you've bene okay sir'd already.
Whose ego do we have to stroke to get some "like" buttons round here?
Whose ego do we have to stroke to get some "like" buttons round here?
Whose ego do we have to stroke to get some "like" buttons round here?
Matt Cameron is such a force within Pearl Jam now that it would be weird seeing them with someone else - and he's the replacement.
.
Though some of us did see some shows with Abbruzzese, and as great as Cameron is, I'd have no issue if by some miracle Dave and Eddie made up and Dave was welcomed back.
But to the point at hand, let's just look at the recent example of ZZ Top. The classic trio had been together from 1970-2021 when Dusty Hill took ill and sadly passed. Hill hand picked his replacement and wanted the band to go on. They have. Larry's situation is far less dire, and he appears to be OK with the band playing some gigs in 2023 should it come to pass without him while he hopefully heals up. Heck for all we know he may even be hand picking a substitute. Is it coincidence that Tommy Lee, Danny Carey and Jason Bonham were all recently seen flying into Dublin?
I do find it quite funny when Alice Cooper and Bono talk about how Larry does his drum parts depending on what the lyrics are. Like come on Larry, you’re gonna do the same shit no matter the lyrics.
no guys who are pissed that their band for over 40 years is considering playing without him typically sit down for pleasant interviews about the band's history and discuss said possibility of his mates playing a few shows without him.
that's something that normally happens.
it's game time.
good. day.
…a pleasant interview where he talks about what he’d like to change in U2 world
He didn’t discuss missing U2 gigs. He said that if they play he won’t be there. He also said there are no plans. You’re reading what you want to read into his comments.
Based on the band’s history and what we currently know about their future, can you at least admit that it’s unlikely they’d plan to play shows without a member?
He didn’t discuss missing U2 gigs. He said that if they play he won’t be there. He also said there are no plans. You’re reading what you want to read into his comments.
The rest of the band shouldn’t be cool with it for personal and musical reasons: it won’t sound like U2 without him.
I don’t think it’s really like that at all. People aren’t saying it can’t happen because of their emotions people are saying based on who this band are, 40+ years in the business and so much talk about the importance of the collective unit, that it would seem unlikely to happen, I don’t think it will happen. I know vegas has been teased but I think if Larry is out it’s not happening. I don’t take Larry’s comments to mean that the band are considering playing vegas without him. It may be that they do some stripped back stuff to promote SOS, but I don’t think full on u2 shows are on the cards without Larry. So the evidence and logic to support it is debatable in terms of what it really means , hence why it’s being debated.This is genuinely an argument between people on one hand saying “hey this thing may be possible. The person literally said it is, and here’s some evidence and logic to support it” and people on the other being obstinate saying “no. This thing that involves other humans can’t happen because of MY emotions.”
Fascinating.
Common sense and rationality is not welcome in this conversation, sir.In all likelihood they are balancing conversations about their age and ticking clocks vs having a short run of gigs that are time bound because of the venue go ahead without him. It would no doubt be a hard conversation to have, but it is not without precedent for bands of their status, nor u2 themselves to have short periods where one can’t make it.
Bono has talked recently about their age and being quicker releasing music and satisfying the fans, and then immediately they delay plans to release things because of Larry’s health. This would be challenging for them, and I dare say they’d be having very real conversations on the right thing to do in the context they find themselves in. The past is not an indicator here, because so much is different and unique to this set of circumstances. Assuming they won’t go ahead, or shouldn’t, because “this is U2” is not going to make it more or less likely. Fact is, they have mentioned the shows during the period they have known about his issues, and he himself said he won’t play next year, but the band has all sorts of plans. The conjecture here is a mental block for the fans, not the band. I think the fact they are weighing this up is quite clear.
I think it’s far from clear that the band are weighing up playing without Larry. So far from clear there’s more than a few people who think the complete opposite. You have a different view of things that’s all but fans aren’t just using what they want or don’t want to happen to shape their opinion. The timeline so far is vegas was mentioned as a possibility by Bono after being directly asked about it in an interview, although also according to Bono new music would need to be released and the venue ready obviously . Since then Larry has said that he won’t play live next year. He then said he didn’t know what the bands plan is and that there is talk of all kinds of things. All of that pieced together can be interpreted in plenty of different ways and isn’t clear at all.In all likelihood they are balancing conversations about their age and ticking clocks vs having a short run of gigs that are time bound because of the venue go ahead without him. It would no doubt be a hard conversation to have, but it is not without precedent for bands of their status, nor u2 themselves to have short periods where one can’t make it.
Bono has talked recently about their age and being quicker releasing music and satisfying the fans, and then immediately they delay plans to release things because of Larry’s health. This would be challenging for them, and I dare say they’d be having very real conversations on the right thing to do in the context they find themselves in. The past is not an indicator here, because so much is different and unique to this set of circumstances. Assuming they won’t go ahead, or shouldn’t, because “this is U2” is not going to make it more or less likely. Fact is, they have mentioned the shows during the period they have known about his issues, and he himself said he won’t play next year, but the band has all sorts of plans. The conjecture here is a mental block for the fans, not the band. I think the fact they are weighing this up is quite clear.