Originally posted by EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH:
I'll say they release an EP (my guess is 5-6 new songs) in late May, then tour Europe over the summer. Then a full album very early 2003, followed by a stadium tour.
Originally posted by EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH:
I'll say they release an EP (my guess is 5-6 new songs) in late May, then tour Europe over the summer. Then a full album very early 2003, followed by a stadium tour.
Originally posted by Kieran McConville:
Prediction: An album no sooner than early 2003. Prediction 2: it won't sound anything like Bono says it will. Prediction 3: The critics will tear it to shreds regardless of quality.
Originally posted by Blue Room:
I think those of you that think it wont be until 2003 are in for a very big surprise. But we shall see. As said before U2 have been known to suddenly change their minds and take an album in a different direction, so 2003 is a possibility. But I dont think that is going to happen. Get ready, summer 2002 with a stadium tour in Europe to support it. Europe is in for a big time treat!
Originally posted by Kieran McConville:
I hope I'm surprised. That's the whole point of being a pessimist.
*Moves to Europe*Originally posted by Blue Room:
Europe is in for a big time treat!
Originally posted by EXIT_TO_THE_NORTH:
RE: Kieran McConville;
I agree with your predictions too. The thing with U2 is that they are unpredictable (ok, that was cliche). Not because of POP either. But because they work on the fly and make it up as they go.....which is exciting, if not a good thing and a bad thing.
I fear that they're going make another album based on what they think is going to be a movement, a la POP, where techno was coming alive. If they make a punk album I'll be surprised and appreciative, but I would also see it as slightly pathetic. My final prediction is that they'll make a record probably somewhere between Ryan Adams, GOLD, and The White Stripes. Something with rough edges and some alt.country vibe.
I don't think we'll know until it happens.
Originally posted by Kieran McConville:
But, I've an inkling that U2's trend-hopping days are behind them. If they were going to be 'hip' now, it'd be Strokes/White Stripes/Ryan Adams territory they would be mining.
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4:
hmm. I've always seen them on the cusp on the trend. ie. trendsetters not followers. Especially when you look at works like AB and Zooropa.
Originally posted by Kieran McConville:
Yes, up to a point. AB and Zooropa certainly bucked a few trends given the period in which they appeared. But, like the Beatles around 1967 onwards, U2 started to be followers with POP. Though IMO the music was uniformly excellent throughout.
U2 are leaders really because they're the only stinking big rock band game enough to sing about God and sex in the same breath. Everything else is just (pleasant) window-dressing.
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4:
*nods* point taken. But do you think that ATYCLB was following any current trends? I don't think I've heard much out there that sounds like it. Curious to know your thoughts...
btw, you're absolutely right that they're the only ones out there with the balls to sing about God and sex in the same breath. People that can only sing about one OR the other take the easy road, imo. Ie. Christian artists that can only survive in the "Christian music industry" and refuse to tackle real life issues AND artists in the mainstream that only sing about physical pleasure without tackling the issues of the soul. U2 makes a marriage of the two and does a damn good job, imo.
-sula
Originally posted by Kieran McConville:
In a slightly cliched way, I see ATYCLB as a bit of a new beginning for the band. But, yes, I do think it follows a few current trends musically, mainly in the production sense (ultra-slick, a bit of an R&B groove).
You don't have to agree with me - at this hour I'd probably prefer a good argument (joke)!
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4:
lol. A fight is what you want? I have a miserable cold and I'm not in the mood to fight. Discuss yes.
I guess I hadn't considered the R&B thing...although IALW is the only song that sticks out in my mind as taking that route and even then it doesn't particularly "sound" like anything else out there to me. Then again, I don't listen to R&B if I can help it.But the big tunes like BD and Elevation...just don't sound like followers. They sound like leaders.
Originally posted by Kieran McConville:
Oh well, the big 'rockers' are just that. It's been done a million times before. It's only great because U2 sound like U2 and those songs really are very good. I think I'd be drawing a pretty long bow to try and say they were leading anything in that sense.
I don't necessarily mean that U2 slavishly follow every trend that comes along - they don't, clearly. Just that where once they really sounded like nothing else out there, now they are unavoidable part of the music of the time. And of course, apart from talent, the reason they were so distinctive early on was the relative isolation of their musical gestation (late 70's Dublin, the mind boggles).
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4:
true, they do sound like U2. lol. And U2 does that sound best, don't they?
I must admit, I am really very curious about this new album. I'm a huge fan of the work the band did in the 90s, and it would please me greatly to see them continue to push themselves. Related thought...songs like WILATW and TGBHF (the full soundtrack version). What do you think of those? I see them as pushing some envelope boundaries in a different direction...one that I rather like.
Originally posted by Kieran McConville:
Can't say the same for WILATW, unfortunately. That one, though different for U2, has rubbed me up the wrong way from the very start, and try as I might I cannot hear anything in it but mediocrity.