Axver said:
This is getting blatantly absurd. Every other band I follow could start recording an album now and have it out by November. I wouldn't be shocked if some of them got it out by the end of July! And these are a real mix of bands, from different parts of the world playing different genres (everything from pop-rock to death metal), some in their twenties and some as old or older than U2. I cannot comprehend why U2 are so fucking slow. I don't think it can be put down to perfectionism either, as some of the other bands I know who can spit out albums quickly are perfectionists (and frankly produce much better mixed and packaged albums than U2 have for years). I think it's simply a lack of talent and/or a greater passion for living like rockstars than actually being rockstars.
I don't think that's true, I think it's because U2 really cling to "live is where they live." Granted I know U2 don't tour your part of the globe as often as others, but even a 2 year long tour of N. America and Europe can take a toll on the people touring. The jetlag, time differences, I'm surprised U2 aren't completely loopy from all that flying.
Do those same bands who can spit out albums quickly and are perfectionists, also tour as much as U2?
Virtually every U2 album has had a tour to support it. I don't really follow that many bands the way I do U2, but I don't assume every band that records an album will tour soon after that album is released. Some of the bands I like haven't toured in years.
A new U2 album, usually means a U2 tour is imminent. I think some U2 fans want the new album out sooner, because they feel that a tour is likely to follow. If U2 became a studio band, didn't tour anymore, yeah, they could probably spit out albums quickly within months instead of years.
Am I wrong in that some people are missing this big part of the equation when it comes to a U2 album release?
To us, the fans, it might look as laziness or lack of talent. Perhaps to U2, an album means an album, publicity for the album, then most likely a tour of the album, and all the logistics and financial planning for all that.
Any band who has toured as much as U2, isn't lazy in my book. Plus some bands who put out good albums, aren't so great when playing live.
///
Er yeah, back to topic, I'd echo those who said why is he complaining now, when he was listed that way on prior albums?
I tend to prefer the albums more that weren't produced by Eno.
Seems you get more "rock" out of U2 if Eno isn't as involved or not involved.