1. Originally posted by Sydney_MIke:He's had a couple of near misses though. Didn't he play a show in the early days with his wrist in plaster or something (Didn't we have a timeline of accidents and injuries on here at one point?) And he was lucky to be come out unscathed after his fall from the stage the on i+e tour

    The story was Edge was in an auto-accident around a corner and placed his guitar hand up against the windshield to prevent being a crash test dummy. They were taking the Ferry the next day to England or something. I'm fairly certain this was in the Surrender book.
  2. When did the Stones stop being the Stones? Everything after Brian Jones is crap, right?
  3. Yeah, let's compare a <7 year stretch within a band that has had 16 official members with a band that has literally been the same four guys for 46.5 years. Sounds legit.
  4. Well Bill Wyman quit the Stones after 30 years as their bass player, and I doubt even the most hardcore of Stones fans even batted an eye.

    The closest comparison to U2 is Aerosmith, in terms of longevity of the same lineup. Joe Perry quit for a few years in the late 70’s/early 80’s, but that was it for awhile. But then they had a replacement bassist for an entire tour while Tom Hamilton underwent treatment for cancer . And more recently, drummer Joe Kramer has had a replacement drummer while dealing with some personal issues (wife dying), and perhaps issues related to his age and being a drummer.

    Point is it happens, especially as people get older. I think they can still call it U2 as long as it’s Bono, Edge, and Adam or Larry being temporarily replaced. But it has to be 3/4 of them. You can’t have Bono, Edge, Bram and Stuart Morgan up there and call it U2.
  5. 16? Where on earth do you get 16 official Stones.

    I count 7: Mick, Keef, Brian, Bill, Charlie, Mick Taylor, Ronnie.

    As long as Bono and Edge want to make music, I'm OK with it. If it gets down to the 2 of them, yeah, they should probably just call it Bono & Edge.

    I'm continually astonished and bored by the level of whining and negativity on this forum.
  6. There is no parallel. U2 is Bono, Edge, Adam, and Larry.

    They can play with whomever they want in whatever combo they want. I'd be delighted if they made more music in whatever arrangement. But it's not U2 unless it is Bono, Edge, Adam, and Larry.
  7. 1/2, 3/4, doesn't matter.. anything other than 4/4 is something I'd prefer not to see, especially if it involves big bucks like Vegas probably will. It's a shame, too, AB is my favorite album. But I'd much rather celebrate and honor it with all four band members. If one of them happens to retire sometime down the road, perhaps I'd consider seeing whatever form they might take.
  8. Good point. We'd probably not be as bothered if this was some kind of charity event or something like that. But with $50m (rough calculation but probably not too far fetched) involved, the sense we get is that this is just a "money-first" kind of thing, not a "we miss our audience so much" kind of thing.
  9. How about we just respect any decision remaining members decide to make, in the event that 1 or 2 leave, for whatever reason?

    The Stones have been mentioned. They are still the Stones while Mick and Keef are there. No Charlie, no Mick T, no Bill W. Still the Stones.

    The Who are still the Who, with just Pete T and Roger D.
    Pink Floyd are/were Pink Floyd without Roger W
    Fleetwood Mac were still Fleetwood Mac despite periodic departures and returns of Stevie, Lindsey and Christine ( I saw the most recent incarnation in Sydney with Neil Finn and Mike Campbell and it was still a great FM show).
    Conversely, Led Zeppelin decided not to proceed after losing Bonzo.
    Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers have not carried on without Tom (quite sensibly).
    Queen with Adam Lambert replacing Freddie was just going to far in my eyes!

    Honestly, I couldn’t see U2 continue if one of Bono or Edge left. But I could see U2 continue if one of Adam or Larry left. (We are going to get a glimpse of what U2 without Larry will look and sound like in Vegas). More of a struggle if both left. But as I said, whatever Bon & Edge decided in that event would be fine by me .. whether I would buy their new product as U2 would depend on what it sounded like.
  10. will people stop comparing U2 with other bands - that has nothing to do with what U2 are

    who gives a fuck if the stones add/subtract another member - they ain't U2

    there's only one U2 and if they continue without one of the original members then a change in the band's name has to be obligatory