Apologies in advance to anyone who got excited at the bumping of this thread. No news that I know of.
I was just thinking though, that it's interesting that for all the grief we give Shuttlecock for their lack of productivity, we don't really give Radiohead that same grief even though their productivity hasn't been any better in recent years. In fact, it might be a little worse.
Their last EMI release, HTTT, was released in June 2003. In the twelve years and a few months since then, they've put out two albums, one of which was EP-like in length.
In that same period of time, U2 have put out three albums and might put out a fourth next year.
So I just thought it was an interesting contrast. Why do we not get as pissy at Radiohead for their lack of productivity?
Could be a number of reasons. Maybe...
1. Their recent output has been less disappointing for a lot of people and so they are willing to be more patient? Like, a lot of people might say IR is better than anything U2 have done in the 21st century and when you make an album that good, you get more leeway?
or
2. It bothers people less because when Radiohead takes five or six years to put out an album, it's because they hadn't felt like making one, whereas when U2 do the same, it's because they started making one in year two, nearly finished it by the end of year three, scrapped the whole thing and started over, nearly finished it again by the end of year four, brought in extra producers to remix half the tracks at the beginning of year five, and then finally put it out at the end of year five after several false starts?
Just wanted to start this discussion.
Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference