« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Should U2 Retire?

  • 50 Replies
  • 5190 Views
*

Amor fati

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 9858
  • Under the white horses
Re: Should U2 Retire?
« Reply #30 on: September 05, 2025, 09:53:29 AM »
The last new U2 album i was truly excited for and eagerly anticipated was No Line on the Horizon.  Since then,  its with common indifference,  a dash of skepticism and a side of dread that i await a new U2 release. 

They could go a long way with rekindling the flames if they could figure out the magic again.  Releasing an EP (as Swimming Sorrows has suggested) might do that if the material is cracking or eye opening.  But how do they get there from here?

If recent history is our model - they want an album of 10 or 11 songs - a third of which are clunkers,  another third are just forgettable, and maybe the other third are decent for them at this place in time.  And if there is a bonus track its probably better than anything that made the actual album (Crystal Ballroom or Mercy, anyone?).  This is probably the best we can expect out of them however i would love to be wrong here.

Even if you look at NLOTH as an example....flush the middle three song disaster from the album....and many of the superfans among us would consider it a classic album or even (dare i say) a masterpiece.  And the casual fans wouldn't care either way because most of them didn't buy the album nor could they name one song off of it should you ask them. 

So i guess it is possible they have the magic in them,  and God might still walk through the room,  and the Edge is still on fire,  and Punk rock on Venus,  etc.  Even if these things are true.........how do we trust them not to release a lead single such as GOYB,  The Miracle,  or Best thing?  Also - do these singles even matter anymore?
Logged
“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing" John 15:5
*

SlyDanner

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 5511
Re: Should U2 Retire?
« Reply #31 on: September 05, 2025, 10:47:31 AM »
the topic of singles and whether they should matter is interesting.  theoretically, they shouldn't matter.  U2 are in a place where they can release fuck-off albums that are musically interesting without worrying about commercial sales, but they won't because they are still chasing hits.  so ultimately we can debate the relevance of singles but as long as the band continue to pursue their strategy of world domination then we are stuck with that.

which is one among many reasons I can no longer stand this band.
Logged
*

Amor fati

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 9858
  • Under the white horses
Re: Should U2 Retire?
« Reply #32 on: September 05, 2025, 11:35:43 AM »
Quote from: SlyDanner on September 05, 2025, 10:47:31 AM
the topic of singles and whether they should matter is interesting.  theoretically, they shouldn't matter.  U2 are in a place where they can release fuck-off albums that are musically interesting without worrying about commercial sales, but they won't because they are still chasing hits.  so ultimately we can debate the relevance of singles but as long as the band continue to pursue their strategy of world domination then we are stuck with that.

which is one among many reasons I can no longer stand this band.

Hits and filling stadiums - both of which are the antithesis of punk rock - yet they continue to bang on about it.
Logged
“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing" John 15:5
*

Tumbling Dice

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 8990
  • Dice Dice Baby
Re: Should U2 Retire?
« Reply #33 on: September 05, 2025, 12:32:53 PM »
When I get a new U2 album I listen to it hoping to hear song or two where I think "that's pretty good".
 
And then I consider whether those songs are new entrants on my U2 Hot 100 chart.
Logged
The future is bright at Everton FC  8)
*

This Dave

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 1909
Re: Should U2 Retire?
« Reply #34 on: September 05, 2025, 01:30:55 PM »
Quote from: acrobat62 on September 04, 2025, 03:29:31 PM


I'd prefer to think Adam's brain says "What am I going to do, find a better hobby than THIS? Nah."
Logged
*

This Dave

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 1909
Re: Should U2 Retire?
« Reply #35 on: September 05, 2025, 01:39:34 PM »
Quote from: SlyDanner on September 04, 2025, 06:23:33 PM
Quote from: wons on September 04, 2025, 05:47:48 PM
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.

I'm not sure that "The Sphere was a big draw" is a negative in the way that you think (or at least how I think you think..). I look at that like saying [insert huge pop star] is only famous because her songs got big on TikTok." Well, yeah, that's how it goes. I'm not sure that there ever was a "Good old days" era where the music sold itself in a pure way, but you certainly have to use other gimmicks to attract attention to make things break out now. When discussing U2 topics which broadly could be called "The industry side of things", I'm not sure that everyone here understand the following: If WOWY, Streets, One, SBS, etc were released today for the first time, just as singles for the radio, they would flop. That's not good enough. There has to be other promotion which puts those songs into people's ears online again and again and again if they are to be big hits. Commercials, reels, viral dances, some other celeb posting themselves singing it in the shower, whatever.  That's just how it works. So "A lot of people just went because they wanted to see the Sphere" is as valid as "A bajillion women paid $$$$ to see the Eras Tour because all the other girls were posting it on Instagram and they would lose social status if they didn't go."  That's the music business.
Logged
*

This Dave

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 1909
Re: Should U2 Retire?
« Reply #36 on: September 05, 2025, 01:40:24 PM »
Quote from: SlyDanner on September 05, 2025, 10:47:31 AM
the topic of singles and whether they should matter is interesting.  theoretically, they shouldn't matter.  U2 are in a place where they can release fuck-off albums that are musically interesting without worrying about commercial sales, but they won't because they are still chasing hits.  so ultimately we can debate the relevance of singles but as long as the band continue to pursue their strategy of world domination then we are stuck with that.

which is one among many reasons I can no longer stand this band.

U2: "We need to release a single that RAWKS so kids listen to it on the radio"
Kids: "What's a radio?"
Logged
*

This Dave

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 1909
Re: Should U2 Retire?
« Reply #37 on: September 05, 2025, 01:51:04 PM »
Quote from: imaginary friend on September 04, 2025, 07:27:23 PM
I don't know...all I can say is that if I'd joined the band back in 1976, I would've bailed after the Super Bowl gig because 25 years in the same band is enough. Voting "no" regardless.

I think of Jordan Peterson's discussion with a client about retirement. "Oh I know exactly what I'm going to do, move to the beach and drink margaritas."

Ok, the next day?

"Lay on the beach and drink Margaritas!"

Ok, six months into that, you are a wreck and you don't feel good at all. So what else do you have planned?

I don't know what they do when they're not on tour (Well, we know some of what Bono does), but they have got a LOT of downtime. Yes, I know they worked their asses off in their 20's. So did I. They started taking off years at a time in their 30's. Do you know many guys who can do that? Then it was like 5-6 years or even more at a time. I know that they're retirement age, but it's not like someone who works 9-5 year round FINALLY getting to retire. They have been alternating between retirement and bursts of recording/touring for half of their lives now. So there's no reasonable "We need to stop touring so that I'll have time to...". Whatever that thing is, they've all had mountains of time to do it if they wanted. On the contrary, how to do you fill up that time? Well, you could become and old man who sits in front of the television all day. You could play absurd amounts of golf. Or you could be a rock star in front of thousands of fans screaming your name. I understand why they'd want to keep going on the occasional tour. The limiting factor at this point is Bono's voice and the Grim Reaper.
Logged
*

an tha

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 20370
  • And you can swallow, or you can spit....
Re: Should U2 Retire?
« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2025, 02:53:01 PM »
Logged
20 Times
*

Rupert Pupkin

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 1116
  • ZANU-PDF Liberation Font
Re: Should U2 Retire?
« Reply #39 on: September 05, 2025, 09:09:57 PM »
You can't read a book or something?  It's either work or margaritas by the pool?
Logged
do the Watusi
*

Rupert Pupkin

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 1116
  • ZANU-PDF Liberation Font
Re: Should U2 Retire?
« Reply #40 on: September 05, 2025, 09:18:29 PM »
Hell, you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man.  Just look at my cousin, he's broke and don't do shit.
Logged
do the Watusi
*

SlyDanner

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 5511
Re: Should U2 Retire?
« Reply #41 on: September 05, 2025, 09:24:38 PM »
Quote from: This Dave on September 05, 2025, 01:39:34 PM
Quote from: SlyDanner on September 04, 2025, 06:23:33 PM
Quote from: wons on September 04, 2025, 05:47:48 PM
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.

I'm not sure that "The Sphere was a big draw" is a negative in the way that you think (or at least how I think you think..). I look at that like saying [insert huge pop star] is only famous because her songs got big on TikTok." Well, yeah, that's how it goes. I'm not sure that there ever was a "Good old days" era where the music sold itself in a pure way, but you certainly have to use other gimmicks to attract attention to make things break out now. When discussing U2 topics which broadly could be called "The industry side of things", I'm not sure that everyone here understand the following: If WOWY, Streets, One, SBS, etc were released today for the first time, just as singles for the radio, they would flop. That's not good enough. There has to be other promotion which puts those songs into people's ears online again and again and again if they are to be big hits. Commercials, reels, viral dances, some other celeb posting themselves singing it in the shower, whatever.  That's just how it works. So "A lot of people just went because they wanted to see the Sphere" is as valid as "A bajillion women paid $$$$ to see the Eras Tour because all the other girls were posting it on Instagram and they would lose social status if they didn't go."  That's the music business.

Logged
*

Tumbling Dice

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 8990
  • Dice Dice Baby
Re: Should U2 Retire?
« Reply #42 on: September 06, 2025, 06:31:56 AM »
Does nobody just potter around anymore?

Logged
The future is bright at Everton FC  8)
*

Amor fati

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 9858
  • Under the white horses
Re: Should U2 Retire?
« Reply #43 on: September 06, 2025, 09:35:45 AM »
The world we live in today is unrecognizable

Ill take Goldfinger with a side of Pussy Galore
Logged
“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing" John 15:5
*

This Dave

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 1909
Re: Should U2 Retire?
« Reply #44 on: September 06, 2025, 10:58:46 AM »
Quote from: Rupert Pupkin on September 05, 2025, 09:09:57 PM
You can't read a book or something?  It's either work or margaritas by the pool?

It's an example?

The point is, "If you are going to stop doing this one thing around which your life has revolved, you should find something meaningful to take its place". In their case, traveling the world in luxury while playing their music for adoring crowds seems like something meaningful to do every once in a while with years of time for...whatever it is...in between.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
« previous next »