Post-NLOTH album partially/totally complete? / Two Albums?

[U2NativeSon]

It would be epic if they released another Passengers album.

that would be cool , OST 2

 

[FredReis]

Even if I really want to hear more new songs before the end of the year, IMO release another record will tottaly bomb the strategy for NLOTH, and even worse, a lot of crap talk will take place, telling that U2 are following Coldplay steps.

If it's a Passengers type of album, that's OK (what would be the name of the band now with Eno and Lanois on board ? I would guess 'The Crew"... hahah), but don't put the U2 mark on an album release 10 months after NLOTH.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

I'd be happy if I don't have to wait 5 years for the next, less than a year would be an extreme bonus.

 

[ZOOTVTOURist]

I'd be happy if I don't have to wait 5 years for the next, less than a year would be an extreme bonus.

And, yes, there are some great "medidative" tunes out there – just like "every Breaking Wave" or, do not forget, "Mercy"
So, an album with those tunes in late 2009, would enrich the next live round in 2010 as fresh material to play, too.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

I want it to be meditative and experimental, I don't want an album full boring ambient songs.

 

[Popmart Shopper]

I would say maybe something like this

2009-NLOTH and Spiderman Musical
2010-New Album(Fall)

 

[Niceman]

I would say maybe something like this

2009-NLOTH and Spiderman Musical
2010-New Album(Fall)

That's the thing. I can imagine 2 albums in the same year, but not 3. 2010 for the follow-up to NLOTH. Spiderman is our fall 2009 U2 release.

 

[Popmart Shopper]

That's the thing. I can imagine 2 albums in the same year, but not 3. 2010 for the follow-up to NLOTH. Spiderman is our fall 2009 U2 release.

Well NLOTH is done(I Think LOL),and you figure there was already an official announcement about Spiderman the musical soundtrack being released in Fall 2009.So with the tour starting June 2009 and probably lasting at least a year to summer 2010,even with U2 possibly just playing weekend nights Fri Sat Sun the band would still need some more time to select and polish up tracks for that follow up record.Also given that their is alot of unreleased tracks or ideas from the NLOTH sessions 50 or 60 songs could also mean some of the tracks were different versions of the same songs like GOYB or NLOTH.With that being said though I am pretty sure we wont have to wait 4-5 years for next album,thats why I say Fall 2010.

 

[PowerSurge]

I would say maybe something like this

2009-NLOTH and Spiderman Musical
2010-New Album(Fall)

Yeah, I don't understand why they would want to force another album to hit the market within 7-9 months of the release of what they believe is potentially their best album. Wouldn't they want to let this one run its course before tossing out a new one? Don't get me wrong, I welcome all new U2 music...but when you set your own fanaticism aside and look at what they are talking about doing, it kind of seems rushed.

 

[Morgoth321]

This thread makes me laugh every time I see it. I've seen it several times before: right around the time of the ALTYLB release and again right around the time of the HTDAAB release. It didn't come true then and it won't come true this time around.

I'm inclined to agree with you there, because I remember reading a Bono interview in Q in late 2005 / early 2006 where he stated openly that U2 would release another album in 2006 (or before the end of the Vertigo tour, something like that). I got excited then but it didn't happen, so I'm not going to get excited now. If another bandmember says that they'll release another album this year, then I'll take it more seriously, but if it's only Bono? I'll not hold my breath!

I think that Bono gets enthused by being on tour, to the point where he wants to get into the studio and throw music together quickly. Since they're all older now and three of the band have families etc, they aren't able to socialise as much as when they could years ago, so some of the old togetherness has understandably been lost. I think that, for Bono anyway, a vestige of this seems to return on tour and it's this potential and energy that he'd love to channel into making new music soon after releasing an album. Unfortunately the rest of the band don't seem to share his feelings, and he seems to forget that U2 just don't seem able to make albums quickly. (Why should they? Is it a bad thing that it takes them years to come up with new material they consider releasable? A topic for another debate, surely.)

Much has been made of the comment about 50/60 songs being written, but again, this was from Bono. In any case, how complete were these? How many were just fragmentary ideas that were either cast aside or amalgamated into other songs? If U2 have something approaching 45mins-55mins of actual songs that were finished / near-complete, then they could release another album this year - IF they consider that this material meets their quality control standards. But if the 50/60 songs were ruthlessly boiled down to the NLOTH album and (hopefully) some offcuts intended as B-sides / iTunes exclusives, then I can't see another album appearing anytime soon.

 

[phommel]

what U2 should do is withdraw from this Spiderman project.

come on they are in a rock and roll band. How UNCOOL and MAINSTREAM to get involved in a broadway musical....?

 

[powerhour24]

This thread makes me laugh every time I see it. I've seen it several times before: right around the time of the ALTYLB release and again right around the time of the HTDAAB release. It didn't come true then and it won't come true this time around.

I'm inclined to agree with you there, because I remember reading a Bono interview in Q in late 2005 / early 2006 where he stated openly that U2 would release another album in 2006 (or before the end of the Vertigo tour, something like that). I got excited then but it didn't happen, so I'm not going to get excited now. If another bandmember says that they'll release another album this year, then I'll take it more seriously, but if it's only Bono? I'll not hold my breath!

I think that Bono gets enthused by being on tour, to the point where he wants to get into the studio and throw music together quickly. Since they're all older now and three of the band have families etc, they aren't able to socialise as much as when they could years ago, so some of the old togetherness has understandably been lost. I think that, for Bono anyway, a vestige of this seems to return on tour and it's this potential and energy that he'd love to channel into making new music soon after releasing an album. Unfortunately the rest of the band don't seem to share his feelings, and he seems to forget that U2 just don't seem able to make albums quickly. (Why should they? Is it a bad thing that it takes them years to come up with new material they consider releasable? A topic for another debate, surely.)

Much has been made of the comment about 50/60 songs being written, but again, this was from Bono. In any case, how complete were these? How many were just fragmentary ideas that were either cast aside or amalgamated into other songs? If U2 have something approaching 45mins-55mins of actual songs that were finished / near-complete, then they could release another album this year - IF they consider that this material meets their quality control standards. But if the 50/60 songs were ruthlessly boiled down to the NLOTH album and (hopefully) some offcuts intended as B-sides / iTunes exclusives, then I can't see another album appearing anytime soon.

Well they did appear to be on their way to a new release during the hiatus of the Vertigo tour, but the Rubin sessions stalled creatively as we all know. These last sessions appeared to have inspired very different types of music, but a lot of it, it doesn't seem like it would take that much to finish another this time. So no matter the quotes we've have about them wanting a quick follow-up in the past, we didn't seem as poised for that to actually come true as we do this time. We'll see though.

Also with the quote about them not releasing material because they risk getting compared to Coldplay, which I'm assuming wasn't a joke, we've officially reached the peak of this ridiculous comparison (its one thing to jokingly say CP is copying U2, but to say U2 is copying them by doing something they and many others had done first is perverse), one I point you to the AB/Zooropa release strategy and two, Prospekt's March features a couple of new songs and some extensions of VLV, that's not an entire album by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[bram]

^ Plus, bands used to release albums in subsequent years or even in the same year quite frequently. Obviously you have this with U2's first 2 and 3-4. Just because they've adopted this "take the world by storm and then disappear for a while" method for the last 10+ years doesn't mean they are incapable of doing an intentionally low(er) key follow-up to NLOTH.

 

[shart1780]

I like single albums better because that way you get two distinct entities, yet the same amount of music. Why is that better? Let's say that we could bend time and U2 packaged UF and JT together as a double album. Great---we've got a killer double album. But the way we currently have it, we have two great albums. That's better, IMO. Or think of it this way: Achtung is fantastic. Zooropa is pretty good, perhaps made even better knowing that it was made halfway through a tour. But now imagine if they'd put Achtung and Zooropa together as a double album----it'd be entirely different. Would it have been just as good? Or would Achtung not be seen as such a masterpiece, because the back half of it (Zooropa) wasn't quite as strong?

All trivial musings, of course. But that's why I prefer single albums.

Your reasoning would make sense if it weren't for the fact that when a band releases a double album the whole thing is meant to flow together and be cohesive. It's not like they record two albums and just plop them together and call it a double album.

 

[powerhour24]

That cycle stems not only from them tinkering and constantly coming up with things up to the last second, but from how involved each of them is in other things. They pour a lot into a release and tour, but have to dedicate time to their families, campaigns and other musical projects.

 

[powerhour24]

Your reasoning would make sense if it weren't for the fact that when a band releases a double album the whole thing is meant to flow together and be cohesive. It's not like they record two albums and just plop them together and call it a double album.

Or they just have way too much material, even if its not that good ala Stadium Arcadium.

 

[shart1780]

Even if I really want to hear more new songs before the end of the year, IMO release another record will tottaly bomb the strategy for NLOTH, and even worse, a lot of crap talk will take place, telling that U2 are following Coldplay steps.

If it's a Passengers type of album, that's OK (what would be the name of the band now with Eno and Lanois on board ? I would guess 'The Crew"... hahah), but don't put the U2 mark on an album release 10 months after NLOTH.

Maybe U2 shouldn't care about any of this stuff and just release music when they feel like it.

 

[u2search]

Maybe the'll start doing that after this one, now that they've made the 'album they really always wanted to make'