What if...

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

DaveC

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
23,167
Location
the killerwhaletank
(God forbid) a disaster happened and a band member was killed? Do you think U2 would split up? Or would they get a new member as a replacement?
 
DaveC said:
(God forbid) a disaster happened and a band member was killed? Do you think U2 would split up? Or would they get a new member as a replacement?

If it's Adam (God forbid), they won't split up. It is easy to find a bassist who can do Adam's lines.

If it's Paul McGuinness (God forbid also), the rest of the boys can always manage themselves in the meantime, and even if none of them have college degrees the probably won't get scammed so badly in the meantime, because their experience in the music biz makes up for their lack of formal education.

If it's Bono or Edge or Larry (God forbid), you can say goodbye to U2.

Cheers,

J
 
If all four band members aren't there, it isn't U2. I think they would break up if something terrible happened to one of them, God forbid, or if someone decided to quit. I think they would and could continue without Paul G. if they had to, though.
 
I don't think they would continue. Maybe Bono or Edge would try solo careers but U2 would not go on.
 
I think it's hard to say. Adam would be the most likely candidate to be replaced, if something happened, but the other three, I doubt it. But, The Who went on without Keith Moon, The Stones without Wyman, so who knows. MY gut feeling is that if something happened to Adam, it is possible that U2 may (if they find the right person, someone within their "family") carry on for a little while.
 
If U2 were in the middle of a tour and had commitments to their fans and to numerous contractors and promotors, and suddenly Adam died, they could probably get somebody to fill in on bass until the end of the tour. But that'd be as far as they'd go. They've performed twice without Adam, so they could do it again. (I know you're thinking only once have they not played with Adam....11.26.93 in Sydney. But there is another time. Can anyone tell me what it was? It wasn't a full U2 gig.)

Bono and Edge are irreplacable because they are the face of U2. Larry is what holds U2 together, he also couldn't be replaced.
 
Zooropa said:
I think it's hard to say. Adam would be the most likely candidate to be replaced, if something happened, but the other three, I doubt it. But, The Who went on without Keith Moon, The Stones without Wyman, so who knows. MY gut feeling is that if something happened to Adam, it is possible that U2 may (if they find the right person, someone within their "family") carry on for a little while.

Bill Wyman?! He got old and retired. When the Stones started, Mick and Keith were 15 and Wyman was 23. They invited him to join because he was the only guy they knew with a bass. He had a no talent kid brother the age of the others, and if they tried to get rid of the brother, Bill would threaten to walk, so they had to keep him. Eventually, the brother realized he was the weakest link and quit on his own for the sake of the band. However, the Rolling Stones did go on after the death of a founding member, Brian Jones, their original lead guitarist, in 1969. He was replaced by Mick Jones, who quit due to extreme drug problems, and was replaced by Ron Wood. Charlie Watts retired, but later returned, I think.

The Who did go on after Moon died, but were heavily criticized for continuing their last tour days after bassist Enwhistle died in a hotel room before opening night. It's weird this topic came up cause last night I dreamed Townshend died!

Led Zeppelin ended after the death of drummer John Bonham in 1980. They said the band could not go on as it was so they wouldn't want to. I think U2 would be that way too.
 
When I first read the original post, I thought "they have to go on!" ... but when I think about it, if one of them died, I don't want them to go on. It won't be U2, it won't be the band I know and love, and it most certainly won't be the same. Sure, they could replace Adam, but without him, where's U2? U2 is not U2 without any of their members, and that includes Adam, even if he is replaceable.
 
Leeloo said:


Bill Wyman?! He got old and retired. When the Stones started, Mick and Keith were 15 and Wyman was 23. They invited him to join because he was the only guy they knew with a bass. He had a no talent kid brother the age of the others, and if they tried to get rid of the brother, Bill would threaten to walk, so they had to keep him. Eventually, the brother realized he was the weakest link and quit on his own for the sake of the band. However, the Rolling Stones did go on after the death of a founding member, Brian Jones, their original lead guitarist, in 1969. He was replaced by Mick Jones, who quit due to extreme drug problems, and was replaced by Ron Wood. Charlie Watts retired, but later returned, I think.

The Who did go on after Moon died, but were heavily criticized for continuing their last tour days after bassist Enwhistle died in a hotel room before opening night. It's weird this topic came up cause last night I dreamed Townshend died!

Led Zeppelin ended after the death of drummer John Bonham in 1980. They said the band could not go on as it was so they wouldn't want to. I think U2 would be that way too.

I didn't mean to imply Wyman was dead, just pointing out that it's hard to say what will happen to a band when a member leaves.

As for the Who, they probably should have called it quits, but didn't. It took awhile, but after settling on Zak Starkey, the Who seemed renergized and played to mostly positive reviews on the last tour and are working on a new Studio release.


AC/DC went after Scott died.

Skynyrd still records and tours.

I just think it's too hard to say what U2 would do.....
let's just hope we don't have to deal with it anytime soon........
 
Zooropa said:


I didn't mean to imply Wyman was dead, just pointing out that it's hard to say what will happen to a band when a member leaves.


I didn't mean to imply you thought he was, only that maybe you didn't know about the Brian Jones thing. That was a much bigger thing for the Stones to get through than Wyman leaving of his own free will.

I feel Skynrd really shouldn't be recording and touring under the same name considering all the deaths and tragedies. In a way it's capitalizing on a name and a sad story, but in a way it's carrying on. I guess it's up to each person to decide how they feel, but I couldn't do it.
 
On the REM thing: as long as the guy leaves, in a friendly way, of his own choice, and does not die, I see no reason why the band should not continue if the other band members still feel the desire.
 
Yeah. Just because Adam's parts are easier to play, I seriously doubt they'd get a replacement. He's as much a part of the band as Bono and Edge and Larry. He means as much to them as they do to him (does that make sense?) They surely would not go on without him (or any of the others, I'm just still using Adam for example)
 
alia612 said:
Yeah. Just because Adam's parts are easier to play, I seriously doubt they'd get a replacement. He's as much a part of the band as Bono and Edge and Larry. He means as much to them as they do to him (does that make sense?) They surely would not go on without him (or any of the others, I'm just still using Adam for example)

If U2 were on the middle of the tour and Adam would die, then surely U2 would go on without him, maybe use Adam's roadie for two reasons: they have commitments and Adam's part is easy to play. But if U2 were in the middle of the tour and it was Bono or Edge who would die, I highly doubt they'll continue. If it's Larry, I also don't think so but that might be iffy. This is not to put down Adam, it's just based on the fact that U2 has simple basslines and they are not famous because of their bassist but because of their singer and guitarist.

But I don't think U2 will ever record any new material without Adam. Perhaps if Adam would die when there is no tour, U2 may still tour but only sing their older material they wrote with Adam. I don't see a new U2 album without Adam.

Cheers,

J
 
Someday, it is inevitable that all the members of U2 will die...horrible image, nonetheless I do hope that before such a day dawns when one of them eventually does dies, that U2 shall have ceased to be a performing group long beforehand, thus lessening the shock and judging by their youthfulness, perhaps none of us shall be here to witness such an event.
 
Back
Top Bottom