ALBUM 13 - DOUBLE LP or NOT ?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is the new U2 Album Cover:
blank-page-300x200.jpg
 
U2girl said:
1.It is not confirmed that there has been a change in plans. Their plans are to release this year, as per Bono, Edge and Dallas (indicating two albums and a summer 2014 release - Dallas even mentioned April). All recent comments, as late as post-Fallon appearance.

In direct contradiction with Billboard that claims no release until 2015.

2. We're all aware of Billboard not being a fan forum. I'm sure other sources are picking it up, since they're the first to put it out there (that's how it usually works, you know...)...doesn't make it any more official until U2 talks about it.

3. What source ? It's a perfectly legitimate question that can be answered without naming anyone specifically. Band members certainly didn't say anything of the sort. Oseary ? U2's tour crew/band techs ?
And given this is all over the place, including U2.com's own forum, what makes you so sure U2 won't react? This is the biggest meltdown in the fandom since those Vertigo tour presales. That time, Larry personally adressed the situation. We can fully expect U2 setting the record straight.

4. Everything is a rumour unless U2 confirms it.
Click to expand...

I've wondered this for quite a while now, but are you actually real? Like...human?

Sent from my Note 3 using my S-pen.
 
Bobvancleef said:
This is just a theory of mine, but could it be U2 had massive sour grapes over their Oscar loss? Is it a coincidence that a few days after they suddenly say 'no album release this year'

I love the guys, but they can be really, really stubborn. They hate losing much more than anyone else and they just don't want to release an album soon after their loss? Just a theory.

Strange the comments Edge made a month earlier; "I'm going to have no summer because I'm going to be busy."

Something went very wrong in the last month.
Click to expand...

I doubt not winning an Oscar has caused U2 to delay an album release.

Sent from my AT300 using U2 Interference mobile app
 
Still sort of in denial here, haha. 2015... It's a long way off considering we aren't even through a quarter of 2014 yet.

Sent from my HTC One using U2 Interference mobile app
 
I have finally reached the end of this thread

Sent from my GT-I9300 using U2 Interference mobile app
 
I have a feeling - just a feeling - that Adam will leave U2 within the next 12 months. The dude is moving to London, has a young family, and just seems like he genuinely has had enough. And U2 will replace him with a 25 year old hip kid who will jump up and down on stage ala RHCP's Flea.
 
lemonfly said:
I have a feeling - just a feeling - that Adam will leave U2 within the next 12 months. The dude is moving to London, has a young family, and just seems like he genuinely has had enough. And U2 will replace him with a 25 year old hip kid who will jump up and down on stage ala RHCP's Flea.
Click to expand...

This confirms what my sources have been telling me.
 
Hey isn't recording in the 21rst century supposed to be easier and faster? Then say the 1960s? When bands managed to tour and release a album like every year? That might be what's really insane about this. And also a statement about music in general.
 
My brother, who was a huge u2 fan, kept on saying U2 were past it after NLOTH was released. I kept on defending them, but now I think that he may have had a point.

When Bono says that they are very good now compared to before and then goes on about the "enemy of great" blah blah blah, I think he's kidding himself. They were very good before and achieved greatness with two albums, now they are only average, with the ability to be very good every now and again.
 
allbecauseofu2 said:
Hey isn't recording in the 21rst century supposed to be easier and faster? Then say the 1960s?
Click to expand...

In theory. But if anything, things have gotten more complicated, because modern technology gives musicians (especially those with means like U2) virtually unlimited options when it comes tweaking the sound of their music. If you don't have a lot of discipline, all those options available to you can be pretty daunting, and paralysing, especially if you don't have a clear vision of what you want. Which is why a good, strong producer is essential in this process. All those options mean nothing if you don't know what to do with them.

When the final book on U2 is written, we are all going to realise just how vital Brian and Danny were to their success, even more than we suspect. I pretty much regard them as defacto members of the band on each record they worked on. They are the only producers who has consistently been able to coax genius of of these guys.
 
allbecauseofu2 said:
Hey isn't recording in the 21rst century supposed to be easier and faster? Then say the 1960s? When bands managed to tour and release a album like every year? That might be what's really insane about this. And also a statement about music in general.
Click to expand...

It definitely is. That also means its easier to dwell on the material, modify it, re-record it, etc. U2 clearly relishes the opportunity to be able to work on songs for much longer than they would have otherwise. This is probably why their sessions with Rick Rubin did yield it's own record - he likes bands to come to him with the material ready to record, record it and be done with it.

Also, in regards to some users speculating that U2.com might give subscribers new material for this year's gift, I think that would be a huge mistake. It would alienate and likely piss of a large part of their fan base who do not subscribe. I wouldn't put it past them, I just think it would be unwise.
 
It is nuts that less than 3 months into the year they already know there is no chance of an album this year. Really? No chance things can get worked out for a November or December release? How the hell could they know that already?
 
allbecauseofu2 said:
Hey isn't recording in the 21rst century supposed to be easier and faster? Then say the 1960s? When bands managed to tour and release a album like every year? That might be what's really insane about this. And also a statement about music in general.
Click to expand...

definitely much much faster to get the tracks recorded and mixed... but then i guess maybe too much spare time afterwards to fiddle heh
 
Discipline is something they are lacking. Too many options. How funny that at this stage of this careers they are freaking out about direction. When they are already rock immortals and in the rock and roll hall of fame. Thier legacy can't really be tarnished even if the album stunk. (They just wouldnt be adding to it). Shouldn't this have happened in 1990? When thier next move could have made or break thier careers. ? The difference between being just big 80s band that couldn't hack it in the 90s? And not really legends? Or extending your careers to being immortals and being worthy of a rolling stones comparsion? WOULD THAT NOT BE THE TIME TO FREAK OUT! !!!! LOL?????? not at the 34 year mark. Mabey u2 wants ascend higher on the mount Rushmore of rock? Like how peyton Manning was trying become a even greater quarterback then he was by getting to a third Superbowl for that 2nd ring? He did the first part. Are u2 simply to get into a even more elite class of rock legends?
 
allbecauseofu2 said:
Discipline is something they are lacking. Too many options. How funny that at this stage of this careers they are freaking out about direction. When they are already rock immortals and in the rock and roll hall of fame. Thier legacy can't really be tarnished even if the album stunk. (They just wouldnt be adding to it). Shouldn't this have happened in 1990? When thier next move could have made or break thier careers. ? The difference between being just big 80s band that couldn't hack it in the 90s? And not really legends? Or extending your careers to being immortals and being worthy of a rolling stones comparsion? WOULD THAT NOT BE THE TIME TO FREAK OUT! !!!! LOL?????? not at the 34 year mark. Mabey u2 wants ascend higher on the mount Rushmore of rock? Like how peyton Manning was trying become a even greater quarterback then he was by getting to a third Superbowl for that 2nd ring? He did the first part. Are u2 simply to get into a even more elite class of rock legends?
Click to expand...

Nick66 said:
If one does not know to which port one is sailing, no wind is favourable.
-Seneca
Click to expand...

really, these are uncharted waters... rock hasn't been around long enough to know how bands 34 years into their career are meant to behave... :D
 
U2girl said:
1.It is not confirmed that there has been a change in plans. Their plans are to release this year, as per Bono, Edge and Dallas (indicating two albums and a summer 2014 release - Dallas even mentioned April). All recent comments, as late as post-Fallon appearance.

In direct contradiction with Billboard that claims no release until 2015.

2. We're all aware of Billboard not being a fan forum. I'm sure other sources are picking it up, since they're the first to put it out there (that's how it usually works, you know...)...doesn't make it any more official until U2 talks about it.

3. What source ? It's a perfectly legitimate question that can be answered without naming anyone specifically. Band members certainly didn't say anything of the sort. Oseary ? U2's tour crew/band techs ?
And given this is all over the place, including U2.com
's own forum, what makes you so sure U2 won't react? This is the biggest meltdown in the fandom since those Vertigo tour presales. That time, Larry personally adressed the situation. We can fully expect U2 setting the record straight.

4. Everything is a rumour unless U2 or U2.com or Oseary confirms it.

edit : as for WHY, plenty of that. Coldplay releasing this year, losing the Oscar to Disney, OL and Invisible not taking off...take your pick.
Click to expand...


:doh:
 
mama cass said:
really, these are uncharted waters... rock hasn't been around long enough to know how bands 34 years into their career are meant to behave... :D
Click to expand...

I agree with this, and I said some time ago here, that U2 is in a unique position, probably the first rock band so situated, well, ever.

Certainly, there have been and are still bands who have been around 30+ years and still touring/making music. But of U2's stature? And trying to make relevant music that competes with contemporary artists (i.e. not just be a legacy act)? I don't think any band has ever been here before. My beloved Rush has been around as long as U2, and still are putting out music and touring, but they have absolutely no illusions or attempts at real relevancy or playing beyond their own fan base.

So in that way, I really, really admire these guys for what they're trying to do...stay vital and still compete in the arena. They may fail spectacularly, but at least they won't go into that good night quietly. As the biggest band in the world, fabulously wealthy, and as musicians whose legacy is assured no matter what they do from this point out, U2 is in the unique position of simeltaneously having everything and nothing to lose.

What the hell, since I already quoted Seneca:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
-Theodore Roosevelt
Click to expand...
 
Brings back memorys of steel wheels. And what that album meant for the band and a rock band being around for that long.
 
Nick66 said:
I agree with this, and I said some time ago here, that U2 is in a unique position, probably the first rock band so situated, well, ever.

Certainly, there have been and are still bands who have been around 30+ years and still touring/making music. But of U2's stature? And trying to make relevant music that competes with contemporary artists (i.e. not just be a legacy act)? I don't think any band has ever been here before. My beloved Rush has been around as long as U2, and still are putting out music and touring, but they have absolutely no illusions or attempts at real relevancy or playing beyond their own fan base.

So in that way, I really, really admire these guys for what they're trying to do...stay vital and still compete in the arena. They may fail spectacularly, but at least they won't go into that good night quietly. As the biggest band in the world, fabulously wealthy, and as musicians whose legacy is assured no matter what they do from this point out, U2 is in the unique position of simeltaneously having everything and nothing to lose.

What the hell, since I already quoted Seneca:
Click to expand...



Could be the post of the year Nick, very well said :up:


Also that teddy quote I give to all of my new employees, it's a great creed to conduct your life to.
 
Could it be as simple and drama free as just attempting to schedule a tour at the (relatively) last minute and not being ale to book the cities/venues they wanted in order to match their album release schedule?

Also, here in Chicago, Invisible has gotten wonderful airplay on our awesome local station 93.1 WXRT! Very well received by the longtime DJs there!
 
Nick66 said:
I agree with this, and I said some time ago here, that U2 is in a unique position, probably the first rock band so situated, well, ever.

Certainly, there have been and are still bands who have been around 30+ years and still touring/making music. But of U2's stature? And trying to make relevant music that competes with contemporary artists (i.e. not just be a legacy act)? I don't think any band has ever been here before. My beloved Rush has been around as long as U2, and still are putting out music and touring, but they have absolutely no illusions or attempts at real relevancy or playing beyond their own fan base.

So in that way, I really, really admire these guys for what they're trying to do...stay vital and still compete in the arena. They may fail spectacularly, but at least they won't go into that good night quietly. As the biggest band in the world, fabulously wealthy, and as musicians whose legacy is assured no matter what they do from this point out, U2 is in the unique position of simeltaneously having everything and nothing to lose.

What the hell, since I already quoted Seneca:
Click to expand...

Great post, thanks.

We just need to be patient.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Headache in a Suitcase
  • Locked
Songs of Songs, Books & Fat Puns - New Album Discussion #8
33 34 35
Replies
1K
Views
53K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
L
Play Do You Feel Loved, Babyface, Some Days Are Better Than Others, Playboy Petition
Replies
8
Views
750
rosephile
R
dan_smee
U2 - the lost album
Replies
4
Views
1K
gvox
gvox
Headache in a Suitcase
New Album Discussion 9 - Larry needs new arms, ba rum pa pum pum
33 34 35
Replies
1K
Views
56K
clerks
clerks
N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
12 13 14
Replies
414
Views
11K
Hewson
Hewson

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom