a long wait means a relatively poor album?

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

U2Man

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Messages
11,603
Location
at pavel's
what does music history say?

a long wait could be a sign of a creativity crisis, so some correlation might not be that surprising.

discuss...
 
not necessarely
R.L. Burnside's Ass pocket full of whiskey, Fleetwood Mac's Tango in the Night, Solomon Burke's Don't give up on me and Lindsey Buckingham's Under the skin just being a couple of examples
 
How about Brian Wilson's Smile?

I've heard it's gotten rave reviews after taking 25+ years to finish.
 
Stephen Stills' "Man Alive" considerably better than his once and future partner's recent releases (and I love his once and future partner). The song, "Spanish Suite" itself is an unheralded classic.
Granted, I'm sure it contains songs he's had in his vault forever, but that wasn't your question.

Sometimes a long wait means renewed creativity. Sometimes it's just a desperate attempt.
 
bonosgirl84 said:
Six years between When The Pawn... and Extraordinary Machine :hmm:

Yeah but that was really only like three years wasn't it, since after she finished it it took a few more years for the record company to actually decide to release it?
 
No.

When The Pawn was released in '99 and EM was released in '05.

There was a leaked version of some of the EM songs, but nothing that could be called an official release.

If you mean the whole Sony held her record hostage thing, Fiona later explained in several interviews that that's not what went down at all. It was her choice not to release the songs.
 
U2Man said:
what does music history say?

a long wait could be a sign of a creativity crisis, so some correlation might not be that surprising.

discuss...

I think it can be, but I think a lot depends on how the band or musician usually works and if there are other issues (such as personal issues or contract problems) holding a release up. If a band/musician usually works pretty quickly and suddenly are taking much longer on an album (without outside complications), I'd be a bit nervous about the quality of the album.
 
Well, as far as Peter Gabriel goes, There was a six year wait between So and Us and Us is my favorite album of his, on the other hand there was a ten year wait between Us and Up and Up is my least favorite of his albums, so I think it just varies, sometimes it could mean something great, and sometimes it could mean something not so great
 
I don't think there's necessarily any concrete science or direct correlation between speed of output and quality. That said, three albums in 10 years is damn slow for a band who describe themselves as "being in their prime."

The next album might be brilliant, however.
 
I think the longer fans are made to wait for an album the higher their expectations get so I think that could also be a factor in albums being disappointing if you'd had to wait a long time for it.
 
TheQuiet1 said:
I think the longer fans are made to wait for an album the higher their expectations get so I think that could also be a factor in albums being disappointing if you'd had to wait a long time for it.

good point. on the other hand, an album that comes out sooner than expected is like "wow I didnt expect new music this soon, awesome!!" so people would probably be slightly more lenient in their judgements, having not been obsessing over what the album might sound like for years
 
Lancemc said:
Is this about LP7? :wink:

No matter what the inspiration for this thread was, I personally guarantee that LP7 will be the best Radiohead (or Thom Yorke) album since Kid A. :wink:
 
I don't think so

with Scott Walker, we have to wait around ten years for each album, and it's a fantastic musician and every album is risky and interesting
 
so maybe a super long wait means a good album, while just a long wait is more likely to be correlated with a poor album?
 
Back
Top Bottom