EVIDENCE of the 90 day window from the POP sessions.
http://www.canoe.ca/MusicArtistsU2/nov28_u2.html
"After a series of seemingly endless delays,
U2 has finished recording, mixing, and sequencing
its breathlessly awaited new album and is currently
mastering the disc for release on March 4."
End of November '96-U2 are done recording, mixing
and currently mastering POP.
December '96
January '97
February '97
March '97-album is released
They were mastering that album in December and it was released 3 months later.
If recording is done, and it appears to be, then mixing would likely not take longer than a month or so. For the sake of argument we'll say 6 weeks. Which would put us right at the the end of January 2004. Now, draw the correlation to the POP sessions.
I can post a similar timeline and link for the ATYCLB sessions because the timelines parallel. The mastering for POP had to have been completed by early January because Discotheque hit the radio on Jan 17th. (A period of about 6 weeks from the reports in the link above)
If U2 are at the exact same point for the NEW ALBUM on January 28th, 2004, that they were for POP on November 28th, 1996. Then why do people assume that the wait will be 4 months longer than POP, which HAD ALREADY been delayed.
You people are looking for a delay that is not there. This album recording has run the same course as at least the last 2, nothing surprising really.
Let me put it this way. If U2 are not done recording the album, then I retract what I have said. I am under the assumption, which has been reported by several sources, that they are finished.
If you assume they are done recording, then someone show me where and why it would take an additional 9 months to put the album out. Zooropa was mixed, mastered and RELEASED to the public 2 MONTHS after recording. Granted that album is an exception to the typical U2 recording sessions.
Bono and Edge did a chat in, I believe June 2000, where they stated they had just finished recording the new album. As you know, or should know, the album was out 4 months later.
You can say that the timelines are an abberation if it happened once or twice but with U2 (Zooropa excepted) the band has a track record and history of following a regiment. Look at the releases of the band. All of them (Zooropa excepted) have been released in 2 months spans in fall and spring. March and Oct/Nov.
Do you think it's conincidence or do you think that it's possible that the band had scheduled themselves this way. Is it a coincidence that recording for this album has been finished right BEFORE the holiday season? It's awful convienient.
Basically all I am trying to say is that there is no reason to expect such a delay (Sept release) unless the band are truly not done recording. I think we will get some real concrete, hard news after the album is mixed, tracked, sequenced etc. If I were to bet I'd guess that it will be done by the end of January. I'd expect an announcement in late January of some sort, possibly even a release date for the album.
IMO The album has already been tracked, I think this is why Daniel Lanois went to the studio. I think most people were put off or smelling delay because Bono said that they had hoped to get it out before the end of 2003, some reports even said Summer 2003. Watch what the band do, not what Bono predicts. They didn't even bring a producer in until April 2003. There was no reason to think the album was going anywhere until then.
Finally, I also read an article (I'll try to find it) that said Lanois and Eno joined U2 in the studio in October 1999 to begin recording what ended up being ATYCLB which was released almost exactly a year later. Thomas joined with U2 in April 2003. I'm not saying that means anything more than just another in a long line of "coincidences" or if you view it as I do, work history.
