the next album WILL be the last I think

[JennyBean]

I really hope you're wrong. I agree with everyone else, that if you continue to produce good music, why should you stop? They still seem to be having fun, so I hope they continue. Of course, if they do stop, at least we have lots of music to continue to enjoy!

 

[Ana]

What did you expected Larry to say?
They've been doing this for 20 years and they're rich enough to buy Ireland

But seriously:
I think age doesn't count much
I feel U2 will continue rocking our cotton socks for still a loooooooong time

 

[bono-vox]

Iggy Pop- old and famoose
Cher- eeek! hopefully bono will never have plastic surgery but shes old and famoose too

 

[sweetest_thing]

I saw Crosby Stills Nash and Young at the Garden last month. They played for 3 and a half hours. Their are all between 58 and 60. Their tour has sold out and been a critical success all along the way, as it was in 2000. They are performing new stuff at the concerts.

Look at Springsteen, Tom Petty, Neil Young, The Who, Carlos Santana, Sting, Paul McCartney, Paul Simon, Aerosmith, CSNY, John Cougar Mellencamp, for starters. All well over 45, all still writing music and touring. For me, and only me, this group, along with U2, Moby, DMB, and Pearl Jam are the only shows worth seeing in terms of rock and roll.

Now, you still want to insist that U2 is "over" at 45? These people developed and defined what we now call rock and roll...and perhaps they can decide what the "age limit" is. Personally, I hope there isn't one.

 

[JimmyChicken]

Originally posted by mrsmullen:
this wont be their last...they've got a contract until 2010. much more u2 to come!

alison

The Beatles were contracted till 1975, but they went to court and got that terminated 5 years early.

However the members of U2 seem to have a different relationship towards each other than the Beatles did during their latter years.

So hopefully that means they wouldn't even consider having their contract terminated.

 

[mad1]

I dont want to be bombarded with cow-dung and ancient pies over this.....but age really DOES matter..........even over the simplest things..............sorry...

 

[U2DMfan]

Originally posted by EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH:
think about it...they'll all be nearing 45 by the time the next album (prob. Oct. 2003 rel.) and tour concludes. Can anyone here really say they could see them bowing out at 45 plus? If they do go on, I doubt they tour.
A year and a half to complete the new album, to me, spells 'if this is our last, lets blow the doors off on the way out.' ...that they'll try to create THE U2 masterpiece. But that's easy to say.
Or maybe it's because they figure with God, oh, I mean Bono, trying to right the world, it will take this long to finish. I just don't see why, with having eight demos now, they can't skip the european tour, and record the new album, release it by Oct. in time for the holidays...????
What ever happened to riding the ATYCLB wave Bono mentioned?

if it's another mainstream pop album like ATYCLB, I hope it is their last. You can respond if you want, I didn't say I disliked ATYCLB, but to me it's U2-lite, and I'd rather just have them move on than make another attempt at selling records.

 

[MrPryck2U]

U2's next album WILL NOT be there last. Anything can happen. Just think, it was only 5 years ago that POP! came out and all the assfucks "in the know" took a giant shit on it. Now, after the success of ATYCLB, the same assfucks are hailing POP!'s genius as an album. U2 won't be going away anytime soon. Look at The Who. They never go away. Hell, their first "farewell" tour was in 1982!

------------------
The goal is ELEVATION!

 

[Zoo Station]

Sorry but I do hope U2 do stop making records as a band after the next one. I just don't want to remember them as being a bunch of uncool, unpopular, greying late 40s early 50 year olds.

Sadly, once artists are past the age of 42 it seems they become unpopular. U2 have always prided themseleves on popularity and wide appeal. At the moment they are still on peak commercial form. If they do one last album in the same vein as ATYCLB and do everything they can to make it perfect then I will be delighted as a fan.

Appearance wise I don't want U2 to go on for too long because they'll be like the Stones and be remembered as a bunch of greying, 40/50 year olds. The funny thing with ATYCLB was although they had reached 40 cept for Edge they looked younger than they did for Pop. I remember being shocked at how old Bono looked with his cropped hair and withered eyes. Adam also looked really grey. With ATYCLB they solved the problem with Bono has grown his hair back and he shows no signs of balding. It's dyed jet black so he looks really young. Adam has also dyed his hair as well. Larry has remained as a ageless as ever while the Edge still has his hats to hide his bald head. He needs to dye his goatee though!

But it is not just on age and appearance. U2 simply have no further musical directions to take and explore. If they took any new directions they would lose popularity and go like R.E.M. They would also be too old to master any new directions properly though it is amazing how young they sound on Pop despite being mid/late 30s. However, the likelihood is that they will stick with an ATYCLB direction. If they did make anymore albums after this next one they would just be the same in style and steadily worce than the previous one. People would get bored and lose interest in U2. People would criticise U2 and they would get a bad reputation. All I'm saying is let's have one last amazing album and then people can celebrate the great body of work that U2 have created with their reputation intact.

Remember, nothing ever lasts forever. However, I would like it if they still toured ocasionally though.

 

[elevatedmole]

Originally posted by Zoo Station:
Appearance wise I don't want U2 to go on for too long because they'll be like the Stones and be remembered as a bunch of greying, 40/50 year olds. The funny thing with ATYCLB was although they had reached 40 cept for Edge they looked younger than they did for Pop. I remember being shocked at how old Bono looked with his cropped hair and withered eyes. Adam also looked really grey. With ATYCLB they solved the problem with Bono has grown his hair back and he shows no signs of balding. It's dyed jet black so he looks really young. Adam has also dyed his hair as well. Larry has remained as a ageless as ever while the Edge still has his hats to hide his bald head. He needs to dye his goatee though!

First of all, Adam dyed his hair practically white for Popmart. His natural colour is brown, isn't it?
Second, I don't know about you, but I think Edge's goatee is fine as it is. It would look odd if it was dyed IMO. It looks more natural when its grey.
Third, what is the big deal on appearance? Beyond the vocals, you can't hear appearance on albums. If they look bad but still make brilliant music (which goes against your theory), would you not listen to it because of their looks?

------------------

"You must not look down on someone just 'cos they are 14 years old. When I was that age I listened to the music of John Lennon and it changed my way of seeing things, so I'm just glad that 14 year olds are coming to see U2 rather than group X." - Bono, 1988

 

[JimmyChicken]

Originally posted by Zoo Station:

U2 simply have no further musical directions to take and explore. If they took any new directions they would lose popularity and go like R.E.M. They would also be too old to master any new directions properly though it is amazing how young they sound on Pop despite being mid/late 30s. However, the likelihood is that they will stick with an ATYCLB direction. If they did make anymore albums after this next one they would just be the same in style and steadily worce than the previous one. People would get bored and lose interest in U2. People would criticise U2 and they would get a bad reputation. All I'm saying is let's have one last amazing album and then people can celebrate the great body of work that U2 have created with their reputation intact.

Think different... Let not age be a barrier...

 

[Hawkmoon1021]

I think there are a few artists who a still relevant live acts at 50. Sting, for one. While I am not a big fan of his solo work, I don't think he is a Vegas show yet. I saw Neil Young a few years back with Crazy Horse, I guess he was around 50 at the time, and he was fantastic. I saw Bowie with NIN around the same time & felt he was still on top of his game. Unfortunately, these guys are the exception to the rule. Most groups over 50 just become plain embarassing on stage. Musically a lot of them still sound valid, but vocally they just can't pull it off any more. I would hate to see that happen to U2, but it seems to happen to every rock group eventually. I would love it if U2 does a huge tour on their next album, and a farewell arena tour one on the follow up. They should just let everyone know they want end while they are still musically potent live. I hope they make records as long as they can, but maybe play their last concert on Bono's 50th birthday or something like that...

 

[EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH]

AGE does matter in music. Zoo Station said it all, much more eloquently than me. My original point was that I do not want to witness this band get 'old', in every sense of the word. Already there are some signs. I say go out of top, blow the doors off on the way out, and be remembered as a band who stopped when in full stride, with dignity. To do an Aerosmith is not what I want to see. Moreover, to do another ATYCLB would be an Aerosmith thing to do also IMO. But I really don't see them doing ATYCLB II. I predict something closer to WAR.

 

[Salome]

Originally posted by Zoo Station:
U2 simply have no further musical directions to take and explore.

1 thing I wasn't aware of

If they took any new directions they would lose popularity their reputation intact.

and another thing I didn't know

If they did make anymore albums after this next one they would just be the same in style and steadily worce than the previous one.

you are just a source of news facts

People would criticise U2 and they would get a bad reputation.

I think some people here are getting a head start on this one

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[This message has been edited by Salome (edited 03-07-2002).]

 

[EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH]

Neil Young IS great. I think it's rare to find a solo artist or band that's relevant into their 'gray' years. Neil definitely is IMO.
It's all about what kind of music you make. Folk rock has a longer shelf life for obvious reasons. U2 always tries to be cool and hip......and at 45 that shit won't fly. For Neil, it does, because it's his essence, it's his true self.

 

[Hawkmoon1021]

Originally posted by EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH:
Neil Young IS great. I think it's rare to find a solo artist or band that's relevant into their 'gray' years. Neil definitely is IMO.
It's all about what kind of music you make. Folk rock has a longer shelf life for obvious reasons. U2 always tries to be cool and hip......and at 45 that shit won't fly. For Neil, it does, because it's his essence, it's his true self.

I think U2 can still be true to themselves and make great records into their 50's as well. Bono has said he wants to make a "psychedelic country record" one day. Perhaps 10 years from now he will. Whether or not it is with U2 who knows, but I would look forward to hearing albums from them, together or apart, for quite sometime. I'm happy about that...

 

[zonelistener]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
Ah... Jealousy rearing it's ugly head. That's why so many people dislike ND, and what it stands for, I hate to disappoint you, but that will never pass, And sadly, it is something you will never understand.

Enjoy your night.

L.Unplugged

Jealousy huh....Do you know where I went to school? I respect ND - and actually spent quite a bit of time there while in college. I even cheer for the Irish.

I have an enormous amount of pride for MY alma mater. Its has served me well in my career pursuit. The pride that my fellow alums have for our school has also helped out quite a bit along the way.

But, Silly naive college boy, wait till you get out into the real world and realize college is all about what you make it - not a pretty name you put on a resume. This "jealousy rears its ugly head" won't be an excuse for why you don't get a job - or end up sharing a cubicle with someone who went to a technical instution - and made the most of it.

Oh, bells will ring in Interferenceland when our little Naive Lemonite gets his first taste of humble pie. Wear a bib L.unplugged, it's going to be a messy day at the dinner table!

Go Irish!

 

[Salome]

Go Zoner!!!

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[HeartlandGirl]

Originally posted by EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH:
I do not want to witness this band get 'old', in every sense of the word. Already there are some signs. I say go out of top, blow the doors off on the way out, and be remembered as a band who stopped when in full stride, with dignity. To do an Aerosmith is not what I want to see. Moreover, to do another ATYCLB would be an Aerosmith thing to do also IMO. But I really don't see them doing ATYCLB II. I predict something closer to WAR.

Perhaps you should write a letter to U2 and Principle Management letting them know how you feel. I'm sure they would take your opinion into consideration as they debate the direction of U2's career.

U2 is going to do what they want. If they decide to make five more albums and they're all up on stage in Depends with no hair/gray hair and pants pulled up to their nipples, then you can decide not to be a fan anymore. The bottom line is, U2 will make the decision and live with the consequences, not the "fans."



------------------
U2 @ The Blooming Heart

 

[Salome]

Originally posted by EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH:
yeah but her remarks are boring and typical from a fan. I'm trying to look at it objectively.

negative and objective aren't the same

re. boring - I wouldn't slap myself on the back too hard if I were you, it's not as if this is the first time comments like this are posted here

I don't mind difference of opinion
as long as people realise it's just an opinion and nothing more

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[This message has been edited by Salome (edited 03-07-2002).]

 

[HeartlandGirl]

Originally posted by EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH:
yeah but her remarks are boring and typical from a fan. I'm trying to look at it objectively. Of course they are gonna do what they want. None of it really matters anyway........if U2 stopped tomorrow we all would hopefully have enough great memories and fav. tunes. I think we as fans can get greedy at times. And whatever they do, some will like it, some won't. It's just a band who makes good music. When they retire, life goes on. OR does it for people, this is the question.

I confidently apply my above remarks, however boring and typical they may be, to any band, whether I am a fan of that band or not. We as fans or non-fans have no say in what a musical group does with their careers. That's my main point.



------------------
U2 @ The Blooming Heart

 

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by zonelistener:
Jealousy huh....Do you know where I went to school? I respect ND - and actually spent quite a bit of time there while in college. I even cheer for the Irish.


Oh, bells will ring in Interferenceland when our little Naive Lemonite gets his first taste of humble pie.
Go Irish!

Hahaha.. It doesn't matter where you went to college, I'm just stating a fact that we students/alum of ND share a bond with our school that many in this country envy.. Why do you think so many sportswriters who went to Boston College Shit upon ND at every opportunity.

I find it funny that you even think I am short sighted enough to even want to enter a field that would place me in a cubicle.. You have no idea who I am, or where I am going professionally. So I won't even address the rest of your post.

Enjoy your night,

L.Unplugged

 

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH:
yeah but her remarks are boring and typical from a fan.

 

[STING2]

The fact is, as long as the band takes care of their health, the band can be playing into its 70s! Being in Rock Band is not like NFL Football! But even there, we have Darrel Green at the same age as BONO who is going to play his 20th season next year with the Redskins. The 42 year old man is still the fastest player on the team.
The point is that if you take care of your health, you can continue to do things into old age. When and if the band decides to stop, it will most likely be for other personal reasons and not age. Bono's voice sounded great at the Grammy's and I have bootlegs where he had trouble singing BAD back in 1985 and another where he nearly lost his voice in 1982. So there is nothing much to that. Besides singing, the most physical part of the band is LARRY playing drums. LARRY might still get carded for being possibly under 21 where I live!

 

[Borderland]

Only they will know for sure when it's time to pack it it. Till then, I say enjoy the greatest band in the world and don't worry about the future.

 

[camiloj]

Originally posted by EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH:
What ever happened to riding the ATYCLB wave Bono mentioned?

UM, SIXTEEN months later, I think they are still riding that ATYCLB wave. They have been writing and recording all this time, so I hardly think one could accuse them of not remaining busy on new material inspired by the ATYCLB wave.

Despite Edge's alleged comments, anything is possible but the last thing I think anyone can say is that they know for sure what U2 is going to do next or how long it will really take.

It is my opinion that the next album will not be their last, but that is merely my opinion. It is also my opinion that the criteria used for thinking it may be their last album is somewhat weak. I think we will have a last tour before we have a last album. They have even indicated that much in interviews as recent as 2000, that when they are older they may not tour as much.

I see in this thread that "U2 fans" in downtime can get nasty...

 

[Clark W. Griswold Jr]

Originally posted by EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH:
I'm trying to look at it objectively.

Sounds to me like you just wanted to come here and stir the shit storm a little.


And sorry, but age and appearance do NOT matter. It matters significantly to half-assed pop artists who rely on youthful good looks to offset the fact that their music sucks shit. For all the albums they sell, britney spears, NSYNC, et al probably make more money off of posters, endorsements, and other non-music related ventures. To, them, appearance IS everything.

U2 are ROCK artists, like Springsteen, CSNY, Aerosmith, Stones, Dylan, Plant and Page, and the Who. It's all about the music. Age, appearance, and "popularity" within the school-aged demographic are meaningless.

Bottom line; we'll know they're done when Bono appears on a Pepsi commercial.


[This message has been edited by Clark W. Griswold, Jr (edited 03-08-2002).]

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Originally posted by Salome:
Go Zoner!!!

Yeah!!!! Get 'em!

------------------
I hear voices, ridiculous voices

 

[sulawesigirl4]

HeartlandGirl summed it up quite nicely, I think. I concur with her remarks.

 

[EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH]

yeah but her remarks are boring and typical from a fan. I'm trying to look at it objectively. Of course they are gonna do what they want. None of it really matters anyway........if U2 stopped tomorrow we all would hopefully have enough great memories and fav. tunes. I think we as fans can get greedy at times. And whatever they do, some will like it, some won't. It's just a band who makes good music. When they retire, life goes on. OR does it for people, this is the question.