Is There Still Any Point In U2 Making A New Album?

[mattressjedi]

U2 is an album band. Always have been(with a few exceptions).

Well, yes, but they're also VERY much a singles' band too.

 

But not a singles-only band(again, with a few exceptions).

[Tumbling Dice]

U2 is an album band. Always have been(with a few exceptions).

Well, yes, but they're also VERY much a singles' band too.

 

But not a singles-only band(again, with a few exceptions).

Most bands aren't.

[mattressjedi]

U2 is an album band. Always have been(with a few exceptions).

Well, yes, but they're also VERY much a singles' band too.

 

But not a singles-only band(again, with a few exceptions).

Most bands aren't.

Yeah, today they aren't. But rock had it's beginnings in the single. I think it was more to the point that U2 wouldn't work as a singles-only band as jick suggested.

[horizon]

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

1. U2 did not have a greatest hits tour, Is Bad a "greatest hit"? What about "Love Rescue Me" or "All I Want Is You"?
2. And you know there won't be one? How?
3. Yes.
4. Cheers to you too.

[The Exile]

1. U2 did not have a greatest hits tour, Is Bad a "greatest hit"? What about "Love Rescue Me" or "All I Want Is You"?

You're making an assumption here, one that says that a U2 GHT would only include greatest hits from start to finish, with no rarities at all. That's not an assumption that all of us here share, and you'd need to argue for it instead of just presupposing it as a given.

[MLP Midnight]

I call 360 two seperate tours.

The first two legs were actually for NLOTH, everything else was more of a Greatest Hit style tour.

[jick]

Thanks for the all the points raised here.  It has been very enlightening to read all your replies.

My "new" conclusion is YES, THERE IS A POINT IN U2 MAKING A NEW ALBUM.

They wouldn't want to end their album-recording career with the dud that is No Line In The Horizon, right?

Perhaps that is their driving force.  They want to end their career in their own terms.

And just maybe, if they can have faith and confidence in their next album, and they can properly announce it to the world before release that it will be their last studio album - they can get some sales and awards for that.

That would be icing in the cake for their legacy.

Cheers,

J

[TheSceneoftheAccident]

They'll never top Achtung Baby. That doesn't mean they shouldn't release at least one more album though. I every album after Pop was pretty weak. Behind was average, whereas Bomb was downright terrible, in my opinion at least. No Line had glimpses of a return to form though, especially with songs like Moment of Surrender and Magnificent. It felt like an unfinished product. Maybe they spent too much time on it?

I think U2 should try to get an album out in 2012. U2 were better when they released albums within a 1-3 year gap. Look at Zooropa or The Unforgettable Fire for instance. They seem to overwork themselves on their albums now. I think No Line would have been fantastic were it released in late 2007/early 2008.

[mattressjedi]

They'll never top Achtung Baby. That doesn't mean they shouldn't release at least one more album though. I every album after Pop was pretty weak. Behind was average, whereas Bomb was downright terrible, in my opinion at least. No Line had glimpses of a return to form though, especially with songs like Moment of Surrender and Magnificent. It felt like an unfinished product. Maybe they spent too much time on it?

I think U2 should try to get an album out in 2012. U2 were better when they released albums within a 1-3 year gap. Look at Zooropa or The Unforgettable Fire for instance. They seem to overwork themselves on their albums now. I think No Line would have been fantastic were it released in late 2007/early 2008.

Eno has said Breathe, as done by Eno and Lanois, was one of the best things U2 ever did, but that the album version was changed and edited way down from that original version.
I think I have a new name for Lillywhite: The Scrubber. He removes all imperfections and artifacts from a recording, resulting in a squeaky clean noise devoid of all personality.

[tigerfan41]

Breathe live on SNL in '09 and live in concert in Chicago '09 sounded much better than the version on NLOTH. I do think perhaps Lillywhite might have gotten carried away with "perfecting" the song. Which is a shame.

[Sugarcube]

They'll never top Achtung Baby. That doesn't mean they shouldn't release at least one more album though. I every album after Pop was pretty weak. Behind was average, whereas Bomb was downright terrible, in my opinion at least. No Line had glimpses of a return to form though, especially with songs like Moment of Surrender and Magnificent. It felt like an unfinished product. Maybe they spent too much time on it?

I think U2 should try to get an album out in 2012. U2 were better when they released albums within a 1-3 year gap. Look at Zooropa or The Unforgettable Fire for instance. They seem to overwork themselves on their albums now. I think No Line would have been fantastic were it released in late 2007/early 2008.

Eno has said Breathe, as done by Eno and Lanois, was one of the best things U2 ever did, but that the album version was changed and edited way down from that original version.
I think I have a new name for Lillywhite: The Scrubber. He removes all imperfections and artifacts from a recording, resulting in a squeaky clean noise devoid of all personality.

Eno also said MOS was one of he best things U2 ever did - its all hyperbole. Bono claimed NLOTH 'might just be their best record'. One wonders whose telling the truth here. It certainly isn't bono.

Lillywhite is a pretty good producer. And if he isn't, whose more at fault, him or the band that hired him.

[TheSceneoftheAccident]

MOS is one of the best things U2 has ever done though.

[mattressjedi]

MOS is one of the best things U2 has ever done. I agree with Eno.

[miryclay]

Breathe live on SNL in '09 and live in concert in Chicago '09 sounded much better than the version on NLOTH. I do think perhaps Lillywhite might have gotten carried away with "perfecting" the song. Which is a shame.

I agree a 100%. It stole the show during 2009. The album version lacked something.

[OptimaX]

U2 needs to do something that nobody does or hasn't been doing in a long time.

Touring is for greatest hits. Most people came to see U2 for nostalgic reasons, not because the new album is so exciting. They wanna have a classic U2 experience...

To sell new stuff they need to do come up with something new but typical U2.

We know about several projects now... slow album eno-style Songs Of Ascent, some dance things with Danger Mouse, old fashioned rock with Jack Rubin and recently working with Carl Falk for some sort of boy band approach.

If I were them, I would make an indie-alternative sounding album that greets the Boy-Octorber-War period. Something that can be played in small clubs or theaters rather than medium-sized arena's or gigantic stadiums. Get rid of all the glamourous stuff and be hard to get again.