Would You Rather Have The New Album...

[BigMacPhisto]

...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

 

[Drowningman]

I'd rather get the 3 albums in a row.

They aren't getting any younger !!

I'm a die hard U2 fan but I have a feeling that we will never again see another "classic" U2 album. Something that approaches Achtung Baby or Joshua Tree.

Just look at the last 3 albums. I think we should expect more of the same.

And you said it best, 3 new albums would have enough great songs that you could create your own "mix tape" classic album.

plus, if they got sidetracked again like they are currently with this Spiderman fiasco then who knows when you'd get another album. So I'd rather get 3 albums in a row in one year.

 

[U2girl]

How about a great album in less than four years ?

I'd rather have a great album, even if it means waiting longer.

 

[corianderstem]

...be a U2 classic on par with their greatest works, but have to wait another four years for it

That, but only if it were guaranteed that it would actually come out and not delayed due to cold feet or other projects.

 

[Marien]

The more they write, the more likely they get great songs, so I would say: seven albums in the next two years, then before publishing them, they should get the best 11 songs into an album and achieve a masterpiece. They can use the rest for B-sides, soundtracks, dance remixes and gifts for the fans.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

A. "Lots of Hits"
B. "Maybe.....We'll See"
C. Pie
D. All of the Above

 

[JoRu]

A. "Lots of Hits"
B. "Maybe.....We'll See"
C. Pie
D. All of the Above

I'll have that pie, thank you.

 

[lemonfly]

If you're talking about three albums in the next year like HTDAAB, then no way in hell. If you mean three albums in the next year like POP then definitely YES.

 

[iota]

None of the above. The choice offered assumes that the more time they spend on a project, the better it gets. I'll take stuff they spend LESS time overcooking; it will be a much better album than anything they spend more time on.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

A. "Lots of Hits"
B. "Maybe.....We'll See"
C. Pie
D. All of the Above

They should name the new album "Punch and Pie"

 

[Danny Boy]

None of the above. The choice offered assumes that the more time they spend on a project, the better it gets. I'll take stuff they spend LESS time overcooking; it will be a much better album than anything they spend more time on.

This.

 

[mikal]

i would just like something that feels authentic, not like their 2000's work where i truly felt that they were trying to make huge hits. interesting that their insecurities came out later in age. but yeah, if i had one wish, it would be for us to get 1 more U2 album that truly feels like it doesn't have any alternative motives. they're at their best when their albums feel personal.

 

[nirniva]

Though I might actually pick "wait four years for a masterpiece" (there's always enough good music coming out that I'd be able to get by), I shudder to think what would become of WTAHNN after four years of "maybe...we'll see".

 

[dan_smee]

Good question.

I am leaning towards 3 albums. People do complain about U2's worst albums here, but at the end fo the day, I love U2's worst albums more than the best albums from most other bands. I want to see them be productive in the twilight of their careers. We are generally critical of U2's work when compared to itself, rather than in a broader music context.

So, 3 albums in a row please. Get them out quickly, and I'm sure if there are haters, they can then make a compilation of the best tunes from each and satisfy the other option

 

[chocky]

I can't believe U2 will ever create another Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby.

The rest of U2's albums pretty much rank equally with me. They each have weaker tracks but they're outweighted by great tracks - my mood generally determines which one I put on.

So if I got 3 albums that equalled October, Zooropa & HTDAAB (for instance) instead of one AB or JT, I'd be quite happy.

 

[chocky]

An interesting analogy/comparison might be Bruce Springsteen.

Like U2 his best albums came in the first decade or so (Born to Run, River, Born in the USA). He did some pretty good stuff through the late 1980's & 1990's, then he hit his 50's and released 5 albums in 7 years from 2002-2009. Not brilliant albums, but good for an artist at that point in his career.

But then in 2010 he released The Darkness which was sitting on the shelves for 30 years, and it was arguably his best "new" album since 1984.

I'd be quite happy for U2 to "do a Springsteen", release 5 pretty good albums over the next 7 years then open the vaults with some unreleased vintage recordings

 

[corianderstem]

As long as we don't get U2's version of Human Touch, I could live with that.

 

[DoctorGonzo]

I'm still waiting for the U2 version of "Invisible Touch".

 

[purpleoscar]

They should release two albums that each have a distinctive sound that adds to what they've done before. They should not imitate prior albums. U2 is about variety or as Bono puts it "all the colours of the rainbow".

 

[Niceman]

Yeah, I agree with those who say that U2 releasing albums quickly is likely to make the music sound more organic. NLOTH was great. ATYCLB was mostly crap. HTDAAB was a collection of really good songs, all badly recorded.... but that's just not enough for 10 years. I'm willing to bet on the boys. The material would be good if the quantity was there.

 

[Rob33]

Yeah, I agree with those who say that U2 releasing albums quickly is likely to make the music sound more organic. NLOTH was great. ATYCLB was mostly crap. HTDAAB was a collection of really good songs, all badly recorded.... but that's just not enough for 10 years. I'm willing to bet on the boys. The material would be good if the quantity was there.

"ATYCLB was mostly crap"

Niceman, you are insane.

This question is too vague...like some have already said, it depends on what "weaker" album the three albums are on par with.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

An interesting analogy/comparison might be Bruce Springsteen.

Like U2 his best albums came in the first decade or so (Born to Run, River, Born in the USA). He did some pretty good stuff through the late 1980's & 1990's, then he hit his 50's and released 5 albums in 7 years from 2002-2009. Not brilliant albums, but good for an artist at that point in his career.

But then in 2010 he released The Darkness which was sitting on the shelves for 30 years, and it was arguably his best "new" album since 1984.

I'd be quite happy for U2 to "do a Springsteen", release 5 pretty good albums over the next 7 years then open the vaults with some unreleased vintage recordings

i'd be much happier if they copy springsteen's live approach...

 

[arzcrack]

"ATYCLB was mostly crap"

Niceman, you are insane.
.

What he said.

"NLOTH was great"

You are doubly insane.

 

[Steved1998]

If you're talking about three albums in the next year like HTDAAB, then no way in hell. If you mean three albums in the next year like POP then definitely YES.

I don't get all the Bomb hate around here. There are some shitty songs on it i.e. Yahweh, ABOY, but it isn't that bad of an album and it certainly isn't the piece of shit everyone on here makes it out to be. Every U2 album aside from Acthung Baby has a song or two I skip over. To me Bomb was a natural progression of what they did on ATYCLB. I think their undisputed masterpiece is Vertigo, a song so catchy, most people probably don't listen to the lyrics. But they should, because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity, and the importance of trends, it's also a personal statement about the band itself.

 

[super fly guy]

I don't get all the Bomb hate around here. There are some shitty songs on it i.e. Yahweh, ABOY, but it isn't that bad of an album and it certainly isn't the piece of shit everyone on here makes it out to be. Every U2 album aside from Acthung Baby has a song or two I skip over. To me Bomb was a natural progression of what they did on ATYCLB. I think their undisputed masterpiece is Vertigo, a song so catchy, most people probably don't listen to the lyrics. But they should, because it's not just about the pleasures of conformity, and the importance of trends, it's also a personal statement about the band itself.

Have you been watching american psycho by any chance?!

 

[ozeeko]

I'm know Bono's behavior can be...ERRATIC!...

 

[corianderstem]

 

[dabiggestu2fan]

I'de be happy with 3 albums. I am sure there would be some GREAT music in there with so many songs! But we will never see three albums in a row. Most of those albums U2 is talking about, SOA, Club album, DM album etc will probably be shelved and will never see the light of day, not even in B-sides as it appears! That is a shame. But I will be happy if they actually release just the one DM album in May.

 

[Steved1998]

I only come into these forums for your animated gifs now

 

[nielsgov]

I'd go for the three albums. I think they would have more great songs put together than one great album. So yes, I still have confidence in U2.