U2 will probably never disband

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

pcfitz80

The Fly
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
115
I know as the years go on there is always speculation that their newest release/tour may be there last but I just don’t see there being an abrupt end to the U2 story. It’s natural for one to assume there will be since this is how most bands end.

But why is this? Most bands end because someone dies ( Led Zepplin, the Doors, Nirvana, etc..) or there are personality conflicts - either between band members or one band member who is conflicted psychologically I.e. man vs. man ( the beatles, Guns n Roses). I don’t see personality conflicts ending U2 nor is it probable one of U2s members will die prematurely from drugs or suicide - even though the inevitable will of course happen eventually.

Of course we also have to look at the clues the band is giving: Sometime around the time of ATYCLB Bono said something about having outlines or rough takes of 50-100 songs and that U2 was just getting started. Larry has also hinted at retirement but also said in VH1 legends “ I don’t one it to end….I know eventually the band may have to do less or record less…” This speaks to what I believe will happen. And after all, they still love what they are doing and are all great friends.

I see SOA going forth as planned and coming out in early 2010 - may guess is early March. The tour also seems likely to go through next year as well. After this, I think it’ll be a 4-6 year wait before new material but that we will get the most experimental U2 album yet. I say this because while I think NLOTH is very good and changes things up a bit from ATYCLB, HTDAAB, it is still pretty much the same style. Its about as similar with some differences to those as War was to Boy and October. And I also see SOA being similar which would make it the longest stretch yet of U2 not really changing their sound too much. I think by 2012 - 2014 opinion will be mixed about U2s direction/sound in 2008 - 2010. These albums will still have very strong supporters but I can also see a backlash & possibly the strongest talk to date about U2 having lost their experimental edge. But this will also be strongest among the more hardcore fans like us and will be unlike with POP where U2 felt they were loosing the mainstream. U2s mainstream popularity will still be about as big as it is now. For this reason, with their fate among the rock gods feeling totally sealed I think we will get something different and unexpected around 2015 or so. After this, something more mainstream around 2020 with a big tour. After this…who knows. Possibly not another U2 ‘album’ - at least not in the traditional sense of all 4 band members, 10-12 songs, etc.. Maybe something comparable to Passengers. Still, odds are IMO at least some new U2 songs will be recorded that decade (I.e. one off soundtrack stuff like with Batman Forever, etc..).

I think the last U2 song will be recorded sometime in the late 2020s. The last performance with all 4 members will be in the early 2030s. The last we will hear from any member of the band in a musical capacity (studio recording or live performance) will be in the late 2030s. With all these lasts, no one will know at the time it is in fact a last. So how much longer? Depending on how you look at it another 10, 20 or 30 more years of U2 if I'm correct. So still a lot to look forward too hopefully!
 
I like this idea, but it concerns me that larry is becoming the old horse who is getting ready to wind down sooner :(

hopefully you are right but!
 
my biggest fear in the entire world:

Paul McGuiness will get mad that the "experimental" NLOTH is not selling as well as he would like and will want the band to totally ditch their creative edge in favor of standard albums only geared to make more money :sad:

hopefully that wont happen

This for me will be what will end U2, and not as much personal problems.
 
I want the "media machine u2" to end so they can relax, make music at their leisure and be creative.

U2 should have started their Beatlesque "studio phase" after ZooTV ended. They would seldom tour, and focus their energies on crafting classic albums.
 
U2 will still be performing when they are 70? wtf?

I will give them 5-10 more years, seriously, and thats probably tops. I dont see them performing past age 60, i just dont.

This band has really meant a lot to me...i will continue to see them play live as long as i can....and i dont want it to end either. But really i think even they will know when enough is enough.
 
I think this tour and subsequent singles are going to be a huge factor in what happens with U2 over the next decade.

I think if there isn't as much success as they want, I don't think they go back to a more simple blueprint, I think they change it.

These days, a band can record and release an EP of 5-7 songs in a matter of a few weeks, with the digital avenues, the possibilities are there just waiting to be embraced. U2, while certainly loathe to become a greatest hits band, could become a band that perpetually does short tours, intensely focused geographically, with a handful of new songs to support.

And that way, they break the cycle of needing the huge tour and they don't have to fear releasing an album with no tour and dropping totally off the map. Also, focusing in on 5 or 7 songs would be easier than what they have been doing, they could then take their breaks even more conveniently.
 
U2 will still be performing when they are 70? wtf?

I will give them 5-10 more years, seriously, and thats probably tops. I dont see them performing past age 60, i just dont.

This band has really meant a lot to me...i will continue to see them play live as long as i can....and i dont want it to end either. But really i think even they will know when enough is enough.

Performing at 70? Yes – but definitely not regularly and def. not Zoo TV. It’s only hard to believe because no one in the modern Rock & Roll generation ( post 1960 ) has turned 70 yet. 20 years ago performing at 55-60 would have seemed like a big deal and I remember during the ’94 Voodo Lounge tour the rolling stones did how everyone was saying “wow, amazing – these guys are in there 50s!” They were the only 50 something rock stars at that time & now we have many of them ( ACDC, Aerosmith, Rush, Ozzie Ozbourne..) and its not that big a deal. I didn't specifically say there would be world tours ala Zoo Tv or PoP Mart or anything like that at 70. Nor do I think they will be performing regularly at 70 either. You seem to be in the mind set of either all ( Pop mart / elevation / Zoo TV style tours accompanied by major album releases) or nothing ( band disbands and that’s it, no more U2). I’m trying to stress that I think they will peter out with time. I agree with you that after 5-10 more years there will be a significant decrease in the amount they do as a band but I just don’t see a definitive end. As long as all 4 band members are alive, I just don’t see more than 7-10 years going by with them not doing at least something – even if all it is is a low key performance on a late night talk show or writing / recording 1 or 2 songs as part of some best of compilation of previously released songs or a special charity thing or something like that. They could still do these occasional things even if they are 90% retired. It would be the best of both worlds for them. Not dealing with the stresses & strains of a big tour & major release every few years but still staying in touch with what they love doing.
 
Performing at 70? Yes – but definitely not regularly and def. not Zoo TV. It’s only hard to believe because no one in the modern Rock & Roll generation ( post 1960 ) has turned 70 yet. 20 years ago performing at 55-60 would have seemed like a big deal and I remember during the ’94 Voodo Lounge tour the rolling stones did how everyone was saying “wow, amazing – these guys are in there 50s!” They were the only 50 something rock stars at that time & now we have many of them ( ACDC, Aerosmith, Rush, Ozzie Ozbourne..) and its not that big a deal. I didn't specifically say there would be world tours ala Zoo Tv or PoP Mart or anything like that at 70. Nor do I think they will be performing regularly at 70 either. You seem to be in the mind set of either all ( Pop mart / elevation / Zoo TV style tours accompanied by major album releases) or nothing ( band disbands and that’s it, no more U2). I’m trying to stress that I think they will peter out with time. I agree with you that after 5-10 more years there will be a significant decrease in the amount they do as a band but I just don’t see a definitive end. As long as all 4 band members are alive, I just don’t see more than 7-10 years going by with them not doing at least something – even if all it is is a low key performance on a late night talk show or writing / recording 1 or 2 songs as part of some best of compilation of previously released songs or a special charity thing or something like that. They could still do these occasional things even if they are 90% retired. It would be the best of both worlds for them. Not dealing with the stresses & strains of a big tour & major release every few years but still staying in touch with what they love doing.

I see what you are saying now...and i suppose i might agree with you. I would love to see them continue to crank out these big tours but what you suggest makes sense. Maybe they do this a couple more times and then sort of fade away? I guess we shall see....
 
U2 should have started their Beatlesque "studio phase" after ZooTV ended. They would seldom tour, and focus their energies on crafting classic albums.

That worked for the Beatles, who had the fortune of having two geniuses of songwriting.

U2 is too much of a live band not to tour or tour rarely. I'm not sure we're getting a classic album after AB out of them anymore. If it didn't happen with ATYCLB and NLOTH when they had Eno and Lanois, I don't know who else could produce something great out of them.

I guess what will determine is not so much sales (I think Bomb is probably the last of the big sellers for U2) but their health. Bono's vocals and Larry's back/wrists. I can absolutely imagine U2 calling it a day instead of going on indefinitely.
 
They'd b killing it if they performed all the way up into their late 60's.
 
I like this idea, but it concerns me that larry is becoming the old horse who is getting ready to wind down sooner :(

hopefully you are right but!

Your right,
I don`t get it,he is the youngest in the band and yet he seems so eager to stop what he is doing,and he just doesn't seem very approachable now to me. I mean why stop something that has been so great through the years, they`ll have to eventually but not while they are still so big and so cool.

It would be cool for them to go that far,just not crazy like that disgusting Iggy Pop :yuck:
 
Performing at 70? Yes – but definitely not regularly and def. not Zoo TV. It’s only hard to believe because no one in the modern Rock & Roll generation ( post 1960 ) has turned 70 yet. 20 years ago performing at 55-60 would have seemed like a big deal and I remember during the ’94 Voodo Lounge tour the rolling stones did how everyone was saying “wow, amazing – these guys are in there 50s!” They were the only 50 something rock stars at that time & now we have many of them ( ACDC, Aerosmith, Rush, Ozzie Ozbourne..) and its not that big a deal. I didn't specifically say there would be world tours ala Zoo Tv or PoP Mart or anything like that at 70. Nor do I think they will be performing regularly at 70 either. You seem to be in the mind set of either all ( Pop mart / elevation / Zoo TV style tours accompanied by major album releases) or nothing ( band disbands and that’s it, no more U2). I’m trying to stress that I think they will peter out with time. I agree with you that after 5-10 more years there will be a significant decrease in the amount they do as a band but I just don’t see a definitive end. As long as all 4 band members are alive, I just don’t see more than 7-10 years going by with them not doing at least something – even if all it is is a low key performance on a late night talk show or writing / recording 1 or 2 songs as part of some best of compilation of previously released songs or a special charity thing or something like that. They could still do these occasional things even if they are 90% retired. It would be the best of both worlds for them. Not dealing with the stresses & strains of a big tour & major release every few years but still staying in touch with what they love doing.

I can completely see this scenario happening. I think it's far more likely than an official break-up of the band.

It bugs the shit out of me when I see people saying that people 50 or 60+ shouldn't be performing. I've got to a ton of concerts in my time, and of them, 3 of my top 5 concerts ever have been with artists in their late 50's/60's (David Gilmour, Elton John, The Who). Real showmen with great tunes who can hold an audience in the palm of their hands.
 
"the band may have to do less or record less"

:lol:

as opposed to putting out an album once every 4-5 years
 
( ACDC, Aerosmith, Rush, Ozzie Ozbourne..)

:doh:

You mean Ozzy Osbourne. At least spell the man's name right.

Too bad Led Zepplin and Leonard Skinard arent still around :lol:

*edit* Shit, you spelled Led Zeppelin wrong as well on the 1st post. If you are going to talk about classic rock and want to sound like you know what you're talking about, at least know how to spell the band's names correctly. Kind of drags down your credibility. Just some friendly advice.
 
U2 will never break up. Some day we'll just keep checking "Where the album has no name" for news on their next album, and we'll simply never receive any news. I reckon there will be at least one more album/tour cycle after SOA, maybe even 2. That puts U2 at about 2020 and at 60 years old. I doubt we'll hear much from them after that, save the occasional cameo band apperance.

Larry will be the first one to call it quits, probably due to either his phsyical ability to continue playing drums, or just because he's too grumpy.

Bono will focus more on humanitarian work well into old age, with the occasional awful duet with some young star of the day. At 70, he will bear a freakish resemblence to what he looks like now.

Edge will always be involved in music. Post U2, he will probably be a producer (and a damn good one at that) and develop soundtrack music.

Adam will wait out his remaining years in complete relaxation.
 
Your right,
I don`t get it,he is the youngest in the band and yet he seems so eager to stop what he is doing

Larry has always sort of been the "realistic" down-to-earth guy in the band, and I fully understand someone who is in his late 40's, has a family with kids and doesn't want to fly around the world for 6 months. And no, it's not the same to fly in your family or fly back home to them after each gig. That doesn't compensate anything from being apart for the duration of a tour, promo-tour, last weeks in studio for recordings, etc etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom