UVS
Active topics
  1. I'm not saying the others shouldn't go on making music if that's what they want to do.

    But they shouldn't go on as U2 unless all four are in the band.

    If one or more leaves, there is no more U2.
  2. Originally posted by hkle77:This is a tree leg band, not U2. I won't gonna see this band live. No Larry, no U2. With Paul McGuinnes as a manager they would have never signed such a contract.
    Agree?


    I don't agree to any of the things you have written.
  3. U2 are now fighting against their own marketing / myth-making. From the beginning of the band they have talked about how they are not collectively “great musicians” and that the music of U2 is a product of the 4 original members being in a room and “something special” happening. They created and sold the story for literally decades. It is certainly at least part of the reason some fans admire the band.

    Now, however, it appears they are backing away from what they’ve said about the “magic” of the 4 of them. Was it all b.s. before? Probably, but it is a striking change of messaging from them. Times change, circumstances change.

    Hell, the band has talked up their albums (like Pop) when selling them and then backed away from the marketing campaign and been much more overtly critical of the music later on. Maybe their views really did change. Or maybe, just maybe, they had a product to sell and money to be made, so they said things they didn’t 100% believe at the time. Maybe the “magic” of the 4 members has just been a myth and marketing the whole time. Only the band know.
  4. it's simple

    is bono solely U2? no
    is edge solely U2? no
    is adam solely U2? no
    is larry solely U2? no

    U2 is and always will be bono edge adam and larry

    anything else is just a pale imitation
  5. well, that's the thing: we ain't gonna see U2. At least not in Las Vegas

  6. Ugh. That's awful to read. I guess I'm glad that he at least said "equally" they could imagine not going forward without Larry, but still...

    I'm okay with them performing in Vegas without him due to contractual obligations and Larry's apparent blessing. I won't be seeing it, but am okay with it. But for Edge to hint at them potentially going forward with "different members" rubs me the wrong way.
  7. Originally posted by bonoschild:[..]
    U2 is Bono and maybe Edge? Sorry, that's laughable. Listen to their shows between 80-83 and beyond in depth and you can definitely hear why U2 is all four of them. Yeah they can get away with using a stand-in drummer for a group of shows, but it's the spirit of the four of them that makes them U2. Would you really want to see Bono with three session musicians under the name U2? I definitely would not.


    Then don't go. It sounds like at least most of you here have yet to experience one of your favorite bands losing a member or three. A lot of things can go wrong as people age. And in the music business you have other occupational hazards like drugs/booze that take people out on a regular basis. Some of the greatest bands out there survived the loss of one or more of their original members. Why? Because it comes down to who is really an integral member of the band, and who isn't. Take The Cure for example. How many musicians has that band gone through over the years? The answer doesn't really matter because The Cure is Robert Smith. I thought Boris Williams was their best drummer by far, but they moved on without him and so did I. The Who is Pete Townsend and Roger Daltrey. Keith Moon, for all his antics, was a side man. So was John Entwisle. The Grateful Dead survived the loss of three of their keyboardists (all drug/booze related), but there was no going forward after Jerry Garcia died. He had more talent than the rest of the band combined, and it's too bad that he squandered it by not taking care of himself and being such a druggie. I saw the Grateful Dead over 250 times between 1985-95, by the way.

    Like another poster here said, just be happy that U2 is still playing 47 years later. Most bands don't even make it 7 years, let alone 47.
  8. Originally posted by coldrain:[..]


    Then don't go. It sounds like at least most of you here have yet to experience one of your favorite bands losing a member or three. A lot of things can go wrong as people age. And in the music business you have other occupational hazards like drugs/booze that take people out on a regular basis. Some of the greatest bands out there survived the loss of one or more of their original members. Why? Because it comes down to who is really an integral member of the band, and who isn't. Take The Cure for example. How many musicians has that band gone through over the years? The answer doesn't really matter because The Cure is Robert Smith. I thought Boris Williams was their best drummer by far, but they moved on without him and so did I. The Who is Pete Townsend and Roger Daltrey. Keith Moon, for all his antics, was a side man. So was John Entwisle. The Grateful Dead survived the loss of three of their keyboardists (all drug/booze related), but there was no going forward after Jerry Garcia died. He had more talent than the rest of the band combined, and it's too bad that he squandered it by not taking care of himself and being such a druggie. I saw the Grateful Dead over 250 times between 1985-95, by the way.

    Like another poster here said, just be happy that U2 is still playing 47 years later. Most bands don't even make it 7 years, let alone 47.
    Thanks for that, but everything you've said has been repeated here many times..your view on who is and who isn't an "integral" member of U2 is just that- your view. So if, at some point down the road, Bono goes on the road with three random musicians and calls it U2, have fun with that 👍
  9. I would still go see / listen to a Larry-less U2. Wouldn’t be the same, but most other bands I like have had to replace at least 1 member.

    A couple weeks ago I saw The Killers. Technically I only saw 1/2 of the Killers, because their bassist Mark doesn’t play live anymore, only records in the studio, and sometimes he doesn’t even do that. Their founding lead guitarist Dave is even more bizarre, as he shows up for some shows but not others, without explanation or rhyme/reason. It was still a great show, the replacements did a great job, and I just take it for what it is.

    In 2021 I saw Kings of Leon. Lead guitarist Matthew Followill was not there, because his wife had just given birth. They had a replacement who did a great job. And of course, eventually the guitarist joined back up with the tour and all is well.

    In 2006 I saw Aerosmith, and they played their first ever show without bassist Tom Hamilton, who was going through cancer treatment. Did I feel ripped off that some other guy was playing the bass line for “Sweet Emotion”? No.

    Shit happens. Hopefully Larry comes back when he’s healed. But if not, I will still go to U2 shows as long as Bono and Edge are there.


  10. Exactly. So bleeping tired of the whining and complaining. You'd think this is a U2 hate site.
  11. I'm wondering why someone would click on a thread titled "is it really U2 without Larry?" and be surprised that people had strong feelings and differences of opinion.

    I don't think it is bitching or whining to express the opinion that U2 just isn't U2 without the four members.

    As the examples above have shown, it all comes down to who is essential and who isn't for a band to maintain its identity.

    I happen to believe that each of the four is essential to U2. And that it goes beyond mere musicianship.

    Let's be real, Bono and Edge could've ditched the rhythm section and "upgraded" musically at any point in the last 40 years. They didn't because of their loyalty to each other and their commitment to what they make and are together.

    If one of them quits or dies, the others can certainly go on playing together and with others. I hope they do and I will go see them perform. But it will never be U2 again.
  12. Originally posted by bonoschild:[..]
    Thanks for that, but everything you've said has been repeated here many times..your view on who is and who isn't an "integral" member of U2 is just that- your view. So if, at some point down the road, Bono goes on the road with three random musicians and calls it U2, have fun with that 👍
    I get it. Some fans will move on if the lineup changes, and I can't say that I blame them. I witnessed Jerry Garcia's decline first hand and it was pretty awful. The last few years were not very good, and in hindsight I probably should have bailed after Bruce Hornsby left the band. I decided not to see the Stones with Steve Jordan on drums. Charlie Watts was the weak link in the band for years before he passed, but I heard recordings with Jordan and wasn't feeling it. The Stones are so far past their collective prime that I didn't feel that the high priced ticket was worth it at that point. From what I have seen, once musicians reach their 70's everything starts to go south pretty quickly if it hasn't already. That said, I don't think that U2 has a lot of tours left in them. Larry Mullen or not, I would go see them. At this stage of the game, you never know when the next show could be the last.