Deifnatly something in 2012.
U2 can't afford to spend 4 years per album anymore. Their not getting any younger, and they need to make the most of it whilst their still fit, hungry and creative. Now its slowly but steadily luring towards the end, so you would think they'd eliminate the thought of moving in a direction that's unique and risky, and just play it safe with at least 2 more other " U2 " type albums so they go out on a succesfull high. But they've already made their mark on the industry, and done everything a great band has done, so why not take a risk now, and move somewhere totally different. If it doesn't work, no worries, they still have a 30 succesfull year career under their belt.
The only way there going to stay relevant is by producing something out of their comfort zone. The music industry, especially the younger generation, don't seem to be interested in U2's current sound, well not as much as the past. So to stay relevant U2, take a differen't route, task a risk, and if it pays off, then need i say more. Their allowed to take a risk now, they seriously have nothing to loose. If it all goes wrong, like i said, its not going to destory or take away the 30 years of success they've already had.
I just can't see this happening though, their much older now, much wiser and will defiantly play it safe after No Line's public failure. I wouldn't be suprised if the next album is slightly differen't sound wise, but full of radio hit's. I don't mind though, as long as the album is succesfull, and they become as relevant as they did back in 2000 again. Actually i don't mind either way, all that matters is their still producing music, and touring.
