Originally posted by ahn1991:Bono would not be Bono without the schmoozing and philanthropy. Let Bono do what Bono does. Plus, you can't force an album to be produced quicker than it's intended to. I'm probably going to get a lot of crap for this, but remember Pop?
I've argued here before that if the band want to break new ground like they did in the early 90's (and they've compared their current situation to then too) the first thing that has to change is Bono's public persona once again. He's become a bit of a charicature, a bit predictable, and I think as an artist he needs to get back to the fundamentals if he wants to challenge music listeners. Maybe they're too old and too "greatest hits" for that now, who knows.
And as much as I would agree about Pop, it doesn't excuse the fact that other bands are able to make great music in MUCH less time than U2 and some other bands do. I understand these things take time, but not THIS much time. At least a band like The Killers stated they were taking a break after waiting a few years to make a new album, U2 just takes that long on the norm. And a lot of people around here would argue that that's why Pop is so great, because U2 didn't get to the "worrying" stage of getting a more conventional mix on the ground. They were forced to release a gutsy mix. I'm of the crowd that says Pop is unfinished, but it's just another viewpoint.
Another reason that it isn't good to wait this long is that expectations slowly go up the longer the wait, especially as soon as the band start discussing how the next album is amazing.
I hate to sound like that fan that thinks he's entitled to a new album when he wants it, and hopefully that's not the vibe I'm giving off. I'm just saying that coming in this thread for U2 News and only seeing celebrity stuff after a while gets trying, if anything I'm just excited for their next work whenever that may be!
