Was this a bunch of bullshit or what?

[U2girl]

What does the tour's name have to do with the new album?
Of course they won't promote the new album on the remaining legs of Vertigo tour. Hoping for a new song premiere though..

Why is 2007 bad? I think there's plenty of fans who would take this right now. (which doesn't change the fact the "2006" talk was just a possibility, nothing definite, or that any and all plans can change)

 

[LemonMelon]

What does the tour's name have to do with the new album?
Of course they won't promote the new album on the remaining legs of Vertigo tour. Hoping for a new song premiere though..

Why is 2007 bad? I think there's plenty of fans who would take this right now. (which doesn't change the fact the "2006" talk was just a possibility, nothing definite, or that any and all plans can change)

What's the name have to do with anything? Because they wouldn't be able to promote it as well with a restarted old tour. If they were to change the name ala Zooropa, I could see them releasing an album this year. But sadly, that's not the case.

And 2007 isn't bad at all! The reason I said "Bono will (unfortunately) begin to mention that to the public" is because it's generally bad mojo for Bono to mention anything. A spring 2007 album would be ideal though, and I sure hope it happens!

 

[ntalwar]

What does the tour's name have to do with the new album?
Of course they won't promote the new album on the remaining legs of Vertigo tour. Hoping for a new song premiere though..

I'm not sure even a new song premiere is likely. I usually prefer to listen to the studio version of a song before hearing it live. I've gone to concerts where I did not listen to the artist's album beforehand, and the new songs fell a bit flat on me - no matter how good.

 

[ur i's make a O]

Screwtape2

First of all, I'd like to understand where that question come from...it had nothing to do with the original point which I thought was very well answered by Halup & sami0201

Secondly and most importantly, when Bono said that at the beginning of SBS way back when, what he meant was nothing to do with not wanting to sing the song ever again - it was to do with the reason the audience wanted to hear the song. What he(& the band) was really saying was we do not want to sing this song for angry people - we want to sing for and to people that have moved on from the Troubles etc etc. Slane and Croke Park proved to me that Ireland is at last moving on

Yes Bono can go on a bit but as far as I am concerned, the only time it can be argued that Bono is a bullshitter is when he doesn't appreciate the savy of his audience.....and I for one will not blame him for that

 

[BVS]

No Axver, I understand what he meant. The point I was making was that it's hypocritical for the band to play the song if the message behind it is replaced a wallpaper performance of it, as if to glamourize this song that was once a burden on the band. Bono can say such BS sometimes.

You missed the point by miles!!!

 

[Screwtape2]

You're right in your first question. I got confused because when the posts began to not address the question and called it an old thread. Looking back they were about the same topic. Along with the title, I guess I thought it was about Bono's tendency to BS in general. That's completely my fault; it was only my third day on the forum. Oops.

But I don't agree with you in your second question. I believe U2 didn't want to sing the song forever. Bono said that but had to know that it was popular and would have to sing it even if Ireland had begun to move away from the "troubles." And about the last part of your question, all I can say is that we can only hope.

I disagree about the last the part. I'm sorry that I brought up something not being a straight reply to the question. Every newbie gets a few mistakes to start off with.

 

[ur i's make a O]

Screwtape2 - we agree to disagree

Welcome to Interference.

 

[Yahweh]

He is refering to the fact that U2 didnt go to the states to become a super band and didnt base their people in the states they stayed where they grew up to make the albums, I dont see what is so incorrect about saying that because it is factual.

 

[Halup]

Yeah, good thing he never said anything about there being an album in 2006

oh, wait...

Bono never said anything about releasing a new album in 2006, he said he was going to make an album with U2 in 2006. Apparently, they have already started on in the early stages of doing this. As the tour was originally going to go into April or even June or July if the proposed summer US dates had occured, I don't think Bono realistically thought they would record and release an album in the few months they had after the tour was due to end.

Had the tour ended on April 8th, they probably would have taken the remainder of April and all of May off and had just June-September to record an album that would need to be released by late November. That's not very realistic, but it is realistic for U2 to start an album in 2006 and have it ready by late 2007.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

He is receounting the trip that U2 made to London in Decmber 1979 and borrowing from the familes 500 pounds each to finance their trip. They wanted to get signed to a record deal and played several shows over 2 weeks in London. They caught the attention of Island Records, who on February 26, 1980 sent a person over to sign U2 to their label. They signed after their concert in Dublin that night which had a sell out crowd of 2,400.

The reference to not going to London and basing themselves in Dublin was that all previous Irish rocks acts that had had reasonable success (Thin Lizzy, the Boomtown Rats, Rory Gallagher) had all moved to London and based themselves there. Back in 1979-80, U2 made the conscious decision that they were not going to relocate.

U2, to this day, as a band and an organization are still based out of Dublin, though their managment, Principle Management, has a New York office.

I thought this was common knowledge about U2. It's in all the books. I was obviously wrong.