I just honestly don't see the point in releasing a compilation right now, with or without new tracks.

 

[U2Man]

 

[Aygo]

Who knows if the journalist (yeah, I have already read very bad and senseless articles in magazines like Rolling Stone) misinterpreted the message contained in his information? I imagined that it could be a COMPILATION of the most recent outtakes (perhaps coming from the last album) combined with a few new tracks and he misinterpreted as a new compilation of hits. It could happen that the journalist even doesn't know much about U2's career and last releasements... It won't be the first nor the last time that things like these happen...

 

[U2Man]

At least the fan could probably do more than a standard, run-of-the-mill 4/4 rock beat...and it does make that cool sound when you sing into it.

To Larry's defense, I actually think he varies his drumming a lot. It might often be 4/4, but he's never doing the same thing twice.

 

[Anticipation]

As a long time fan who has been sitting back and reading things in this forum since 2000 and posted occasionally, I am amazed about how so many people here post how U2 is in decline when they just won the Album of the Year grammy and are once again universally accepted throughout the world as the biggest band in the world. Also, the rumours of U2 retiring or breaking up has been going on at least since 1992 and they haven't so I really think people need to stop obsessing. I remeber being at the awesome first show of Zoo TV in Lakeland, Florida on leap day 1992 and people saying that this may be their last tour. And that was over 14 years ago.

 

[GibsonGirl]

To Larry's defense, I actually think he varies his drumming a lot. It might often be 4/4, but he's never doing the same thing twice.

Yeah, I know. I was just kidding. I do think his drumming has gotten a bit boring these days, however. Larry used to be quite interesting as a drummer. Before anyone leaps on me, no, I do NOT want drum solos. I just want to hear the drums contributing to the feel of the music again. Remember what Larry did in Exit? God, those snares at the end sound just like gunshots ringing out again and again and again - supporting the theme of the song. And I'm fairly certain it was intentional.

To be fair, though, I don't think there are very many interesting drummers around these days anyway.

 

[xaviMF22]

listen to the drums on Mysterious ways

 

[GibsonGirl]

I would, but Mysterious Ways is enough to make me . I'm not wild about Larry's drumming on Achtung Baby either.

 

[U2Man]

listen to the drums on Mysterious ways

I knew you would have something to say here.

 

[xaviMF22]

I knew you would have something to say here.

 

[Canadiens1131]

I am amazed about how so many people here post how U2 is in decline when they just won the Album of the Year grammy

Musically speaking, a Grammy is about the same value as a stick up the bum.

That is to say it's not very valuable, musically.

 

[xaviMF22]

U2 are the best because they won a grammy

 

[Salome]

I wouldn't say a grammy shows that they're the best
it might count as a reason to acknowledge that not the entire world is expecting / demanding the band to drastically change their sound

 

[ponkine]

U2 are the best because they won a grammy

Pink Floyd The Dark Side Of The Moon never won a grammy ...

Grammy Awards have become into the most pathetic piece of corporate s*** I've ever had the misfortune to watch.

There's always a point to compare albums and bands. For example, take Dark Side Of The Moon Again. If you considere the Guiness Record for 741 weeks at Billboard Top 200 or considere the fact that it has sold more than 35 million copies (and counting) it blow on the water ANY U2 album, just looking at the numbers , there's no discussion about that ... but ...

matter of taste is subjetive. For you maybe any U2 album is better than Dark Side Of The Moon. As for me, The Dark Side Of The Moon is arguably a top 10 album of all times and way better than anything U2 have put on an album

 

[xaviMF22]

damn it I was being sarcastic

 

[xaviMF22]

Pink Floyd The Dark Side Of The Moon never won a grammy ...

Grammy Awards have become into the most pathetic piece of corporate s*** I've ever had the misfortune to watch.

There's always a point to compare albums and bands. For example, take Dark Side Of The Moon Again. If you considere the Guiness Record for 741 weeks at Billboard Top 200 or considere the fact that it has sold more than 35 million copies (and counting) it blow on the water ANY U2 album, just looking at the numbers , there's no discussion about that ... but ...

matter of taste is subjetive. For you maybe any U2 album is better than Dark Side Of The Moon. As for me, The Dark Side Of The Moon is arguably a top 10 album of all times and way better than anything U2 have put on an album

are you even a U2 fan?




and by the way

animals>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>DSOTM

 

[Screwtape2]

animals>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>DSOTM

I second that.

 

[Aygo]

These are the things we read here...

 

[Screwtape2]

Musically speaking, a Grammy is about the same value as a stick up the bum.

That is to say it's not very valuable, musically.

So true. Grammy's are not a good measuring stick for musicians. HTDAAB won only because Kanye's album was too political and others were not good. These are the same awards that didn't give Achtung Baby the best album award. No Axver this is not the time to chime in on AB.
The voters vote on popularity not substance. Remember when MJ's Thriller beat out The Police's Synchronicity?
Here's a list of some of those best album winners, are these great albums in your mind?
Toto 4, Saturday Night Fever, 52nd Street, Christopher Cross, Back On The Block, Falling Into You, O Brother Where Art Thou, and Come Away With Me.

 

[Lemonfix]

Perhaps we're looking at U2's career through a very black and white perspective. They probably won't officially call it quits barring one of them dying or going insane. Nor will they continue to make albums or tour that regularly. Hell, they could go a decade without an album, longer without a tour. Time with family and extra-curricular activities could become their primary focus and U2 could be on hiatus for years, but they won't be retired in an official sense. Because, let's face it. Solo artists who "retire" never stay retired--they love making music too much. Bands whose members still get along and enjoy making the occasional song together are the same way...retirement would mean nothing.

My guess? one or two albums and that's it.....for a while.