NME: "U2's new album written"

[rihannsu]

Nice, you slip in a "even if they didn't think it would hurt sales" at the very end of your post. A very sneaky way of avoiding saying outright that you were completely wrong about the crippling financial disaster U2 would face from the bootleggers if they ever played songs live before the album release. Oh well, better that then nothing.

Anyways, I did a quick google check and the earliest mention of a leaked U2 album downloadable on the Internet was November 6th. U2 played all 6 songs except OOTS on Top Of The Pops and CD:UK on October 15th and 16th, then at the California Theater on October 26th they added OOTS. All of that before anyone knew that the album had been leaked.

Now I guess we're arguing about what U2 would be comfortable with?

The ideal way of writing a U2 album would go like this:

Arduous studio writing process + all the heavy lifting - 9 months
(At this point U2 usually finishes the album)
(But in our ideal world....)
U2 goes on a small, relaxed arena tour to play some of the new material - 90 days
Incorporating live alterations to studio material - 10 days
Album released!
Super Awesome World-Wide Tour - 1 1/2 years

I know that U2 works the way they feel most comfortable- studio, then tour. But does the schedule I put up sound unreasonable for the band? It wouldn't be the pressure of having a high-publicity tour that must be perfect, just a comparatively quiet test drive.

Number one, I never called it a crippling financial disaster, I said negative impact. Something can be a negative impact without being a crippling disaster. I was not attempting to be sneaky in any way. Nothing I have come across in reading about the band has indicated them making creative decisions based on money. That being said, U2 have never shied away from making money and once the album is done there is no reason for them not to want it to do as well as possible. What I meant by the "even if they didn't think it would hurt sales" comment is that money matters aside I don't think that method would work for them creatively as a whole. While the potential for the individual songs to be better is there, I think the idea of the album would not come off as well this way.

Number two, even though the first internet leak was Nov 6 the cd with the songs was stolen well before that. I think it was in July or August. People knew the album had been stolen because Bono did interviews saying that if it turned up early they would immediately release it for download. So they knew it could hit the internet at any time after that. And I still say that promo appearances shortly before touring do not compare to what is being discussed. Vertigo had already been released as a single by that point so even counting OOTS that is only 5 other songs being performed early, but what you're talking about would mean all the songs that could potentially be on the album would be performed live before the release. That would definitely have some impact on sales. How much is impossible to guage.

Number three, given the U2 mania that has taken place surrounding the last two U2 releases and tours I don't see how they could accomplish a "small relaxed arena tour". Just look at the near hysteria surrounding the few promo dates they did for Vertigo.

Number four, the one time that U2 did perform unfinished songs live before recording them was before Joshua Tree. They performed "Womanfish" and "Trip Through Your Wires". The first song disappeared without a trace and as far as I can tell has never been mentioned by the band again. The later did make the album and was I think significantly improved. However, the band have also said that the interruption of recording that was caused by the Conspiracy of Hope Tour did affect the direction of the Joshua Tree album. Yes, it turned out well on that occasion but there were also many songs from those early sessions that were never given a chance to develop properly. Some ended up on Rattle and Hum but what they might have been could be very different. Plus just look at all the flak on this site about how Bomb would have been so much better with Native Son and Mercy, etc. Do you really think the fans would end up any happier in the long run? It would just give everybody more stuff to bitch about.

Number five, I would be willing to bet that in that 10 days you alot for recording the improved songs, U2 would take off in an entirely different direction and rather than finish the album started they would start new songs and be off on another album altogether, completely forgetting to finish the first one.

Lastly, as I said before, U2's perspective is that the albums and the live performances are two different mediums. They already know that they change the songs live and they don't consider them finished until they have been done live but they don't feel that this negates the albums in any way because they consider the studio work to be a separate entity. They have never been all that interested in releasing live material, otherwise they would be putting out live albums and DVD's more often than they do. Elevation is the only tour that got more than one full DVD release. Edge has said many times in interviews that what you do with a song live is a different thing from what you do with a song in the studio. Given that they see it this way, there is little reason for them to change their method. For those who prefer the live versions there are the DVD's and as U2 has always had no problems with fan sharing there are bootlegs that can be had and many are of soundboard quality available free through other fans and not supporting the commercial bootleggers.

Dana

 

[rihannsu]

After thinking it over, there are 3 issues to deal with in a pre-album tour- financial, artistic, and creative. I've shown that there won't be a financial loss from showing songs early (and there might very well be a chance for profit because touring is very profitable for U2). Artistically, we're in agreement that it would be better for the songs. Creatively? I think the only thing holding them back is U2's desire to stay in a comfort zone where they know how to operate. You think it'll be harder for them to jump back and forth. As far as creativity is concerned, you're right, we aren't the band so we should agree to disagree.

I replied to your other post before seeing this one, so yes we can agree to disagree.

Dana

 

[mobvok]

Number one, I never called it a crippling financial disaster, I said negative impact.

It would work artistically but in these days of instant worldwide bootlegging it would be a financial disaster. The bootlegs hit the internet before the band has even left the venue so recording songs after they've been played live is pretty useless.

Dana

Well, you never called it "crippling", so I suppose in a way you're right....

Number two, even though the first internet leak was Nov 6 the cd with the songs was stolen well before that. I think it was in July or August. People knew the album had been stolen because Bono did interviews saying that if it turned up early they would immediately release it for download. So they knew it could hit the internet at any time after that. And I still say that promo appearances shortly before touring do not compare to what is being discussed. Vertigo had already been released as a single by that point so even counting OOTS that is only 5 other songs being performed early, but what you're talking about would mean all the songs that could potentially be on the album would be performed live before the release. That would definitely have some impact on sales. How much is impossible to guage.

You said "the album had already been stolen and leaked". I assumed you meant the copy of the album....that had been stolen and leaked, not the earlier one from the summer that had just been stolen (but was never leaked). The earlier theft was of unfinished songs (IIRC), and we never had those pop up. I don't quite see the relevance of any of this, though, because they did the same promo tour for ATYCLB too. Before its October 30th release, U2 played Beautiful Day, Elevation, New York, Stuck, and Ground Beneath Her Feet (ehh....). Fewer then Atomic Bomb, to be sure, but the principle is the same of U2 thinking pre-release live performances of their songs will sell more albums. But magnified to encompass every track on the album?

There still remains the paradox that the only people likely devoted enough to seek out and stitch together the future album from live bootlegs are hardcore fans predisposed to buying crap like U218 anyways just for the two bonus tracks.

Number three, given the U2 mania that has taken place surrounding the last two U2 releases and tours I don't see how they could accomplish a "small relaxed arena tour". Just look at the near hysteria surrounding the few promo dates they did for Vertigo.

Don't know what much to say here, except to always keep emphasizing to the media and fans that the "real" tour would be coming soon. Would be ace for the fanclub if they were to offer tickets, though.

Not much else to say to the rest of the post, beyond that I disagree. U2 obviously do what they do because they are comfortable with it and like the way it works. I think disrupting their comfort zone would be a great experiment.

 

[doctorwho]

Well, the bottomline is good music. And I know this can get very subjective. But at the end of the day if the music is mediocre, it doesn't matter whether they marketed heavily or didn't. I doubt U2's marketing plans and Ipod ads would ever come under fire if the Bomb was universally admired. If everyone considered the end result or the album to be outstanding, there would be no need for things like hype and marketing to point a finger at.

I strongly disagree with this sentiment.

First, IMO, HTDAAB was universally admired. Was it as loved as some of U2's prior albums? Arguably no, but then, past releases such as JT and AB have the advantage of time. When JT was first released, Rolling Stone's review was solid, but nothing spectacular. They predicted sales of about 3M copies. Therefore, let's give HTDAAB time and see how well it stands.

Regarding the ads, U2 would have come under fire even if they wrote an album loved by every single person on the planet - and it's because they are U2. U2 are thought to be above advertising or pop songs or commercialism or whatever. Back in 1989, Bono talked about destroying the "myth of U2". To some extent, U2 succeeded with AB and ZOO TV, but sadly, that "myth" has returned, perhaps even stronger now, thanks to Bono's activisim, than it was in the 80's.

When hurricane Katrina hit, other musicians wondered why Bono wasn't doing something to help the people in that area. The musician who made this comment was actually a high profile rap artist. Why on earth wasn't this man putting his time and effort and money to help out? The irony is that the Edge and U2 did step up. I bring up this story because even fellow musicians seem to hold U2/Bono in this "higher realm". For U2 to do a commercial, even if they accepted no money for it, was almost beyond people's comprehension.

Of course, U2's music has been used in commercials before - to help promote movies and to help promote the sales of their own releases (such as a Best Buy commercial). That was deemed acceptable, perhaps, because U2 didn't actually appear in the commercial. Despite artists like Sting, Eminem, Bob Dylan, Iggy Pop, etc. having been in commercials, only U2 is chastised. But then, this is part of the "myth of U2".

As for the topic of this thread... the only concern I have with actual writing credits going to Eno and Lanois (as opposed to producer) is that this album may be a bit more "OS1" like than U2. There's some great stuff on OS1, but really, I don't want another one, at least as released as a U2 album (I'll accept "OS2" as a Passenger release).

 

[U2girl]

As for the topic of this thread... the only concern I have with actual writing credits going to Eno and Lanois (as opposed to producer) is that this album may be a bit more "OS1" like than U2. There's some great stuff on OS1, but really, I don't want another one, at least as released as a U2 album (I'll accept "OS2" as a Passenger release).

Well Lanois is involved so he can reign in any pretentiousness...

OS2

edit: I like that - "U2 myth". I think the band are a victim of that. You expect a BIG album and a BIGGER tour with them. Of course, it doesn't help that they have albums like War, UF, JT and AB in their past. I think it's a big reason why they're so catious with the album releases after Zoo TV era.

 

[rihannsu]

Well, you never called it "crippling", so I suppose in a way you're right....



You said "the album had already been stolen and leaked". I assumed you meant the copy of the album....that had been stolen and leaked, not the earlier one from the summer that had just been stolen (but was never leaked). The earlier theft was of unfinished songs (IIRC), and we never had those pop up. I don't quite see the relevance of any of this, though, because they did the same promo tour for ATYCLB too. Before its October 30th release, U2 played Beautiful Day, Elevation, New York, Stuck, and Ground Beneath Her Feet (ehh....). Fewer then Atomic Bomb, to be sure, but the principle is the same of U2 thinking pre-release live performances of their songs will sell more albums. But magnified to encompass every track on the album?

Ok, I am suitably chastized. I didn't remember using the term financial disaster. I guess that will teach me to read my own posts.

The album stolen was the finished album as far as the construction of the songs. The only difference between it and the finished album was the decision to leave Mercy off of it and possibly the running order. The reason Edge had the CD with him was that he was in the process of coming up with the running order for the songs.

Also, you have again ignored the fact that promo appearances don't account for performing the whole album, and if you think the bigtime commercial bootleggers wouldn't be stitching together an album then you are very naive. We wouldn't necessarily see a lot of bootlegs in the US or even the UK but they would be rampant in the rest of the world. For instance did you know that half or more of the Japanese import cds sold in the states are actually bootlegs? There is a huge commercial bootleg market that would make a killing on even a stitched together U2 album. Hell, the merchandise bootleggers set up right outside the venues.

U2 disrupt their "comfort zone" plenty but in such a way that it inspires them not defeats them. From things they have said in interviews it doesn't seem to me that this procedure would be inspiring to them. Bono in particular I think would be quite vulnerable in this situation. He mentioned in interviews several times about how him sitting at the piano to play "Sweetest Thing" didn't go over well because the audience had a bit of a sit down. He struck me as having been genuinely hurt that the song didn't go over well. I don't think he would hold up well to actually doing song development in front of the crowd. None of them really ever listen to their albums once they are done with them. They switch their focus to live performance and are through with the album. They don't consider the album to be the difinitive version of the songs and they don't expect us too. I think a more productive arguement would be to lobby for U2 to do more live releases.

We've had a great discussion at least.

Dana

 

[mobvok]

Ok, I am suitably chastized. I didn't remember using the term financial disaster. I guess that will teach me to read my own posts.

The album stolen was the finished album as far as the construction of the songs. The only difference between it and the finished album was the decision to leave Mercy off of it and possibly the running order. The reason Edge had the CD with him was that he was in the process of coming up with the running order for the songs.

Ok, but what real significance does this have? If Atomic Bomb being stolen before hand somehow informed the decision to play songs before release, then we can look to ATYCLB where they still did the same thing.

Also, you have again ignored the fact that promo appearances don't account for performing the whole album,

Uh, I believe I have noted that there is a difference between playing 6 songs just before release and taking most-to-all of the album on a tour a few months before mastering. While the number of songs and the time before release that they do it is different, the principle is the exact same- putting the songs out there does not hurt sales.

and if you think the bigtime commercial bootleggers wouldn't be stitching together an album then you are very naive. We wouldn't necessarily see a lot of bootlegs in the US or even the UK but they would be rampant in the rest of the world. For instance did you know that half or more of the Japanese import cds sold in the states are actually bootlegs? There is a huge commercial bootleg market that would make a killing on even a stitched together U2 album. Hell, the merchandise bootleggers set up right outside the venues.

If there's a huge foreign commercial bootleg market that will seize on ordinary U2 releases, there's no point citing it as a reason not to play live- either way, the band's not getting any money. For the sake of argument, let's say that a huge market will arise from stitched-together songs. OK, U2 just does what they always do and add bonus tracks for foreign releases. Or if you think it's an absolute, life or death situation, not play 2 or 3 songs from the B-Side of the album that you're happy with.

If you disagree with that, it sounds like you've got a Laffer Curve forming. Is playing 6 songs pre-release OK, but 9 not? I think they certainly could have played 7, or even 8 before HTDAAB was released and there would have been little to no impact on sales. How do you determine that X amount of songs is too many?

Let's even say that U2 only previewed the same six songs that they performed on the promo tour in the hypothetical pre-release tour. How does the financial benefit of playing the songs before release turn into a negative if they're played just a few months earlier?

 

[mobvok]

Actually let me clarify the last post a little bit.

First, the "Laffer Curve" paragraph- I just remembered that MTV put the entire White Stripes' Icky Thump album a week before release on their web site for free perusal. As far as the White Stripes' record label is concerned, every song from the album is ok to release.

Second, the third paragraph.

The strongest argument you could say against playing the same six songs a few months earlier is that it's a longer wait before the album release, so people would find it harder to wait then they would for a promo tour just a few weeks prior.

But, I tend to trust U2 fans (the hardcore, the faithful, the fans the pre-record tour is targeting) as being smart enough to know that they can get the songs for free online.

 

[rihannsu]

Uh, I believe I have noted that there is a difference between playing 6 songs just before release and taking most-to-all of the album on a tour a few months before mastering. While the number of songs and the time before release that they do it is different, the principle is the exact same- putting the songs out there does not hurt sales.

Well, we definitely have to agree to disagree about it hurting sales. While I agree that it isn't disaster I do think there is still a negative impact. As for the commercial bootleggers, they take a chunk of the market in ordinary circumstances but if they had several months advance on the official release they would take an even bigger bite out of the market. Any time there is a gap between availability it hurts sales. Early in their career, album releases around the world were more staggered and it even affected the official sales in various countries which is why the releases are more syncronized now. As I said before, there is no way to say it would have no impact but how much of an impact is pretty impossible to say.

Actually, it just dawned on me that we have at lease part of this experiment performed just lacking the part of going back to record the improved songs after touring some. That is POP. They took songs that they considered not truly finished on the road and tried to improve them as they went. They were horribly savaged by the media and both record and concert ticket sales suffered at the beginning of the tour. They never really recovered in the US although the rest of the world recieved Pop and Popmart well. They also get at least some flack on every tour about their first few performances because no matter how much they rehearse they always tend to fumble a bit in the beginning. After the Pop experience, I can't imagine them ever putting themselves voluntarily into that position.

A lot of what you are talking about works great for bands that are not at the megastar level. But things change greatly for those at the level U2 has reached. There is so much more expectation, and interest that it does affect the way they can do things. Plus the fact that U2 are not a jam band and cannot just get up and improvise great sounding stuff without some awfulness along with it. For them a live performance is about connecting with the audience, not about songwriting, so their focus is totally different. I don't think they would feel the fans were getting full value for their money if they were trying to work out songs on stage. These are people who beat themselves up for every subpar performance. Even though they do think the songs on Pop are good they still beat themselves up about thier failure to get the songs across to the audience. Popmart was for them, at least in the beginning, a miserably excruciating tour. They even commented on stage in South America that they had lost faith in thier ability to deliver what they felt was a quality performance but that the SA audience had helped to restore their faith in themselves. Had they not gotten better feedback in the rest of the world than they did in the US, Popmart could have been the last we saw of U2. They were very close to quitting. So while we know that the songs improve after live performance I don't think the band is temperamentally suited to waiting on recording them. They have to get the songs to a point where they believe in them, then they have to have the cut off of having them recorded before they can let that go and change gears into live performance mode.


Dana

 

[mobvok]

Actually, it just dawned on me that we have at lease part of this experiment performed just lacking the part of going back to record the improved songs after touring some. That is POP. They took songs that they considered not truly finished on the road and tried to improve them as they went. They were horribly savaged by the media and both record and concert ticket sales suffered at the beginning of the tour. They never really recovered in the US although the rest of the world recieved Pop and Popmart well. They also get at least some flack on every tour about their first few performances because no matter how much they rehearse they always tend to fumble a bit in the beginning. After the Pop experience, I can't imagine them ever putting themselves voluntarily into that position.

That's an interesting point, one I hadn't thought of. I think part of the savaging though was because Popmart was the big, main tour and it was pretty obvious that they weren't ready yet. I think a lot of future criticism could be deflected, again, if they say something like "yeah, we're going on a small arena tour in preparation for a later album release and world-wide tour.....hear some new songs we're testing out, hear some favorites, the fan club's getting first dibs."

Of course, I think the Popmart songs are great. Mofo, LNOE, Miami, Please, Discotheque.....great live versions.

I think we've both said about all we wanted to say on this topic. I understand your position better, but think you're wrong about the scale of potential bootlegging, and I assume vice versa.

 

[rihannsu]

That's an interesting point, one I hadn't thought of. I think part of the savaging though was because Popmart was the big, main tour and it was pretty obvious that they weren't ready yet. I think a lot of future criticism could be deflected, again, if they say something like "yeah, we're going on a small arena tour in preparation for a later album release and world-wide tour.....hear some new songs we're testing out, hear some favorites, the fan club's getting first dibs."

Of course, I think the Popmart songs are great. Mofo, LNOE, Miami, Please, Discotheque.....great live versions.

I think we've both said about all we wanted to say on this topic. I understand your position better, but think you're wrong about the scale of potential bootlegging, and I assume vice versa.

That's cool, I think we've had an interesting discussion overall.

Dana

 

[shart1780]

Opinions based on absolutely nothing...

It's based on boring HTDAAB music

I'd love a OS2. I love that album. It's beautiful.

 

[PookaMacP]

It's based on boring HTDAAB music

I'd love a OS2. I love that album. It's beautiful.

I agree absolutely. OS1 has some of the best stuff they have ever done. If you include it as a U2 album, it makes for their best three-album run: Achtung Baby-Zooropa-Original Soundtracks 1.

I'm not sure if I agree about Lanois 'reining in' everything. His ideas are as out there as Eno's at times - see particularly Apollo that he did with Eno. Remember, it was Lanois who was heavily involved in producing Achtung Baby and Eno who dropped in to say that things had gone too far in one direction, or that they should try an older mix, etc.

What I would say, though, is that the finished album will probably take one of two forms: firstly, an entire album of the Dublin-Eze-Fez stuff, re-recorded perhaps and beaten into shape in Dublin in November; OR the two album theory that appears to have at least some credence, with the songs that make up the Beach Clips and others - perhaps recorded later with Rubin - to make a second, more melodic album. I haven't seen anyone suggest it yet, but this, in a way, really reminds me of the Million Dollar Hotel release of more experimental sounding stuff a good six-seven months before All That You Can't Leave Behind. It gave us some pointers as to the way the band was thinking - see Ground Beneath Her Feet, Stateless, Falling At Your Feet, etc - but in a rougher, less polished form.

The only thing to say in mitigation is that Bono has said that Window in the Skies was an end of sorts and that that era is now over, which would suggest to me that the beach clips might either have to be completely re-worked or left for another day (they used the best - and most interesting - track in any case for U2:18 anyway, so perhaps it would be best to leave them in the archive!).

 

[U2girl]

Best three album run ? Not while we have War-UF-JT, and even without it I'd say AB-Zooropa-Pop trio is stronger.

Self-indulgence to the max

 

[An Cat Gav]

I agree absolutely. OS1 has some of the best stuff they have ever done. If you include it as a U2 album, it makes for their best three-album run: Achtung Baby-Zooropa-Original Soundtracks 1.

I'm not sure if I agree about Lanois 'reining in' everything. His ideas are as out there as Eno's at times - see particularly Apollo that he did with Eno. Remember, it was Lanois who was heavily involved in producing Achtung Baby and Eno who dropped in to say that things had gone too far in one direction, or that they should try an older mix, etc.

What I would say, though, is that the finished album will probably take one of two forms: firstly, an entire album of the Dublin-Eze-Fez stuff, re-recorded perhaps and beaten into shape in Dublin in November; OR the two album theory that appears to have at least some credence, with the songs that make up the Beach Clips and others - perhaps recorded later with Rubin - to make a second, more melodic album. I haven't seen anyone suggest it yet, but this, in a way, really reminds me of the Million Dollar Hotel release of more experimental sounding stuff a good six-seven months before All That You Can't Leave Behind. It gave us some pointers as to the way the band was thinking - see Ground Beneath Her Feet, Stateless, Falling At Your Feet, etc - but in a rougher, less polished form.

The only thing to say in mitigation is that Bono has said that Window in the Skies was an end of sorts and that that era is now over, which would suggest to me that the beach clips might either have to be completely re-worked or left for another day (they used the best - and most interesting - track in any case for U2:18 anyway, so perhaps it would be best to leave them in the archive!).

Window In the Skies was good but I don't want to hear anything like that from U2 again.
Agree with everything you say about OS1, It's now one of my favourite 4 U2 albums. OS2 someday would be perfect. If Larry doesn't want to do it so what.

 

[Edge_Orchestra]

Trusting the NME thinking it could be a Spring Summer release? Probably not.

While U2 have a history of March or Oct/Nov releases, McGuinness has said [since Pop] that it doesn't make sense to release a record before the 4th quarter of the year.

At this point there are songs written to some extent and a collection of songs taking the form of an album. Some basic tracks may have been recorded but from Lanois's comments, it is songwriting and not actual recording that has taken place.

Even if U2 start on October first, they will not make a March-May release date.

They have found a formula that works. Release an album in late October to early November. Then play some TV and warmup shows to get the buzz for the album. And they wouldn't start a tour the month or two around an album release again, after what happened with POP/PopMart.

U2 tours usually start in the US in late Feb to March. They then spend the summer in Europe. And then they come back to the States for Fall. It's been done for The Joshua Tree, ZOOTV, PopMart, Elevation and Vertigo tours. There is nothing to suggest they'd do differently.

The good money is to expect a single announcement by summer `08. Singles arrival in late August to September. The CD to come out in a regular and deluxe version in late October/November 2008, some promo shows and marketing in November and December, tour rehearsals in Jan/Feb 2009 and then a tour start by the end of Feb / March 2009.

 

[Harry Vest]

Something tells me Spring/Summer 2008...call it a gut feeling.

 

[The_acrobat]

(hopefully.....)

At this time next year, we'll know the album's title, release date, and possibly track listing. We'll probably already have the first single on repeat on our playlists, and the promotion machine will be kicking into gear. So think about something that happened a year ago... take that amount of time from behind you and put it before you, and that's where we'll be. A year doesn't really seem to take too long anymore.

OR... a year from now, we'll know if we have to wait until fall of 2009.......

 

[LPU2]

One day, I hope they do the somewhat common "tour it then record it" route.

That's always been my dream. That elusive album—the one they've been trying to make for 30 years, the one with all the epic songs they hear in their head but can't get on record—will be the result if they ever get the courage to do it.

 

[artdirector]

its never coming out.

 

[U2DMfan]

The M.O. on the last two albums was to finish the album by summer.

If memory serves me, both ATYCLB and HTDAAB were finished in about June of '00/'04 respectively.

Perhaps that is part of the Paul McG business plan.

Assuming a just-before-Christmas release and to meet the deadlines, get the promotion going, plan out the tour, they need to have an album finished by July 1.

I'll be looking for good news between then and now.
That's about 9 months. Not bad.

 

[Peterrrrr]

I think they release it in the beginning of Mars and then start the tour in the end of April.

 

[last unicorn]

I don't think it will be released before Fall 2008. That and a tour beginning in early 2009 sounds more logical to me than any other scenario.

 

[gweeps]

Whenever it comes, I hope Mercy is on it!

 

[Rich79]

I've still got to believe that if Mercy ends up on the album, it'll be so re-worked that fans of the song will be disappointed in it because of how much hype the song has right now (and some will be pleasantly surprised, as well, I'm sure).

I, for one, enjoy the song Mercy, but as we know it today, it seems better suited for HTDAAB. To go along with a more experimental record, it will have to be changed somewhat. So, I'm hoping it is not on the new record, for fear of what it may become. I enjoy it just the way it is. My main point in saying this is that I'm ready for brand new material and not just reworked out-takes that the band has to know every fan has heard by now.

I just think there is too much fuss over this one song. Everyone should accept that whatever ends up on the album, we'll probably all be satisfied, because it's U2 and nobody does it better. If Mercy doesn't make it for some reason, then just like it for what it is: an awesome outtake that should've made it to the Atomic Bomb album.

 

[Rich79]

Let me correct myself a little: I wouldn't mind hearing Mercy on the new record, because of what cool stuff they might do to it. I didn't mean to make it sound like they would ruin it; they're probably incapable of ruining anything. I just want fresher ideas, is all I meant by saying I didn't want it on the new album.

 

[Canadiens1131]

actually this is 100% false. they do a lot of writing on tour.

Soundcheck noodling from the Edge hardly constitutes writing on the road.

 

[Rob33]

rich, I think it will be on the album, but re worked to fit in with the other songs...

in other words, a re-worked version that doesn't drastically change the sound of the song, but just minor tune ups to the song to fit it better with the album...i do think this can be done, and i hope it is!

 

[Niceman]

Mercy is an important U2 song. It will be.

U2 need to put it on the next album......

 

[ZOOTVTOURist]

It is nice, what you think to know, now – but it is all pure speculation.
To enrich this: We all might be completely wrong, when the band does have stuff for two different albums (a kind of "Passengers" & a "real" U2 one ...).

What about all the current rumours, news & cover shootings regarding 'only' the "Passengers" work? An album, U2 might never want do tour at all (as they did in '95)? So, they could easily release it, whenever they want – maybe even as early as in spring 2008.
Of course this would mean, that the 'real' album is still buried somehow in the studios and is not ready for the shops before at least one more year has passed ...