Would YOU prefer more NON ALBUM Singles?

[JimmyChicken]

What do we think about Singles without an Album?

I'm mainly referring to Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me. Some may say it would have been better off as part of Zooropa.

BUT...

U2 has been known to have long delays between their albums leaving fans thirsting for new material.

However if U2 was to release singles NOT associated with any album between these "droughts" it would bring some relief.

For example...

There was another 4 year wait between albums, but this time they released a single every 6 months through whatever means available.

Wouldn't that be better than a long wait?

 

[bono-vox]

It would b better than a long wait BUT if they save all these songs for their album it would b better...they might run outta song ideas and start to get on non-u2 fans nerves if they were constantly in the charts..not that they arent already

 

[mad1]

 

[elevatedmole]

I think it'd be better if we had some relief during long periods of time where they are working on the new album or taking a break.

I think they might do it again sometime if they had a song they were 100% sure wouldn't work on an album or something but still wanted to release to the public, and not be a b-side.

------------------

"You must not look down on someone just 'cos they are 14 years old. When I was that age I listened to the music of John Lennon and it changed my way of seeing things, so I'm just glad that 14 year olds are coming to see U2 rather than group X." - Bono, 1988

 

[JimmyChicken]

Originally posted by bono-vox:
they might run outta song ideas and start to get on non-u2 fans nerves if they were constantly in the charts..not that they arent already

Run out of song ideas? If they ran out of song ideas how would they come up with enough songs for a new album?

And isn't that the idea to be constantly in the charts to maintain popularity and attract new fans?

I can't see how being quiet for long periods of time would do that.