Which would you rather have: more touring or a quick album?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

U2girl

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Sep 28, 2000
Messages
21,111
Location
slovenija
In 2006, would you rather see U2 touring more or go back into the studio for a fast(er) follow up to the Bomb?

(or, if you're feeling optimistic, how about both?)


I think touring is my choice - I don't think they will skip Mexico and Australia and Japan that were all talked about (they didn't build that big stadium stage just for one leg did they?). Plus U2's albums that take longer are usually better IMO.
 
I'd rather have an album considering that odds are if they did do more touring i wouldn't get tickets. haha..
 
A quick album. I believe 'Zooropa' to be the best album of their career and would love to see if they could try and produce something equally awesome.
 
um...i'm not sure. if they toured in 2006 i donno if i can afford it. so i vote for album instead.
 
If a quick album means a rushed album than I want more touring. But if they can get together a great (not just good or very good) set of songs then bring them on.
 
initially i was concerned about that...that they wouldn't have enough time...the album would be rushed...but then again, they're pretty consistent with producing quality albums so i trust them. their weakest album is still pretty good.
 
More touring so they could hopefully get to more parts of the world.

:hmm: I guess that would mean the tour forums would stay open for much longer. :crack:


I'll have to get back to you on this one. :happy:
 
It wouldn't really make a difference ... because most likely we would get a tour, if U2 released a new album ... That is the usual U2 concept ... So, either way ... it would work out fine !! :applaud:
 
MsMofoGone said:
It wouldn't really make a difference ... because most likely we would get a tour, if U2 released a new album ... That is the usual U2 concept ... So, either way ... it would work out fine !! :applaud:

Good point! New album and then another tour:dancing:
 
A quick album..brilliant records have been made in a matter of weeks in the past, so if they made one in that timespan it wouldn't necessarily be "rushed".
 
U2girl said:
Australia (they didn't build that big stadium stage just for one leg did they?).

The Australian shows (Brisbane/Melbourne/Sydney) will be in arenas. Although I'd like to see that stadium stage IN the arena :drool:
 
Sleep Over Jack said:
A quick album..brilliant records have been made in a matter of weeks in the past, so if they made one in that timespan it wouldn't necessarily be "rushed".

Or days...

Read - Van Morrision Astral Weeks

I would prefer an album, as I would like a "capture the moment" album...of course that's what HTDAAB started out as...3+ years before it came out...I love Zooropa and the energy it has...U2 isn't a science I don't think, not even something they have figured out at all. It is probably much more a question of whether there is an energy and ideas building that they need to express. I am not sure if Vertigo is inspiring to them in the same way the cultural onslaught of ZooTV was...I just don't know. They were on the forefront then, or at least it seemed...pushing the envelope. Are they doing that now? Too early to tell in my opinion, let's see how the summer goes.
 
Last edited:
Ideally both, a la Zooropa! :wink:

Out of the 2, I'd choose more touring. I'd like more music, but they've made tons of great albums already, and there are some parts of the world that deserve U2 shows:

Australia
New Zealand
Asia
Mexico
South America
Eastern Europe

I'd rather them tour ALL these places before we see another album. :yes:
 
Definitely more touring. They have enough material to keep me happy for the rest of my life. I want to see them again. I've only seen them once and that was in April.
 
neutral said:
More touring so they could hopefully get to more parts of the world.
Now you see why i got crazy on all posts about americans.
Because they get 8 shows in one city, while in Zagreb they'll be once(if). So, i'm for tour, but only if america is skipped,not whole but 2 shows in MSG are enough. By that u2 could come to Croatia or Slovenia
 
I am Australian, so I want the tour.

Bad enough I have to wait for them to do America TWICE, before I even get to see them once!
 
I don't care if they tour or not, because they never come close enough to where I live for me to go and I could never get tickets anyway. One good thing is that there's a DVD that comes out for me to watch, however. That's always really cool. But I'd rather have more albums.
I really hate the "dry times" in between albums where there's no U2 anywhere for a year or two. They have no videos on TV and they're not on the radio. It's very frustrating, because it's like people totally forgot they exist.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom