U2's Last Album?

[bathiu]

Three of those songs are alternate versions of songs you listed. Two of those songs are covers. Two of those songs are just early versions of songs you listed. Five of those songs were written in the 80's. One of those songs was not even written by the band. That leaves just 19 songs. That's not impressive at all.

1st of all, I only listed songs that are new to us, no matter when originaly written, and really, those alternative mixes (maybe not Yahweh) are almost totaly different songs.
2nd of all, even with 19 songs you have an 11 song LP and a really strong EP (almost a second album, actualy, like Zooropa), that's very good for any band, impressive for U2

 

[lov12113]

The ringing chimes (bells?) in one of the recent U2.com videos (where Bono refers to them as ghosts and motorcycles) made me think that perhaps those chimes will be included in the new album as a throwback to Boy. Perhaps this is the last album and they want to add a flavor of Boy into the mix? (Hopefully my guess is wrong).

 

[babyman]

I don't think they have any purpose of retirement yet. Though it could be realistic that there would be just another shot in 4-5 years, and then we'll see what happens. But my feeling is that they have still thirst of being around. To many of you here: NEVER THINK THAT PASSING 50'S MEANS YOU'RE OLD FOR MUSIC AND THAT YOU MUST QUIT! (except when it's for personal reasons) you're in the right mature wave instead, where you have seen and done so much things that are capable to make you discover new things........a musician, or better, an ARTIST, never gets tired of creating, of his passion. That's the true artist............look at Bruce Springsteen, just to mention one name, the man turns almost 60...........Bono is neither 50 yet............

 

[Screwtape2]

I don't think they have any purpose of retirement yet. Though it could be realistic that there would be just another shot in 4-5 years, and then we'll see what happens. But my feeling is that they have still thirst of being around. To many of you here: NEVER THINK THAT PASSING 50'S MEANS YOU'RE OLD FOR MUSIC AND THAT YOU MUST QUIT! (except when it's for personal reasons) you're in the right mature wave instead, where you have seen and done so much things that are capable to make you discover new things........a musician, or better, an ARTIST, never gets tired of creating, of his passion. That's the true artist............look at Bruce Springsteen, just to mention one name, the man turns almost 60...........Bono is neither 50 yet............

You have to understand that being a solo artist at 50 is very different from being in a band at 50.

 

[babyman]

You have to understand that being a solo artist at 50 is very different from being in a band at 50.

Not at all, it has nothing to do with that............go and ask it to a couple of people called:

Deep Purple
Aerosmith
Toto
Foreigner
Scorpions
....

Maybe they're not in the charts, but they're still around
You know, the list would go on and on and on.............

 

[digitize]

There's also that little band called The Rolling Stones... they're as old as dirt, and, last I checked, they still have a bit of popularity... as is evidenced by their ability to sell out stadiums across the world year after year...

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

There's also that little band called The Rolling Stones... they're as old as dirt, and, last I checked, they still have a bit of popularity... as is evidenced by their ability to sell out stadiums across the world year after year...

exactly.. the stones are still around. And still going strong from what I can see. I think to speculate this is ridiculous but hey we have our opinions..

I see them going on playing live and making albums for years to come.. call me crazy but I think it could happen.. All the lads are in good health and certainly didn't abuse drugs and alcohol like the stones did. I'd say chances are good for more great stuff.. This coming from a jaded u2 fan of 21 yrs.

 

[Screwtape2]

Not at all, it has nothing to do with that............go and ask it to a couple of people called:

Deep Purple
Aerosmith
Toto
Foreigner
Scorpions
....

Maybe they're not in the charts, but they're still around
You know, the list would go on and on and on.............

The difference is that U2 is in another league. They and their fans expect more than most other bands do. Plus they are and always will be Adam, Larry, Edge and Bono. They can never lose a member and never gain a member. They all have different interests on top of that. They have to balance out time with family and friends.

A solo artist can work at their own pace not having to rely on others.

 

[Dusty Bottoms]

whatever, toto rocks man

 

[Chill Mike D]

Listen to their version of Africa

 

[last unicorn]

The difference is that U2 is in another league. They and their fans expect more than most other bands do. Plus they are and always will be Adam, Larry, Edge and Bono. They can never lose a member and never gain a member. They all have different interests on top of that. They have to balance out time with family and friends.

A solo artist can work at their own pace not having to rely on others.

I agree, U2 are unique, they are still the same people they were in 1976, and I really believe it's much more difficult for a band when they get older than for a solo artist, because every member must have the will and conviction to carry on after 30+ years. If you're a solo artist, it basically depends on you alone.

 

[babyman]

whatever, toto rocks man

agree............, don't you've seen who my avatar is?.........................

 

[babyman]

A solo artist can work at their own pace not having to rely on others.

I actually wouldn't listen to the same Bruce Springsteen without Max Weinberg or Little Steven...................even when you're solo artist, you always rely to your "truly" musicians.............