GEN
Active topics
  1. they are not eternal, remember this
  3. Sadly I know they’re not. And Metallica isn’t either. Unless I win the lottery I don’t think I’ll get to see Metallica anytime soon. Glad I got to see U2 in 2015 though
  4. Externality isn’t a thing. We love these lads but if they can’t get into a room and produce stuff worthy of release then it’s on themselves to make a call.
  5. Originally posted by germcevoy:Externality isn’t a thing. We love these lads but if they can’t get into a room and produce stuff worthy of release then it’s on themselves to make a call.
    ‘stuff worthy of a release’ is open to interpretation though. To me it sounds like they’re enjoying taking their time and working on new material in the studio without being in any sort of rush. Ultimately they’ll be the ones who decide whether the music is worthy of release or not but I think they’ll be forced to retire because of other factors before they run out of material, hopefully that doesn’t happen for a long time though.
  6. Lol, yep could you stick on each way for them being eternal?
  7. so wait... i'm confused (not for the first time)

    are u2 great or are they shit?

    or is that only made apparent when viewed by an observer - like schrodinger's moggie? an cat dead/alive

    ...and shouldn't it be 'is u2 crap?' and 'u2 is great' as u2 is a collective made up of individuals?

    all these questions, and more, are surely what we need to concentrate on before th next tour/album
  8. This has been pretty painful to read.
  9. Yeah I mean at the end of the day U2 decides whether they quit or not. Doesn’t matter who agrees with it or not. The only selfish opinion is one that wants u2 to do something they don’t wanna do.
  10. Originally posted by Release3:Yeah I mean at the end of the day U2 decides whether they quit or not. Doesn’t matter who agrees with it or not. The only selfish opinion is one that wants u2 to do something they don’t wanna do.
    Agreed x1000
  11. Originally posted by Release3:Yeah I mean at the end of the day U2 decides whether they quit or not. Doesn’t matter who agrees with it or not. The only selfish opinion is one that wants u2 to do something they don’t wanna do.
    I think the default setting of the band is they haven’t retired, especially when they’re saying they want to carry on so I think to hope they don’t carry on is selfish at this stage. If they had came out and said we’re weighing things up then fair enough but the band as it’s stands are technically still an active band just taking a break, in fact they might not even be taking a break as they could be working on stuff right now for all we know. But if the band said they were going to retire I absolutely wouldn’t criticise them that’s their call to make not for some selfish fan who isn’t as keen on them anymore to encourage.
  12. Exactly. It works both ways. If they say, “we’re old, touring and writing is tiring so we’re done” but people were mad then that’s a selfish opinion. If they say, we want to write more and it’s inevitably not as good as JT or AB so people think they suck and should retire, that’s shitty too.

    The band has no reason to do anything other than what they want to do. I know people want them to dig deep and write something experimental, I do too, but if they want to get that one last hit that’s fine because the worst case scenario, we get an okay album with something like Little Things on it.