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.
See posts with no answers
Hollow Island said:
I think everyone needs to think back to the time between Bomb and No Line. We all wanted new U2, and the obliged us with Window In The Skies. I think they were trying to tell everyone to chill the hell out and be patient, because if they give in to demand for material we'll have to listen to shit like that.
Click to expand...

Likely we will have a new album in 12-18 months. Which in the grand scheme of things is not a long time.
 
I'm sure we're looking at 2014. Anyone holding out for this year is dreaming, and 2013 is probably when they will begin work in earnest. So last quarter of 2014 with the obligatory world tour in 2015.
 
bono_man2002 said:
Likely we will have a new album in 12-18 months. Which in the grand scheme of things is not a long time.
Click to expand...

And Spaniards shouting on the beach over U2 demos in 6-8 months!
 
nielsgov said:
2013 is my best guess. 2014 would be an extremely long wait.
Click to expand...

I agree. But.......

POP Mar 1997
ATYCLB Oct 2000 (3.5 year break, Big Return)
HTDAAB Nov 2004 (4 year break, Success)
NLOTH Mar 2009 (4.5 year break, considered failure)


......... Nov 2012
......... Nov 2013

Based on ATYCLB they might want to put something out this Fall to replicate their past success. Being out of game without new music hurts bands. Too long of a wait and too much hype is never a good thing.

I can't believe NLOTH will be 3 years old already this March. Damn.
 
If they don't put out an album this year, I think they can kiss their 'unconditional-love' fanbase goodbye (although NLOTH already disappointed a lot of people). Putting out an LP in 2013 would mean they'd have released two records in 12 years. Not good enough.
 
The Panther said:
If they don't put out an album this year, I think they can kiss their 'unconditional-love' fanbase goodbye (although NLOTH already disappointed a lot of people). Putting out an LP in 2013 would mean they'd have released two records in 12 years. Not good enough.
Click to expand...

Ouch. 2 albums in 12 years might qualify as retirement.
 
The Panther said:
If they don't put out an album this year, I think they can kiss their 'unconditional-love' fanbase goodbye (although NLOTH already disappointed a lot of people). Putting out an LP in 2013 would mean they'd have released two records in 12 years. Not good enough.
Click to expand...

2013-2004=9 years, 3 records
 
The Panther said:
If they don't put out an album this year, I think they can kiss their 'unconditional-love' fanbase goodbye (although NLOTH already disappointed a lot of people). Putting out an LP in 2013 would mean they'd have released two records in 12 years. Not good enough.
Click to expand...

For someone who loves numbers you're terrible at math.
 
They've only put out twelve album in the past thousand years... that's a rate of one album every 83 and a third years. Wow. They're so lazy.
 
The Panther said:
If they don't put out an album this year, I think they can kiss their 'unconditional-love' fanbase goodbye (although NLOTH already disappointed a lot of people). Putting out an LP in 2013 would mean they'd have released two records in 12 years. Not good enough.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep saying this?

NLOTH disappointed YOU. Say it. Own it. But it did NOT disappoint "a lot of people".

Every article I've read recently stated how fans and critics LIKED NLOTH. It may not have been loved like JT or AB, but the way you write it is also incorrect.

Why didn't it sell as well? Heck, why isn't ANYTHING selling as well?

There are maybe 10 albums that are released each year that reach Platinum sales in the U.S. NLOTH was one of them in 2009. Only one or two reach 3x Platinum. Contrast this to 10 years ago where the top selling albums frequently hit 10x Platinum or more. Fast downloads have enabled people to download music so quickly that illegal downloads are now more challenging to catch. And the success of legal downloads, like iTunes, have enabled people to "cherry pick" their music. For example, "Magnificent" is one of U2's best selling singles on iTunes (in the U.S.). It's often in the Top 10 on U2 iTunes downloads (currently at #11). But the song barely broke the Top 80 on the charts. Close behind is "Crazy" at #13. Yet that song didn't chart in the Top 100 at all. The continued success of these songs several years after the album's release proves that people do like the music. But they either bought JUST those songs (and not the album) or were initially turned off from the album by GOYB (the same situation that occurred with "Discotheque" and "Pop"). But to say people were disappointed is incorrect. In fact, most fans feel "Moment of Surrender" is one of U2's all time greatest songs.

As for U2's release schedule:

1984-1990: 7 years, 3 albums (one of which is half-live) and a 4-song EP.

1991-1999: 9 years, 3 U2 albums and one collaborative album and a "Best Of".

2000-2009: 10 years, 3 U2 albums and two "Best Of" albums.

I'm not counting the many other collaborative songs, solo efforts, spin-offs, non-album singles, etc. U2 did during this time.

You can see what U2's basic trend is - they have been rather slow at recording for most of their careers. The only true quick output was early on - and that's for obvious reasons.

I understand your anxiety. But with a group as huge as U2, sometimes they do need to "disappear" for a while. That absence makes the heart grow fonder. Too much U2 and people get tired and bored and this leads to backlash. With U2 constantly being in the news due to the tour, "Spider-Man" and Bono's various charity efforts (and corresponding tax payments), I think a little less U2 was what the world needed.

If they can release an album either late this year or next year, the timing should be perfect.
 
Niceman said:
Wouldn't it be funny if the next REM album comes out before the next U2?
Click to expand...

not really...


The Panther said:
Yeah, that's IF they put one out next year.

It's a bit sad when "3 in 9" starts sounding positive. It takes Prince about a month to write, record, produce and mix an album...
Click to expand...

Prince doesn't put out 12 albums per year though...:wink:


BVS said:
For someone who loves numbers you're terrible at math.
Click to expand...

But he does have fantastic nipples :sexywink:
 
doctorwho said:
As for U2's release schedule:

1984-1990: 7 years, 3 albums (one of which is half-live) and a 4-song EP.

1991-1999: 9 years, 3 U2 albums and one collaborative album and a "Best Of".

2000-2009: 10 years, 3 U2 albums and two "Best Of" albums.

I'm not counting the many other collaborative songs, solo efforts, spin-offs, non-album singles, etc. U2 did during this time.

You can see what U2's basic trend is - they have been rather slow at recording for most of their careers. The only true quick output was early on - and that's for obvious reasons.

I understand your anxiety. But with a group as huge as U2, sometimes they do need to "disappear" for a while. That absence makes the heart grow fonder. Too much U2 and people get tired and bored and this leads to backlash. With U2 constantly being in the news due to the tour, "Spider-Man" and Bono's various charity efforts (and corresponding tax payments), I think a little less U2 was what the world needed.

If they can release an album either late this year or next year, the timing should be perfect.
Click to expand...

I guess there's a lot of ways you can look at the math.

From 1980-1984 they had Boy, October, War, Under a Blood Red Sky, and The Unforgettable Fire.

Then they had a long 3 year gap until Joshua Tree. But it WAS The Joshua Tree!

1987: JT
1988: R&H
1991: AB
1993: Zooropa
1995: Passengers
1997: Pop

Really, after JT they got into essentially an album every other year groove.

(No, I don't acknowledge Best Ofs. There were no new songs on the 1980-1990 and 2 on the 1990-200. Those are less than movie soundtracks.)

Then, it was the 00s when things slowed right down.

00: ATYCLB (3 years)
04: HTDAAB (4 years)
09: NLOTH (5 years.)

3 years, then 4 years, then 5 years. We're at 3 years now, which based on the last couple of albums isn't so long, except they keep talking about being about to release an album. They said we would have a second one in 2009, then 2010, then 2011. I think the wait would have been a lot easier if they didn't keep suggesting a new album was coming. (Or that 3 were coming!)
 
BVS said:
For someone who loves numbers you're terrible at math.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not.

I said that if they don't put out an album until 2013, they'll have released two albums in 12 years. Now, let's break that down:

(1) 2001 - no album
(2) 2002 - no album
(3) 2003 - no album
(4) 2004 - HTDAAB
(5) 2005 - no album
(6) 2006 - no album
(7) 2007 - no album
(8) 2008 - no album
(9) 2009 - NLOTH
(10) 2010 - no album
(11) 2011 - no album
(12) 2012 - no album

And there you have it. Two albums in 12 years.


The specifics of the math was not really the point, but you still managed to look foolish by making a big deal out of it. Good job, as usual.
 
If U2 doesn't release an album this year, do they think we're just supposed to forget all that stuff they said about having a bunch of material?
 
doctorwho said:
Why do you keep saying this?

NLOTH disappointed YOU. Say it. Own it. But it did NOT disappoint "a lot of people".

Every article I've read recently stated how fans and critics LIKED NLOTH. It may not have been loved like JT or AB, but the way you write it is also incorrect.

Why didn't it sell as well? Heck, why isn't ANYTHING selling as well?

There are maybe 10 albums that are released each year that reach Platinum sales in the U.S. NLOTH was one of them in 2009. Only one or two reach 3x Platinum. Contrast this to 10 years ago where the top selling albums frequently hit 10x Platinum or more. Fast downloads have enabled people to download music so quickly that illegal downloads are now more challenging to catch. And the success of legal downloads, like iTunes, have enabled people to "cherry pick" their music. For example, "Magnificent" is one of U2's best selling singles on iTunes (in the U.S.). It's often in the Top 10 on U2 iTunes downloads (currently at #11). But the song barely broke the Top 80 on the charts. Close behind is "Crazy" at #13. Yet that song didn't chart in the Top 100 at all. The continued success of these songs several years after the album's release proves that people do like the music. But they either bought JUST those songs (and not the album) or were initially turned off from the album by GOYB (the same situation that occurred with "Discotheque" and "Pop"). But to say people were disappointed is incorrect. In fact, most fans feel "Moment of Surrender" is one of U2's all time greatest songs.

As for U2's release schedule:

1984-1990: 7 years, 3 albums (one of which is half-live) and a 4-song EP.

1991-1999: 9 years, 3 U2 albums and one collaborative album and a "Best Of".

2000-2009: 10 years, 3 U2 albums and two "Best Of" albums.

I'm not counting the many other collaborative songs, solo efforts, spin-offs, non-album singles, etc. U2 did during this time.

You can see what U2's basic trend is - they have been rather slow at recording for most of their careers. The only true quick output was early on - and that's for obvious reasons.

I understand your anxiety. But with a group as huge as U2, sometimes they do need to "disappear" for a while. That absence makes the heart grow fonder. Too much U2 and people get tired and bored and this leads to backlash. With U2 constantly being in the news due to the tour, "Spider-Man" and Bono's various charity efforts (and corresponding tax payments), I think a little less U2 was what the world needed.

If they can release an album either late this year or next year, the timing should be perfect.
Click to expand...

Preach it brother!!!! Let's all just drop the silly math games though, proper albums not so many, but lots of one offs in that time including some Spider Man songs, unreleased material during 360 so I would say they have been trying and we probably would have had an album if not for Bono's bad back in 2010!!! I'd say 2013 is reasonable and I personally love most of the songs off NLOTH, if they would have just stuck to their original ideas and tried to not make it so commercial, it would have been brilliant (tracks like Winter, Soon added, EBW, got rid of SUC, IGCIIDGCT, etc.), but maybe we'll get SOA one day and all will be forgiven!! Need to go listen to FEZ right now and Cedars, great tracks and MOS IS AWESOME!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
292
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
prbiker15
U2:UV Boxscore Discussion
Replies
20
Views
1K
DeVaul
DeVaul
Registered Dude
  • Locked
Songs of _________________; New album discussion #7
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
53K
U2387
U2387
K
U2 Show Logistics Question/Theories
Replies
7
Views
753
lazarus
lazarus
Scorpionac
Songs that would fit better on SOI vs. SOE?
Replies
1
Views
412
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom