Do You Wish U2 Would Make More Albums?

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

PopFly

War Child
Joined
Dec 19, 2000
Messages
958
Location
Toronto, Canada
Four guys, all of whom are songwriters (or at least it's how they're credited) and it now takes them 3-4 years to put together ONE album?

I know that U2 are busy with their families, outside interests, etc.
and given the high quality of their albums, the final product is worth the wait.

But then I see somebody like Jack White release four awesome records in a five-year span. Beck apparently has 1-2 full albums of material that he'd like to release but his record company wants him to space out his releases. The most famous example are the Beatles, who released Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, the White Album and Abbey Road in a FIVE-YEAR SPAN!!

So my question is....do you wish that U2 would step up the process a bit in their recordings?
 
I really dont think most record labels want their artist releasing albums more frequently than one every 2 or 3 years.

I know that Weezer's record label gave them major hell on releasing 2 albums in 2 years. It looks like their label won too, because they're not even working on another album right now, like they said they were going to be.
 
Well I don't know if the world outside of our Obsessed-ville could handle a new wave of U2 album hype every 2 years, :) I mean, with the amount of touring, promotion and exposure they go through with their albums it can be draining for both the public and the band.
 
Who's to say that U2 would necessarily have to tour for every release? They could conceivably keep up a schedule of one tour for every two albums.

Also, why wouldn't labels want their artists releasing albums as often as possible? If the musician is creative enough to do it, then what's the harm?
 
PopFly said:
Also, why wouldn't labels want their artists releasing albums as often as possible? If the musician is creative enough to do it, then what's the harm?

People who arent huge fans get sick of hearing them on the radio and seeing them on tv.

Too much of a good thing.

I'm not saying I agree with the idea, or have an opinion one way or the other, I just know that's what record labels think.
 
Nah, wouldnt want that at all. I like the waiting, the anticipation. Besides, they need their rest and all that. Plus if they keep churning out great stuff one they theyre gonna hit a wall and do a clunker. could happen.
 
3 years is a long time but it's worth the wait....I (try!!!hey it could happen!!!) to listen to others in between so when the new album comes out I'll fall in love with them all over again.

and I really don't want them to quit just because they rushed and weren't too happy with the results.
 
It's like that with every band. When you're new and young and on the road up you HAVE to release an album every year or two to keep people from forgetting you and maintain a rep for yourself. U2 did that in the 80's- Boy in 1980, October in 81, War in early 83, UF in late 84. But now that they are older and not only well established but legendary, they don't need to do that. If they tried, it might make them less popular from overexposure. So they are following the natural course and it's working out fine for them. They just had the very successful tour and the greatest hits last year and Bono is everywhere. I hope they don't release the new album until next spring or summer. Of course us fanatics don't mind the U2 saturation but it might not go well with the general public. They're doing what's best for them now.
 
I think one of the reasons the achieve so much diversity in their music is that they give themselves time to grow and mature as people and as a band between each album. So, as impatient as I get for new stuff, I think they should continue doing it like they're doing it now.
 
considering their latest album actually effected my love for u2 in a very negative way, im ready and waiting for something good this time around.

if they puke out another atyclb after saying (for the 900th time) that this was going to be a real rock record, ill simply say "thanks for the 90's."
 
I like it that the wait and put out an album every 2 or 3 years. I think that they write better material. I heard Bono say on Larry King that they want write good songs, and he did not want to put out anothe crap album like Pop.
 
he called pop crap?

fucking idiot. they stuck by that album throughout the entire tour, and now when they put out an adult contemporary album thats lapped up by the masses he's willing to stab their own creativity in the back. way to go bono.
 
Gickies Gageeze said:
considering their latest album actually effected my love for u2 in a very negative way, im ready and waiting for something good this time around.

if they puke out another atyclb after saying (for the 900th time) that this was going to be a real rock record, ill simply say "thanks for the 90's."

I understand your feelings, but they suprise me. ATYCLB always seemed like a mesh of everything U2 does best, I'm suprised you didnt like it just for that.

I do agree though, it wasnt the most rocking of albums, but neither was Kid A or Amnesiac for Radiohead, that's' why I'm suprised by your feelings. I guess that Kid A/Amnesiac were atleast a move in a new direction for Radiohead, whereas ATYCLB didnt tread any new ground on any of the songs for U2, so I guess that's probably not the best of comparisons.

I dont know, I really liked ATYCLB for what it is. Dont let what Bono says an album is going to sound like before it's made sway what you think about the final results. He really hasnt been accurate with any of his statemens regarding up coming albums yet.
 
Last edited:
bashing again?

Gickies Gageeze said:
if they puke out another atyclb after saying (for the 900th time) that this was going to be a real rock record, ill simply say "thanks for the 90's."

I remember Bono saying ATYCLB was a "soul" album a lot more then saying it was rock. (in fact, I can't ever remember him saying that)

Consider that the nature of album might change from when they start working on it and the final result. Plus Bono always says a lot of things.

Making albums faster might decrease quality, and their albums are worth the wait.
 
u2girl and mofo, i respect your opinions but to me u2 have sold out.

their gimmicks with best buy and especially target were too much to handle.

the only reason why bono calls pop a failure is because it didnt sell as well as atylb did. factor that in with recent quotes from larry mullen as to why they dont tour outside of europe and america anymore, and you have a case of a band who is strictly in the business to make money.
 
Hmm...didn't the band say they thought Pop was "unfinished" even before ATYCLB ever came out?

I don't see why it's so horrible for them to change their opinions about their work.

(I'm not sure I am following you with the best buy and target thing: but then again, I don't know what U2 does in US as accurately as you people do. What happened?)
 
U2girl said:
Hmm...didn't the band say they thought Pop was "unfinished" even before ATYCLB ever came out?

That's how I understood it.

Originally posted by U2girl
I don't see why it's so horrible for them to change their opinions about their work.

I don't, either. I personally love Pop, but if Bono doesn't think highly of it now...that's fine, it's his opinion. :shrug:.

I agree with all of you who said waiting is better instead of going and putting out album after album in a short timespan.

U2Kitten makes total sense when she talks about how U2 put out a lot of albums early on in their career to get noticed, but as time went on, they took more time getting their albums just right (Unforgettable Fire was released in 1984, and then The Joshua Tree came in 1987, so there was a two year timespan inbetween there), they were getting noticed, people were remembering them more, so it gave them time to slow down and work on making really great albums.

Besides, yeah, the Beatles put out all those great albums in that amount of time-but they're the Beatles, they can handle that stuff. While I love U2, I realize that they're not the Beatles, and what worked for the Beatles won't always work for them. And I'm sure even U2 would agree to that.

Like others have said, I personally wouldn't care seeing a barage of U2, but I know that not everyone in the country feels that way, and some people-perhaps even some U2 fans-will eventually get sick of them, or go on U2 overload and start to get sick of them.

So while waiting can be torturous, and while we're all dying to know how the new album's gonna sound, waiting is the best option for now.

Besides, like the saying goes, "Good things come to those who wait".

Angela
 
errr. bono didn't say he didn't like pop on larry king. i dare anyone to prove me wrong.
 
But consider this: The Beatles' career really only lasted 6 years and they broke up around or before age 30! U2 are over 40 and have been recording for almost 25 years. It's a different story. Paul McCartney doesn't put out a big album every year anymore and hasn't since he was younger than U2 are now. John went several years with no solo album, as did George and Ringo. If they had stayed together they would've been the same as U2, slower album output.

Some of you may not like it, but they are not in their prime anymore and we cannot expect them to be the same as a band who are. They are good, yes, they are not and cannot be the same as a young band. It's just a fact of life. One album every 3 years is good for them and their career. If they put one out every year they would go unnoticed and die from overkill. There are not enough rabid U2 fans (like us) who will buy anything just because it's theirs to keep them in business. They need the casual fan too. They are not some boy band people will buy as a fad. They want to make it worthwhile, and good. I trust them.
 
Last edited:
Gickies Gageeze said:
u2girl and mofo, i respect your opinions but to me u2 have sold out.

I understand how you feel. I dont totally agree, but I do agree with some of your points (mainly the ones involved with money).

Believe it or not Gickies, you arent the only one here who doesnt think that everything U2 does should be held holy and that we should all just be good little fans and be happy about every single thing the bands says/does/makes/wears. I actually find it a breath of fresh air to hear someone with different opinions/points of view in these boards.

All I'm trying to say is, I know how you feel. I think you and I are some of the only people here who arent really sure if U2 is even our favorite band anymore.
 
Last edited:
u2popmofo said:



Believe it or not Gickies, you arent the only one here who doesnt think that everything U2 does should be held holy and that we should all just be good little fans and be happy about every single thing the bands says/does/makes/wears. I actually find it a breath of fresh air to hear someone with different opinions/points of view in these boards.



This is no 'breath of fresh air.' Oh a lot of people have voiced opinons on not being happy with everything they say/do/wear/make. But they usually get flamed :lol: I think a lot of people have issues with different things the band has done, but then they get pissed if someone else says it if it's something they like, aka, the Pop vs. ATYCLB fights. It's like people think, okay I have a right to say this because I'm expressing my personal opinion, but Joe Blow doesn't have a right to say that, or he's a bad fan. That's how it goes. Also some people have gotten into trouble bitching over the same shit over and over and over (like that ATYCLB or Pop sucked) :yawn: and it gets old and annoying. I just think maybe if 'U2 aren't your favorite band anymore' maybe take some time off the forum and explore other bands instead of bitching about them constantly as some have done. :coocoo:

No, I don't hope they make more albums, because they'd be rushed and people here would bitch about them. I'd rather have bitching about how long it takes to make an album than an album itself. I don't like sitting around questioning the band and speculating anyway. It's much better to be surprised. :hyper:
 
Last edited:
Desire4Bono said:


This is no 'breath of fresh air.' Oh a lot of people have voiced opinons on not being happy with everything they say/do/wear/make. But they usually get flamed :lol: I think a lot of people have issues with different things the band has done, but then they get pissed if someone else says it if it's something they like, aka, the Pop vs. ATYCLB fights. It's like people think, okay I have a right to say this because I'm expressing my personal opinion, but Joe Blow doesn't have a right to say that, or he's a bad fan. That's how it goes. Also some people have gotten into trouble bitching over the same shit over and over and over (like that ATYCLB or Pop sucked) :yawn: and it gets old and annoying. I just think maybe if 'U2 aren't your favorite band anymore' maybe take some time off the forum and explore other bands instead of bitching about them constantly as some have done. :coocoo:


I was just trying to say that it's not a bad thing to be critical sometimes. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Just an honest question: Why do you still spend time in a U2 forum if you're not sure you like them anymore?

I don't think I would. :shrug:
 
I would like a live cd in between studio cds. I really like what Pearl Jam is doing with the official bootlegs. I don't want U2 to have a cd for every show, but an Elevation tour compilation would be cool.
 
On U2 selling out. Yes, I think it's fucked up that they didn't go anywhere besides Europe and North America on Elevation. But I think that they were really trying to make a shitload.....kinda make back what they didn't make off Popmart. Believe it or not, the members of U2 aren't these gifted souls sent from heaven to make music for us. They are human, they are in a business, and they want to make as much money as they can at it. I can't blame them for that. Although I don't agree with their high ticket prices, it worked for them. Every show was a sell out. Bands who charge half of their prices don't sell out as many shows as they did. Their profit margins on Elevation were enormous, and that's just what they wanted to do.

Now, I have no problem with the Target thing....I wouldn't have gotten U27 out of it otherwise. And Best Buy....I got the Boston DVD 2 weeks earlier b/c of that. I don't care. My only beef is the ticket prices, and I think they should go to Aussie, Japan, South America, etc. Go some places they haven't played before, like China or India or something. Bono said it himself..."let's see colours no one else has seen, and go to places no one else has been." I'd like to see U2 get more adventurous on this next tour. Wouldn't it be great if someone like Bill Flanagan followed U2 on their first venture through India or China, for instance. That'd be a good book. Plus, I know the demand to see them in Russia is huge. They should explore beyond USA and Europe.
Still play USA and Europe, yeah, but go elsewhere too.
 
Bono never called Pop a crap album. In fact, the only negative thing I've heard him say about Pop was related to how he wished they spent more time on it cause it was kinda unfinished (in terms of production). I've heard him say numerous times that the songs are really strong, it's just the production wasn't where they wanted it.

Anyway, I wouldn't mind if U2 released an album every 2 years or even every year, but when you're as big as U2 is, it's easy to overexpose yourself and turn people off of you. Despite how awesome their performance was at the super bowl, I remember reading a lot of commentaries around the web on how U2 were starting to wear out their welcome in the spotlight.
 
Last edited:
I spend more time in the 'other' music forum than I do in this one, discovering the lovely likes of Tom McRae. :) I haven't heard much U2 in the past few months or so, but it's fun discovering and re-discovering other bands. U2 will take a backseat for the moment, but I expect I can and will listen to them when they have the new album ready.

*returns to Damien Rice song*
 
Back
Top Bottom