Double Album Speculation :D

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Album Speculation :D

U2girl said:


You do know why he doesn't say anything against the current (or future, for that matter) administration don't you ?
And as far as I can tell, he still hasn't trashed Bush re: Katrina (making a video does not equal Bono trashing the US president) and please show me a quote where the band and/or Bono said they'd never tour the US until Bush II administration was out of office.

And what does changing a lyric have to do with playing it safe ? There's plenty of changed or ad-lib lines live. If anything "when I'm INSIDE her" is far less "safe" than the official "beside her" line.

wtf are you talking about :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Album Speculation :D

U2girl said:
You do know why he doesn't say anything against the current (or future, for that matter) administration don't you ?
And as far as I can tell, he still hasn't trashed Bush re: Katrina (making a video does not equal Bono trashing the US president) and please show me a quote where the band and/or Bono said they'd never tour the US until Bush II administration was out of office.


In October 2004 he was asked at a speech in Portland if he prefer Bush or Kerry winning - he dodged the questioned.

During the 2005 shows, the "dedicated the troops serving overseas" and the blindfold bit were both carefully scripted and vague(cryptic?) to insure no bad press.

The Saints video was definitely a "trash Bush" comment. Even if you only consider the Green Day/American Idiot connection.

And what does changing a lyric have to do with playing it safe ? There's plenty of changed or ad-lib lines live. If anything "when I'm INSIDE her" is far less "safe" than the official "beside her" line.

They "cleaned up" the line in 1988 and would do so again in 2008. Especially for a U2 song planned as a single.

u2fp
 
When they dropped the "Saints" single in late 2006 they knew that GWBush would be a bad memory by the time they next did a full scale tour of the US. The band make rough plans for staging and for very in-demand crew members years in advance.
 
Blindfold routine was aimed at Guantanamo controversy and treatment of prisoners there, not directly at Bush, and after that the next song was dedicated to US troops. It's not impossible to be pro-troops but anti Guantanamo. :hmm:

Saints video was a general "post Katrina" indictment, more anti-administration, even anti N. Orleans authorities than being directly anti-Bush. My guess is this was more Green Day doing the "trashing", and less so U2/Bono. Still I can imagine far worse scathing songs, videos that really rip into Bush. Once again, Bono can't do that for obvious reasons. That particular part of the tour, the War trilogy, was the most critisized section of the show in the reviews I read. (well, that and the African trilogy)

:huh: What cleaning up ? It's "beside her" on record, and it has been "inside her" live for years.
Do you have any way of knowing it was "inside her" all along and that the band deliberately re-recorded one word ? Or, knowing Bono, is it more likely the switch happened as they were playing the song live and they kept it and never really thought much about it ?
 
Last edited:
U2FanPeter said:
When they dropped the "Saints" single in late 2006 they knew that GWBush would be a bad memory by the time they next did a full scale tour of the US. The band make rough plans for staging and for very in-demand crew members years in advance.

:huh:

If they'd be that worried about Bush, they'd never even record the song. Or make it a single (and make the video they did). Or play it live - including a massive audience in a US stadium.

Oh wait...
 
Last edited:
U2girl said:
:huh: What cleaning up ? It's "beside her" on record, and it has been "inside her" live for years.
Do you have any way of knowing it was "inside her" all along and that the band deliberately re-recorded one word ? Or, knowing Bono, is it more likely the switch happened as they were playing the song live and they kept it and never really thought much about it ?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzvhFBazWWE

What does the Rattle & Hum movie clip say around the 1:50 mark?

u2fp
 
U2girl said:
:huh:

If they'd be that worried about Bush, they'd never even record the song. Or make it a single (and make the video they did). Or play it live - including a massive audience in a US stadium.

Oh wait...

It's about selling concert tickets. Springsteen and Dixie Chicks learned the hard way when making their political feeling public.

Nobody wanted to risk alienating 25-50% of their ticket buying audience. Plus piss off Clear Channel/Live nation radio networks(who have more or less blacklisted any recent Bruce recording)

u2fp
 
U2girl said:
My guess is this was more Green Day doing the "trashing", and less so U2/Bono.

This is a bizarre and delusional statement. Especially considering it's a 25 year old punk song cover and EDGE had the idea and phoned GD about doing the record.
 
I thought the director of that video basically came up with the idea and both bands just signed off on it.

I mean, it was CGI bombers dropping shit, that's all I remember.
The rest was a performance piece, right?

So the director shoots them miming the song, then does the whole NOLA thing, I'd be surprised if either band was there during any of that process. Ultimately, they gave it the go ahead.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Album Speculation :D

U2FanPeter said:

In October 2004 he was asked at a speech in Portland if he prefer Bush or Kerry winning - he dodged the questioned.

Yes, and he was right to do so.

Bono is not endorsing anyone.

And yes, the Saints video was clearly a statement against the way the Bush administration dealt with Katrina. Don't be so naive to think that any of these two bands would let a video like this be released without approving.

Again, a thread that has started to be about the music (double album or not) has turned into a load of negativity and bashing. :|
 
U2FanPeter said:


www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzvhFBazWWE

What does the Rattle & Hum movie clip say around the 1:50 mark?

u2fp

So ? That is clearly an early rehearsal/demo version, the lyrics weren't finished. Who knows how many songs change lines between studio outtakes and the final version on the album...

This was a band that attacked the US President on the JT tour (not to mention Bullet the blue sky being written about US politics), I doubt they had issues over a single line.

Is it censorship when they don't do the "golden age" verse in NYD live, too ?
 
Last edited:
U2FanPeter said:


It's about selling concert tickets. Springsteen and Dixie Chicks learned the hard way when making their political feeling public.

Nobody wanted to risk alienating 25-50% of their ticket buying audience. Plus piss off Clear Channel/Live nation radio networks(who have more or less blacklisted any recent Bruce recording)

u2fp

:huh:

There's a difference between going public with your political feeling (again, U2 did this on JT tour - and it's no secret they're "liberal" by US standards. also remember them buddying up with Clinton in 1992. both huge eras for the band) and changing one line of a song live. I don't think there's a line in the entire U2 catalogue that would cost them 25-50% of the ticket buying audience.

What did Springsteen learn the hard way ? Is he not still one of the biggest live acts in the US ? Sure he may sell less (or be on the radio less) now, but he is still one of the most respected solo artists.
 
Last edited:
U2FanPeter said:


This is a bizarre and delusional statement. Especially considering it's a 25 year old punk song cover and EDGE had the idea and phoned GD about doing the record.

I know that. I doubt Edge said "right, let's do anti-Katrina reaction video" though.

It's more likely the director came up with the idea and the bands signed on it. (the effects were added later, the bands just did the performance of the song in the video)

If you're right, there should be a massive drop in ticket tales (album sales later) this year. U2 critisized Bush and angered the US audience. :hmm: Do you really see it coming ?
 
U2girl said:


What did Springsteen learn the hard way ? Is he not still one of the biggest live acts in the US ? Sure he may sell less (or be on the radio less) now, but he is still one of the most respected solo artists.

That's right. And Magic is his most political album of original material to date. His tour is huge.

I guess a couple years make a big difference. Bush's numbers are in the toilet, folks seem a little less hostile to criticism of our government (even the GOP is running on a platform of "change"), and I think artists are more subtle about how they are speaking out. To me, the War segment of the Vertigo shows was a brutal indictment of the Bush regime - but done in a very clever way. Bono is so much more savvy these days about messages - he doesn't want to threaten his Africa goals.
 
I initially posted on this thread to add several general "rules" that u2 incorporated would likely adhere to when making a studio album setlist:

-Won't be a double album - for commercial reasons.
-No overt swearing(fine in live gigs and buried in verses like the "fuck" on Pop and "bollocks" in AB) as several international retailers won't stock them or ask them to be changed.
-U2 carefully consider lyrics for any potential single. Check out how much they fuss over Pride running length in that studio footage from 1984.
-No overt messages about US politics about events within their own borders. I know about 87 and 92, but the "rules" on US censorship have changed drastically with radio consolidation after 1996, Columbine, Janet Jackson and 9/11. Would Bono have been the cause of a USD$500,000 FCC fine in the 90's?
-Nothing over about 7 minutes. Some live tracks go over, as does probably every complete version of BAD.

I would like to see them break some of these "rules" but I doubt it would be realistic.

As for Politics in the market place, the Dixie Chix lost about $20-25mil in touring revenue while Springsteen may lose over $40mil when comparing his 2003 numbers. This was due in part to each groups participation in the 2004 Political concerts. This has to do with some older fans that were still republicans, but also radio conglomerates blacklisting them. Bruce is still making more money than I can ever imagine, but empty seats are beginning to show up in sobering numbers.

U2 made a video about the Bush administration's response to Katrina - A year after even George himself admitted it was mess with significant blame attributed to his/Cheney's decisions.

Keep in mind that Bono has to be selective about picking his fights for reasons of "charity fatigue". He smartly doesn't want anything to take away attention from his African causes while it has his undivided non-musical focus.

Desire Lyrics: AFAIK, every version save the studio version have the "inside her" lyric. To me it was an obvious compromise for radio. The demo/rehearsal/alternate and live lyric is "inside", but "beside her" is the official lyric? Upon close listen to the studio version it actually does sound like a vocal "punch in" for those 2 words, which producers and engineers could do with relative ease.


Desire Lyrics from U218 booklet:

Lover, I'm off the streets
I'm gonna go where the bright lights
And big city meet
With a red guitar, on fire
Desire

She's the candle burnin' in my room
Yeah, I'm like a needle
The needle and spoon
Over the counter, with a shotgun
Pretty soon, everybody's got one
I'm in a fever, when I'm **side her
Desire
Desire

And the fever, gettin' higher
Desire
Desire
(burning, burning)

She's the dollars
She's my protection
yeah, she's the promise
In the year of election
Sister I can't let you go
Like a preacher stealin' hearts at a travellin' show
For the love of money, money, money..?
And the fever, gettin' higher
Desire


I love to hear anyone who thinks "beside her" fits the lyrics better than "inside her" and why. I thought the sexual overtones and reference in this song were quite blatant.

u2fp
 
- The reason we're not getting a double album may simply be they have enough trouble coming up with 11 songs. Rattle and Hum, the LP format, was technically a double album.

- like you posted, they were swearing on Pop and I don't remember anyone not stocking that album. AFAIK albums just get a "explicit lyrics" sticker (how do you think rap albums manage to still be sold and stocked if swearing is such an issue?) And there is swearing live, not to mention the F-bomb on national TV.

- U2 is known for considering their lyrics, asking other people's opinions etc.

"every version save the studio version" AKA the live versions. Lines get changed, added, improvised... all the time live (even the studio lines in the album booklet don't always match what you hear). What makes you think Desire is an exception to that ? Just because it was "inside her" in the demo doesn't mean it didn't turn into "beside her" by the time they did the official take. And like you said, the sexual overtones are there, so what difference would it make ?

"U2 made a video about the Bush administration's response to Katrina"
but you also said
"No overt messages about US politics about events within their own borders"
Which is it ?

It's true the U2 7 CD was only available at Target for two weeks, but consider that you got 3 B-sides, a strong single version and a beautiful acoustic reworking and two remixes. To get that, say, where I live, you'd had to buy 4 different singles CDs at minimum.
 
U2girl said:
- The reason we're not getting a double album may simply be they have enough trouble coming up with 11 songs. Rattle and Hum, the LP format, was technically a double album.

Remember the recent interview an song only goes on an album if all 4 members agree. I doubt they would have a problem coming up with 20+ songs. The only times they were short for songs was October, AB and Pop.

- like you posted, they were swearing on Pop and I don't remember anyone not stocking that album. AFAIK albums just get a "explicit lyrics" sticker (how do you think rap albums manage to still be sold and stocked if swearing is such an issue?) And there is swearing live, not to mention the F-bomb on national TV.

Record labels and publishers give the parently advisory sticker if they think there is "offensive content". There's no hard rule about number of F-Bombs. Hiphop or heavy Metal may think it promotes sales. Some retailers won't stock a stickered album, only have the album behind a counter or not sell a copy to anyone under 17, which U2 Inc. would want to avoid.

"every version save the studio version" AKA the live versions. Lines get changed, added, improvised... all the time live (even the studio lines in the album booklet don't always match what you hear). What makes you think Desire is an exception to that ? Just because it was "inside her" in the demo doesn't mean it didn't turn into "beside her" by the time they did the official take. And like you said, the sexual overtones are there, so what difference would it make ?

If there are hundreds of instances of "inside" from before the studio version and all(?) live versions it would indicate that "beside" was a lyric designed for high profile radio play.

IMO "beside her" also sounds like a vocal punch in.

"U2 made a video about the Bush administration's response to Katrina"
but you also said
"No overt messages about US politics about events within their own borders"
Which is it ?

They made no direct reference during their fall 2005 tour, yet waited until a year after Bush admitted his mistake. They used a cover song recording where Green Day would shoulder at least 50% of any kickback. Plus they knew they would not do a full tour in the US until Bush(who could mess with the FCC) was out of office. U2 "broke" one of the rules, but in a very calculated way.

It's true the U2 7 CD was only available at Target for two weeks, but consider that you got 3 B-sides, a strong single version and a beautiful acoustic reworking and two remixes. To get that, say, where I live, you'd had to buy 4 different singles CDs at minimum.

7 and the Boston DVD 2 week exclusive are evidence of the modern U2 cow-towing to pressures of big brick and mortar music retailers.

u2fp
 
Last edited:
U2girl said:
It's true the U2 7 CD was only available at Target for two weeks, but consider that you got 3 B-sides, a strong single version and a beautiful acoustic reworking and two remixes. To get that, say, where I live, you'd had to buy 4 different singles CDs at minimum.

At the Target I work at, we had it for a year.
 
U2FanPeter said:


Remember the recent interview an song only goes on an album if all 4 members agree. I doubt they would have a problem coming up with 20+ songs. The only times they were short for songs was October, AB and Pop.

It's true they record 20+ songs in the making of an album, but what makes the album is a different story...history says most of their albums are 11 songs., exactly because it's hard to get 11 songs all 4 can agree on, and more importantly, 11 songs that are deemed good enough.

U2FanPeter said:


Record labels and publishers give the parently advisory sticker if they think there is "offensive content". There's no hard rule about number of F-Bombs. Hiphop or heavy Metal may think it promotes sales. Some retailers won't stock a stickered album, only have the album behind a counter or not sell a copy to anyone under 17, which U2 Inc. would want to avoid.

Pop had swearing and I don't remember any issues with retailers (or a sticker on it). Also, the controversy of being a banned album can actually get more people interested it in.

U2FanPeter said:

If there are hundreds of instances of "inside" from before the studio version and all(?) live versions it would indicate that "beside" was a lyric designed for high profile radio play.
IMO "beside her" also sounds like a vocal punch in.

Why would they need that ? They were huge in America just a year before the release of Rattle and Hum, a single line wouldn't stop that.

U2FanPeter said:

They made no direct reference during their fall 2005 tour, yet waited until a year after Bush admitted his mistake. They used a cover song recording where Green Day would shoulder at least 50% of any kickback. Plus they knew they would not do a full tour in the US until Bush(who could mess with the FCC) was out of office. U2 "broke" one of the rules, but in a very calculated way.

They made a reference on the US administration with the Guantanamo routine in BTBS, and Miss Sarajevo+human rights declaration - and I doubt it hurt the tour attendance or the album sales. They did not "wait", U2:18 (or what should have been Best of 2000-2010) wasn't exactly a planned release because U2 left Island on a rather quick note.
And I don't see what touring has to do with that song (which was played live in a US stadium, and I don't remember them being in trouble about it).


U2FanPeter said:

7 and the Boston DVD 2 week exclusive are evidence of the modern U2 cow-towing to pressures of big brick and mortar music retailers.

u2fp

:shrug: Even if you're U2, you need to work with the big players, be it Target or Ticketmaster/Clear Channel.
 
U2FanPeter said:
I love to hear anyone who thinks "beside her" fits the lyrics better than "inside her" and why. I thought the sexual overtones and reference in this song were quite blatant.

u2fp
it's actually because of the song already being quite sexual that I do prefer the "beside her" line
leaves everything a bit more open
 
U2FanPeter said:

I love to hear anyone who thinks "beside her" fits the lyrics better than "inside her" and why. I thought the sexual overtones and reference in this song were quite blatant.

u2fp

I like "beside her" better. It makes me think more of sitting next to someone you have passionate feelings for, but that's the thing...you're just beside that person...you want more, so you feel this fiery tension.
 
U2 have always been a political band and showed that in public. Has it kept people away from their concerts? I don't think so? Are Bono's political rants or his speeches about Africa today keeping people away from their concerts? I don't think so. Bono get's a lot of flack for doing what he does, he also gets a lot of praise. It's not as if his attitude is especially popular with everyone in the general public, especially towards Bush (ie not critisizing him openly etc.), but I don't see that keeping people away from their concerts.

The majority of artists in the US are pretty outspoken about Bush and Iraq and all these issue, I have always thought this helped their carreer more than anything else.

And Bono has made his view on the Bush administration quite clear in many interviews on TV and in magazines, just recently for the Rolling Stone anniversary edition. It IS, however, understandable that Bono focuses on his causes and on his work for Africa. It would look a bit ackward, to say the least, if he would go on about aid for Africa AND ranting about Bush during the same concert.

But I guess some people only see what they want to see.
 
Bonochick said:


Everybody talking about it, at the very least, I suppose.

I guess, but even then I see a lot of contradicting points even within someone's own post.

To be honest I forgot what the original point was, that U2 has rules they live by, or something...

Name an artist that doesn't. Now name an artist that gets play that hasn't had to compromise.

I don't see the fuss, would 'Desire' have been a completely different song if that line had gone a different way? No.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
All of this means jackshit to me. Who cares?


:lol: I know. I can't read this thread anymore without getting a headache.
 
U2girl said:
They made a reference on the US administration with the Guantanamo routine in BTBS, and Miss Sarajevo+human rights declaration - and I doubt it hurt the tour attendance or the album sales. They did not "wait", U2:18 (or what should have been Best of 2000-2010) wasn't exactly a planned release because U2 left Island on a rather quick note.
And I don't see what touring has to do with that song (which was played live in a US stadium, and I don't remember them being in trouble about it).

What was the direct reference to the Bush administration in 2005 that was in no previous version? I also thought that other countries were involved in torture like the UK?

Remember in the Conan TV interview Bono admitted that even members of U2 were severly pissed off at some of the politians he was seen cavorting beside?

Also keep in mind that all tickets for the Us Vertigo tour were pre-sold before they played a single note. It didn't matter to them if thousands don't show up like in Vegas(bought by hotels as a promotion to guests) What if Bono/U2 made overt anti-torture comments in the 2004 promo tour?

Can you not see the difference between subversive political messages and going the Neil Young route of declaring "Let's Impeach the President"?

u2fp
 
U2 will do what U2 wants. If U2 wants to have a song with swearing in the chorus, they will. I work in retail and am an avid cd buyer and I don't know of anywhere I've bought cds that keeps the Parental Advisory stickered albums behind the counter. A thread that I started is pissing me off. All the bickering. Two people who think if they come up with the cleverer or wittier or smarter respond that they'll convince the other of their side. It's not going to happen.
 
Back
Top Bottom