*Rumor* - Larry to retire after E+I tour

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Iggy Fizz said:
I agree with your last point. However the relationship between the quality (or popularity) of their new music and ticket demand is not as strong as you suggest. NLOTH was a commercial disappointment but its supporting tour was the most successful in history.
Click to expand...

NLOTH was the 7th biggest selling album of 2009 worldwide and the 22nd biggest selling album of the year in the United States. Those were good numbers. Not has good HTDAAB, but much better than Pop. Pop was #48 for the year in the United States back in 1997. Plus there was some momentum left over from the Vertigo Tour because the band underplayed when it came to demand.
 
Rachel D. said:
“I don’t want to be in a rock band when I’m 60.” -Larry, around 2001 (I think)
Click to expand...

That was Bono and Edge in the late 90s, but I think their views on that have changed. Bono also said in that interview that at 60 he would be walking around with a cane and chasing little kids. A bit Ageist himself in those days.
 
basstrap2418 said:
NLOTH was the 7th biggest selling album of 2009 worldwide and the 22nd biggest selling album of the year in the United States. Those were good numbers. Not has good HTDAAB, but much better than Pop. Pop was #48 for the year in the United States back in 1997. Plus there was some momentum left over from the Vertigo Tour because the band underplayed when it came to demand.
Click to expand...
But how many people listened to No Line on their DiscMan at the gym?
 
Iggy Fizz said:
Rumor is that Larry is physically unable to smile now. Apparently it happened after his 83rd plastic surgery procedure.
Click to expand...

But maybe he is smiling. We just can't tell. :shifty:

basstrap2418 said:
That was Bono and Edge in the late 90s, but I think their views on that have changed. Bono also said in that interview that at 60 he would be walking around with a cane and chasing little kids. A bit Ageist himself in those days.
Click to expand...

Ah, OK, I knew my memory was fuzzy on that one. :reject: I agree that Bono and Edge seem to have changed their views since then. They don't seem to have run out of ambition, and they maybe didn't expect U2 to still be active at this point.
 
basstrap2418 said:
The fact is, when the new music does well and becomes popular, U2 get a boost in attendance at their concerts. When it flops, you get the downturn in ticket demand.
Click to expand...

That's not a "fact" at all. In fact think attendance at U2 concerts, post Bomb at least, has very little to do with whatever record they're touring in "support" of. Starting with 360, U2 has more or less been a greatest hits touring act...playing stuff from their new record really just keeps their ego intact. They don't want to be a nostalgia act.

SOI wasn't exactly beloved or a huge success, and that tour did great. The same for NLOTH and 360. U2 hasn't had a full out smash hit since Vertigo, yet all their tours as still major events.

U2 is one of a handful of bands that can tour with a record no one cares about, or indeed no record at all (see the last tour) and still sell massive amounts of tickets. The "problem" on this current tour has to do more with U2 fatigue and over exposure (and perhaps high ticket prices) than with how well SOE may be doing.
 
Last edited:
RUMOUR ***Confirmed***

Larry has been named spokes-model for: RESTING BITCH FACE 2018! Congrats to him and his surgeon.
 
Nick66 said:
That's not a "fact" at all. In fact think attendance at U2 concerts, post Bomb at least, has very little to do with whatever record they're touring in "support" of. Starting with 360, U2 has more or less been a greatest hits touring act...playing stuff from their new record really just keeps their ego intact. They don't want to be a nostalgia act.

SOI wasn't exactly beloved or a huge success, and that tour did great. The same for NLOTH and 360. U2 hasn't had a full out smash hit since Vertigo, yet all their tours as still major events.

U2 is one of a handful of bands that can tour with a record no one cares about, or indeed no record at all (see the last tour) and still sell massive amounts of tickets. The "problem" on this current tour has to do more with U2 fatigue and over exposure (and perhaps high ticket prices) than with how well SOE may be doing.
Click to expand...

U2 success in selling tickets increased each tour as each album sold more than the previous album or sold about the same. Then POP was released and the band experienced a 50% decline in attendance throughout most markets in the United States. The band then went back to arenas on the Elevation tour which was sort of a rebuild phase for the bands popularity on the road. The Elevation tour did really well despite the huge increases in the price of certain tickets. The following Vertigo Tour was overwhelmingly successful and should have been booked in stadiums which would have soldout easily. 360 did amazing in the United States, but probably not as well as Vertigo would have done had it been booked in Stadiums.

Then as the Songs Of Innocence album was not received well, the band once again experience a shocking downturn in attendance in the United States. The most noticeable was in Denver Colorado. There were 79,000 in attendance on 360 in Denver for one show, but now U2 failed to sellout two shows in an arena and only combined for 28,000 in attendance for the two shows. 28,000 tickets is what the band sold for the Popmart show in Denver in 1997.

Other examples include only playing 5 shows at the forum arena in Los Angeles due to low ticket demand when they had planned to play 8. Chicago stopping at 5 when they had planned to play 6. San Jose having lower priced tickets still unsold weeks after they went on sale despite their only being 2 shows in that market.

Bottom line, with Songs Of Innocence, U2 returned to Popmart levels of demand in the United States. Unless U2 has another hit song or announce a last tour, ticket demand in the United States will likely stay at that reduced level.
 
basstrap2418 said:
NLOTH was the 7th biggest selling album of 2009 worldwide and the 22nd biggest selling album of the year in the United States. Those were good numbers. Not has good HTDAAB, but much better than Pop. Pop was #48 for the year in the United States back in 1997. Plus there was some momentum left over from the Vertigo Tour because the band underplayed when it came to demand.
Click to expand...

it was still a disappointment, regardless of how you view the relative position of a #7 or #22 record. And just as there was leftover demand from the Vertigo tour that drove demand for 360, so too was there a residual impact of Bomb on NLOTH sales. People bought it in hopes of getting another strong U2 album. They were disappointed.
 
Iggy Fizz said:
it was still a disappointment, regardless of how you view the relative position of a #7 or #22 record. And just as there was leftover demand from the Vertigo tour that drove demand for 360, so too was there a residual impact of Bomb on NLOTH sales. People bought it in hopes of getting another strong U2 album. They were disappointed.
Click to expand...

Uh, NLOTH was #7 worldwide, #22 in the United States. Pop was #48 in the United States which is a big difference with #22 for NLOTH. NLOTH was closer in impact to HTDAAB which finished at #8 for the year vs. its #22 finish.

Its true that momentum from the last album also played a role in NLOTH sales.

But its also true that the decrease in the actual number of units sold from HTDAAB to NLOTH was due to the fact that people were obtaining the music without purchasing it in greater numbers in 2009 as opposed to 2004/2005.

Paul McGuinness considered the biggest factor in the decrease in NLOTH sales to be a decline in the overall album sales market, essentially all artist were experiencing declines in sales.

If there was any true disappoint with NLOTH, it was that none of the singles received enough airplay to chart on the HOT 100 Airplay only chart in the United States, the first time that had happened for a U2 albums songs since the 1980s.
 
basstrap2418 said:
Uh, NLOTH was #7 worldwide, #22 in the United States. Pop was #48 in the United States which is a big difference with #22 for NLOTH. NLOTH was closer in impact to HTDAAB which finished at #8 for the year vs. its #22 finish.
Click to expand...

uh, you already stated these facts. I got it the first time.

with respect to pirated music, you are incorrect - it was actually a much bigger problem in the early-mid 2000s than it was by the time NLOTH was released. uh.
 
Iggy Fizz said:
uh, you already stated these facts. I got it the first time.

with respect to pirated music, you are incorrect - it was actually a much bigger problem in the early-mid 2000s than it was by the time NLOTH was released. uh.
Click to expand...

You seemed to be comparing the #7 placement of NLOTH internationally to its placement in the United States at #22 which is not the comparison I was making.

People obtaining music without purchasing it directly is a problem that has gotten worse every single year since 2000. The annual totals for the top 100 selling albums each year show that. There were 100 albums that sold over 1 million copies in 2001 in the United States. That figure decreased steadily every year. In 2009, that number stood at 22. Last year for 2017 it was down to just 2.

Streaming an album is not a replacement for purchasing it, even if your paying $10 dollars a month to something like spotify. It hurts the artist and the industry. I payed 17 dollars when I purchased Achtung Baby in 1991 which adjusted for inflation is $31 dollars today.
 
I truly believe that a shift occurred DURING the 360 tour, where U2 went from being a relevant act that could have current hits to a classic rock band that was just a greatest hits machine. Demand was still strong coming off the HTDAAB era. U2 could've released a kickass lead single and NLOTH would've been more of a hit. But instead they released Boots, people hated it, and the album sank like a stone, along with U2's relevance.

By the time the tour ended in 2011, they were only playing 3 "new" songs, and that was mainly just to suit themselves. At that point, they had completed the transition to a bona fide classic rock hits act.

Then they waited far too long to release any kind of followup. And then said followup was the subject of a significant backlash, some might even say a "scandal". U2's name was drug through the dirt. Then last year we get a nostalgia based tour, with nothing played from the past decade (besides Best Thing and Little Things), and the stadium's filled up! Now, we have a new album tour that is struggling to fill arenas in some markets. The writing is on the wall.

But anyway, I really hope Larry doesn't retire!
 
This is the last tour under current Live Nation contract, right?

I don't know if they will retire (if anyone retires, it will mean U2 is retiring) but I think that the significant backlash with SOI could have been tackled with a totally different approach this time. SOE is a solid album and being 100% true that no one cares about U2's new music it's also true to say that there are more people willing to listen to their new music than there was in 2014. At least that's what I see around me.

The problem is that they are going for a premium arena tour in the US, with very high prices and not showing any willingness to conquer new people to their concerts. They are just too expensive for a band without any big hit since 2004. U2 is not making an effort anymore - they prefer to maximize profits (being the last tour with Live Nation may also have a roler here) instead of showing their creative work to more people or at least to different people. You're just not conquering young people when GA tickets are less affordable than a 1 day ticket for a rock festival with plenty of trending bands on it.

So yes... they are pretty much an heritage act now, while having some good new music. Personally I love SOI and SOE but I only know them because because I was already a fan. I seriously doubt I would be listening carefully otherwise, to be honest.

When you don't conquer new audiences - with blasting hits or trying to get different people to the shows with more affordable tickets - it's just a matter of time to become an heritage act.

Thankfully they are an heritage act with decent new songs to play live. That's probably their greatest achievement at this stage.
 
basstrap2418 said:
Then as the Songs Of Innocence album was not received well, the band once again experience a shocking downturn in attendance in the United States. The most noticeable was in Denver Colorado. There were 79,000 in attendance on 360 in Denver for one show, but now U2 failed to sellout two shows in an arena and only combined for 28,000 in attendance for the two shows. 28,000 tickets is what the band sold for the Popmart show in Denver in 1997.

Other examples include only playing 5 shows at the forum arena in Los Angeles due to low ticket demand when they had planned to play 8. Chicago stopping at 5 when they had planned to play 6. San Jose having lower priced tickets still unsold weeks after they went on sale despite their only being 2 shows in that market.
Click to expand...

It's all relative, really. U2 regards selling out the Forum *only* five times as a disappointment, while most big modern acts would be happy to sell out even two shows, and would be over the moon at three.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
Probably but not necessarily. The LiveNation live deal lasts through 2020. It's not predicated on a certain number of tours.
Click to expand...

How is that possible? I'm sure LIveNation has some expectation that the band would be touring. Was it just a rumour that the JT 20 tour was to fulfil a commitment to LiveNation?

I honestly don't know the parameters of U2's contract with them (how would I?), it just would seem odd to me that U2 could pretty much just tour when they felt like it with no commitment on their end.
 
Last edited:
I remember 2020 being the date the contract expires as well. I think the JT Tour was something that was born out of the desire to make this touring contract as lucrative as possible. I'm not saying U2 are showponies who must do what their corporate masters tell them to. I think that probably some LN lackie proposed the idea to both U2 and his bosses, with spreadsheets and everything, and it was agreed upon that it would be a mutually beneficial situation that would have only worked in 2017, being the anniversary year.

I do believe that SOE and its subsequent tour were put on hold to make way for this incredibly profitable JT stadium tour. Nothing wrong with this, as it resulted in most of us being able to see more shows. But not taking the JT TOur to NZ and Australia should be a crime!!
 
All I can say is that it is important to consider that every tour could potentially be their last. I'm only 18 and TJT 30 was my first U2 show, so I'm hoping that they last a little while longer so I can see them three or four times in total before they are done.

That said, unless one of the gang starts heavily hinting (or outright claiming) at a breakup or a member leaving, there's no point in speculating. What someone said 15 years ago doesn't really matter. It certainly feels like they are not done yet based off the recent interviews I have read, but I can't read Larry's (nor anyone else's) mind, nor can I predict the future. U2 could last another ten years, so I'm not gonna think too heavily about rumors without any weight.
 
I’ve been wondering if U2 are touring so much because they’re planning to do it a lot less after their contract expires in 2020, regardless of whether or not anyone is really retiring. Without a contract, they can just do it whenever they feel like it, or even not at all, with no obligations. I can see how that would be appealing to them at their stage of life.
 
PopFly said:
It's all relative, really. U2 regards selling out the Forum *only* five times as a disappointment, while most big modern acts would be happy to sell out even two shows, and would be over the moon at three.
Click to expand...

Well, on the previous tour they soldout 3 stadium shows in the Los Angeles area to a total of 202,969. The next tour they are forced to stop at 5 arena shows with 83,505 tickets sold. That's nearly a 60% drop in tickets sold from the previous tour. If U2 started just selling tickets based on their whole catalog with the new music not mattering at all on 360, then the band should have been able to post similar numbers on the SOI tour or at least sellout the 8 shows they had planned in hours.

Instead, we see what happened on Popmart. If U2 could sellout just based on their old material, the drop off seen with Popmart and the SOI tour would not of happened. These drop offs from the previous tour are not minor, they are huge!

But still good business compared to most other artist, just way off from where U2 had been on the previous tour.
 
basstrap2418 said:
Well, on the previous tour they soldout 3 stadium shows in the Los Angeles area to a total of 202,969. The next tour they are forced to stop at 5 arena shows with 83,505 tickets sold. That's nearly a 60% drop in tickets sold from the previous tour. If U2 started just selling tickets based on their whole catalog with the new music not mattering at all on 360, then the band should have been able to post similar numbers on the SOI tour or at least sellout the 8 shows they had planned in hours.

Instead, we see what happened on Popmart. If U2 could sellout just based on their old material, the drop off seen with Popmart and the SOI tour would not of happened. These drop offs from the previous tour are not minor, they are huge!

But still good business compared to most other artist, just way off from where U2 had been on the previous tour.
Click to expand...
I don't know why I'm even bothering to engage with you.. alas.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Those 202k are not the same as the 83k.

Stadium gigs open up large swaths of cheap tickets. Arenas do not, especially with this setup where they're charging hundreds of dollars for tickets in the 400s. You're always going to get more casual to non fans at a stadium gig because of this. It's an unfair comparison.

They were never going to hit the same numbers for i/e as they did on 360, nor were they trying to.
 
Last edited:
basstrap2418 said:
Well, on the previous tour they soldout 3 stadium shows in the Los Angeles area to a total of 202,969. The next tour they are forced to stop at 5 arena shows with 83,505 tickets sold. That's nearly a 60% drop in tickets sold from the previous tour..
Click to expand...

What if you adjust those numbers for inflation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Will Larry Return to U2?
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
U2AlwaysForever
Larry Mullen Jr absent for 2023 tour.....
Replies
7
Views
1K
jphelmet
jphelmet
dan_smee
I listened to No Line on the Horizon right through tonight for the first time in about 10 years…
2 3
Replies
83
Views
3K
lazarus
lazarus
O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
317
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
Janet H
  • Sticky
Forum Update - We're back! Ask your questions here.
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Popmartijn
Popmartijn

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom