I must say, this is an amusing thread (and not just because of Chizip!)....I'm laughing because it always throws me into fits when I see people figuring out a whole album based on about 50 seconds of music from *one* particular song that was recorded very early in the album's creation. It's even more funny this time than usual, however, because that 50 or so seconds was almost inaudable - to the point where, heavy breathing and distortion aside, you can barely make out the melody of the chorus, let alone the verse! All the elements that go into a rock song - dimension, bass, rythym layering and so forth - are practically stripped. Yet, here we are figuring out not just this song, but the entire album based on this!
Excuse me while I collect myself from the floor.
If you want to argue that the next album will be ATYCLB because it will be "in the same vein" as ATYCLB, then you would have to conced the same for several other U2 albums. As someone stated, U2 albums aren't a complete redefinition. They are always evolutions of previous albums. JT was thus in the same vein as UF, and you can even hear parts of Achtung Baby in Rattle and Hum (in songs like God II). Zooropa is also in the same vein as Achtung Baby in some ways - once again, an evolution - and Pop takes Zooropa's electronic blitz to the next level once again. I expect the next album to follow this natural course, while not repeating ATYCLB.
Another point - almost every song on ATYCLB is different in sound. As someone commented when that album came out, "It's like a 11 different U2s". So, which one of the 11 will U2 repeat on this album?
PS. Evolution Monkey - How's things?! Enjoying the Vancouver summer, Kits beach, the North Shore Mountains, Stanley Park and the Sea Wall, the parades, etc? When I return, we must hit The Cambie and have some U2 discussion (hopefully about the new single)!