"Eno and Lanois producing again"

[Utoo]

I'm not so sure about a double album. I mean it's a possibility, but HTDAAB did not flow so well, and I think that hurt it a bit. U2's best albums have had a nice transition to each song, that HTDAAB just didn't. A double album would only make this worse.

If they have two albums of material my guess is it will be a split release...or they'll release one album and work on the left overs for another album later on.

I don't know why anybody in the world would want a double album. There's guaranteed to be crap on it. Even many of U2's fantastic UF & JT era b-sides would be letdowns on an album, lost among most of the great tracks already there.

Give me one album of material that flows together well. Then work on the remaining stuff so that you can give me a second album of material that flows together well. Don't give me all of it in one shot just because you have it or just because I like new U2 material.

 

[the tourist]

I wonder if people were disappointed in The White Album when it came out because it wasn't all high-quality-single-worthy music....

 

[lazarus]

I wonder if people were disappointed in The White Album when it came out because it wasn't all high-quality-single-worthy music....

A good point. Some artist's double albums are my favorite of their discography: Prince's Sign O' the Times, Zeppelin's Physical Graffiti, The White Album, and you could argue Exile on Main Street and London Calling are both long enough to be considered as such (they were both 3 or 4-side vinyl LP's).

It's not about every song being a superstar, it's about navigating the ebb and flow of so much material. Something like One Step Closer really stands out on HTDAAB because the rest of the album sounds like singles. On a longer album it would serve as a nice interlude that I imagine would go down easier with most fans.

If any band can do this, it's U2, but yes, they could wind up taking a lot of shit critically because of it. If they balance this with an unexpected (by the mainstream) experimental sound, it could work though. It could be their magnum opus.

 

[U2girl]

I don't know why anybody in the world would want a double album.

I'd just like to know why everyone is saying we're getting a double album anyhow. All that was said is "we have two albums worth of material", not "we are coming out with a double album".

Also, yeah, I think there is no way U2 can come up with an incredible double album. Remember the stories about double JT album Bono wanted ? Much as the B-sides were fantastic in that era, I don't think they would improve JT. Assuming they're not on that level - and assuming the album of their career isn't coming up...I'd prefer something great out of 11 songs rather than pushing your luck with 25-30 songs worth of material.

 

[lazarus]

It wouldn't have to be that much, though. Instead of one 50-minute album, you could have two 40-minute discs. This would only run a few minutes longer than the maximum time allowed on a CD.

That's approx 9 songs per disc (at 4.5 minutes a song), which wouldn't be that much of an overload. Or make the second disc only 8 songs and close the set with Mercy.

 

[the tourist]

Remember the stories about double JT album Bono wanted ? Much as the B-sides were fantastic in that era, I don't think they would improve JT.

I think they would've improved the album quite a bit, personally. Especially if they'd taken the time to re-record songs like Luminous Times to their full potential (not to mention Heartland being there, as it was originally intended to be).

Also, I'm surprised more people are against this idea than for it. Everyone complains that U2 aren't spontaneous enough and that they don't release enough b-sides of original material. Well, personally, I'd rather have those b-sides on a double album than spread out between 6 singles I'll have to buy at import price (generally $10 or more for 3-4 songs).

 

[the tourist]

It wouldn't have to be that much, though. Instead of one 50-minute album, you could have two 40-minute discs. This would only run a few minutes longer than the maximum time allowed on a CD.

That's approx 9 songs per disc (at 4.5 minutes a song), which wouldn't be that much of an overload. Or make the second disc only 8 songs and close the set with Mercy.

If they're gonna do a double album, I'd like to see them do a full double album. 11-12 songs per side. However, I'd like to see 2-3 songs on each of those albums that are much shorter, incomplete ideas that are beautiful without needing to be complete (eg Promenade, MLK, The Ocean, etc). The stuff people love, but that isn't commercial--just helps the flow between the singles and the epic songs and whatnot.

 

[Axver]

Honestly, I can't say I've ever heard a good double album. Just about every single one seems like it needs a lot of fat trimmed and that it would have been better served by being more concise and focused. I'd like U2 to take a more artistic, album-centric approach again and give us some more Promenades, but not to the point of a double album. At the end of the day, do we really need to give Bono that much of a chance to use 'kneel' and 'soul' on one album?

 

[the tourist]

At the end of the day, do we really need to give Bono that much of a chance to use 'kneel' and 'soul' on one album?

New album predictions: "kneel" count (49), "soul" count (43)

 

[the tourist]

Honestly, I can't say I've ever heard a good double album.

Did you ever hear George Harrison's "All Things Must Pass"?

 

[Chill Mike D]

Exile on Main Street

 

[ahittle]

London Calling. Blonde on Blonde. Being There. All fantastic records.

The White Album did get a fair amount of flak when it came out.

But that's why I like it. There's space to stretch out and experiment a bit. If you had 20 songs as noteworthy as "While My Guitar Gently Weeps," you would get exhausted. There's room to breathe, even if it means "Piggies."

The current model of U2 record feels constrained. Can you imagine them putting out UF now? If it takes a double album to have them branch out a bit, I'm all for it, warts and all.

 

[nathan1977]

The River, anyone?

 

[Irvine511]

The River, anyone?

 

[the tourist]

If they don't do a double album, I'd like to see another 55+ minute album. Like the length of POP. 12 or 13 songs.

 

[ahittle]

Hells yeah.

 

[Axver]

Did you ever hear George Harrison's "All Things Must Pass"?

No, couldn't care about his music in the slightest.

And as for the person who mentioned London Calling (which is very much a single album in this day and age), that album is not really a good case for double albums. Songs like Jimmy Jazz and, well, any of the last five are a complete waste of time and the album would've been better if some fat had been trimmed off it.

 

[lazarus]

No, couldn't care about his music in the slightest.

And as for the person who mentioned London Calling (which is very much a single album in this day and age), that album is not really a good case for double albums. Songs like Jimmy Jazz and, well, any of the last five are a complete waste of time and the album would've been better if some fat had been trimmed off it.

Umm...no. I'm not saying London Calling couldn't lose a track or two, but Revolution Rock is amazing, and Train in Vain is a great closer and one of their best-loved songs.

What's great about LC is that it shows how far you can spread the punk ethos to other forms of music. Jimmy Jazz might come off as a trifle, but it's a fun one, and doesn't sound like everything else on the album. Which is what it's all about, really. As long as you're not repeating yourself across the length of the double, I don't see a problem with the interludes, novelties, diversions, etc. Makes for a much more interesting journey.

The fact that you haven't heard a double album you like says more about your pickiness and tastes than it does about ant particular artist's ability to make use of the length. While most CAN'T do it without wasting a lot of space (Guns 'n' Roses, Smashing Pumpkins, Red Hot Chili Peppers). some have done glorious things with the format.

I can't believe I forgot to mention Bruce's The River and Dylan's Blonde on Blonde, but they prove my point further--those are among their best.

 

[the tourist]

What's wrong with a little fat? It's what makes the albums loveable.

 

[Irvine511]

i guess i feel like U2 are going to need to get themselves noticed like they did with the whole iPod thing.

a double album -- and who better to make masturbatory little interludes than Eno? -- would do just that.

 

[mikal]

i would love a double album with 3 shorter instrumentals included. U2 could make us all happy. have a couple big anthems, some experimental songs, some pop songs, and some heavier songs all in one album.

the question would be, can they do all that and still make the album flow well?

 

[the tourist]

i would love a double album with 3 shorter instrumentals included. U2 could make us all happy. have a couple big anthems, some experimental songs, some pop songs, and some heavier songs all in one album.

the question would be, can they do all that and still make the album flow well?

Yes they can--they proved that with The Joshua Tree and The Unforgettable Fire, as proper (not double) albums. I still think if they'd done The Joshua Tree as a double album, and put a little bit more time into Beautiful Ghost and Luminous Times, and had finished Heartland for it, it would have been the perfect album.

 

[Salome]

given the fact that Achtung Baby was the last album to actually feature some proper b-sides (even though prolly half of them were covers come to thinkof it) I very much doubt the band is being productive enough to have enough material for 2 albums no matter what Bono says

I'll already be happy with 1 or 2 b-sides that don't evolve around a guitar bit that you can find somewhere on the album and another album 2 years later on

I'd actually be surprised if even that happened
because it's more likely the other album will be released at least 3 years later

 

[BVS]

given the fact that Achtung Baby was the last album to actually feature some proper b-sides

What is meant by this?

Like you said many were cover, two of which recorded during the R&H days. So honestly all the other albums since then have had basically the same treatment, with the exception of maybe Zooropa which just mainly had remixes. The other albums have had a few new tracks, a few left over from previous albums, and a few remixes. Especially given the fact that the single has been dying overall since 2000.

 

[lazarus]

i would love a double album with 3 shorter instrumentals included. U2 could make us all happy. have a couple big anthems, some experimental songs, some pop songs, and some heavier songs all in one album.

the question would be, can they do all that and still make the album flow well?

I think it might be easier to do that then to try and juggle an album full of potential singles, like the last two, which each have their own flow problems.

When you have these experiments or interludes I think it's easier to transition between different types of songs. Look at Pop, which I know some people don't like the sequencing of, but that second side really works well, despite being all over the place sonically from song to song.

 

[BEAL]

I think ATYCLB flows just as well as Pop does. Now the songs after WH (IMO) aren't as good as what's on Pop, but they both share a common theme.

Both albums start out with very upbeat moods and emotions, then about song 4 things start to get a little darker.

HTDAAB just kind of goes all over the place.

 

[U2girl]

ATYCLB is probably the purest song collection they ever made. The band said it's all about 11 "great" songs to take on the road.

What it shares with Pop is that both times they tried to fit in with the music of the time and both (ATYCLB less so) wander off in different directions and fade away.

HTDAAB has traces of themes in places - just not as strong as JT or AB or Boy (the way songs reflect the events in Bono's life on AMAAW, Crumbs, Sometimes/OSC, OOTS and theme of faith with kneeling and soul references), and perhaps it's weakness is that it's so busy conjuring up sounds from all of U2's career there is no time for the "Bomb" sound.

 

[Canadiens1131]

well I can understand that...everything said thus far has been a bit vague, I would hardly call it terrible logic...i mis interpreted Canadien's statement...alright then, now I understand where you're coming from...well, ultimately it's U2's decision, so anything from Eno and Lanois will be filtered through U2 so to speak...ok enough of this! lets just wait for the damn thing...how much longer do you think bram?

Well, sometimes a band ends up in a comfort zone for an extended period of time. A good example is Paul McCartney. On Chaos and Creation in the Backyard, he had a producer who pushed him to experiment and try different writing styles and arrangements; some really dark shit compared to what he usually does.

It almost wrecked the project, but it ended up producing a great album.

U2 is not an AC/DC-type band who rehearses its songs and then goes into the studio for two weeks and makes a record. They need to be constantly challenged and proded, even guided, I think, to come up with something truly magical.

 

[the tourist]

U2 is not an AC/DC-type band who rehearses its songs and then goes into the studio for two weeks and makes a record. They need to be constantly challenged and proded, even guided, I think, to come up with something truly magical.

It'd be nice if they could every once in awhile though--it'd make the waiting game less stressful for the fans because more material would come out quicker.

 

[U2girl]

Well, sometimes a band ends up in a comfort zone for an extended period of time. A good example is Paul McCartney. On Chaos and Creation in the Backyard, he had a producer who pushed him to experiment and try different writing styles and arrangements; some really dark shit compared to what he usually does.

Nigel Godrich, was it ? I remember reading he forced him to fire his previous studio band in making the album...