Should u2 release/have released 2 albums?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I'm not talking content either
I'm trying to say a company album which relies for aprox. 55% on input from the producer of choice might be a nice once off but does not make a successful formula to me
 
I think you're still missing my point: Not talking about content, concept, formula or approach. Not talking about Eno, or any other producer, leading. Just the name. Nothing more. People attach certain expectations - one of which is the structure - to U2 albums. They would attach different - or no - expectations to a Passengers album. That gives them a lot of room.

So not weird backwards samples of Japanese car alarms rolling up a hill in space, or whatever, but you know, you get to the end of the No Line sessions, you've hit on a vein that happens to be pretty mellow and moody, bit too quiet and thinky, so you freak out and delay the release of the album so you can ram in a few of the anthemic hits that people want and expect, and you put this other material aside. What do you do with it? If No Line is a huge hit - and at this point you are thinking it is because everyone around you and interviewing you and reviewing you is licking your arsehole because you're Bono - you might have the opportunity for a quick follow up, and much like Zooropa to Achtung, in that shadow you can get away with something a little bit different in sound and structure, so it wouldn't matter if you released a U2 album that was all or mostly more songs in the vein of White as Snow, Cedars of Lebanon, Winter etc. But then if No Line actually isn't a big hit, and there's no shadow... what can you do? Nothing. Maybe a song or two will live on, get a reworking to fit the next major U2 project. But its a bit of a shame, because you really like this stuff, its really very good, and it does all fit together thematically, sonically etc as it is... If only there was a way of releasing this stuff without the BIGU2ALBUM expectations and pressure...
 
*ahem* once again... :up:

Damn Earnie, the way you put it makes me so puzzled over why u2 haven't done this already... it's SUCH a perfect idea!!!!

Also, about that annoying delay of NLOTH - wouldn't it have been a great compensation if u2.com had this announcement in december 2008:
"Sorry guys, we've hit a rich song writing vein which means our work is being delayed until march 2009... but it also means we're releasing two albums (althoughoneofthemisunderadifferentname)!"
 
I wish U2 would just get away from feeling they have to have a "huge U2 sounding album" if they do in fact feel that pressure and just release what they want to release in terms of what they feel is the best quality music. They've been there and done that when it comes to mega successful albums. Make music for themselves and just do what guys like Bruce Springstein do. Release really good albums without the worry or pressure of having a massive hit single to propel the album towards upwards of 10 million in sales. Who cares at this point anymore? I love NLOTH and I think it's a fucking shame that Songs of Ascent seems to have been tabled due to the "lack of success" NLOTH had commercially. That in my opinion is garbage and for a band like U2 at this point in their career to be choosing what does and doesn't get released based on the previous album's sales or lack there of really sucks.

I'm probably in the minority here but I really dislike the fact Passengers isn't called a U2 album.
 
We do just assume that’s the case. That the concept of a quick follow up companion piece album, of mostly/wholly mellow, meditative songs about a pilgrims journey, was killed because it would have required a larger shadow from No Line, and that not having that meant that perhaps the idea of a poor performing U2 album followed by a poor performing U2 album (even if the second one was always intended or expected to be a ‘lesser’ album) would have been too much of a difficult story for them.

But that might not be the case. It probably is at least a part of the story, likely is a major part of it, but this is U2 – when they went back to the material they might have just thought it’s actually a bit shit, or they could have misjudged what people did/did not like about No Line and the equivalent remaining material suffered (likely - Bono does seem to point the finger at the more interesting, ‘thinky’ stuff from No Line, and not the unimaginative singles they released.)

Or of course, when they went back to it, it naturally started to evolve into something else, and spark something larger and quite different, leading eventually into roping Danger Mouse in to harness it and reign it in.

It’s probably a mix of all of the above.

And I wouldn’t find it at all surprising to have this album released and to then read that a decent chunk of it originated during the No Line sessions, the left over stuff. Whether its whole known tracks appearing, or just ideas that then shot off in very different directions. I very much doubt they wholly, definitively hit stop this/start that at any point. It wouldn’t even greatly surprise me to see the ‘Songs of Ascent’ name remain, and alongside that, its thematic concept remain as at least Bono's starting point, just developed into a more ‘normal’ U2 album format – ie not a meditative, mellow album, but hey, a song of ascent could/should be, you know… unos! zwei! trois! hatchi! EL-E-VA-TION! TURN IT UP LOUD CAPTAIN SUPER MOUSE! (ugh) if you know what I mean.
 
I wish U2 would just get away from feeling they have to have a "huge U2 sounding album" if they do in fact feel that pressure and just release what they want to release in terms of what they feel is the best quality music. They've been there and done that when it comes to mega successful albums. Make music for themselves and just do what guys like Bruce Springstein do. Release really good albums without the worry or pressure of having a massive hit single to propel the album towards upwards of 10 million in sales.

The Spiderman soundtrack is a half of U2 making exactly what they want to do without reworking songs to death and without a lot of pressure either... Do you think they should release it as a U2 album :hmm:?

I think that most people always tend to think that what they would like the band to do is also what U2 really wants to do secretly but they refuse to follow this path for bad reasons (commercial reasons of course) while obviously what U2 has always wanted to do.are albums that are commercial successes AND artistic achievements. Releasing two albums, one "commercial" and one "artistic and challenging" is the opposite of what U2 is really about. Contradiction is balance and this balance is what makes this band so great.
 

But I don't understand... there are dozens and dozens of posts each week about how they should stop reworking their songs again and again, about how they should just do whatever they want, bla bla bla ;)... Then you have it Passengers on one side and the Spiderman soundtrack on the other are exactly the kind of songs U2 would release if they stopped "trying to hard". I think there are good songs in the two side projects I have mentioned especially in Spiderman but these are certainly not albums of the same quality as a regular U2 one... Perhaps if they... rework it who knows :D? If SOA has been discarded it's probably because it just wasn't good enough. I'm glad they still have such high expectations and standards for the band and really hope that they will keep that as long as possible.

But having some nice side projects from time to time is certainly also great as long as it doesn't become a lazy habit and their definitive way of working under the U2 name.
 
A U2 released Broadway soundtrack? Beneath them. Plus, having a listen to those files, it's just not very good. Boy Falls From the Sky is the best one and I still think that is pretty bland (and ripping straight from Dirty Day anyway.)

I agree that they overcook a lot of stuff these days, and should probably trust their instincts earlier on in the process, but I don't think thats a good argument for the whole band recording and releasing some of this stuff. Plus it's not them totally free and loose and just doing whatever they want anyway - there are several restrictions and requirements attached to something like this that they would have had to tailor to.
 
I agree that they overcook a lot of stuff these days, and should probably trust their instincts earlier on in the process, but I don't think thats a good argument for the whole band recording and releasing some of this stuff.
I don't think either but what I want to say is that what you call "overcooking" is necessary and part of their creative process and a main reason why they are able to write such great songs and albums. If they ever stop "overcooking" then what we'll have will just be albums of the same quality as Spiderman and Passengers. Is that really what people want over the "overcooked" ATYCLB, HTDAAB or NLOTH? A new direction is certainly needed now I think but I also certainly hope that this doesn't mean less attention to details, 2nd guessing and reworking.
 
Well, overcooking by definition would be going too far. So no, I don't think that is necessary at all. Their style of work and attention to detail is important, yes. Early versions of their songs are often weak and/or bad and/or ridiculous and when you hear them, you are more often than not glad they kept on pushing (Always vs Beautiful Day as just one 00s example.) It's just about recognising the moment. And on most of the Atomic Bomb tracks, and some of the No Line tracks, I think they overshot it.

They can still get it very right, of course. Moment of Surrender is a good example. Didn't take much work (apparently), and they trusted the instinct - left it as a seven minute rambler. They could have tried to hammer it down to a four minute anthemic single and killed it. All Because of You is a good example of it gone wrong. We've got the undercooked alternate version - clearly needs work. And then we've got the overcooked album version - fucking mess. They missed the mark somewhere in the middle there.
 
powerhour24 said:
I don't know if I agree with that, it's that after Zooropa they stopped trusting their creative instincts to the same degree.

I'd say after the 'failure' of POP.
That's when they started second guessing themselves.
And the crazy thing is, POP wasn't a failure and NOT a bad album. At all.
But they've chosen to believe the bad press on that one which sucks.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
Well, overcooking by definition would be going too far. So no, I don't think that is necessary at all. Their style of work and attention to detail is important, yes. Early versions of their songs are often weak and/or bad and/or ridiculous and when you hear them, you are more often than not glad they kept on pushing (Always vs Beautiful Day as just one 00s example.) It's just about recognising the moment. And on most of the Atomic Bomb tracks, and some of the No Line tracks, I think they overshot it.

They can still get it very right, of course. Moment of Surrender is a good example. Didn't take much work (apparently), and they trusted the instinct - left it as a seven minute rambler. They could have tried to hammer it down to a four minute anthemic single and killed it. All Because of You is a good example of it gone wrong. We've got the undercooked alternate version - clearly needs work. And then we've got the overcooked album version - fucking mess. They missed the mark somewhere in the middle there.

I think the middle ground on ABOY is the single version of the song. Not as ear screeching hard as the album version and you can hear the spine of the song better. THAT should've gone on the album instead.
 
I'm not talking content either
I'm trying to say a company album which relies for aprox. 55% on input from the producer of choice might be a nice once off but does not make a successful formula to me

:yes:

Passengers didn't get to be a U2 album because Eno had a far bigger input than usual, and because a loose collective called Passengers rather than the four members of U2 recorded the music.

It wasn't about it not being THENEXTBIGU2ALBUM. And after music as diverse as War, UF, JT, AB, Zooropa, ATYCLB...no one really knows what to expect from U2.
 
I'd like to add that IMO the only way we get U2 to do a quick, no expectations album is if they let go of their usual democratic approach and have a 3rd party have the decisive vote
hence my references to Passengers/Eno as this fits that description
 
A U2 released Broadway soundtrack? Beneath them. Plus, having a listen to those files, it's just not very good. Boy Falls From the Sky is the best one and I still think that is pretty bland (and ripping straight from Dirty Day anyway.)

I agree that they overcook a lot of stuff these days, and should probably trust their instincts earlier on in the process, but I don't think thats a good argument for the whole band recording and releasing some of this stuff. Plus it's not them totally free and loose and just doing whatever they want anyway - there are several restrictions and requirements attached to something like this that they would have had to tailor to.

This is all ego driven from the fan's perspective. "Beneath them"? Please. If it was beneath them why'd they write the music in the first place? They should be proud of that but too ahsamed to record and realse it? I don't think so.
 
I listened to the spiderman bootleg soundtrack a couple of weeks back, and a couple of tunes really impressed me - i thought 'turn off the dark' was especially amazing. I thought the orchestral stuff they did was really impressive, i thought the 'boy falls from the sky' came off more as u2 'lite' :p I'm glad the score had more to it than that song :up:
 
selfishly-I would love two albums. But I think that Bono had it right when he said that double ablums drag on and on. JT had the material to supply this and they should have gone for it.

Zooropa rocks songs would have been very interesting to hear (I hope they release them in that form someday) I need to hear that different version of Wake up Dead Man right!

Hearing the more african based hymns from NLOTH would be great.

:up:
 
U2 should definitely release a double album, and should already have two or three behind them. Pop would have been an epic double album with the b-sides and a remix or two. There is a precedent for that with Primal Scream having two versions of the same song on both XTRMNTR and Screamadelica, and it works well. Pop is a mess, but with 12 songs it's too obvious. A 18 or 20 song double album would be a much better mess, and it would have worked with the themes in the record and presentation.

NLOTH should have been a double, too, with the SOA songs in there, as well as more pop stuff to keep the casual fans that they gained with Vertigo interested (oh, wait, 13 year old girls change a lot in 4 years...). If they allowed more space for the music they could have satisfied their artistic and commercial urges instead of creating a limp fish.

The new one should be a double for the same reason. They have so many songs and they're pretty bad at picking the best ones to put on the record (they got Bomb all wrong, though it still wouldn't have been very good), and they tend to err on the side of commercialism.

There are plenty of great double albums, and while U2 might be beyond that now, they should still do one. It would be better that whatever compromised piece of crap they release under the delusion that they can be relevant to teenagers.
 
Back
Top Bottom