Thoughts on the group's future.

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

the tourist

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Dec 25, 2003
Messages
27,919
As the band members approach 50, how much longer do we think they will continue to put out new music? How much longer do we think they will continue to tour for that music? Do we think any of the members of the band will/should put out solo music?

I personally think that U2 will continue to make music until they're no longer able to. That said, I don't think they'll tour forever--I just don't see it in them to become the new Stones. I think they might only have two tours left in them. That would take us through 2013 at the current rate of albums/tours. If they retired from touring, I'd hope that they'd put some of that extra time into recording new material without boundaries, knowing they won't have to tour with it.

However, if they keep on touring and go the way of the Rolling Stones, I'd really like to see a solo album from The Edge in between U2 albums. The man is creative, can sing, can produce. I'd love to see a pop/rock album from him as a solo artist that would just be a small thing off to the side of U2. A nice little side project that wouldn't need to be toured for and therefore could be taken lightly.

Any thoughts?
 
I think it's fair to expect that may might be approaching another creative renaissance - age is a factor in creativity, although not in the way that people sometimes think it is, and whatever form their next iteration takes, it may bear the marks of maturity. The way for instance that Time Out of Mind was both brilliant and new and yet not revolutionary at all.
I would love to see a new album so powerful that the best moments of a show can be built around it - so that concertgoers think, great, they're playing Bad, I can go get another beer before they play Song X. I do believe that's possible.
 
U2 is in it for awhile, they show absolutely no signs of stopping any time soon, and their fame globally is incredible...i don't like to compare them to the stones because...well, they're just not the same :wink:...(stones sound like crap now)
 
I think Bono's voice and/or Larry's wrists will ultimately decide the fate of U2. Also we're probably closer to the end than the start.
 
U2girl said:
I think Bono's voice and/or Larry's wrists will ultimately decide the fate of U2. Also we're probably closer to the end than the start.

:sad:

Now thats just depressing
 
OrARoundabout said:


:sad:

Now thats just depressing

Seeing as they started 31 years ago, if today was the halfway point, they'd be going until they're 78!
 
U2girl said:
Also we're probably closer to the end than the start.

oh really?! LOL...this is great

but i don't think you can say we're close to the end. To be more specific, I'd say at least 3 more tours...and thats a long freakin time

and as far as Bono's voice goes...if he continues to take care of it like he is then there is no reason why it would decide the band's fate...and i honestly can't imagine Larry's wrists ending U2...

i do find it interesting how, despite the age of the band, they look awesome still...all 4 of them! I think this will help them down the line..

but why are we talking about this!!! It's a depressing thought anyway and a ways off...lets talk about whats going on now :)
 
Last edited:
U2girl said:
I think Bono's voice and/or Larry's wrists will ultimately decide the fate of U2. Also we're probably closer to the end than the start.

Give me one reason why we should be worried about Bono's voice.
 
I think we're probably already seeing the start of the end-phase with all the extra stuff they're starting to release. More DVD's, more book type 'collector' things, more re-releases. I bet we see more rarity type things in the future, if even only via download. I think you'll see a few obvious changes: a downsizing in touring, an increase in focus on 'the U2 brand' rather than 'U2 now', the combined effect putting less pressure on them or putting them in a place that is similar to the Rolling Stones, but hopefully not as obviously commerce-based only. Let's face it, they can release substandard albums that keep their name out there, with a couple of radio-heavy tracks to promote them, and then pull off huge 'U2 celebration/greatest hits' stadium tours on the strength of their catalogue and legend for as long as they can physically take it. They can do that, or stay musically in the 'U2 now' and see where it takes them - and it depends on whether they'd allow themselves to do that. There's a pretty big element of risk there.

I'd love to see U2 comfortable with letting themselves wind it down a bit. Not feel the need to produce stadium anthems on every album if it just wasn't what they felt. A quieter album of smaller songs would be fine with me, but if they felt it didn't support their larger U2-brand needs, they might not do it. If they can't/don't want to do the BIG U2 MEGA-ACT thing anymore, I'd love to see them comfortable enough to just keep going on and on and on, just making great music and not caring or needing to care how huge it is. I wouldn't mind seeing little old U2 playing the odd gig here and there and releasing stellar little nuggets of brilliance from time to time. Larry's wrists and Bono's voice may be a problem in the future, but only in relation to the way they work now. Working within new limitations as they age shouldn't be a problem if they don't mind it shifting what U2 is, almost completely.

However, I think they'd rather either keep the machine rolling till it can no more, or go out with a bang. Once they can't be the U2 we know now, they might decide not to be U2 at all. I think in the short term we'll get a hybrid of all of the above - which is why I think there's so much looking back at the moment, establishing the 'legend', in case that's what they decide to lean on the most as they bring it all in to land over the next 10 years or so. I do think the next two years - new album and it's contents and reception, new tour and it's size and feel - will probably be a big decider for them and a sign for us of how it may roll from then on.

But right now it's way too early to tell. Sometimes they say stuff that makes you think they really don't care for the rest of it and maybe will just keep rolling on and evolving. Sometimes they say stuff that makes you think that the second they look ridiculous jumping around at the end of a b-stage leading a woo-hoo singalong, they'll pack the whole thing up. One keeps them rolling for another 20 years if they want it, the other has 10 years or so left in it. At the most. Maybe be two more new album cycles.
 
Last edited:
Maybe when they feel like they can no longer do full tours, they should just do a couple of huge festival-size shows on each continent and film them for dvd so everyone can feel/see what the newest album sounds like in a live setting.
 
Rob33 said:
...(stones sound like crap now)


I've seen the Stones multiple times since the 80's, and this last tour they did was by far the best I've ever seen them.

Granted, they're not producing any good new music anymore, which is why U2 is still the greatest band in music history, but the Stones are still out there kicking ass in front of 50,000 people every night.

If everyone's health holds up, there's no reason why U2 can't still put on mindblowing tours 20 years from now. If Larry's wrists give out, they can get him Rick Allen's kit. If Bono's voice gives out, they can let Edge and Larry sing while Bono does all the speeches. I'd still pay for that.
 
Last edited:
oh lord, only here could we get this serious about the band's demise when they are on top of the world now and popularity is through the freaking roof...and how does releasing DVD's and extra material indicate the end is coming? There is absolutely no connection...it's just a busy time for the band, that's all, nothing more, nothing less...they're just outputting material in between the end of the vertigo tour and the release of their new album to create that bridge of interest and ensure that the fans will be pumped up and ready for the start of a new tour!!!!!!!!!! :hyper:

C'mon! This should be a time of excitement!
 
Earnie Shavers said:
I think we're probably already seeing the start of the end-phase with all the extra stuff they're starting to release. More DVD's, more book type 'collector' things, more re-releases.

Thats only to keep the intresst alive, usally bands release special editions, inreleased songs when they have split up.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
I think we're probably already seeing the start of the end-phase with all the extra stuff they're starting to release. More DVD's, more book type 'collector' things, more re-releases.
They are trying to make their back catalogue attractive to a younger audience that hasn't been familiar with the band's history.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
I think we're probably already seeing the start of the end-phase with all the extra stuff they're starting to release. More DVD's, more book type 'collector' things, more re-releases.

I think this is a combination of having such a long career and format changes, not so much an end. Although we have to be realistic, this is by no means a halfway point or anything, we are on the other side of the hill(which means nothing about quality, just timespan).
 
I remember just before "All That You Can't Leave Behind " was released, and U2 played on Farmclub. The local radio station had a contest to win tickets to the taping, and the DJ made a remark about how special these tickets are, because who knows how much longer they'll be touring...these guys are getting up there! They've since toured the world twice, nonetheless. I guess when the band's drive and enthusiasm run out for making music and touring behind it, the U2 we all know will be over. I think they'll be around for a while, though.........

Didn't Bono say they were excited about the future? Hopefully it wasn't because he wanted to chill on his yacht more.
 
MrPryck2U said:
U2 will never end!

Maybe not so farfetched as some would like to think :hmm:

The very idea of a streaming, LIVE!! 3D concert on pay for view
from anywhere in the world, to a theater or jumbo tron near you... well, the possibilities are endless.. :rockon:

(and no - it wouldn't be the same as a live concert) :wink:
 
I think U2 has got 2 more albums in them (unless this current work is a passengers part II and U2 album or double album or back to back albums) then 3 albums meaning probaly 2 more tours I think.

Hasnt bono made it clear that they dont want to be the rolling stones he has said he isnt gonna be up there touring when he is 60. I figure 55 they are done so we got about another decade

By the way doesnt it seem like people think U2 are older than they are. I remeber some of my friends thinking when HTDAAB came out that Bono was like 50 when he was really only 44 which I dont consider old. I think its because U2 have been around for a long time but I think they started younger than most bands I mean Bono was what 18,19 when they recorded Boy. I think U2 have now just become old when ATYCLB came out they werent even 40 yet really.

Also people dont seem to realize other bands are old like the Chillie Pepers are the same age as U2 but you dont hear peole saying they are old.
 
Well, the Chili Peppers do appear younger than they actually are. They still jump around and look like they're in their 30s. Which is really surprising when you see their actual age.
 
I don't think they've put a definite age on anything - nor should they. They have said "two crap albums then you're done."

That is certainly subjective.
 
I say they've got about 10 years left of releasing new material, probably less. I'm an optimist, I guess.
 
They're so old that they'll probably all disintegrate before the next album comes out. :( And then I'll have to make a cartoon about it. Morbidity FTW.
 
Back
Top Bottom