Discussion of U2's future: new singles, new tour, etc.

Originally posted by AllBecauseOfU2:[..]

Me too. I think we're going to get the usual 11-12 songs.

But they better be good songs.

A double album might mean an even longer delay until the album after that. More songs = larger tour extravagaza, longer rest period after, longer time needed to come up with an entirely new sound/tour concept.

Originally posted by MWSAH:[..]

I wouldn't mind to see a good record containing 12 songs or so. Start the tour, play the songs, blow some roofs off and kick ass on stage...after a period of, let's say, 2 years...they release the rest and the best of their material, giving us their final and last album. They continue the on-going tour, change the name to Farewell-tour, play Rotterdam 5 nights, continue rocking for 2 years with some breaks and end their career on a lovely rainy, Irish night in Dublin, somewhere in the middle of the city where everyone can see and hear them. Let's hope we all can be there too.

Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:Yea I hate to say it but I can see their career coming to an end. A good end, an end by choice. They've done so much already, and to see them do like 5 more albums would just be nuts. You always hear them talking about how their goal is to write their best album, the best music they can write. Lately, ( the past 2 or 3 years) we have all heard Bono and Edge say "We think we're getting close to completing our goal" so I don't think it will be too long before our boys decide to play the farewell tour.

Originally posted by LikeASong:And what's the problem with farewell? Man, people die every day, everything on this life comes to an end. Why not U2? Sincerely I prefer they quit up with a great album and a great tour, instead of touring eternally without any sense (Rolling Stones) ... The only I'd be sad about is that many many many fans would (will, probably) not see their idols playing live... But life is life

Originally posted by yuri31:life is a bitch

Originally posted by LikeASong:And what's the problem with farewell? Man, people die every day, everything on this life comes to an end. Why not U2? Sincerely I prefer they quit up with a great album and a great tour, instead of touring eternally without any sense (Rolling Stones) ... The only I'd be sad about is that many many many fans would (will, probably) not see their idols playing live... But life is life

Originally posted by Marty:I WILL SEE THEM LIVE ONE DAY O_O

Originally posted by stj0691:U2 are the only rock band that matters now. They can't quit. The Rolling Stones are way too old, as are the Who. Pink Floyd appeals to certain folks, and the Beatles aren't around. Don't be counting on Led Zeppelin either. All that's left are U2. Quitting with this tour means passing the reins to another band. Who do you pass it to? Coldplay? Maybe.

The Who quit in 1983....only to come back and tour again later. The Rolling Stones nearly broke up after 1983 because a rift between Mick and Keith. So in a sense had the Stones stopped....the reins would have fell to none other than U2. U2 would have taken the reins, but created TUF, with hits Pride, Bad, and ASOH.

So, if U2 want to quit, they can pass the reins onto say, Coldplay. They've got 4 albums out, each one widely respected.* Viva has controversey, because it alienated some fans wondering what did they do? This is the same instance happened with U2 fans when Achtung came out. I'm not saying Coldplay are copying U2, but Coldplay could be the next big band.

But in my case, U2 has this album, then their last one. Just remember the words from Roger Daltrey, lived out by Keith Moon, "I hope I die before I get old". In other words, to U2, don't let your act grow old.