does anyone just not really care about U2 anymore?

[Moonlit_Angel]

I?ve loved U2 since the "War" album, and that love has not diminished one bit.
But when they take a "break" so do I and I discover artist that I may not have if U2 cranked out one record a year. Not to mention the fact that the public would get sick of hearing them if pushed out records as fast as some other artist have done.

Just look at this way, they come back, fresh with new ideas, new sounds, and new energy, mean while we get a break from them, listen to new artist, music that we may have missed.

It's a win/win situation.

VIVA U2!

Exactly.

Angela

 

[Diemen]

I?ve loved U2 since the "War" album, and that love has not diminished one bit.
But when they take a "break" so do I and I discover artist that I may not have if U2 cranked out one record a year. Not to mention the fact that the public would get sick of hearing them if pushed out records as fast as some other artist have done.

Just look at this way, they come back, fresh with new ideas, new sounds, and new energy, mean while we get a break from them, listen to new artist, music that we may have missed.

It's a win/win situation.

VIVA U2!

Well said. I'm surprised how many people think U2 is the end-all be-all of music and don't really pay much attention to the rest of the music scene. There are tons of really awesome bands/musicians out there, and if you spend the time between U2 albums just waiting around for the next one instead of exploring other artists, you're missing out on lots of great music, perhaps even a band you will grow to love more than U2 (hey, it could happen ).

 

[Lemon Meringue]

A constant diet of the same thing is not good...even if it is U2 music. It's not bad to take a break once in a while and try something new.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

U2, what is up with those guys

Seriously, they take too damn long making albums. The wait from POP to ATYCLB and now ATYCLB to whatever this album will be called.

Perfectionism in terms of art isn't necessarily a good thing. Not only does the wait suck, but sometimes too much editing, or too much changing of a song can probably result in crap songs. I see it in art, etc... it can't be any different for music.

The person who talked about the wait between War and Unforgettable Fire is correct. I think it was a one year difference between releases. Those albums were fine and groundbreaking, yet made in less time than what this new album is taking.

Is it impossible to put out classics or artistically fine albums? I'm thinking with the amount of time they have, they would have a double album by now. Hell, I'm thinking a White Album or an Exile on Main Street. I can only hope this new album even matches those albums. I'm not losing interest, b/c I'm always interested in what's next for U2, but if this album is just soso in terms of enjoyment/ quality than this current wait will only make feelings of disappointment worse.

What makes it even more frustrating is that you have bands like Radiohead, Coldplay, etc. who are considered the "new U2" or whatever putting out 2 or 3 albums in between the time when ATYCLB came out and to now.

As for Bono's politics and who he hangs out with, I don't give a shit... Bush is not Saddam, Hitler, or any psycho fruitcake... so if Bono wants to cozy up for a cause, than all the power to him... However, Bono's charitable causes/ news pieces are startingt to annoy me a little (must think about the good things)....

Turning off rant...

 

[Flying FuManchu]

I listen to a lot of music outside of U2 so I don't inundate myself with U2 24/7 and I'm not suffering from withdrawal IMO, but its been too long for what looks like a 11-12 song album. A band that promotes itself as being the biggest band in the world sure takes a freaking long time put out albums...

 

[~LadyLemon~]

Yes, Bono annoys me as well, but I won't go there.

I barely listen to U2 at all anymore (I have discovered so many great artists since their last tour), but I know that I'll once more be all hypered over them when their album comes out, and even more so when I see them on tour. However I've been to the U2 exhibit at the HOF three times this year, each time I've been running around it like a giddy kid. I love those guys more than anything, but breaks are good. Absence makes the heart grow fonder

 

[Saracene]

Most of my favourite bands aren't even active anymore, so I can't say I'm -that- bummed out about the long wait between the albums.

 

[KristenF]

Most of my favourite bands aren't even active anymore, so I can't say I'm -that- bummed out about the long wait between the albums.

Me too. In addition to U2, I'm a huge Crowded House fan and sadly, they are no more. Their former singer, Neil Finn, is still active-but he's about as fast as U2 when it comes to making an album. Patience is a virtue.

 

[JOFO]

You know, some songs take alot of work to write, I'm sure. For example, "Beutiful Day" and "Walk On" probably went through many different versions before they arrived at the final ones. They also probably spent alot of time on"Stuck".

Some songs, however, they could've wrote in 5 minutes, such as: "Elevation", "Wild Honey", "Kite", "New York"....

I wonder if they just hang out until it's "Time to start writing for the new record" or what....I don't see why edge doesn't spend a few minutes every soundcheck trying new stuff and then taping it or something...that way they'd have a ton of potential material once they began working on the new album. Same with Bono and lyrics.

Then again, with ATYCLB coming out 10/00, in between then and now was a world tour, grammys, data, families, writing, recording....


If the new album is as good as the B-man says it is, I won't mind the wait.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Well said. I'm surprised how many people think U2 is the end-all be-all of music and don't really pay much attention to the rest of the music scene. There are tons of really awesome bands/musicians out there, and if you spend the time between U2 albums just waiting around for the next one instead of exploring other artists, you're missing out on lots of great music, perhaps even a band you will grow to love more than U2 (hey, it could happen ).

Diemen always makes sense.

 

[anitram]

When U2 puts out a new record, I get excited. I get excited by new songs and the tour and I ride that natural high for a while.

In the 3-4 years in between, I buy tons of other CDs, I see tons of other live acts, and have a great time. I don't think I need U2 24/7 in my life.

 

[mayflower]

I'm having the same problem.
I'm bored too.
Sometimes I just want to sell my entire collection.
Everytime I try to force myself to like them,it doesn't work.I forcefully watch their VCD shows and listen to them,but nothing seems to grip me.
I don't want to leave them,but I just don't know.
Maybe I've burnt them out.

 

[Sue DeNym]

I'm having the same problem.
I'm bored too.
Sometimes I just want to sell my entire collection.
Everytime I try to force myself to like them,it doesn't work.I forcefully watch their VCD shows and listen to them,but nothing seems to grip me.
I don't want to leave them,but I just don't know.
Maybe I've burnt them out.

Don't force yourself. You probably are burnt out. A steady diet of anything is not healthy.

My advice: pack up the CDs and videos and put them away for a while. Listen to other favorite artists, watch other videos. Take your time, explore new avenues, dig up artists from the past and new ones from today. In a month, or year, or whatever, take them out again and watch and listen to them again. They'll sound fresh and beautiful when you're ready for them again.

 

[mayflower]

OK.
Will take your advice.I really hope it works.I definitely wouldn't want U2 to leave my list of favorite bands ever!

 

[alexvilagosh]

Just listen to other stuff. When the new album comes out again. you'll be gripped, and if you see them live you won't be caught with anything but a U2 cd in your cd player for about a year after...

 

[ali 78]

I see where some of you come from, cos it's pretty much the same for me.

I haven't listend to any U2 music for quite a while now and I don't feel the need to do it. I'm listening to a lot of other artists and music and I'm happy like that. I know that sooner or later I'll come back to U2, it has always been like that. I only hope that this new album is going to be awesome, "difficult", great...and I hope I won't be disappointed, but at the same time I'm a little bit scared..I don't know, just a feeling...

As for Bono's political work...I'm so sick of it, I mean, I appreciate all he's done for Africa and Data, but I'm sick of seeing him on the papers for things which don't involve music...I want him back as a singer, performer and amazing lyricist!!!

BTW, I'm sort of new, not the board cos I registered a long time ago, but I wrote almost nothing...

 

[mayflower]

I understand your feeling scared about the new album.I'm scared too that it might just suck.Perhaps because of Bono's political engagements.I just don't have a good feeling about this one,really.

 

[Sherry Darling]

To my dear U2 fans who think it takes U2 too long to make an album....

Try being a Springsteen fan sometime.

Yours,
SD

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Major artists (as U2 are) usually do not have the pressure of record companies, fans or themselves to produce a (possible mediocre) album every year. Why would U2 want to write 15 songs and pare them down to 10-11 and throw an album out, only to see it sink, or suck, or find themselves overexposed, or interest lacking because of that overexposure? U2 are as commercially calculating as the next major band (that is not a put-down), they know the key is to be a little dodgy.

U2 go into the studio put down some demos, then sort through those demos, determined to find the songs that work best. Out of that process they may come up with new songs, which could push the album of songs in a different direction. And so forth. Island/Interscope are not demanding they have finished product out ASAP. It doesn't work that way once you have reached the point that U2 has - International Superstardom.

As for Bono shaking the Bushes up a bit, or charging off to Africa to fight diseases, or debt, who else is doing that? Are they not relevant issues? Does he not hold a specific power by shear star presence? You think it's bad now, you should have been there in the early days when he crapped that stuff everyday. Boyish enthusiam. Now he's at least coming up with some of the answers.

 

[Zooropa]

Keep in mind that while U2 puts out a new album every 3 - 4 years, I highly doubt it has a lot to do with an inability to come up with material. Perhaps, the band likes to enjoy life, and not be tied to music as the be all, end all of their existince. Several of them have families, and I'm sure that after doing it for 20+ years, they probably just like to chill out a little, and persue other interests, rather than constantly tour and record. U2 is in a somewhat unique place in music, how many artists can claim to still be relevant, critically acclaimed, as well as commercially popular after 20 years of playing together? compare them with a few other bigtime rock bands:

U2: 21 years - u2's 10th studio album ATYCLB sells over 4 million copies in the US and is hailed by critics as U2's third masterpiece.

other bands...

The Beatles: Done after after 10 years together

The Rolling Stones: Still going, but havent recorded an album in 6 years and comparitivly, at twenty years old, the stones released "undercover" the first in a series of disappointing albums. The last universally acclaimed Stones album "Some Girls" was released in 1978, 14 years into their career.

The Who: Done after 18 years together. The last two albums were shadows of their predocessers. "Who are you" was their last very good album, and that came out in 78, after being together for 15 years.

Pink Floyd: formed in 67, their last universally acclaimed album was the wall, released in '79. The division Bell was their last album released in '94. 17 years and done

The police: lasted from 78-83.

Led Zeppelin: 69-79. Thier last universally accalimed album was Physical Grafitti. Their 6th studio album.

So, If u2 feels the need to take time off between albums to recharge their batteries, that's fine with me. I'm sure if U2 wanted too, they could produce an album every year or so, but at what cost. More than likely they would have burned out by now. The time in between albums, gives them time to enjoy their lives outside of music.

Lastly, they don;t owe us anything, we choose to be fans of their music. If they want to record once evry 3-4 years, so be it. They are under no obligation to put out an album if they don't want to.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Exactly, Reggie and Zooropa.

Once again, people, 3 to 4 years is not unusual for these guys-if you look at everything since UF, that's about how long it's taken them for the most part to make albums. I could understand your concerns if it got to be 6 years after ATYCLB and they still hadn't put out an album yet. But as of now, they're taking as long as they normally do.

Besides, yet again, this question is to be asked-some people here don't like Pop, because one of the complaints was that it was rushed and those who aren't fond of that album wished U2 had taken a little more time with it. Now U2 is taking time...and people want them to hurry up. So what should U2 do?

Angela

 

[Blacksword]

Well I got into U2 right around Pop, but being the methodical lad I was then I decided to go back and buy all their old stuff first. As I had no CD player and cassettes were still fairly easy to buy in 96, nearly all my major U2 albums are on tape . Bought UF and JT for cheap, then picked up War and AB, then went out and Picked up Zooropa and Pop. Didn't warm up to Pop right away, liked a lot of the songs but it wasn't til a coupe years later that it became my favourite album (though UF, RH and Zooropa are really close). Grabbed Boy somewhere in there and bought October and RH on CD cause I couldn't find them on tape anywhere, same thing with UBRS. ATYCLB is still is a downer for me. It's well put together but nothing really new. After my initial insane fanaticism (I bought every single I could find and downloaded absolutely every b-side and live performance, read a couple books - U2 at the End of the World is a defintie must read) I began expanding my musical taste and ATYCLB did nothing to revive my enthusiasm. The tour was good (on tape as I missed its stops near me) and i was into U2 for as long as it was running (and new singles coming out and new live MP3s) but after that I puttered out. I'm still into it otherwise I wouldn't be posting here but:

My top bands right now are:
Radiohead (been in my list for several years)
Manic Street Preachers
Queens of the Stone Age (Songs for the Deaf still kicks ass, where Audioslave grew tired)
The Clash
U2

I find it hard to put any of those at the top of my list, each as their particular strengths and then it depends on my mood. Plus I have a bunch of newer bands in circulation, BRMC, the Wrens some older bands like the Pixies and for some reason recently I've got moderately hooked on Garbage (Shirly Manson's voice just does things for me). So basically if I had to pick a favourite I'd say U2 but it's not without thought anymore, more like default as I can't pick between any of the others and they do hold a bit more of an emotional weight for me. Kinda like a warm couch groove.

 

[The_acrobat]

The album is FINISHED right now.

They started working on it in the beginning of 2002. So really, this album didn't even take 2 years to make. You can't start counting from October 31st, 2000 and say it's been over 3 years that they've been working on this album. Last week, the Elevation tour celebrated it's 2nd year anniversary of ending.

So just think of it that way.......it took U2 2 years to make this album.

 

[TiaraGurl]

I think it was Alan Light of Spin who said in late 2001 that U2 id truly swimming in uncharted waters I mean who has stayed around this long and remained pretty relevant and interesting. I just want to get on the ride again.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

i'm not sure if i can say i don't care about them anymore, but i do feel frustrated that it's taken so long for them to come out with something. especially when every day bono's out carousing with someone completely not music related! but i just listen to other music instead.

like others have said, so many of the bands i listen to have broken up that it isn't as much of a problem for me to wait, as some of my bands will never release an album again. they're all gone solo, sure, but that's never the same.

 

[mikal]

wow! i really sparked a debate here!


i just want to reafirm that i love this band to death. i'm just getting frustrated with them(bono mostly).

i'm sure when the album comes out, i'll be praising the ground beneath bono's feet.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Feels like forever... I blame Bono and world suffering the long album wait...

 

[Liesje]

Sometimes I just want to sell my entire collection.

well, uh, let me know if you do!

 

[Jack In The Box]

I'm a "new fan", before U2 didn't have "favorite band", I knew U2 in a very precise moment of my life, after U2 I knew a lot of music, other bands thrill me, I listen a lot of music, but the Irish men continue being my favorite band, because I like them, not only their music, everything what they imply, I'm not interested in the politicians and the politics, and in spite of the fact that U2 imply politics, I try not worry about that and worry more in the music

It's true, the wait bores, but that U2 care you doesn't want to say that the whole day you should be listening their music, can be re-discovered many things of the same U2, and discover new music, without U2 stop you caring

 

[rivergoat]

Holy smokes, I see it's time to time to put my hoof in my mouth...

I first got hooked on U2 when New Year's Day came out (1983), and of course, War was then my favorite album... bought the older stuff, yeah, but even after The Unforgettable Fire came out, it took me a couple of years to get into that... fast forward to present day, I am currently hooked on Pop... guess I'll always be an album behind, it just takes time for their stuff to grow on me (a rolling stone gathers no moss, eh?)... guess what I am saying is that I appreciate rather than devour...

I don't know about any of the other folks who have been fans for the last 15+ years or so, but I find Bono's politicking amusing... oh, I know he's doing his good deeds and all, but it's still hard for me to believe that the same guy who used to sing his heart out at Live Aid and Amnesty (like a voice in the wilderness, never seemed like anyone WHO COULD MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE heard him) is now cozying up with world figures and politicians... and actually getting stuff done... I mean geez! it took ya 20 years to catch an ear pal?

For those of y'all who are SICK AND TIRED of Bono's non-musical pursuits, I can only say that he's been crying out to get shit done for 20 years and now he FINALLY has the popularity to get him enough CLOUT to make folks actually listen to him... Am I sick of it? No way... you go, Bono...

And EGADS! a few YEARS between albums? Omigod! You mean they aren't gonna throw out fluff and nonsense just to make a fast buck???? You mean I might have to try and track down obscure recordings and bootlegs to satisfy my overwhelming U2 cravings? You mean I have to listen to something else for a change just so's I can appreciate what those four lazy mofo's get around to putting out WHEN THEY DARN WELL FEEL LIKE IT?? WTF would I be mad at them for?

I'm a consumer, they're the producers... it's not like it's cotton candy.. lots of sugar, lots of air - no real sustenence (sp?)... I'd rather be satiated than saturated...

just my thoughts...

much love

goat

}~