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.

There will never be another Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby or All That You Can't Leave Behind.

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

[jick]

Is there even such a thing as an EP nowadays? Do the newcomers here even know what EP stands for?

I would think an EP is perhaps more prehistoric than an album.

Cheers,

J

[Sugarcube]

Is there even such a thing as an EP nowadays? Do the newcomers here even know what EP stands for?

I would think an EP is perhaps more prehistoric than an album.

Cheers,

J

Fair point - bands like Radiohead still release limited edition vinyl and free downloads in the EP or single formatt though. Mainly because they care deeply for their fans.

But yes, the whole concept of LP's, EP's and even albums is getting increasingly lost in today's digital environment

[The Exile]

For those utes among us, an "EP" is a short album.

There, all better?

[Sugarcube]

For those utes among us, an "EP" is a short album.

There, all better?

Actually it's an Extended Play...

[marvgadgie]

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.

[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]

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.

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]

There will never be another Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby or All That You Can't Leave Behind.

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]

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.

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