U2 > General U2 Discussion
Is There Still Any Point In U2 Making A New Album?
ian ryan:
If they are still capable of making good music (in my opinion, music that is still better than pretty much anything else out there), then of course there is.
Sugarcube:
--- Quote from: marvgadgie on April 16, 2012, 04:24:11 AM ---The EP pretty much disappeared in the UK as a commercial force when the charts made a rule about a maximum number of songs on a "single" for it to count as a "single" and be allowed to be in the the Top 40. As the charts used to be important we all got less bang for our buck when buying singles ... I miss four track singles on 7" or even cassette.
--- End quote ---
It's coming back in certain niche circles just like vinyl is. I'd much rather hear limited releases from U2 that condense their better songs into smaller formats if they can't make great music over an entire LP.
Every single one of their albums worked as a whole unit up to and including POP. Since then...
ATYCLB was 60 or 70% filler
HDDAAB was 60 or 70% filler
NLOTH was 50% filler and 50% tunes that did or didn't work to varying degrees
As a fellow member rightly pointed out, take Red Hill Mining Town out of the context of the JT and it doesn't work so well. Listen to it within the context of the whole album and it's great. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the filler songs on their last 3 albums. They don't work in any context.
@lmighty DS:
--- 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 ---
LOL.
they could make a hundred more ATYCLB..............
Sydney_Mike:
Good thought provoking post Jick.
For me, it's not about the money, it's do they have the passion to keep doing this? I saw a YouTube clip the other day of Bono from 1984 talking about how they made music for themselves first, fans second and radio third. These days, I get the feeling the order has become radio, fans and then band. If they get back to the 1984 priorities then they have a future in making music.
I agree with the idea that a strong 4 track EP or whatever you want to call it, every year or two may be a better approach than trying to write a full album and touring it every 4-5 years. Sometimes less is more.
jick:
--- Quote from: tigerfan41 on April 15, 2012, 10:17:47 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
I want to assume you are a recreational or amateur musician. Correct me if I am wrong.
U2 have always mentioned in all interviews that music is their job. Bono thanks Mullen Jnr for "the only job we've ever had" or when they had a good album they said they were "re-applying for the best-band-in-the-world job." A job needs pay.
U2 don't do think out of thin air just for the sake of making music. It has to make money for them because they don't know any other job or source of income.
From the band's point of view, they might have found better ways to cash-in on the current music landscape opposed to just recording an album. With U2's admittedly crude method of coming up with new albums and recording studio jamming-without-a-plan style, it will be very expensive for them.
If the band remaster their old catalogues, sell riffs to TV shows and even to mainstream top-40 singles-only artists, they might stand to make more profit and still keep jobs for their studio people (or their support system who depend on them for salaries) to remaster, rework, or remix old material. It would be less taxing and the wages would be the same.
From my fanboy's perspective, of course I want new material. I probably memorize all of U2's songs (except POP) by heart and want something new. In an ideal world, U2 will continue for the love of music regardless of losses and disappearing listeners. But this is not an ideal world, this is a "job" and "career" for U2, and they need to check their productivity, age, and profitability.
So what is the point in making a new album?
Cheers,
J
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version