Larry and Bono: no album in 2007, Popmart and no Milan

[Catman]

But hey, at least they can bring out another DVD and charge us $30 for a "special edition"

Where did you buy your DVD? I got mine for 14.99

 

[pentax]

4 year gap shit. I hate to see the state of their sphincters!
But honestly, Bono was involved so that could give us hope?

The Joy The doubt The Pain Is this just starting again? PLEASE!!!

 

[Tiger Edge]

How can they be so slow?

Imagine U2 had the creativity of The Beatles. We would have two splendid albums every single year

The Beatles had the advantage of not touring.
I'd rather have the tours, thanks.

 

[Numb1075]

I'd rather have the tours, thanks.

I'd rather have the new music

 

[ElectricalVoice]

I'm guessing whoever is reporting this meant to say 2006, not 2007. That would make a lot more sense.

Yes. You might be right.

 

[U2democrat]

I already have to agonizingly wait for George Bush to be out of office, now I have to wait the same amount of time for a U2 album too?!?!?! Come on boys!!!!

I guess just keep an eye/ear out for more leaked tracks.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

ok...no album in 2007??? that kind of dissapoints me.

It's only the fall of 2006, it kind of sucks their already saying no album for all of next year.

But hey, at least they can bring out another DVD and charge us $30 for a "special edition"

havent many a people been begging for them to bring out popmart on DVD? so really the DVD part is just what people want.

also as said, who can prove this is even real? its all second hand info and some people are litreally taking it as gospel.

 

[Tiger Edge]

I'd rather have the new music

U2 would be nowhere without touring. The albums themselves can't carry the weight all to themselves.
Besides, U2 is one of the greatest (if not, the greatest) live bands ever.

 

[bsp77]

U2 would be nowhere without touring. The albums themselves can't carry the weight all to themselves.
Besides, U2 is one of the greatest (if not, the greatest) live bands ever.

Yes, but I would survive if they would release two albums before touring. Or pull another Zooropa - release an album while still touring and incorporate those songs in.

 

[RademR]

havent many a people been begging for them to bring out popmart on DVD? so really the DVD part is just what people want.

also as said, who can prove this is even real? its all second hand info and some people are litreally taking it as gospel.

it's just a response to the thread that was posted, it probably is bullshit.

truthfully, im hungover and in a bad mood. i bought the ZOOTV DVD the first day it came out, and I'll do the same with the Popmart one.

I love U2.... KUEFC09U2...trust me, i dont want to get on your bad side

 

[RademR]

Where did you buy your DVD? I got mine for 14.99

i actually did pay $29.99 at Best buy, probably could have got a better deal but it's literally across the street from my appartment.

the regular edition was $14.99 there.

 

[Niceman]

Four years is the average between U2 albums. Without know anything about this year's stirrings I would have said the band would have released an album in 2008 anyways.

4 years is NOT the average.

Achtung: 1991
Zooropa: 1993
Passengers: 1995
POP: 1997
ALL THAT: 2000
Atomic Bomb: 2004

 

[kellyahern]

I already have to agonizingly wait for George Bush to be out of office, now I have to wait the same amount of time for a U2 album too?!?!?!

Yes, but think what a great year that will be .

 

[Tiger Edge]

Yes, but I would survive if they would release two albums before touring. Or pull another Zooropa - release an album while still touring and incorporate those songs in.

Just reitterating my point, thanks. What I meant was if they never toured again and became a studio band. Just like The Beatles, like U2Man first mentioned.

4 years is NOT the average.

Achtung: 1991
Zooropa: 1993
Passengers: 1995
POP: 1997
ALL THAT: 2000
Atomic Bomb: 2004

Passengers is not a U2 album. That's another debate for another foum.

Other than that the average NOT THE EXACT NUMBER OF YEARS EACH TIME has been 4 years. With the exception of Zooropa. And I never complain about Zooropa.

Folks, I'm just saying that 4 years isn't out of the ordinary. They've done it before. And this time there are other factors to consider. Maybe "the band member with a sick family member" wants an extra year to make sure everything will be all right before starting an exhausting world tour again.
Maybe Adam would like some free time with his fiancee before and after the wedding next summer.

 

[MumblingBono]

It doesn't make sense for them to already shut down 2007, when we're barely halfway through 2006. They are already in the studio with Rubin - what, are they expecting to throw these efforts out, and start with someone else next year?

Writing off 2007 makes no sense. I don't buy it.

 

[Blue Room]

4 years is NOT the average.

Achtung: 1991
Zooropa: 1993
Passengers: 1995
POP: 1997
ALL THAT: 2000
Atomic Bomb: 2004

Again, Passengers is not a U2 album (you can debate it, but its not, it doesnt have U2 on it and the band doesnt consider it a U2 album, they consider it a side project). POP was planned for release in 1996 but was delayed to 97. The point is U2's template for tours and new studio albums is right around 4 years and has been as of late if you look at the time frame between their standard U2 only new studio album and tours.

 

[Numb1075]

U2 would be nowhere without touring. The albums themselves can't carry the weight all to themselves.
Besides, U2 is one of the greatest (if not, the greatest) live bands ever.

While I agree that they are a fantastic live band and the many times I've seen, it's been almost a spiritual experience, If given the choice of a new album or a new tour, I go w/ the album.

 

[schnumi]

Dear god i would love to get more rehasd dvd/vhs releases please.

POPmart just owns anybody denying it is crazy. I want to hear MOFO screaming over my 5.1 set in DTS!

And the amazing last night on earth ending.

We have waited almost 10 years for a dvd off POPmart, i think it's time for it.

Milan can wait, vertigo is still going so no problem to wait.

 

[t8thgr8]

Theyre right, it WONT be 2007, Itll be 2006. Why is that so hard to figure out?

 

[Numb1075]

2006? This is based upon 1 quote from Adam Clayton to a fan?

I sure hope you are right, but I don't think it's a reality.

 

[am22884]

Wow U2 fans are so demanding. If it's not complaining about the postponed tour it's complaining about the time between releases. They aren't a young band anymore that has to put out albums in quick succession to stay current. I always look at any material they release as a privilege given that a lot of bands at their age would have stopped making new material a long time ago and just settled for releasing 20 different best of CD's.

They have a life outside of the studio & given how long they have been making music I can understand them wanting time out. Just my opinion...

 

[bram]

I think the most likely scenario here is that the years 2006 and 2007 got confused: they meant "no album in 2006". And honestly, the 2nd most likely scenario is that (Bono especially) is toying with us. I'm not saying that they might release something before xmas (highly highly unlikely), but for Bono to suddenly be a realist or more accurately a skeptic on their recording timetables is very "interesting". While Blue Room and others insist that history points toward no album til 2008, I think Bono's comment (if it really happened) would REQUIRE U2 fans to be on the alert for some serious playing around especially in light of edge saying they want to get it out their relatively quickly. Oh, and 2.4 years is the AVERAGE between U2 albums (and no, I did not include passengers). since achtung, the average is 3.25 years or 2.6 if you include passengers (which is valuable info even if you don't consider it a "U2 album" bc it still required all U2 members spending time working on it rather than their next album).

 

[norsehorse23]

It's interesting how all these people that 'talked' to bono, edge, and adam all are saying different things. while i would love to believe the adam quote about an album in a couple of months, i am not holding my breath. maybe they are using reverse psychology, bono and edge at least... who knows, but it makes absolutely no sense to work 'intensely' with a producer for about a month and sit on the work for a large chunk of time (months, a year). i know financially it's no big deal for them to rent out studio time, but honestly this whole scenario doesn't make sense. my guess is maybe another 'greatest' album (was mentioned in Rolling Stone a few months ago) with three, four, or five new songs, just like the last one with electrical storm and hands that built america. it's a stopgap between albums.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I'd rather have the new music

as much as i'd love a new album... if u2 came out today and announced they weren't ever going to record a new album again, yet they would tour every 2 years, starting next year... i'd be ok with it.

the music is great, the tours are greater... they've got plenty of material in their catalogue as is... new tracks are just icing on an already delicious cake

 

[Aygo]

4 years is NOT the average.

Achtung: 1991
Zooropa: 1993
Passengers: 1995
POP: 1997
ALL THAT: 2000
Atomic Bomb: 2004

Zooropa came in the gap of a tour and only because Edge had plenty of time to work on it, it was unexpected and Edge is the master behind it, so, consider it occasional or exceptional.
Passengers, again, is NOT a U2 album, is a side project, and I think that few songs (or at least, ideas) come from a few years ago. Then, Pop was already planned for 1996, so...

 

[Aygo]

We get so many mixed messages, that I don't believe a thing. Some fans talked to ... blah blah.

Yeah, I'm starting too not to give much credit to anything that comes out... I rather expect and enjoy the show...

 

[Aygo]

I don't mind if the Milan DVD don't come. To me, they can release the Buenos Aires show and add an extra DVD with highlights from the Milan show. That would be pleasant.

Anyway, if U2 are so fucking lazy and perfectionist or beting in marketing not to release any album in 2007, I'd rather have an 8-9 track album with the HTDAAB reworked outtakes (even with few promotion as it was made with Zooropa) just to kill the hunger.
Then, in 2008 they could give us the real new album. It just bothers me not to see anything really new from the band every 4 years...

 

[U2Man]

as much as i'd love a new album... if u2 came out today and announced they weren't ever going to record a new album again, yet they would tour every 2 years, starting next year... i'd be ok with it.

the music is great, the tours are greater... they've got plenty of material in their catalogue as is... new tracks are just icing on an already delicious cake

 

[God Part III]

Fuck me, no Milan DVD?
Fucking hell.
Chrissakes.
Damnit.
A lot of cursing, but this is very annoying.
Fuck.

 

[U2Man]

Ja, det stinker.