Bono talks 3 albums again

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I'm sorry, what? Did I say it was something bad? I admire it as well, and there are few things I hate more than ignorant people that complain about Bono for seemingly no (or at least highly questionable) reason.

Now that I look at my comment, I can see that I may have been unclear. I'm not bemoaning the fact that he is a humanitarian nor that he spends time with his causes. I just thought this specific thing, touring around Africa at music festivals, playing music with other bands was a bit odd and not like anything I've seen him do before. I don't know nearly everything of what Bono's done as a humanitarian of course, so perhaps he does similar things all the time, what do I know? Just found it a bit strange, that's all. :reject:
 
It came across like you were criticizing him for doing this rather than working on U2 music.

I think that :| smiley often leads to some misunderstandings.

:)
 
i heard that fans of "Africa", Bono's side project, were really disappointed in the delay of this current tour due to his U2 duties.
 
Has he really been touring African music festivals? I thought he appeared on stage at one festival. He's appeared on stage with other artists before at various times and events. Same with Edge. I didn't think he's on some sort of musical tour without his band or anything.
 
Wasn't he invited to a music festival in Morocco, which led to U2 recording there? Wherever he can find inspiration is probably good for U2 in the long run. If he dries up of creative juice, U2 are finished. Simple as.
 
if the songs are good, I still think U2 should release Songs of Ascent.

look at all attention Leonard Cohen's new album is getting. 10 quiet, intimate songs, with meditative lyrics about faith, doubt, sex, love, etc. Tasteful, subtle arrangements of music played skillfully, artfully. everything that SOA was hyped to be :sigh:

there's an audience for that. a mature, album-buying audience.
 
if the songs are good, I still think U2 should release Songs of Ascent.

look at all attention Leonard Cohen's new album is getting. 10 quiet, intimate songs, with meditative lyrics about faith, doubt, sex, love, etc. Tasteful, subtle arrangements of music played skillfully, artfully. everything that SOA was hyped to be :sigh:

there's an audience for that. a mature, album-buying audience.

:up:
 
U2 would record a whoopee cushion if it meant the band was relevant and Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois and Larry were OK with it.
 
New album hype just doesn't do it for me anymore. I waited 5 years for NLOTH, following all the hype, delays, and build-up, and in the end, for me, the album was such a let down. Don't really want to go through that again. Hopefully their next album is one that I will enjoy more, but I just don't really want to invest any time or effort in the rumors, teases, and snippets. I'll just buy it when it comes out and, hopefully, enjoy it.
 
if the songs are good, I still think U2 should release Songs of Ascent.

look at all attention Leonard Cohen's new album is getting. 10 quiet, intimate songs, with meditative lyrics about faith, doubt, sex, love, etc. Tasteful, subtle arrangements of music played skillfully, artfully. everything that SOA was hyped to be :sigh:

there's an audience for that. a mature, album-buying audience.

The kind of music you describe has been tearing up the indie world for years, pretty much since "Let It Die" by Feist. Look at how much attention Bon Iver (who I don't like) gets, or Fleet Foxes, or the last PJ Harvey record, or Nick Cave. It's great that Cohen is getting some attention (though it's not surprising), but the kind of music he makes is nothing new and U2 have always toyed with it. It is getting more popular, though, so maybe that will make U2 release SOA. The last time relaxed music was big was in 95, and they put out Passengers.
 
They should really use the Passengers project as a way to release this kind of stuff.
 
They should really use the Passengers project as a way to release this kind of stuff.

Yeah, that's a great idea. Imagine if they released the more experimental (and I'm not just talking about electronic experimentation), quickly made music out as Passengers and kept the U2 name for the pop/rock stuff that they want to tour for. That would be really cool, and maybe they'd stop being so uptight.
 
They should really use the Passengers project as a way to release this kind of stuff.

But what about the hits then?? :|

That would be perfect, but I somehow doubt it would live up to the original Passengers.
 
But what about the hits then?? :|

That would be perfect, but I somehow doubt it would live up to the original Passengers.

Don't worry, I haven't forgotten the hits! They'd all be saved for the "U2" albums. 12 hits every 4 years, no hit left behind.

It wouldn't live up to the original passengers, but it would allow them more freedom.
 
Is the radio relevant anymore anyway? I don't know any teenagers but do they even listen to the radio?
 
Is the radio relevant anymore anyway? I don't know any teenagers but do they even listen to the radio?

Maybe those geniuses in the record industry should realize that if the radio played new music more people would buy music. I'm sure that, given the corporate intermingling of the major label (doesn't Universal own everything now?) and radio station ownership, the situation could be changed. The only way to find new music is to seek it out, and I don't think many people have the desire to do that. Of course, it's much easier to promote the censorship of the internet and get angry at people who like your music enough to listen to it, which should be what any recording artist really wants.

They should really try to get radio to play more new music. Nobody wants to hear the same old shit over and over again.
 
Maybe those geniuses in the record industry should realize that if the radio played new music more people would buy music. I'm sure that, given the corporate intermingling of the major label (doesn't Universal own everything now?) and radio station ownership, the situation could be changed. The only way to find new music is to seek it out, and I don't think many people have the desire to do that. Of course, it's much easier to promote the censorship of the internet and get angry at people who like your music enough to listen to it, which should be what any recording artist really wants.

They should really try to get radio to play more new music. Nobody wants to hear the same old shit over and over again.

:applaud:
 
i think it would be cool if bands intentionally leaked their albums a week early on Spotify.

i really like Spotify.
 
Universal don't own significant radio. 'Radio' changed about 10-15 years ago when it went from stations to networks - huge ones, national not regional - and advertiser funded to advertiser driven and huge businesses answering only to shareholders. Playlists went from dj chosen to research determined. So, 'give them what they want', which just means the same already PROVEN hits over and over and over. Then digital/iPod age and demographics and consumer habits (and listening habits - especially timewise) changed. It's most definitely - emphatically even - not the place for new music. It's not meant to be anymore. Any radio programmer would laugh at the suggestion.
 
So if they have "something" which is Songs of Ascent but which they don't really know what to do with, they don't want to develop it any further because they're more excited about the other two projects, they could have it released via iTunes within a week as a mid-priced album. "SOA: The No Line Sessions" or something. They earn a bit of money out of it, it doesn't get lost forever in the vaults with the odd song being recycled for the next few albums and they've released something in a new way which keeps people talking about U2. Simple :)
 
But is every song a hit??? Can it play on "the radio"?!?!?!?!?!

I remember back in the 90's, it seemed like U2 would be the first huge band to experiment w/ new mediums...they talked enough about it in Flanagan's book. But now....15, 16 years later, they exist to make hits for the radio. Kind of disappointing.

Pretty soon, in concert, instead of Bono randomly yelling AFFFRRRRIIIIICCCAAA.... he's going to start yelling TTTHHHHHEEEEEEE RRRAAAADDDDIIIOOOO!!!!
 
Earnie Shavers said:
Universal don't own significant radio. 'Radio' changed about 10-15 years ago when it went from stations to networks - huge ones, national not regional - and advertiser funded to advertiser driven and huge businesses answering only to shareholders. Playlists went from dj chosen to research determined. So, 'give them what they want', which just means the same already PROVEN hits over and over and over. Then digital/iPod age and demographics and consumer habits (and listening habits - especially timewise) changed. It's most definitely - emphatically even - not the place for new music. It's not meant to be anymore. Any radio programmer would laugh at the suggestion.

And not coincidentally, radio is dying a horrible horrible death.
 
Ironically, that sort of formulaic radio will probably cause the medium to lose revenue in the long run.
 
Back
Top Bottom