What's the Next U2 Evolution

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

adam3000

Acrobat
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
416
Location
Colorado
So far it looks like U2 has had 4 evolutions (see below). My question is: What is the next evolution?

Evolution 1: Post Punk
Boy
October
War

Evolution 2: Roots and Epic Rock
Unforgetable Fire
Joshua Tree
Rattel and Hum

Evolution 3: Dance/Rave meets Rock
Achtung Baby
Zooropa
Pop

Evolution 4: Classic Songwriting and Long Album Titles :wink:
All That You Can't Leave Behind
How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb
???? (New Album in 4 Years)

Evolution 5: Your Guess Here
What is your guess for this next stage?
 
Last edited:
Evolution 5?

Bono vs. The Edge pay per view wheelchair battles with soundtrack done by a computer who looks uncannily like Brian Eno.
 
Last edited:
I think U2 will stick to this theme for probably two more albums. I just can't imagine what else there is for them to do? It's like they've done everything already. haha.:scratch:
 
I also think U2 will do one more vain in the classic songwriting vein and then move on to something new.
 
I don't know what's the next evolution. But it's gotta happen fast. Real fast.
 
Hate to say it, but I think there will only be one more album, if that. This has nothing to do with the quality of their work, which I think remains stellar, but just a feeling.
 
I agree Edgeu22. I think one more proper album from the band, and that's it. I know it saddens people, but by 2008 (when I'm guessing the next one will be out...maybe 2007 if they don't go with Chris Thomas, haha) Bono and crew will be 47-48, and will have had a 30 year career. 30 years of music is bloody fantastic.

Nirvana fans got about 5 years of music.
Beatles fans got roughly 8 years.
Rolling Stones fans...haha...well that band stopped making good music after 1978.
The Clash fans got a few years.
The Police fans got 6 years, if that.

Bands break up, or fall apart, or simply begin to suck. By 2008, U2 will have been putting out albums for 28 years, and all of them will have been good! When your low point, Pop, sells millions of albums worldwide, it says a lot. I really wouldn't mind if U2 stopped after the next album. I want them to go out while they're still in top form. I really, really do not want them to become the Rolling Stones, shilling out shit just to make cash. And I don't think the boys will do that.

(And yes, I'm familiar with the Larry Rock and Roll Hall of Fame quote from a couple days ago...but hasn't the band used hyperbole before?)

I just don't want Bono, at age 60, to be saying, "We're still trying to get onto pop radio and fuck with the mainstream." It will be embarassing. I can be selfless enough to admit that. We need to step back and put aside our desire for new U2 material until Bono and the mates die, and think about when would be a good time for them to cross-over into the Eternal Hall of Legendary Bands.
 
adam3000 said:
So far it looks like U2 has had 4 evolutions (see below). My question is: What is the next evolution?

Evolution 1: Post Punk
Boy
October
War

Evolution 2: Roots and Epic Rock
Unforgetable Fire
Joshua Tree
Rattel and Hum

Evolution 3: Dance/Rave meets Rock
Achtung Baby
Zooropa
Pop

Evolution 4: Classic Songwriting and Long Album Titles :wink:
All That You Can't Leave Behind
How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb
???? (New Album in 4 Years)

Evolution 5: Your Guess Here
What is your guess for this next stage?

Seriously: Stage 4 is "Evolution"? :huh:
 
I'm guessing they will really feed off the Vertigo: temple bar mix and step into bluegrass & country music.
 
It is, even if some fans have a problem with it.

HTDAAB already shows the steps in the new direction from ATYCLB - even more personal Bono lyrics, more guitars, a definite shift to more rocking sound.

Evolution 5 might be a harder sounding upgrade of Evolution 4. Since the band has the deal for 3 Best ofs, I think we can safely say there will be more albums than just one more.
 
U2girl said:

Evolution 5 might be a harder sounding upgrade of Evolution 4. Since the band has the deal for 3 Best ofs, I think we can safely say there will be more albums than just one more.

I wonder how binding that 3 best-ofs contract is. Could they get out of it by simply doing a "best of u2 live" or something? Not that that's a bad idea regardless....
 
i think we'll get at least two more albums out of them. more if we are really lucky.

I remember reading that U2 didn't want to get inducted into the rock n' roll hall of fame this year because they feel they are still too young of a band. I think (though the album releases may stay far apart) that they have a few more in them.
 
The band is having such a good time. I don't think they'll go away anytime soon. If there having fun and making great music let them keep doing it. It hasn't turn to crappy tunes yet. Were all still hungry to hear the new songs live in person. IF anything, thats why I love U2 so much. There new music is still relivant and fresh. I've been a Stones fan for about 10 yrs (I'm 26) and it is pretty sad to see those guys play the same stuff everynight. U2 will never stoop to that level.

As for the next evolution....who knows. I'm sure U2 will find something for us.
 
I hope they don't make another album if its like the last 2. They can only repeat the 80's stuff so many times.
 
Taken from the USA Today article dated 11/22/04

U2: Rock Hall can wait awhile
By Edna Gundersen, USA TODAY

Drummer Larry Mullen Jr., 43, says the honor would be more appropriate in, say, 2030.

"We've got another 25 years," he says. "They need to change the rules. We're still creative and still out there competing on every level. It would be great to get this when we're 75 and we can bring the grandkids along."


*I only hope Bono is right in that Larry can not tell a lie.*
 
I was thinking on the way home, maybe the 5th stage will be to collaborate with younger artists like the Rolling Stones did on Bridges to Babylon, like Santana, like Willie Nelson... i don't know. That wouldn't seem like it would be a big enough idea for a 3 album arc.
 
I think it great to hear from the most serious member of the group, the enforcer if you will- Larry, that they feel motivated and interested in their craft at this stage of their careers. I think they will hang it up when they feel they can't progress, but none of them EVER act bored with their individual talents. It seems that each one of them is still in love with experimenting on their instrument (Bono's being his vocals and writing). They never tire. If one of them ever tires, I think that will be it, but nothing right now could convince me that its anytime soon.

As far as the evolution question, I really haven't a clue. It seems right to go in the vein of stripped down rock and roll, maybe accoustics coming out more in the next album or phase, cus all of their work seems to translate very well to acoustic with percussion. Maybe an even more traditional Irish sound, something to go back home to if they decide to close shop.
 
Last edited:
adam3000 said:
I was thinking on the way home, maybe the 5th stage will be to collaborate with younger artists like the Rolling Stones did on Bridges to Babylon, like Santana, like Willie Nelson... i don't know. That wouldn't seem like it would be a big enough idea for a 3 album arc.

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't like bands and artists collaborating. I like U2 collaborating with each other and their producers and that's it. Side projects are fine, but not for an album of theirs. I absolutely despised the santana/rob thomas collaboration. It's like saying these older great musicians need these young pop/rock artists to make their music heard. :wink: And I don't want U2 to ever turn into the RS. I'm sorry if this all sounds crazy, but I feel passionate about this for some reason. :shrug:
 
kakvox, i'd agree with you on the Santana thing if he didn't do that THROUGHOUT his career, but that's what he's made a living of doing- collaborating. As overplayed as 'Smooth' was played, its a great song. U2- not a chance they'd do it. The best collaborations they do, as you said it, is with each other. Their musical diversity is between them, and their producers, as well as what each one of them brings to the table in studio. Collaborating with other artists in studio didn't get them there in the first place. Santana was doing that from the start. He embraces diversity on stage and in studio perfroming with him, and his greatness shows, because it still comes back to his sound and not to the guest vocalists- "hey that sure sounds like a Santana tune' not 'Hey, that's a Rob Thomas vocal with Santana'. It still remains Santana's product.
 
Last edited:
This is a great topic to discuss, because I don't think anyone really knows where they go from here...especially them. It's not set in stone that this current evolution will have a 3rd album or not.

The fact that they give each other time to be individuals in between each album speaks volumes. It's like a great relationship with someone. The relationship is only powerful if each individual has their own life, space, etc.

I think they could tour in 2005/2006 and walk away for 4 years or 8 years or whatever and come back to the table and make great music again, whether it's part of this current revolution or something different.

The more and more I look at their body of work, the more and more I realize how important the Achtung Baby/Zooropa/Pop phase was. Like it or not (I loved it), you could argue that if they didn't go through that experiment/experience, they wouldn't be a band anymore. They NEEDED that.

Here's to the future!
 
kakvox said:


No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't like bands and artists collaborating. I like U2 collaborating with each other and their producers and that's it.

I totally agree. I was just trying to brainstorm and think of what other older bands do. Another direction older bands take is to explore/cover older music they have loved. Eric Clapton did it with Blues, Sting did it with Jazz. I don't think they should take this direction either and neither do U2. They've often said they don't like copying the past, they are a forward looking band. Whether they are or not ... I don't know ... they don't like to appear to be.

So I'm left with the same question. What will be the new direction. I doubt it will be acoustic folk. They've always been founded in rock. Even with they're side journeys.
 
kakvox said:
Taken from the USA Today article dated 11/22/04

U2: Rock Hall can wait awhile
By Edna Gundersen, USA TODAY

Drummer Larry Mullen Jr., 43, says the honor would be more appropriate in, say, 2030.

"We've got another 25 years," he says. "They need to change the rules. We're still creative and still out there competing on every level. It would be great to get this when we're 75 and we can bring the grandkids along."


*I only hope Bono is right in that Larry can not tell a lie.*

At this point since the Edge, Bono, and Adam have misled fans about albums and junk in some form or other... If you can't trust Larry than who can we trust... :wink:
 
Trust me that U2 will be around for a lot longer. I don't think there will be evolutions as such by the time they call it quits. They might want to push the internet/ipod envelope even more and let songs go at their whim. They are Irish, music is part of the dna here, that's why they can reinvent, that's why they have so many producers clamoring to be a part of that craic. What made U2 unique in the past, the wealth of wallpaper music will by contrast spur them on in this age, by the groups like radiohead, interpol, cold patrol, gwen, garbage...that insist that there is inspiration for U2 to feed off of.
 
In the short term, I'm enjoying watching the HTDAAB songs develop from the studio to full live pieces like Walk On did last time around. Like OOTS is doing from produced studio version to two man Apple version to full band Brooklyn Bridge Version.

Long term I still have no idea.
 
Back
Top Bottom