New U2 Album in 2012?

[Hollow Island]

if you want a giggle - here's a crappy internet review i wrote about that gig at the time - i was on a bit of a post-gig high so it's a bit over-exuberant and i was 9 years younger than i am now LOL

Hallo Spaceboy was fucking awesome. His voice was incredible on that tour, and I've never seen anyone so commanding on the stage. I always thought using that word to describe a performer was a particularly vile cliche, but I guess not.

I find it interesting that now that Bowie's been gone for a while everyone wants him to come back, even though his music from 95 on was not received very well (despite much of being quite good).

 

[mama cass]

Hallo Spaceboy was fucking awesome. His voice was incredible on that tour, and I've never seen anyone so commanding on the stage. I always thought using that word to describe a performer was a particularly vile cliche, but I guess not.

I find it interesting that now that Bowie's been gone for a while everyone wants him to come back, even though his music from 95 on was not received very well (despite much of being quite good).

cool! did you see that tour too? yeah he was amazing! having a bit of a trip down memory lane!

here's Hello Spaceboy from the same tour - epic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6w2JDNjTvo

 

[Niceman]

I'm not ignoring your points, I'm disagreeing. Nowhere do I equate "producing" with "selling." U2 could release an album that sells 0 copies, but it would still be released.

If you want to talk about Van Gogh, he could have gone around the south of France telling people about all of his paintings, but unless they could be seen nobody would know that they existed. People could have accepted what he claimed, but those who draw conclusions from evidence would have said he was unproductive because they couldn't verify his statement.

However, the reason I ignored that analogy is because it is incredible faulty. He had no work in galleries because nobody wanted it. That's more like a musician with 4 complete albums shopping them to labels and receiving no interest, so the remain unreleased. A better example would be Picasso, who was always in demand, talking about having 100 paintings and not selling or showing any of them. Then people would say - providing they care about evidence when they make decisions - that Picasso, who was prolific but now talks about his work without showing it to anyone, is less productive than he was.

I don't see what's so hard about this to understand. U2 say they have a lot of songs, but if they did they would release them. What they have is material that they are working on, that is not complete (it's complete when all 4 agree that it is), and will not be released until it is.

What evidence do you have that makes you believe that they are as productive as they were? Did they send you SOA and the club record and the rock record and you neglected to share it with us?

They make reocrds. They put out fewer than they did. Therefore they are just as productive. Unsound logic.

They make records. They put out fewer than they did. Therefore they are less productive. Sound logic.

You could introduce unprovable conditions into the first statement, but that would make the argument fallacious. There is no way to make your argument valid.

My comment, and you still ignored half of it even this time, was that you were neither engaging with my point nor giving ground. That's what debate is.

FINALLY, you are at least acknowledging that I did say those words. Thanks for that. But your point is pretty wild. Edge could sit down and write 10 songs this week and put them aside. Maybe he doesn't get together with Bono for 6 months, but in that time they each write dozens of songs. You would call that non-productive? Well, then you're using the word in a very different sense than I did in my original point. So long as you do so, you are not arguing against the point I've made.

I said that it was a shame they were producing so much but not releasing it. I think its pretty clear by now in what sense I used the word "producing." You're inserting an alternate meaning, which I obviously didn't intend, and then arguing. "They aren't releasing a lot of albums because they aren't releasing a lot of albums." I never claimed that were releasing a lot of albums.

As far as whether they really are writing material which is not put up for sale, they say they are. I consider that weighty evidence that they probably are.

 

[Niceman]

cool! did you see that tour too? yeah he was amazing! having a bit of a trip down memory lane!

here's Hello Spaceboy from the same tour - epic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6w2JDNjTvo

Love that song!

 

[Hollow Island]

FINALLY, you are at least acknowledging that I did say those words. Thanks for that. But your point is pretty wild. Edge could sit down and write 10 songs this week and put them aside. Maybe he doesn't get together with Bono for 6 months, but in that time they each write dozens of songs. You would call that non-productive? Well, then you're using the word in a very different sense than I did in my original point. So long as you do so, you are not arguing against the point I've made.

True, he could. It is possible. But since we don't know that to be the case it can't be used in an argument without weakening it.

I said that it was a shame they were producing so much but not releasing it. I think its pretty clear by now in what sense I used the word "producing." You're inserting an alternate meaning, which I obviously didn't intend, and then arguing. "They aren't releasing a lot of albums because they aren't releasing a lot of albums." I never claimed that were releasing a lot of albums.

I am not arguing "They aren't releasing a lot of albums because they aren't releasing a lot of albums." I am arguing that they aren't as productive as they were because they release fewer albums. Those are two completely different statements, and nowhere did I even infer the former to be the case.

I'm not using an alternative definition of productivity, I'm referring to the only way we have of evaluating the productivity of a rock band, which is hearing music that they make. You are trying to say that they are as productive as they were, and I am saying that they are not. I'm using objectively verifiable, concrete data to make my case, whereas you are using speculation.

As far as whether they really are writing material which is not put up for sale, they say they are. I consider that weighty evidence that they probably are.

Right, they are working on material - they are working on product. Until we are presented with the results, that being their next project (or projects) we cannot say that they are as productive as they were. If they release an album at least every two years for the rest of the decade (starting this year), then we can say they are as productive as they were. However, since they released fewer songs in the 90s than the 80s, and fewer in the 00s than either decade, there is no logically sound way that anyone can say they are as productive as they were. There is no evidence to support it!

 

[trevgreg]

Of course, "producing" in terms of writing new music and "producing" released songs to the public are two different thing entirely. I don't think it would be possible to compare the output the band has done in recent years to the 80s or 90s decades, but it would be a safe guess that they're not just sitting on their butts either. Enough interviews seem to prove that anyway.

As for Bowie, it would seem that Hallo Spaceboy would rock to hear live!

 

[Niceman]

True, he could. It is possible. But since we don't know that to be the case it can't be used in an argument without weakening it.



I am not arguing "They aren't releasing a lot of albums because they aren't releasing a lot of albums." I am arguing that they aren't as productive as they were because they release fewer albums. Those are two completely different statements, and nowhere did I even infer the former to be the case.

I'm not using an alternative definition of productivity, I'm referring to the only way we have of evaluating the productivity of a rock band, which is hearing music that they make. You are trying to say that they are as productive as they were, and I am saying that they are not. I'm using objectively verifiable, concrete data to make my case, whereas you are using speculation.



Right, they are working on material - they are working on product. Until we are presented with the results, that being their next project (or projects) we cannot say that they are as productive as they were. If they release an album at least every two years for the rest of the decade (starting this year), then we can say they are as productive as they were. However, since they released fewer songs in the 90s than the 80s, and fewer in the 00s than either decade, there is no logically sound way that anyone can say they are as productive as they were. There is no evidence to support it!

I'm sorry. I'm not going to keep going in circles here. Yes, you are arguing that the only way the word "productive" can be used is "releasing albums," even though I have made it crystal clear that I wasn't using it that way. You are changing the meaning of the word from the way I used it, and then telling me I'm wrong because your twisted meaning of my word changes my sentence into a contradiction.

I never claimed that U2 released lots of albums in the last 10 years, but you chose to replace my stated meaning of the word "productive" with this idea.

You're arguing against something I've never stated.

I said, "U2 is apparently producing lots of material which is not getting released."

You then told me that I'm not allowed to mean anything by the word "produce" except releasing, and then argue, " They are not releasing material which is not getting released."

I'm not going to keep going round this circle with you.

That nonsense over,

I just wish U2 would share more of the material they've been writing over the course of the last 10 years or so, because they seem to be creating a lot more than they're releasing. I feel left out.

 

[Niceman]

Of course, "producing" in terms of writing new music and "producing" released songs to the public are two different thing entirely. I don't think it would be possible to compare the output the band has done in recent years to the 80s or 90s decades, but it would be a safe guess that they're not just sitting on their butts either. Enough interviews seem to prove that anyway.

As for Bowie, it would seem that Hallo Spaceboy would rock to hear live!

 

[lemonfly]

This thread is turning into a game of semantic twister, but Hollow Island is making the most sensible arguments imo. Firstly, I personally don't place too much stock in interviews. I don't think soundbites by Bono or a producer really prove anything. What's Bono or Danger Mouse or whoever supposed to say when prompted by the interviewer? "We're NOT making progress on the album?" It's natural for them to try and put a positive spin on the sessions, it's human nature. So I suggest we put interviews to one side. I think we should also try and leave supposition to one side. Edge might be writing ten songs per week. He might not be. Again, there is no way of objectively knowing so it's useless throwing that into any arguments. The only element of empirical evidence we have is what they HAVE been releasing, and we know for certain it is a lot less than the 80's. Based on that one true observable fact that we have, the only logical conclusion is they have been less fruitful in the 00's. So I agree with Hollow Island.

 

[Hollow Island]

I said, "U2 is apparently producing lots of material which is not getting released."

I just wish U2 would share more of the material they've been writing over the course of the last 10 years or so, because they seem to be creating a lot more than they're releasing. I feel left out.

There's just nothing to suggest that they are producing tons of material aside from what one guy says, and the other guys contradict him. I'm trying to show you that they are not as productive as they were 20 years ago, which is what you claimed despite all available evidence contradicting that. Without being presented with the material there's no reason to believe it exists, so I wouldn't feel left out. Now, if they were releasing it to every nation in the world except the one you live in, and McMoneyfatpants succeeded in destroying the internet, you'd have good reason to feel left out. Let's hope that doesn't happen!

The reason I introduced the whole album thing is because that's the only way to verify how productive they are. Bono saying that they're as productive as they've ever been is meaningless unless they release what they've been producing to the world.

If they really were sitting on a mountain of finished material they'd release it. It's their job. If they had as much material as Bono says they've produced we'd have had at least one album since 2009. They release an album when they think it's done, for better or for worse.

 

[Niceman]

Alright, this is my last comment on the issue:

If Bono, or anyone in U2 tells me they're writing songs. I believe them. All joking on this site aside, I DON'T have evidence of Bono lying. Sure, his predictions sometimes don't work out, but that's a very different thing than a lie.

When Bono says they have 60 or so songs written, I'd require proof, serious proof, to not take him at his word. I don't feel any need to prove he's not a liar.

But I seriously cannot believe you're STILL trying to sell me that I have to adopt your meaning of the word "productive" and apply it to what I said a day or two back - and let you tell me what I meant to say. Let it go!

 

[Niceman]

Alright, one more comment:

What you should have said is, "You're basing your belief that U2 is creating so much material on Bono's word. I think he's lying."

I would then have said, "Whoa there! I would need proof in order to think Bono was lying."

Then, we would have had no semantic circle of doom, just a nice little Irish stand off.

 

[arzcrack]

Alright, one more comment:

What you should have said is, "You're basing your belief that U2 is creating so much material on Bono's word. I think he's lying."

I would then have said, "Whoa there! I would need proof in order to think Bono was lying."

Then, we would have had no semantic circle of doom, just a nice little Irish stand off.

Boring.

 

[Niceman]

Boring.

Ha! Fair enough.

 

[Nick66]

Niceman, part of the reason this has kind of gotten circular is because you've kinda changed the terms of the debate.

Now you say this...

You're arguing against something I've never stated.
I said, "U2 is apparently producing lots of material which is not getting released."

But originally, you said this...

I don't buy for a second that U2 is less productive now than they were 10, or maybe even 20 years ago. They just don't share.

People merely pointed out to you that any statement about how much completed, unreleased material U2 has is speculative. Indeed, you're merely guessing that they have enough material to make them as productive as they previously were just based on vague comments by Bono. That's the very definition of speculation.

And this...

Yes, you are arguing that the only way the word "productive" can be used is "releasing albums," even though I have made it crystal clear that I wasn't using it that way.

...is s a straw man. Yes, we can agree that an unreleased song is still productivity, but since we don't conclusively know how many of those there really are, how can we conclude there's enough to make them productive as ever?

The issue isn't defining productivity...by whatever definition you use, there still has to be a way to measure that productivity, if you're going to make an informed observation on it. Otherwise, yeah, you're just guessing. The only way we have to accurately measure productivity is by looking at what they've actually released.

And the "I don't think Bono is lying" thing is a straw man also. No one said Bono is lying. But I haven't heard any comment by him to conclude that they have the amount of completed, unreleased work to credibly say that they are as productive now as ever. Again, you're just guessing. Now, it's possible you're guessing correctly, but we really don't know. Again, I'll give you that an unreleased song is still song, but without any tangible evidence of how many of these there are, we can't draw any valid, provable conclusions, can we? I mean, under your criteria, to really gauge how productive they in one decade vs. another, not only would we have to speculate about unreleased songs in the 00's, we'd have to go back to what they said about unreleased songs in the 80's and 90's and guess how many of those there were as well. Because surely there are some. See why this line of reasoning doesn't work?

The ONLY way to objectively compare how productive they are, without engaging in guesswork, is to compare apples to apples based on known data...how much they released now vs. then.

 

[LadySpinHead]

Wow, so, Niceman thinks (hopes, has faith, whatever) they might be more productive right now than we may think, others say they are less productive because less is being released... Soooo, we have to go around and around about it? Holy cow.

I tend to agree with Niceman on this one, but I'm an artist myself. Niceman is a writer. Maybe as creative individuals we like to give others the benefit of the doubt when it comes to creating? I've only recently started creating real art again (graphic designer by trade) but I like to think the thought and doodles and staring at the blank canvas were all productive to get me to a finishing point somehow. Certainly nothing was "released", but it was work in that direction, and really can't be quantified. So yes, technically, no one knew unless I told them, then they would have to decide how to interpret what I said. But then, I could also have a basement full of finished paintings an no one would necessarily know that, either. I'd be crushed if someone said I wasn't being productive, but I guess, how would they know unless they saw? I see both sides.

So sounds to me like we're back to faith in the band again, which I know runs deep in these parts

 

[mama cass]

how about "they're not being seen to be being productive"? that covers lots of possibilities, no?

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

Worst.argument.ever

 

[Niceman]

Niceman, part of the reason this has kind of gotten circular is because you've kinda changed the terms of the debate.

Now you say this...



But originally, you said this...



People merely pointed out to you that any statement about how much completed, unreleased material U2 has is speculative. Indeed, you're merely guessing that they have enough material to make them as productive as they previously were just based on vague comments by Bono. That's the very definition of speculation.

And this...



...is s a straw man. Yes, we can agree that an unreleased song is still productivity, but since we don't conclusively know how many of those there really are, how can we conclude there's enough to make them productive as ever?

The issue isn't defining productivity...by whatever definition you use, there still has to be a way to measure that productivity, if you're going to make an informed observation on it. Otherwise, yeah, you're just guessing. The only way we have to accurately measure productivity is by looking at what they've actually released.

And the "I don't think Bono is lying" thing is a straw man also. No one said Bono is lying. But I haven't heard any comment by him to conclude that they have the amount of completed, unreleased work to credibly say that they are as productive now as ever. Again, you're just guessing. Now, it's possible you're guessing correctly, but we really don't know. Again, I'll give you that an unreleased song is still song, but without any tangible evidence of how many of these there are, we can't draw any valid, provable conclusions, can we? I mean, under your criteria, to really gauge how productive they in one decade vs. another, not only would we have to speculate about unreleased songs in the 00's, we'd have to go back to what they said about unreleased songs in the 80's and 90's and guess how many of those there were as well. Because surely there are some. See why this line of reasoning doesn't work?

The ONLY way to objectively compare how productive they are, without engaging in guesswork, is to compare apples to apples based on known data...how much they released now vs. then.

Believing what someone tells you is not speculation.

I tried to rephrase my original statement a number of times simply to make it clearer. I'm not going to keep going in these circles. You can make the same point which has been made again and again, i.e. we don't know that U2 is writing a vast amount of songs simply because Bono says they are. I can then say.... I believe Bono. We can rephrase and repeat all you like, but it really comes down to:

Some people want to only admit U2 has written as much music as they have released.
And
I believe Bono when he reports what the band has done.
It really is that simple.

Now can we please let this go? I'd much rather talk about how awesome Bowie is, how much Coldplay suck, or what a POP remaster would be like. Or even... when will the next U2 album come out?

This line of conversation really is dead.

 

[mikal]

Worst.argument.ever

oh man, you're right. just read through some of this. awful guys, awful.

 

[Hollow Island]

Wow, so, Niceman thinks (hopes, has faith, whatever) they might be more productive right now than we may think, others say they are less productive because less is being released... Soooo, we have to go around and around about it? Holy cow.

I tend to agree with Niceman on this one, but I'm an artist myself. Niceman is a writer. Maybe as creative individuals we like to give others the benefit of the doubt when it comes to creating? I've only recently started creating real art again (graphic designer by trade) but I like to think the thought and doodles and staring at the blank canvas were all productive to get me to a finishing point somehow. Certainly nothing was "released", but it was work in that direction, and really can't be quantified. So yes, technically, no one knew unless I told them, then they would have to decide how to interpret what I said. But then, I could also have a basement full of finished paintings an no one would necessarily know that, either. I'd be crushed if someone said I wasn't being productive, but I guess, how would they know unless they saw? I see both sides.

So sounds to me like we're back to faith in the band again, which I know runs deep in these parts

You hit the nail on the head when you say unexposed work can't be quantified. I'm a creative person too, and I know that when you spend a day working on a project you are being productive, whether or not it is finished or not. However, I think you'll agree that a year in which you complete 7 paintings is a more productive year than one in which you complete 3, and if you are commissioned to do work -when your job is to produce paintings - you're more productive in a year in which you exhibit than one in which you don't. You could tell the gallery that's waiting for your work that you have 75 canvasses waiting to be shown, but unless you make them available they have no reason to believe you because it's your job to make your work available.

So yeah, it comes down to faith, and I think that faith without any evidence to support it is ridiculous, and when the evidence does not support it it's even more absurd.

For instance, I could say I'm being productive right now but that wouldn't be true because I'm procrastinating!

 

[Nick66]

Believing what someone tells you is not speculation.

I believe Bono when he reports what the band has done.

OK. How many completed, but unreleased songs, based on Bono's "reports", does the band have? You must have that number, if you're basing the notion that they are as productive as ever on it?

If you can't answer that question definitively, then yes, you're just speculating. That's what speculating is. The fact that Bono has said they have undressed song is not speculative. Bono has indeed said that. What is speculative is guessing that there's enough completely material there to make them as productive as ever. That's the speculation.

On the other hand, if I ask "How many songs has U2 released between 2000-2010", that is a question that can be answered definitively without speculation, with simple research.

So, again, since, as you say, you're not speculating, tell us how many completely and unreleased songs recorded in the 00's U2 has.

 

[jay canseco]

Todays contest is: Which one is the troll?

 

[doctorwho]

how about "they're not being seen to be being productive"? that covers lots of possibilities, no?

Productivity = "state of mind"

Alas, I'm not optimistic, but U2 do like late fall releases - and the albums usually sell well at that time too (compared to Spring or Summer releases - only JT bucks that trend).

But given the cherry-picking world we live in, best to have a really strong first single. Might be nice to go with a fantastic ballad (ala WOWY) for a change.

 

[Nick66]

Todays contest is: Which one is the troll?

You. For coming into a thread solely for the purposes of trying to instigate.

Now, was there anything else, or were you just trolling?

 

[Niceman]

Worst.argument.ever

 

[Niceman]

OK. How many completed, but unreleased songs, based on Bono's "reports", does the band have? You must have that number, if you're basing the notion that they are as productive as ever on it?

If you can't answer that question definitively, then yes, you're just speculating.

No. That doesn't follow. I posted a list a couple pages back of some of the projects Bono has told us about that haven't seen the light of day. I'm not speculating. I'm believing. My only speculation, and I think it was a reasonable one, was that there were likely even others he hasn't mentioned.



So um....Bowie's pretty awesome, eh?

Ever hear "The Port of Amsterdam?" That's one of my favorite songs of his.

Coldplay is so annoying! Agree? Disagree?

I wonder if U2 will surprise us with an album this fall?

 

[pop_mofo]

Just read that the stones have pushed their anniversary tour to 2013. I think the odds of U2 releasing an album this year just dramatically decreased.

There is no way U2 would tour an album while the stones were on tour. Mark your calendars for fall 2013. This now makes the most sense in my opinion.

I had been slightly optimistic. Sadly, no longer.

 

[zoocarolina]

The way this year is trending and how quiet everything is, Fall of 2013 seems to be the most reasonable which is a little over 2 years post 360 so all in all, right on schedule!

 

[Niceman]

The way this year is trending and how quiet everything is, Fall of 2013 seems to be the most reasonable which is a little over 2 years post 360 so all in all, right on schedule!

A sad, sad schedule....