FEA
Active topics
  1. Only when all 4 original band members are in

    No discution
  2. Minus one member fine, as long is isn't Bono.
  3. Only when all four are in the band. Larry, Adam, Edge and Bono. That's U2 for me.
  4. too many people thinking that because they think x or y then that's the only outcome - no, we are all U2 fans and we all have our opinion

    we can argue and we can fight but that's only because are our opinions are being quashed by people who think THEY are the only fans that matter - we ALL matter

    for me this answer is soooooooooooooooooooo easy...

    U2 is and will always be the original 4 members - anything less is just that: LESS

    I understand that the other 3 bands members might want to continue to make music and tour - if you're used to playing in front of 10s of thousands of people and that's taken away from you then it's like a drug addict looking for their next hit - how do you ever get that feeling of adulation and worship and passion again? simply, you don't

    we know has had issues with this especially, as he's talked about playing in front of stadiums full of crazy fans all looking at him and shouting out his name - and then he goes home and ali is asking him about getting new drapes or the kids are playing up - it's a massive come down

    so the answer is for any other assemblage of the remaining band members touring and writing under a different name

    yes, it may sound corny, but even calling themselves something like U3 or 4U2 or U*2 or even Bono and Edge and Larry - i don't know, but i would still buy their music and see them on tour no problem

    but doing that under the name of U2 is wrong (IMO) - so in the name of love please DON'T
  5. I'm in the camp that U2 is ABLE (Adam, Bono, Larry, Edge) but then I wonder to myself why am I so adamant for this particular band that it must remain so when almost all of the bands I am highly fond of have lost original members. Bands like R.E.M, Blondie, Counting Crows, Placebo, The Airborne Toxic Event have all had line up changes but I still listen to them and forgive them because the nucleus, or more precisely the lead singer and guitarist, remained the same. The most comparable change I can think of would be INXS, where for me the death of Michael Hutchence should have been the end of the band, or at least a transition back to being The Farriss Brothers with a new singer, i.e. no longer INXS

    So why do I / we hold this band to a higher standard? My conclusion is because they have been so stable over the years and so consistent in their messaging about Larry starting the band, of them being brothers or family, the equal sharing of rights and royalties, and the (seemingly) unbreakable bonds they've formed. We've bought into the culture of the band, not just the sound, or the image, or the live performances; we've believe in them as an inseparable quartet because of all we've heard over 40 years and more.

    I can tolerate the band playing without Larry temporarily provided they have his full blessing, but if his health becomes a barrier to a permanent return then I'd like them to call it a day.
  6. Interestingly, as it stands, there’s more votes for a completely new line-up than there is for just Bono
  7. Originally posted by Sydney_MIke:............. We've bought into the culture of the band, not just the sound, or the image, or the live performances; we've believe in them as an inseparable quartet because of all we've heard over 40 years and more.
    .........


    Now THIS is a thought I suddenly find interesting and frigthening at the same time.......... what if this all turned out to be just a clever marketing concept? Like they all kept this 'U2 is a family' narrative going all these years just to make us feel part of a loyal community, when in reality 'ABLE' themselves stopped being so close-knit long ago?
  8. Why's that? He may be writing the lyrics, but in performance he's the weakest for the last couple of years. Plus i think Edge is more 'the sound of U2' than Bono is.
  9. Originally posted by iTim:[..]
    Interestingly, as it stands, there’s more votes for a completely new line-up than there is for just Bono
    Of course I voted for the 4 of them, but I'd rather have 4 new members than just Bono, so at least there's no misunderstanding that I'm being screwed
  10. Bono sang on Colbert without U2 and I thought it was better than any U2 performance.

    So if U2 stopped playing and Bono went solo, I'd be cool with that. It might even be better.

    At this stage I think he sounds better in a less "rock" setting anyway.
  11. Better than any U2 performance? Even better than the Super Bowl? That's quite a statement.


  12. Ok I'm not saying U2 hasn't had some epic performances or that they're not one of the great rock bands. I'm just saying maybe they've run their course because this one really hit me in a way no previous performance has. And the new instrumentation definitely helped. But Bono himself was on fire that night too. Just the way the new version of the song has been arranged around his vocal is really perfect. And SOS seems to be the same. I love the new direction.