namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
"Is it better to burn out than to fade away?" is a question that has often been debated, either in reference to specific bands or just in general. I want to discuss it as it pertains to U2.
What I'm going to do is lay out four scenarios in which U2 retire prior to the present.
1.Imagine this: After Bono's 1989 "dream it all up again" speech, the band is never able to make an album they're happy with, despite trying, so they announce that they are splitting up, without ever releasing new material again.
2.Imagine this: ZooTV ends at the end of 1993, having been one of the most successful and groundbreaking tours in the history of rock, having been centered around what is considered the band's second masterpiece, and by many their finest masterpiece. Their most recent LP is the quickly recorded mid-tour follow up to said second masterpiece, the "Zooropa" record. At this point, in early 1994, U2 announce that they are splitting up because they want to go out on top. This is my ultimate "burn out" scenario.
3.Imagine this: Popmart ends in the middle of 1998, not quite as successful as ZooTV, and the record it is centered around has had a disappointing reception, though the hard core fans love it anyway. Years of touring and smoking have taken their toll on Bono, and his voice is much weaker than it was just a few years ago. Disillusioned and tired, U2 announce they are splitting up because they feel like they've reached the end of the road.
4.Imagine this: Elevation ends at the end of 2001, with ATYCLB being hailed by the press as the band's third masterpiece, and being a comforting record for many in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Considering that this record and tour had been more successful than they had ever imagined it would be, that all of the success of 2000 and 2001 had been in spite of fading relevance as far as the younger crowd goes and not because of it, and feeling that they're not spring chickens anymore, and like they individually all have other things they want to do, U2 announce their retirement.
The first two scenarios are of the "burn out" variety, where the last two are more of the "fade away" variety.
My question is this: If U2 had indeed split up at each of these points - one arguably before they had fully realized their potential, one at arguably their creative, artistic, and commercial peak, one at a psychological lowpoint at which their artistic and creative energy was beginning to fade, and one at a point where they had put out arguably the best record they could have at age 40, having squeaked out one last set of great songs despite having been in fade out mode for half a decade and wanted to quit before they faded away even more - would they be remembered differently than if they had retired now? Would their legacy be improved or tarnished compared to what it is now if they had retired then? Would history look upon them differently if they had retired at that point instead of now? If so, how?
Try to answer these questions for each of the four scenarios I laid out. I think this would make for an interesting discussion, because it's not about comparing one album to another to another, it's about looking at U2's career and output as a whole with different endpoints and thinking about how their legacy, the way history would view the band, the way the industry would see the band, how they would be remembered by U2 fans, how they would be remembered by general music fans(who might only be casual U2 fans), and the band's influence on the industry, would change as those endpoints change. It's about how the different endpoints affect the way the whole looks.
What I'm going to do is lay out four scenarios in which U2 retire prior to the present.
1.Imagine this: After Bono's 1989 "dream it all up again" speech, the band is never able to make an album they're happy with, despite trying, so they announce that they are splitting up, without ever releasing new material again.
2.Imagine this: ZooTV ends at the end of 1993, having been one of the most successful and groundbreaking tours in the history of rock, having been centered around what is considered the band's second masterpiece, and by many their finest masterpiece. Their most recent LP is the quickly recorded mid-tour follow up to said second masterpiece, the "Zooropa" record. At this point, in early 1994, U2 announce that they are splitting up because they want to go out on top. This is my ultimate "burn out" scenario.
3.Imagine this: Popmart ends in the middle of 1998, not quite as successful as ZooTV, and the record it is centered around has had a disappointing reception, though the hard core fans love it anyway. Years of touring and smoking have taken their toll on Bono, and his voice is much weaker than it was just a few years ago. Disillusioned and tired, U2 announce they are splitting up because they feel like they've reached the end of the road.
4.Imagine this: Elevation ends at the end of 2001, with ATYCLB being hailed by the press as the band's third masterpiece, and being a comforting record for many in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Considering that this record and tour had been more successful than they had ever imagined it would be, that all of the success of 2000 and 2001 had been in spite of fading relevance as far as the younger crowd goes and not because of it, and feeling that they're not spring chickens anymore, and like they individually all have other things they want to do, U2 announce their retirement.
The first two scenarios are of the "burn out" variety, where the last two are more of the "fade away" variety.
My question is this: If U2 had indeed split up at each of these points - one arguably before they had fully realized their potential, one at arguably their creative, artistic, and commercial peak, one at a psychological lowpoint at which their artistic and creative energy was beginning to fade, and one at a point where they had put out arguably the best record they could have at age 40, having squeaked out one last set of great songs despite having been in fade out mode for half a decade and wanted to quit before they faded away even more - would they be remembered differently than if they had retired now? Would their legacy be improved or tarnished compared to what it is now if they had retired then? Would history look upon them differently if they had retired at that point instead of now? If so, how?
Try to answer these questions for each of the four scenarios I laid out. I think this would make for an interesting discussion, because it's not about comparing one album to another to another, it's about looking at U2's career and output as a whole with different endpoints and thinking about how their legacy, the way history would view the band, the way the industry would see the band, how they would be remembered by U2 fans, how they would be remembered by general music fans(who might only be casual U2 fans), and the band's influence on the industry, would change as those endpoints change. It's about how the different endpoints affect the way the whole looks.
) that they're still going and I think their last two efforts are great, though I can see where Screwy is coming from, even if Lemel sort of pwned him with his reply.
The *best* time to retire probably would have been after Achtung/ZootV/Zooropa, and the *worst* would have been after Pop/Popmart, but having said all that I'm still very glad they're here today.
