Should U2 Retire?

Because I liked their past work. Their current work (including overall choices they make) interferes with my ability to appreciate their past work because it damages my respect for them.

Quote from: SlyDanner on September 03, 2025, 11:22:48 AM

This is the future.  U2 know it.  Scared to death.  Hence - silence.

That is not what the Las Vegas shows looked like. U2 soldout 40 arena shows in Las Vegas not too long ago.

The Rolling Stones in their 80s soldout 20 stadium shows in the United States in 2024.

Just because you can't beat Taylor Swift and Coldplay in attendance and gross anymore does not change the fact the majority of active music artist would never be able to get as many people to an arena or stadium as U2 could.

Doing a limited run residency in one city is a very different proposition versus touring the world the way U2 have been accustomed to doing.

That's one of the reasons Vegas was so appealing to them.  And they did it on a legacy album.

No disrespect to them - they deserve props for selling those shows out at very high prices.

But we'll see what happens if they attempt another proper tour based on a new album. 

If U2 tour again they could still fill stadiums.

they struggled to fill arenas on I+E and E+I, so uh... no.

Even though i think they should retire, i wouldn't mind if they kept touring every few years.

Because I liked their past work. Their current work (including overall choices they make) interferes with my ability to appreciate their past work because it damages my respect for them.

I like what would be considered today, early Def Leppard and early Duran Duran. But I don't visit their fan message board forums and their new music does not interfere or stop me from liking their old music.

Quote from: wons on September 03, 2025, 06:44:53 PM

Quote from: SlyDanner on September 03, 2025, 11:22:48 AM

This is the future.  U2 know it.  Scared to death.  Hence - silence.

That is not what the Las Vegas shows looked like. U2 soldout 40 arena shows in Las Vegas not too long ago.

The Rolling Stones in their 80s soldout 20 stadium shows in the United States in 2024.

Just because you can't beat Taylor Swift and Coldplay in attendance and gross anymore does not change the fact the majority of active music artist would never be able to get as many people to an arena or stadium as U2 could.

Doing a limited run residency in one city is a very different proposition versus touring the world the way U2 have been accustomed to doing.

40 shows in a 20,000 seat arena in one city is not a "limited run". It could be the record or if not very close to it. I thought U2 at best would be able to play 10 shows in a 20,000 seat arena in Las Vegas. That band thought that too as they only put two shows on sale initially. 40 shows is absolutely astonishing as it means 90% of the fans probably booked Air Travel, hotels, time off, in order to do all that.

U2 played to 663,000 people which is more than the number of people they played to on the 50 date North American Unforgettable Fire tour back in 1984/1985. That was one of the top 10 tours of 1985 in North America.

How many artist have played more than 40 arena shows in a row in a 20,000 seat arena in one city? Very few if any.

Even though it was technically a residency and not a tour, the gross of $245 million puts it in the top 75 grossing tours of all time.

Most residencies in Vegas are done in much smaller theaters or clubs. When you only have to sell 3,000 tickets for a sellout, its easy to a residency. But when that number is 20,000, that is difficult if not impossible for most music artist to do.

That's one of the reasons Vegas was so appealing to them.  And they did it on a legacy album.

For U2, the appeal was the venue itself and the new technology. Originally I don't think they contemplated doing more than ten shows. They went to 40 shows because of the massive demand.

No disrespect to them - they deserve props for selling those shows out at very high prices.

But we'll see what happens if they attempt another proper tour based on a new album.

The graphic you posted suggest there would only be demand for a club tour, less than 1,000 people per night. I'm sure the band will be able to comfortably do a global arena tour just like they did on the Unforgettable Fire Tour or Elevation Tour, with most if not all nights, soldout.

they struggled to fill arenas on I+E and E+I, so uh... no.

That was in the United States. Not all the other places U2 tours around the world. By the way, selling out 100 arena dates is not something most music artist can do.

Quote from: SlyDanner on September 04, 2025, 10:14:54 AM

Quote from: wons on September 03, 2025, 06:44:53 PM

Quote from: SlyDanner on September 03, 2025, 11:22:48 AM

This is the future.  U2 know it.  Scared to death.  Hence - silence.

That is not what the Las Vegas shows looked like. U2 soldout 40 arena shows in Las Vegas not too long ago.

The Rolling Stones in their 80s soldout 20 stadium shows in the United States in 2024.

Just because you can't beat Taylor Swift and Coldplay in attendance and gross anymore does not change the fact the majority of active music artist would never be able to get as many people to an arena or stadium as U2 could.

Doing a limited run residency in one city is a very different proposition versus touring the world the way U2 have been accustomed to doing.

40 shows in a 20,000 seat arena in one city is not a "limited run". It could be the record or if not very close to it. I thought U2 at best would be able to play 10 shows in a 20,000 seat arena in Las Vegas. That band thought that too as they only put two shows on sale initially. 40 shows is absolutely astonishing as it means 90% of the fans probably booked Air Travel, hotels, time off, in order to do all that.

U2 played to 663,000 people which is more than the number of people they played to on the 50 date North American Unforgettable Fire tour back in 1984/1985. That was one of the top 10 tours of 1985 in North America.

How many artist have played more than 40 arena shows in a row in a 20,000 seat arena in one city? Very few if any.

Even though it was technically a residency and not a tour, the gross of $245 million puts it in the top 75 grossing tours of all time.

Most residencies in Vegas are done in much smaller theaters or clubs. When you only have to sell 3,000 tickets for a sellout, its easy to a residency. But when that number is 20,000, that is difficult if not impossible for most music artist to do.

Quote

That's one of the reasons Vegas was so appealing to them.  And they did it on a legacy album.

For U2, the appeal was the venue itself and the new technology. Originally I don't think they contemplated doing more than ten shows. They went to 40 shows because of the massive demand.

Quote

No disrespect to them - they deserve props for selling those shows out at very high prices.

But we'll see what happens if they attempt another proper tour based on a new album.

The graphic you posted suggest there would only be demand for a club tour, less than 1,000 people per night. I'm sure the band will be able to comfortably do a global arena tour just like they did on the Unforgettable Fire Tour or Elevation Tour, with most if not all nights, soldout.

1. The Sphere was also a big draw for the audience.  If they did that residency anywhere else, a very different demand situation.

2. The graphic - I know this is hard to grasp - was a joke.  I do not seriously believe they will be playing clubs a la Spinal Tap.  But stadiums?  No way.  And if the next album is as bad as their previous recent efforts, we may see a world tour of community colleges.

Cool.

If they cannot even get an EP out of interesting material before end of 2026 then yes. A third tour (if you count Vegas with no new material in a decade would be the end imho.

I think an artist should have the right to make some crap albums without retiring. Bob Dylan made amazing music in the 60's and 70's and then made several crap albums in the 80's only to return to form in late 90's and onward. The problem with U2 is that there is way too long between albums. With Dylan there were never more than a few years (often 1-2 and max 4) between albums and he has toured continously and released extra material for the fans. When there is a gap of 8 years up to an album the expectations will be through the roof and the disappointment will be much bigger if the album is not great as the fans know they wont get another album any time soon. The right time for U2 to retire was after the Elevation tour. Since they didnt do that they might as well stick around as the damage has already been done and they might theoretically return to form on the next album.

Basically, U2 have been a hugely commercially successful touring band over the past 25 years when they've cash in on their legacy created in the 1980s and 90s, much like since the late 1980s the Stones have cashed in on the legacy they created in the 1960s and 70s.  The albums are just extras.