Poll

Would this be a better schedule for U2?

Yes
1 (5.3%)
No
18 (94.7%)

Total Members Voted: 16

Author Topic: Would this be a better schedule for U2?  (Read 3243 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline briscoetheque

  • Traffic Cop (Rue du Marais)
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,732
  • R-E-S-T-E-C-P
Re: Would this be a better schedule for U2?
« Reply #15 on: May 04, 2014, 09:42:22 PM »
What a peculiar thread.

Offline Starman

  • Drowning Man/Woman
  • ***
  • Posts: 24,172
Re: Would this be a better schedule for U2?
« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2014, 05:17:16 AM »
Is this the real life?

smee

  • Guest
Re: Would this be a better schedule for U2?
« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2014, 06:00:38 AM »
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
As much as I love these guys, I think suggesting that they'll be touring and recording by 2030 is very optimistic. I would be happy with with two more albums and tours between now and 2020. They'll be starting to turn 60 then. I honestly expect they'll retire by then, if not sooner.

           People retire because they don't enjoy their work and have enough money to stop working or for health issues. U2 is healthy and provided they remain that way, they lover their work, which means there is no reason to retire. Prior to the 20th century, there was actually really no such thing as retirement.


Quote
 

A better schedule than what?

Without anything to compare it to i can't decide.


A better schedule than the one they have been on the past 20 years.

How do we know they truly love their work anymore? They seem to love many other things like time off, vacations, Broadway plays, acting, real estate planning, etc...

Look at the schedule I posted above. There is plenty of time for vacations, Broadway plays, acting, strip clubs, go go dancing, streaking, real estate planning etc. Plus going on tour in some sense is a vacation given all the places they get to visit, things to see, etc.

         As for tour money, the band can make massive amounts of money from playing a full 60 to 70 date tour every third year. I'd say with the schedule above, they get to have it all.

          Its also the schedule that Coldplay have roughly followed since 2002.
Reason enuff for me to give it a wide berth then!

macfoley

  • Guest
Re: Would this be a better schedule for U2?
« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2014, 06:52:43 AM »
U2 around in 2030? Oh I just saw a flying pig out of my window...

macfoley

  • Guest
Re: Would this be a better schedule for U2?
« Reply #19 on: May 05, 2014, 06:56:21 AM »
For the record, I would like to see U2 release one more moment of magic. That is all I ask for. Another JT or Achtung moment. U2 being remembered for their music and to make a stamp. Not to keep releasing albums up to 2030.

So no, I think it is a crap schedule for them.

Offline SlyDanner

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,520
  • A white dope on punk staring into the flash.
Re: Would this be a better schedule for U2?
« Reply #20 on: May 05, 2014, 02:31:14 PM »
this forum has reached new depths here.

Offline bono55

  • Babyface
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Would this be a better schedule for U2?
« Reply #21 on: May 05, 2014, 02:44:54 PM »
Wow, I never knew there would be such hostility to U2 releasing a lot more new material as well as touring more frequently. I wonder if this is a Henry Rollins site disguised as a U2 forum. I did not know that 6+ year gaps between albums and tours would be popular with any artist fans.  8)



Quote
        For the record, I would like to see U2 release one more moment of magic. That is all I ask for. Another JT or Achtung moment. U2 being remembered for their music and to make a stamp. Not to keep releasing albums up to 2030.

So no, I think it is a crap schedule for them   

So essentially, you want U2 to "go away"?

Quote
   U2 around in 2030? Oh I just saw a flying pig out of my window...   

            So you think its nearly impossible for U2 to still be around in about 15 years? If you think the band is going to stop prior to 2030, what year, roughly, do you think they will stop?
« Last Edit: May 05, 2014, 02:50:59 PM by bono55 »

Offline So Cruel

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,163
  • it ain't no sin to be glad that you're alive
Re: Would this be a better schedule for U2?
« Reply #22 on: May 05, 2014, 03:02:53 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wow, I never knew there would be such hostility to U2 releasing a lot more new material as well as touring more frequently. I wonder if this is a Henry Rollins site disguised as a U2 forum. I did not know that 6+ year gaps between albums and tours would be popular with any artist fans.  8)



Quote
        For the record, I would like to see U2 release one more moment of magic. That is all I ask for. Another JT or Achtung moment. U2 being remembered for their music and to make a stamp. Not to keep releasing albums up to 2030.

So no, I think it is a crap schedule for them   

So essentially, you want U2 to "go away"?

Quote
   U2 around in 2030? Oh I just saw a flying pig out of my window...   

            So you think its nearly impossible for U2 to still be around in about 15 years? If you think the band is going to stop prior to 2030, what year, roughly, do you think they will stop?

Not that we want U2 to "go away" or this is a Henry Rollins site. I think we gotta be realistic though. These guys are only getting older. Even now in their early 50's they aren't even close to being a full time band and to expect them to pick up a lot better pace in the next 15 years as they get well into their 60's is unrealistic. They are no longer fully dedicated to their music like an artist like Springsteen is. He continuously writes, records, and plays. U2 don't do this. They take extended breaks and it takes them years now to record. Maybe the fire isn't there anymore and if it isn't I personally would rather see them call it a day then become a shadow of their former selves.

Offline Messenger

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,086
  • The universe is beautiful but cold.
Re: Would this be a better schedule for U2?
« Reply #23 on: May 05, 2014, 03:05:31 PM »
No one knows when they will stop. Trying to predict and schedule anything at all, let alone a rigid routine like yours, is unrealistic and naive. It's far beyond wishful thinking.

Offline SlyDanner

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,520
  • A white dope on punk staring into the flash.
Re: Would this be a better schedule for U2?
« Reply #24 on: May 05, 2014, 03:42:36 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wow, I never knew there would be such hostility to U2 releasing a lot more new material as well as touring more frequently.

No, I think people are just reacting to the bizarrely rigid structure of the timeline in your opening.  It almost indicates a complete detachment from reality.  Perhaps you did not intend to communicate it that way.

macfoley

  • Guest
Re: Would this be a better schedule for U2?
« Reply #25 on: May 05, 2014, 04:14:20 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wow, I never knew there would be such hostility to U2 releasing a lot more new material as well as touring more frequently. I wonder if this is a Henry Rollins site disguised as a U2 forum. I did not know that 6+ year gaps between albums and tours would be popular with any artist fans.  8)



Quote
        For the record, I would like to see U2 release one more moment of magic. That is all I ask for. Another JT or Achtung moment. U2 being remembered for their music and to make a stamp. Not to keep releasing albums up to 2030.

So no, I think it is a crap schedule for them   

So essentially, you want U2 to "go away"?

Quote
   U2 around in 2030? Oh I just saw a flying pig out of my window...   

            So you think its nearly impossible for U2 to still be around in about 15 years? If you think the band is going to stop prior to 2030, what year, roughly, do you think they will stop?

Did I say I want U2 to go away? Can't see it myself.

I said I would prefer one more piece of magic from them. An album in which they can create because they have so many good albums and know how to make one. They are masters at their craft.

I don't want to see U2 into their 60's. I am finding Bono to be a little cheesy these days and quite cringe worthy. Can't imagine what he would be like when he is 60 odd. Glasses and leather? Not for me.

macfoley

  • Guest
Re: Would this be a better schedule for U2?
« Reply #26 on: May 05, 2014, 04:21:25 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wow, I never knew there would be such hostility to U2 releasing a lot more new material as well as touring more frequently. I wonder if this is a Henry Rollins site disguised as a U2 forum. I did not know that 6+ year gaps between albums and tours would be popular with any artist fans.  8)



Quote
        For the record, I would like to see U2 release one more moment of magic. That is all I ask for. Another JT or Achtung moment. U2 being remembered for their music and to make a stamp. Not to keep releasing albums up to 2030.

So no, I think it is a crap schedule for them   

So essentially, you want U2 to "go away"?

Quote
   U2 around in 2030? Oh I just saw a flying pig out of my window...   

            So you think its nearly impossible for U2 to still be around in about 15 years? If you think the band is going to stop prior to 2030, what year, roughly, do you think they will stop?

Not that we want U2 to "go away" or this is a Henry Rollins site. I think we gotta be realistic though. These guys are only getting older. Even now in their early 50's they aren't even close to being a full time band and to expect them to pick up a lot better pace in the next 15 years as they get well into their 60's is unrealistic. They are no longer fully dedicated to their music like an artist like Springsteen is. He continuously writes, records, and plays. U2 don't do this. They take extended breaks and it takes them years now to record. Maybe the fire isn't there anymore and if it isn't I personally would rather see them call it a day then become a shadow of their former selves.

This is it. I would like to see if they still "have it" with album number 13. But at the same time, going by the 50/50 reactions of Invisible and OL, I can picture the next album with the same. Some fans will say "it's the best album since Achtung" some will say opposites. I think U2 have got to the point where even their own fans are divided on their 00's material that to release another masterpiece in the likes of JT and Achtung, is a huge task.


Offline LToy

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 562
Re: Would this be a better schedule for U2?
« Reply #27 on: May 05, 2014, 07:51:43 PM »
I can't see U2 doing this type of career trajectory, especially now at their age.  Maybe this would work for fresh, young U2 between ages 18-24.  Something that various band members have said over the years in separate interviews has always stuck with me: "We just are not disciplined enough to be conventional songwriters."  I think that's why U2 albums tend to have long gestation periods, especially their last 4 albums.

Offline Starman

  • Drowning Man/Woman
  • ***
  • Posts: 24,172
Re: Would this be a better schedule for U2?
« Reply #28 on: May 06, 2014, 09:06:15 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is this the real life?

Is this just fantasy?

meximofo

  • Guest
Re: Would this be a better schedule for U2?
« Reply #29 on: May 06, 2014, 09:09:33 AM »
Caught in a landslide