GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by BelgianBono[..]
    I think they could better stop, it's been a good time for the Stones but if they don't stop now they became just old guys playing some music and that would be a shame to their absolutely great carreer...



    from the fan's perspective, it sucks for a legend to get old and just fade away. it seems wise to "quit while you're ahead." but usually it doesn't work that way.

    even if they're not changing the face of rock n' roll, they're still human beings who want / need to do something with their lives to keep going.

    for the most part, either a rock legend dies tragically young (hendrix, cobain), or they fade away. there's almost no in between. it's easier said than done to just say "i quit" at an appropriate time. even those who do wind up coming back 20 years later for a reunion tour b/c they miss it (and then they REALLY suck b/c they're rusty and haven't played for years). even in sports. look at michael jordan: retired 3 times b/c he couldn't be away from what he loved most.
  2. Originally posted by u2met86[..]


    from the fan's perspective, it sucks for a legend to get old and just fade away. it seems wise to "quit while you're ahead." but usually it doesn't work that way.

    even if they're not changing the face of rock n' roll, they're still human beings who want / need to do something with their lives to keep going.

    for the most part, either a rock legend dies tragically young (hendrix, cobain), or they fade away. there's almost no in between. it's easier said than done to just say "i quit" at an appropriate time. even those who do wind up coming back 20 years later for a reunion tour b/c they miss it (and then they REALLY suck b/c they're rusty and haven't played for years). even in sports. look at michael jordan: retired 3 times b/c he couldn't be away from what he loved most.


    I perfeclty agree with you, in fact I wrote something about this idea in a topic about the old groups that continue to make tours (I think Remy just closed that topic... )
    For me those who cannot understand when it's the right moment to stop are not really great, no matter what's their job. This is so in sports, in music, in cinema,... everywhere. So for me The Rolling Stones are not just a great band, in the sense that they are not excellent, but can only stop to very good. The excellence is another thing. It's very difficult to find excellent people.
    Anyway I don't justify who can't stop at the right time as you, instead, do. One can love something as much as he wants, but loving does not mean that you're justified if you can't say "Stop". If you can't you're not excellent, for me. Of course this fact does not matter in relationship between people, but only in those between someone and an activity.

    I think U2 will demonstrate they're excellent!

  3. Originally posted by u2met86[..]


    from the fan's perspective, it sucks for a legend to get old and just fade away. it seems wise to "quit while you're ahead." but usually it doesn't work that way.

    even if they're not changing the face of rock n' roll, they're still human beings who want / need to do something with their lives to keep going.

    for the most part, either a rock legend dies tragically young (hendrix, cobain), or they fade away. there's almost no in between. it's easier said than done to just say "i quit" at an appropriate time. even those who do wind up coming back 20 years later for a reunion tour b/c they miss it (and then they REALLY suck b/c they're rusty and haven't played for years). even in sports. look at michael jordan: retired 3 times b/c he couldn't be away from what he loved most.


    Yeah i know you're right, but for me, it's better that a band stops at the right time, when they're still good...
    Imagine that U2 still plays when they're 65... You know that can't sound good anymore...
    So i hope the band will be wise enough to stop at the right time. It would be a huge disappointment for the fans at that moment, but later on everybody will understand and only remember that fucking great Irish rockstars instead of some old guys who wanted to much, as the stones are doing now...
    But i know that that doens't happen a lot, everybody wants more so they come back or they keep on going BUT i think, for U2, they will enjoy their life after U2 as well as with U2... They've got children, Edge and Bono are working for charity...
    But they may wait with that for a couple of years, U2 still rocks my socks
  4. You're right BelgianBono. U2 is the richest abdn in the world, but they can cope with that. Some bands can't get enough of money, like the Rolling Stones. They started touring again, not only to please fans, but first of all to earn money again. Like BelgianBono says, I hope and think U2 is wise enough to stop their careers before they get to old and jumpy.
  5. so U2 build their money up in only 14 years because they where almost bankruptcy???

  6. Originally posted by ivovertigoso U2 build their money up in only 14 years because they where almost bankruptcy???




    Well, the company U2 was, not the members itself, that's a big difference.
    U2 started only to earn money after the Joshua Tree, after 10 years of hard work with almost no profits.
  7. excuse me if someone said it already, but Fleetwood Mac is the wealthiest band ever i believe. this would make sence because they had the 2nd best selling album of all time. i also have a music history book that says FM is teh most wealthiest/ successful after Micheal Jackson. but since his fiasco FM can take his spot.

    -Pm™
  8. Originally posted by paolom3excuse me if someone said it already, but Fleetwood Mac is the wealthiest band ever i believe. this would make sence because they had the 2nd best selling album of all time. i also have a music history book that says FM is teh most wealthiest/ successful after Micheal Jackson. but since his fiasco FM can take his spot.

    -Pm™

    I seriously doubt this. Also album sales are not that much of a huge profit for artists individually, I think, especially since the royalty profits of artists beside U2 are quite low.
  9. Originally posted by Remy[..]
    I seriously doubt this. Also album sales are not that much of a huge profit for artists individually, I think, especially since the royalty profits of artists beside U2 are quite low.



    Agreed. Also keep in mind U2 owned a part of Island Records during the 80s, so then they profited as shareholders from their successful albums (uhm Joshua Tree.....? ). In the 90s when Island was bought they also made a tidy profit. As I (think I) said before theyre worth close to $1 billion USD (~750 euros, ~500 GBP) and are surely still growing through their many investments. Bono's also on the board of The Elevation Group which owns significant interest in some video game developers.
  10. even though i love U2, i have to quote fleetwood Mac and say "i know i am not wrong"
  11. Originally posted by paolom3even though i love U2, i have to quote fleetwood Mac and say "i know i am not wrong"


    I really hate to be one to ruin this for you. I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to do so w/o sounding mean; this is not my intention at all. Now, I am NEVER one to say that more record sales or more wealth = better; I think it's all subjective taste. But to strictly evaluate the claim in terms of numbers, here are the results of my investigation...

    Since Michael Jackson is included in your comparison (an inactive solo artist), this means all artists (solo artists and bands, active and inactive) must be included.

    I don't know where Rumors ranks exactly, but evidence suggests that it is no higher than 6th place worldwide. In the US alone it's #10 according to the RIAA:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_in_the_United_States

    Here's the worldwide top-selling albums list. Thriller sold at least 100 million, four others sold at least 40 million, and Rumors is among several that sold at least 30 million:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide

    Onto the next claim: a high-selling album doesn't necessarily make you richer than everybody else. TLC's CrazySexyCool sold at least 15 million and they LOST net money. That's right. They were severely in debt after selling 15 million copies and gaining superstar status. They were broke. Now, while I'm pretty sure Fleetwood Mac made plenty off of Rumors...

    One high-selling album doesn't necessarily reflect total album sales. Fleetwood Mac has sold over 100 million records, quite a lot. I'm not sure exactly where the figure is; I know U2 is estimated anywhere between 130 million and 170 million. But I know both of them are absolutely dwarfed by other artists: Elvis, Beatles, Michael Jackson, Frank Sinatra, and Michael Jackson are all over 500 million. Eleven others are above 250 million. Then there is a cutoff of 100 million that includes both Fleetwood Mac and U2:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_selling_music_artists

    This is record sale info alone. Other factors in U2's wealth (I can't speak for FM, I don't know the facts) include:
    -Touring
    -Royalty rates
    -U2 owns their own master tapes
    -U2 splits their income equally (many bands do not, like the Rolling Stones)
    -Other investments (Elevation investment group, etc.)

    Touring is a very big factor. I think this makes a bigger difference than record sales by a great deal. I think the only band to rival U2 in sheer numbers on touring consistently over a long period of time has been the Rolling Stones.