Will The Time Gap Between NLOTH And The Next Studio Album Set A U2 Record??

[Spilling Over the Brim]

Just a simple Poll question. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but by my count the longest wait between albums was the gap between the November 2004 release of How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb and the February/March 2009 release of No Line On the Horizon - about four years and three months(give or take). I know some people don't count Rattle and Hum and/or Zooropa as studio albums, but I most certainly do.

Anyway we're right about three and a half years since NLOTH, and most here would agree we won't see a new album before 2012 is over. When 2013 begins, we'll be very close to four years since NLOTH. We'd have to be looking at an early summer release for U2 to avoid this being the longest gap between albums. Are they gonna make it?

Not trying to pitch loaded questions or trying to spark a "U2 was more productive/"hungrier" then vs. now" debate, just trying to get a  sense of what the forum thinks. Thanks.

P.S. I know U2 probably couldn't care less about "time gaps" between albums, but I know as fans many of us probably do.

[imaginary friend]

we're not counting Spiderman here, right? I know it didn't come out under their name, but it took a lot of time and energy from Bono and Edge.

[Spilling Over the Brim]

While it's certainly true Spiderman did take up a lot of B+E's time and energy, we're not counting it for this specific purpose. Unless I'm mistaken, none of that was an official U2 release.

[A_Fly_On_The_Wall]

I voted no.

My guess is the next album will be released before or around June/July next year.

[Johnny Feathers]

Nobody knows, of course, but increasing gaps between albums is certainly a trend as many bands get older, not just U2.  So I voted yes.

[bethere]

I'll go even further and predict the date of the release of the next U2 album. I predict they are going to release it on November 26, 2013. This would mean a 4 year and 9 month gap since NLOTH. They will release it then because its the same sales week that they released HTDAAB back in 2004 which gave the band its highest first week sales ever. The day after thanksgiving in the United States is called Black Friday and is often the highest or 2nd highest sales day of the year for any business. This is what they did in 2004, so I think they may try it again for the next album in 2013.

[Spilling Over the Brim]

A release date on or near Black Friday is a definite possibility.

[@lmighty DS]

Nah. It'll be out next year. 4 year gaps are typical for U2 at this point.

[bethere]

Nah. It'll be out next year. 4 year gaps are typical for U2 at this point.

       2013 is next year. Black Friday 2013 is only 15 months away from today.

[Inishfree]

Perhaps, next year and a tour in 2014.  Hopefully, it will be stadiums.

[Blue Silken Sky]

Ooooh, my birthday is two days after that predicted release date 

So yes, U2 will release their album as a tribute to me, of course.   

[Allie79]

I think the new album will be released in the fall of 2013... But which one? Songs of Ascent? The Danger Mouse album? Or something else?

[jick]

U2 are not immortal.  They grow older. And with old age comes decline in productivity. This is a scientific fact, although many would find loopholes to that statement and exceptions to the rule. 

U2 would not fall under the exception because they have no financial problems.  Check out all the bands who did "reunion tours", and even the shows Michael Jackson was preparing for before his death.  This were all "comebacks" fueled by the need to afford some bills.

U2 have a great manager and know how to maximize their profits.  Surely, at this stage in their career, they are in no hurry to make a new album.

Cheers,

J

[JTBaby]

50 isn't "old age"

Which branch of "science" are you referencing that measures artistic productivity?

They're not as productive because they are (metaphorically, well except for Bono) FAT, happy , rich and don't NEED it any more. Plus they have outside interests now too. Bad acting. Destroying the California coastline. Saving the world. etc.

This wouldn't have been a trolling attempt ? Nah, we know that never happens.

[Allie79]

U2 are not immortal.  They grow older. And with old age comes decline in productivity. This is a scientific fact, although many would find loopholes to that statement and exceptions to the rule. 

U2 would not fall under the exception because they have no financial problems.  Check out all the bands who did "reunion tours", and even the shows Michael Jackson was preparing for before his death.  This were all "comebacks" fueled by the need to afford some bills.

U2 have a great manager and know how to maximize their profits.  Surely, at this stage in their career, they are in no hurry to make a new album.

Cheers,

J

Technically you are right but it's not necessarily true.
A good example is Iron Maiden, they were formed in 1975 and they are still going strong. In fact they reached a new high in their career. Nowadays they are even more popular as they were in the 80's and early 90's. So older age doesn't have to equal a decline in productivity. The difference between Iron Maiden and U2 is that Iron Maiden is still hungry and eager to go on tour and write new songs, they are still dedicated, the band comes first. In U2's case I get the idea that the band is not the top priority. Everybody (especially Bono) has their seperate lives and they fit the band's activities in their schedule. They are not as dedicated as they were and it shows. E.g. In previous tours Bono always seemed restless, hungry, always in motion. I missed that in the 360 tour.
However the good news it that Bono (and U2) wants to be relevant again, so hopefully that gets the fire going again.   

BTW Please forgive me for spelling or grammatical errors; I'm not from the US or UK and I've had a couple of beers :-)