Still in doubt?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I guess several points can be debated.

However, I believe 1983 has been the only year that U2 has released an LP and a concert video in the same year (not counting best ofs) , and I think they will stick to this pattern.
 
Nope.

Galeongirl said:
please DON'T let them become like coldplay! :yikes:

http://forum.interference.com/t160089.html

:p




I think it's possible for the band to work on new material and come out with both a Zooropa-like album or EP AND a dvd or something in the same year, despite their new "business sense." If they truly did get inspired by music again on this tour (which seemed to be the case), and if Edge really is as passionate about music in general as he seems to be right now (see music rising interview in EYKIW), then they may do it just to do it, rather than to make some huge critical and economical splash. ZooTV put them on top of the world, giving them the balls to play around and make Zooropa. They're on top of the world now, too.

Plus, the "business mentality" isn't new. Read Flanagan's book & you'll see that they were pretty damn business-oriented during ZooTV, too.
 
Last edited:
Bono could ease Edge the trouble of playing guitar/piano on New Year's day live :hmm:
 
Utoo said:
Plus, the "business mentality" isn't new. Read Flanagan's book & you'll see that they were pretty damn business-oriented during ZooTV, too.

More business-savvy than business mentality, such as targeting November/December for releases which was not always done before. Perhaps the mega-consolidation in the music business has something to do with it - now you have the "big 4" labels in the industry and they undoubtedly have more clout and influence over artists' decisions than the smaller labels used to.

I think a new LP in 2006 would be even more extreme than Zooropa, because it had more than twice as many shows to promote it than what's left for Vertigo, assuming a lot of shows won't be added. I think if the LP were to come out in 2006, then 2007 (and possibly 2008) would be dry years and break the pattern of annual releases(cd or dvd) this decade.
 
Last edited:
My opinion of a plausable timeline, if U2 had any real motivation:

*dvd, book -- late fall 2006
*new album -- early winter 2007; only two singles.
*finish up tour -- play the Aussie dates, then play 10 or so in the UK.
*take three months off completely.
*begin writing new material in late spring 2007.
*new live dvd -- early winter 2007; from Aussie show.
*have 35 songs written and recorded by January 2008.
*touch up 24 of those songs for album release.
*release new album -- late fall 2008 (only two singles, only twelve songs)
*begin new tour -- spring 2009 (40 dates in US, 30 dates in Europe)
*take two months off
*release the other twelve songs which had been finished as another album (only two singles) -- early fall 2009.
*release dvd from Europe somewhere -- late fall 2009
*finish tour -- begin winter of 2009 (20 dates in South America, Australia, and Japan; 25 more dates in US; 10 dates in UK to finish it off) end spring 2010.
*take 5 months off.
*take remaining 7 songs (imagine 4 of those 11 lost as b-sides to singles) and release 2 of them as soundtrack contributions, and 5 as a short EP to benefit a noble cause -- between late summer and early winter.
*release dvd -- early winter 2010.
*take one full year off
*don't release a best of 2000-2010 until at least 2015.

:)

That is my pipedream.
 
Aygo said:
^ why only 2 singles per-album? It's been a long time since the band used to make that... Yeah, take 6 singles from each album!!!:crazy:

By doing that, the albums would be less a collection of songs and more a whole picture. Besides, if they released 2 albums over 16 months, that's still 4 singles in 20 months. :)
 
mobvok said:


:grumpy: :grumpy: :scream:

The problem with meticulously plotting out U2's schedule like that is it doesn't react well to real-life spontenaety. "Have 35 songs written and recorded by January 2008" doesn't work if they hit a Pop-like wall, which then throws everything else off.

In my opinion, with every album since Passengers, the boys of U2 have become too much perfectionists. Everything has to be a hit single. And since it has to be a hit single, there will be no more adventurous, beautiful songs like Bad, Promenade, Running To Stand Still, Heartland, So Cruel, The First Time. Original Of The Species could have been amazing if it had the inwardness of Running To Stand Still. One Step Closer could have been amazing if it didn't keep building, but cut back.

Anyway, I think if U2 was just writing songs and then leaving most of them alone, they could easily write 35 songs in 6 months. What makes the writing process take longer is when they decide, after 15 songs, that each of these songs has to become something greater than it really it. (When I say greater, I don't actually mean greater -- I mean more of a hit, but a bigger hit seems to make U2 think greater)

If they wrote 35 songs, without going back and tinkering with anything, and then went back and tinkered with five or six of the catchiest ones to make singles out of them, but recorded the other 29 or 30 the way they were originally written, the albums would come quicker and have more hidden gems. (ie, the aforementioned songs like Bad, Promenade, Running To Stand Still, Heartland, So Cruel, The First Time, etc)

U2 needs to learn that they don't need to go out of their way to write catchy songs, but to take the catchy songs they already write and leave them. Like Fast Cars -- if it kept the chorus of Xanax and Wine, it could have been a hit without even trying to be, and it could have had a really album-oriented vibe.
 
the tourist said:
My opinion of a plausable timeline, if U2 had any real motivation:

*dvd, book -- late fall 2006
*new album -- early winter 2007; only two singles.
*finish up tour -- play the Aussie dates, then play 10 or so in the UK.
*take three months off completely.
*begin writing new material in late spring 2007.
*new live dvd -- early winter 2007; from Aussie show.
*have 35 songs written and recorded by January 2008.
*touch up 24 of those songs for album release.
*release new album -- late fall 2008 (only two singles, only twelve songs)
*begin new tour -- spring 2009 (40 dates in US, 30 dates in Europe)
*take two months off
*release the other twelve songs which had been finished as another album (only two singles) -- early fall 2009.
*release dvd from Europe somewhere -- late fall 2009
*finish tour -- begin winter of 2009 (20 dates in South America, Australia, and Japan; 25 more dates in US; 10 dates in UK to finish it off) end spring 2010.
*take 5 months off.
*take remaining 7 songs (imagine 4 of those 11 lost as b-sides to singles) and release 2 of them as soundtrack contributions, and 5 as a short EP to benefit a noble cause -- between late summer and early winter.
*release dvd -- early winter 2010.
*take one full year off
*don't release a best of 2000-2010 until at least 2015.

:)

That is my pipedream.

Then retire . If they did that i would die a very very happy man.
 
vaz02 said:


Then retire . If they did that i would die a very very happy man.

They would be 50. So that might be a good age. I don't know if they'll ever truly retire, though. I think they should just stop touring at that point. Or maybe just play festivals/enourmous outdoor show (like that Simon & Garfunkel one that had 500,000 people or a million or whatever).

Either way, even if they did stop recording albums, I think that at that point, they should at least release a single every couple of years with two or three brand new songs on it. Also, I think that at some point they ought to release a double-disc "Best Of Live 1980-1990", "Best Of Live 1990-2000", "Best Of Live 2000-2010".
 
the tourist said:


By doing that, the albums would be less a collection of songs and more a whole picture. Besides, if they released 2 albums over 16 months, that's still 4 singles in 20 months. :)

Not necessarilly... Pop and AB had 5/6 singles each one, and they're not simply a collection of songs. When I'm talking about a bunch of singles taken from an album, I'm talking about make it even more known and not only for those who buy the album. 2 singles per-album is not an regular attitude for an artist like U2 are.
 
Aygo said:


Not necessarilly... Pop and AB had 5/6 singles each one, and they're not simply a collection of songs. When I'm talking about a bunch of singles taken from an album, I'm talking about make it even more known and not only for those who buy the album. 2 singles per-album is not an regular attitude for an artist like U2 are.

I don't know.... I think it's better to have less singles, but have them go higher on the charts, than to have 5 singles, with only one that makes the top 40. Then again, what I meant by singles anyway was less "single" in the term that it's released separately with b-sides and more, and more "single" in the term that it's extremely, undeniably catchy. Kind of like on The Joshua Tree. Although there were 4 singles from that album, not all of them were super catchy.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom