New Album Discussion: Worthwhile, Informative, And Not Even Slightly Grating

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
I like the Broken Bell sound and album, but U2 will (always have) go for a bigger, brasher sound. I actually think "Crazy" is more the kind of song we'll hear.. big song, big chorus, big grooves..
 
If we get a bunch of Crazy Tonight songs on the next album, I'm done. It's the one song I skip over every time (SUC i occasionally listen to). It's U2 by the numbers trying for that Beautiful Day type song and it's completely forced.

Now the live dance version, that was fun!!!
 
BEAL said:
If we get a bunch of Crazy Tonight songs on the next album, I'm done. It's the one song I skip over every time (SUC i occasionally listen to). It's U2 by the numbers trying for that Beautiful Day type song and it's completely forced.

Now the live dance version, that was fun!!!
Click to expand...

I meant Gnarls Barkley Crazy.. should have clarified!
 
BEAL said:
If we get a bunch of Crazy Tonight songs on the next album, I'm done. It's the one song I skip over every time (SUC i occasionally listen to). It's U2 by the numbers trying for that Beautiful Day type song and it's completely forced.

Now the live dance version, that was fun!!!
Click to expand...

yeah, i think i would have to throw in the towel as well. and nothing wrong with that. i'll always love their 80's and 90's stuff, as well as a decent portion of their 00's as well. with that said, there's no way i'll be able to stomach any more throwaway crap like Crazy Tonight or SUC.
 
I hope there's at least one little rocker in there. I like U2 when they can rock out, like in Elevation, Vertigo, and All Because of You, to name a few from the last decade.
 
Given Bono's recent comments, I wonder what will change between now and fall of 2013. I'm thinking quite a bit. Danger Mouse might not even be the producer anymore. Enoiswhite will probably step in, as usual.
 
I expect U2's next album to be completely unrelated to everything that they worked on between 2007 and the end of the 360 Tour.
 
digitize said:
I expect U2's next album to be completely unrelated to everything that they worked on between 2007 and the end of the 360 Tour.
Click to expand...

I don't. They're always going to take bits and pieces of past ideas and bring them forward for the new album. I mean, City of Blinding Lights had its origin during the Pop sessions.

I don't expect U2 will have an album filled with songs from the 360° time period, but I'm not going to be terribly surprised if Every Breaking Wave is on the new album in some fashion.
 
Q&A: From the Sky Down director Davis Guggenheim, Toronto Star
September 7, 2011
By Peter Howell

At the end of the interview:

Q. Did you get any feel for where the band is headed now? Do they feel rejuvenated?

A. We didn't talk about "now." Maybe I should have, but we just didn't talk about it. I know they're deep into the next album. There's an excitement about it.

:hyper:
 
Bono's comments about being a big band on the cusp of irrelevancy and needing to figure out how U2 can still exist in the small spaces despite being a very big band only means one thing:

Today, we had another "dream it all up again" moment. I agree with him 100%. I'm very curious as to how they're going to accomplish this, but I trust them. I think at this point the biggest thing standing in U2's way is, quite simply, "U2". U2 is so huge as a legacy that it's actually affecting the music they make now. They need to figure out how to strive IN SPITE of U2's success, instead of because of it!
 
So is what he said today any different from what he'd said previously about "relevance" and being on the radio?

I got all excited about it, and then thought "..... wait a minute. Last time he said it, I was annoyed."

What's different?
 
I don't remember the exact quote the last time he said it, but this time he concedes that they're as close as ever to irrelevance. I don't think he said that before, but I could be wrong.

To me that shows a bit of humility and some awareness that while they are certainly popular and will always be popular because they're U2, but that they weren't necessarily popular on 360 because of their new material.

Of course, I'm almost certainly reading way way way way way too far into it. But I'm bored.
 
:sad:, if only the 360 tour hadn't been conceived of before the album, NLOTH while surviving the battery of production and rehash that they all have for a long time now still managed to be quite a gem and it makes me so sad that they look on it as a failure because the guy who knows WOWY, Pride, Vertigo, One, MW, BD and Elevation didn't jump up and down or download ringtones from NLOTH.
 
popacrobat said:
I don't remember the exact quote the last time he said it, but this time he concedes that they're as close as ever to irrelevance. I don't think he said that before, but I could be wrong.

To me that shows a bit of humility and some awareness that while they are certainly popular and will always be popular because they're U2, but that they weren't necessarily popular on 360 because of their new material.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. And to add on, I think he doesn't want just 1 or 2 hit singles but another Masterpiece to add to JT and AB.

They know their on another planet when it comes to live performance and making anthems, but they're lacking in the public's eye in terms of great albums.

It all ties in to Bono wanting to be bigger than the Beatles (which they know isn't possible, but they can certainly put themselves on another planet next to the Beatles)
 
I'd like the band to completely forget about relevancy and release good music, they can obviously still make it, but it's being tempered. If Johnny Cash can give us that cover at 70, there's plenty of hope for U2 yet. But it doesn't lie in the mainstream.
 
I think there's some confusion here between relevance and mainstream success.

Bob Dylan released three fantastic albums in a ten-year period between 1997 and 2006, winning a Grammy for Album of the Year with the first one. All three placed first in the esteemed Pazz & Jop poll of nationwide critics. Did any of them do boffo business? No. Did you hear them on a lot of radio stations or on MTV? No.

So here you have an example of an older artist who is relevant as far as the critics and the establishment is concerned, adding to his own legacy, but without the accompanying mainstream saturation. Of course, I think Bono still wants to tap into that younger audience, but his recent quote seems to speak more to the artistic merit of the whole album itself proving the band's mettle versus having a hit single.

And before you think the age comparisons are off, Dylan was 56 when Time Out Of Mind came out. The members of U2 won't be too far behind that when their next album drops.
 
The voice I'd love to hear in all of this is Larry's. He was about to say something very interesting until those BBC fools Jo Whiley and Zane Lowe cut him off post-set at Glastonbury. He didn't turn up to the GQ awards (in fact, I love the idea that he just couldn't be bothered). And wasn't it Larry who once commented that by the end of three years touring post-Joshua Tree he'd become sick of feeling like a jukebox rolling out the hits every night? I may have imagined the last bit (can anyone remember this - it might've been from that POP documentary?), but it would be in keeping with the general mood he's been giving off lately. Let the man speak!

Oh, and great point re Bob Dylan. Time Out Of Mind is a great record which was, of course, produced by our man Daniel Lanois. Though I have to say that for me, the less said about Dylan's subsequent albums the better.

Springsteen's The Rising is another good example of an artist returning with a great record that seeped into the popular consciousness, won critical approval but never really produced a massive hit (as far as I can remember).

Though in both Dylan and Springsteen's cases the return to form came only after runs of truly awful records that almost buried their careers.
 
lazarus said:
I think there's some confusion here between relevance and mainstream success.

Bob Dylan released three fantastic albums in a ten-year period between 1997 and 2006, winning a Grammy for Album of the Year with the first one. All three placed first in the esteemed Pazz & Jop poll of nationwide critics. Did any of them do boffo business? No. Did you hear them on a lot of radio stations or on MTV? No.

So here you have an example of an older artist who is relevant as far as the critics and the establishment is concerned, adding to his own legacy, but without the accompanying mainstream saturation. Of course, I think Bono still wants to tap into that younger audience, but his recent quote seems to speak more to the artistic merit of the whole album itself proving the band's mettle versus having a hit single.

And before you think the age comparisons are off, Dylan was 56 when Time Out Of Mind came out. The members of U2 won't be too far behind that when their next album drops.
Click to expand...

And bob has become more cool with the kids merely by taking this approach and not trying to be cool with the kids.
 
Exactly.

Although U2's always going to have its fair share of haters. Bono is too much of an exhibitionist to cultivate the mystique/enigma that is part of what makes Dylan so eternally cool to people.
 
If the Danger Mouse stuff doesn't work out for the next album then I'd love to see them take a Foo Fighters approach (see Wasting Light). Record a bunch of songs in one of their garages using old school analog equipment and minimal gear (exception being Edge's guitar stuff of course). No Pro Tools, digital audio enhancements or any modern production crap. Release something like that, and I bet it'd be truly awesome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom