Would You Rather Have The New Album...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
By "weaker albums", are we going by general public perception of "weak" or crazy Interference perception? If it's the former, I think I might actually pick that: three albums over the course of one year, each as good as Pop or NLOTH, would be pretty :drool::drool::drool:-worthy.
(Plus, having almost 40 new songs to pick from for the next tour could make for some awesome setlists...)
 
...be a U2 classic on par with their greatest works, but have to wait another four years for it, or have three new albums in the next year that are on par with the band's weaker albums?



Very tricky question. On the one hand, those three albums could have enough U2 classics to equal a whole record of awesomeness, perhaps...on the other hand, we're due for another masterpiece methinks. To get one this late in the game would truly be :love:
I'd easily rather wait 4 years for a classic (ie Joshua Tree/Achtung Baby; no post-1992 crap).
 
I really don't know why people continue to talk about U2 writing another album equal to AB or JT... its never going to happen no matter how long e wait. Stop setting yourselves up for disappoint.
 
I certainly love the boys, but there is no tangible evidence there are 40 songs or 5 songs. They are very much taking time off. We have a break here people. Boo for us, maybe good for them?
 
I think a person's answer to this question is a good measure of how much they care about U2 not just for musical reasons, but for their historical measure.

If you pick the three albums, then you just appreciate U2 for their music and figure even if you get three records equal to October, ATYCLB and UF (my personal bottom three) then man, those are still pretty damn good records.

If you pick the one masterpiece, however, think about what that would do for U2. As the question stated, it would be something on par with Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby --- both a massive popular and critical success that cements U2 as the biggest band in the world. If this were to happen in 2012, that would be unbelievable. A ROCK act of fifty-somethings dominating the charts in today's rap-and-pop music world?! The degree of difficulty for U2 using a phenomenal record to "reclaim the title," so to speak, is infinitely higher in 2012 than it was in 1987 or 1991. If U2 put out such a record, I think people would legitimately consider them the second-greatest band of all time (nobody will outpace the Beatles).

For what it's worth, U2 themselves would definitely take the one masterpiece over three 'lesser' albums.
 
Inspiration

I would certainly go for a 'classic' album over quantity...how many times have I listened to even a masterpiece song like Bad over and over? To make another album with a song like that would be worth the wait, however...are they too safe, successful and secure to come up with something from the soul? Do they have any struggles or emotions to throw down on paper? They need something inspirational to inspire them to write a classic album again, just not sure what that would be...
 
I'd rather wait for another masterpiece with maybe a little something in the middle to tide us over. I have other bands to occupy me in the mean time and U2 is still great and can still give us amazingly inspirational albums. They have a lot left in them! :D Compromise and give us something small in the mean time.
 
Back
Top Bottom