GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by yeah:[..]

    I don't think this is a matter of age. There are enough examples of aged singers/groupes who put on fantastic shows. Just a matter of passion to me.

    My "hope" that the new release is their last, comes from another perspective and my personal perception.
    To me, their last 2 albums were...well...soso.
    Now if they release another mediocre album, I would prefer them to quit rather than pulling down their own monument.
    If they release another masterpiece, they can quit at the top of the game, which would be the best possible goodbye.

    That and it becomes harder and harder for me to bear with Bono.



    Agree with you. It's hard for U2-fans to say goodbye, but it is best to stop at the highest possible peek. Look at Led Zeppelin or the Rolling Stones, awesome bands but they don't know their time already came years ago. I know U2 still have potential, they're all around the end of 40, but a lot depends of their new album.

    On the other hand, ATYCLB and HTDAAB both sold very well although real U2-fans weren't too excited about it. I'm afraid they keep going as long as they can deserve some coins with it.
  2. To me ATYCLB and HTDAAB weren't that bad at all. I understand that loads of (hardcore) U2-fans don't like it, but especially ATYCLB was a masterpiece IMO. On the other hand: Bono looks very old indeed
    But looking old is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as the music fits their age. An album like Boy would be horrible at this age, but another ATYCLB-stylish album would fit perfectly IMO...

    Time will tell when it's time to quit
  3. Originally posted by MWSAH:[..]

    Bono already looks old at the end of the fourties, imagine him being 65 or something...
    Instead of calling their last album 'Man' they might call it 'Grandfather' or something..


    who cares what they look like? just because they get older they're not entitled to continue making music? not really fair, nor does it make much of sense (if you really meant that). sorry, mate


    I for myself really like their last two albums. I wouldn't call them masterpieces, but little gems nonetheless and if the next album isn't something completely new, I wouldn't mind. I like their current style, I like the many styles before. whatever's coming our way with the next u2 album, I'm sure it'll be good at least, no matter what
  4. Originally posted by flowerchild:[..]

    who cares what they look like? just because they get older they're not entitled to continue making music? not really fair, nor does it make much of sense (if you really meant that). sorry, mate


    I for myself really like their last two albums. I wouldn't call them masterpieces, but little gems nonetheless and if the next album isn't something completely new, I wouldn't mind. I like their current style, I like the many styles before. whatever's coming our way with the next u2 album, I'm sure it'll be good at least, no matter what


    Well, as long if the music is good, I don't really care either....but I know this story about a fairly unknown and very old singer who often performed during WWII in Holland. He was 20/30 back then, and the poor fellow performed again some months ago. He was around 80 years old, and it looked crap and sounded crap. A little self-reflection isn't that bad.

    A big tour for an artist in his sixties might be too much, whether his singing capabilities might still be there. But touring and recording an album also has a physical impact to a man's body. Watch BB King...he performs so every now and then, that's okay. But the man isn't able to tour intensively.
  5. Can't believe so much people are so fatalistic....c'mon people we're talking about U2, not Oasis or somethin...
  6. Originally posted by MWSAH:[..]

    Well, as long if the music is good, I don't really care either....but I know this story about a fairly unknown and very old singer who often performed during WWII in Holland. He was 20/30 back then, and the poor fellow performed again some months ago. He was around 80 years old, and it looked crap and sounded crap. A little self-reflection isn't that bad.

    A big tour for an artist in his sixties might be too much, whether his singing capabilities might still be there. But touring and recording an album also has a physical impact to a man's body. Watch BB King...he performs so every now and then, that's okay. But the man isn't able to tour intensively.


    I know who you are talking about... that man was not 'good' in WWII right? The reviews were pretty good though....
  7. Originally posted by Yogi:Can't believe so much people are so fatalistic....c'mon people we're talking about U2, not Oasis or somethin...


    i've been a fan for 8 years and they haven't released anything in that time that has inspired or excited me at all. Simple as that so this could be a make or break album for me. How I wished I was born a decade earlier
  8. Originally posted by germcevoy:[..]

    i've been a fan for 8 years and they haven't released anything in that time that has inspired or excited me at all. Simple as that so this could be a make or break album for me. How I wished I was born a decade earlier


    Same here. I'm really pissed of I missed Zoo TV and Popmart
  9. Originally posted by germcevoy:[..]

    i've been a fan for 8 years and they haven't released anything in that time that has inspired or excited me at all. Simple as that so this could be a make or break album for me. How I wished I was born a decade earlier


    I met U2 trough ATYCLB when I was like 15 or so. It changed my life.



  10. same here and I agree with you about the fatalism


  11. I noticed that in quite few situations we had similar opinions.
  12. agree with yogi as well.

    it's kinda annoying, but the majority of fans (of whatever band) seem to be rather pessimistic than optimistic. not that I know why or state it as fact, just something I experienced over the years with several bands and their boards... I mean, nothing wrong with criticism, but some seem to overdo it, imo.


    Originally posted by MWSAH:[..]

    Well, as long if the music is good, I don't really care either....but I know this story about a fairly unknown and very old singer who often performed during WWII in Holland. He was 20/30 back then, and the poor fellow performed again some months ago. He was around 80 years old, and it looked crap and sounded crap. A little self-reflection isn't that bad.

    A big tour for an artist in his sixties might be too much, whether his singing capabilities might still be there. But touring and recording an album also has a physical impact to a man's body. Watch BB King...he performs so every now and then, that's okay. But the man isn't able to tour intensively.


    well, 80 is quite a difference than 60 I don't see u2 on stage when they're 80 (or with 83, like bb king) either, but with 60+? definitely possible. and if they still got it with 80, so be it! in the end, it's up to them.

    and I know everyone's probably tired of hearing it, but hey - the rolling stones? lol
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.