Is there an album on the horizon? (AKA New Album Speculation)

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Screwtape2 said:
What are they supposed to say though?

If they blame it on Spider-man then the musical becomes hated by the fanbase and that story adds to the tall pile of bad press.

If they say the hype was a means of selling concert tickets there would be a backlash.

If they say they did not have the songs it will lead to doubts in the fanbase over whether they are losing or have lost their creative spark.

If they say they didn't have the "hits" then...well, pretty much nothing changes. :wink:

If they say they were scared off of releasing at the last minute then they would be embarrassing themselves publicly.

We do not know the exact reasons why the album didn't materialize but if the band was completely honest the truth would force their image to take a hit. I do not see what positives could come out of them being honest about what happened to the album.
Click to expand...

This is very logical.

The best approach is the somewhat cryptic, but safe statement of "we are still working on the songs". It doesn't give a lot of information at all, other than implying the album isn't ready for release. It leaves open tons of questions regarding direction, what is working, what isn't working, when will the album be done, etc. But that's fine - that type of short response is intentionally non-commital and that may be what's needed here.
 
BVS said:
Unfortunately I don't think they do.

Every U2 show I've been to(ZooTV to present) there's always been the frat boy/ corporate/ casual fan part of the crowd that just knows their hits and is there because they've heard they put on a good live show, and they unfortunately make up a noticable portion of the crowd.

I heard moans during RTSS during ZooTV.

Pop songs were being greeted with minimal applause during PopMart.

To the almost crickets response to Your Blue Room on this tour.
Click to expand...
Fuck casual fans. Seriously. For every band. Don't cater your live show to them.

Any band who caters their setlists to casual fans is doing it wrong. Not just for U2, for any band.
 
the only thing U2 could do that's worse than listening to their casual fans is listening to their supposed hardcore fans
at least the casual fans seem to enjoy listening to their music
 
Salome said:
the only thing U2 could do that's worse than listening to their casual fans is listening to their supposed hardcore fans
at least the casual fans seem to enjoy listening to their music
Click to expand...

ignorance is bliss :wink:
 
PhilsFan said:
Fuck casual fans. Seriously. For every band. Don't cater your live show to them.

Any band who caters their setlists to casual fans is doing it wrong. Not just for U2, for any band.
Click to expand...

Easy to say from the outside looking in...

Energy from the crowd is pretty essential to putting on a good show.
 
PhilsFan said:
I agree, but that doesn't mean you have to cater the setlist to people who only own the greatest hits albums.
Click to expand...

That crowd should be an afterthought, if the band is going to think about the audience at all, which I don't think they really should. Unless, like REM, they want to change the set dramatically from what it was the last time they visited that city.

They should think about the music. If it's good, people will like it.

Sonic Youth played the Eternal in its entirety in 2009. I didn't want them to because I don't like it all that much, but it was a great show. REM did pretty much the same thing with Accelerate. OK record, played 10 of 11 live, and it was awesome and people fucking loved it. Blur played 13 (polarizing masterpiece) start to end in 1999 - amazing. People wanted Parklife and got a revelation instead.
 
Hollow Island said:
That crowd should be an afterthought, if the band is going to think about the audience at all, which I don't think they really should. Unless, like REM, they want to change the set dramatically from what it was the last time they visited that city.

They should think about the music. If it's good, people will like it.

Sonic Youth played the Eternal in its entirety in 2009. I didn't want them to because I don't like it all that much, but it was a great show. REM did pretty much the same thing with Accelerate. OK record, played 10 of 11 live, and it was awesome and people fucking loved it. Blur played 13 (polarizing masterpiece) start to end in 1999 - amazing. People wanted Parklife and got a revelation instead.
Click to expand...

Not a band worth their salt has ever gone up on stage not thinking about the audience. This is some romantic notion people have left over from the era of punk or early 90's generations when the anti-hero was cool.

Bands like Sonic Youth, Blur, and even REM at this point don't have a huge casual following.
 
BVS said:
Not a band worth their salt has ever gone up on stage not thinking about the audience. This is some romantic notion people have left over from the era of punk or early 90's generations when the anti-hero was cool.

Bands like Sonic Youth, Blur, and even REM at this point don't have a huge casual following.
Click to expand...

It's not a romantic notion left over from any time. Think about them, but don't cater to them by trying to figure out what they want. Just do something good, and they will like it. Why should they give a fuck about casual fans anyway? If they're going to try to please people - a really annoying trait - they should aim for those who are actually into their music.

Blur had a huge casual following in the 1990s. Especially in the late 90s when Song 2 was huge.
 
Irvine511 said:
admit it: you'd be pissed too if you didn't hear "Born to Run."
Click to expand...

Not really. It's a good song, but he has lots of other good songs I'd like to hear. Who goes to a concert to hear a handful of songs? It's not a mentality I understand at all.
 
The first (and so far, only) time I saw Bruce, I would have been disappointed not to hear Born to Run. Would it have ruined the concert? No, the whole thing was amazing.

But it was still probably the highlight of the show for me. House lights went up, and I sang/shouted Born to Run with 10,000 of my closest friends.

Obviously, I didn't go JUST to hear that song and didn't show up with a list of songs I expected to hear (just the one).
 
When I saw the Flaming Lips I expected them to open with Race for The Prize, or at least play it. They didn't, and it's probably my favorite Lips song. It was still a perfect show. Best I've ever seen.
 
They opened with Race For the Prize the first time I saw them (summer 2009), but they didn't play it at all when I saw them last September. Glad I saw it the first time - I definitely missed it the second!

But boy, talk about a band where you know what to expect when you go to a show! They obviously change their songs somewhat from tour to tour, but the show itself is pretty similar. How long have they been doing those visuals and "tricks" in their show? No idea how much they vary their setlists within each tour. Not actually sure if any Lips fanatics care or not. :lol:

I had an absolute blast both times I saw them, although they played more stuff I didn't know/didn't care for the second time.

But apples to oranges, really.
 
I think every U2 show I've gone to, I've overheard someone say "I'm bummed they didn't play x." Everyone's got something they're hoping to hear.

But the whole show isn't ruined for them .... or if it is, they're ridiculous people and should never go to any concerts ever.
 
corianderstem said:
They opened with Race For the Prize the first time I saw them (summer 2009), but they didn't play it at all when I saw them last September. Glad I saw it the first time - I definitely missed it the second!

But boy, talk about a band where you know what to expect when you go to a show! They obviously change their songs somewhat from tour to tour, but the show itself is pretty similar. No idea how much they vary their setlists within each tour.

I had an absolute blast both times I saw them, although they played more stuff I didn't know/didn't care for the second time.

But apples to oranges, really.
Click to expand...

Yeah, their lists are pretty static, which is a shame since they have so many records, most of them really, really good. Still, when I saw them in 10 the set was really surprising. They'd just switched it up. But still, the fact that they didn't do what I expected (helps that I forgot about YYY song) was great.
 
BVS said:
YOU may not get it, but millions do...
Click to expand...


If there are only a few songs you want to hear, you're not really a fan and probably shouldn't go to the show, or familiarize yourself with the band so they are ready for shit they don't know if they don't like surprises.

Casual fans - fuck em. I expect nothing from bands I sorta like that I see live.
 
I probably would have taken a bathroom break if I'd gotten Mary's Place at my show. particularly if it was a 15-minute version.

That would have been my Bruce In a Little While. Except 5 times as long.
 
I don't think you can compare Blur with U2. Maybe for a brief moment in 1994/95 they were equally mainstream in the UK at least, but since they've been on very divergent paths. U2's casual fanbase makes Blur's look truly lilliputian. I'm willing to bet 20% of people who go to a U2 show don't own any of the albums AT ALL. Another 40% own between one to three albums (Best Of 1980-1990, JT, AB). Perhaps 10% or less own ten or more albums. If Blur do another show, I'm sure at least 60% of the attendees will own all the Blur albums. U2 feel they have to please far more casual followers than Blur do and their setlists reflect that.
 
I would say this, instead: if there's only a few songs you want to hear or are familiar with, don't bitch about the songs you weren't familiar with. Just enjoy it and get into the new stuff.

I brought someone to a show this past summer who had never heard the band before and had a great time. Being a music fan doesn't have to mean being familiar with all the songs.
 
lemonfly said:
I don't think you can compare Blur with U2. Maybe for a brief moment in 1994/95 they were equally mainstream in the UK at least, but since they've been on very divergent paths. U2's casual fanbase makes Blur's look truly lilliputian. I'm willing to bet 20% of people who go to a U2 show don't own any of the albums AT ALL. Another 40% own between one to three albums (Best Of 1980-1990, JT, AB). Perhaps 10% or less own ten or more albums. If Blur do another show, I'm sure at least 60% of the attendees will own all the Blur albums. U2 feel they have to please far more casual followers than Blur do and their setlists reflect that.
Click to expand...

Dude, U2 have sold over 100,000,000 records! If the people who buy those records don't go to the show, who does?

In 1999, Blur were pretty much the biggest band in England, and there were expectations for them to play certain songs and they didn't do it. That's my point: they played against expectation and did great shows.
 
Yeah, there's a big difference between a concert goer who says "I want to hear these three songs, or else I'm going to pissed" and one who says "I only know a few of their songs, but I hear they put on a great show, so sign me up, bubba."
 
BVS said:
Maybe you should start a campaign and preach this to ALL casual music fans.

Good luck! :up:
Click to expand...

They shouldn't complain about what they hear or don't hear. They should enjoy the experience for what it is.
 
PhilsFan said:
Bruce has no In a Little While and hasn't taken the life out of anything the way they've taken the life out of With or Without You.
Click to expand...


there are absolutely bathroom breaks in a Bruce show. (mercifully, too, at 2:45+). the "Working on a Dream" stuff is bathroom time.
 
PhilsFan said:
I would say this, instead: if there's only a few songs you want to hear or are familiar with, don't bitch about the songs you weren't familiar with. Just enjoy it and get into the new stuff.

I brought someone to a show this past summer who had never heard the band before and had a great time. Being a music fan doesn't have to mean being familiar with all the songs.
Click to expand...

Hollow Island said:
They shouldn't complain about what they hear or don't hear. They should enjoy the experience for what it is.
Click to expand...

But it's not about the complaining or the bitching. It's that these concert goers start to kill the mood when U2 pulls out a Blue Room, new song, or any deeper cut. It makes it hard for U2 to keep these songs in their setlists. You can't force these people to cheer loudly, no matter how great the song is, some people will just not enjoy the song unless they know it.
 
Certain stuff does well in Europe and Canada? Big deal. Crappy music gets a lot more play than in the states. My college roommate was from the UK and loved Robbie Williams. I was like "who the hell is that?" He can't even get a tour over here. Europe still pays to see David Hasselhof! You can't compare U2 with Blur and the US with UK/Europe. Like it or not, you have to make it in the states to global. Not as much so now with the internet but for sure in the 1990's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
Will Larry Return to U2?
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
dan_smee
I listened to No Line on the Horizon right through tonight for the first time in about 10 years…
2 3
Replies
83
Views
3K
lazarus
lazarus
Reggie Thee Dog
Are we NOT discussing the Dolby Atmos Mix of Achtung Baby?
Replies
13
Views
1K
count rushmore
count rushmore
Janet H
  • Sticky
Forum Update - We're back! Ask your questions here.
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Popmartijn
Popmartijn
Headache in a Suitcase
The Little Things That Give You A Mercy Rip Off
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
lazarus
lazarus

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom