If given a choice, what would you prefer on the new album ?

[U2girl]

a) Double album and go all the way

b) Stick to the 11,12 song album formula and make some great B-sides

c) Release the "first" album in 2009, but make an EP or a quick follow-up by 2010 or 2011

 

[MikeyJB]

I'm in 2 minds over whether id prefer a) or c). If this were to be U2's final studio album then I'd have to say a double album and hopefully it would become a classic - a fitting end to their career. However, if they aren't ready to call it a day after that, then probably c). Its been too long, they need to 'surprise' their fans and get new material out fast after the new album.

As for b), no one really cares about b-sides anymore since noone buys traditional singles.

 

[LemonMelon]

I'll go with C.

 

[Utoo]

C

A double album is guaranteed to have some flubs on it. Those same songs, however, may come off as great B-sides, as they're held to a different standard than album tracks. The same songs released as an EP would be acceptable, as well, as an EP a few months after an album is released is pretty much seen as a bonus.

 

[No spoken words]

Pepperoni.

 

[achtung_girl]

a) Double album and go all the way

b) Stick to the 11,12 song album formula and make some great B-sides

c) Release the "first" album in 2009, but make an EP or a quick follow-up by 2010 or 2011

 

[Screwtape2]

C. The Coldplay method.

 

[SamuelSmeloc]

C. The Coldplay method.

Then they will say U2 is ripping off Coldplay...

 

[indra]

You don't want then to release anything?

 

[StaySafeTonight]

Double Album! They have took the longest time they ever have to make an album on this album. In that time they could easily have 20-30 well written, well established songs. I believe the only reason double albums sometimes have flubs is because they are made within the time a normal length album is made.

They better ethier have 12 amazing songs or 25 great ones!

 

[purpleoscar]

I want a Daniel Lanois method. Send out a solid classic album and then a Passengers sequel a few months afterwards.

 

[Axver]

B or C. Preferably C.

There is no such thing as a good double album. Quality over quantity, people.

 

[mandrake]

I'd like to hear a double album...only if it had some concept or theme behind it. That is a lot of music if were just a collection of songs with no running idea behind it.

 

[Moser]

I prefer another Paramount movie.

 

[Gonna Run 2 U]

D) 11-12 track album with a Bonus DVD of them in the studio writing and jamming for the album plus unreleased songs that may or may not become anything (kind of like the unforgettable fire documentary but with loads more of stuff). Then Zooropa 2 in the summer.

I would be happy with that as an end to a career.

 

[paco_one]

A, double album.

 

[Clawgrabber]

DOUBLE ALBUM
DOUBLE ALBUM
DOUBLE ALBUM

they need a game changer. they already have plenty of 11 track albums. I wand an epic. Most other classic rock bands have a double. U2 needs one in the discography too.

 

[Irishteen]

C

Two albums in the space of a year would just be pure joy (if they were good)

 

[Vlad n U 2]

I like all of the options, I would love if they did any one of them.

 

[Cin]

C.

followed by a looong tour of Australia. . . .

 

[luna_lovegood]

C.

followed by a looong tour of Australia. . . .

Double album would be great if it wasn't just a double album for the sake of it. It would be easy to clog it up with fillers.

Single album with good B-sides is also great - it's worked every other time, and we've got some great B-sides out of it.

And a couple of EP post album release always feels more exciting even if you get the same amount of music in the end as the other two options.

Don't care. just as long as it happens soon. They've had over 4 years.

 

[sony]

c) Release the "first" album in 2009, but make an EP or a quick follow-up by 2010 or 2011

 

[U2girl]

I thought c) too but I'm not sure they'd release a follow up so quickly. So I say a) or die trying.

 

[vaz02]

c) Release the "first" album in 2009, but make an EP or a quick follow-up by 2010 or 2011

I dont like the idea of a double

 

[Aygo]

Don't like double albums.

I'll choose C.1)

Release a 12 track album early 2009 and in the middle of the tour surprise us with a little 9 track album.

 

[gareth brown]

to be fair Rattle and Hum was a double album so I don't know why everyone's talking like it's never happened. The CD version just isn't touted like those really cheap-ass reissues that say "DOUBLE ALBUM ON A SINGLE DISC!!!!" i hate those. I like the album split in two and my big fat juicy double LP rattle and hum has a hallowed spot on my shelf
BUT i accept though that the CD was slowly becoming the standard format so it's fair to say that the CD version is the standard version and Pop's not exactly called a double album as standard even though the LP was split over 2 discs.

ANYWAY - I'd like them to just release a fucking album to be honest. If they've really got shit tons of songs then fine. As long as it's quality over quantity. If it's a double album of totally brand new direction U2 instead of a double helping of the last two albums then great. As long as it's not DISC ONE - ALL OUT ROCK. DISC TWO - MELLOW AFRICAN INFLUENCED CABARET SHUFFLE JAZZ ACOUSTIC. ....hmmm

anyway i'll stop talking now - if it's a single album then they'll do well to get another one out maybe even MONTHS later. I know Zooropa grew out of an EP but it still took 2 years nearly.

 

[intedomine]

All 3 would be nice....

Probably the more traditional B method would be my preference

If they go with C U2'll just be copying Coldplay like they usually do.

 

[PookaMacP]

c) Release the "first" album in 2009, but make an EP or a quick follow-up by 2010 or 2011

I dont like the idea of a double

I'm with you on this one so I'm plumping for Option 'c'.

 

[macawaca]

E) Release two albums about 2 weeks apart - you could have both the U2 albums battling it out for number 1 spot across the world. The 2 albums could be the complete opposites of each other, and would be a great artistic move, assuming of course that quality is not compromised! (or maybe even release them on the same day!! - would cost me a fortune though!!!) Have any other big bands done something like this before when they were at or near the height of their popularity?

 

[Niceman]

It's time for U2's White Album. So - A.

But I'd like B and C too.... 60 songs is a lot... Let's say 24 for NLOTH. Another 9 for real B-sides. That still leaves 27 songs to play with!!!!!!!!

Maybe we need two double albums????? LOL!