U2 have finally found what they are looking for: mediocrity?

[jeevey]

From what I learned from someone this past weekend, Broken Bells use a shit-ton of backing music in their live shows, and they can decide on a nightly basis how much will be "live" and how much won't be. *if that is the sort thing DM had in mind when he envisioned the production of U2s music...they may have realized once they did Fallon that there was a heck of alot of it across many of the songs. What I don't get is why this realization didnt come to them alot sooner. I mean, during the recording process

Don't you think it's somewhat typical of U2 to come to these realizations rather late? To get really caught up in a creative process, something kind of heady and cerebral and want to follow it all the way to the end, and then at some point realize that it doesn't really integrate with their long term vision of themselves and their identity? I'm thinking of R&H and Pop in particular, when they were really excited about following this particular road while all by themselves in the studio, and then once they got out there on the road with the fans were like, "Oh. This doesn't work for us in the way we thought it would." So maybe, using your theory, this is a really smart preemptive move to cut off that kind of misstep, rather than a late-moment pullback, crisis of confidence thing.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Don't you think it's somewhat typical of U2 to come to these realizations rather late? To get really caught up in a creative process, something kind of heady and cerebral and want to follow it all the way to the end, and then at some point realize that it doesn't really integrate with their long term vision of themselves and their identity? I'm thinking of R&H and Pop in particular, when they were really excited about following this particular road while all by themselves in the studio, and then once they got out there on the road with the fans were like, "Oh. This doesn't work for us in the way we thought it would." So maybe, using your theory, this is a really smart preemptive move to cut off that kind of misstep, rather than a late-moment pullback, crisis of confidence thing.

Absolutely... and songs alwaysbtake on a different vibe live. So this time they had a little bit of extra time due to some logistical delays and started hashing out how to play the songs live BEFORE the album was released... which led to tinkering... which let to rewrites once they realized how difficult it was going to be to reproduce these things line... which led to delays... which leads to 2015 and a very confused and angry danger mouse (and fan base).

 

[YBORCITY]

Absolutely... and songs alwaysbtake on a different vibe live. So this time they had a little bit of extra time due to some logistical delays and started hashing out how to play the songs live BEFORE the album was released... which led to tinkering... which let to rewrites once they realized how difficult it was going to be to reproduce these things line... which led to delays... which leads to 2015 and a very confused and angry danger mouse (and fan base).

You could see why DM would be kinda pissed, don't you think?

Also seems very plausible theory about replicating the songs live led to some tinkering.

 

[Salome]

It's not so much a plausible theory, it's pretty much a fact.
The band has stated that they want to test the songs in various settings, so it won't take until they're touring to find out what is happening.
So, yes, that is what they are doing.
But they were already talking about this, while summer 2014 was still the tentative release period.

I still maintain Billboard took one fact and deduced something that isn't.

 

[jeevey]

ou could see why DM would be kinda pissed, don't you think?

Totally. But one thing that has always been true about U2 is that they are much, much more loyal to each other and their collective vision for the band than any other tool or person they may use to get there. It's easy to see how a collaborator could feel used, but I also have to admire the band's absolute dedication. They really are willing to throw anything and anybody under the bus (including their own career) rather than betray that vision.

 

[djerdap]

Totally. But one thing that has always been true about U2 is that they are much, much more loyal to each other and their collective vision for the band than any other tool or person they may use to get there. It's easy to see how a collaborator could feel used, but I also have to admire the band's absolute dedication. They really are willing to throw anything and anybody under the bus (including their own career) rather than betray that vision.

Or they're just a pain in the ass to work with and their own insecurities have little to do with their loyalty to each other. I really doubt that the producer is endangering their loyalty to one another. It's the lack of vision that makes their collaborations fail, not their determination into one.

 

[ahittle]

Oh, for fuck's sake.



don't worry i don't usally cast real aspersions on people when it comes to Music

Obviously I was being facetious. It was more about the dwindling commercial options as artists get older - pandering to the diminishing demos that actually buy music.




Although,they did look pretty sharp in those tuxes in the GQ shoot.

 

[mama cass]

Ryan Tedder is MUCH more of a pander to the charts, hit maker producer than Danger Mouse.

By like a million miles.

I mean come on... He produces One Direction.

and Demi Lovato

(and jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus i didn't realise about One Direction )

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

It's not so much a plausible theory, it's pretty much a fact.
The band has stated that they want to test the songs in various settings, so it won't take until they're touring to find out what is happening.
So, yes, that is what they are doing.
But they were already talking about this, while summer 2014 was still the tentative release period.

I still maintain Billboard took one fact and deduced something that isn't.

I find it hard to believe that Billboard would report this without something more than mere speculation.

This isn't some fan forum... it's a major music publication that would seriously harm their reputation by printing things that they aren't pretty gosh darned confident in.

Add in Danger Mouse's comments, and add in that nobody in U2's camp had denied this... plus we've seen photos by some of the named producers confirming that they're working with the band...

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

OK scratch the nobody from u2's camp have said anything talk...

 

[mama cass]

OK scratch the nobody from u2's camp have said anything talk...

admit it - you're jumping up and down for joy there!

 

[BVS]

Danger Mouse's comments seem to contradict the "the band's happy with the material they just aren't finished" argument.

His comments actually seem to point to the band NOT being happy with the material.

Add in The Edge's comments from earlier about how a song needs to be great acoustic to really be great... which also seems to be a direct shot at Mr Mouse.

I think the band was more or less done... and they started playing some of the songs from the album in a live setting and realized that they would have to sound drastically different... that they couldn't perform the songs live.

So they brought in other producers to mix up the arrangements into things that worked better in a live setting, and this has proven to be a much harder thing to do than previously thought. Some of the songs probably sound terrible without Danger Mouse's production elements added in. So it's back to the drawing board to finish the album.

Interesting... But I didn't interpret the acoustic comment that way, they've said something like this before. I saw it as a comment about their approach to writing rather than production. I think rather than relying on the studio as part of the writing, ie Mofo, they want to make sure the could survive on their own if stripped down.

 

[corianderstem]

Yeah, unless DM is writing the songs, the production shouldn't make any difference about a song standing on its own acoustically.

I mean, the Black Keys are pretty straight-forward blues rock. There's no bells and whistles there; they could perform those songs acoustically if they wanted.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

But U2 are not like the Black Keys... They're a band that doesn't come to the studio with completed songs and relys on the producer merely to push them in the right direction.

They rely heavily on the producer to take incomplete ideas and mold them into something that makes sense.

U2 is heavily reliant upon their producers.

 

[corianderstem]

I have no witty, snarky, or argumentative reply to that. So I'll just say.

Hmmm, I see! Interesting.

 

[YBORCITY]

Totally. But one thing that has always been true about U2 is that they are much, much more loyal to each other and their collective vision for the band than any other tool or person they may use to get there. It's easy to see how a collaborator could feel used, but I also have to admire the band's absolute dedication. They really are willing to throw anything and anybody under the bus (including their own career) rather than betray that vision.

Great post and prolly a great "snapshot" of what's happening behind the scenes.

 

[Blue Room]

Honestly I really do not care who produces it. I would just like a good cohesive album. That is the problem, to many cooks in the kitchen may not turn out well. I liked that we only heard about DM as the producer. Know little about him, other than he was just a single producer they were working with. Bomb has a lot of very good songs. It just is not a cohesive record and suffers as a result. I think it is the result of too many producers. U2 has always overthought recording, but before they would set a time limit and release it. I guess that is another problem with being in their position, they can do whatever they please. That may not be such a great thing for a bunch of perfectionists. I think NLOTH would have been if they had just stuck with the direction, but I think they went into panic mode at the last hour there.

 

[asr]

I should have clarified that the end result might have been not what they were looking for. Bringing in another producer might be to give them more breathing room as artists -- focussing on their strengths. One thing I noticed with Danger Mouse is that he seems to have muffled U2's strengths: For example, one of Bono's strengths is emotive singing (just look at the hight point of NLOTH in 'Moment of Surrender'). Well, Danger Mouse apparently muted Bono by telling him not to give in to the temptation of using that strength and instead "sticking to the melody" and not the "moment". Well, forgive me, but isn't U2 all about the freaking moment????. "Live" is where they live, according to Larry. And is it really a coincidence that Larry looks depressed as we've ever seen him? My feeling is he is not excited at all, and doesn't agree with this "mutation" of U2…..but I could be wrong of course.

So vomit-inducing Ryan Tedder is the way to go instead?

 

[Zooropa man]

Let's face it, U2 had their creative peak it seems from 1986 - 1995. After that... great, great efforts but nothing compared to what they came out with during that time. Musically, lyrically, ballsy etc. They've lost that luster quite a bit it seems.

 

[david]

My two favorite bands are in a weird place. U2, they're taking their sweet ass time to release a new album.. The Flaming Lips, they're writing and recording songs with Miley Cyrus. But uh. I like many other bands. So I guess this will all pass... and all will be restored.