No recording sessions until November!

[Popmartijn]

I love the way Bruce Springsteen puts out albums and announces tours. A month ago the new album was announced for this October and this week the tour was announced for October-November. Of course, it's easier for Bruce because he writes songs on his own, but still...

So?
For months there have been reports of Bruce recording a new album, together with the E Street Band. In what way is this different than with U2. We all pay more attention to news about what U2 is doing than about what Bruce is doing, but in the end it's the same.

And oh, Magic will be released in the fall...

 

[Popmartijn]

What lessens the excitement is the whole rigid, corporate-mindedness of the whole thing. Sure, they're experimenting in Fez and all that, but McGuinne$$ says it has to come out in the fall, and that's all there is to it. You're never again going to experience the joy of a Zooropa, which wasn't known about until what, a month before it came out? 4 months between recording and release? There's no point in even dreaming of some kind of early surprise, because it ain't happening.

Don't blame McGuinness or U2 for this, but your own behaviour on the Internet. The way it is now is no different than when it was in 1990. Achtung Baby was calculated to come out in the fall of 1991. U2 missed the deadline with Pop, but that one was also scheduled for the fall (1996). And rumours about Zooropa (or at least, U2 recording in the studio for a project) were flying around for months before the release of the actual album. Only, 15 years ago it took some time (weeks, months) for the news to spread. If you pay some attention on the Internet, then most of these newsflashes will be known to you within days. At most.

So this isn't corporate mindedness from U2, it's the way information is spreading nowadays. From 1988 onwards, U2 albums are planned to come out in the fall. And there's only one real exception to this: Zooropa.
And who knows. Maybe they record an album the next time they're on tour and release that one in the spring. It can always happen.

You get the sense they are following a pre-determined schedule instead of making the music when they want to, and instead of releasing it when it's ready, when marketing research says it is.

I think they need to follow a schedule. Otherwise we might never hear a record by them as they keep tinkering with them. (Almost) every artist/band follows a schedule.

Pop didn't perform (relatively) poorly because it came out in the spring, it was because (a) people weren't ready for it, and (b) they didn't pick the right singles. Zooropa, which still managed to go multi-platinum, didn't approach Achtung's sales because it was fucking OUT THERE, and they didn't tour it in the U.S., not because it came out in the summer.

I think this is partially true. I think these albums you mention could've had higher sales when they'd come out in the fall. Most records are bought in the fall (could be almost half of the yearly sales, IIRC), so newly released records do have an advantage then. But it is true that the single choices for Zooropa and Pop were poor. And the music was also less accessible than an Achtung Baby or All That You Can't Leave Behind.

I don't see anything wrong with them adhering to a fall release schedule. As long as they keep to that schedule.

 

[LemonMelon]

Definitely, but U2's as much as a money-making machine as they are a rock band nowadays, it's just the way of things.

Except, if you read the copious amounts of articles posted in the last year, you would see that they're not interested in being complacent.

Be cynical if you wish, but I see no reason not to accept their words at face value.

 

[Irvine511]

Except, if you read the copious amounts of articles posted in the last year, you would see that they're not interested in being complacent.

Be cynical if you wish, but I see no reason not to accept their words at face value.

pretty much.

they don't need to make themselves any more money. but their existence makes a lot of money for a lot of other people, from Paul McG all the way down to some entry-level kid working at Interscope. i don't think U2 looks at their collective bank accounts and determines their schedule, but they do try and work within a framework that serves them artisticallly and serves the record company financially. everyone wants the album to be a "success" -- and that's measured in different ways by different people. U2 want to sell 10m copies of an album because they want 10m people to own their album. being huge is part of who they are, and the money that comes with that is nice, but it's not even close to a central motivation. for them. for others, money is a central motivation. and so, you do the best you can within the paradigm that you operate. why do you think that all the "Oscar buzz" movies are released at the end of the year? does that lessen their quality? is it a crime that small but brilliant movies are released in just a handful of theaters in LA and NYC just before the end of the year so that they qualify for Oscar consideration, and then if/when they do get their nominations, they slowly roll out a wider release over the course of the winter and lap up as much buzz as possible, and then should that film win Oscars, more people see it? a movie as challenging to mainstream audiences as "Brokeback Mountain" did precisely this, and it made nearly $100m in the US alone, and won a bunch of Oscars, and does that lessen it's artistic achievement one iota?

no.

what good is a brilliant little movie that no one sees?

likewise, what good is a U2 album that isn't successful by a variety of standards?

 

[LMP]

Except, if you read the copious amounts of articles posted in the last year, you would see that they're not interested in being complacent.

Be cynical if you wish, but I see no reason not to accept their words at face value.

I wasn't trying to be cynical, it just seems like a fact. They're one of the most, if not the most, marketable rock band worldwide, so it makes sense to capitalize on sales before Christmas and it's been working.

There's no rush for a new album, at least from me. As long as it meets my expectations, I'll be happy and I'm sure other fans will be, too.

 

[Zoots]

Seems to me that it's the typical 4 year wait that some people find annoying. Cos seriously, if they'd released the new album in Fall 2006, just 2 years after the Bomb, I don't think we would be seeing so many frustrated posts. Rather than Fall releases, it's the robotic 4 year plan (2000 - 2004 - 2008..) that's getting on everyone's tits I think.

 

[BVS]

Can it really be "typical" if it's only happened the last two albums?

 

[Zoots]

It's becoming typical... people seem to be getting impatient and annoyed that it seems like fall 2008 now.

 

[LMP]

The output since '93 has been either 3-4 years in-between albums:

'93 - Zooropa
(Passengers in '95, but how many fans really knew this was a U2 release?)
'97 - Pop
'00 - ATYCLB
'04 - The Bomb

with touring and new releases in-between all of those dates, it's about to par with bands like the Red Hot Chili Peppers and (now) Radiohead in length between albums.

 

[LemonMelon]

(Passengers in '95, but how many fans really knew this was a U2 release?)

The vast majority. Especially once they heard Bono start singing.

 

[Rich79]

I, too, am getting irritated by the wait. However, I believe it's natural to be impatient after about a two-year mark since a previous album, and since we're going on 3 years now, it's really starting to sink in.

Though, at a time like this, I have to keep in mind the fans of bands like Aerosmith or Tool or most of the "Big" bands out there these days. They are waiting some 5 or 6 years to hear new material. I for one am thankful that it might only take 4 years for U2.

And for those who are upset with the thought of the band just putting off release dates for marketing purposes, I say "Let them". Think about it: U2 is better than anything on the radio these days, yet they still seem to get a fair amount of airplay when a release comes around. So, when you have a band that is (in my opinion) one of the last legitimate rock groups to actually see the light of day on radio; I think they should be allowed to do whatever it takes to stay there and keep some kind of hope of good music alive, even if that includes a few marketing tricks. They still aren't selling out their musical integrity in exchange, so I don't hold it against them at all.

I'm greatly looking forward to the new material and think it will definitely be worth the wait.

 

[angelordevil]

There's no rush for a new album, at least from me. As long as it meets my expectations, I'll be happy and I'm sure other fans will be, too.

I feel the same way. At the moment, I'm also a little ambivalent about it all...I'm not craving anything new, but maybe that's by design. I'd rather have them go away for a stretch and come back with something truly unique than get stuck in the same musical moments they can't get out of (Uggg). The writing collaboration this time around seems like a fresh approach, but we'll see. Can old habits from the usual suspects be completely jarred free and stirred into something engaging? From what I'm reading, I'm optimistic it could happen.

It generally sounds like there's a concerted effort not to create Bomb II ...that excites me. It's just a slow-burning excitement, as I completely realize nothing will be coming out of the U2 oven anytime soon. (I think it's talk-in-cliché night here.)

As long as they give 110 percent, and bring their A-game to the studio...

 

[LMP]

The vast majority. Especially once they heard Bono start singing.

Then turned it off when Pavarotti started.

 

[Aygo]

I think this is partially true. I think these albums you mention could've had higher sales when they'd come out in the fall. Most records are bought in the fall (could be almost half of the yearly sales, IIRC), so newly released records do have an advantage then. But it is true that the single choices for Zooropa and Pop were poor. And the music was also less accessible than an Achtung Baby or All That You Can't Leave Behind.

I agree with this.

 

[lazarus]

I understand the comparison to holding off on releasing films until the fall, but we're not talking about The Little Band That Could here. What's the difference if the album goes 3x platinum or 2.5x platinum at this point? So Jimmy who rolls up the cables in the studio can make a little more money? Come on.

Making a film from pre-production to release is a long time that requires patience from all involved, so waiting a few more months to hit the theatre isn't a big deal. With a serious film, you won't have as much success releasing it during the summer months when people want to have a good time. The entire success of the film could depend on rolling it out slowly for awards recognition. I don't think it's the same thing at all with U2's music. There's not enough at stake to justify waiting for the optimum sales moment.

The Grammy thing pisses me off to no end. Now they have to release a single right before the cut off date so they can be relevant for two consecutive awards shows? There's something just...sneaky about the whole thing.

And I stand by what I said before--McGuinne$$ has said that no U2 album will be release before the autumn again. I'd love it if the band vetoed him on this, but they seem slow to get back to the spontaneity of the process. Is it not a forgone conclusion that we will be seeing another iTunes commerical like clockwork? I wasn't one of the people who was crying "sellout!" when the Vertigo ad came out, but if it seems like there's an obligation now, then the whole thing just seems much more corporate and calculated than a fresh, smart idea.

 

[U2girl]

There's plenty at stake. They're a white rock band up against pop/rap/hip hop acts half their age in a culture obsessed with looks and aging phobia. Plus they'll soon be the big 5-0 age in a genre of music notorious for scoffing at anyone over 30.

As for sales in the 3rd quarter of the year, some of it is ego, ie "can't be calling ourselves biggest band if we don't actually do well financially". But I also think the Fall album - Spring tour scheme works for the band too. Some of it is also insecurity, not wanting to be called "rock dinosaurs" who will only be remembered for JT and AB, they want people to be into the new material too.

 

[wtonis]

I love the way Bruce Springsteen puts out albums and announces tours. A month ago the new album was announced for this October and this week the tour was announced for October-November. Of course, it's easier for Bruce because he writes songs on his own, but still...

...and if I'm not mistaken, Dallas Schoo was the guitar tech for Steven van Zand during previous Springsteen tours....
Springsteen's tour is until halfway December.... Since Dallas has been spotted in and around places where U2 is recording I don't expect U2 doing some serious recording sessions over the next few months....

My guess; U2 will finish the recordings in the first half of 2008, gearing up the propaganda machine during the summer, releasing the album in november 2008 and hitting the road in 2009, resulting in completing the four year sequence between albums we've seen over the last decade.

Something tells me U2 is keeping the audience hungry...

 

[Axver]

Some of it is also insecurity, not wanting to be called "rock dinosaurs" who will only be remembered for JT and AB, they want people to be into the new material too.

But if anything, this cool, calculated pattern is making them more of a dinosaur band. They no longer seem to have spontaneity. They're going through the motions, sticking to the formula, lumbering like aging dinosaurs through the cycle.

I don't think the long gaps are helping either. When it's been 4 years since the last big single and at least 2 since the last single at all, people are just "oh, U2 are still around? I thought they were getting pretty old ..."

 

[U2girl]

Well, it's one thing being spontaneous when you're in your 20s, but try late 40s and 50s...I'd rather they spend more time (within reason and provided there isn't a problem with the sessions/producer, more than anything else I'm worried about the reports of increased hard work in the studio, re: last three albums, it's like it's work and not making music) and make a better album than rush things just for the sake of having something released. I also don't think it's quite necessary we get a U2 product each and every year (or even several products at a time like Zoo DVD, U2:18, and U2 by U2last year), be it an album, single, DVD ... but perhaps with the big US label, things changed once they weren't with Island anymore in this department.

That said, I always thought the much talked relevance would actually push them to work more/faster...I don't think anyone expects an album every two years, personally I'd settle for the timing a la Pop-ATYCLB: 3 years between albums, 4 years between touring. And I'm definitely OK with it if they loosen up a little and stop worying about the US market so much.

Perhaps, as age is catching up, they will consider less (read: shorter, less extravagant) tours for more album output. And Bono will probably, eventually, tone down his activism travels.
Didn't he say he is looking for someone to take over in the last few years?

 

[Axver]

Seems to me that "relevance" has devolved into consciously releasing singles/albums to last two Grammy periods rather than prompting the band to try to maintain any reasonable pace of output.

I think 3 years is plenty of time between albums. I just cannot fathom how it can take so long to record an album. As it stands, there will be people out there who will get into U2 with the next album and come and join Interference, and they wouldn't have even started primary school when ATYCLB was released!

 

[martha]

i'm just happy they still care enough at nearly 50 years old and really haven't become the Rolling Stones.

Yep.

 

[martha]

So?
For months there have been reports of Bruce recording a new album, together with the E Street Band. In what way is this different than with U2. We all pay more attention to news about what U2 is doing than about what Bruce is doing, but in the end it's the same.

And oh, Magic will be released in the fall...

But Marty, Bruce recorded that album in eight weeks, not over the course of a few years.

 

[Irvine511]

But if anything, this cool, calculated pattern is making them more of a dinosaur band. They no longer seem to have spontaneity. They're going through the motions, sticking to the formula, lumbering like aging dinosaurs through the cycle.

but we're the only ones who notice this. i have friends who like U2, buy albums, even attend a concert, and they really don't fret about such things.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

But Marty, Bruce recorded that album in eight weeks, not over the course of a few years.

Ah, and martha hits the nail on the head...at least in the difference between U2 and Mr. Springsteen. Bruce follows his passion and puts out what he believes immediately. He really doesn't care if it's Top 40 or a Number 1 album.

U2 takes there time, crafts out their music. They don't follow their gut too much because they don't want to seem stuck in a moment (er, sorry). They worry that the album needs relevance and be of the time it's being released in. So they take there time and play and replay and write and rewrite until they are satisfied with the result. Sadly that means we have 4 year waits between albums.

Another thing, U2 are in their late 40's now. Families and lives take precedence, like it or not music fans. They can't be expected to throw out albums like they use to. Schedules have to be made to accomodate everyone, and we all know Fall releases are driven mostly by the record label.

The only thing that I hate about these conversations is the "U2 are Greedy Bastards". Do they rake in millions...yes, do they pander to a large audience...yes...have they ever been completely about money...:eyebrow...no. I mean if there is an article or an interview where one of the implicitly states they are only about doing huge tours to make tons of money, please send me the link so I can begin re-evaluating my position here.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

How about we all live our lives like normal, forget about U2 for a bit and then when they announce the release date we can all be pleasantly surprised?



This said, I do agree with the statements about Bruce. He gets it done, and doesn't give a flying fuck whether it'll sell or not.

 

[phillyfan26]

Hence the Seeger sessions.

(pwned)

 

[U2girl]

Of course, solo artists can work faster than bands. And I think very few solo musicians are comparable in size to U2 in bands.

 

[Popmartijn]

But Marty, Bruce recorded that album in eight weeks, not over the course of a few years.

U2 haven't start recording yet, so who knows how fast they're gonna record the stuff.
(Don't hold your breath though for them taking less than eight weeks)

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

How about we all live our lives like normal, forget about U2 for a bit and then when they announce the release date we can all be pleasantly surprised?

For some of us, this is our life...

 

[silvrlvr]

Bruce and U2 are in completely different place, and not just because they're a decade apart in age.

This decade, Bruce has put out an album every year or two, and he tours constantly. Because of his stature, he takes advantage of the freedom to try whatever venues and genres he likes, from festivals to theaters to arenas and the occasional small club. He skips from rock to folk without a blink, and my sense is that he's still low key enough to move among us mortals without being mobbed.

U2 has established themselves as having to put on a show every time they venture out, and as much as I'd love to see them play a theater or a club, I doubt it's going to happen any time soon. Their albums are now events, and they build marketing campaigns around them. It earns them gobs of money but it's also a very high-stakes venture, and complicated to produce.

And expectations will be very high for this next album, because of that. I wonder if that's why they're already talking about two albums, because if the new approach fails they have a more-traditional U2 record in reserve that they could roll out quickly.