U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f288/)
-   -   2004...the last BIG year of U2? (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f288/2004-the-last-big-year-of-u2-72465.html)

The_acrobat 02-17-2003 03:34 PM

2004...the last BIG year of U2?
 
I read on @u2 that first of all....the new album won't come out until 2004. I guess drum tech Sam Sullivan spilled these beans to a fan at their dublin studio. So that sucks. I pray it isn't true, but I seriously doubt that it'll come out before 2004.

But also that next year they are doing another arena tour, and that will be their last "Big" tour. After that, their tours will be shorter, and in more selected cities...according to their management. They don't wanna be like the stones and tour into their 60s.

I personally don't see anything wrong with the stones still touring. If they want to, then let them. I'm sure their fans still love it. Just like I don't see why U2 has to quit in their mid-40s. Tom Petty and Aerosmith are both in the 50s now, and they still put on a good show. My point is that I think U2 is being a little bit intimidated by their age.

Salome 02-17-2003 03:39 PM

ah, I though Elevation really was the last one
or was it POPMart???

I keep forgetting

arw 02-17-2003 03:41 PM

I read that on @u2 too but I don't believe it. :|

mikal 02-17-2003 03:41 PM

i heard that they were going to make me their official back-up singer to appeal to the younger fans.

IWasBored 02-17-2003 04:02 PM

i don't beleive you. well, i beleive that the album won't come out til 2004, but i don't believe anything thing else. i tend to not beleive anything from atu2.com unless it's also been announced at a ton of other sites, including offical ones. official things are pretty much the only things i tend to really beleive, and sometimes they're wrong too

u2popmofo 02-17-2003 04:05 PM

I tend to believe that it wont be out till 2004. U2 has a pretty good track record of taking way longer to release albums than they originally planned. That shouldnt really suprise anyone.

Wasnt Pop originally supposed to come out in 1995?

cujo 02-17-2003 05:02 PM

If Pop did come out in 1995, before most electronic music hit the mainstream, I wonder what kind of reception it would have gotten critically; probably more praise, I'm guessing.

HelloAngel 02-17-2003 06:52 PM

I tend to go with a late late 2003/early 2004 release. But we'll see! :happy:

Kariann 02-17-2003 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelloAngel
I tend to go with a late late 2003/early 2004 release. But we'll see! :happy:
I'm going to plan for the 2004 release so that way if by any chance it would end up being late 2003 it would be a nice little surprise.

U2Kitten 02-17-2003 08:14 PM

I don't believe they'll ever stop.

tiny dancer 02-17-2003 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by U2Kitten
I don't believe they'll ever stop.
I agree with you U2kitten. I really think doing tours is in their blood.

KhanadaRhodes 02-17-2003 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_acrobat
I personally don't see anything wrong with the stones still touring.
i don't think most people are ticked because they still tour, but because they essentially lied about it. mick is famous for saying he didn't wanna be onstage singing "satisfaction." and look at him now. U2 and other much older bands like aerosmith seem to at least slightly embrace getting older and try to do it gracefully. mick running around with models younger than some of his kids is embarrassing. him and maybe all of the stones seem to be in denial about growing old.

anyway, i don't ever listen to anything an artist says until it really happens. even then, with something like retirement, i don't listen. elton john has retired from touring twice but he always went back years later and did it. people like him and U2 seem to love touring, even though it's physically exhausting, they love it. this is what makes me doubt that any of this is true, especially since none of the members has said any of this publicly.

bayernfc 02-17-2003 11:15 PM

I think i read n @u2 that Bono was banned from speaking in the Oscars as well, but I didn't believe that either.

.........so I totally agree as long it's not commented on by the Band themselves, some times maybe not even then, I don't buy it.

cujo 02-17-2003 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KhanadaRhodes

U2 and other much older bands like aerosmith seem to at least slightly embrace getting older and try to do it gracefully. mick running around with models younger than some of his kids is embarrassing. him and maybe all of the stones seem to be in denial about growing old.


This is a good point as well. Do you guys think that U2 are aging well in terms of their music? Do you think that the music they are making is for people their age? Joe Strummer once said that he couldn't go on doing punk style music because it just didn't suit his age group. He said that groups often try to appeal to the younger audiences, which usually destroys the relationships they built with their long-term fans.

Personally, I don't think U2 have done that. They continue to make music for themselves, and if people like it... great. Will 2004 be their last big year, I don't think so. There is still some unfinished business, and a lot of forum members who haven't seen the live show. The life of U2 tours will probably go on far into this decade, but maybe to a lesser extent; even Larry has said they may decrease the amount of tour dates, sacrificing quantity for quality.

ElectricalVoice 02-18-2003 06:29 AM

The last BIG year? Nooo - this is when it all starts. What the hell would happen to the four guys if they stop touring? They can't sit still - we all know that! Anyway - look at Edge and Bono - they seem very psyched about the new album, and they are filled with creativity. I doubt that U2 have planned this far away, they seem to take any challenge, and beat the crap out of it. I really don't think they will decide that their next tour will be their last. What the hell is that? Planning to quit while they are making something new??? No - don't believe it....

gherman 02-18-2003 07:04 AM

I don't think U2 is scared of thier age, more thier loss of creativity. Rolling Stones and Aerosmith havn't put out a quality record in over 10 years. Stones are still living in the past and I don't think U2 want to do that.

DaveC 02-18-2003 08:39 AM

Well U2 seems to enjoy October releases for albums, and March tour beginnings. That's what I'm gonna bet on, or somewhere close to that.

The_acrobat 02-18-2003 10:27 AM

I've accepted the fact that album might not be released until early 2004. I know they like the process of an album release in the fall, and then beginning the tour in the spring. They have done this a lot. They tried doing it with POP. They assumed they'd have it out by the fall so that they could start their tour in the spring. But instead they had to release it right before the tour began, and that wasn't a good move. My point is that U2 won't begin scheduling a tour until they are certain that they'll have an album out. If the album comes out in Feb/March next year, then the tour will probably begin in April/May. Hopefully they don't take too much time, though.

Also, in the midst of all this creativity their producing in the studio, I bet that the last thing on their mind is the end of their band. I bet the next tour will include fewer dates. Or at least fewer back 2 back concerts. I know they were gonna tour Europe more extensively and back off the US a little bit on the next tour. As long as I get to see them, I'll be happy.

oliveu2cm 02-18-2003 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by arw9797
I read that on @u2 too but I don't believe it. :|
it's true sam said that.

whether or not what he said will be true, we'll have to wait and see. The band, never mind us, never know what's gonna happen until it IS happening.

BVS 02-18-2003 11:23 AM

No one knows, they don't even know. I've seen a lot of people try to make predictions based on previous models. The fact is U2 can't be compared to these bands. There isn't a band out there that has been around this long that has the same track record as U2. They don't have the changing of line-ups like the Stones or REM, they haven't gone through rehab like Aerosmith, they haven't gone crazy like Micheal Jackson, they haven't had multiple farewell tours like KISS. The fact is that U2 is treading on new ground. They are in a space that no other band has filled. Now it's up for opinion as to how relevant they are at this point, but they are more relevant than any other band that's been around for this long. So who knows what the future holds, we're in new territory.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com