My Idea For The Album

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
So it would be something like ATYCLB and MDH soundtrack U2 songs, released together, but separate discs ?

I preferred them being separate releases.
 
I guess it would be like Radiohead's In Rainbows... except the first disc flows very well and is a real album and the second disc is more like an EP of singles that don't necessarily flow but are great songs that can be released as singles. That way, people who like a cohesive album like UF, JT or even AB will like the first disc. And people who prefer a singles approach like The Bomb will like the second disc. That's how I see what he is trying to say.
 
Semi related, but I'm a big fan of the non-album single and I think more bands should do it, especially in the age of iTunes. Think "A Celebration" except... um... less silly.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


That was in reference to the removal of Mercy off the album, apparently it was removed "last minute" due to the band thinking the album was too long. This is what happens when you make these imaginary time constraints.

And my point is not that Mercy shouldn't have been on the album, but that it could have replaced something of inferior quality in order to keep the quality levels up.

guill said:

I'm listening to vinyl a lot - mostly because you get less music on a record - it just doesn't last so long.
I hate the way CDs just drone on for bloody hours and you stop caring.

Brian Eno, 1996

Amen to that.
 
Well, originally Bomb was 13 songs (what we have now, plus Mercy plus Fast cars) which would be... an hour of music, not to mention those songs wouldn't fit in.

Pass.
 
Zootlesque said:
I guess it would be like Radiohead's In Rainbows... except the first disc flows very well and is a real album and the second disc is more like an EP of singles that don't necessarily flow but are great songs that can be released as singles. That way, people who like a cohesive album like UF, JT or even AB will like the first disc. And people who prefer a singles approach like The Bomb will like the second disc. That's how I see what he is trying to say.

Thank goodness! Someone got it!

:up:
 
U2girl said:
Well, originally Bomb was 13 songs (what we have now, plus Mercy plus Fast cars) which would be... an hour of music, not to mention those songs wouldn't fit in.

Pass.

God knows you can't have an hour of music on a disc.
You couldn't interupt the 'exceptional flow' of HTDAAB, of which Bono has praised so loudly.

Only 95% of artists that release albums put that much music on a disc. U2 are rebels!!! They've got 'A Man and a Woman'. They don't need Mercy, Smile and A Man and a Woman, combined, that's just too much. People can't take it.
 
I know he said it's a really good song collection (as did the rest of the band). The last *album* was AB, anyway.

Yes, I think 60 minutes is too much (see what happened the last time they did that), U2 can do just fine with circa 11 songs and roughly 49-48 minutes. They can even do with with less (see War and UF).
 
Actually Tourist idea rocks! :drool:

A double album. The first one with more obscure songs and (hopefully) connected each other by lyrics, music passages, soundscapes, etc. (Floyd did that VERY well). A very experimental and unusual record

The second one, an EP: 5 singles. More conventional U2, so to speak

Release them with a great package and it will catch a fire

That would please everyone. The casual fans, the die hard ones, the purists, the critics, etc :drool:
 
U2DMfan said:


God knows you can't have an hour of music on a disc.
You couldn't interupt the 'exceptional flow' of HTDAAB, of which Bono has praised so loudly.

When was this? He bashed its flow in U2 By U2.
 
U2DMfan said:


God knows you can't have an hour of music on a disc.
You couldn't interupt the 'exceptional flow' of HTDAAB, of which Bono has praised so loudly.

Only 95% of artists that release albums put that much music on a disc. U2 are rebels!!! They've got 'A Man and a Woman'. They don't need Mercy, Smile and A Man and a Woman, combined, that's just too much. People can't take it.

But that's not the point. You don't just stuff everything on to a disc and throw it out there. If it's an album, then the point is that it's a collective statement rather than a compilation.

Zootlesque said:
I guess it would be like Radiohead's In Rainbows... except the first disc flows very well and is a real album and the second disc is more like an EP of singles that don't necessarily flow but are great songs that can be released as singles. That way, people who like a cohesive album like UF, JT or even AB will like the first disc. And people who prefer a singles approach like The Bomb will like the second disc. That's how I see what he is trying to say.

If I was to go the Radiohead route - which I think would be a superb idea, by the way - I wouldn't put singles on a bonus disc, but the tracks that just wouldn't fit on to a cohesive album. The best of both worlds for everyone that way (and U2 Ltd would make a fortune on the discboxes).

U2girl said:
I know he said it's a really good song collection (as did the rest of the band). The last *album* was AB, anyway.

Yes, I think 60 minutes is too much (see what happened the last time they did that), U2 can do just fine with circa 11 songs and roughly 49-48 minutes. They can even do with with less (see War and UF).

:up:
 
PookaMacP said:


But that's not the point. You don't just stuff everything on to a disc and throw it out there. If it's an album, then the point is that it's a collective statement rather than a compilation.

Setting a time limit is an outdated notion. The point is, they or any other artist shouldn't constrain themselves to time limits AT ALL. Whether or not they want to cut a track because they think it's weaker and drags down the overall album is one thing. To cut a track only because they felt it made the album run too long is another.

To me, a true collective statement of any album is what kinds of music you are exploring and what quality it produced. Regardless of what many fans of music think, there is not a perfect running order, there aren't preordained tracks that were meant to be left on and off albums, artists make song selection mistakes constantly. It's not a science and to enter into the thought process by limiting yourself is backwards thinking.

So if we want to argue specifics of songs, then that is surely subjective. To go into an album recording session with the notion that 'we can't go over X number of minutes' is antiquated and can only be a negative. It's limiting in and of itself.

Why limit yourself? It says no more about the collective statement if it's a shorter record than if it were a double album. Put your best stuff on there regardless.
 
Back
Top Bottom