The '00's - U2's least productive decade

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
financeguy said:
Assuming the forthcoming album is the last of this decade, U2 will have released only three studio albums in this current decade. This is distinctly unimpressive when measured against their own output in the 1980's - 6 studio albums - and the 1990's - 4 studio albums, including Passengers. I think it is reasonable to include Passengers, given that it is completely original, it absorbed a significant amount of the band's time in the mid '90's, and a large part of the creative input came from U2 members (Note, I am including Rattle and Hum as a studio album. If it is excluded, then U2's 1980's output is 5.)

One could include U2's contributions to the Million Dollar Hotel soundtrack as a separate album in itself, but if one were to do so, one would also have to include similar side projects in the 1980's and the 1990's. So, it wouldn't really make the 00's look any more impressive.

The arguments regarding quality have already been threshed out here, but no-one can deny that U2's output has not been prolific in this decade.

It seems that however one looks at it, the 1980's are U2's most productive decade in terms of studio album releases. One could make an argument that Passengers shouldn't be included, in which case we have a tie between the 1990's and the 2000's.
Click to expand...

In the 80's, especially early 80's, U2 members were single or without children, poor and had yet to establish themselves. Larry said they started to see some $$ after "War"! With JT, it took a while before the money came in.

In contrast, now they have kids, homes, wives, etc. So there are more responsibilities. Plus, financial stability allows them some luxury. They don't have to keep producing just to finally get that elusive hit - they've had lots of hits.

Also, part of the cutback is because of us fans. We demand more innovation - and even when we get it, we complain. But U2 try their best to showcase new sounds and directions on each album. In the early 80's, the first three albums could have almost merged together. Likewise, UF through R&H really blend well. But come the 90's, U2 realized the need to keep changing (artists who were successful in the 80's but failed to change in the 90's suffered). To remain innovative, yet still retain that ultimate U2 sound, takes time.

Do you have a favorite comic strip? Has that comic strip aged well over time? Some do, some don't. Some of the best ("Far Side", "Calvin and Hobbes", "Bloom County", "Fox Trot") either retired or semi-retired simply because the artists of those strips didn't want to burn out completely. They wanted to end while the strip was still good, not a shell of its former self. Some bands do just that - make album after album that sound eerily similar. U2 fight against that. But at this point in their lives, they have the luxury of time to be creative, whereas, early U2 did not.

Still, if we ignore all the side projects, live or half-live albums, a pattern was established long ago: UF-1984, JT-1987, AB-1991, Zooropa-1993, Pop-1997, ATYCLB-2000, HTDAAB-2004, NLOTH-2009. With one exception (Zooropa), U2 has taken about 3-4.5 years between new studio only albums since the mid-80's. As such, we really should ignore the first 4 years of U2's career as they were more of an exception (high output generated from a band trying to hit it big) than the norm.
 
NLOTH sessions had more than 11 songs in the bag. If Q magazine is right there will be another album coming out sooner. Maybe a Zooropa in the middle of the tour? :drool:
 
doctorwho said:
In the 80's, especially early 80's, U2 members were single or without children, poor and had yet to establish themselves. Larry said they started to see some $$ after "War"! With JT, it took a while before the money came in.

In contrast, now they have kids, homes, wives, etc. So there are more responsibilities. Plus, financial stability allows them some luxury. They don't have to keep producing just to finally get that elusive hit - they've had lots of hits.

Also, part of the cutback is because of us fans. We demand more innovation - and even when we get it, we complain. But U2 try their best to showcase new sounds and directions on each album. In the early 80's, the first three albums could have almost merged together. Likewise, UF through R&H really blend well. But come the 90's, U2 realized the need to keep changing (artists who were successful in the 80's but failed to change in the 90's suffered). To remain innovative, yet still retain that ultimate U2 sound, takes time.

Do you have a favorite comic strip? Has that comic strip aged well over time? Some do, some don't. Some of the best ("Far Side", "Calvin and Hobbes", "Bloom County", "Fox Trot") either retired or semi-retired simply because the artists of those strips didn't want to burn out completely. They wanted to end while the strip was still good, not a shell of its former self. Some bands do just that - make album after album that sound eerily similar. U2 fight against that. But at this point in their lives, they have the luxury of time to be creative, whereas, early U2 did not.

Still, if we ignore all the side projects, live or half-live albums, a pattern was established long ago: UF-1984, JT-1987, AB-1991, Zooropa-1993, Pop-1997, ATYCLB-2000, HTDAAB-2004, NLOTH-2009. With one exception (Zooropa), U2 has taken about 3-4.5 years between new studio only albums since the mid-80's. As such, we really should ignore the first 4 years of U2's career as they were more of an exception (high output generated from a band trying to hit it big) than the norm.
Click to expand...

You consistently make sense. It's appreciated.
 
doctorwho said:
a pattern was established long ago: UF-1984, JT-1987, AB-1991, Zooropa-1993, Pop-1997, ATYCLB-2000, HTDAAB-2004, NLOTH-2009. With one exception (Zooropa), U2 has taken about 3-4.5 years between new studio only albums since the mid-80's. As such, we really should ignore the first 4 years of U2's career as they were more of an exception (high output generated from a band trying to hit it big) than the norm.
Click to expand...

Ah man! I get sooo frustrated with this kind of selective math!!!!

JT 1987
R&H 1989 2
Achtung 1991 2
Zooropa 1993 2
Passengers 1995 2
POP 1997 2
All That 2000 3
Atomic Bomb 2004 4
No Line on the Horizon 2009 5

You want to not include certain albums because they only had 10 new full-band tracks (Zooropa) or 12 new full-band tracks (Rattle and Hum had more new songs than several other U2 albums!) or the 14 track Passengers album, which just happened to have some guest musicians on it!?!?!? Flimsy...crazy flimsy.....

U2's output has been continuing to slow down. This is just objectively true! Can anyone tell us how many new songs they recorded in the 1980s vs 90s vs 00s? I'm sure the number is dwindling......

That said, I have high hopes for 2009! :)
 
KhanadaRhodes said:
you missed the first part of his sentence which addressed your very post:


so he purposely did not include rattle and hum or passengers. i'm not saying he was right (or wrong) in doing so, just saying it's not selective math. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the definition of selective math! He's selecting to not count certain albums as "real albums" in order to make a fallacious point!
Rattle and Hum had more new songs than All That You Can't Leave Behind! The fact that it ALSO had some live tracks doesn't make it NOT an album... also it had its own singles and tour! I'm not arguing that we should count Under a Blood Red Sky (Although the argument could be made), but to not count Rattle and Hum as an album seems highly illogical to me.... The same applies to Passengers.. His point is only valid if we don't include some actual U2 albums...which makes his point have nothing to do with the real world....
 
lazarus said:
Please, let's not start this again.

MDH was mostly Bono with a backing band. All the stuff on Passengers is credited to all four U2 members, plus Eno. It's also an album of all-new material, something you can't say about MDH, which has two covers and two versions of The First Time (an old song).

Why was this thread created when we just had a knock-down, drag out argument about this a couple months ago? WHY?!
Click to expand...

Well, Passengers was Eno being in charge with a backing band that consisted of U2 and various other artists. It has nothing to do whether the material is new or not. U2 settled this back in 1995 when they decided not to release it under the name U2.
MDH also had Adam on one or two songs, and Larry at least on two songs involved, not to mention they gave away two full fledged U2 songs to the soundtrack (so Miss Sarajevo isn't any more a U2 song for being on the Best of later any more than GBHF is a song on ATYCLB because it was released earlier). It wasn't a "Bono solo project".
 
U2girl said:
Well, Passengers was Eno being in charge with a backing band that consisted of U2 and various other artists. It has nothing to do whether the material is new or not. U2 settled this back in 1995 when they decided not to release it under the name U2.
MDH also had Adam on one or two songs, and Larry at least on two songs involved, not to mention they gave away two full fledged U2 songs to the soundtrack (so Miss Sarajevo isn't any more a U2 song for being on the Best of later any more than GBHF is a song on ATYCLB because it was released earlier). It wasn't a "Bono solo project".
Click to expand...

I'm going to say this one more time, and then I'm going to download that software which allows you to strangle someone through their computer:

We are talking about PRODUCTIVITY, which means WORKING. It means DOING SOMETHING CREATIVE MUSICALLY AS A BAND. It means WRITING. It means RECORDING. What it doesn't mean is meeting with politicians or hanging out on the Riviera.

It doesn't matter who the fuck was working with the band, or what name they decided to release it under. EVERY MEMBER of U2 is credited as a writer on Passengers, and performed on almost every track, to my ears. That is NOT the same as M$H, which has all of U2 on two tracks, Adam and Larry on another, and Bono on 2 or 3 more. These were not sessions where the band was meeting together on a regular basis, writing and/or recording. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

And I agree with Niceman that the argument doesn't really fly when you also ignore R&H, which has an album's worth of new material.
 
I think they're really productive as a band, they do record a lot of things, but the only thing is that their output isn't as much as it was in the 80's. They keep a lot of things locked up.
 
It's understandable that their output would slow down over time. I'm just thankful they have stayed together this long and are still giving us some great stuff. Also, the fact that they haven't turned into a stale nostalgia act. I would rather they just quit than become that.
 
lazarus said:
I'm going to say this one more time, and then I'm going to download that software which allows you to strangle someone through their computer:

We are talking about PRODUCTIVITY, which means WORKING. It means DOING SOMETHING CREATIVE MUSICALLY AS A BAND. It means WRITING. It means RECORDING. What it doesn't mean is meeting with politicians or hanging out on the Riviera.

It doesn't matter who the fuck was working with the band, or what name they decided to release it under. EVERY MEMBER of U2 is credited as a writer on Passengers, and performed on almost every track, to my ears. That is NOT the same as M$H, which has all of U2 on two tracks, Adam and Larry on another, and Bono on 2 or 3 more. These were not sessions where the band was meeting together on a regular basis, writing and/or recording. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

And I agree with Niceman that the argument doesn't really fly when you also ignore R&H, which has an album's worth of new material.
Click to expand...

If you've got the link..... I'd love to get my hands on that software!!!:wink::lol:
 
lazarus said:
It doesn't matter who the fuck was working with the band, or what name they decided to release it under.
Click to expand...

It does matter. It helps differentiate legitimate band efforts vs various projects vs solo band member efforts.

U2 settled this in 1995, regardless of what you or I think.
 
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? We're trying to discuss how productive the band was during various decades. By removing Passengers from consideration, it's as if they were sitting on the beach between the end of the ZooTV tour and recording Pop.

Why don't you start your own thread where you can parse words and use selective reasoning to prove whatever bullshit points you're interested in making. Because the distinction you're trying to make has NOTHING to do with what we're talking about, which is trying to account for the band's time over a certain period. This is not a "Is Original Soundtracks a U2 album? Yes or No." thread.

Get it?
 
There's no "we". You're the one having issues with Passengers' status.

Speaking of the end of Zoo TV tour-Pop sessions timespan - they took the entire 1994 off and the sessions for Pop started in the fall of 1995. Passengers was recorded in mere weeks, which in itself has absolutely NOTHING to do with why majority of critics and fans, and most importantly the band itself, does not see it as a U2 effort. The reasons for it are well known and documented.

edit: I don't know what you were talking about with this "And I agree with Niceman that the argument doesn't really fly when you also ignore R&H, which has an album's worth of new material." since I never argued against R&H as a U2 album. Then again, no one does. Unlike Passengers.
 
lazarus said:
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? We're trying to discuss how productive the band was during various decades. By removing Passengers from consideration, it's as if they were sitting on the beach between the end of the ZooTV tour and recording Pop.

Why don't you start your own thread where you can parse words and use selective reasoning to prove whatever bullshit points you're interested in making. Because the distinction you're trying to make has NOTHING to do with what we're talking about, which is trying to account for the band's time over a certain period. This is not a "Is Original Soundtracks a U2 album? Yes or No." thread.

Get it?
Click to expand...

What's so all fired great about the kind of productivity you are talking about? You seem to be judging productivity solely on the quantity of material turned out over time. That's pretty meaningless really because if they were still putting out an album a year and they were all crap what good would that be? Since when is creativity or artistic ability measured by quantity of output? It wasn't quantity of output that made the Beatles the legends that they are it was the quality. Personally I'd rather have artists who take their time an continue to have long and fruitful careers as U2 have done rather than blow their minds in a burst of production and then burn out and disappear or break up. Besides you can't truly ignore the side projects just because they don't include the whole band since they way U2 work those projects are where a lot of their initial experimentation takes place and feed into the U2 projects as well. By the way MDH was being worked on concurrently with ATYCLB to the point where Lanois was even quoted as saying he did the project to get it over with so that Bono could get back to the U2 album. The other band members were quite involved on various songs and some of the songs even though not credited U2 on the soundtrack had originally been demos for the U2 album and worked on by the band but laid aside.

Dana
 
They've never been as prolific as similar era acts like Simple Minds [1979 - 1985 = 8 albums] or R.E.M. [1983 - 1991 = 7 albums] who made more records during the same time period. Most of equal or better [imo] quality :sexywink:

Also consider the 2.5 year album break between TUF [Oct 84] and TJT [Mar 87] for example, pretty much unheard of in the "an album every year" mid 1980s.
 
Im sorry but I wouldnt put Simple Minds or REM in the same league quality wise as U2.

REMs label made the biggest mistake of their existance signing REM to that giant contract and theyve released crap ever since.
 
U2girl said:
There's no "we". You're the one having issues with Passengers' status.

Speaking of the end of Zoo TV tour-Pop sessions timespan - they took the entire 1994 off and the sessions for Pop started in the fall of 1995. Passengers was recorded in mere weeks, which in itself has absolutely NOTHING to do with why majority of critics and fans, and most importantly the band itself, does not see it as a U2 effort. The reasons for it are well known and documented.

edit: I don't know what you were talking about with this "And I agree with Niceman that the argument doesn't really fly when you also ignore R&H, which has an album's worth of new material." since I never argued against R&H as a U2 album. Then again, no one does. Unlike Passengers.
Click to expand...

Wow. Woooooooooow.

The entire point he's making is that this has NOTHING to do with the "status." He's not having "issues" with it.

And his statement about R&H was not intended for you, it was intended for doctorwho.
 
rihannsu said:
What's so all fired great about the kind of productivity you are talking about? You seem to be judging productivity solely on the quantity of material turned out over time. That's pretty meaningless really because if they were still putting out an album a year and they were all crap what good would that be? Since when is creativity or artistic ability measured by quantity of output? It wasn't quantity of output that made the Beatles the legends that they are it was the quality. Personally I'd rather have artists who take their time an continue to have long and fruitful careers as U2 have done rather than blow their minds in a burst of production and then burn out and disappear or break up. Besides you can't truly ignore the side projects just because they don't include the whole band since they way U2 work those projects are where a lot of their initial experimentation takes place and feed into the U2 projects as well. By the way MDH was being worked on concurrently with ATYCLB to the point where Lanois was even quoted as saying he did the project to get it over with so that Bono could get back to the U2 album. The other band members were quite involved on various songs and some of the songs even though not credited U2 on the soundtrack had originally been demos for the U2 album and worked on by the band but laid aside.

Dana
Click to expand...
Dear Lord!

He's not talking about creative ability. He's talking about productivity. Two VERY different things.
 
lazarus said:
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? We're trying to discuss how productive the band was during various decades. By removing Passengers from consideration, it's as if they were sitting on the beach between the end of the ZooTV tour and recording Pop.

Why don't you start your own thread where you can parse words and use selective reasoning to prove whatever bullshit points you're interested in making. Because the distinction you're trying to make has NOTHING to do with what we're talking about, which is trying to account for the band's time over a certain period. This is not a "Is Original Soundtracks a U2 album? Yes or No." thread.

Get it?
Click to expand...

Why bother, Laz?
 
Money wise it was U2s most productive decade by a long ways :)

Music wise it was about as productive as the 90s, but quite a ways behind the 80s.
 
phillyfan26 said:
Wow. Woooooooooow.

The entire point he's making is that this has NOTHING to do with the "status." He's not having "issues" with it.

And his statement about R&H was not intended for you, it was intended for doctorwho.
Click to expand...

phillyfan26 said:
Dear Lord!

He's not talking about creative ability. He's talking about productivity. Two VERY different things.
Click to expand...

No spoken words said:
Why bother, Laz?
Click to expand...

phillyfan26 said:
He found it to be good sport. Some people aren't looking for anything. Some people ... just want to watch the world burn.
Click to expand...


Someone has to try and stop the spread of irrational thinking, however futile it may seem.

But yeah, I'm at the end of my rope here.
 
lazarus said:
Someone has to try and stop the spread of irrational thinking, however futile it may seem.

But yeah, I'm at the end of my rope here.
Click to expand...

You're just mad that U2 doesn't consider Passengers a real U2 album, aren't you? That's the only reason you disagree with its STATUS.
 
U2girl said:
It does matter. It helps differentiate legitimate band efforts vs various projects vs solo band member efforts.

U2 settled this in 1995, regardless of what you or I think.
Click to expand...

This is rubbish... If U2 ever settled this issue, they did it when they included TWO Passengers tracks on the second U2 best of! Come on!!!!!

But again, this has nothing to do with how much OUTPUT they had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dont_turn_around
Hello everyone!
Replies
1
Views
123
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
prbiker15
U2:UV Boxscore Discussion
Replies
20
Views
1K
DeVaul
DeVaul
W
A Boy Falls From the Sky is some U2's best work
Replies
3
Views
2K
zoocarolina
Z
MrsSpringsteen
Atomic City
Replies
11
Views
1K
HeartlandGirl
HeartlandGirl
SayGoodbye
Scariest U2 Songs
Replies
26
Views
2K
clerks
clerks

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom