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.
Metallica was added already to the list. Numerous line up changes in Stones and Deep Purple. Townshend and Daltrey continue under the name The Who.

Red hot chili peppers is another one out of U2's generation, also INXS, Doors (not sure how permanent Ian Astbury's stay was) and Queen replaced singers and survived...

I wouldn't say Queen "survived" a band called "Queen" still does a show or a small tour every once in awhile. The same could be said for the rest.

Three singers.......Let's not forget about the wonderful Gary Cherone. Not the best fit for VH, but amazing in Extreme and one of the most entertaining front man out there. Extreme although not the most popular of groups has maintained amazingness while changing drummers a few times through out the years. However Extreme without Nuno and Gary would not be Extreme....I think people are on to something when you mix vocals with lyrics and lead guitar.....those are key.

I said "success" with two singers.:wink:
 
I said "success" with two singers.:wink:

OH....touche....I adore Gary, but greatly prefer him in "tribe of judah" and "Extreme" ...I actually find similarities lyricly between him and Bono....same poetic spiritual sensibilities with a bit of sexuality thrown in for good measure.

I think success is relative.....or I should say it is subjective.
 
I wouldn't say Queen "survived" a band called "Queen" still does a show or a small tour every once in awhile. The same could be said for the rest.

If by "survive" you mean being the same in popularity, some bands to it (AC/DC, Van Halen, Genesis).

I also think the bands I mentioned all recorded new music, with a different lineup. That's a sign of survival...alongside touring.
 
I think as long as Bono and The Edge are still there, they could still remain popular (for a while, at least). They're the two most recognisable members and the ones who stand out the most of the group. But in terms of whether they would be as good as I think they are today without Adam or/and Larry, I'd say no. I think Adam and Larry affects the music they put out more than what we may realise and that in turn obviously affects popularity in the long term.

Some bands can still do well with different members, I don't think U2's one of them. Had it been early in the career, in the '80s then it may have been different but they have been together for too long now to be able to change anything that big without completely breaking up the band. That's what I think, at least.
 
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.

Definitely. Bono may be the public face of the band (though I'd say Edge is fairly well known too), but we know they all contribute significantly to songwriting. Also, Edge's ringing guitar style probably defines U2 more than anything. The average listener might not notice if Adam or Larry left (as someone else said, a lot of that is simply the nature of their instruments - the fans know that the rhythm section is an important part of the U2 sound, but someone who isn't super into music would be less likely to pay attention to drums and bass. If you don't know a song very well, you're more likely to remember it from the vocals or a guitar riff than rhythm, though U2 certainly has some songs defined by the rhythm section, i.e. drums in SBS or NYD bassline), but no Edge would be a very different U2.

And yeah, at this point, having been together for over 30 years, I really can't imagine U2 continuing under the name U2 if any of them left. Doesn't mean they wouldn't keep making music together, or that U2 fans wouldn't still want to hear it, but it wouldn't be U2, per say.
 
obviously you don't really know what u2 is all about. They are more than just a band. The guys need each other. As many have said before, u2 wouldn't be u2 if one of them left and they know it. Their work is based on friendship, family and community, as corny as it may sound. I don't think they are comparable to any other band out there. You could go and ask your question for any band, but with u2, it's different. Please go learn some things about the band you want to discuss here. The individual names would be a good start.

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.

wtf


I don't get it...are you trying to scare people away?:|
 
They are only U2 with all 4 of them. It would never be the same if one of them left.... then again, I don't think they would go on if one of them left.
 
^
U2 would not be the same if a band member left. They have been together for 36 years. U2 equals Bono, Edge, Adam, and Larry!!! That's it!!! No one could replace these musicians...ever!
 
No, he does not. Edge, Larry and Adam create the magic right along with Bono. Bono would be the first one to say so, if he was posting here.
 
Back
Top Bottom