LP13 Discussion - Rumor Has It: Sirens, iTunes Festival, etc.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
RUMOR ALERT: an insider at universal FRANCE saying the first album set for a november release will be this:
5CCz01Z.jpg

with the unreleased song Siren as a single...

In 2015, a second album, original this time...

To be continued!
So "best of 2000-2010" with Siren included, so this will be a Siren CD single then.
 
Which is why this upcoming album will be the last one, and it will be a double album, followed by the biggest farewell tour in the history of music. Start saving people, there will be LOTS of shows to go to! :wink:

[/maybe true, but sarcasm for now]

I actually tend to believe this course of action from U2...After 5 years and all this struggle, self-doubt and their other commitments to family and interest, this is most likely their last outing with a big farewell tour which will most likely outsell the 360 TOUR. If the upcoming album is a smash hit or a VERY good one, they will make a nice exit...
 
It's pretty obvious they've struggled with this album, given the fact that, for starters it's taken so long! Then they had so much hype around Invisible and then they have disappeared and basically said nothing except for the usual garbage that the "album is in final mixing" blah blah blah.

Would be nice if they had something official on U2.com with some sort of rough expectation time frame and actual honesty from the band without sugar coating it. :shrug:

There was hype around Invisible? It was relevant for maybe a week.
 
I actually tend to believe this course of action from U2...After 5 years and all this struggle, self-doubt and their other commitments to family and interest, this is most likely their last outing with a big farewell tour which will most likely outsell the 360 TOUR. If the upcoming album is a smash hit or a VERY good one, they will make a nice exit...

Nah. I agree that this may be their last record, but I doubt it's the last tour.
 
Nah. I agree that this may be their last record, but I doubt it's the last tour.

Agreed. I'm pretty much treating this record as if it's their last. But I could see a reunion tour when they're in their 60's.
 
As for the "Double-Album" concept, I doubt it if we consider a few things or what your view of a "Double-Album" is...

1) A "double-album" is still considered "One album" as a whole but passes the 60 min mark in material length.

2) James Mercer mentioned last March that the "FIRST disc is entirely Brian's work" which clearly indicates that U2 have been working on 2 albums...but will the TWO discs be a double album or seperate releases...? :shrug:

3) Double-Albums are rarely produced by several producers or different teams as far as I know...but again...I could be completely wrong.

Discuss...
 
Nah. I agree that this may be their last record, but I doubt it's the last tour.

Last album, yes. Most likely. Last tour, maybe not after thinking about it...

They will SURELY do a "reunion" tour or a gig at a massive event in 10-12 years after the tour has ended.

In my view, they have attained "Rolling Stones" territory now...they will keep going like Mick & Co. as long as they can and desire...They will always be able to fill up stadiums and arenas. They are "Legends" now and will still be in 40 years in music history..
 
We get three album, a triple set. Rubin produces the third one. U2 will work with every producer in the business that they can get their hands on for this album.
 
Last album, yes. Most likely. Last tour, maybe not after thinking about it...

They will SURELY do a "reunion" tour or a gig at a massive event in 10-12 years after the tour has ended.

In my view, they have attained "Rolling Stones" territory now...they will keep going like Mick & Co. as long as they can and desire...They will always be able to fill up stadiums and arenas. They are "Legends" now and will still be in 40 years in music history..

I disagree. U2 is in a league all their own. They are unique to "great rock bands" because unlike their counterparts in the likes of the Stones, Who, etc....they still have the ORIGINAL lineup intact and are not simply a "tour" band. They are continuing to write and put out new music. If they WANTED to, they could easily become a "nostalgia" act and simply tour on a greatest hits set whenever they felt like it. And it would sell out. Because not only would the hardcores go, plenty of casuals would too. U2 doesnt want to do that. They want to continue recording and putting out new tracks.

Name ONE other band who has been together for over four decades without a single lineup change, put out albums in all of those decades, and toured with massive success. To quote Bono circa 2005: "Line them up."

This is uncharted territory. We are one of the luckiest fanbases in the world to even be discussing it. Yes, it's frustrating to wait out the news, but at least we've got something worth waiting for.
 
I disagree. U2 is in a league all their own. They are unique to "great rock bands" because unlike their counterparts in the likes of the Stones, Who, etc....they still have the ORIGINAL lineup intact and are not simply a "tour" band. They are continuing to write and put out new music. If they WANTED to, they could easily become a "nostalgia" act and simply tour on a greatest hits set whenever they felt like it. And it would sell out. Because not only would the hardcores go, plenty of casuals would too. U2 doesnt want to do that. They want to continue recording and putting out new tracks.

Name ONE other band who has been together for over four decades without a single lineup change, put out albums in all of those decades, and toured with massive success. To quote Bono circa 2005: "Line them up."

This is uncharted territory. We are one of the luckiest fanbases in the world to even be discussing it. Yes, it's frustrating to wait out the news, but at least we've got something worth waiting for.

This a great insight and I do agree with you that they're a league of their own :up:

I didn't mean that I was putting U2 in the same "bag" as their counterparts but in the same "position" that they will be able to tour for many years to come if they wanted to and still sell out their gigs
 
This a great insight and I do agree with you that they're a league of their own :up:

I didn't mean that I was putting U2 in the same "bag" as their counterparts but in the same "position" that they will be able to tour for many years to come if they wanted to and still sell out their gigs

In that case, yes, they could easily just tour and not do albums. I'd rather have albums and tours. Greedy, I know. But if the muse is willing... :whistle:
 
I disagree. U2 is in a league all their own. They are unique to "great rock bands" because unlike their counterparts in the likes of the Stones, Who, etc....they still have the ORIGINAL lineup intact and are not simply a "tour" band. They are continuing to write and put out new music. If they WANTED to, they could easily become a "nostalgia" act and simply tour on a greatest hits set whenever they felt like it. And it would sell out. Because not only would the hardcores go, plenty of casuals would too. U2 doesnt want to do that. They want to continue recording and putting out new tracks.

Name ONE other band who has been together for over four decades without a single lineup change, put out albums in all of those decades, and toured with massive success. To quote Bono circa 2005: "Line them up."

This is uncharted territory. We are one of the luckiest fanbases in the world to even be discussing it. Yes, it's frustrating to wait out the news, but at least we've got something worth waiting for.

Aerosmith. Or at least, they're very similar. They did have one original member leave in the first year, but you could equate that to being the same as Dik Evans. And a guitar player left for three years, but he came back so I'm also ignoring that one, since they have one more member than U2 and have been around ten years longer and he was a replacement for the original member who left after one year.

EDIT: Ok, I forgot that Joe Perry also left for a few years, but I'm still sticking to my guns that it's a VERY similar situation


ZZ Top
Los Lobos

Rush replaced their original drummer long before U2 even existed.

Pet Shop Boys
Erasure
Cheap Trick
 
Name ONE other band who has been together for over four decades without a single lineup change, put out albums in all of those decades, and toured with massive success. To quote Bono circa 2005: "Line them up."

Rush. Like U2, Rush has been around for 40+ years with basically the same lineup intact (Peart joined the band during the first album tour in 1974). They all remain good friends to this day and like U2, are all pretty good people. Like U2, they've (mostly) avoided many of the cliches that surround rock bands...drug addiction, destructive infighting, trashing hotel rooms, etc. They split their royalties equally, like U2, and are very loyal to the people who work with them. The continue to put out new, vital music to a large, and very loyal fan base, while having a huge reservoir of hits to draw from. And they tour regularly.

And BTW, what album has U2 put out in this decade?
 
Back
Top Bottom