Would U2 go back into the studio right after a year-long tour?

[Hallucination]

They should just take their sweet time. I'd love a new album right away but like the band has said so many times before they aren't gonna waste our time or their time with a crap album. If it takes 1 year great, if it takes 5 then so be it. U2 doesn't need to grab peoples attention and keep it by mass producing albums like the run of the mill industry made bands of today. U2 will get the attention and exposure they deserve no matter how long it takes to release an album. Rushing albums out just to stay in the mainstrem limelight is so not the point. The point is to make kick ass albums which they always do.

 

[shaun vox]

kick ass albums?? um i think your on the wrong message board for the wrong band lol

 

[Hallucination]

kick ass albums?? um i think your on the wrong message board for the wrong band lol

No dude, kick ass albums have more to them than killer guitar solos and screeching vocals. Things can most definately kick ass and rock with out having to kick ass and rock in the cliched definition of it. Here's a link to a thread where I tried to have a discussion with you Shaun Vox about Gn'R but some monkeys basically ruined the thread. http://forum.interference.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=136896&pagenumber=3

 

[shaun vox]

i know, those dam monkey's are taking over man!!!

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

This is U2 circa 2005. With everything that means in regards to how they spend their time and their manufacturing, sorry, recording process.

I'm sure you're privy to their recording sessions.



Regarding this thread, my own thoughts are that they should be behaving more like a new band right now than at any other time since they started...the lethargic release schedule of older bands is something they might want to avoid if they want to keep people's interest and prevent their own musical complacency. They should bang out at least two more albums before this decade is over, even if it means not touring one of these new albums..U2 need to stay sharp and hungry otherwise Rolling Stones territory could sneak up on them..

 

[Layton]

They should bang out at least two more albums before this decade is over, even if it means not touring one of these new albums..U2 need to stay sharp and hungry otherwise Rolling Stones territory could sneak up on them..

Great idea. I do think U2 are still hungry. They are definately not resting on their laurels like the Stones have done for so long. HTDAAB is far better than any of the Stones age 40-50 something releases. I'm very skeptical about U2's capacity to churn out albums at an increased rate, though. The whole process just seems so difficult for them.

 

[super fly guy]

kick ass albums?? um i think your on the wrong message board for the wrong band lol

Is that all you do criticise U2? Every reply i see from you is negative, give it up!

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I'm sure you're privy to their recording sessions.

How do you know I'm not a coffee mug from Dublin?

I meant the time they take, and we all know about the recording, trashing, re-recording, producing, trashing, re-producing etc that takes forever. It doesn't have to be that way, but I doubt they'd do it any other way these days.

 

[U2DMfan]

In terms of productivity, they aren't exactly blowing the Stones away.

The last 20 years

1986-Dirty Work
1987-The Joshua Tree
1988-Rattle and Hum
1989-Steel Wheels
1991-Achtung Baby
1991-Flashpoint
1993-Zooropa
1994-Voodoo Lounge
1997-Pop
1997-Bridges to Babylon
2000-All That You Can't Leave Behind
2004-How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb
2005-A Bigger Bang

Rolling Stones:6 albums
U2:7 albums
take out the 80's and it's still 5-4

consider this from a period when Bono was 25-45 and
Mick Jagger was 42-62

U2, quite honestly needs to make more music no matter how you slice it for the benefit of us all.

 

[U2DMfan]

and in fairness,
The Stones released Steel Wheels when Jagger was 45
which is the same age Bono is now.

Comparatively, HTDAAB is not my favorite U2 album but it's much better than Steel Wheels, IMO. But I remember thinking at the time how old the Stones were, of course I was about 14 at the time.

 

[pulle28]

Flashpoint is a live album.

 

[Layton]

Comparatively, HTDAAB is not my favorite U2 album but it's much better than Steel Wheels, IMO. But I remember thinking at the time how old the Stones were, of course I was about 14 at the time.

Yes, HTDAAB is much better than Steel Wheels. I've been hard pressed to find a rock album by any 40-something artist that's a whole lot better than HTDAAB. I started a thread on this a few months back and the pickings were very slim.

 

[LMP]

At that time the Rolling Stones were known for their live work and their album stuff didn't blow people away. At least from what I've gathered that's true. U2 still has albums that count as much as the tours do.

 

[starvinmarvin]

At that time the Rolling Stones were known for their live work and their album stuff didn't blow people away. At least from what I've gathered that's true. U2 still has albums that count as much as the tours do.

I don't agree. Steel Wheels was admittedly a bit weak, but Voodoo Lounge and in particular Bridges To Babylon are very, very underrated. The newer Stones songs go over very well live -I've seem the Stones on these tours, and fans were into the new stuff too. I expect the new album to be solid as well.

I do not exaggerate when I say that Bridges To Babylon (1997) is better than Pop (1997). It truly is. The Stones were in experimental mode on this album, and they too were playing around with electronica and dark lyrical themes. It is a very uncharcatristic Stones album, and to dismiss it is pure folly.

Oh, and please refrain from flaming me until you've actually heard Bridges. It is an urban myth that the Stones haven't made a good album since Some Girls.

 

[starvinmarvin]

Great idea. I do think U2 are still hungry. They are definately not resting on their laurels like the Stones have done for so long. HTDAAB is far better than any of the Stones age 40-50 something releases. I'm very skeptical about U2's capacity to churn out albums at an increased rate, though. The whole process just seems so difficult for them.

I don't think that U2 has been measurably more prolific than the Stones in recent years. I mean, they've only put out 3 (THREE!!!) albums in the last 12 years, and only 5 in the last 16 years. That is the very definition of "resting on your laurels," in my opinion. The Stones have also put out 3 albums in the last 11 years, but you have to remember that these guys are pushing 65 years of age. Plus Jagger and Richards also have solo careers, and have each put out 2 solo albums during this time period, so it's not like they have been hiding in a cave somewhere.

You might be correct when you say that HTDAAB is better than any Stones album over the last 20 or so years, but Bridges To Babylon is almost as good. And that's nothing to sneeze at!

 

[Layton]

I don't think that U2 has been measurably more prolific than the Stones in recent years. I mean, they've only put out 3 (THREE!!!) albums in the last 12 years, and only 5 in the last 16 years. That is the very definition of "resting on your laurels," in my opinion. The Stones have also put out 3 albums in the last 11 years, but you have to remember that these guys are pushing 65 years of age. Plus Jagger and Richards also have solo careers, and have each put out 2 solo albums during this time period, so it's not like they have been hiding in a cave somewhere.

You might be correct when you say that HTDAAB is better than any Stones album over the last 20 or so years, but Bridges To Babylon is almost as good. And that's nothing to sneeze at!

Yeah, I'm not saying U2 have been prolific with new material. I think their decision to release 2 Best Of's have really curtailed the frequency of new albums in recent years, but if you count those 2 Best Of's and the Passengers thing U2 are averaging an every other year release which is the best we can expect from a major band in this day and age.

You're probably going to disagree with this, but I think U2 put much more creative energy into ATYCLB and HTDAAB than the Stones put into any of their albums from a similiar age. That's what I mean by resting on laurels. When U2 make an album it still feels like it's the main reason they go on tour. For the past 25 yrs., when the Stones have made an album it feels like it's just meant as another souvenir that you might want to pick up along with the t-shirt and whatever other tounge merchandise they're selling on that particular tour.

 

[claytons edge]

U2 are so busy and if tour rumors for next year are true they won't get near a studio for 12 month's or more,sadly