U2start.com | New TOUR [All rumours / news here]

Robert Plant has vehemently denied and declined all offers for a LZ reunion since 1995 -including a $250M offer- so I sincerely don't see it happening (although I wish it did). Anyway, that's another discussion and pretty unrelevant here.

RattleandHum1988

11 years

On top of that he can't even sing Zeppelin anymore anyway, just watch or listen to Celebration Day and it's just kinda sad how much his voices has degraded.

Back to this U2 shite, it's all pretty bull how long it takes them to make an album, especially when their best ones didn't take nearly as long to write and record. I know the age-old U2 argument "they were out to prove themselves back then/they were in their artistic prime back then" yadda yadda, but to me those reasons point to even less time being taken now days because they don't need to analyze their own crap as much.

As I said, the quality of the albums that have taken the longest aren't anywhere near the ones that took less time to. War took about a year, UF took about a year, JT took about two years with a tour in between, Rattle 1 year, Lovetown finished in 1990 and AB came out in 1991, so that's one year, Zooropa one year, and from there U2 began to slide down the slope to where they are today. Mind you, because where they were was so high the quality of albums like Pop and All That You Can't are still great, but let's be real, they shouldn't be taking so long to make albums that end up just being "pretty good". I know many consider NLOTH to be a masterpiece among U2 albums, but I most certainly do not and I'd say the same about all of their albums after 1997. Sure there are little diamonds here and there, but albums as a whole? Why the hell do these things take so long to make? Something they overlook at least from their fans is that the expectation gets way too high when they take this long, because the reason that people tend to default to is because the quality of whatever they're coming up with is so high it's worth waiting for.

This album BETTER be amazing if it's really going to take this long to make, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's not. And if it's not, then I'll be the first to say that my favourite band is finally out of gas and they should just call it quits R.E.M style. I wouldn't be surprised if they're just waiting this long so people forget about them, so when they do come back it'll be like "Remember U2? kinda...- well they have a new song out and it's totally alternative and awesome." (fat chance) Although Bono is already a caricature as is the band, I'd rather see them retire with some dignity left. "Better to burn out than to fade away" - wise words, Neil.

MattG

11 years

Originally posted by LikeASong:Robert Plant has vehemently denied and declined all offers for a LZ reunion since 1995 -including a $250M offer- so I sincerely don't see it happening (although I wish it did). Anyway, that's another discussion and pretty unrelevant here.

"They don't say a word. They're quite contained in their own worlds and they leave it to me. I'm not the bad guy... You need to see [Page & JPJ]– I've got nothing to do in 2014."

-Plant

Yogi

11 years

Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:On top of that he can't even sing Zeppelin anymore anyway, just watch or listen to Celebration Day and it's just kinda sad how much his voices has degraded.

Back to this U2 shite, it's all pretty bull how long it takes them to make an album, especially when their best ones didn't take nearly as long to write and record. I know the age-old U2 argument "they were out to prove themselves back then/they were in their artistic prime back then" yadda yadda, but to me those reasons point to even less time being taken now days because they don't need to analyze their own crap as much.

As I said, the quality of the albums that have taken the longest aren't anywhere near the ones that took less time to. War took about a year, UF took about a year, JT took about two years with a tour in between, Rattle 1 year, Lovetown finished in 1990 and AB came out in 1991, so that's one year, Zooropa one year, and from there U2 began to slide down the slope to where they are today. Mind you, because where they were was so high the quality of albums like Pop and All That You Can't are still great, but let's be real, they shouldn't be taking so long to make albums that end up just being "pretty good". I know many consider NLOTH to be a masterpiece among U2 albums, but I most certainly do not and I'd say the same about all of their albums after 1997. Sure there are little diamonds here and there, but albums as a whole? Why the hell do these things take so long to make? Something they overlook at least from their fans is that the expectation gets way too high when they take this long, because the reason that people tend to default to is because the quality of whatever they're coming up with is so high it's worth waiting for.

This album BETTER be amazing if it's really going to take this long to make, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's not. And if it's not, then I'll be the first to say that my favourite band is finally out of gas and they should just call it quits R.E.M style. I wouldn't be surprised if they're just waiting this long so people forget about them, so when they do come back it'll be like "Remember U2? kinda...- well they have a new song out and it's totally alternative and awesome." (fat chance) Although Bono is already a caricature as is the band, I'd rather see them retire with some dignity left. "Better to burn out than to fade away" - wise words, Neil.

Recording of JT actually lasted two months and I can still remember interview in which Bono says something like: 'I don't want ever again record album SO LONG.'

I don't mind that there will be a gap of five years between albums. I just hate when he's driving us around and around. They have u2.com, platform on which they could be honest and tell us: 'Ok, we're working on an album and that will last...' or 'We're kinda stuck, but we expect...'. You don't want to make another record for another five years? Fine, just say so.

RattleandHum1988

11 years

Originally posted by Yogi:[..]

Recording of JT actually lasted two months and I can still remember interview in which Bono says something like: 'I don't want ever again record album SO LONG.'

I don't mind that there will be a gap of five years between albums. I just hate when he's driving us around and around. They have u2.com, platform on which they could be honest and tell us: 'Ok, we're working on album and that will last...' or 'We're kinda stuck, but we expect...'. You don't want to make another record for another five years? Fine, just say so.

Agreed, and I didn't even know that about JT...

RememberEveryMoment

11 years

So true. It's not that we have to wait so long, it's that they are so vague, even to us, the 'real fans'. It's all so unsatisfying. Sometimes I'd wish that they'd do it Springsteen style. Back in the BTR days the would fiddle around forever like U2 does now, but nowadays he just puts it on record, maybe does another take and that's that, released. And Wrecking Ball is one of his best.

All I can think of is that U2 actually is running out of creativity to create new songs. I'd actually would be happy to have them end on NLOTH, since that's a pretty good record.

PageU2

11 years

My theory to this is the band trying to keep a sense of mystery...

What made Achtung Baby work was not only time (which didn't take them too long between R&H and AB) but keeping very tight guarded over the then-new material (apart from the Salome bootleg releases of the sessions) to an unsuspecting public who still perceived U2 as being "War/Joshua Tree/R&H Roots rockers with a 'save the world' bullcrap that broaderlines on preachy pretensiousness." Mind you also the band had to keep faith in the music that it would be different enough to disassociate themselves from their 80s earnestness. Thus Achtung Baby came around and it's harsh industrialism and sensual playfulness contrasted against this perception immensely. But back then, Youtube weren't around and the internet was onlu just picking up...

Today... secrecy and surprise, for the most part, is GONE!!Thanks in large part to the progression of instant fast technology and the internet. Achtung Baby, if it were released today, wouldn't have been able to shock as many people now should the album have "leaked" online and millions hearing the new material. The element of surprise, while not an obsolete strategy by any means, is nowadays much more harder and more difficult to pull off than ever. I may be wrong but the band could be trying to pull a similar feat that they did in the early 90s, reinventing themselves, thus all the secrecy. Not to say that these years of utter silence without a new single hasn't itched me under my skin, but it's also said that work that takes the longest tends to come out the strongest... not ALWAYS the case, obviously!

The band seems to be looking for music that can give out that sense of "whoa! who are these guys!?" or "hey! I remember this band! U2!? Is that really them!?" Not to mention embrace social media and the internet to their advantage, which they have before but not push it to any significance. It's like when Green Day came out with "American Idiot". The new look, plus the ambitious music behind it, worked greatly to their favor (and I happened to like it

). BUT NOBODY EXPECTED IT!

Not to say that U2 has to do that to win new fans but even without a new image, the bands' music might say everything, as long as NONE of the members (especially Bono) don't say much regarding the sound. If the music is ambitious enough and different enough, then MAYBE it could quite work.

linzer

11 years

Bono, just forget this fuvking shit you are feeding us with. If you don't make a new album, OK, but don't play with our patience. You have been making this damn album for 5 years just to be still significant but you don't realize you are getting more and more insignificant. Fuck the money and the media and make new songs for the first instinct like Moment of Surrender...!

ver2go

11 years