Bono talks 3 albums again

[mama cass]

The gap between Zooropa and Pop was just under 4 years, and a side project album was released between them. The gap Numbers was talking about is closer to 7 years with only one full release.

And the period prior to the Zooropa/Pop gap was a great deal more fruitful, with a blockbuster album just two years before, and a massive hit tour. U2 has done that, but hasn't released enough music to make the two eras comparable. Zooropa/Passengers/Pop pissed a lot of people off, but at least there was music to judge and ground to be broken.

what do you mean "Zooropa/Passengers/Pop pissed a lot of people off"?? do you mean at the time or in retrospect?

because, who knew about Passengers at the time?? apart from the die-hards/fan magazine subscribers??

as just a regular music fan, i certainly didn't have a clue! and i loved U2's music back then! i only discovered that Passengers existed about 10 years ago and what a very nice surprise it was too lol

and i'm not alone in that - many of my friends had never heard of Passengers either, despite owning all of U2's other releases and seeing them in concert... so, what i'm saying, is that, as someone who was around and into music in a big way at that time, i didn't really care about the gap between Zooropa and Pop, as there was so much other stuff going on elsewhere, but it just seemed that was the way things were back then...

but i do feel that things are expected to move so much faster these days, so it would be quite easy for a band to miss the boat and lose their spot in the public consciousness, i dunno... and i agree, the longer gaps now are probably quite detrimental to the band in a way, as in attracting and keeping a new generation of fans... although there is a massive back catalogue for new fans to work thru, say, unlike Gaga for instance!

 

[mama cass]

They should just release DYFL right now. It's perfect.

 

[mama cass]

POP was a failure in America.

maybe America wasn't ready for it back then?

POP is massively underrated! i cannot get my head round all this failure talk...

 

[Aardvark747]

Here's Springsteen's releases in the same period:

2005 - Devils & Dust
2006 - We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions
and: Hammersmith Odeon London '75 (archival live album)
2007 - Magic
and: Live in Dublin
2008 - nothing
2009 - Working On A Dream
and: Bruce Springsteen & The E-Street Band Greatest Hits (compilation)
2010: The Promise (old material, but all previously unreleased + accompanying documentary film)
2011: nothing
2012: New Studio Album!

Even discounting the archival stuff and compilations, that's 6 albums of new material in the period U2 will probably release 1 (short) album. And this is an artist 10 years older than U2, who has lost no relevance.

 

[mama cass]

I was in college when Passengers came out, believe me hardly anyone noticed.

damn i wish i read that before i wrote my essay above lol - i would've just said " "

 

[cobl04]

I was five when Passengers was released and it was huge. I remember it clearly because I kept begging Mum to take me to Video Ezy to find Gibigiane.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Passengers sold 50,000 copies in my suburb back in 1995, with another 25,000 the following year.

 

[mama cass]

I was five when Passengers was released and it was huge. I remember it clearly because I kept begging Mum to take me to Video Ezy to find Gibigiane.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I had no idea Passengers was even coming until Miss Sarajevo popped up on the radio. But OF COURSE it wasn't hyped and didn't receive much attention. It wasn't supposed to be that kind of release. Which is sort of the point isn't it? Would be fantastic if they still had both the attitude and avenue for something like that (lesser releases).

Pop is where the U2 narrative in the US and ROW separate. Pity that via both the band and dominance of US media, it's the US narrative that is taken as standard.

 

[Galeongirl]

They need to make an album that they're proud of and that the fans would love. Who cares about how well it does?

 

[BVS]

2005 - nothing
2006 - nothing
2007 - nothing
2008 - nothing
2009 - NLOTH
2010 - nothing
2011 - nothing
2012 - probably nothing

There has been 1 album released in 7 years. You attempted to compare this drought to 1993-1997, which had three releases from the band.

No, I was just comparing the timespan between albums, which to me only seems logical.

Here's Springsteen's releases in the same period:

2005 - Devils & Dust
2006 - We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions
and: Hammersmith Odeon London '75 (archival live album)
2007 - Magic
and: Live in Dublin
2008 - nothing
2009 - Working On A Dream
and: Bruce Springsteen & The E-Street Band Greatest Hits (compilation)
2010: The Promise (old material, but all previously unreleased + accompanying documentary film)
2011: nothing
2012: New Studio Album!

Even discounting the archival stuff and compilations, that's 6 albums of new material in the period U2 will probably release 1 (short) album. And this is an artist 10 years older than U2, who has lost no relevance.

His own disocraphy counts 4 albums, one of covers. But if you're going to use this as a guide then you're going to have to include U23d, WAIA, and all the re-releases.

Obviously it still puts Springsteens new material more than U2, but that's pretty much a given. But to say Springsteen hasn't lost any "relevance" may be a stretch. Actually, it is a stretch.

 

[The Panther]

His own disocraphy counts 4 albums, one of covers.

Add it up -- from 2005 to later this year (he has a new album penciled in for release this year), it's 6 albums of new material. No covers, no comps included.

But if you're going to use this as a guide then you're going to have to include U23d, WAIA, and all the re-releases.

So, no.

But to say Springsteen hasn't lost any "relevance" may be a stretch. Actually, it is a stretch.

Not so sure about this. I would argue that Springsteen's "relevance" was probably higher in the 2000s than in the 1990s, and higher in the past 5-6 years than any time since the late 80s.

 

[BVS]

Add it up -- from 2005 to later this year (he has a new album penciled in for release this year), it's 6 albums of new material. No covers, no comps included.

Please help me, I stopped really following Bruce awhile back. According to his own website: Devils and Dust(2005), Magic(2007), and Working on a Dream(2009). What am I missing? The rest seem like comps, cover albums, and live albums?

So, no.

Why not did you count that stuff in your original comparison?

Not so sure about this. I would argue that Springsteen's "relevance" was probably higher in the 2000s than in the 1990s, and higher in the past 5-6 years than any time since the late 80s.

Arguing relevance seems rather pointless to me given that it's so subjective how it's measured. I would say Bruce had a bit of surge with the Rising post 9/11 similiar to U2's surge, but they both haven't quite had that since.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

we shall overcome was a studio album... covers, sure. but a studio album. and that period did produce American Land, a bruce original, which in my opinion is the best song he's put out since the 80's.

the relevance argument is stupid. relevance is important to those whom the act is relevant to. bruce springsteen and u2 are very relevant to me. neither is relevant to your average justin bieber fan.

if you're going to talk bruce vs. u2... the thing you talk about is that bruce long ago stopped giving a crap about mainstream success and being on the radio, whereas u2 still grasps on to the outdated concept that radio=relevancy.

that's why bruce will put out an acoustic album and a bluegrass album, because he doesn't care... whereas u2 won't release anything unless they're assured it has lots of hits.

i wish u2 would think more like bruce. they're big enough to not care. by not caring, they will be better, and ironically, more "relevant," whatever that means.

a tour where we don't know 95% of the setlist, in order, before the show even begins would be nice, too... but one thing at a time.

 

[BVS]

we shall overcome was a studio album... covers, sure. but a studio album. and that period did produce American Land, a bruce original, which in my opinion is the best song he's put out since the 80's.

the relevance argument is stupid. relevance is important to those whom the act is relevant to. bruce springsteen and u2 are very relevant to me. neither is relevant to your average justin bieber fan.

if you're going to talk bruce vs. u2... the thing you talk about is that bruce long ago stopped giving a crap about mainstream success and being on the radio, whereas u2 still grasps on to the outdated concept that radio=relevancy.

that's why bruce will put out an acoustic album and a bluegrass album, because he doesn't care... whereas u2 won't release anything unless they're assured it has lots of hits.

i wish u2 would think more like bruce. they're big enough to not care. by not caring, they will be better, and ironically, more "relevant," whatever that means.

a tour where we don't know 95% of the setlist, in order, before the show even begins would be nice, too... but one thing at a time.

Thanks, and I agree...

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anSQtsuX6HE

 

[Hollow Island]

Here's Springsteen's releases in the same period:

2005 - Devils & Dust
2006 - We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions
and: Hammersmith Odeon London '75 (archival live album)
2007 - Magic
and: Live in Dublin
2008 - nothing
2009 - Working On A Dream
and: Bruce Springsteen & The E-Street Band Greatest Hits (compilation)
2010: The Promise (old material, but all previously unreleased + accompanying documentary film)
2011: nothing
2012: New Studio Album!

Even discounting the archival stuff and compilations, that's 6 albums of new material in the period U2 will probably release 1 (short) album. And this is an artist 10 years older than U2, who has lost no relevance.

You can't compare the output of a solo artist with that of a band. A solo artist has more freedom, less of a need to compromise, and they can work much faster. A better comparison would be Sonic Youth, a band just as old as U2. They've released 10 albums since 2000, and 5 if you don't count the SYR albums (which you should). U2 have 3. Hell, Sonic Youth have put out more since 2000 than U2 have since 1990.

2000 - NYC Ghosts and Flowers
2000 - SYR 5
2002 - Murray St
2004 - Sonic Nurse
2005 - SYR 6
2006 - Rather Ripped
2008 - SYR 7
2008 - SYR 8
2009 - The Eternal
2011 - SYR 9

However, Sonic Youth are an anomaly and U2's output for the last 11 years is average for a band of their age. I'm sure everyone has a theory for why U2 spend four years between albums (work too much, not enough, tour too long, too many outside commitments, it gets harder to write songs as they age, etc), but there is nothing odd about the three-four year gaps.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I didn't even know sonic youth were still around until just now

 

[Hollow Island]

I didn't even know sonic youth were still around until just now

You're missing out! Check out Murray St. It's their most anthemic, exuberant album with guitar playing that equals Marquee Moon. It's their "classic rock" album.

I'm sure a lot of people would be surprised that Springsteen still puts out albums.

 

[digitize]

I wish U2 were like David Bowie. They should snort mounds of cocaine in order to record albums in seven sleepless days, and then completely forget the recording sessions for those albums.

 

[djerdap]

I didn't even know sonic youth were still around until just now

Actually, it seems like they're not anymore, since Thurston Moore and Kim Gordon are going through a divorce right now.

 

[Hollow Island]

Actually, it seems like they're not anymore, since Thurston Moore and Kim Gordon are going through a divorce right now.

Well, they're not broken up. Lee says they're taking a break and don't know what they're going to do regarding new material. They've been taking a break for a while, playing the odd show. They're working on a bunch or archival projects right now.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

I wish U2 were like David Bowie. They should snort mounds of cocaine in order to record albums in seven sleepless days, and then completely forget the recording sessions for those albums.

Im not sure that type of activity is good for 50 year olds. Though i wouldn't be too surprised if something like this happened at some point in the 90's.

 

[digitize]

Im not sure that type of activity is good for 50 year olds. Though i wouldn't be too surprised if something like this happened at some point in the 90's.

Maybe it would make them magical and immortal, like David Bowie.

 

[An Cat Gav]

Maybe it would make them magical and immortal, like David Bowie.

I certainly agree that Bowie is magical and I hope he's immortal, but hasn't he had to retire due to his failing health? I think this happened a few years back.

 

[arzcrack]

How is that any different from the time between Zooropa and Pop? Were they "relevant" then?

In no other ten year period ever has there been only two albums.

Just prior to Pop, say 1996, there had been five if you count passengers. It just means there is a generation of younger people for whom U2 are off the radar due to the paucity of material.

So, I think your mid 90s example is different to the current situation.

 

[Aardvark747]

if you're going to talk bruce vs. u2... the thing you talk about is that bruce long ago stopped giving a crap about mainstream success and being on the radio, whereas u2 still grasps on to the outdated concept that radio=relevancy.

that's why bruce will put out an acoustic album and a bluegrass album, because he doesn't care... whereas u2 won't release anything unless they're assured it has lots of hits.

i wish u2 would think more like bruce. they're big enough to not care. by not caring, they will be better, and ironically, more "relevant," whatever that means.

 

[The Panther]

I'm sure a lot of people would be surprised that Springsteen still puts out albums.

Well, all his recent albums were international chart toppers...

 

[The Panther]

You can't compare the output of a solo artist with that of a band. A solo artist has more freedom, less of a need to compromise, and they can work much faster.

It may be the case that U2 are quite democratic and fight tooth-and-nail every step of the way, but I still don't think your point is valid. Just because it's a democracy doesn't mean you get a free pass to produce nothing, and solo artists like Bruce have to write all the songs themselves, without collaborators.

 

[BVS]

It may be the case that U2 are quite democratic and fight tooth-and-nail every step of the way, but I still don't think your point is valid. Just because it's a democracy doesn't mean you get a free pass to produce nothing, and solo artists like Bruce have to write all the songs themselves, without collaborators.

I think you missed his point by a mile. (Wow, I'm actually agreeing with Hollow Island?)

The difference between a band and a solo artist is like that of a married man and a single man, the single man is going to have much more freedom to go out, buy things, or do things without discussion.