Bono: "I think there will be a record in 2006."

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
spencr00 said:
larry wont like it and it'll be 2009...mark my words


I tend to agree, however it makes you wonder how zooropa managed to get released so quickly...
 
Well hey, at least we know for sure they DO plan on releasing another record.

That's good news even if it comes around in another 4 years. Maybe they should go ahead with the originally planned "rock & roll album".
 
if U2 were to release the infamous rock and roll record, I can't imagine the number of people who'd come in hear and bitch about them releases such "mainstream crap" I want another Unforgettable Fire god dammit! Not another War!
 
Record contracts have nothing to do with what U2 are planning on doing.

All it means is that "if" they release another album, or two, whatever the actual number is, they are contracted to release those albums on Universal/Interscope. It does NOT mean they are obligated to release X-number of albums, just that if they do, they have to release them on the label that is contracted with.

So U2 could call it quits today, that record contract wouldn't amount to a hill of beans.

I think a lot will hinge on how HTDAAB ultimately is recieved. After all ATYCLB and Elevation was received well by the public, but the band seemed to admit lately that they believed it wasn't as strong as they had thought. HTDAAB and the upocoming tour are almost guaranteed to "sell" well, but that doesn't really mean much to the band, at least that's the way I perceive it.

U2 are in a quandry. They want to be big, to be successful enough to warrant going away from their families for a year or more. To keep doing it after 25 years, they see themselves as needing to have hits and needing to be relevant.

On the flipside, the critical acclaim that they have so often chased after suffers because of the songs being too digestable etc.

I think they are really stuck in an odd position. What would be the point of making a progessive album that not many people hear? Just so some rock critics can say U2 is still relevant? That hardly makes sense to them. They are looking for reasons to take this album on tour, for people to love the album, not for some 'street cred' bullshit, that most people should grow out of by the time they are 25.

The songs live on. As great as Achtung Baby was, ultimately it's the songs you are stuck with. As ballsy and unique to U2 as Passengers was, it's ultimately the songs that you end up with. Not statements. Not images. Not supposed perceptions. They have just decided to make the best songs they can. I think they are making good songs, just not interesting ideas. But then again, they have sort of already done that. It would be sad to see U2 trying to 'fit in' along side bands of 20-somethings who are making music for NOW, as opposed to music that could last for decades.

Ideally, for my musical preference, I'd rather have a Zooropa or a Passengers type album than what they've been making lately, but I completely, 100% understand why they aren't doing so. It doesn't make any sense.
 
That's makes a lot of sense U2DMfan. Especially thanks for clearing up the whole record contract thing.

I'm personally fine with whatever direction U2 wnts to take, as long as the music is good. If they relese another album like HTDAAB I'll still follow them and enjoy the music. If they make another concept album or soemthing along those lines, that's cool too, I can dig it. Ultimately it's ONLY up to them when and if they make another album. There's really no telling what they will do until they do it.
 
I think if they could have thrown Larry in a cell and locked him up for a few months, they would have released 'Hanover Quay' and be currently working on their 12th album.

The tour can wait. I have the distinct feeling this could be the last big tour for a long long time, or the last one period.

I'd rather have two albums and no tour, than one album and one big tour. But that's just me. :)
 
oh god no! They have to tour. I've enver seen them live, and I'm afraid this might be my last chance.
 
U2DMfan said:
Record contracts have nothing to do with what U2 are planning on doing.

All it means is that "if" they release another album, or two, whatever the actual number is, they are contracted to release those albums on Universal/Interscope. It does NOT mean they are obligated to release X-number of albums, just that if they do, they have to release them on the label that is contracted with.

So U2 could call it quits today, that record contract wouldn't amount to a hill of beans.

I think a lot will hinge on how HTDAAB ultimately is recieved. After all ATYCLB and Elevation was received well by the public, but the band seemed to admit lately that they believed it wasn't as strong as they had thought. HTDAAB and the upocoming tour are almost guaranteed to "sell" well, but that doesn't really mean much to the band, at least that's the way I perceive it.

U2 are in a quandry. They want to be big, to be successful enough to warrant going away from their families for a year or more. To keep doing it after 25 years, they see themselves as needing to have hits and needing to be relevant.

On the flipside, the critical acclaim that they have so often chased after suffers because of the songs being too digestable etc.

I think they are really stuck in an odd position. What would be the point of making a progessive album that not many people hear? Just so some rock critics can say U2 is still relevant? That hardly makes sense to them. They are looking for reasons to take this album on tour, for people to love the album, not for some 'street cred' bullshit, that most people should grow out of by the time they are 25.

The songs live on. As great as Achtung Baby was, ultimately it's the songs you are stuck with. As ballsy and unique to U2 as Passengers was, it's ultimately the songs that you end up with. Not statements. Not images. Not supposed perceptions. They have just decided to make the best songs they can. I think they are making good songs, just not interesting ideas. But then again, they have sort of already done that. It would be sad to see U2 trying to 'fit in' along side bands of 20-somethings who are making music for NOW, as opposed to music that could last for decades.

Ideally, for my musical preference, I'd rather have a Zooropa or a Passengers type album than what they've been making lately, but I completely, 100% understand why they aren't doing so. It doesn't make any sense.

The thing is, most critics love ATYCLB and HTDAAB so the idea that their street credibility has dropped because of these albums I think is false. The lowest I ever saw their street credibility drop was when they released POP.

Sounding different or being different does not equal being progressive or necessarily give one street credibility.

The #1 objective of this band has remained the same through out and that is to be the BEST band, not necessarily the biggest. Once they have made the best album they think they can make, they then set about selling it to the world. Some albums are harder to sell than others, but this idea that the band sit down to write music for this album to sell and this album to be progressive I think is rubbish. The band write and produce music that they have a passion for and believe in at that particular time.
 
Back
Top Bottom