Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
General U2 Discussion / Re: How should U2 end it all?
« Last post by Vox on Today at 03:47:33 PM »
*see this thread to answer this other thread You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.  Fun and opinion are overtaken with extreme blanket statements, here and virtually every other place in the virtual world.

To answer for myself, I wrote my little sci-fi timeline piece on page one of this thread to have a little fun.  I had some winks and irony with made-up quotes and reviews, with obvious nods to past events.  I mean, I don't own a crystal ball, or anything.  I guess I could have said "I hope U2 play on until they all die off, one by one, of natural causes."  Which would still be fine with me. 

(By the way -- the passage of time isn't ageism.  It's reality.  And not many rock and roll bands age gracefully.  Even the great ones.  It bothers me when people throw out these -ism terms so freefully.). 

But for me personally, I admire what R.E.M. did -- walk away on their own terms.  Rather than be the Rolling Stones and have in-fighting and keep "rolling out there."  So, I guess, with death being inevitable (disclaimer: I'm not being ageist with that statement), I'd rather they dictate their own end, in a way I fashioned imaginatively on page #1, stated in a thread titled "how should U2 end it all?" 

And maybe we shouldn't take the bait and defend our opinions when someone posts:  "why would you say that, it's ridiculous!" because, in a forum of opinion, people saying "why would you say that, it's ridiculous!" is, in fact, ridiculous.  (*again, see other thread I linked to asking why people aren't active on message boards).
2
The Music and Lyrics / Re: No Line on the Horizon: Retrospective
« Last post by Rasmus on Today at 01:43:15 PM »
My least favorite U2 album. It has too many cringe moments that I simply cant put it above any of their other albums. This is the first album in their discography where I felt U2 was out of touch with themselfes and their audience. They also followed it up with a generic tour concept not based around the actual album (did that ever happen before?).

I do love Fez - Being Born and I enjoy Magnificent and White as Snow. The album could have been improved if they had included Soon and NLOTH version 2 instead of the one on the album. The concept is also great on paper but the final album is just too watered down with (weird) pop songs instead of pursuing the original idea.
 

3
General U2 Discussion / Re: How should U2 end it all?
« Last post by laoghaire on Today at 01:14:08 PM »
Instead of bashing other contributions, make your own. You don't like 2026, give us your ideas.
4
General U2 Discussion / Re: How should U2 end it all?
« Last post by wons on Today at 01:09:52 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Here’s how I could see them go, and I’d be okay with that.

2018:  Finish up the current tour in November.  In mid-December,  U2 release a new album they’ve been working on since 2010 titled Songs of Ascent as “a gift for our fans” (it won’t be free, though), to close out the “Songs Trilogy."  It’s full of slow, ambient, contemplative music (hymns for the future), and features a couple songs with lyrical similarities to the last two albums.   The album is not easily translated to a live setting, and they have absolutely no intention of touring behind it.  At one point Bono says something about how not having to perform these songs in a live setting was “liberating.”  In fact, they may only ever play a song or two from it live, a few years down the road.  It’s a cross between Passengers and Unforgettable Fire, filled with hushed chants and lots of keyboard.  There aren’t many radio friendly songs, but it’s fairly critically acclaimed.  Even Pitchfork grudgingly gives it a 7.1.  Somewhere a headline reads:  “U2 Act Their Age And Ascend.”
2019:  Well-deserved holiday and break for the band.
2020-2022: Write and record new album.
2023:  Late in the year, U2 release new album called Man.  It has mixed reviews and yields one surprisingly fairly high-charting song, but stalls quickly.  Upon its release, U2 confirm suspicions and announce Man will be their last proper studio album. 
2024: Six-month tour in support of Man in arenas, much like the current tour.  Prior to that tour, U2 say that they will “retire as a band in their current form” in 2026.  After The Man Tour, They announce that they will play a grand-scale, nearly two-year final farewell tour “for the fans.”  U2 love the rush of filling up and performing in stadiums (see Joshua Tree Tour last year), and they want to go out this way.  It’s likely the only way they could do stadiums anymore, with a farewell/greatest hits type tour.   
2025-2026:  U2 tour the globe as part of their farewell tour, hitting every continent besides Antarctica.  The final show is September 25, 2026, in Dublin, and is a pay per view event (love that idea – thank you, OP).  The final song is a 10-minute version of “40.”   

Epilogue:
2026-2032:
•   We get multiple greatest hits albums, re-releases, concert videos, songs from the vault, maybe an EP of the Rick Rubin sessions re-mixed by The Edge, etc. 
•   Bono releases two solo albums of low-key, crooner, loungey-type music, one of which features duets with whoever’s popular at the time. 
•   The Edge releases two motion picture soundtracks – mostly electronic music, with very little guitar.  Bono guest-stars on one of the songs from one of the albums, which earns a Grammy nomination for best original song, but loses out to some Disney song. 
•   Adam becomes an expensive session player for people like Bonnie Raitt and Tom Waits. 
•   Larry does a little acting.  Realizes it’s fun, but not his thing.
2032:
•   Adam and Larry produce an album together as Clayton/Mullen, in the vein of their Mission Impossible collaboration.  One song from the album features all four members of U2.  That song is pretty good and makes people wax nostalgic about how great U2 was.  The song climbs the charts.  The band performs the song, along with “Pride” at a few one-off events.  They decide to come together for one last album and tour, because, as Bono will say, “we forgot the magic of U2 as a four-piece unit, and being a member of U2 is a life-sentence.”

Awesome, that was a fun read!  You've got quite the imagination spelled out in detail.  I like it!

See there, you like a schedule where the end on September 25, 2026. That's ageist just like the schedule. Guess what age the band members will be in 2026? Bingo!
5
General U2 Discussion / Re: How should U2 end it all?
« Last post by wons on Today at 01:06:49 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I thought they'd hang on until one of them is in a wooden box (HOPEFULLY NOWHERE NEAR YET).  Love them and even more so after seeing this tour.  It's their most personal yet. 

Love the way they are turning a negative into a positive - Bono lost his voice so rather than entirely cancel the 2nd Berlin show, it was rescheduled. AND NOW THEY HAVE DECIDED TO CELEBRATE THE HANSA SESSIONS (EVEN THOUGH THEY NEARLY SPILT UP BACK THEN) AND GO HEAD ON INTO THEIR NINETIES DECADENCE AND KITSCH. But with the wisdom of over quarter of a century of experience since then.
Bono's voice is really good, he's found some of his lower register again and they're filming the rescheduled Berlin show.

They love doing this, and they will be back time and time again.  It's a labour of love for the fans and their crew/entourage - many of whom are very loyal and very talented...some of the best in the business.

Bono lost his voice during the lovetown tour in 1989 causing shows to be rescheduled. He was 29 years old then. Losing his voice in Berlin was not about his age.
6
General U2 Discussion / Re: How should U2 end it all?
« Last post by wons on Today at 01:04:12 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No of course I'm not forcing anybody nor would I want to.

I'm not sold on them retiring on a particular date. I see this thread as an exercise in imagining a good way to go - at some point. I'm not ready for them to go yet, no way.

Some posters have put forth their ideas, and I think they tried to ake a scenario that was optimistic without being over the top.

I mean, if I had my way, it would be:

U2 take a couple years off.
They go back into the studio and dream it all up again.
They release their album and the world goes nuts. They are the biggest band in the world... again. Their lead single is hotter and better than Beautiful Day.
They work until they are 86, releasing albums every four years on average that are best sellers each time.
They reinvent music at least two more times.
Bono eradicates AIDS and extreme poverty. Larry wins three Oscars and gets back surgery that leaves him cartwheeling on the reg. Adam gets more gorgeous every damn year and Edge goes down in history as the modern Mozart.

I like that.

But it's not gonna happen.

So I'd like to see a way that isn't this:

U2 get desperate in their quest for relevance.
Bono photobombs literally everything.
They are remembered ever after as the punch line of jokes, like Milli Vanilli and Vanilla Ice.
They play sad clubs like Fat Elvis. JTNash and I throw bras on stage in 2051 at their final show. But they aren't our best bras.

Well, your revealing your discrimination towards people of a certain age in those post. You say they won't be a band at age 86, because of what you think being age 86 means. But you don't know that, you can't prove that, you could very well be wrong. B.B. King was still on the road doing a 100 shows a year at age 86!

As stated before, U2 are in far better shape than the average U2 fan who is on average 10 years younger than them. Each of them is worth a quarter of a Billion dollars and have access to health experts and professionals most people don't. Larry Mullen is a Vegan, Adam Clayton is a vegetarian and has not consumed alcohol in 25 years. I think Bono and Edge are taking similar measures to take care of themselves. They are ages 58 and 57 and can still perform in many ways like they did when they were 20. I Will Follow is just as energetic as it has ever been. This is a band that is built for longevity. They take care of themselves, have access to the best in health, and are extremely wealthy. All of those things are signs they have a higher probability of living a longer and healthier life than most people.


       The only people experiencing your fat elvis scenario are U2 fans with nearly 40% of them sitting down at the shows this year while 4 people on average 10 years older than them run around and work on a stage for over two hours.

         You probably think Clint Eastwood should have retired a quarter of a century ago. He is 88 and still acting and directing movies. That's reality for you!

      Why are you predicting the end of U2 in just a few years when the Rolling Stones are still touring, recording and even making children? Until the Rolling Stones are done, it makes no sense to be predicting U2 being dead in just a few years.

I'm not predicting anything, nor is anyone else in this thread. We're just coming up with scenarios. I'd love to see U2 go on for decades to come, as long as they continue to do quality work - and I'm all in on what they've done on the last three albums, so bring it on!

Not a direct reply re: fat Elvis, but I did regret that reference after I posted it. Elvis had a serious medical condition (that killed him) and the worst part was that we sneered at him for it. He did not deserve that in any way. And I also don't want U2 to be sneered at for anything else either.

Wons, I understand the ageist stuff. What I'm worried about isn't the age stuff. U2 are a punchline because of the Apple crap, a fact I have yet to really wrap my head around and is honestly an undeserved stone around their necks. And Bono is, well, Bono. I never want him to stop being Bono (maybe I'd just make some minor edits to some stuff coming out of his mouth), so there's no way out of that.

I love these guys.

Well, in terms of being made fun of in the press, that will depend on how popular U2 are with the mainstream in the future. Right now, with the past two albums, things are in decline. The media made a stink about the Apple thing, but they did not make stink about arenas not being sold out and the inability of the band to have a HOT 100 hit single. The band got ripped apart for similar percieved failures back in 1997 with POP and Popmart.

I don't know if there will be a resurgence in popularity or not in the future, but without it, its likely the band won't be covered much in the mainstream press like they used to be, whether for percieved good or bad things.

And hence this thread. Come on, give us your scenario, I'd love to hear it. Give me something to set my sights on.

I actually already sort of did in my first post in this thread and I regret doing that now because what I said is actually ageist too although not as bad as what was said before.

Why the hell would you be setting your sights on the END OF THE BAND?!?!? What the hell?

Also, the popularity level of the band and whether they are in the mainstream press or not has NOTHING to do with them needing to stop being a band. This thread was not started because of U2's reduced popularity. It was started because of the bands age!
7
General U2 Discussion / Re: How should U2 end it all?
« Last post by wons on Today at 12:59:21 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No of course I'm not forcing anybody nor would I want to.

I'm not sold on them retiring on a particular date. I see this thread as an exercise in imagining a good way to go - at some point. I'm not ready for them to go yet, no way.

Some posters have put forth their ideas, and I think they tried to ake a scenario that was optimistic without being over the top.

I mean, if I had my way, it would be:

U2 take a couple years off.
They go back into the studio and dream it all up again.
They release their album and the world goes nuts. They are the biggest band in the world... again. Their lead single is hotter and better than Beautiful Day.
They work until they are 86, releasing albums every four years on average that are best sellers each time.
They reinvent music at least two more times.
Bono eradicates AIDS and extreme poverty. Larry wins three Oscars and gets back surgery that leaves him cartwheeling on the reg. Adam gets more gorgeous every damn year and Edge goes down in history as the modern Mozart.

I like that.

But it's not gonna happen.

So I'd like to see a way that isn't this:

U2 get desperate in their quest for relevance.
Bono photobombs literally everything.
They are remembered ever after as the punch line of jokes, like Milli Vanilli and Vanilla Ice.
They play sad clubs like Fat Elvis. JTNash and I throw bras on stage in 2051 at their final show. But they aren't our best bras.

You nailed it.  As you said earlier, you want to see them go out gracefully.  Whether that's 2026 or 2040, doesn't matter, what MATTERS is they go out on a positive note. 

I've been a fan from the start - Boy album to now.  I've seen them in '83 War Tour, '85 TUF Tour, '87 TJT tour (twice), '01 Elevation Tour.  There's a big gap in seeing concerts after that due to being a parent and having two kids.  But I've been a faithful U2 fan for forty years.  They're all I listen to now that I'm 60 years old.

Anyone that questions my loyalty to the band (WONS I'M LOOKING AT YOU) severely pisses me off.  I've dedicated my life to this band and the last thing I want to see is them go out in a sh**ty way.  I would like to see at least one more stellar album (think TJT, AB, TUF) and then if they chose to go out, go out with dignity.  The band is sacred to me and I have a protective nature about their perception to the world and others.  As you said, you want to see a way that isn't "sad".  A punchline of bad jokes destroying a fantastic legacy.  I don't want that, no I don't.

U2 soothe me, make me happy, brighten my world and the last thing I want to see is their legacy destroyed.  I have enough faith in the band, to at least hope they will chose the most dignified way out.  Whether that's f****** 2026 or earlier or later doesn't matter.  The dignified part is what matters to me.

Well, it pisses me off when I see ageist crap threads like this. I find it offensive and don't mind defending the band against this crap.

What the hell are you going on about?  Ageist crap?  I love the band, always have and always will.   I don't see anything in my post that address your so called ageist crap.  I'm 60 yrs old and love the band.  Is that ageist crap?
You're confused at best.

The thread topic is ageist and the perceived idea that the band must wrap it up before age 65 is also ageist as well. All of these lengthy schedules posted by people in here have the band stopping around 65? That's absurd and definite indication of ageism.

There you go again, half cocked.  The thread title is "How should U2 end it all?".  That's ageist?  And I personally never said anything about wrapping it up at 65.  And I don't see everyone's posts as saying they should stop at 65.  Where in hell do you get this stuff?

The lengthy schedules, posted in this thread, all have the band finishing around 2026 essentially. Guess what, that's around age 65 for U2. Then I see people supporting that and saying that's good. I don't see how anyone would think that is good as a fan of the band. Its ageist to suggest it. Its ageist to comment that such a schedule would be a good idea. There is no reason for the band too stop at that time unless of course you buy into ignorant corporate B.S. that a person is supposed to retire at 65.

Yes, the thread title is definitely ageist. How would you like if someone started a thread about you and inserted your name instead of U2's? If complemented a schedule that see the band stopping in 2026, then I think that is ageist. Its ageism because the whole idea of the band stopping in 2026 is primarily based on their age.
8
General U2 Discussion / Re: Are u2 forums dying a death?
« Last post by singnomore on Today at 12:17:45 PM »
Without opening old wounds it made sense for the Forum to take a sabbatical last year.  We did lose a portion of members who set up their own Forum. As a Mod I see activity increasing and regular new members being added - plus the exchanges are to the point without added toxic levels as before.
9
Tours / Re: Manchester 19th & 20th
« Last post by Gavin82 on Today at 11:50:09 AM »
@ GnR last year in Stockholm on way back too central station the whole train was singing Knocking on heavens door was great experience...!!!!!

& Yes the bloke in Blk 215 bang opposite me was proper Zzzzzzzz he wa causing a problem but was woken up & escorted from the Arena apart from this its probably best Arena ive been too.
10
The Music and Lyrics / Re: Smile
« Last post by BONO31 on Today at 11:33:50 AM »
You’re welcome! Thank you because I’m listening SMILE again. ::)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10