U2 Experience + Innocence Tour **Discussion Only // No Ticket Sales or Requests**

thegreengoblin

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

lol

Miracle Drug
City of Blinding Lights
Yahweh
Sometimes You Cant Make it on Your Own
Vertigo

Dreadful ?

Yeah. What's the Lol for? It was a shocking drop in standards for them. Vertigo, Love and Peace, SYCMIOYO, Blinding Lights and that's about it for me.

People are argue loudly all day about the merits of this and that album but we all have our own opinions. Some people hate Pop, I love it. Some people love the new album, I think it's mostly rubbish. Each to their own.

Sonny678

thegreengoblin wrote:

I'm not getting into the 'artists generally go into decline as they get older' argument as that's just ridiculous, it's not an argument at all. People lose their edge, that's only natural. And their truly great work came a long time ago, everyone realises that. But age and supreme wealth is not a barrier to making great music.

Firstly HTDAAB album is not their worst album . That falls to October. HTDAAB is very similar to every album since 2000. 5 or 6 good songs, the rest weaker and filler. HTDAAB is the last album that U2 had strong singles on. Since that their run of singles sucess has dried up. U2 are one the great singles bands from New Years to Day to Vertigo you have some cracking and diverse singles eg Street, Desire, Angel of Harlem, Whose Gonna ride your Wild Horses, Lemon, Miss Sarajevo, Discotheque, Staring at the Sun, Hold me Thrill me Kiss me kill me, Stuck in a moment you cannot get out of, The Sweetest Thing and Sometimes you cannot make it on your own . All the above are some of the great singles they have produced in that time. They have lost that ability to create a cracking single.

HTDAAB has Vertigo one of the U2 best songs since 2000. Vertigo is U2 ripping of it self. It's like early U2 eg Celebration mixed with later U2 eg elevation. And it is really good fun. A great rock track. For a band in their mid 40s it was really impressive. Sometimes you cannot make it on your Own was U2 last British number 1 single. And while it's not in the league of a Without or Without You, One, All I want is You , One and Stay. (And it does fall apart a bit in the middle a bit). It still one of those slow ballads that U2 have made which Coldplay would have given their left arm for.

Miracle Drug is U2 ripping of itself. All Because is You is U2 copying the Who, U2 are coping the The Beatles on Orginal of the Species and Coldplay on Blinding Lights. And it's all good fun. U2 on HTDAAB sound like they're enjoying themselves and there is at least 5 or 6 strong songs on the album. So that's not enough to call is a crap album. It's not. U2 have yet to produce a crap album with the exception of October.

I haven't heard the new album. Because I bought it on Saturday but I was robbed and someone stole the album of me and a nice Christmas present for my sister also. So I have ordered the album and I'm waiting for it to come. But what I heard so far it is continuing of the form since 2000. 5 or 6 strong songs. But it does seem it might be U2 strongest work since U2s last excellent album Pop in 1997. But like most albums you cannot really judge an albums true worth until a couple of years after its release. How an album stands the test of time is the true measure of any work. Most people did not think much of Citizen Kane or Pet Sounds when they were first released. Now they are both seen as masterpieces and the best work produced in both the area of film and music .

Regards Bonos lyrics. I think he has had a writers block of sorts since 2000. He still has ideas of songs but some of lyrics have been very naff and overall poor. Michael Stipe told Bono he had writers block. Bono told him to just keep writing. It doesn't matter if it makes sense or is any good. Just keep writing the lyrics. I think Noel Gallagher has had an influence. Noel is a top class songwriter. And has written some cracking tunes. But lyrically sometimes his lyrics don't make any sense and can be quite nonsensical. I think Bono is following down this path eg writing off the top his head and if it doesn't matter if it makes sense as long as it fows with the song he goes with it. When you compare the brillant lyrics throughout Achtung baby there has been a gradual decline in this department. But rock music sometimes naff lyrics nonsensical lyrics work.

Finally I still think for their band age and where they are in their career, the standard of songs is impressive. The Goblin above says he doesn't believe in the arguement in bands decline as they get older. Well my question is name the great albums made by rock bands in their forties . Name the Neverminds and the London Calling written by bands in their forties. Again if you look at the hundred greatest albums of all time not 1 is produced by band over 40. If you disagree please name the group and band who produced an All time classic in their 40s. Nearly all probaly 96 or 97 % of all the great all time albums by rock bands are produced when they are in their twenties. This is fact. If you disagree show and name the revolver the Pet Sounds The Never mind the Bollocks that was produced by band in later years.

Great singer songwriter solo artist seem to produce more quality work in later years then bands. Artist like Dylan Cohen Young Reed Springsteen. But even these songwriters produced overall their best work in their 20s.

Look at John Lennon and Bowie. It does get more legendary then those two. But once they hit 30 decline sets in. Lennon is a bona vide genius. Yet as the seventies went on his work his was patchy to say the least after Imagine. Bowie also after he hit 30 there was an obvious decline and this is the thread amongst all greats.

The Rolling Stones releases an album last year. Was their a gimme shelter or a Paint it Black on the album . No.
The Stones haven't released a decent album since 1980.

Paul Mcarthy has released a couple of albums this decade. Was their a Hey Jude or Eleanor Rigby on any album. No

Have you heard Morrissey latest record. It's appalling. Has Morrissey produced a song as good as How soon is Now recently. No.

Bands like the The Stone Roses Blur the Police The Who The Eagles Guns N Roses have all got together recently
Not one of these bands have been able to release 1 half decent tune between all in the last decade.
That U2 still have the same 4 guys in the same group after 40 years. But that they are still producing good work is truly unique.

Regards U2 holding back songs and working on old songs. This has been going on since time began musically. John lennon wrote Jealous Guy in 1968 around the time of the White Album. But he did not releases it til 1970 on Imagine album. Noel Gallagher wrote All Around the World before Definatly Maybe in 1993. Yet the song was not released until on the Be Here Now album in 1997.

Finally about U2 copying Coldplay Snow Patrol etc. I find this arguement ridiculous. Why because all these bands are copying U2. They are all massive U2 fans. So people and particularly rock music critics ( who are like sheep they all say the same thing) say U2 are copying bands , bands who have been copying U2 themselves. You couldn't make it up if you tried.

One of the things particularly British music critics have failed to recognise is that if you look at every sucessful group from Britian since 2000 or so none of them have been in fluenced by The Smiths The Stone Roses The Clash or Nirvana or Velvet Underground. But they have all been influenced by U2 and are all big U2 fans. For example Oasis Radiohead Starsailor Embrace Keane Muse Coldplay Snow Patrol are all big U2 fans and all been influenced by U2. Remeber U2 have been the biggest band in the world for the guts of 30 years. They must have had some influence. They have had a bigger influence then small indie bands who had provicial sucess but had feck all impact in America and their sucess was for a short period of time eg The Stone Roses.

When you listen all those bands above ( If u leave out Muse and Rasiohead). The rest Coldplay Keane Snow Patrol have all copied U2 but known have produced an album as good as the Joshua Tree. None of them have produced a song as good as One. Coldplay Keane Snow Patrol One Republic are U2 without the talent and imagination. They are poor poor man's U2 on a very bad day.

innuendo141

Sorry to interrupt lads, I dont think I saw this posted

http://www.nme.com/news/music/u2-tease-2018-uk-tour-dates-2168764

Dec 6, 2017
U2 have teased that they’ll soon be announcing details of UK tour dates for 2018.

The band, who recently released their divisive new album ‘Songs Of Experience‘, were talking to Radio X when they suggested that they’ll be playing some huge gigs in the new year – including a show in Manchester.

“Well, we’re gonna be announcing shows,” said bassist Adam Clayton. “After the summer is when they’re gonna go on sale, but we’ll be announcing shows."

If they're going to go on sale after the summer, we are looking at a late '18 gig then. December again?

q2xv9rjei4awgb

innuendo141 wrote: »

Sorry to interrupt lads, I dont think I saw this posted

http://www.nme.com/news/music/u2-tease-2018-uk-tour-dates-2168764

Dec 6, 2017
U2 have teased that they’ll soon be announcing details of UK tour dates for 2018.

The band, who recently released their divisive new album ‘Songs Of Experience‘, were talking to Radio X when they suggested that they’ll be playing some huge gigs in the new year – including a show in Manchester.

“Well, we’re gonna be announcing shows,” said bassist Adam Clayton. “After the summer is when they’re gonna go on sale, but we’ll be announcing shows."

If they're going to go on sale after the summer, we are looking at a late '18 gig then. December again?

Possibly Australia, Asia and South America first before Europe?

There is huge demand for them live in those territories..Then again, same everywhere

Wooderson

Sonny’s been at the Lidl Nespresso again.

MisterAnarchy

innuendo141 wrote: »

If they're going to go on sale after the summer, we are looking at a late '18 gig then. December again?

Sounds odd,why would they announce gigs now and not put them on sale until after the summer ?
The album presale offer said tickets for the European tour would go on sale between Jan 1 and March 31st .
Maybe Adam though he was talking to an Australian station

Sonny678

Wooderson wrote:

Sonny’s been at the Lidl Nespresso again.

No I haven't.

Chivito550

PropJoe10 wrote: »

HTDAAB is dreadful, for the most part. All the albums released since then have been superior in my view.

Have to say I like it. It also won Album of the Year at the Grammy Awards. That album won 8 Grammys in total, ATYCLB won 7. They've won 0 from NLOTH and SOI, with very little nominations at all.

PropJoe10

Chivito550 wrote: »

Have to say I like it. It also won Album of the Year at the Grammy Awards. That album won 8 Grammys in total, ATYCLB won 7. They've won 0 from NLOTH and SOI, with very little nominations at all.

True, but they were surfing the success of All That You Can't Leave Behind when HTDAAB came out. I prefer to focus on the quality of the songs than the number of awards, and HTDAAB is severely lacking in good songs.

Chivito550

The good news and the bad news.

The good news is that SOE looks set to top the US Albums Chart (Billboard 200), which will be their 8th US number one album. It would also mean they have topped the US Billboard 200 charts in 4 consecutive decades, which is quite an achievement. First week sales are expected to be around the 180k mark which is way down on HTDAAB which was around 840k, and NLOTH which was about 484k from memory. Not a lot of point in comparing sales figures though, as the music market has changed drastically since NLOTH, and unrecognisable from the time of HTDAAB.

The bad news is that U2 look set to not only miss the UK number one slot, but fall spectacularly short. After being number 1 after 3 days, they are now number 3 after 5 days and slipping. They could potentially be looking at number 4 or 5. This is fairly shocking given every U2 studio album since War has hit UK number one, excluding Achtung Baby (which was beaten by a massive Michael Jackson release - Dangerous), and SOI (which was given away for free so there was no incentive for people to buy it).

How come U2's popularity seems to be at an all time low in the UK while they still seem to be doing well in the USA, which is a tougher market to succeed in?

PropJoe10 wrote: »

True, but they were surfing the success of All That You Can't Leave Behind when HTDAAB came out. I prefer to focus on the quality of the songs than the number of awards, and HTDAAB is severely lacking in good songs.

To be fair, the Grammys are prestigious awards, voted by fellow musicians and artists. It's not like it's some fan phone in awards show.

Sonny678

Chivito550 wrote:

The bad news is that U2 look set to not only miss the UK number one slot, but fall spectacularly short. After being number 1 after 3 days, they are now number 3 after 5 days and slipping. They could potentially be looking at number 4 or 5. This is fairly shocking given every U2 studio album since War has hit UK number one, excluding Achtung Baby (which was beaten by a massive Michael Jackson release - Dangerous), and SOI (which was given away for free so there was no incentive for people to buy it).

Chivito550 wrote:

How come U2's popularity seems to be at an all time low in the UK while they still seem to be doing well in the USA, which is a tougher market to succeed in?

Well I think Noel Gallagher summed up it up well recently when he said in America U2 are seen as one of the greatest rock bands of all time up there with American greats like The Doors and The Beach Boys and bands like Pink Floyd and Led Zepplin. While in the UK they are not, they are heavily criticised. I think there is a number of reasons. I wrote about the reasons 4 or 5 pages back if people want to see what reasons I believe there is such a difference between USA and the UK.

If you look at lists of the greatest bands ever in the USA the number 1 is always The Beatles and an odd time Led Zeppelin. Both these bands had massive sucess and impact in the USA. The Rolling Stones are always in the top 2 or 3. Then comes Pink Floyd and The Who and U2. U2 are always in the top 10. They have some detractors but in the US U2 are seen as one of the greats. When you examine in the last 30 years the 2 bands that made biggest impact in the USA have been Nirvana and U2. Yes bands like REM had impact in a couple of years. But then disappeared. U2 have been consistently sucessful in the USA for 30 years. The only bands from this side of water to make a bigger impact in the history of Rock music in the USA then U2 are The Beatles The Rolling Stones Led Zeppelin and Pink Flyod.

No band from Europe has been as sucessful in the last 30 years in USA. Bands like Radiohead had a year or two. Coldplay are big but that has been been just recently. Bands like Blur and The Stone Roses made very little impact in the states. Yet these bands would be considered greater outfits then U2 in the UK.

The British music critics don't seem to realise nearly big band in the UK since around 2000 have been influenced by U2 eg Radiohead Muse Oasis Starsailor Embrace Keane Coldplay Snow Patrol and many more.

U2 are last great supergroup. Bands that conquer the world with classic albums and classic songs with legendary concerts and everyone knows all the band members name. In the UK U2 have always been unfairly criticised.

Chivito550

Sonny678 wrote: »

Well I think Noel Gallagher summed up it up well recently when he said in America U2 are seen as one of the greatest rock bands of all time up there with American greats like The Doors and The Beach Boys and bands like Pink Floyd and Led Zepplin. While in the UK they are not, they are heavily criticised. I think there is a number of reasons. I wrote about the reasons 4 or 5 pages back if people want to see what reasons I believe there is such a difference between USA and the UK.

If you look at lists of the greatest bands ever in the USA the number 1 is always The Beatles and an odd time Led Zeppelin. Both these bands had massive sucess and impact in the USA. The Rolling Stones are always in the top 2 or 3. Then comes Pink Floyd and The Who and U2. U2 are always in the top 10. They have some detractors but in the US U2 are seen as one of the greats. When you examine in the last 30 years the 2 bands that made biggest impact in the USA have been Nirvana and U2. Yes bands like REM had impact in a couple of years. But then disappeared. U2 have been consistently sucessful in the USA for 30 years. The only bands from this side of water to make a bigger impact in the history of Rock music in the USA then U2 are The Beatles The Rolling Stones Led Zeppelin and Pink Flyod.

No band from Europe has been as sucessful in the last 30 years in USA. Bands like Radiohead had a year or two. Coldplay are big but that has been been just recently. Bands like Blur and The Stone Roses made very little impact in the states. Yet these bands would be considered greater outfits then U2 in the UK.

The British music critics don't seem to realise nearly big band in the UK since around 2000 have been influenced by U2 eg Radiohead Muse Oasis Starsailor Embrace Keane Coldplay Snow Patrol and many more.

U2 are last great supergroup. Bands that conquer the world with classic albums and classic songs with legendary concerts and everyone knows all the band members name. In the UK U2 have always been unfairly criticised.

Interesting insights and I read your previous posts too. U2 have been extremely popular in the UK though. 10 number 1 albums. The Joshua Tree has sold 2.7 or 2.8 million in the UK. Many of their albums have topped one million in the UK. From memory UABRS, JT, R&H, AB, 1980-90, ATYCLB, HTDAAB. There may be more. I also read something recently that U2 were 7th in the decade 2000-2009 of all artists in terms of UK airplay, which is extremely impressive for a band that were in their 40s. As recently as HTDAAB they had 2 number one singles from the one album. They’ve been very popular in the UK from 1983 up to 2009. But something seems different now which seems odd.

Sonny678

Chivito550 wrote:

Interesting insights and I read your previous posts too. U2 have been extremely popular in the UK though. 10 number 1 albums. The Joshua Tree has sold 2.7 or 2.8 million in the UK. Many of their albums have topped one million in the UK. From memory UABRS, JT, R&H, AB, 1980-90, ATYCLB, HTDAAB. There may be more. I also read something recently that U2 were 7th in the decade 2000-2009 of all artists in terms of UK airplay, which is extremely impressive for a band that were in their 40s. As recently as HTDAAB they had 2 number one singles from the one album. They’ve been very popular in the UK from 1983 up to 2009. But something seems different now which seems odd.

U2 have been hugely popular in the UK. They have been one of the biggest bands there in the last 30 years or so. An Iconic band and do have a massive fan base and allot of support. What other band could tour the UK and sellout stadiums with a 30 year old album made in 1987 other then U2.

But amongst the general music fans there is pretty much allot of criticism and hatred in many ways. And the music press in Britain are very critical of U2 in many sectors .And over criticise their work while other cooler bands with not a tenth of the back catalogue as U2 are seen as better eg The Libertines Pulp Blur the Stones Roses. All those bands wrote some good songs. But they are well below proper great British bands like The Clash The Kinks and The Who. And the work of bands above ( Libertines Blur) is not analysised and over criticised as U2. Its complicated.

In terms of the current album I don't think it has made little impact on the radio in the UK. And I wonder did the paradise papers have a negative impact. The whole tax thing has been PR disaster for U2. And they do deserve criticism for it. But there not the only ones. Harrison was given out about the Taxman with the song Taxman when he was in the Beatles. The Stones went to France in early 70s to avoid tax. And allot British pop stars came to Dublin in 80s and 90s for tax reasons. The problem is that Bono is seen as hypocrite when he is talking about Aid to Africa. But Take That were exposed in a tax scheme recently. And Barlow would be also involved in charities and he didn't get the criticism Bono got.

When the story broke in the UK about Paradise Papers. It was quite unbelievable to see that the main headline in all the news bulletins on Sky and The BBC was about the two actors in Mrs Brown's Boys and Bono. While their head of state a person funded by the British taxpayers was involved in this was mentioned well down the headlines ( And there was a clear effort to say the Queen did nothing wrong but Bono and two actors were hung out to dry). And yet an Irish rockstar and two pretty unknown actors where seen as more significant then there head of state. If it was any other country USA Germany France even Ireland if the president head of state was involved in this there would massive outcry and their position untenable.( But not in the UK where so many of them are like sycophantics when it comes to their dear Queen and the rest of her German family.)

You get the feeling that for many U2 detractors this is just ammunition to criticise them with. Because if you look at their back catalogue and forget everything else and listen to the 14 albums and about 20 of their best b sides. Anyone who knows anything about music would say they have one of rocks most diverse and greatest back catalogues. Simply put They're are one of the greatest rock bands of all time. A title that is given to them in the USA over and over again. They were on the Tonight show with Jimmy Fallon in the summer (basically the USA late late show) and he introduced U2 as one of the greatest rock bands of all time. In the UK they would be rarely introduced in such terms. They would called the biggest band in the world or one of the biggest. But the reaction is much cooler then the states

Overall I wonder did the papers have negative impact in UK. Because it had massive coverage in the UK and went down very badly there. I don't know. It's complicated.

Wooderson

Why do people care about the sales of the record/where it charts? Thread has gone ‘king mental.

Sonny678

Woodersons been at the Lidl Nespresso again

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Wow....

]

Walk To The Water snippet too..

Graham1978

Seen it the other day, gave me shivers that. Looking forward to the 19th to the special . Always loved that Walk to the Water ....

Seve OB

Wooderson wrote: »

Sonny’s been at the Lidl Nespresso again.

Sonny678 wrote: »

No I haven't.

Sonny won't go away, he's here all alone....

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Re Summer Of Love...It's a U2 song apparently.

Edge said they were working on the album while on tour in 2015 and would give Tedder and Jacknife Lee the parts so they could go away and work on them so that would explain the video I posted..

Then again, it could be riffs/music One Republic were working on but, that means they would have gotten a credit so, makes no sense.

Wooderson

Im a fan of October. Its better than 3 or 4 of their records. Soz, Sonny.

Chivito550

Wooderson wrote: »

Im a fan of October. Its better than 3 or 4 of their records. Soz, Sonny.

October does nothing for me really. It's like an unfinished version of Boy (doesn't help his lyrics were stolen and he had to re-write everything). Gloria and Tomorrow are great, but very few highlights in general.

Seve OB

PTH2009 wrote: »

its on Spotify now

I dont get why people still buy cds when they could just pay E10 a month and have unlimited plays on Spotify but that only really works out if u have unlimted data and access to WIFI

I don't get why people pay €10 a month for something you will never own. Can you download and keep the tunes from Spotify to play after you decide you no longer want to subscribe? I see the point in a way as I was always taping tunes off the radio when I was a kid to listen on my Walkman. Similar I guess, but I know most of you kids will be wondering what tapes and walkmans are . I was also one to buy lots of Records/Tapes/CD's in my teens & 20's, so yea it would of been cheaper and easier to just pay 10 bucks a month because I spent a LOT of cash on my collection. But I still have all the stuff I bought and taped and I don't have to pay a monthly subscription to listen to it. I'm getting old ehh!

I don't buy much music any more cause most modern music is pure drivel and and new stuff which is decent I generally get as present or I will shell out for some collectables. But it is all mine forever, well at least till I break it or loose it. But with iTunes and my iPod, it generally doesn't get played enough anymore to scratch the hell out of it, so normally will end up in the car for a while, get a few plays on the sound system and then uploaded to the iPod and filed away.

On top of that, the best music is older stuff. CD's that can be picked up for a quid or even less at fairs etc. I've a pretty extensive collection of CD's and my music needs are well satisfied with what is on my iPod (I think it could play for about 20 days non stop without having to repeat a single track) and this little invention called a radio.

So I don't get why people who subscribe to spotify etc keep telling me I'm doing it all wrong.

tritriagain

Tomas White Suspect wrote: »

Re Summer Of Love...It's a U2 song apparently.

Edge said they were working on the album while on tour in 2015 and would give Tedder and Jacknife Lee the parts so they could go away and work on them so that would explain the video I posted..

Then again, it could be riffs/music One Republic were working on but, that means they would have gotten a credit so, makes no sense.

was going to suggest this maybe the case earlier but was afraid of the reaction of a few of the you know whos

sally cinnamon89

Seve OB wrote: »

I don't get why people pay €10 a month for something you will never own. Can you download and keep the tunes from Spotify to play after you decide you no longer want to subscribe? I see the point in a way as I was always taping tunes off the radio when I was a kid to listen on my Walkman. Similar I guess, but I know most of you kids will be wondering what tapes and walkmans are . I was also one to buy lots of Records/Tapes/CD's in my teens & 20's, so yea it would of been cheaper and easier to just pay 10 bucks a month because I spent a LOT of cash on my collection. But I still have all the stuff I bought and taped and I don't have to pay a monthly subscription to listen to it. I'm getting old ehh!

I don't buy much music any more cause most modern music is pure drivel and and new stuff which is decent I generally get as present or I will shell out for some collectables. But it is all mine forever, well at least till I break it or loose it. But with iTunes and my iPod, it generally doesn't get played enough anymore to scratch the hell out of it, so normally will end up in the car for a while, get a few plays on the sound system and then uploaded to the iPod and filed away.

On top of that, the best music is older stuff. CD's that can be picked up for a quid or even less at fairs etc. I've a pretty extensive collection of CD's and my music needs are well satisfied with what is on my iPod (I think it could play for about 20 days non stop without having to repeat a single track) and this little invention called a radio.

So I don't get why people who subscribe to spotify etc keep telling me I'm doing it all wrong.

Old man shakes fists at anything modern

I think you need to get some perspective

q2xv9rjei4awgb

tritriagain wrote: »

was going to suggest this maybe the case earlier but was afraid of the reaction of a few of the you know whos

It could be either tbh. Tedder is credited as a producer and "guitar" on the album so maybe it's his.
Then again, why isn't he credited for the song?

I know Eno and Lanois were before.

It's a good tune though. One Republic fans and Lady Gaga fans are raving about it from what I've seen

Sonny678

Wooderson wrote:

Im a fan of October. Its better than 3 or 4 of their records. Soz, Sonny.

October is the second album syndrome. The lyrics were robbed and they nearly broke up. They were in some religious group which led to the group nearly breaking up. But it was second album syndrome. The same as REM. They produced a piss poor second album and went on to create many great records.

Just a side note. I wonder are U2 thinking off breaking up. U2 always seemed to do trilogy of sorts with records

1 Boy October War
2 The Unforgettable Fire The Joshua Tree Rattle and Hum (I know its less so feeling of a triology but it was one of sorts)
3 Achtung Baby Zooropa Pop
4 ATYCLB HTDAAB NLOTH
5 Songs of Innocence Songs of Experience Songs of Ascent?????

Definatly feels like they are doing a triology or sorts st the moment. Songs of Innocence was looking back at their younger selves in Dublin in late 70s. The current album seems to be letters to Bonos loved ones in the present. They have done recordings with Rick Rubin. They were never really finished and they were given the title the Songs of Ascent. Could they finish this and what are the chances of the next album been called the Songs of Ascent. The end of this triology. A kind of farewell album. U2 will then retire.

For where do they go next?. They are still a great live band. Better then any band half their age live. But I did think in the Joshua Tree tour like Springsteen last tour, both artist where showing their age a bit. If this is a triology. Where do they go next?. They could go and do more avant garde albums similar to Passengers. But again as they grow older their recording talents will diminish further. And they will surely start to release crap albums . And imagine the reviews they will get from some certain rock critics and their detractors then. They are on the verge of becoming the New Rolling Stones. Massive tours playing the greatest hits. They could do a 30th anniversary tour of Achtung Baby and a new version of Zoo TV. They could do that. But they did do a 20th anniversary of Achtung baby. They played it pretty much at Glastonbury. The Joshua Tree tour this year worked. With all the things going on the world, The Joshua Tree was again relevant. And it was an album that conquered the world. The tour idea worked. I don't know if Achtung Baby which is their best album would work as well.

So could they be thinking of breaking. This idea of U2 breaking up has been discussed since Rattle and Hum. In 1989 when Bono in the point talked about dreaming it up again many thought that this was the end. Also at the end of the Pop mart people where talking about them breaking up. Bono in the latest interviews looks very old. He looks haggard with the lines on his face. I think this health scare he had has left him rattled a bit. Could they be thinking of breaking up after the next album?. They could keep on going. Tour after tour breaking records. But as a recording band their output in the studio will inevitably diminish to where The Rolling Stones The Who are now. They release an album nobody cares it's piss poor.

If I was U2 , I would break up with the next album. Do a farewell tour. Finish up in the UK with a concert in Knebworth. And do a couple of final concerts here in Pairc Ui Chaoimh Nowlan Park Pearse Stadium Belfast Slane Castle and finish up in Croke Park. They would get a great reception . They could make a film of the whole tour with a proper director maybe like Scorcese or someone of his ilk. And do something what no other band has done their size. Break up with no rows, no member of the group leaving or dying Simply breaking up on their own terms. It would be a massive event.

And it would be good for their legacy. U2 have been big for too long. They have been the biggest band in the World for nearly 30 years. The next longest would be The Beatles and they were the biggest band in the world for only 7 years. U2 have been to big. Always there . They haven't had a time to go in qnd out of fashion. Every group goes through periods when they are in fashion and go out of fashion. I guarantee if U2 broke up after the next tour, ten years later there stature and place in rock history will grow. And U2 have always been obsessed about their place in music history. If they stay together they will become the new Rolling Stones. It would be hard to give it up. Record tours. But I wouldn't be surprised they're thinking of this. When you look at the latest albums and their themes, it could be hinting at this. The best way to increase your stature as a group or an artist is die young or break up.

q2xv9rjei4awgb

Eventually it will end. Everything does but, it is very hard to give it up.

Bono said earlier in the year, before the JT tour, he can do nothing else.

JOEOLEARY

Sonny678 wrote: »

What does that even mean. It's like some people have these lists of 1 line put downs and just spend their time posting them on the net with these not so funny one liners. I don't mind if someone is actually funny. But like what does that even mean?. I won't go away I'm all alone. Hilarious. Honestly how do you come up with such brilliance.

Your Daddy’s a sailor, never comes home

Sonny678

Seve OB wrote:

Sonny won't go away, he's here all alone....

What does that even mean. It's like some people have these lists of 1 line put downs and just spend their time posting them on the net with these not so funny one liners. I don't mind if someone is actually funny. But like what does that even mean?. I won't go away I'm all alone. Honestly how do you come up with such brilliance.

Joe_ Public

Nights are so long...