TheDaddy
The Fly
Well it's disappointing about the album being delayed yet again but there's not much we can do about that can we?
But still it does raise some concerns. The band and everyone near had said "it's almost done" and then all of a sudden we're waiting til September 2004 if we are lucky. Is the new material not good enough or are the band finishing the album instead of releasing an unfinished album like Pop was in Spring 1997? (although is it me or is Pop a fucking good album?)
Hopefully it is the latter because if it is the former than I really think we have to be worried. The only albums that I've liked that have been delayed and delayed are Peter Gabriel's Up and Tears For Fears' The Seeds of Love and both those albums took such a long time because they are by artists who intended to craft soundscapes based on various types of rock music.
U2 are a rock 'n' roll band and their aim was to make an album that was "by a band in the primary colours of rock."
Rock albums that push the boundaries of rock music and innovate its sounds like Radiohead's Kid A, U2's Achtung Baby and Pop should take longer to make but not rock albums that are in rock's primary colours.
I guess my worry is that the songs will have gone stale and could be overcooked by too much time in the studio. My favourite rock albums such as R.E.M.'s Automatic, Oasis' What's the Story Morning Glory, The Beatles' albums took a short time to record. The songs were bashed out just like that. If U2 have songs that are of the quality then surely they would have had the album recorded by now.
The bottom line is if the band were really had the songs to make a great album surely it would be recorded by now. Seen as the album is to have a basic rock sound then why are they taking so long in the studio?
I guess to be fair to the band at least they released some new material (albeit 2 songs) on The Best Of 1990-2000 and the new album if released autumn 2004 would only be 2 years since then but we all know deep down that it's disappointing that the band couldn't build on the success of ATYCLB and the Elevation tour sooner.
Unless this follow up to ATYCLB gets some rave reviews and they do some good promotion then I think it could flop.
But for me commercial success is just a bonus. The real deal is the album itself. If it is just ATYCLB Part II then we have to be honest and admit that it will be a disappointment.
I don't know what you think but I think the album has to be something really special. If it is just ATYCLB Part II then maybe we will have to admit U2 are going stale with middle age.
By the way, I haven't posted on these boards for a while so it's good to be back.
But still it does raise some concerns. The band and everyone near had said "it's almost done" and then all of a sudden we're waiting til September 2004 if we are lucky. Is the new material not good enough or are the band finishing the album instead of releasing an unfinished album like Pop was in Spring 1997? (although is it me or is Pop a fucking good album?)
Hopefully it is the latter because if it is the former than I really think we have to be worried. The only albums that I've liked that have been delayed and delayed are Peter Gabriel's Up and Tears For Fears' The Seeds of Love and both those albums took such a long time because they are by artists who intended to craft soundscapes based on various types of rock music.
U2 are a rock 'n' roll band and their aim was to make an album that was "by a band in the primary colours of rock."
Rock albums that push the boundaries of rock music and innovate its sounds like Radiohead's Kid A, U2's Achtung Baby and Pop should take longer to make but not rock albums that are in rock's primary colours.
I guess my worry is that the songs will have gone stale and could be overcooked by too much time in the studio. My favourite rock albums such as R.E.M.'s Automatic, Oasis' What's the Story Morning Glory, The Beatles' albums took a short time to record. The songs were bashed out just like that. If U2 have songs that are of the quality then surely they would have had the album recorded by now.
The bottom line is if the band were really had the songs to make a great album surely it would be recorded by now. Seen as the album is to have a basic rock sound then why are they taking so long in the studio?
I guess to be fair to the band at least they released some new material (albeit 2 songs) on The Best Of 1990-2000 and the new album if released autumn 2004 would only be 2 years since then but we all know deep down that it's disappointing that the band couldn't build on the success of ATYCLB and the Elevation tour sooner.
Unless this follow up to ATYCLB gets some rave reviews and they do some good promotion then I think it could flop.
But for me commercial success is just a bonus. The real deal is the album itself. If it is just ATYCLB Part II then we have to be honest and admit that it will be a disappointment.
I don't know what you think but I think the album has to be something really special. If it is just ATYCLB Part II then maybe we will have to admit U2 are going stale with middle age.
By the way, I haven't posted on these boards for a while so it's good to be back.
