A Little Bit More New Album Discussion

[lazarus]

The Edge is on fire.

Maybe...we'll see.

Punk rock on Venus, I hear.

 

[Von Schloopen]

.

Getting close to exploding again over in EYKIW. I just can't coexist (no pun intended) with all these sheltered people, socially inept, obsessive Mouseketeer types, always positive, no/terrible sense of humor etc. The next person who types "confirmed rumor", "maybe, we'll see"; "Edge on fire", "punk rock from Venus" trying to be funny should have their fucking fingers broken.

We may need to resurrect the Shuttlecock thread once the album info starts picking up. I'd prefer to discuss it with just the people I give a shit about here.

 

[LemonMelon]

I'll co-sign that post. Thanks for highlighting it, Schloop-di-doop.

 

[popacrobat]

Phenomenal reference, my friend...

 

[last unicorn]

If North Star and EBW should really appear on the album I just hope they didn't do any damage to EBW, the song was amazing the way it was when they played it live. As for North Star, it sounded very raw and unfinished and certainly needed some work done, but U2 sometimes tend to overdo things (Mercy, ugh). Every Breaking Wave, IMO, needs a more stripped-down treatment and not a bombastic arrangements, it's a sweet and simple song that most people seemed to love on the tour. I'm not so sure about North Star. I liked the song but in the context of the new album I'd rather they did a whole new song instead, especially if there really are only 11 tracks on the album and given the fact that U2 have worked on it for so long now, I'm sure they could come up with more new stuff and don't need a song that's several years old.

 

[popacrobat]

how about this for breaking news.

nobody here that posts here has heard the finished product of any of the songs on this new album.

so we can all eat shit and enjoy the ride.

 

[LemonMirrorSky]

Boy, some of you do like to get worked up about nothing.

 

[U2girl]

Wow.

1) Drama about posting a picture of someone that went on Facebook and publicly announced listening to the new album.

2) EBW and North Star discussions are futile until we hear the full band studio version, which might bear very little resemblance to what Bono and Edge played on 360.

 

[Airseven]

EBW and NS had some nice melodies. If Bono improved the schmutzy lyrics and with some Danger Mouse texturizing, I think both could be in vein of Rattle & Hum.

 

[Yahweh_OMG]

You guys are debating the quality of fake song names.

Best laugh in a long time

 

[super fly guy]

how about this for breaking news.

nobody here that posts here has heard the finished product of any of the songs on this new album.

so we can all eat shit and enjoy the ride.

Spot on, criticizing songs because of probably fake title's?

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

You guys are debating the quality of fake song names.

I'm sorry but

a. This is a U2 forum, what the fuck are you expecting?

b. Why do you bother posting here if you don't understand that?

 

[Airseven]

Spot on, criticizing songs because of probably fake title's?

Fake or not, the titles are on the table. Why wouldn't people discuss them? Also, let's admit, these being fake is wishful thinking.

 

[Edge Evans]

Same band with song titles like Bad and ISHFWILF. On paper these are dumb names. Songs are epic however. I will wait to hear them then judge. .... Boots lived up to its name.

 

[gvox]

I'm almost thinking that these song titles are a deliberate troll by the band.

 

[lemonfly]

Same band with song titles like Bad and ISHFWILF. On paper these are dumb names. Songs are epic however. I will wait to hear them then judge. .... Boots lived up to its name.

That's interesting. I've never considered Bad as a "dumb" title. Nor ISHFWILF. Interesting, unusual, wordy perhaps, but not laugh-out-loud horrendous. Big Girls Are Best, Drunk Chicken, Get On Your Boots, Earth 2030 on the other hand...

 

[mama cass]

The songs listed earlier in this thread are a) posted by someone who's trolled in the past, b) obviously horribly titled to the point where nobody could possibly believe that they were true, unless that person were incredibly stupid

That doesn't mean u2 hasn't had stupid titles in the past... They've had plenty. Some turned out to be epic songs to the point where you now would never consider them to be terrible names. Some were just terrible songs.

Point being is the name of the song had nothing to do with whether or not the doing is good, and that anyone who believes that track listing is a moron.

hold on, didn't the same poster come up with a close-on final track listing for NLOTH? and didn't gvox back up some of the info thru a different source as well? otherwise, i'm a little confused

Old post. Same dude.

http://www.u2interference.com/forum...ulation-discussion-191628-34.html#post5735364

Someone some of us know is with Bono listening to the album RIGHT NOW

I'm not joking

****************************

Further tidbits (different source):

Track listing was in fact set last night.

Earth 2030 is an actual song. Most likely a b-side or bonus

This is being relayed to me by a very trusted friend who is hearing it from a friend who works at Electric Lady

Edit: I cannot vouch for the track listing but it matches what was published earlier tonite. Take that for what you will

 

[Nick66]

 

[OpenG180]

Spot on, criticizing songs because of probably fake title's?

I swear at first i read "fake tits".

 

[gvox]

hold on, didn't the same poster come up with a close-on final track listing for NLOTH? and didn't gvox back up some of the info thru a different source as well? otherwise, i'm a little confused

Can you please re-read the quotes you just posted?

Nowhere did I state I was vouching for the tracklisting, or "back up" the tracklisting info.

In fact, several times (in later posts) I said that I felt it was suspect and clarified it a bajillion times.

I'll repeat it again for you:

Edit: I cannot vouch for the track listing but it matches what was published earlier tonite. Take that for what you will


In other words, given that the info matches a source that many (rightly so!) have viewed with high suspicion, you might want to take that into consideration when reading what I posted.

How much clearer could that be?

Yes, my close friend actually does believe that he can trust the source who he knows by name is being honest about the tracklisting. But - and it's a big ol BUT - the source itself is not my friend. I do not know him, have never met him or even know remotely who he is to anyone else here. I therefore cannot vouch for him.

This is not part and parcel of anything to do with the person who was invited to privately listen with Bono said. It's two separate sources. Two different events. I guess I really should have created two different posts - maybe even two different threads? - because people are having a hard time differentiating the two. Good grief!

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

hold on, didn't the same poster come up with a close-on final track listing for NLOTH? and didn't gvox back up some of the info thru a different source as well? otherwise, i'm a little confused

the "old post by same dude" simply referenced songs that were already known... many of the songs on his tracklisting never saw the light of day, but were long rumored to be on there... and he butchered the track order.

so i would hardly count that as a quality source. odds are much greater that he's simply a troll, who magically appears only around new album time to lend us information from his secretive source inside universal's new york office.

the idea that they're going to name the album "Manhattan" and have the lead track be "Skyline" is laughable. that anyone believes that is more laughable.

and yes, i will post that quote as my signature and issue a full public apology to shady tracklist guy if it proves to be true.

 

[mama cass]

Can you please re-read the quotes you just posted?

Nowhere did I state I was vouching for the tracklisting, or "back up" the tracklisting info.

In fact, several times (in later posts) I said that I felt it was suspect and clarified it a bajillion times.

I'll repeat it again for you:

Edit: I cannot vouch for the track listing but it matches what was published earlier tonite. Take that for what you will


In other words, given that the info matches a source that many (rightly so!) have viewed with high suspicion, you might want to take that into consideration when reading what I posted.

How much clearer could that be?

Yes, my close friend actually does believe that he can trust the source who he knows by name is being honest about the tracklisting. But - and it's a big ol BUT - the source itself is not my friend. I do not know him, have never met him or even know remotely who he is to anyone else here. I therefore cannot vouch for him.

This is not part and parcel of anything to do with the person who was invited to privately listen with Bono said. It's two separate sources. Two different events. I guess I really should have created two different posts - maybe even two different threads? - because people are having a hard time differentiating the two. Good grief!

calm down, yeah i understood your post, but didn't you mention one of the songs stated in the tracklisting?? i said backing up "SOME OF THE INFO" not the whole tracklisting lol - and i was specifically referring to the "further tidbits" info, not your friend who went in to listen - and er it was clear from your post there were different sources involved... you yourself said "it matches blah blah"! keep yer knickers on

maybe joaoclaudiobh did pull that tracklist out of his arse, but you yourself also mentioned one of the songs by name which is why i was curious and not ready to scream "fake" right away - you never can tell with U2's song titles lol

 

[mama cass]

the "old post by same dude" simply referenced songs that were already known... many of the songs on his tracklisting never saw the light of day, but were long rumored to be on there... and he butchered the track order.

so i would hardly count that as a quality source. odds are much greater that he's simply a troll, who magically appears only around new album time to lend us information from his secretive source inside universal's new york office.

the idea that they're going to name the album "Manhattan" and have the lead track be "Skyline" is laughable. that anyone believes that is more laughable.

and yes, i will post that quote as my signature and issue a full public apology to shady tracklist guy if it proves to be true.

jeeesus you boys are all tetchy today

 

[FlyingColors]

Just when I thought I was beginning to understand Interference...

Why the hell are people still discussing the fake tracklist?

 

[Blue Room]

If the track listing is true then the demo song "Big Detroit" must have become "Manhattan". Detroit always gets the shaft literally and figuratively.

 

[Irvine511]

Imagine the production for the Manhattan tour -- they can play in tuxedos on pretend tops of buildings with a cityscape behind them and a big dangling moon like its a high school Gershwin review.

 

[mama cass]

Just when I thought I was beginning to understand Interference...

Why the hell are people still discussing the fake tracklist?

because!

you'll get the hang of it pretty soon i'm sure...

 

[Blue Room]

If North Star and EBW should really appear on the album I just hope they didn't do any damage to EBW, the song was amazing the way it was when they played it live. As for North Star, it sounded very raw and unfinished and certainly needed some work done, but U2 sometimes tend to overdo things (Mercy, ugh). Every Breaking Wave, IMO, needs a more stripped-down treatment and not a bombastic arrangements, it's a sweet and simple song that most people seemed to love on the tour. I'm not so sure about North Star. I liked the song but in the context of the new album I'd rather they did a whole new song instead, especially if there really are only 11 tracks on the album and given the fact that U2 have worked on it for so long now, I'm sure they could come up with more new stuff and don't need a song that's several years old.

I disagree about EBW. I do not care for U2 stripped down. It is ok every once and a while. But I like all the layering and detail they do, that is what made me a diehard. Some people bitch about it, but U2 overworking the songs it part of what makes a great record for them to me. EBW could be a great song, but I hope they add more to it (IE more instruments, background atmosphere, etc..).

 

[Blue Room]

Imagine the production for the Manhattan tour -- they can play in tuxedos on pretend tops of buildings with a cityscape behind them and a big dangling moon like its a high school Gershwin review.

It would be better than another circular stage with a circular ramp design. Which I think it what we are going to get again. I really wish they would break out of that stage design rut. It works well but add more to it. Maybe a ramp that extends out to the sound desk with a b stage there at least.

 

[Irvine511]

I'd like to see them descend down a staircase tap dancing and in top hats.