When should U2 have quit?

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

A gun is to your head. You must choose. When should U2 have quit?


  • Total voters
    139

Axver

Vocal parasite
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Messages
152,977
Location
1853
Consider:

1986: U2 scrap the Joshua Tree sessions and go out on the hype of the TV Gaga appearance. The band is forever remembered as inthistowntastic and drunk. We never have to endure Love Rescue Me, Larry Mullen singing Tequila Sunrise, or this. However, the world never gets to experience Heartland, Lovetown, One Tree Hill and its partners in Joshua Tree crime ... on second thoughts, this is a horrible idea that has no business being in a poll with the four following good ideas. Even if it would have spared us Bogan Bono invading David Bowie's stage.

1990: U2's eighties canon stands sound and untarnished, and the band go out after their best tour ever, Lovetown. We never have to endure Bono trying to orgasm during a Cole Porter cover, the contrived nature and predictability of ZooTV, Bono shoving a camera in his crotch, or TTTYAATW. However, the world never gets to experience The Fly, Acrobat, Love Is Blindness, or prank calls to the White House.

1993: U2 tarnish their legacy a little with desperate trend-hopping and too much leather, but at least we get the creative brilliance of Zooropa. We never have to endure Adam's best impression of anorexia, or the nausea of Elvis Ate America. However, the world never gets to experience Slug, Your Blue Room, Beach Sequence, or Bono trying and failing to look bohemian.

1995: U2 atone for their early nineties sins with Passengers and go out as creative geniuses, even if half their fanbase is too closed-minded to accept anything that they can't scream "IN THAAA NAAAAYYYYM OOOOVVV LUUUUUVVV" to while drunk. We never have to endure Miami, ten thousand different mixes of Discotheque, or Pride hitting previously unimaginable live lows. However, the world never gets to experience Gone, Please, or the hilarious thought of U2 trapped inside a forty foot lemon in Oslo.

1998: U2 consider re-recording Sweetest Thing but instead realise a much smarter option is to quit. Sure, their eighties legacy has been tarnished a bit and Bono's vocals declined to the point of unlistenability, but we got some diamonds in the rough for our troubles and U2 got their lazy arses to South America, South Africa, Israel, and one hell of a show in Sarajevo.

Under all four options, the world never gets to experience the unmitigated horror of ATYCLB, HTDAAB, and Bono's messianic complex growing even larger than Jesus's. Losing TGBHF and Electrical Storm is a small price to pay for U2 leaving a legacy in which they don't look like total boobs.
 
View Poll Results: A gun is to your head. You must choose. When should U2 have quit?
1990, after Lovetown 1 100.00%

This is how the poll results should read, folks.
 
Consider:

1986: U2 scrap the Joshua Tree sessions and go out on the hype of the TV Gaga appearance. The band is forever remembered as inthistowntastic and drunk. We never have to endure Love Rescue Me, Larry Mullen singing Tequila Sunrise, or this. However, the world never gets to experience Heartland, Lovetown, One Tree Hill and its partners in Joshua Tree crime ... on second thoughts, this is a horrible idea that has no business being in a poll with the four following good ideas. Even if it would have spared us Bogan Bono invading David Bowie's stage.

1990: U2's eighties canon stands sound and untarnished, and the band go out after their best tour ever, Lovetown. We never have to endure Bono trying to orgasm during a Cole Porter cover, the contrived nature and predictability of ZooTV, Bono shoving a camera in his crotch, or TTTYAATW. However, the world never gets to experience The Fly, Acrobat, Love Is Blindness, or prank calls to the White House.

1993: U2 tarnish their legacy a little with desperate trend-hopping and too much leather, but at least we get the creative brilliance of Zooropa. We never have to endure Adam's best impression of anorexia, or the nausea of Elvis Ate America. However, the world never gets to experience Slug, Your Blue Room, Beach Sequence, or Bono trying and failing to look bohemian.

1995: U2 atone for their early nineties sins with Passengers and go out as creative geniuses, even if half their fanbase is too closed-minded to accept anything that they can't scream "IN THAAA NAAAAYYYYM OOOOVVV LUUUUUVVV" to while drunk. We never have to endure Miami, ten thousand different mixes of Discotheque, or Pride hitting previously unimaginable live lows. However, the world never gets to experience Gone, Please, or the hilarious thought of U2 trapped inside a forty foot lemon in Oslo.

1998: U2 consider re-recording Sweetest Thing but instead realise a much smarter option is to quit. Sure, their eighties legacy has been tarnished a bit and Bono's vocals declined to the point of unlistenability, but we got some diamonds in the rough for our troubles and U2 got their lazy arses to South America, South Africa, Israel, and one hell of a show in Sarajevo.

Under all four options, the world never gets to experience the unmitigated horror of ATYCLB, HTDAAB, and Bono's messianic complex growing even larger than Jesus's. Losing TGBHF and Electrical Storm is a small price to pay for U2 leaving a legacy in which they don't look like total boobs.

:down: to all options!!
 
That assumes ATYCLB onwards is an unmitigated disaster, which it's not.

Are you questioning The Facts?

Because you don't want to know what happens to people who question The Facts. It is even worse than listening to Red Light on repeat for a day. Shocking, but true.
 
There's a poll?

Despite the system's desperate attempts to thwart the existence of the fifth option, finally, yes, there is.

Clearly, folks, Interference's programming wants U2 to quit. The System and The Facts have spoken.
 
I don't think Bono's messianic complex should be a major part in making any decision here. Because he has always had a messianic complex. It was arguably as bad in 1987 as it is now, if you believe it's there at all. If he wrote, say, the 1812 Overture, would any of that self-serving even matter?



By the way, he didn't write the 1812 Overture, in case some of you were wondering.
 
I don't think Bono's messianic complex should be a major part in making any decision here. Because he has always had a messianic complex. It was arguably as bad in 1987 as it is now, if you believe it's there at all. If he wrote, say, the 1812 Overture, would any of that self-serving even matter?



By the way, he didn't write the 1812 Overture, in case some of you were wondering.

Ah, but in 1987, Bono was a rock star ranting about Africa and promoting Amnesty International. In 2008, he has become a globetrotting messiah with miracles (mobile phones) who thinks he can save Africa.

And in any case, in 1987, he had the songs to save him. One Tree Hill, Streets, Exit, all that stuff. In 2008, what does he have to hide behind? Half-baked songs that have gone off from being out in the sun four years?
 
I love that right now on the poll, the amount of people who think U2 should quit outnumbers, by 4-3, the amount of people who think U2 should be kept alive by the most dangerous fringe science to perform great-great-great-great-grandad rock for unfortunate future generations.

The Facts, The System, and The People are united at this moment in time.
 
People should really think about what they're voting for if they head towards the last one. Does anybody really want to see an exhumed mummy play drums?

Wait, actually he's not too far from that look already.
 
Are you kidding me? I'm just WAITING on that 200th anniversary tour! You know, I plan to live forever through the continual crap they produce until then science. :up:
 
People should really think about what they're voting for if they head towards the last one. Does anybody really want to see an exhumed mummy play drums?

Wait, actually he's not too far from that look already.

Yeah, to read it as a "U2 shouldn't quit yet!" option is to not look at it closely enough. Will the world ever be ready for rock albums made to pass the time by 185 year olds who are being kept alive by dubious science, possibly against their will, so that Streets can be performed in 2187 at about one fiftieth its original tempo?
 
After Passengers; the band realise Larry is a talentless hack with no taste so they kick him out of the band; Larry then sues them saying he was U2. Larry wins the court case and tours as U2 with Bob Geldof, Dik Evans, and The girls who sang on Red Light
 
After Passengers; the band realise Larry is a talentless hack with no taste so they kick him out of the band; Larry then sues them saying he was U2. Larry wins the court case and tours as U2 with Bob Geldof, Dik Evans, and The girls who sang on Red Light

Can't wait to buy $300 tickets to their next tour, One And Other Hot Chart-Toppin' U2 Hitz.
 
2001, barring a spectacular album and/or tour and/or an all time great song in their future.

Out of these, after Zoo TV.
 
U2 should quit when they feel it is the right thing to do for themself.

Just because a band goes older it dosnt mean that creativity is lost. ATYCLB is a great album, HTDAAB was a collection of some great and less great songs.
What I have heard so far of the new album, well,I didnt feel this excited just before HTDAAB was released. Im 90% sure that I will like this album more then JT. JT/AB/Zooropa/ATYCLB was all natural steps in the bands progress and I didnt want them to quit in any of these.
 
U2 shouldn't have formed in the first place.

They make my life a living hell day by day because I have to come to this forum.


:madwife: Larry WHY?????
 
Back
Top Bottom