Should U2 Retire?

  • 50 Replies
  • 5189 Views
*

This Dave

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 1909
Re: Should U2 Retire?
« Reply #45 on: September 06, 2025, 10:59:27 AM »
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.

Adam be like "Two chicks at the same time"

*

This Dave

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 1909
Re: Should U2 Retire?
« Reply #46 on: September 06, 2025, 11:05:03 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.



Them playing at the Sphere was part of the reason they got the crowds. Fine. Girls having instagram FOMO if they didn't pay $2000 to go to the Eras tour was a factor as well. People going to see [insert pop star] just because the current big thing on TikTok is a 5 second clip of their song is a factor as well. Who cares? It's all marketing. Nothing is "pure" or "just for the music".

*

Soloyan

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 5397
  • I'm not sleeping
    • GREG LEMOND FANS
Re: Should U2 Retire?
« Reply #47 on: September 06, 2025, 06:10:50 PM »
Should U2 retire ? -> it’s out of our hands, isn’t it ?

I don’t have an opinion on what’s not my decision anyway.

That said, as far as I’m concerned, U2 have not released a truly bad album… yet. I always thought that as long as they put out songs that I like, I can put up with them.

One thing I really don’t get is the legacy issue. If they were to release an absolute turd of an album, I would be embarrassed for them, but it wouldn’t spoil how much I like the back catalogue.

I’m a Star Wars fan. No matter what Disney come up with for the franchise, I’ll always love the original trilogy. The prequels didn’t alter it, either.
A dangerous idea that almost makes sense...

*

Rupert Pupkin

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 1116
  • ZANU-PDF Liberation Font
Re: Should U2 Retire?
« Reply #48 on: September 07, 2025, 06:05:05 AM »
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.

Adam be like "Two chicks at the same time"

You don't need a million dollars for that though, surely.
do the Watusi

*

walktothewater

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 1954
Re: Should U2 Retire?
« Reply #49 on: September 07, 2025, 06:23:06 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.

Adam be like "Two chicks at the same time"

You don't need a million dollars for that though, surely.


You do you for the type Adam is interested in.
"There's nothing wrong with U2. As far as I'm concerned, I've stolen from Larry Mullen's career for years. Without Larry, I wouldn't be able to stomp and sing, it'd be difficult. I mean I owe debts to the Bhundu Boys, Larry Mullen, Stewart Copeland. They're good players, and they're great songwriters" - Gary "Reni" Wren, drummer, The Stone Roses reunion press conference, 18/10/2011

"I'd just like to put on record that that's bobbins" - Ian Brown, singer, ditto

https://www.lauralynn.ie/

*

Rupert Pupkin

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 1116
  • ZANU-PDF Liberation Font
Re: Should U2 Retire?
« Reply #50 on: September 07, 2025, 08:07:10 PM »
Good point.
do the Watusi