Should T-Bone Burnett Produce a U2 Album?

[redhill]

Not necessarily the next...but I would LOVE to hear how that would sound...

 

[cobl04]

I hope T-Pain does.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

No.

 

[Registered Dude]

I think he's a real distinct sound, not unlike Lanois.. but he usually works with artists known for their musicianship.. brings out chemistry between the players. not the first thing I associate with U2.

but heck, I'd still love to hear what kind of material that partnership would generate.

 

[purpleoscar]

Yes if it was a country/folk/rock album.

 

[Salome]

it should be Eno + Lanois
but yes

 

[The Panther]

it should be Eno + Lanois

Please no more Eno/Lanois...! They had their day. It is over.

 

[Rachel D.]

The only thing I know about T-Bone Burnett is that he did the O Brother Where Art Thou? soundtrack. So, no.

 

[cobl04]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXTlAJrgGEY

?

 

[corianderstem]

The only thing I know about T-Bone Burnett is that he did the O Brother Where Art Thou? soundtrack. So, no.

I'd like to see what U2 could do with him and a rootsy (for lack of a better term) sound.

 

[Rachel D.]

I'd like to see what U2 could do with him and a rootsy (for lack of a better term) sound.

But they already did rootsy with Rattle and Hum, unless they wanted to try it again and do better.

Honestly, though, if I heard that U2 were going to make that kind of music again, I would respond with a yawn.

 

[corianderstem]

Yeah, that didn't come out right. I don't necessarily want U2 to come out with rootsy/bluesy music again. I was thinking T-Bone Burnett is known for that style/sound, and wanted to see what he could bring to the table with that sort of mindset.

 

[Rachel D.]

Yeah, that didn't come out right. I don't necessarily want U2 to come out with rootsy/bluesy music again. I was thinking T-Bone Burnett is known for that style/sound, and wanted to see what he could bring to the table with that sort of mindset.

Oh OK, I see. Yeah, that could be interesting.

 

[deep]

L A Reid

they need to expand their audience

 

[cobl04]

L A Reid

 

[purpleoscar]

The only thing I know about T-Bone Burnett is that he did the O Brother Where Art Thou? soundtrack. So, no.

 

[gvox]

L A Reid

I don't agree with your reasoning, as a partnership with LA Reid isn't going to necessarily do anything to expand their audience. They'll still be making a U2 album.

Having said that I'm not averse to the idea..Reid has been behind a heck of alot of my favorite music, so I'd be curious to hear it..

love this oldie from him..maybe he could help Bono write another WOWY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUvaBLHnRRk

 

[The John Tree]

Absolutely not.

I respect T-Bone Burnett as a musician and I respect what he's trying to do. I think the artists he works with are fantastic and he inspires them to write song good songs (Jakob Dylan and John Mellencamp come to mind).

It's just that sonically, he most certainly has a unique sound. Unfortunately it's not a sound I care for.

If U2 were to work with T-Bone for an album, prepare for heavy reverb on just about everything and Adam's (probably acoustic) bass to be shoved so high in the mix that The Edge will be barely audible. No thank you.

 

[U2girl]

But they already did rootsy with Rattle and Hum, unless they wanted to try it again and do better.

Honestly, though, if I heard that U2 were going to make that kind of music again, I would respond with a yawn.

Except with the experience they have now, a Rattle and Hum type of sound would actually work this time.

 

[LemonMelon]

It worked fine last time.

Just cut out the pointless live tracks and busking bluesmen and you're good to go.

 

[Niceman]

It worked fine last time.

.

Exactly. U2 dream of releasing an album as universally beloved, as that one was back in the day, ever again. People on this board who read the official band history have a tilted view of the album and the era, but Rattle and Hum was a massive creative and financial success.

It spawned some of what continue to be the band's most popular songs.

 

[An Cat Gav]

It worked fine last time.

Just cut out the pointless live tracks and busking bluesmen and you're good to go.

Qute right!

On a slightly different note, i'd like to see Flood back, maybe not as the main producer but certailnly as a co-producer.

 

[U2girl]

Exactly. U2 dream of releasing an album as universally beloved, as that one was back in the day, ever again. People on this board who read the official band history have a tilted view of the album and the era, but Rattle and Hum was a massive creative and financial success.

It spawned some of what continue to be the band's most popular songs.

People bought records back then. Of course they won't sell as much now.

Financial success ? Definitely. Creative ? Doubtful. By the critics' - and the band's opinion - the whole "4 whiteys do the blues" route proved a dead end. (the big time movie didn't help matters of course, but the point remains)

If anything, Rattle and Hum, had it not been for the bounce back of AB, would likely spell the end of U2, given their exhaustion by the end of Lovetown.

 

[Niceman]

People bought records back then. Of course they won't sell as much now.

Financial success ? Definitely. Creative ? Doubtful. By the critics' - and the band's opinion - the whole "4 whiteys do the blues" route proved a dead end. (the big time movie didn't help matters of course, but the point remains)

If anything, Rattle and Hum, had it not been for the bounce back of AB, would likely spell the end of U2, given their exhaustion by the end of Lovetown.

Nonsense. The singles from R&H were being constantly played on the radio, MTV, and were world famous. A few critics criticized the album and movie, which really stung the band, but back in the day, every U2 fan I knew loved the album - casual fans and fanatics. Random people on the street had good things to say about it. To this day, All I Want is You, Desire, and When Love Comes to Town are 3 of the bands more famous and popular songs.

And Lovetown was a short tour.

I never heard anyone say a bad word about the album, aside from Siskel and Ebert, until years later.

Zooropa was the album the casual fan, and many of the fanatics, had a problem with back in the day.

 

[nathan1977]

Nonsense. ... I never heard anyone say a bad word about the album, aside from Siskel and Ebert, until years later.

Have you read "U2 at the End of the World" (or watched "From the Sky Down")? It's a good summary of U2 at the time -- and Flanagan's perspective on the band confirms the notion of a band in crisis, as well as a band on the rebound after a critical and commercial backlash. Creatively, the band had dried up, having gone down a musical road they weren't interested in pursuing any further. And there were indeed bad reviews of the album -- most notably the New York Times and the Village Voice. According to interviews in Carter Alan's "U2 in America" (another helpful source on U2's cultural standing post-"Rattle and Hum"), there was a huge backlash against the band publicly, and Island wasn't sure what to do about the future.

Now What? (Rolling Stone article, 1989)

Hating U2 (Spin article, 1989)

This article from the LA Times in 1991 is telling too:

'New U2' Album Is So New It's Illegal

...Bob Say, general manager of the trend-setting Moby Disc record store chain, says ..."We barely sell any of their records anymore. It's the same with Bruce Springsteen -- it's almost embarrassing how few albums he sells."

If anything, I think there's been a bit of retroactive whitewashing in terms of what that period of time was like for the band.

 

[Niceman]

Have you read "U2 at the End of the World" (or watched "From the Sky Down")? It's a good summary of U2 at the time -- and Flanagan's perspective on the band confirms the notion of a band in crisis, as well as a band on the rebound after a critical and commercial backlash. Creatively, the band had dried up, having gone down a musical road they weren't interested in pursuing any further. And there were indeed bad reviews of the album -- most notably the New York Times and the Village Voice. According to interviews in Carter Alan's "U2 in America" (another helpful source on U2's cultural standing post-"Rattle and Hum"), there was a huge backlash against the band publicly, and Island wasn't sure what to do about the future.

Now What? (Rolling Stone article, 1989)

Hating U2 (Spin article, 1989)

This article from the LA Times in 1991 is telling too:

'New U2' Album Is So New It's Illegal



If anything, I think there's been a bit of retroactive whitewashing in terms of what that period of time was like for the band.

Yeah, I have. Look, there may have been a few critics back in the day, like I said those reviews really stung the band, but everything I said was true. The album was beloved far and wide. I remember.

 

[An Cat Gav]

Nonsense. The singles from R&H were being constantly played on the radio, MTV, and were world famous. A few critics criticized the album and movie, which really stung the band, but back in the day, every U2 fan I knew loved the album - casual fans and fanatics. Random people on the street had good things to say about it. To this day, All I Want is You, Desire, and When Love Comes to Town are 3 of the bands more famous and popular songs.

And Lovetown was a short tour.

I never heard anyone say a bad word about the album, aside from Siskel and Ebert, until years later.

Zooropa was the album the casual fan, and many of the fanatics, had a problem with back in the day.

Agreed.

Didn't Rattle and Hum sell about 17 million copies? all the singles were massive hits in Europe, popular amongst fans and non-fans of the band, even the film was seen by a lot of people and I wasn't aware of it being critically panned that much at the time.
All this talk of Rattle and Hum being such a big turkey is not how I remember it being viewed at the time, not by a long way. Pop was slagged off a lot more.

 

[Hollow Island]

That "Hating U2" interview is great.

 

[LemonMelon]

"I mean, I like the songs, but this is only a fraction of what we can do. It's like a little Polaroid of U2."


Damn, U2 was hungry back then. Even after a massive album like the Joshua Tree, the band was not content. They seem to almost belittle their past. I don't feel like U2 is anywhere near that cocksure anymore. Should they be? I have no idea. I don't know what they've got to lose.

 

[The Panther]

Didn't Rattle and Hum sell about 17 million copies? all the singles were massive hits in Europe, popular amongst fans and non-fans of the band, even the film was seen by a lot of people and I wasn't aware of it being critically panned that much at the time.
All this talk of Rattle and Hum being such a big turkey is not how I remember it being viewed at the time, not by a long way. Pop was slagged off a lot more.

That's absolutely right. I think younger fans (bless 'em) who weren't there at the time have a distorted perception -- partly based on U2's own self-mythologizing -- that R&H was this big disaster, when in fact it was one of the most successful albums of the 80s by a rock band, in commercial terms. Now, in artistic terms we could debate its relative merits (I personally think the studio cuts are the best work they've ever done), and the whole concept of the live + studio + film project was a bit of overkill, but none of this harmed the band's profile at the time. If anything, it got bigger. After R&H, they were the world's biggest band, with the biggest profile.

Pop was a completely different story, as it failed to generate much interest at all from the mainstream, and got a mixed reaction from the committed fanbase. It clearly did not galvanize the masses as the 1988/89 stuff did, and it greatly lessened U2's "profile".