Originally posted by coldrain:[..]
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.
Originally posted by podiumboy:It’d be different if they kicked Larry out. I’d be against that.
Right now he’s just sitting out for health reasons. Fair enough.
If later it comes out that he has in fact quit playing live with the band, then that is his decision. Should the rest of them not be allowed to carry on just because Larry isn’t on board?
Originally posted by coldrain:[..]
...The Who is Pete Townsend and Roger Daltrey. Keith Moon, for all his antics, was a side man. So was John Entwisle. ...
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.
Originally posted by Timk68:i imagine Larry will get paid regardless of if he's there or not