They're working on new songs!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
DreamOutLoud13 said:


So say they started again in March 2007, if they do better with Rick Rubin than they did with Chris Thomas, there is definitely the chance of a release this fall. Plus there's no telling how much they got done last summer. I

Edge said in December last year they had 5 or 6 songs they were excited about, but nothing about to be recorded yet. Didn't they have 3 or 4 songs taped in the 3-week September sessions in Abbey Road? This also doesn't account for the months off-tour time between March and November.

But yes, it depends how much songs they made so far and how fast things will go with Rubin. I think it's possible they will push for a 2007 release.
 
Last edited:
powerhour24 said:
People exaggerate how long it's going to take them based on Bomb's sessions, they seem to like Rubin (as weird as that may be) so hopefully the sessions go well. It's obvious they're aiming for fall 2007, they won't release anything that's not in the fall and they're not going to want to be off the map for that long. Granted it's not good to get hopes up, but this 2008/9 paranoia is getting ridiculous.

There is no "paranoia" and no cause to call the 2008/09 scenario ridiculous. It's just a realistic schedule for a band (in)famous for spending long time recording new albums. And: These thoughts are not only based on HTDAAB, but also the rather long periods inbetween POP and ATYCLB and HTDAAB.

So, if it's obvious for you, that U2 are aiming for fall 2007 - fine for you. But please allow other people not to be so sure, that the band will publish a new complete album & announce the next tour soon after - less than 1 year after the band played the final show of their last, huge world tour.
 
U2girl said:


He calls the material the group's been working on with producer Rick Rubin "fascinating stuff."

Could this not refer to the sessions that they completed with Rubin last year? It's not entirely clear IMO.
 
U2girl said:
March 29, 2007: Edge spoke about the current recording sessions with Rolling Stone magazine:

"We're working on new songs and getting lost in the music," he says. "I don't think we're going to try and think too much about what we're going to do with it yet, we're just going to do a lot of writing and just see what gives. We're giving ourselves the luxury of just working on the songs. There's some amazing things coming through." He calls the material the group's been working on with producer Rick Rubin "fascinating stuff." When asked whether the band will team up again with longtime collaborators Daniel Lanois and Brian Eno, he merely laughs: "You might be surprised how quickly that happens."

I believe Edge is refering to the Abbey Road Studio work there. Not ongoing material. That certainly is no confirmation that he is producing the next U2 album for sure.
 
Blue Room said:


I believe Edge is refering to the Abbey Road Studio work there. Not ongoing material. That certainly is no confirmation that he is producing the next U2 album for sure.

I don't know, he may be refering to ongoing material - but surely it is no confirmation at all, that Rick Rubin really has anything to do with the new stuff ...
 
The last three albums were harder to make and it took longer consequently. They were switching producers for Pop - not to mention taking a whole year off after Zoo TV tour - and Bomb, and I believe ATYCLB sessions were also quite tedious.

People like to blame Bono MIA in the studio on the long waits, but look at Pop. He had no activism then and they barely put out the album before the tour.
 
roy said:


Could this not refer to the sessions that they completed with Rubin last year? It's not entirely clear IMO.

This was an article on the recent charity auction where U2 members donated for Music Rising. Rolling Stone spoke exclusively to Edge in March, as the date of the article says. Why would an article from this March refer to studio sessions from last September?

I think this is as good as it gets for an "official" confirmation they're working with Rubin.
 
U2girl said:
The last three albums were harder to make and it took longer consequently. They were switching producers for Pop - not to mention taking a whole year off after Zoo TV tour - and Bomb, and I believe ATYCLB sessions were also quite tedious.

People like to blame Bono MIA in the studio on the long waits, but look at Pop. He had no activism then and they barely put out the album before the tour.

No, there's nobody to blame. It takes, as long as takes - until everyone of the four is satisfied with the results. That was far from perfect before POP - though I do love the album - and the same with ATYCLB & HTDAAB, that are kind of a union for me regarding topics and sounds. U2 may return to a more spontaneous approach of recording and the speed of their 80ies culture in the studio - I'd go for the 2008 release, followed by a tour in 2009, if we're lucky...
 
Last edited:
Then there's everyone to blame. They're such perfectionists since 1990 (not counting the mid-tour Zooropa) it's made album making painfully long.
 
U2girl said:
Then there's everyone to blame. They're such perfectionists since 1990 (not counting the mid-tour Zooropa) it's made album making painfully long.

Hm, but the output wasn't so little - if you like the albums or not:

1991: ACHTUNG BABY
1993: ZOOROPA
1995: PASSENGERS OST
1997: POP
1999: THE MILLION DOLLAR HOTEL OST
2000: ATYCLB

Plus individual songs contributed to/rearranged for/recorded for BEST OFs, Soundtracks or solo projects ...
 
Yes but consider the notoriously tense AB sessions still delivered an album within a year. They started in the Fall of 1990 and the album came out a year later.

Zooropa was fast, but it's not a typical U2 studio album but a quick mid-tour supposed-to-be EP.

Passengers was also done much quicker than usual U2 albums.

Pop might have come out earlier if they didn't take 1994 off. They started in the Fall of 1995 but the album was done in March 1997. (and who knows when it would have come out if it wasn't for the booked tour)

MDH features just 2 U2 songs, from ATYCLB sessions Soundtracks and compilations also feature less U2 material than regular albums.

They started making ATYCLB in the Fall of 1998 but the album didn't came out until the Fall of 2000.

Bomb sessions started probably in Spring 2003 when they said they were working with Thomas. The album was finished by Fall 2003 - quicker than its two predecessors - but it got delayed and another producer came on board. It was recorded by July 2004 but not released until November.

Looking at all this, I don't think any of the 80's albums took a year to make. You see what I mean by "perfectionists"?
 
Last edited:
U2girl said:
You see what I mean by "perfectionists"?
Yes, from that point of view, you're right, of course. And that's why I do hope U2 will return to the more spontaneous and fast approach, they had in the 80ies. In German there's a saying: "Too many cooks destroy the meal" - and so I wish the band could keep with one producer (team) from the beginning to the end. Why not Rubin by the way?
 
Utoo
If they're not even recording their practice & brainstorming sessions, that seems like such a waste to me.

Oh, I'm sure they're taping those demos and sessions, but just not in an official capacity.

For one thing: studio time is very expensive.

And second, Rubin has stated he wants them to come in with solid songs and material so they can work from there and develop those ideas further, yet still sound like a band. It's just the way he likes to work.

I say mid-08 for album....unless they pull a POP or HTDAAB and bring in other producers after working with one for nearly a year.

:sad:
 
U2girl said:
You see what I mean by "perfectionists"?

But HTDAAB isn't perfect. Neither is ATYCLB. Actually, neither is Pop because Please (single) was better than the album version, at least IMO.
 
elevated_u2_fan said:
Isn't the general rule of thumb 4 years between albums?

This makes Q4 2008 my prediction if I had to bet...

FALSE.
bs.gif


From a previous thread:

LemonMelon said:


It only took them 4 years to finish an album ONCE. ONCE, DAMMIT. :banghead: And that was only because they changed producers halfway through the sessions and tossed what they had. :| I don't know how this incorrect information is lodged in so many member's heads now.

Zooropa--->PASSENGERS--->Pop 2 years between each
Pop--->ATYCLB 3 1/2 years
ATYCLB--->HTDAAB 4 years

The average length between U2 albums is 2.083 years. Look it up.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
when the news comes in that rubin's joined them in the studio, then i'll start getting excited... until then it's just the same old crap.

THIS is the best post in this thread. Exactly! :up:
 
elevated_u2_fan said:
Isn't the general rule of thumb 4 years between albums?

This makes Q4 2008 my prediction if I had to bet...

No, the only times it's ever taken 4 years between albums is Zooropa-Pop (actually a little under) and ATYCLB-Bomb, in the first case there were creative issues with the sessions as well as the Passengers side project, in the second case it was problems with the first producer that sent them back all over again with Lillywhite.
 
LemonMelon said:


It only took them 4 years to finish an album ONCE. ONCE, DAMMIT. And that was only because they changed producers halfway through the sessions and tossed what they had. I don't know how this incorrect information is lodged in so many member's heads now.

Zooropa--->PASSENGERS--->Pop 2 years between each
Pop--->ATYCLB 3 1/2 years
ATYCLB--->HTDAAB 4 years

The average length between U2 albums is 2.083 years. Look it up.


:bow: I stand corrected... I'm still going with my original prediction though; 4Q 2008.
 
ZOOTVTOURist said:
In German there's a saying: "Too many cooks destroy the meal"
We say that here in America too, and I agree with you. And in fact, I've used that exact saying in reference to HTDAAB.


But I think what we can learn from this thread is that U2 can still work fast, as long as there aren't a bunch of setbacks. I'd rather be optimistic about it than to assume the worst, but only time can tell. If U2 are supposed to be working this summer, but a bunch of pictures of Bono riding in boats with supermodels in the south of France surface in PLEBA, I may have to start worrying.
 
Last edited:
DreamOutLoud13 said:

But I think what we can learn from this thread is that U2 can still work fast, as long as there aren't a bunch of setbacks. I'd rather be optimistic about it than to assume the worst, but only time can tell. If U2 are supposed to be working this summer, but a bunch of pictures of Bono riding in boats with supermodels in the south of France surface in PLEBA, I may have to start worrying.

See, this is what I dont understand. Why is an album in 2008 such a bad thing? I dont think it is. You think about it thats only about a year and a half away. I dont think its that long. In the meantime we will get a Popmart DVD and a 3D film to tie us over. I just dont understand how thinking 2008 is more likely is so awful. It works better for me if that happens. So it would be a positive. They just got off the road 5 months ago.

I think we all lose sight of the big picture at times (including myself). U2 are planning to make another album regardless, thats the main thing. When/if it gets a point where they are not sure a new album will happen, that is when things get bad to me. As long as a new album/tour are in the works in the next year or two, I dont see it as pessimistic or a worst case scenario. Worst case scenario is they dont plan to make new music or tour again.
 
A 2007 album would be a good thing for three reasons:

1) New album/tour sooner
2) It would show U2 experimenting with something they have failed to show since Pop; spontaneity.
3) It would finally get the fans to shut up about U2 taking a long time between records.

I don't know...I haven't seen U2 since 2005...I need my fix. :p
 
LemonMelon said:
A 2007 album would be a good thing for three reasons:

1) New album/tour sooner
2) It would show U2 experimenting with something they have failed to show since Pop; spontaneity.
3) It would finally get the fans to shut up about U2 taking a long time between records.

I don't know...I haven't seen U2 since 2005...I need my fix. :p

Hey, have had to wait 5 years in between tours to see them twice previously. Joshua Tree to Zoo TV. Then Zoo TV to Popmart. Then 4 years twice. Popmart to Elevation and then Elevation to Vertigo. So I dont see 3 years as that long, sorry. 4 years in between is what I'm used to at a minimum and what I expect this time.

I dont see quick being the equivelant to more experimentation. Their most radical change was Achtung Baby to me, and that was a very slow recording process, there was nothing spontaneious or quick about it. So I dont think that really washes necessarily. Quick isnt necessarily better either like alot of people are trying to paint here. U2's best work to me has all taken some time. I dont think spontaneity is what they do all that well. Could it be interesting? Sure, it could also be a disaster just as easily.

Tour in 2009, more time to save up money to see more shows. Band isnt road weary as they didnt just get off the road. Tour in 2008 it will have only been a year since they were on tour. They could easily get to the burnout point under that scenario. Which translates to weaker and/or more uninspired shows. The going through the motions scenario. So either way you can spin it however you want. Bottom line is it will be when the band decides, and thats how it should be.

Why does it matter about fans complaining about how long it takes? Who cares, that shouldnt be a factor as a positive. Because there will be just as many saying they did it to fast and it shows.
 
Last edited:
2014 is better than never, and 2008 is better than 2009, but 2007 is the best yet, because I'm impatient and greedy :wink: Plus it will prove that they CAN put out an album without waiting four years. But you make an excellent point, the tour would be better later rather than sooner.

You know, if they did some kind of one-off performance for television or some kind of event, some time this year, that would really feed my U2 hunger, and make it easier to wait :hmm:
 
Blue Room said:


Hey, have had to wait 5 years in between tours to see them twice previously. Joshua Tree to Zoo TV. Then Zoo TV to Popmart. Then 4 years twice. Popmart to Elevation and then Elevation to Vertigo. So I dont see 3 years as that long, sorry. 4 years in between is what I'm used to at a minimum and what I expect this time.

I dont see quick being the equivelant to more experimentation. Their most radical change was Achtung Baby to me, and that was a very slow recording process, there was nothing spontaneious or quick about it. So I dont think that really washes necessarily. Quick isnt necessarily better either like alot of people are trying to paint here. U2's best work to me has all taken some time. I dont think spontaneity is what they do all that well. Could it be interesting? Sure, it could also be a disaster just as easily.

Tour in 2009, more time to save up money to see more shows. Band isnt road weary as they didnt just get off the road. Tour in 2008 it will have only been a year since they were on tour. They could easily get to the burnout point under that scenario. Which translates to weaker and/or more uninspired shows. The going through the motions scenario. So either way you can spin it however you want. Bottom line is it will be when the band decides, and thats how it should be.

Why does it matter about fans complaining about how long it takes? Who cares, that shouldnt be a factor as a positive. Because there will be just as many saying they did it to fast and it shows.

I wouldn't mind if the new album came out late2007/early2008, the next tour in early 2009, and in the middle of the tour another album (à la Zooropa, or only the wished - at least by me - outtakes album)
 
Blue Room said:

I dont see quick being the equivelant to more experimentation. Their most radical change was Achtung Baby to me, and that was a very slow recording process, there was nothing spontaneious or quick about it. So I dont think that really washes necessarily. Quick isnt necessarily better either like alot of people are trying to paint here. U2's best work to me has all taken some time. I dont think spontaneity is what they do all that well. Could it be interesting? Sure, it could also be a disaster just as easily.

That wasn't my point. Spontaneity does not necessarily = experimentation (it could mean just the opposite). My point was that to do something spontaneous would be experimental in itself, considering it's something they haven't tried since the Pop days.
 
First off, I'd bet a dollar that this refers to the eariler sessions.
Rubin is not confirmed to be officially the producer and if I'm not mistaken is currently in studio with Metallica.

As for a timeline, besides Zooropa it's taken at least a year in the studio since "dreaming it all up again".

ATYCLB was about 18 months about POP was about 15 months. HTDAAB was about 2 1/2 years.

HTDAAB was an anamoly even for U2's later and longer sessions. I think a solid year in the studio would produce an album by spring 2008, and factor in some token U2, producer, label delay bullshit and it's still Fall 2008.

Fall 2008 is an easy bet.
Earlier than that? I think that it could only be better in all cases.
 
Inner El Guapo said:
ATYCLB was about 18 months about POP was about 15 months. HTDAAB was about 2 1/2 years.

HTDAAB was an anamoly even for U2's later and longer sessions. I think a solid year in the studio would produce an album by spring 2008, and factor in some token U2, producer, label delay bullshit and it's still Fall 2008.
Even if they finished the album late this year, they wouldn't release it until fall 2008, because they wouldn't do a spring release. As Paul McGuinness put it in U2 By U2 (and I'm paraphrasing here, because I don't feel like getting the book out): "There's no point in a band of U2's stature releasing an album during any time of the year but the last third." So if an album isn't finished by September or so, it's not likely to come out until at least a year later.

But don't forget, when we're talking about how long HTDAAB took, they really only worked on it for a little over a year. They worked with Chris Thomas from March 2003, through the summer, and "finished" in time for a Spring release, and then they worked with Steve Lillywhite for six months. Add those two figures together, and you get about a year, maybe a little longer.

So if they spend a good year working on it (not counting anything they've already done, either at Abbey Road or last summer), then they'd be finished next spring, well in time for a fall release.
But there's also still the chance that they've already got a nice handful of songs waiting to happen, and will be able to get an album done in time for a release this year.

I should also add that it's implied in U2 By U2 that the reason the songs from the HTDAAB sessions with Chris Thomas didn't feel finished enough to be released in 2003 is because he didn't know how to push them, and couldn't deal with their unusual recording style of jam, jam, jam, jam some more, keep jamming until you make something. We already know that Rick Rubin (if they stick with them, and I hope they do) is not going to let them do that, at least not in his presence. So that already implies that he's impatient enough to push them to just freaking get it done.

And these are just becoming random thoughts on the subject. I'll stop talking now.
 
I would rather wait another 10yrs if it meant we could get another album that was on par with Achtung or Joshua....:drool: :drool:

But like the rest in here, I too can't wait to see what direction the band will head in next... unfortunately that means we simply have to 'wait"....thats part of U2's aura....

They have set enourmous benchmarks of their own, & on most occassions they have bettered these with both album or massive tours...

The stakes are high.....but an 'innovative' album with some 'balls' would be nice for change....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom