Does Bono alone = U2?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
anyone else willing to be that Myke Hawke will never add to his three posts? lol

:lol:

I'm a fan of all kinds of bands I can only name one or two members of. :shrug:

Don't stone me, but musically, I think Adam probably is the most expendable. But would they go on without him (or any of them, really) at this point? Not a chance.

"quoted for truth"
 
Bono has said before that he would not want to be a solo artist. Bono is not U2, Bono is in U2. And it's true that they are all such good friends, unlike a lot of other bands out there; you'll see that more as you learn more about the band.

And don't let the rude people scare you away. Sometimes I think they can't help it.
 
Actually, Flanagan interviewed Edge about this very issue shortly after Clayton missed the concert in 93 -- if one of the band decided not to go on, or decided to record the songs but not tour, would the band go on. Edge's response was an immediate "Yes, but in a different way." So there's that to consider...
 
If one member leaves then that's probably the end of U2. They could replace, with all respect, Adam or Larry and you wouldn't really notive it but I don't think they would do it.
 
Hi, Myke! Welcome to Interference!
Please, don't get scared by some answers, some people get too defensive of their band even when there's nothing to defend them from. I find your question very interesting as it comes from the "outside world".

My opinion is that if any member of U2 leaves it will mean the end of U2 as a band, that's what most fans expect, I think, there have been polls in other big U2 sites about this and even if it were Larry (drums) or Adam (bass) most fans say they think they should not continue U2 in those circumstances, in the case of Bono and Edge (guitar) almost nobody consider it as possible.

Why is it so? you asked in another post and you compared U2 and Guns'n Roses. Well, the thing is that U2 transcend a musical business and they also transcend an art project and a political project. They met each other at school when they were just 15, 16, Bono's wife and Larry's girlfriend were there too at that early stage, their friends at school are still their friends. They have overcome difficulties and supported each other at their worst moments, when one is in need, the others are there with him, we don't know everything in their lives, but just a few examples which are public: when Adam had problems with alcohol Edge was with him in the clinic, Bono spent a long time with him to support him after leaving the clinic, when Edge's daughter was ill they all stopped the tour without thinking about the money but the little girl, recently all three: Adam, Edge and Larry spent great part of June and July with Bono while he was recovering from his surgery, they are family, close family now, they celebrate together, they even spend part of their holidays together. I don't mean that they don't face difficulties among them, I suppose they do, they get angry with each other and so on, but it is like when you get angry with your brother or sister. That's in my opinion what makes it imposssible for them to continue as U2 if a member of them leaves.
If in the future one of them leaves the band, I expect Bono and Edge to continue making music, just because it is their way to express themselves and communicate, but it would be as "Edge and Bono", not U2.

There are also many religious and political connections among the members, apart, of course, of the music and business, that you will learn about if you have the patience of visiting us or reading on U2.

I'm only an ocasional fan of Guns'n Roses, I don't know much about the history of the band, but I think the relation among its members can't be compared with that in U2 and that's what makes the difference.
 
To most everyday casual observers/non-fans, I'm sure Bono is the most notable member of U2 in their eyes (with Edge perhaps the second most notable, if not equal to him). So I'd bet he does equal the band to them, and therefore it would be extremely weird to them to see U2 without him at the helm.

To U2 fans, however, of course, every member of the band plays an equal role, no one member "is" the band. Could I see them never working together in some way, shape, or form again if one of the members leaves? Eh, no, nor would I expect them to stop working together. Hell, Bono goes off to traipse around the world and Edge, Adam, and Larry don't stop working on new material simply because he's gone for extended periods of time. But do I think it'd be harder for them to work and call themselves U2 if one of the members permanently left or something? Probably so. As stated, they're close friends, they've grown up together, it would be difficult to do the U2 thing if they weren't all there. Not impossible, but difficult.

Also, I'll second the welcome to the boards, hope you enjoy yourself here. And on a completely unrelated note, your username makes me giggle very immaturely :D.

Angela
 
I think Adam will stick around in U2, seems to be a good thing going for him right now. He's not exactly that talented as far as professional base players go, let's be honest here.

I'd say that he's improved quite a bit, now if you'd said Larry ......:wink:
 
It just seems to me that Larry and Adam (drummer and bassist) take part in the songwriting as well - it's not like Lennon/McCartney, or another band where one or two members take all the songwriting credit - it always says "Lyrics: Bono (and The Edge) - Music by U2". U2 is U2. Not Bono and The Edge with a rhythm section. Oh and welcome to the forum.

I'd say that Harrison, Starkey and George Martin contributed as much to many Beatles songs as Larry and Adam do to U2's.
 
Sorry for being rude, I just don't understand why someone who says he's not a U2 fan and doesn't know anything about the band joins a U2 fan forum, but that's just me. Personally I feel you must have a certain interest in a band and know a thing or two about them in order to join a fan forum. The initial post makes it sound as if he intends to do some formal survey on U2 fans. I find the question strange coming from someone who obviously doesn't have much interest in the band. But ok, I agree with most of the answers here.
 
there is nothing in the FAQ or rules or whatever that states "you must be a U2 fan or know a significant amount about the band before joining".

when i joined i thought Adam was Larry and Larry Adam, i owned Atty Club and Hut Dab and knew the radio classics and now i've got 15,000 posts :shrug:
 
I'd say that he's improved quite a bit, now if you'd said Larry ......:wink:

What's wrong with Larry? He was utterly fantastic on NLOTH.

Sorry for being rude, I just don't understand why someone who says he's not a U2 fan and doesn't know anything about the band joins a U2 fan forum, but that's just me. Personally I feel you must have a certain interest in a band and know a thing or two about them in order to join a fan forum. The initial post makes it sound as if he intends to do some formal survey on U2 fans. I find the question strange coming from someone who obviously doesn't have much interest in the band. But ok, I agree with most of the answers here.

Well I don't get the feeling that he'll be sticking around forever. :shrug: A question is a question.
 
Most people have been giving their opinions about what they think the band would do if faced with one or more members leaving, but that wasn't really the question. However, I think the original question is obviously way too much for people on this forum to think about, so I'll ask some similar, but not quite as extreme, questions. Hold on tight now....

Scenario -- One member -- lets say Adam -- has left the band. The other members aren't ready to quit yet and have decided to replace Adam and continue on as U2. They plan to record and tour as they have been.

Question -- How would you as a fan react? Would you still consider the band U2? Would you buy their albums? Would you go to see them in concert?

And if you can handle those questions, here are a few more advanced ones -- What if Larry left too? Could you still accept Bono, Edge and two new guys as U2? What if Edge was the one who left? Could it still be U2 without him (but with all the other original members)?


(Remember, these are just hypothetical situations. Thinking about them doesn't make them so, and doesn't make you a traitor. ;) Also, remember, in these hypothetical situations, the band has already made the decision to go on as U2 without one or more members...the questions are only about your reactions as a fan to these changes.)
 
Sorry for being rude, I just don't understand why someone who says he's not a U2 fan and doesn't know anything about the band joins a U2 fan forum, but that's just me. Personally I feel you must have a certain interest in a band and know a thing or two about them in order to join a fan forum. The initial post makes it sound as if he intends to do some formal survey on U2 fans. I find the question strange coming from someone who obviously doesn't have much interest in the band. But ok, I agree with most of the answers here.

You really, really need to chill sometimes. But that's just me.
 
Scenario -- One member -- lets say Adam -- has left the band. The other members aren't ready to quit yet and have decided to replace Adam and continue on as U2. They plan to record and tour as they have been.

Question -- How would you as a fan react? Would you still consider the band U2? Would you buy their albums? Would you go to see them in concert?

And if you can handle those questions, here are a few more advanced ones -- What if Larry left too? Could you still accept Bono, Edge and two new guys as U2? What if Edge was the one who left? Could it still be U2 without him (but with all the other original members)?

I would be sad if one or more of the band members left permanently. Especially given how long the band's been together and how good of friends they are, it'd be a shame if any of them left, especially if it was on less than pleasant terms.

However, I would buy the new work and go see the shows (if I ever get a chance TO see a show) from the updated version of U2, see what it's like, see how the person replacing them fits in and everything. I freely admit it'd be a bit harder to see any new lineup as "U2", because of, again, the fact that U2's been the same four guys for 30 plus years, I'm so used to that specific lineup and I think they have a particular chemistry that it'd be hard to replicate with other people. So yes, it would be kinda hard for me to accept at first, probably.

But I also look at it this way-this is the band's job, so to speak. Many other jobs (or "workplaces", if you will) don't automatically fold and change their names simply because one member leaves, why do we expect different standards in the music world? As long as everyone involved is genuinely happy doing what they're doing and continues to make great music, be they in the band or off doing their own thing, I'll continue to give it a listen. If I like it, hooray, if I don't, eh, well, they'll keep doing what they want regardless, so...*Shrugs*. My loss, I guess.

Angela
 
I heard that when Bono and Edge were having some "artistic differences" during the recording of NLOTH that Bono, Adam, and Larry actually auditioned Slash to be Edge's replacement. Can't wait to hear those sessions!
 
I heard that when Bono and Edge were having some "artistic differences" during the recording of NLOTH that Bono, Adam, and Larry actually auditioned Slash to be Edge's replacement. Can't wait to hear those sessions!
we wouldn't have needed that debate about which of the edge's beanie or slash's top hat was more iconic.
 
They definitely could have switched up members and continued on up until a point in time, but I think they've gone well beyond that time now. The time for it to be 'acceptable' by their fanbase has passed (they are on 30+ years with the one lineup - very hard thing to shift), and also just where they're at with their age/career stage etc, I think if one gave it up now, it would without a doubt result in the band winding it up.

So yes, I think up until some point in time U2 could have made and survived a lineup change, definitely, and they probably would have done that if necessary (see Edge's comment about Adam in 1993), but the four members are too closely linked to the iconography of the band now, and it's most likely an overhaul way too far for them at this stage of their career. Adam and Larry are easily, easily replaceable in a technical sense, but the U2 brand/iconography would take a huge hit. They'd still be massively commercially viable - people will fork out for a U2 gig for as long as it's Bono/Edge - but it definitely damage the, I guess, legacy.

As for the original question, absolutely no way Bono could front another band, call it U2, and get away with it. I know there's a huge difference, and I'm not trying to make a direct comparison between the bands, but if Paul McCartney started a new band and called it 'the Beatles', you can imagine it would not really work out well for him. Not comparing the Beatles to U2, but the same logic/reasons would apply, ie its just not right.
 
The 4 of them = U2

1 missing = not U2 anymore

I would hate if they continue without 1 of them and I don't think the 3 remaining guys would go on anyways...
 
i had Larry and Adam mixed up for about a year after joining the forum!

But at least you had the names!


It's really not that hard to actually read the booklet that comes with a cd to at least know who the drummer and bassist is. :wink: Who's who in pictures is another story.

Just go to PLEBA and you'll know soon enough.




I reckon that if Adam or Larry left the band, it would be the least noticable for the general public. But I think they should not go on as U2 if so. They could get a new drummer or bass player and start a different band I guess, but it wouldn't be U2.
But if Bono or Edge left? I do believe these two contribute the most to the typical U2 sound. Though would they still be able to do that without the support of Larry and Adam? I don't know.
 
I'd say that he's improved quite a bit, now if you'd said Larry ......:wink:

Just want to add, Adam has improved greatly over the years. Really a great bass performer during the past 2 tours & on NLOTH. And he gets bonus points for switching out his bass for nearly every song on the 360 Tour. :wink:

U2 is not U2 w/o the original 4.
 
While I don't think U2 would be U2 without all of U2 in U2, I do think that Guns N Roses has pretty much always been The Axl Rose Project from Day 1. I also grew up as a huge GNR fan, and while I still do think Appetite is their best album, when the entirety of their history and songs are considered, I see that it's always been his band and his songs. So when I first heard Chinese Democracy, sure, the details of how the guitars were played or how the drum fills were different remained just details, but the songs still had the same definite DNA that they did for Use Your Illusion and even Appetite.
 
The better question is would U2 go on if, for example, Larry's back/wrists would cause him too much pain to play ? Or if Bono were to lose his voice ? Or if anyone (Larry, perhaps?) out of them says "I don't feel like touring anymore" ?

It can happen - bands can survive changes in a line-up, singers included.
 
I know it's the gospel that "live is where we live," and that they'd always tour, but you have to wonder how they would feel if they were actually faced with the prospect of not touring.

If Bono's injury had been more serious and/or permanent, or something else happened, I can't imagine they would just up and say "well, that's it, so long!" You have to imagine they would at least entertain the idea of continuing to record even if they weren't able to tour.

Many people feel differently about things when they're actually faced with those life-changing decisions.
 
It can happen - bands can survive changes in a line-up, singers included.

This far in? No way.

The only bands that I can think of that survive singer changes are young bands that didn't really make it too far with the first singer. Drummer and bass players can be replace along the way, but lead guitarist usually not after success and a sound has been defined.

But most definately not 30 years after the fact...
 
How many bands, U2 not included, with 30 years of career can you name that have not had a single member changed in their lineup ? It's normal with a career that long someone is bound to get replaced through the years.
 
How many bands, U2 not included, with 30 years of career can you name that have not had a single member changed in their lineup ? It's normal witha a career that long someone is bound to get replaced through the years.

Most happened early on, and most were not a member that really defined the sound.
 
Back
Top Bottom