(01-22-2004) Exclusive: More U2 Album News -- Interference.com *

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Headache in a Suitcase,

"The members of U2 didn't have families in their "early history." Plus it's a bit easier to do a show, take care of all the publicity, go out partyin' and come home and write a song when you're 20 as opposed to when you're 40."

I don't buy the family excuse thing because it really only comes into play when they go on tour. The recording is done at home. Oh, and 40 is not old. In fact, I would say a 40 year old would be more likely to get more things done in a day than a 20 year old.

"U2's early history they had to produce albums more quickly. They did not have the luxury of dictating when they wanted to record or taking their time to get something out. Obviously they do now. Also as mentioned, they have families and Bono has his other projects. So there are alot of reasons it takes longer for an album now than it did in 1981. I think its like comparing apples to oranges really. Completely different circumstances back then."

If Bono wants to do things outside the band or not even be in the band anymore, that is up to him. My point is that they are still capable putting out material and touring at the speed they did in the early days, if they wanted to.

In my opinion its crazy when a band takes 5 years to produce 12 songs.

Pearl Jam has averaged 2 years from release to release. It would be nice if U2 could do the same. And Pearl Jam are not just out of highschool either.


Maxwellhouse,

Just for the record, I became a U2 fan in 1987.

I disagree with the idea that Rattle And Hum and ZOOROPA are not albums. The band considers them both to be full lenth studio albums just like Achtung or Joshua. So do I. The 9 Studio tracks on Rattle and Hum are a better studio album than October and longer in total length as well. ZOOROPA was meant to be and EP when there was only 4 or 5 songs, but it become an album when the number of songs doubled. Although they are a minority, there are several U2 fans out there that consider ZOOROPA to be their favorite album.

For me, it still comes back to how long its been since the release of the last album for U2 or any artist, as far as how long the wait is.
 
as long as there not on tour in australia in november 2005, thats when i have my final school exams....althoughi think it wont be till 2006 before they get here, if the tour is Massive
 
THis time table kinda messes with my may 2005 yoga teacher training but Iwill just go wherever they are in april.june i guess.
 
From atu2.com:

Despite the announcement which remains on Universal Italy's web site that U2 will release its new album in May, the latest signs are all pointing to a release later in the year.

Two Italian fan sites, U2star.com and U2place.com have received emails from Universal Italy this week relaying a quote from U2 manager Paul McGuinness that the album will not be out in May, but will instead be out "after the summer." Adding to that, U2 fans who recently spoke with Bono in the U.S. are reporting on various Forums and mailing lists that Bono said the album would be out in September because the band hit a "snag" in the recording.

These reports coincide with tips we've received this week from other sources also suggesting a September release date. As far as tour dates go, the rumors we're hearing are that there might be a brief series of promotional shows or appearances this fall to support the album, but the formal tour wouldn't start until early 2005. Again, these are rumors. We've contacted official sources and are waiting for a response.
 
Rumours circulating on Superherohype.com suggest that the U2 song Sky Hawk will feature in the Paramount's film 'Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow" which will be in theatres this summer.
 
I agree with Headache and others who point out to their families (and all kinds of events in their domestic lives we don't know about...like a house might need repairs in between. surely they'll wait up on things like that) and Bono's cause. Pearl jam and younger bands don't really apply for comparison as they don't have families and their singers don't have "outside" activities like Bono. And IMO yes technically you could count the time between the album releases, but realistically new songs can't be expected at least till the tour. (and they only did it twice with Rattle and Hum and Zooropa)

They're not a young band anymore and there's no need for a rampant 2 year album/tour span as with most of young acts today (it takes time to prepare/rehearse a huge, elaborate tour like theirs - they didn't not have that in the 80s which made it easier to go on tour faster). They don't have to prove anything to anyone, and certainly it isn't written anywhere they should hurry it up just because fans say so - they'll release when they're fully ready. (let's not forget during the long waits we got Passengers album, two best of's and two DVDs, and some new songs)
 
STING2 said:
Pearl Jam has averaged 2 years from release to release. It would be nice if U2 could do the same. And Pearl Jam are not just out of highschool either.

from 1980 to 1991 (11 years) U2 put out 7 studio albums & 2 live EPs

from 1991 to 2002 (11 years) Pearl Jam put out 7 studio albums, 1 live EP and a shit load of "official" bootlegs...

Let's see how quickly they pop out albums in their second decade of existance before you start making that comparison...
 
Well, maybe U2 just take more time doin there stuff. I mean it cant be that easy writng good enough music for their fans to luv. But i would luv it anyway. But it has to be better than the last album so they can get other people liking them too, its not like they dont already have all the fans they need though, lol. Yep:yes:
 
U2 does not have to be a band at all if they don't want to be. But if they are going to be a band, they can release albums and tour in a two year cycle. My point is they are capable of doing this still. For whatever the reason, they choose not to. U2 is my favorite band, but if there was one thing I could list that I don't like, its the long wait between albums that has been experienced over the past 10 years.

If you don't consider waiting nearly four years for a brand new studio album to be to long, what would you consider to be to long to wait for album, understanding of course that they don't have to put out an album at all? 10 years, 20 years?

If your a new fan, and have just been introduced to U2's material over the past 3 years, its probably not an issue because you've been digesting 10 albums and 20 years of music in this small space of time.

For those of us that have been fans since the 1980s though, the desire for brand new material is a little stronger I think.

As far as comparisons, go I would not call Pearl Jam a "young" band. Eddie Vedder turns 40 this year, Bono turns 44 this year. So the bands are essentially the same age. U2 is not the only band that has families. I believe Pearl Jam does to as well, although I'm not precisely sure on this point. The members of Pearl Jam also have activities outside the band.


Now for a comparison I did not think of before, to REM.

1983-2001 REM puts out 12 full length studio albums of original material in an 18 year period. Thats an average of one album every 18 months. REM is the same age as U2 and they have families.
 
WHAT THE FK

I mean common I love U2 but I know it does not take 3 years to record a damn album...... what its one year to think about the songs, one year to record and one year to mix them. This has become a bit outta hand. By the time that U2 gets the new album out im gonna be 50 and im only 21 now. They are by far my fav band but as much as what I think Bono does with Aids and Africa is good and all I think he should be a Musician first and a politician second. Enough with this africa shit and on with the album!!
 
Sting2: well, none of us have to be fans anymore if we don't want to either. I doubt they would, since AB, really want to do an album/tour in a two year span. Whether they could, we will never know I guess. If waiting longer means a better album so be it. (there was waiting between Unforgettable fire and JT too)

The longest wait was 3 years and 8 months (it's long but what can we do? there's longer waits too, Bruce Springsteen's Rising was a huge wait AFAIK) if I'm not mistaken, between Zooropa and POP. But for that there was a HUGE tour, recorded songs in between the tour, released album and continued tour, and Passengers. (maybe POP would have been out sooner if it wasn't for that outside album)

For me, I started following U2 in the news since about POP, I can't say I was really nervous about ATYCLB wait, but this feels longer because I follow things this time and with the internet, rumors don't make it any easier. I listen to bootlegs or other music in between.

Pearl Jam may have families (though most likely not as numerous and their children may be younger, which makes it easier to tour, for example), and their activities do not match Bono's in their scale and time/energy consume I'm sure.

Well, REM does not have as huge tours (all the stage work or lighting equipment) as U2 do, which makes it easier on them. Also they didn't tour their last album if I'm not mistaken (not the Best of, the one before...Reveal). U2 did.

Why do we have to compare them to others anyway? U2 does things their way and other bands to it their way.
 
Last edited:
Re: WHAT THE FK

The_acrobat said:
I mean common I love U2 but I know it does not take 3 years to record a damn album...... what its one year to think about the songs, one year to record and one year to mix them. This has become a bit outta hand. By the time that U2 gets the new album out im gonna be 50 and im only 21 now. They are by far my fav band but as much as what I think Bono does with Aids and Africa is good and all I think he should be a Musician first and a politician second. Enough with this africa shit and on with the album!!

I doubt very much that they view is as '1 year to write/1 year to record/1 year to mix' task. It doesn't work that way.

more importantly 'enough with this africa shit' is a stunningly stupid thing to say.
 
U2girl,

"Sting2: well, none of us have to be fans anymore if we don't want to either."

So should I take it by this you mean that if any fan expresses any form of criticism or difference of opinion with the bands plans, then they are not a fan?

I've been a fan since 1987. I have seen the band 12 times in concert and I have also met the band as well. I think that says enough.

Bruce Springsteen is even worse when it comes to this whole process, but I would say I'm at best a casual fan of his.

The Passengers project was started in June 1995 and the album was released in stores in October/November 1995 meaning the band was finished with it in September. They spent about 3 months on Passengers, not a lot of time. Bands can write and record songs on tour, so I don't see the act of touring as an excuse either.

"Pearl Jam may have families (though most likely not as numerous and their children may be younger, which makes it easier to tour, for example), and their activities do not match Bono's in their scale and time/energy consume I'm sure."

Well, we don't know for sure either way who has the tougher family responsibilities, but I don't think that U2 could simply put their famlies up as an excuse as to why they take longer than Pearl Jam or REM. Also, just because you don't read about Pearl Jam's activities outside the band in the paper does not mean that do not have some time consuming activities. There are a lot of people in this world that do good hard work that is never reported in any magazine or publication.

"Well, REM does not have as huge tours (all the stage work or lighting equipment) as U2 do, which makes it easier on them. Also they didn't tour their last album if I'm not mistaken (not the Best of, the one before...Reveal). U2 did"

REM has tours as big as U2. They may not have Lemons and massive stages, but their tours are the same length roughly. Also, U2 does not carry their entire stage and extra stuff themselves, they have a road crew numbering in the hundreds that complete and take care of all these task for them. The band even have people hired to go out buy them food and put their bags on the bus or Airplane. The point is that it does not cut into U2's time anymore so than REM's tour responsibilities.

U2 played a total of 250 shows in the decade of the 1990s. REM had two tours of their own and my guess is that they played about 75% as many shows as U2. Enough that U2 could not claim that their tour responsibilities were greater to the extent that it prevented the release of another album or two.

For camparison sake as well, U2 played 670 shows in the 1980s.

"Why do we have to compare them to others anyway? U2 does things their way and other bands to it their way."

We don't. We started talking about this because many fans were not happy about the length of time it takes for U2 to put out new material. I think they have the capability to put out albums more frequently and tour more frequently as well. Regardless of what they do, they are still my favorite band. Pearl Jam and REM may do things that are more "fan friendly" but they do not produce music on the whole that is as good as U2 nor are they as good as U2 live. I just wish the band would resume the work pace they had back in the 1980s, thats it. I think they have the capability to do it. Whether they do or not is up to them though.
 
No, I'm saying if it bothers people that much to wait - something we all have been accustomed to over time - they're free to find other favorite bands or get into new music (see mikal's thread in EYKIW), free to not visit or post on this site anymore etc...

And there is a difference in putting out constructive critisicm over the way critisicm is usually done on this forum, like "ATYCLB/POP was crap" (instead of saying "I didn't like it for this and this reason") or "Bono should be a musician first" (he's always been involved in issues) or the attitude some fans have "U2 owes it to us to release albums quickly". (U2 owes nothing to us, they can now do things on their own. After all they've achieved the least they can have is the choice to release albums and go on tour when THEY are ready. not us.) It's even come this far that some people openy bash his AIDS work for interfering with the band's work. Well tough luck, it's just a way of upgrading, if you will, the band - and Bono's - activism which was there all along. They were never "just" a band and their beliefs were always a strong part of what they were.

OK, touche on Passengers - I didn't know it happened so fast.

Well, I don't think anyone here is saying having a family is an "excuse" for anything, but I'd guess their priorities changed after that happened and they want(ed) to spend more time with their kids and wives, so that may have meant less albums. I don't blame them for that.
I'm not saying Pearl Jam aren't doing anything, I'm saying what Bono does is bigger in its influence, and taking time. If he's involved more in politics it's only natural it might take some time off of his U2 work. (IF that's the reason for the delay.) He can not be 100% on both things all the time. Personally I think the attitude "Bono should spend less time on his activism and focus on U2" is faulty and unfair.

REM does not have the giant stages and all the video stuff U2 has, so I'm sure it takes them less time to prepare and rehearse everything for the tour - you can't just compare them by tour lengths. (I don't know about statistics but if that is true, that's another proof you can't compare them: U2 played more shows so it takes more time away from them)

I didn't bring up Pearl Jam or REM here, you did. You compared other bands with U2 in album recording/touring matters, it wasn't just saying "I don't like U2 taking so much time." I find it odd that people from US of all places complain about not getting enough U2, when they get to see them multiple times each tour. (Lovetown was just an exception that confirms the rule)
And how many of those bands you mentioned recorded on tour and released and album shortly, like U2 did with Zooropa and Rattle and Hum?


Before AB:
Boy, October, War, UF, JT, Rattle and Hum - 6 albums.
Official live video releases Red Rocks and Rattle and Hum (WAIA is EP IMO)

After:
Achtung Baby, Zooropa, POP, Best of 1, ATYCLB, Best of 2 - 6 albums. (Passengers included all U2 members but some don't count it. Additional material from soundtracks such as Batman and Million dollar hotel.)
Official live video releases Zoo TV Sydney, Popmart Mexico, Elevation Boston and U2 Go home from Slane.

No complaints here.



When is it enough - can't we be just happy they're still around, recording great albums and touring every time? If you think U2 are better live and make better music than other bands, can't you let them get away with more time to do just that?
 
Last edited:
U2girl,

"No, I'm saying if it bothers people that much to wait - something we all have been accustomed to over time - they're free to find other favorite bands or get into new music (see mikal's thread in EYKIW), free to not visit or post on this site anymore etc..."

Are you suggesting that I not visit or post here because I disagree with how long it takes the band to put out music these days?

Is there something wrong with fans posting an opinion that disagree's with or criticizes the band in some way?



"And there is a difference in putting out constructive critisicm over the way critisicm is usually done on this forum, like "ATYCLB/POP was crap" (instead of saying "I didn't like it for this and this reason") or "Bono should be a musician first" (he's always been involved in issues) or the attitude some fans have "U2 owes it to us to release albums quickly". (U2 owes nothing to us, they can now do things on their own. After all they've achieved the least they can have is the choice to release albums and go on tour when THEY are ready. not us.) It's even come this far that some people openy bash his AIDS work for interfering with the band's work. Well tough luck, it's just a way of upgrading, if you will, the band - and Bono's - activism which was there all along. They were never "just" a band and their beliefs were always a strong part of what they were."


Did I ever come out and trash the band with four letter words? Did I trash Bono's work outside of the band or say that he should not do it? Did I ever say that U2 owed us something?


"Well, I don't think anyone here is saying having a family is an "excuse" for anything, but I'd guess their priorities changed after that happened and they want(ed) to spend more time with their kids and wives, so that may have meant less albums. I don't blame them for that.
I'm not saying Pearl Jam aren't doing anything, I'm saying what Bono does is bigger in its influence, and taking time. If he's involved more in politics it's only natural it might take some time off of his U2 work. (IF that's the reason for the delay.) He can not be 100% on both things all the time. Personally I think the attitude "Bono should spend less time on his activism and focus on U2" is faulty and unfair."

Did I say Bono should spend less time on his activism? Because Pearl Jam's outside band activities are not reported does not mean it takes up less of their time than Bono's. I'm sure Pearl Jam spend time with their families.


"REM does not have the giant stages and all the video stuff U2 has, so I'm sure it takes them less time to prepare and rehearse everything for the tour - you can't just compare them by tour lengths. (I don't know about statistics but if that is true, that's another proof you can't compare them: U2 played more shows so it takes more time away from them)"

U2 did not have these massive stages and props on Elevation but they spent even more time getting ready. So this idea that the Video Screens and large Stages takes significantly takes away from the bands time is simply not true.

REM may have played less shows, but were talking the difference of maybe 30 or 40 shows, about 3-4 months of time over a 10 year period, really a minor difference. REM also put out more albums which is really my point. Despite touring nearly as long as U2 during the 1990s, REM put out more albums.

"I didn't bring up Pearl Jam or REM here, you did. You compared other bands with U2 in album recording/touring matters, it wasn't just saying "I don't like U2 taking so much time." I find it odd that people from US of all places complain about not getting enough U2, when they get to see them multiple times each tour. (Lovetown was just an exception that confirms the rule)"

Thats right, I brought Pearl Jam and REM in as examples to prove that "FAMILY" "AGE" "outside activities" were not an excuse for recording and touring less. My point is that you can tour and record with although those things at an increased pace. They are capable of doing it is my point. Whether they want to is up to them.

"Before AB:
Boy, October, War, UF, JT, Rattle and Hum - 6 albums.
Official live video releases Red Rocks and Rattle and Hum (WAIA is EP IMO)"

I understand the 6 albums, but the live stuff was simply their crew recording taping them on tour. It did not significantly take away from the bands time.

"Achtung Baby, Zooropa, POP, Best of 1, ATYCLB, Best of 2 - 6 albums. (Passengers included all U2 members but some don't count it. Additional material from soundtracks such as Batman and Million dollar hotel.)
Official live video releases Zoo TV Sydney, Popmart Mexico, Elevation Boston and U2 Go home from Slane."

Once again, the live stuff and the Greatest hits CD's did not signficantly take away from their time. They were recorded and filmed by others on tour, and then packaged songs already recorded on to two best ofs with the exception of the couple of new songs they put on there.

"When is it enough - can't we be just happy they're still around, recording great albums and touring every time? If you think U2 are better live and make better music than other bands, can't you let them get away with more time to do just that?"

Just as you would I hope wish for them to continue as a band, I wish they would release albums and tour on a more frequent basis. What is wrong with stating that they could and wishing that they actually did these things?
 
Ladies and gentlemen, may I clear something up. I know this doesn't sound very believable, but I did not write the post with all the "stupid africa shit" in it. I showed my friend the news about the new U2 album, and he was pissed. Then I went outside for a smoke, and he remained inside and wrote that.

Believe me or not, I didn't write that.
 
*sigh*

I didn't say you shouldn't post - you just did. I'm saying if people are as frustrated over it, there is always the choice of finding new, other music to listen in between the U2 albums, or even finding new favorite bands. And the choice of not complaining on a fan forum when a band does something you don't agree with. Everyone of us has things that bother us, if everyone started complaining it would be a mess. Shouldn't a fan site be generally positive about whoever it's dedicated to?

Like I said, "usually done" - I didn't mean you specifically. I know you never trashed U2 in that way, I just wanted to show the difference between constructive critisicm and bashing.

Saying U2 can and wishing they'd record and tour more inevitably clashes with Bono's activism. If he does more of the one thing it takes away from the other.

It takes some time to first figure out the stage design, then the accompanying light effects, any stage props, then build everything and practice - and I think ZooTV and Popmart were longer tours than their 80's ones. And after the tour, surely a few months at least for a break from being U2 24/7.

REM and Pearl Jam can do as they please, but that does not mean U2 has to or should do things the same way.
I'm just saying we will never know whether they're capable of such a pace, but I'd guess no - not with Bono's outside work and their most likely wish to spend more time with their families - I remember Bono saying during the tour being internet Dad didn't do it for him - as I'm sure it wouldn't have for any father. (for example, working in some area with locals is not the same as travelling around the world talking to the world's leaders IMO)

My point was we got just as much albums before and after AB, and more live video releases afterwards. How is that bad? It may not have taken time for the first Best of, but the second one did, with the new mixes and two new songs. And they were working on the new album at the time as well.
 
Last edited:
Another argument for less album recording/touring is doing it at a faster pace will add to damaging Bono's voice more - there's a clear difference after and before AB, and we can only hope for the best after, say, 2010.

*edit* seeing these "gimme more U2" type of thinking threads also gets tiring after it appeared when U2 didn't come to rest of the world after Elevation tour, and after 2002 summer tour rumors didn't come true.
 
Last edited:
Well...now I am confused! Was thinking ok I will just check this board even less now...no need to come here and torture myself...I just tune U2 out until they tune back in...but I kind of think the "reliable source" thing is a little bogus. I've heard of the reliable sources being wrong before or making statements to throw people off. So I dont know what to think but I will keep my NME U2 alert active in the interim...I seem to hear U2 news there pretty quickly...
 
U2LA said:
...but I kind of think the "reliable source" thing is a little bogus.


We've got 4 sources that all say similar... Sept/October 04, with a big tour in 05.

Believe it if you want, or not... Bono has eveb recently been telling people Sept.... and Paul McG has said 'after summer'.
 
Back
Top Bottom