Jimmy Iovine says album needed 2 more songs

[u2search]

Jimmy Iovine: "I met with the guys in U2, and they say to me, 'You know what? This album needs two more songs, and it will be exactly what we have in mind.' I go there and I listen, and I agreed with them. It's a great record, but it deserves the time."

Exclusive: Iovine Talks Axl, U2, Dre, Eminem

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

So, the album had 9 tracks when he heard it?

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

huh.... i thought they had 50-60 songs in the pot...

 

[purpleoscar]

Where does it say 11 songs?

 

[U2girl]

A 3 month delay over 2 songs ?

 

[last unicorn]

Nowhere have I read anything about how many songs will be on this album.

Two songs = One for Sea, one for Sky.

 

[Zoots]

So, the album had 9 tracks when he heard it?

 

[U2girl]

2 songs to make the 2 halves complete...

 

[bram]

At least this will (hopefully) stop the incessant predictions of a double album.

 

[popacrobat]

A 3 month delay over 2 songs ?

that's fine by me. I'd rather have them be content with the last two songs than rather have a rushed version and we get 59845 versions of the song. I know Larry thought that Staring at the Sun would have been a gigantic hit everywhere if they had another month to work on it, if that's the case, then they're simply learning from their Pop mistakes (in their mind.)

Couple this with the other interview - where half of the album was just spontaneous, and I find this as highly encouraging. They aren't looking to overproduce, but they're looking to find the right songs. I'm highly encouraged by what I've read in the past couple days on this new album.

 

[U2DMfan]

Makes perfect sense actually.

They probably went back and messed around with all the tracks that didn't make the cut, tried to tweak them into album material etc.

But the fact that it's a 3-4 month delay (and could end up being longer) is just like U2.
They'll record parts of LNOE or Fast Cars on the last day of recording and throw it on the record but to get TWO more songs takes weeks and weeks and weeks.

 

[U2girl]

that's fine by me. I'd rather have them be content with the last two songs than rather have a rushed version and we get 59845 versions of the song. I know Larry thought that Staring at the Sun would have been a gigantic hit everywhere if they had another month to work on it, if that's the case, then they're simply learning from their Pop mistakes (in their mind.)

Couple this with the other interview - where half of the album was just spontaneous, and I find this as highly encouraging. They aren't looking to overproduce, but they're looking to find the right songs. I'm highly encouraged by what I've read in the past couple days on this new album.

Of course, we don't know the date of this info. It could have been very recently (I would think it doesn't take U2 3 months to add 2 songs to a record).

 

[popacrobat]

Of course, we don't know the date of this info. It could have been very recently (I would think it doesn't take U2 3 months to add 2 songs to a record).

that's true, but I'd assume it was recent. I doubt it was recent when Iovine went to meet with U2 though. I'd assume that would have been around when they decided to push it back to February - running it by the record big wigs.

I wouldn't think it'd take them 3 months to record two songs, but, if they were going to wait till February they might as well have taken the full time to write the 2 songs as well as re-record two songs (didn't Lanois say that they did that in New York or something? I know I'm not making that up.) As U2DMfan said, it makes perfect sense.

 

[U2DMfan]

that's fine by me. I'd rather have them be content with the last two songs than rather have a rushed version and we get 59845 versions of the song.

It's hit and miss though, for me.

Sometimes that B-side, (like Smile) has enough character and charm to be worth noting, maybe even worth a slot on the 'second side'. Sometimes like (Are You Gonna Wait Forever?) they made the exact right decision.

So, it's certainly subjective.

It seems with U2 (since POP) that the length of studio time, spinning the wheels, hurts the songs more than anything. Take 'Smile' again. If they had spent more time on it, it could have gone either way. It could have lost it's charm or it coud have been a killer single.

I generally prefer the more raw U2, not in the sense of sloppy playing meaning raw, or harsh sonics being raw, but raw as in, capturing the band at their greatest and most creative, even if it's not the most polished it could be.

After all, most of the people who like the shiny polished songs are often only concerned with the 'single' type material anyways. Who really needs a song like Exit or Acrobat to be pristine studio versions, with perfect songwriting chops and sonic textures? Leave in some of the raw, U2, please.

 

[U2girl]

that's true, but I'd assume it was recent. I doubt it was recent when Iovine went to meet with U2 though. I'd assume that would have been around when they decided to push it back to February - running it by the record big wigs.

I wouldn't think it'd take them 3 months to record two songs, but, if they were going to wait till February they might as well have taken the full time to write the 2 songs as well as re-record two songs (didn't Lanois say that they did that in New York or something? I know I'm not making that up.) As U2DMfan said, it makes perfect sense.

They went public with the 2009 decision in September...could it be Iovine speaks about that ? They did say "we're writing more songs" but presumably that has to be more than mere 2 tracks. I know Lanois said he's mixing half of the album and that they will do more recording in London.

One of the article said there was a Christmas/post-Christmas release debate. If anything the big wigs got overruled.

 

[Anji]

I have actually wondered about this delay. We had end of November as a release right! Then it was put back for unknown reasons and now they allegedly need more songs?

I am wondering if actually it was put back and new songs needed because they decided to DUMP the Beach Clips

Just my 2 pence worth

 

[popacrobat]

It's hit and miss though, for me.

Sometimes that B-side, (like Smile) has enough character and charm to be worth noting, maybe even worth a slot on the 'second side'. Sometimes like (Are You Gonna Wait Forever?) they made the exact right decision.

So, it's certainly subjective.

It seems with U2 (since POP) that the length of studio time, spinning the wheels, hurts the songs more than anything. Take 'Smile' again. If they had spent more time on it, it could have gone either way. It could have lost it's charm or it coud have been a killer single.

I generally prefer the more raw U2, not in the sense of sloppy playing meaning raw, or harsh sonics being raw, but raw as in, capturing the band at their greatest and most creative, even if it's not the most polished it could be.

After all, most of the people who like the shiny polished songs are often only concerned with the 'single' type material anyways. Who really needs a song like Exit or Acrobat to be pristine studio versions, with perfect songwriting chops and sonic textures? Leave in some of the raw, U2, please.

i do agree. which is why the comments from the Edge about how half of the album is raw and spontaneous are highly encouraging to me. I would normally be concerned about spending two months to bang out two songs- it would mean that we would be having the Chris Thomas sessions vs. Lillywhite/finalized HTDAAB sessions argument again. Native Son vs. Vertigo, etc.

i guess at this point I just trust in what they're doing. It seems like they saying the right things about this album- trying to make it cohesive- and admitting that atomic bomb was not. It's basically just the sum of everything that I've read that has made me excited. This article alone would not, but this coupled with the MOJO interview does have me more excited than I'd normally be. I'm sure there will be the nice shiny singles. As edge said, there are some songs on here that have gone through that U2 cycle- and judging from the beach clips and U2.com clips, I'm getting Get On Your Boots and Breathe will be two of those songs- which is fine by me. I think Breathe has a lot of potential to be a pretty awesome song from what I've heard from it both on the U2.com clip and the beach clip.

I guess I'd just rather them be happy with the album that they are releasing and taking their time to get these last two songs down, than spending years trying to fix what they deem as mistakes, or getting the "new" versions of Discotheque, Staring at the Sun, Please, etc. Just give me great songs that flow well. I'm confident that they'll appease both the camps on this forum- the ones that are eager for the shiny polished singles like you said, and the types that are interested in a cohesive album. Perhaps I have too much faith in my favorite band though.

 

[u2search]

I have actually wondered about this delay. We had end of November as a release right! Then it was put back for unknown reasons and now they allegedly need more songs?

No, the way I read it, this is the explanation for why it is delayed, not an extra delay. It fits perfectly with The Edges comment a few weeks (months?) back that they need to glue the thing together to make a coherent album. They didn't just need 2 more songs, but 2 very specific songs.

And perhaps, while hunting for those, they got new ideas, etc.

 

[BluRmGrl]

Album release talk...


Sort of off subject, but when it comes time to start discussing the new album release my mind turns to the tour. I wonder if the general downturn in the world-wide economy will affect ticket prices and/or the location/number/size of venues, i.e. will tickets be cheaper than last tour but still hard to get because there'll be fewer shows?

 

[JCOSTER]

OH COM'ON ALREADY, GET THE ALBUM DONE

 

[mikal]

that's fine by me. I'd rather have them be content with the last two songs than rather have a rushed version and we get 59845 versions of the song. I know Larry thought that Staring at the Sun would have been a gigantic hit everywhere if they had another month to work on it, if that's the case, then they're simply learning from their Pop mistakes (in their mind.)

Couple this with the other interview - where half of the album was just spontaneous, and I find this as highly encouraging. They aren't looking to overproduce, but they're looking to find the right songs. I'm highly encouraged by what I've read in the past couple days on this new album.

i agree completely. would it be cool to have the album in hand now? yes. would i rather have an album 2 songs stronger than we would have had? definitely!

 

[digitize]

U2 in the same article as the Pussycat Dolls...

 

[MrBTH]

Clearly when they say they needed two more songs it dosen't mean that they literally had gaps to fill on the album. It's sounding more and more like it's going to be a cohesive, unified and considered artistic statement, not just a collection of songs. In order to get the flow right, to make everything stick together there was clearly something missing and they have been endeavouring to find those "missing links" to bring it all together. Obviously this process won't have yielded just two perfectly formed songs that have all the ingredients that they want. It's bound to have unleashed allsorts of creativity, adding further to the stockpile of possible tracks and fragments that they have lying around. Basically what U2Search said a few posts back!

It all sounds very exciting to me...

 

[david]

He probably meant they needed a few hits.

 

[Rosebud]

Sorry, but shouldn't this be in WTAHNN?

 

[zoocarolina]

Half the album raw, half produced (sea and sky), can't we just have a double album??? I don't mind that one's cohesive and the other a collection of songs!!! It also sounds very promising that they may pickup the Chris Thomas work again at some point, possibly releasing a quick album or saving it for way down the road as a cool add to a box set!!

 

[Knuckle]

I read an article in today's Wall Street Journal (Nov 24 - Section B) about record companies feeling the pressure from certain bands not getting their albums out for the 2008 holiday season. They quoted Jimmy Iovine there too. The article said that U2's album was "in creative limbo" and that was the reason for the 2009 delayed release. It stated that the band, their manager, and the record company execs all agreed that the album wasn't quite up to snuff, and it needed more time.

However, that said, I suspect that the Wall Street Journal article may have borrowed most of its facts (perhaps with some poetic license) from this Billboard article that interviews Jimmy Iovine. I think the Wall Street Journal article may not have phrased it quite accurately. Then again, how could I know? It's all just guesswork.

I'd link you to the Wall Street Journal article online (WSJ.com), but it's a paid subscription site and I don't think it's permitted.

 

[last unicorn]

I am wondering if actually it was put back and new songs needed because they decided to DUMP the Beach Clips

Ummm, where are indications that this has happened? In fact, it seems they "used" all the beach clips, at least three of them.

We have "Get on your boots", which is beach clip no. 3, we have "Breathe", which is beach clip no. 2 and can be heard in the latest u2.com clip, we have beach clip no. 4 which could be called "Only love" and was played in a previous u2.com clip, and we POSSIBLY have beach clip no. 1, becauses some people suggested, based on Edge's latest comments, that this might be the Fez-influenced first track, the one Edge referred to as "Unknown Caller".

So I think there is STRONG influence that the beach clips will indeed result in songs on the finalized album.

And I also don't think people should get wound up about Iovine's comments, because he is clearly referring to the state of the album some weeks or even months ago. Are people still hoping we will hear new U2 in 2008? I think it's time to realize that early 2009 will be the time for the new album release. No need to rant about the delay, it's a fact right now.

And I would take the Wall Street article with a grain of salt, it's mere speculation and a lot of interpretation, obviously based on J. Iovine's comments. In fact, it's the first time someone mentioned a "creative limbo". All the other comments have strongly suggested that creativity is great and the album is amazing.

 

[U2girl]

It fits perfectly with The Edges comment a few weeks (months?) back that they need to glue the thing together to make a coherent album. They didn't just need 2 more songs, but 2 very specific songs.

That's what I'm thinking too...

This album needs two more songs, and it will be exactly what we have in mind.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

12 >>> 14 tracks.