Album or Tour? What floats your boat?

[Dorian Gray]

Despite having seen the band live multiple occasions, I still look forward to a new album than its tour. Don't get me wrong, their live shows are impossible to beat, and songs are just better in a live setting, yet the anticipation of a new record still beats that of any tour, or me... I'm curious about my fellow fans though.

So, hows about you? Which do you look forward to more?

 

[SleepyDeadMan]

New album. Love hearing new material.

 

[HelloAngel]

New album b/c they always surprise me.

 

[JCOSTER]

How Bono is going to sound on a new album. To me, his voice just keeps getting better, in his younger days, he could belt out a tune and now we've moved up to opera!

 

[Utoo]

Wow, this is a tough one!

I'd probably say 'new album'....but it's so hard! There's nothing like being at a U2 concert, and no dvd can capture the feeling! Still, a new album offers 11 or 12 or more new things, plus it can develop and mature as you listen to it over time.

 

[MrBrau1]

Easy.

Album.

 

[solar]

ALBUM

 

[Aygo]

Yeah, I'd say new album too...
The tour could come up next, if possible

 

[one4u2]

New album. Love hearing new material.

 

[MrBrau1]

A new album is great cause you can listen to it over, and over.

In the car, on your Ipod, at work, on the home stereo.

You can make mixes adding new album songs with the rest of the catalog.

A concert is great, but when it's over, it's over.

An bootlegs don't actually do live shows justice.

 

[Dorian Gray]

given your answers, I now pose this question..

if U2 were to release a crap album, and by crap I mean one that most fans see as crap (not just half), would the tour alone be able to save them from 'rock dinosaur' status? or could that be the deciding factor in the band becoming just another aging rock band like the Stones?

 

[trabantland]

given your answers, I now pose this question..

if U2 were to release a crap album, and by crap I mean one that most fans see as crap (not just half), would the tour alone be able to save them from 'rock dinosaur' status? or could that be the deciding factor in the band becoming just another aging rock band like the Stones?

Every album they have released has been crap until you listen to it .... then it just gets better all the time. Especially POP.

But with regards to the dinosaur status, just because it happened to the Stones doesn't mean it's a precedent for any other band with 30yrs under their belt. Remember, these 4 Irish blokes have hung around togehter for pretty much their whole lifetime with no significany changes, so there will always be a strong base and everyone is on the same page. So the only reason a dino call will ever be made wil be in the same context as the Stones and not on U2 as their own entity.

PS: I have really no idea what I just wrote!

 

[SleepyDeadMan]

given your answers, I now pose this question..

if U2 were to release a crap album, and by crap I mean one that most fans see as crap (not just half), would the tour alone be able to save them from 'rock dinosaur' status? or could that be the deciding factor in the band becoming just another aging rock band like the Stones?

The tour would not save them. As you said, many people consider the Rolling Stones an aging band, but they still are constantly selling out shows. Despite great tours, most people still don't care about the new album. However, if U2 were to release a "crap" album, a great follow-up album would be able to save U2 from being considered aging. That's just my take, and what do I know?

 

[indra]

A new album is great cause you can listen to it over, and over.

In the car, on your Ipod, at work, on the home stereo.

You can make mixes adding new album songs with the rest of the catalog.

A concert is great, but when it's over, it's over.

An bootlegs don't actually do live shows justice.

Yep. On all points.

 

[Axver]

I'll be the first to say tour then. U2's always been better live than in the studio. I'll go where the quality is.

 

[Thora]

Yeah, I'd say new album too...
The tour could come up next, if possible

And I like what MrBrau1 said too.

 

[thelaj]

They may be *better* on tour...but there would be no tour without album. The tour just frames the album in a new context.

A lot of bands can make a great concert, when vibrancy and showmanship can make the songs seem better. But when it is just you and the cd, the true meaning of the songs is revealed.

 

[Axver]

They may be *better* on tour...but there would be no tour without album. The tour just frames the album in a new context.

Why not? They could easily tour without an album. In fact, I'd like that. Might make for setlists with more varied album representation rather than focusing heavily on the album being promoted.

 

[Joey788]

I'd say a new album because I love hearing new songs and also because a new album almost always means a new tour.

 

[Achtung_Bebe]

each one gives me a different buzz... with the release of a new album, it's like a prolonged, persistant high. For a concert, it's like wham bam thank you ma'am. It's so intense, but way too short lived... and then the band just leaves me and moves on to the next screaming crowd of fans. I feel so used

I'll go with an album release, although I do feel like a live performance can work wonders and bring the music to life. In the end an album release does more to define U2 though imo.

 

[AtomicBono]

given your answers, I now pose this question..

if U2 were to release a crap album, and by crap I mean one that most fans see as crap (not just half), would the tour alone be able to save them from 'rock dinosaur' status? or could that be the deciding factor in the band becoming just another aging rock band like the Stones?

I don't think the tour could completely save them, but it could redeem them somewhat. However, two crap albums in a row and they're out. That's what Bono said and I agree with it. One crap album...they're U2; they could bounce back.

It's tough because U2 concerts are some of the best memories of my life, but I've gotta go with album for the reasons Brau said. Plus, there's no stress. Tours are stressful (for me anyway) cuz I gotta make sure I can get tickets, money, transport, ect...a new album I can afford no problem. And the speculations and recordings and all before an album are great fun. I think my favourite time to be a U2 fan is right before a new album, because you've got all the rumors and maybe some songs and you're excited and U2's in all the magazines and it's just great.

Plus, you know that after an album, a tour will surely follow...

 

[mads]

New album.
For the reasons already stated, and also because of the different kind of high I get waiting for a new release. It's not the same as the pure exhileration of actually being at a show, but it's incredible in a totally different way. There's something very, very special about waking up super early and waiting outside the record store to buy the first copy. Those memories have stuck with me just as well as my concert memories.

Not to mention trying to resist the internet leaks, the speculation, the painfully long wait, etc.

 

[-macphisto-]

I'll be the first to say tour then. U2's always been better live than in the studio. I'll go where the quality is.

I'd rather listen to U2's albums, then hear U2's bootlegs.

 

[scottyT]

album easily. they do great work in the studio, and put out great new work. they don't finish ideas on the road.

 

[cruzila]

each one gives me a different buzz... with the release of a new album, it's like a prolonged, persistant high. For a concert, it's like wham bam thank you ma'am. It's so intense, but way too short lived... and then the band just leaves me and moves on to the next screaming crowd of fans. I feel so used

I'll go with an album release, although I do feel like a live performance can work wonders and bring the music to life. In the end an album release does more to define U2 though imo.

I agree! An album release has growth and appreciation. From the initial feeling you get when you 1st hear it ("hmmm... it's good, but......") to the 3rd or 4th time you hear it ("this is some good stuff") to the 6th or 7th time you hear it ("this album rocks") and then even more listening brings you to "these guys are brilliant." As Achtung_Bebe said, the album does more to define U2.

 

[Jack In The Box]

new album

but I like what Axver said about a tour without new album, if that means more varied setlists would be awesome

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Live is where they live.

Besides, I find myself going to live versions of many of my favorite songs more than their studio counterparts.

 

[Bono's shades]

If U2 were to tour without a new album it would be incredibly lame. It would be like they are saying, "We couldn't be bothered to write and record any new material, but hey, let's tour again anyway and rake in the dough!"

Besides, I don't think a tour without a new album would necessarily mean more varied setlists.

 

[Axver]

If U2 were to tour without a new album it would be incredibly lame. It would be like they are saying, "We couldn't be bothered to write and record any new material, but hey, let's tour again anyway and rake in the dough!"

Considering that the fourth leg of Vertigo is over a year after HTDAAB came out, I hardly even associate it with a 'new' album any more as HTDAAB no longer seems new.

Besides, I don't think a tour without a new album would necessarily mean more varied setlists.

I didn't mean variation in terms of changes between nights, but album representation in the average setlist. A tour typically has 7+ songs from the most recent album. A tour without album may see a maximum of 4 songs per album.

 

[bono_man2002]

Both

Firsly the Album - Because its 11-12 Brand New songs, its the exicitment of hearing those 11-12 songs for the very first time , and see how good (or bad!) they can be.

Then Live because U2 do sound much better Live (In most cases) than in the studio, to see how the songs on the Album transform when they are played live.