How many albums will U2 do?

[Jarvio]

U2 have so far had 13 studio albums (14 if you count Passengers, but apparently, it doesn't count). And then there's EPs, live albums, and compilations, which don't count either.

REM ended their career on 15 albums.... Do you think U2 might do the same?

PS - I am not in any way saying they should end any time soon. I am just merely asking what people think may happen in the future.

 

[Oregoropa]

Songs of Experience, 2 more studio albums after that

 

[Kieran McConville]

Larry told me they're going to do exactly 21. Exactly 21.

 

[prbiker15]

I think they'll do SoE and one more album after that.

 

[kingofsorrow]

2

 

[RoKKeR]

I see them doing 2-3 more, including SoE.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

It depends on how long this next one takes to come out.

If they really can put it out next year, than another 1-2 albums after Experience isn't out of the question.

If it's another 4 years before we get a new one, than I there's a much better shot at the next one being the last or possibly second to last.

So 2-3 if experience comes out soon. 1-2 if it doesn't.

So yea... 2, give or take

 

[popacrobat]

Click clack

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

It also wouldn't stun me if, when they go to finish this album, and it spirals out of control in typical U2 fashion, that they end up releasing a couple of new tracks on a best of, tour based off of that, and never actually release a full new album again.

So basically I think their entire future depends on them being able to get this next one out in a short time frame.

 

[Hollow Island]

If, like they've suggested, they stop trying to make Earth shattering pop hits and just making good music (and not touring for two years per album) I could see them making four or five more records.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I don't see anyway they don't keep touring. I could see them doing shorter tours focused on select markets, but releasing albums without touring at all? Nah

 

[mama cass]

omg am i the only one who is going to post "why all the stoopid questions?"

 

[U2girl]

They'll easily pass REM's 15 mark. The better question is how many tours we've left.

 

[david]

Depends on how often God walks into the room.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Mack_Again]

I have a weird feeling that SOE can be the last album. Im just saying.

 

[An Cat Gav]

I think it will be SoE and one more after that.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

They clearly have another dozen albums, guys.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

As long as they realize the future doesn't need a big kiss, a reach around will do fine. Thank You.

 

[jphelmet]

Soe and then songs of ascent and they are done.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using U2 Interference mobile app

 

[The Panther]

I don't follow U2 very much these days, but I am honestly shocked that they are still obsessively trying to keep up with the (younger) Joneses.

U2 are so weird... Every other long-term, 'big' artist achieved and accepted dinosaur status reluctantly or gradually, but everyone accepted it earlier than they do. Elvis entered dinosaur status by age 30... Three of The Beatles by age 35 or so... Led Zep's drummer died, saving them from having to face MTV... most 60s' survivors gave up and became relics in the 80s when they were 40... R.E.M. held out longer than most, but even they gave up trying to follow industry trends by their early 40s, at latest. U2 are now only a decade from being senior-citizens and they're still trying to lead the charge in the industry, set trends, and keep up with the latest pop fads.

I admire their boundless energy, but I think how many records they will eventually produce will depend partly on how long this energy can hold out. Once they give up the group-facade thing (e.g., once Larry gets frustrated one too many times and calls bullshit on the whole thing) and/or once they give-up trying to top the chart and tour like they were 21, then the 6-year-cycle of endless waits for albums and long tours will be broken. That will free them up to write and record at will, the way artists their age should.

On the other hand, if their energy and team-play continues into their 60s, then we're only going to get a new album every seven years, which means one more album before their bus-pass years, and maybe another after that.

Since I'm not arsed about U2 playing live and have no interest in seeing their touring spectacle, I guess I personally hope they have a major blow-up in the ranks and the whole 'mega-band' thing which was old in 1997 will finally be pensioned-off. Then, we might get a new album every year or two.

 

[Gonna Run 2 U]

I'm one who would rather more albums at this point and less touring. A lot of people on this forum seem to live for tours.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[gweeps]

I think it will be SoE and one more after that.

Songs of Ascent!

Since they're in their mid-50s now, if they release SoE next year, then tour some more, they'll be in their late-50s by the time it ends. Then another 4-5 years before a new album. 2 years of touring. Mid-60s.

 

[Jarvio]

15 albums would be a beautiful way of going out.

But then again, I do have severe OCD.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Obsessive Compulsive Band Has To Punch Producer Exactly 21 Times

 

[lemonfly]

Ten more and then they should call it a day

 

[Galeongirl]

None, they're done.

 

[gvox]

Once they give up the group-facade thing (e.g., once Larry gets frustrated one too many times and calls bullshit on the whole thing) and/or once they give-up trying to top the chart and tour like they were 21, then the 6-year-cycle of endless waits for albums and long tours will be broken. That will free them up to write and record at will, the way artists their age should.

On the other hand, if their energy and team-play continues into their 60s, then we're only going to get a new album every seven years, which means one more album before their bus-pass years, and maybe another after that.

Since I'm not arsed about U2 playing live and have no interest in seeing their touring spectacle, I guess I personally hope they have a major blow-up in the ranks and the whole 'mega-band' thing which was old in 1997 will finally be pensioned-off.

 

[Gonna Run 2 U]

Edit

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[U2Larry54]

U2 have so far had 13 studio albums (14 if you count Passengers, but apparently, it doesn't count). And then there's EPs, live albums, and compilations, which don't count either.

REM ended their career on 15 albums.... Do you think U2 might do the same?

PS - I am not in any way saying they should end any time soon. I am just merely asking what people think may happen in the future.

Well, we know we will be getting "Songs Of Experience" and "Songs Of Ascent" as albums. That would make it 15.

I'd say there is a small chance they would end it there, but I think its highly unlikely. They love what they do and they love working and playing live together. Why stop?

I'm thinking will get 3 more albums from them in the 20s which will take them to 18 total. They will continue into their 70s and work on two more albums to finish out at 20. Although done with recording, they will probably continue to tour all though at a much more relaxed pace.

 

[Galeongirl]

Why are we suddenly having SOA as an album when it was cancelled in 2010?? Did I miss a new update or something?