Could U2 release an album and not tour, and still be successful?

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

theu2fly

Refugee
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
2,258
I've often wondered this, it worked well for the Beatles, they toured lightly in their youth and towards the late 60s (67) they started recording studio albums and releasing them without touring or making television appearances...

Could U2 do something like this? Would they have a big enough impact to do this?
 
Yes. It worked for REM with Out of Time and Automatic for the People. It also worked for Rattle & Hum. It may have gotten some bad reviews but it still sold well. Sales might drop off some, but I can't imagine any more than 20% off, if even that.

In some ways I wish U2 would only tour every couple albums, they make way too big of an ordeal everytime and take forever to release new albums.
 
Yeah I think it would be successful, especially now because they are a very well known commodity. Although I'm sure touring helps drive sales, many people who buy their albums have never seen them in concert and don't plan to ever see them live.

I think touring is essential for new bands who are trying to establish themselves; "big" bands who draw well in concert, but who's albums aren't all that anymore (ie., The Rolling Stones); and smaller bands have a loyal following but who's albums don't sell well enough to make a living from -- for these bands touring (and merch sales) can make the difference between success and burger flipping. :)

I don't think it is essential for a band such as U2 to have a successful album. However, I'm not sure U2 would see it that way -- they seem to really like doing live shows and also the hoopla of being a huge band on tour. So I'm not sure they would be willing to scale back that aspect.

But a decent album, liked by fans, would still sell very well.
 
Sure! Didn't ATYCLB and HTDAAB sell by the truckloads even before there was any talk of the Elevation and Vertigo tours? I think so. But personally, I would miss their live presence... esp. cos I've seen them only once so far and only on the Vertigo tour. :sad: Wouldn't stop me from getting the next album though. :wink:
 
Yes, they COULD. I would say the bulk of HTDAAB's sales were around it's release and the following holiday season. The tour just does a good job of keeping the album alive.

However, U2 is a live band. I think their continuing popularity would begin to waver if they stopped touring. I love them to death, but they AREN'T The Beatles.
 
It all depends on how good the album was.

I can't see them not touring for an album. It would probably benefit their popularity immensely if they just did a six week tour hitting only the biggest cities. LA, NYC, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, London, Dublin, etc.

U2 does not have a Sgt. Pepper album in them though.
 
It also worked for queen. Last queen tour was in '86. After that they released, don't know for sure, Miracle ('89) and Innuendo ('91). Those albums were succesfull. I think it will work for u2 as well. They've got one of the biggest fanbase in the world and they will all buy a u2 album. BUT sales will go down.
 
For a band like U2, I'm still positive that they are able to sell a truckload of albums without a tour. Just like what the other poster said, it depends of how good the album is.

On a side note, I don't think U2 would quit touring anytime soon. Playing live is like breathing to them.
 
They could but IMO the day U2 doesn't tour an album is the day it's over for them as a band.
 
Of course they could, and Im sure they would think about cutting down the touring if the demand for the concert tickets wasn't there,

but they prove time and time again that people are willing to go to the ends of the earth to get tickets, and that's why they'll keep doing it.
 
I think that U2 should always tour behind new albums, but perhaps they should consider smaller tours. 4 years is too long between albums.

Bono should also consider dropping his messianic complex and dedicate more attention to U2
 
They could but IMO the day U2 doesn't tour an album is the day it's over for them as a band.

Oh, I don't necessarily think so. Who's to say they'd stop making music just because they decide they don't want to spend a whole year on the road anymore?

As they get older and their families get bigger (and older), I can easily see this happening. And sure, they've said they love touring, but people's priorities change.
 
I'm going to agree with U2girl here, I think the day U2 stops touring is the day U2 ends. The live aspect is an essential ingredient to the DNA of U2. I think if the priorities within U2 change so much that they're not touring anymore, they'll just go ahead and end it there anyway.

The only way I could see U2 continuing without touring is if they started to get more experimental again. If they continued in the vein of ATYCLB and HTDAAB but didn't tour, Bono would go absolutely batshit crazy without a live audience to sing his songs to. :D
 
Of course. It's been done in the past, it can be done again. What, do you think people are going to say, "If I can't see you play this live then I don't want to hear it at all"? LOL No. I don't think so. :eyebrow:
 
Back
Top Bottom