The forthcoming album and Zooropa

[Claudio Dirani]

Hi all,

I've been listening to Zooropa and the Beatles remasters recently. Especially the White Album. So what's the link between both works, you ask?

Well, at least to me that would be the direction I wanted to see U2 taking.
We already know that we won't be getting a double album in the recent future. Plus, there're still Rick Rubin's songs in the can and the Spider-Man soundtrack itching to see the light of the day.
Well, we've been spoiled for good. But...

I understand that my idea is kind of vague. For the time being. Just random thoughts. Anyway I think, at least, they are carry along good intentions. I'm sure U2 reached a point where they can do whatever they like. They are the current Fab Four.

So how about an album with experimental and varied songs just like the Beatles did with their 1968' White Album?

I mean, just like Bono admitted this month, "he's missing a few pop tunes in the charts". Well. They can do that at the same time.

Just release a double A single, that wouldn't be featured in the album.
It'd be quite amazing, though a bit impossible to be done recently. We're no longer in the 60's 70's or 80's anymore. But they are U2. And I think they could. At least, give a shot.

Again, I'd say I'd love hear a 28-track like album with varied material - including Zooropa-style tracks (Achtung Baby! as well), and a non-album single with a strong radio-friendly song, such as Stay.

Well, one can dream. Thoughts?

 

[Claudio Dirani]

PS: it's not my first post. I just forgot my old password!

 

[Niceman]

I'd love it! But they seem to be wary of double albums....

 

[Niceman]

Also... it occurs to me that there shouldn't be this false distinction between a hit and an experimental song that belongs on the album. Was the Fly not experimental? Was With or Without You not?

 

[joydivision8]

Zooropa always makes me think of cheeseburgers and sea turtles...it just has that vibe about it, which separates it from any other U2 album I think. If they could conjure up that kind of magic again, I would be all for it.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

they may be too old to try it. or may be so old they may try it,lol. I just hope SOA come out in 2010. before the next tour. and follow through on what they said.

 

[digitize]

Also... it occurs to me that there shouldn't be this false distinction between a hit and an experimental song that belongs on the album. Was the Fly not experimental? Was With or Without You not?

Thank you very much for this post.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Good thread this.

Interesting thoughts from the OP.

 

[subnet]

on the point of double A-side, this still happens but in other genres, often dance genres. A DJ may issue a 12" single that has a known release name and promotion for side A, while side B remains unmarked, no promotion and played to many fascinated fans. AKA dubplate, or white label.

It's too bad that Kingdom of Your Love has a title, because they could have kept it secret, adding to our fascination.

 

[powerhour24]

No thanks, Zooropa is semi-mismatched in its sounds, but its a wholly conceived concept of an album, the White Album is a brilliant LP buried in a notsohot double album. The idea of SOA sounds so tantalizing because of that unity of purpose, something the second guessing has caused to fall through their fingers a number of times this decade, that's why the pop-song comment from Bono scares me, not simply for writing pop music, but because it would mar that potential clarity.

If their idea was to write something entirely poppy and melodic (along the lines of what was brewing in 2006), I'd still be behind it because it's what they want to do, and has a focus, not what they want to do glued together with what they think they need to do.

 

[65980]

I absolutely agree with Claudio, and so should everyone on this forum, judging by how much most of you worship the most obscure, tossed-off-in-an-hour tracks.

I'm kind of disgusted by the marketing plans of today's major label bands, and the problem has been hugely exacerbated by the declining sales of CDs. Record labels are now expert at dragging out a band's shelf-life to ridiculous extents, such that our freshest memory of most contemporary groups is their hit singles from 6 or 7 years ago (possible because they've done nothing since then). A group/artist strikes it big, then the medic-hype machine goes into overdrive and the record company sets out a four-year plan to milk the one or two hit singles for much more than they're worth -- the live TV appearance on MTV, then the guest appearance on a TV show, then the live DVD, then the live album, then the charity single, then... blah, blah, blah. In the time it takes them to put every fan to sleep, the band in question could have released 30 or 40 new songs.

Unfortunately, despite their safely-established fame and fortune, U2 with -- lest we forget his influence -- Paul McGuinness at the helm, are a fairly conservative group that jump on industry trends rather than prioritizing productivity. Hence we have received 4 albums in 16 years, approximately the time it takes Prince to records 4000 masters.

Yes, I'm getting a little bitchy with this post -- I realize there's a balance between over-indulgence/over-exposure and quality-control -- but I definitely think that groups like U2 are guilty of falling on the safe, corporate side of this fence.

At this point, why not just put out what they have? Bring on the triple album!!

 

[coolian2]

I absolutely agree with Claudio, and so should everyone on this forum, judging by how much most of you worship the most obscure, tossed-off-in-an-hour tracks.

while i partly agree with the rest of your post, i was just wondering if you could possibly talk down to us just a teeny bit more?

 

[U2girl]

No.

U2 has enough trouble picking 11 songs. Plus it's better to have a very good/great album compared to inevitably weaker double album.

 

[mikal]

while i partly agree with the rest of your post, i was just wondering if you could possibly talk down to us just a teeny bit more?

we've been edumacated, yo.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

i don't really like the name Songs of Ascent, so i may not like the album content based on that title.

 

[65980]

while i partly agree with the rest of your post, i was just wondering if you could possibly talk down to us just a teeny bit more?

You might want to check that lump of coal in your ass -- I believe it's now a diamond.

 

[65980]

No.

U2 has enough trouble picking 11 songs. Plus it's better to have a very good/great album compared to inevitably weaker double album.

To each her own. For me, it's like this -- if the band has nothing left to prove and has already been around for a long time and is rolling in money (i.e., U2), then I'd rather have a 30-song album with 15 disposable songs than an 11-song album with half of it being essential.

But that's just me.

 

[cdirani]

I absolutely agree with Claudio, and so should everyone on this forum, judging by how much most of you worship the most obscure, tossed-off-in-an-hour tracks.



Yes, I'm getting a little bitchy with this post -- I realize there's a balance between over-indulgence/over-exposure and quality-control -- but I definitely think that groups like U2 are guilty of falling on the safe, corporate side of this fence.

At this point, why not just put out what they have? Bring on the triple album!!

Hi!

(it seems I retrieved my old password, hoorray)

So my point was kind of that. They have the capacity of providing over 30 tracks and imho, with quality. I wonder why did we have to wait for almost 5 years to get NLOTH and we'll get NLOTH's follow-up in less than 1 year?
Now it's their chance of collecting their best and maybe far-out stuff and blend it with more commercial-like U2... I mean "commercial" but not to take this as cheap material. In my opnion again I see that the band do not have an appeal to double albums. OK, but hey Boy is due 30 next year, I think they can play unsafe after all these years. They have a successful tour that will go past 2009. The spirit of Achtung Baby-Zooropa is here again. They can work moved by the music and only the music, just like in the past and see what it might come out of this. Still, to this day, I don't find Zooropa songs quite easy. So it seems they played the right move.

Now they can stick with this experience and go further than that.

Keep up experimenting, be indulgent and don't give a sod to the critics...

All this accompanied by a great single that only U2 are capable to produce.

Claudio Dirani

 

[Sicy]

You might want to check that lump of coal in your ass -- I believe it's now a diamond.

coolian should have probably ignored your 'bitchy' post, but this is uncalled for.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

i wish i could shit diamonds (not to be confused with our own DB9), of course it would hurt but i would be rich by now.

 

[The_acrobat]

To each her own. For me, it's like this -- if the band has nothing left to prove and has already been around for a long time and is rolling in money (i.e., U2), then I'd rather have a 30-song album with 15 disposable songs than an 11-song album with half of it being essential.

But that's just me.

Agreed. I feel this way about Stadium Arcadium (chili peppers). 28 song double album with 6 b-sides to go along with it. Some of it is great. Some of it is alright. Some of it is downright awful. But the sheer variety or material to discover and pick from made this a great album for me. I would love to have 20-30 new U2 songs to immerse myself in. It would at least be 2/3 good songs. I can still enjoy most of U2's lesser/bad songs, except big girls are best.

 

[Clawgrabber]

Agreed. I feel this way about Stadium Arcadium (chili peppers). 28 song double album with 6 b-sides to go along with it. Some of it is great. Some of it is alright. Some of it is downright awful. But the sheer variety or material to discover and pick from made this a great album for me. I would love to have 20-30 new U2 songs to immerse myself in. It would at least be 2/3 good songs. I can still enjoy most of U2's lesser/bad songs, except big girls are best.

Agreed on all counts. Let's be honest, in the era of itunes, most of us probably skip a couple tracks per album anyway. i am a big proponent of album flow and i rarely listen to SUC or WAS, so i don't really see the problem with releasing a 30 song album. i mean here we are with NLOTH, a great album, wtih no b sides, and the continuing promise of rubin songs we've been hearing about for 3 years, plus SOA and spidey stuff.

i sort of prefer the idea of backing up the dumptruck like the chili peppers did. just unleash all 39 tracks and then be forced to go back into the studio fresh in another 3 years.

all u2 albums are going to have amazing tracks and a couple that are of less importance. all this constant talk of "oh yeah we have a wealth of material we haven't released" sort of reminds me of billy corgan's constant empty promises (no offense, i love the pumpkins... but after mellon collie, with ever subsequent release he's said something to the effect of 'i have another double album's worth of material ready' and has never followed through)

ever have that one guy you knew in college who was always saying "oh yeah i'm working on a novel" but never finished it? that's what all this talk of the next 3 u2 projects reminds me of. God knows when we'll hear any of it. i would have much preferred NLOTH to have been a double album etc.

its a new era for music. i say just release the music and stop over tinkering it. look how stand up comedy turned out. moment of surrender was one take and stand up was 6 months of retooling? what does that tell you?

 

[cobl04]

coolian should have probably ignored your 'bitchy' post, but this is uncalled for.

i don't know, i thought it was pretty funny

no offence of course ian, i liked your post as well, but it was a funny comeback.

 

[intedomine]

That fellow (65980 - just a number, not a member) shouldn't have been an arse to begin with, geez, who does he think he is?!

 

[Rev. Reverse]

except big girls are best.

i actually love BGAB.

 

[cdirani]

i don't really like the name Songs of Ascent, so i may not like the album content based on that title.

Also think a bit predictable. But I was reading an article somwhere that this was a working title. I hope they changed it.

 

[BVS]

How is it predictable?

 

[An Cat Gav]

I think Songs of Ascent is a pretty cool title, very un-rock n roll, a bit like the joshua tree was all those years ago. On the whole, when it comes to picking album names, U2 normally get it spot on.

 

[one4u2]

Zooropa

 

[donkeytimes]

hello folks -

Donkeytimes is back! I love these topics.

Four records over 16 years is pretty dreadful. And to think - they don't even pump out many B-sides much anymore. The b-sides they do produce seem to be weaker on the whole as well compared to the 80's output.

I think the evolution of the band is an interesting study. Sure, I think they are protecting the corporate U2 quite a bit since 1997 and the PopMart mess. I think they made a decision to go safer, and get back on top. They did accomplish this. Vertigo was a follow up that did more of the same, a massive success.

They wanted to get a bit of the POP and Arty vibe for No Line. As a superfan, I think they did try this and pull it off. It just so happens the Pop-ish middle three songs kill the record (as we can debate and have discussed in many threads.)

I know U2 can hammer out something more interesting, I would be curious to see the band really get to work. Seeing the Fez sessions are real eye opening, they def. can do some interesting stuff when given the right set up, see most of the No Line records, its very not radio driven stuff...fine by me.

Their limitations are their strength, that is what make U2 unique and not sound like a room full of session players. I wish they would show us more of this material, the polished off SuC's of the world aren't what the world is waiting to hear from a band like U2.

As I have said in other threads, even an "artistic" U2 is a catchy U2 still. I figure some hits and the money will still roll in. And if songs aren't a hit, great albums can still be considered hits and muscial landmarks. Which is what matters most.