I was initially hesitant to post that link before writing what I'm about to write, as it is essentially a yet-to-be-revealed "blind item", which makes it nothing more than a rumor ...
However, I feel like there's been a few red flags flying on the horizon for a while about the future of our fellas ... and I think it's important to start a reasonable conversation about it, and I see 3 reasonable reasons to do so:
1) The site's source is an anonymous entertainment lawyer with contacts in all areas of film, TV and music who not only has a proven track record of accuracy, but has been the source on a lot of HUGE stories (some of which, granted, are not so pleasant) before mainstream journos had the guts to do so ...
Feel free to check the following story for more context re: what I'm talking about:
2) a lot of folk commenting on the item itself seem to feel pretty strongly that it's U2 (in spite of the band's upcoming residency plans in Vegas, etc) with more than a few giving explanations as to why they think it might be the case...
and
3) It addresses something of an "elephant in the room" issue that many U2 fans - a number of whom comment here, and at least one of which is a respected music pro / podcaster - seem to have been grappling with, if not considering, in recent days ...
Now, lest anyone in these forums take umbrage at the suggestion that any rumor is cold hard fact, please rest assured ... that's NOT what I'm suggesting.
If anything, I'm the last person on the planet who wants to see the lads end their 40 year run so abruptly and unceremoniously, especially before any other potential recordings are released (if ever) or tours are announced/completed ...
I'm also skeptical of some stuff CD&N has posted about the band before, such as this item below (which appears to have been debunked by fans on the site ... yet, oddly enough, remains publicly posted / never or denied by the band or its reps):
* Personally, given some of the shocking and potentially slanderous allegations made in that same post (which CDAN has, essentially, since touted as "fact"), I'm surprised lawyers for the band itself haven't filed a libel suit ... or, at the very least, asked him to take it down ... either way, that one was BEYOND weird.
However ... and it's a BIG however ... I am not unlike so many others here who have commented previously, feeling either a sense of sadness, unease or ennui about all this previous talk from Larry about the band actually being a "dictatorship" ... and the fact that the group is going forward with this bonkers plan to play ACTHUNG BABY (a ground-breaking, watershed LP from an already-legendary back catalogue) in a still-unbuilt Vegas venue without not only its founding member, but a man who (as one-half it's rhythm section) frankly deserves MORE than a bit of credit for contributing some of the band's greatest beats/grooves to that sonic masterpiece.
After all ... Larry FOUNDED the group, and he is ESSENTIAL to its sound.
He's also someone who expressed variations, in older interviews, of the following:
"I have no interest in being a human jukebox."
and
"Two crap albums, and you're out."
Sure, yes, there's plenty of evidence out there to swat all of this back, and I've no doubt we've all spent time parsing the language of those other members who've said: "Well, we had a commitment before COVID ..." and "Larry gave his blessing" and "Boy, are we gonna miss him ..." and that's fine.
Hell, it's to be expected ... because to not speak up in Larry's defense or say ANYTHING to the contrary would be cruel/unusual.
Still, weigh all of that against what Larry himself said about playing, back when they were being honored at the Kennedy Center in 2022 ... and his silence ever since.
Now go back and re-read that Crazy Days and Nights post from way up top.
Again, please don't get me wrong.
I am not by no means suggesting any of this gossip is gospel, let alone a "blind item" ... because if there's anything I know as a 40-year-long U2 fan, the last thing any of our most loyal and die-hard fanbase would wanna do is doubt them.
If anything, I think our first impulse - as individuals - is to hold onto our deep and abiding love of the band's music and what they stand for, because:
a) we have hope that there's more good things / times to come,
b) we have faith in the band's talents and efforts thus far,
c) we love them for all that they have given us to enjoy as fans,
and
d) we tend to believe that what they tell us is the absolute truth.
Why? Because, to us, it's never been about the business they do, it's the music they make (and have made) together, as four friends and bandmates, for 40 years.
But then my mind goes back to all the things Larry has said ... while also imagining the physical/mental damage any repetitive stress injuries from drum playing might have taken on him over the years ... to say nothing of many other drummers like him from other famous groups (Bill Berry / R.E.M., Neil Peart / Rush, Phil Collins / Genesis, Taylor Hawkins / Foo Fighters) ... whereupon I find myself asking:
Would any of us want to keep doing something that caused us that much pain and personal suffering, regardless of how much we loved to do it?
Then my mind goes to the fact that U2, in the last couple of years, signed with a new management company run by Irving Azoff ...
For those uncertain of Azoff's pedigree, let's just say he's been a savvy, smart, respected and ruthless mover/shaker ever since he first entered the music industry, and is famous for doing literally anything and everything to get exactly what he thinks he and his people want/deserve the most ... especially in terms of money.
Just ask Eagles frontman Don Henley, who famously described Azoff's management of their group thusly: "He may be Satan, but he's OUR Satan."**
**It's important to give context to Henley's "Satan" comment, by the way, if only because it was Azoff's tutelage/counsel that ultimately fueled the decision of Henley and his fellow Eagles bandmate, Glenn Frey, to declare themselves primary singer-songwriters of the group, therefore cutting other band members like Tim Schmidt and Joe Walsh out of a large chunk of their future earnings ...
And if Joe or Tim didn't like it? "Guess what, guys? You've got a contract, so PLAY."
Whereupon my mind goes back to the details listed in the original CDAN link up top, and I find myself asking more questions:
- Was there an actual contractual renegotiation within the band before the Sphere shows that ultimately affected the income levels of Bono and/or Edge vs Adam and Larry, despite previous contracts which stipulated that they're all paid equally?
- If so ... does that mean Larry (despite being founder of U2 as a 4-man rock group) isn't going to earn a dime off any of the shows played during the residence?
or
- Is there something in the Sphere/Vegas contract stipulating that he'll get a cut, whether he plays or not?
All of these thoughts have been going through my head while I also consider the established reliability of CDAN as an entertainment news source ... and the # of times his commenters have guessed the correct answer before it was revealed.
And 99.9% of the time, they've been right.
Having said all that ... I leave Rick Beato with the last word on this subject, and Rick is as big a U2 fan as it comes in this day and age ...
Again, I write all of this out of respect for my own longtime love and respect for the band, and in the hopes it will generate some thoughtful, non-snarky, perhaps even optimistic posts from others here who care about where things are headed ...
So ... what do you think, folks?
Is CDAN off base or on point? Do you agree with his commenters?
Is all of this hype over U2 playing Vegas just a way of denying something inevitable?
Or ... is it possible ... we're all going to be shocked out of our underwear when Larry suddenly comes strolling onto the Sphere stage come September?
I would’ve thought Bram would take Larry’s proceeds, but I guess not if you know more. Are U2 then paying Bram a set dollar amount for 25 shows and the rest is still split 25% Between the original band members?
