"Is it better to burn out than to fade away?" as it pertains to U2...

[The Scientist]

As for U2, I would agree that stopping before their current state would have been better for their rep. Specifically if it was after ZooTv tour. Even ATYCLB would have been a good stopping point. That said they can do like Radiohead and recover (like with In Rainbows) if they stick to what they do best (great lyrics and being less of a Pop band).

 

[gvox]

Maybe for the benefit of planet earth, Bono and Edge should join Coldplay and Larry and Adam should join Radiohead.

Another problem solved.

 

[Rob33]

As for U2, I would agree that stopping before their current state would have been better for their rep. Specifically if it was after ZooTv tour. Even ATYCLB would have been a good stopping point. That said they can do like Radiohead and recover (like with In Rainbows) if they stick to what they do best (great lyrics and being less of a Pop band).

What are you talking about? U2's popularity and demand increased dramatically because of HTDAAB and especially the Vertigo Tour....you're crazy....U2's rep will only get better in the grand scheme of things...they'll lose some fans but always gain more...it's been like that throughout the majority of their career.

 

[The Scientist]

Well what are you talking about? HTDAAB is known officially as their ninth best album (according to the Interference poll results) which is a definite slide from Zoo TV era, Pop, and ATYCLB. Fans here aren't too happy with it anymore.

The point of this thread is that they could have ended up on top and walked away the better for it. If you gotta problem that i agreed with the poster and all the many people in the thread that's fine but I'm sure you'll find you are the minority voice.

So please, show me that they've been more successful on their last album then those tours before!! Show me the great influx of new fans vs loss of long-time fans.

 

[gvox]

Well what are you talking about? HTDAAB is known officially as their ninth best album

You're forgetting just how small of a sample your survey represents. Even if every regular and semi-regular Interferencer participated, it would still be less than 1% of all U2 fans worldwide. To my best knowledge HTDAAB is also critically regarded much higher than 9th. And the tour did well. Let's stick to the facts, not Interference polls.


BTW - They have lost far less fans than they've gained. Don't be silly. Go spend some time in Peeling off Those Dollar Bills and do some research into the tour figures there mate.

 

[MrPryck2U]

What are you talking about? U2's popularity and demand increased dramatically because of HTDAAB and especially the Vertigo Tour....you're crazy....U2's rep will only get better in the grand scheme of things...they'll lose some fans but always gain more...it's been like that throughout the majority of their career.

 

[The Scientist]

You're forgetting just how small of a sample your survey represents. Even if every regular and semi-regular Interferencer participated, it would still be less than 1% of all U2 fans worldwide. To my best knowledge HTDAAB is also critically regarded much higher than 9th. And the tour did well. Let's stick to the facts, not Interference polls.


BTW - They have lost far less fans than they've gained. Don't be silly. Go spend some time in Peeling off Those Dollar Bills and do some research into the tour figures there mate.

I agree its a small percentage but you get what you give. If people don't want the results they get then you should put your list forth next time or suffer the consequences. VOTE OR DIE!

But seriously though if you are looking at concert sales vs album quality keep in mind that its apples and oranges. I'm sure the Rolling Stones still do incredibly well on touring but thats because they can roll out the hits people want to hear and not because of their last couple of albums. Is U2 that different?

 

[gvox]

Ok, well that made little sense.

 

[Saracene]

I'm sure the Rolling Stones still do incredibly well on touring but thats because they can roll out the hits people want to hear and not because of their last couple of albums. Is U2 that different?

Well yes, if only because U2 actually still manage to have hits and well-known songs that get play on the commercial radio even after the album/tour is done and dusted - Beautiful Day, Elevation, Vertigo etc. Whereas the only time I hear Rolling Stones on the radio is when they play their old material on Classic Rock station and such.

 

[Bottle Bono]

Rise like the Firey Pheonix boys.

C'mon, you can do it.

 

[Rob33]

scientist I'm sorry but you're making very little sense here...virtually nothing you have said provides any kind of support for your argument. I mean this entire post below is ridiculous! If I didn't know any better I'd think you didn't even realize there was a Vertigo Tour and a new album in HTDAAB...

As for U2, I would agree that stopping before their current state would have been better for their rep. Specifically if it was after ZooTv tour. Even ATYCLB would have been a good stopping point. That said they can do like Radiohead and recover (like with In Rainbows) if they stick to what they do best (great lyrics and being less of a Pop band).

...and your evidence that HTDAAB is ranked 9th on interference is absolutely meaningless...As someone mentioned, Interference accounts for barely anything in the grand scheme of things. You also tell me "show me that they've been more successful on their last album then those tours before!!"....well that makes almost no sense at all. First of all, Bomb's success has little to do with U2's success in tours before Vertigo Tour. You're comparing thte success of their last album with the success of previous tours...are you serious? HTDAAB, whether you want to believe it or not, is a fairly respected album amongst critics, and the Vertigo Tour was a HUGE success...I repeat...HUGE success....it was second to only the Rolling Stones and racked in I think a little over 380 million dollars...that is absurd....if I had to guess I'd say they earned more money overall on the Vertigo Tour than they did for ZooTV, although that's not really the point and kind of dumb to compare...but still...you act like U2 finished ZooTV and have been losing fans in general ever since...it's quite the contrary. Again I'm not sure if you actually want to believe this...some "fans" want the new album to fail in surpassing JT or AB...they don't want another masterpiece, and it brings them satisfaction to talk about all of U2's failures primarily in the 2000's...probably because they are frustrated that the band hasn't gone where they personally wanted it to go, and the music isn't what they want, so they throw a fit on interference and forums alike, spewing their negativity.

Again, HTDAAB and the Vertigo Tour positively effected the band overall...they acquired a new fan base, something they're always aiming to do, and they put out an album that really didn't do that bad at all outside of Interference.com

I wouldn't be surprised if the next tour was bigger and better than the Vertigo Tour...I think it will be

 

[the tourist]

Well yes, if only because U2 actually still manage to have hits and well-known songs that get play on the commercial radio even after the album/tour is done and dusted - Beautiful Day, Elevation, Vertigo etc. Whereas the only time I hear Rolling Stones on the radio is when they play their old material on Classic Rock station and such.

To be fair, I never heard Beautiful Day or Vertigo on the rock stations in my city, and the only time I ever hear U2 on the radio is on the classic rock stations (and generally then it's Sunday Bloody Sunday, New Year's Day, Streets, Desire, Still Haven't Found, With Or Without You, and Angel of Harlem).

 

[u2search]

Well what are you talking about? HTDAAB is known officially as their ninth best album (according to the Interference poll results) which is a definite slide from Zoo TV era, Pop, and ATYCLB. Fans here aren't too happy with it anymore.

The point of this thread is that they could have ended up on top and walked away the better for it. If you gotta problem that i agreed with the poster and all the many people in the thread that's fine but I'm sure you'll find you are the minority voice.

So please, show me that they've been more successful on their last album then those tours before!! Show me the great influx of new fans vs loss of long-time fans.

Uhm.. what about second grossing tour *ever*? Playing to 4.6 million people? Could easily have been more if they had addd more dates. Bomb selling something like 10 million copies? 8 Grammy's? Non of this may be their 'best ever' (except the # of Grammy's) but all together make them still very succesfull. Even if Bomb ain't one of their best albums. And I appreciate the list, but that's 54 fans out of 25+ million people that have bought at least 1 U2 album. Not too many