U2 > General U2 Discussion
Is There Still Any Point In U2 Making A New Album?
jick:
Around three years ago, I started a topic in this forum: Should U2 Turn Into A Singles-Only Band?
Over the past three years, much has changed. Albums are even more out-of-vogue than ever. Music is now more easily accessible on a per-song basis through out smartphones and tablets.
U2 have also seen their tour morph into a Greatest Hits show. While physical CD sales are down now, U2 still got their share from re-issuing Achtung Baby which comes with freebies that can't be found through downloads.
The point is that U2 have cemented their legacy. And while they will always need the money to maintain their expenses, it seems more viable to cash-in on their back catalogue rather than make a new album which requires too much time, money, and effort.
There will never be another Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby or All That You Can't Leave Behind.
U2 have also reached the outer limits of what their music is. They are in the damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't stage in their career. If they try something outrageous, it will be seen as a vain attempt at catching a new sound to make it with the current times. If they try something battle-tested, it will be seen as using the same sound all over again. Having been around for over 3 decades puts you in this situation.
If cash is what U2 needs, they can keep doing re-issues, sell their music to TV shows and movies, and do more back catalogue stuff. Less work, and still rake in profits. Remember the last album? It took them years to make it, and across a number of continents. Imagine the costs related to that.
U2's last two tours had to endure delay, which naturally cut away their "private life" time. Perhaps they just need a break. U2 don't need anything to build on their legacy. The only thing they need is a constant flow of cash for their daily expenses and overheads but they can achieve that through less taxing means than making a new album which will pose a lot of risk financially and to harming their legacy.
So now, I ask and this is not from the fan's point of view (of course we want something new!) but more from U2's point of view: Is there still any point in making a new album?
Cheers,
J
tigerfan41:
Speaking purely from a musician's perspective: yes. If I were in U2's shoes and still loved making music, that would be enough to motivate me to continue putting out new music--not to mention wanting to please my fans. I haven't seen anything to indicate that the guys don't like writing/recording/touring new music, so I don't think they're at the point of hanging things up.
There's also the relevancy aspect. Bono's made it clear that he wants U2 to continue to be relevant. Not sure how the rest of the band feels about that, but to stay relevant, a new album's going to have to be in the cards at some point.
It seems like every decade U2 are at a stage where they have to change things up or give it up. 1990/1991, 2000 and now. Each time they've managed to put out something truly great in response to this choice. Hopefully they use this as an excuse to take a breather, enjoy life with their families for a little while, and come back to "dream it all up again" with another great CD.
Velvet Dress:
I'm sure they ask themselves the same question all the time. The difference is, I should hope, that the amount of effort invested into making an album isn't a factor which weighs against doing so, for them.
But I doubt they'll turn into a singles-only band. To their perhaps old-fashioned minds, that isn't the way to get into the public consciousness the way they seem intent on doing. So if they can't find it in themselves to make an album, I think they'll stop.
--- Quote from: jick on April 15, 2012, 10:02:31 PM ---There will never be another Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby or All That You Can't Leave Behind.
--- End quote ---
I can't agree with that statement as it stands. A preliminary point is that I wouldn't classify the last-named album in the same league as the other two. But that's by the by. More importantly, I think the potential of creating another transcendent masterpiece is still there.
Given the nature of contemporary pop music (I use the term 'pop' in its broadest sense), and the way U2 have responded to it so far, I agree it looks unlikely that their best is yet to be. But I think they could do it. Whether the reception to such work will meet their (probably unrealistic) expectations, or whether it happens at all, is a different matter.
The Exile:
I agree with you that U2 will most likely not make another album that will crack their top 5 (and regardless of which albums you put in there, it's probably still true).
If I were the band's advisor, I would say something like this: "Look lads, you're getting a bit old to be repeating this cycle of full album, two-year tour, three-year break. If you want to still make music and stay in the spotlight, then why not release two or three 6-song EPs over the course of a few years, and then do a tour afterwards?"
If you think about it, U2 releasing a six-song EP with the best songs they have at the moment will completely take the pressure off. Then when they have six more that they think are worthy, do it again. What this will help avoid is their having a handful of songs they believe in, but due to the pressure to release a full album they add songs that suck to be filler.
But singles-only? I wouldn't advise that.
PS - And Tiger's right: You don't maintain relevance by touring behind your past accomplishments, no matter how good they are. U2 needs to release new music. And maybe going the EP route is the best way to release the best material as quickly as possible.
Sugarcube:
If they can dream it all up again, yes.
If they carry on established, no.
No one could argue they need the money. Maybe they just enjoy it and couldn't care less what fans think.
I'd rather they didn't tarnish their legacy any further but that's just me.
That said, if they can actually record some good songs again, why not go down the EP route like Exile suggested. They could easily tour off the back of that. Radiohead have been releasing sporadic songs and EP's in recent years - some of the songs have been free too! U2 will be charging for theirs, obviously.
For example, if U2 cleared out all the crap from their last 3 records and released the remaining tunes as an EP it would have been great.
EP side 1 - Kite, Sometimes, A Man and a Woman
EP side 2 - Fez/Being Born, Electrical Storm, Yahweh
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version