how U2 could be releasing more music...

[dr. zooeuss]

U2 could release more music more frequently than the pattern they've had since 1997 (one album every four years, gah!!), while keeping touring as extensively as they do, and keeping time off for their lives and other interests.

By following this sort of schedule, they could fit in two albums, two EPs and two tours every five years and as far as I can see, have about as much time off in between tours as they've had since the Pop era...


2008

early March: New Single from new album released.. promotional shows and tv spots

Late March: New Album released

April to early June 2008: 1st leg: Stadium tour of North America

late June - August: 2nd Leg: Stadium tour Europe

early September: break

late September & October: in the studio

early November: release EP of 5-7 new songs (maybe digital only?)

Mid-November- update tour setlist and design for new material

late November & early December: Tour OZ, NZ, and the Pacific with updated setlist from EP


2009

January: rest

February: 4th leg: Latin//South America//S.Africa (updated setlist from EP)

March: rest

April to early June: 5th leg: Stadium Tour N.Am (updated setlist from EP)

Late June to August: 6th leg: Stadium Tour Europe (updated setlist from EP)

Sept-December- longer break


2010

Jan to March: break, collaborations, select appearances, humanitarian work, other projects

April to June: in the studio

early July: new single released, tv spots

mid July: New Album released

Late July to early October: 1st leg: Arena Tour Europe

late October to mid December: 2nd leg: Arena Tour North America


2011

early January: break

mid-January to mid-Feb: 3rd leg: tour OZ, NZ, & Pacific

late Feb to mid March: 4th leg: tour Latin//South America//S.Africa

late March: break

April to mid-May: in the studio

late May: New EP released, tour design and setlist revised to include new material

June to Early August: 5th leg: Stadium Tour N. America

Late August to October: 6th leg: Stadium Tour Europe

Nov. 2011- Dec. 2012 : long break

2013-2017 - repeat pattern...

 

[thelaj]

Yes they could, but why would they?
They could do anything, record 12 albums a year.....
This thread is random.
A schedule like that would fuck them up! No time for kids, family, leisure. People would get sick of seeing them that often (the super-casual stadium fan).
Plus they can barely get enough good songs for one album every 4 years, never mind your schedule.

 

[kingofsorrow]

Plus they can barely get enough good songs for one album every 4 years, never mind your schedule.

 

[dr. zooeuss]

Yes they could, but why would they?
They could do anything, record 12 albums a year.....
This thread is random.
A schedule like that would fuck them up! No time for kids, family, leisure. People would get sick of seeing them that often (the super-casual stadium fan).
Plus they can barely get enough good songs for one album every 4 years, never mind your schedule.

yeah it does seem random on it's own- i was continuing an earlier thread, thinking of how the Beatles put out two albums a year, but didn't tour nearly as much, during their career.

U2 are a touring band, but we often hear how they have dozens of good unreleased songs.. why not finish and put more of them out? It'd be a better way to sustain presence..

I took a look at their schedules during major tours, and this isn't that much different from what they've pulled off for ZooTv-Zoomerang, Pop, JT-Lovetown, Unforgettable Fire and Vertigo.

 

[babyman]

I actually don't care that much about new releases, of course it's always a good thing to have some new tunes, but personnally I'm most interested in live shows. There are may bands out there who are constantly on tour, even when they don't have new albums. I think that U2 could try this way, they're around not that much, by doing around 100 concerts every 4 years, it's actually a too low standard. Ok, they have their families, they want to spend the time with them and this is more than right. But you can go touring even for 3 months every year, without having the majestic stages and all the NASA projected light and stuff like that. The fact is that when U2 wants to move, there is always too much attention to move more money than possible

 

[dr. zooeuss]

I actually don't care that much about new releases, of course it's always a good thing to have some new tunes, but personnally I'm most interested in live shows. There are may bands out there who are constantly on tour, even when they don't have new albums. I think that U2 could try this way, they're around not that much, by doing around 100 concerts every 4 years, it's actually a too low standard. Ok, they have their families, they want to spend the time with them and this is more than right. But you can go touring even for 3 months every year, without having the majestic stages and all the NASA projected light and stuff like that. The fact is that when U2 wants to move, there is always too much attention to move more money than possible

good points. even so, so much of their trademark is founded on their inertia, always reinventing themsleves without losing themselves... it's hard to imagine more than one tour without new material without it quickly feeling and sounding like a "greatest hits" show.