FEA
Active topics
  2. I dont think any band will be touring large stadia - or arenas - for 2-3 years maybe longer thanks to the Pandemic !
  3. Originally posted by neoninfusion:I was hoping for new music. Only two new albums in the last decade is sad. I’m afraid they are becoming or have already become a nostalgic act. Hopefully they are writing new material during lockdown to prove me wrong.

    yeah, let's hope they do that to prove you wrong
  4. Fans, artists and especially promoters will be keen to get going again when they can.
  5. Originally posted by neoninfusion:I was hoping for new music. Only two new albums in the last decade is sad. I’m afraid they are becoming or have already become a nostalgic act. Hopefully they are writing new material during lockdown to prove me wrong.


    How many albums in a decade would you want? I would say 2 is OK.
  6. It won’t be up to promoters, agents or managers ... it will be down to local state or federal governments and the WHO !
  7. No please, it' s time for the Last Farewell Tour
  8. I said “when they can”.
  9. it's also dependent on when a decade starts. The previous decade had one album at the start and one at the end, the last decade had 2 in the middle. But they are still averaging 1 album in 4 years since Zooropa. 2009-2019 did have 3 albums.
  10. They need to shorten their album cycles. 4 to 5 years is a long time and in the "old" days, bands would be releasing new albums every 12 to 18 months. Look at the output of The Beatles (13 albums in 7 years from 1963 - 1970) or Led Zeppelin (8 albums in 10 years from 1969 - 1979) in their brief runs. That's over twice the output U2 has had per 10 year period.
  11. Originally posted by JoeLeland:They need to shorten their album cycles. 4 to 5 years is a long time and in the "old" days, bands would be releasing new albums every 12 to 18 months. Look at the output of The Beatles (13 albums in 7 years from 1963 - 1970) or Led Zeppelin (8 albums in 10 years from 1969 - 1979) in their brief runs. That's over twice the output U2 has had per 10 year period.
    They examples you gave were bands when they were young. U2 released albums more regularly when they were younger but it’s natural as artists get older to release less. The fact they’re releasing albums at the rate they have and toured them playing plenty of new material should be applauded.
  12. Originally posted by JoeLeland:They need to shorten their album cycles. 4 to 5 years is a long time and in the "old" days, bands would be releasing new albums every 12 to 18 months. Look at the output of The Beatles (13 albums in 7 years from 1963 - 1970) or Led Zeppelin (8 albums in 10 years from 1969 - 1979) in their brief runs. That's over twice the output U2 has had per 10 year period.
    Maybe because U2 don't put out music that often, is the main reason they're still the exact same band as 43 years ago. If they were continiously recording/touring/recording etc i doubt U2 would still be around.