More New Music Rumors and Such...

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.

Catman

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
3,529
Location
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Apparently the last thread exceeded it's limit so... time for a new thread! :hyper:

Here's where we left off...

Bono Storms Back -- RollingStone.com

Two days after U2 opened their European summer tour, on August 6th at Olympic Stadium in Turin, Italy, the band's singer, Bono, sat in his home near Nice, France – his back to the early-afternoon sun and Mediterranean sea breezes pouring through the open windows – and spoke excitedly and gratefully of his life over the previous few months: the moment he felt something go very wrong in his back, while in training for a North American tour; his emergency operation on May 21st in Munich for a herniated disk in his spine; the six weeks he spent in a hospital bed; and his entrance on stage in Turin, to the furious-guitar strains of "Return of the Sting Ray Guitar," one of the many new songs U2 have been writing and recording in recent months.

"I have an annoying gene," Bono admitted during our interview for the exclusive tour report in the current issue of Rolling Stone. "I am, as a character, at times, a little overbearing. I recognize that. I'm also a lot of fun. I'm a good time." That is certainly true in his conversation. What follows are additional unpublished excerpts from that interview: on the show, U2's new music and their future, as the singer sees it.

Opening Night
In Turin, I noticed an interesting restraint, a poise, in your stage movements. There was a natural element to the way you stalked the stage and punched the air. You weren't trying to prove you were in shape. It was confidence, without overzealousness.

I woke up on the morning of the show with a certain anxiety: "Can I hit those notes? Have I got it inside of me? Have we got what it takes to make this experience one that people will remember for the rest of their lives? Or is it going to be four overrewarded musicians playing in a football stadium?" It's an unusual place to make magic. And that's our choice. We're alchemists. We turn shit into gold. We turn it into a communion.

But you weren't just getting out of bed. You were literally coming from a surgical table.

I was very nervous – very, very nervous. We had done a rehearsal two nights previous. And I was okay. I got through it. But I'm used to total immersion. I'm not used to the feeling I had. I didn't like it.

Did that feeling go away when you walked out? When you started those Muhammed Ali-like moves, throwing punches in the air, it was the right statement: "I'm not gonna kill you, but I'm ready to take it on."

Well, when I see Larry Mullen give me a standing ovation, I know something's going on [laughs]. So it was a big night actually, just getting through it.

It's interesting – the boxer. There was a little bit of that, the boxer going into the ring and talking himself into it. Which is a thing you never think about boxers. When they come with all of that fanfare, you think they're trying to show you what they can do. They're really talking to themselves – Ali, he's telling himself what he needs to do.

Beyond "The Horizon"
What is your feeling now, a year later, about "No Line on the Horizon"? Are you disappointed that your fans have not taken to it the way they did "Achtung Baby" or "The Joshua Tree"?

Having listened to it the other day, I can understand that. It's not very accessible, lyrically or musically. Its big song, which may be our biggest, "Moment of Surrender" – I remember that happening to us. It happened in there [points to the living room next door]. It was amazing. I don't know why we needed a record that intense. I like music to be joyous. But you're only in charge of a certain amount of what you're doing.

So we put out a really difficult record. I would have to admit that. If I was a teenager, it would be like a European movie – it's art-house.

But you originally created this tour around that record. At early shows, you were opening with as many as four songs from it. Was that overdoing it?

I think you could look back at the last couple of years as a gathering of intensity. And we're demanding of our audience. But they are very demanding of us. They want to be challenged. They don't expect U2 to be an easy ride.

In fact, one of the best bits the other night was "Get On Your Boots." The song has finally connected. It took awhile. I always knew there was a great song in there. It's punk rock now, where before it was Prince. There was a moment when Prince did rock & roll with a sponge-y seductive sound. I think that's what was in our head for "Get On Your Boots." But actually the song is much more punk rock.

The setlist in Turin was interesting in that two of the new songs you played, "Return of the Sting Ray Guitar" and "Glastonbury," were total blinders: profane rock & roll kicks inbetween the spiritual-ambition parts of the show. Then there was "North Star," an unfinished acoustic ballad.

Music is a sacrament for us. In that song ["North Star"], I thought, "It's okay to write a love song for the universe." "Glastonbury" was very funny that night– we did a version of that we knew we nailed, and then something happened at the end, I got lost a little bit [grins]. Edge had been hanging out with Jimmy Page [the two guitarists co-starred in the documentary "It Might Get Loud"], and you can't help but have that rub off. So now it's Willie Dixon, all those blues guys. Edge had this big riff. But I hear "Glastonbury" like the Chemincal Brothers, the Prodigy.

The song is about going to this music festival. [U2 were scheduled to headline at the British festival – Bono's surgery forced them to cancel.] It's a pilgrimage. It also turns out there's a white flower that twice yearly blooms at Glastonbury. And the mythology of Glastonbury goes back to Joesph of Arimathea – he's the guy who helped take the body of Jesus down from the cross. He is also said to have gone to Britain, to Glastonbury, where he put his staff in the ground. This big tree at Glastonbury, with this white flower, is supposed to come from that. [Bono recites part of the lyrics to U2's song: "Came to find a flowering rose/The flowering rose of Glastonbury".] And he's supposed to have brought the cup from the Last Supper, the Holy Grail.

This stuff is so Seventies to me [laughs]. I can't believe I'm in it. I'm going to Glastonbury for that. Everyone else is going for the music, being with your friends, hanging out. So we're in this hospital room, I'm on morphine and it's dawning on [manager] Paul McGuiness that we're going to have to cancel all of those [North American] shows. But I went, "Can we do Glastonbury?" Dr. Müller-Whlfahrt goes, "These drugs are stronger than you think." [Laughs]

The Next Album – or Albums
The tour is now less about the last album and more about your continuing history – the songs you played in Turin from deep in your catalog; the new material. That in-the-round spectacle has become more fluid, allowing you to do something more than amaze.

The idea was to make the crowd the spectacle – for us to be in the middle of this community and be able to play a new song if we want. People actually see it happening, because there is nothing else on stage. You can't hide.

So now is the throwdown: "Oh, really? Let's see you play some new songs. How about three?" Sure, people can say, ""Oh, I didn't think that was any good." But if I was a U2 fan, that's what I would want. I would want to watch a new song develop. We may discover it's not what we thought it was, and it may never see the light of day. But we've got a lot more songs to play.

How many?

We have Songs of Ascent, which is the meditative work that was meant to complement No Line on the Horizon. We've got a rock album. We also have a club-sounding album. And then we have the Spider-Man [musical] stuff.

Across those four, there are 25-30 songs. Now we have to decide how we go about releasing them? Do we release them in their groups? Chris Martin [of Coldplay] called me and said, "I hear you've got all these albums going. I have a great idea. Why not just pick the best songs from all of them and put them out now?" And I'm like, "Hmm . . . " [Strokes his chin].

Because we don't think like that. It's a bit mad. In that sense, we're not as 21st Century as we think we are, because we'd be putting out more new songs online, involving our audience in the choice – if we were really modern. We're just sitting here arguing about them, except no one else knows about them. The people on the beach here probably know them, because we keep playing them, like we did last night [smiles].

How much do you see the show changing when you come back to North America next summer, to play the rescheduled shows?

That's going to be great. We'll maybe have a new album – I think we probably will. So it's kind of wonderful. Those people are going to have tickets to a whole new show with new songs. It's going to be very exciting next year.
 
Quoting lazarus, from the last thread.

And back to the interview stuff, it worries me that Bono considers No Line to be so "difficult". If he's viewing it as something they had to get out of their system instead of a directional creative choice, is the follow-up going to be something aiming too much at the mainstream again?

I think we can assume as much, yes. we're not getting another Passengers, or NLOTH 2 (ie Songs of Ascent) as the next release.

but mainstream can be great.. Achtung, Joshua Tree, War, Pop.. all great albums with songs that appeal to the mainstream.
 
Some insight into the Glastonbury lyrics.

involving our audience in the choice - no. It wasn't needed for the first 30 years, and it's not needed now.

:up: Good to see SOA being mentioned first among the projects. I guess rock album is the new songs+potential Rubin leftovers. Dance album at 50 ? Good luck with that one. Spider-Man is really Bono and Edge-only material.

Re: the NLOTH comment, it's true. They have said as much, back with the "audience that grew up on a diet of pop stars" not appreciating NLOTH comment. They set out to make an album, for better or worse, not 11 singles. I don't think anyone in U2, at this point, knows what the follow up will be. Personally I'd like EP with Stingray/Glastonbury/North Star/Mercy, finish the tour in 2011 - then no more stadiums, and change your sound again.

And lay off Eno/Lanois and/or Lillywhite at least for a while. Please.
 
1991 = Acthung Baby
1993 = Zooropa

2009 = No Line On the Horizon
2011 = Songs of Ascent/Club album/rock album (?)
 
I think we can assume as much, yes. we're not getting another Passengers, or NLOTH 2 (ie Songs of Ascent) as the next release.

but mainstream can be great.. Achtung, Joshua Tree, War, Pop.. all great albums with songs that appeal to the mainstream.

Achtung did not come to the mainstream. The mainstream came to it because it was released by a band on top of the world. It was not a safe album by any stretch of the imagination, and it's a minor miracle it sold so well for so long. Mysterious Ways and One were perfectly chosen singles.

And I'd argue that the styles on Pop were not common to alternative rock, even if it wasn't a "dance" album.

"Mainstream" right now would be another ATYCLB, and that's the last thing I want to hear from this band.
 
Achtung did not come to the mainstream. The mainstream came to it because it was released by a band on top of the world. It was not a safe album by any stretch of the imagination, and it's a minor miracle it sold so well for so long. Mysterious Ways and One were perfectly chosen singles.

And I'd argue that the styles on Pop were not common to alternative rock, even if it wasn't a "dance" album.

"Mainstream" right now would be another ATYCLB, and that's the last thing I want to hear from this band.

I guess it depends on our definitions of mainstream.. Achtung had a bold, new sound for u2.. but the songs are still conventional pop tunes.. there's nothing really challenging about them.. but they're great, so people loved the album :up:
 
I guess it depends on our definitions of mainstream.. Achtung had a bold, new sound for u2.. but the songs are still conventional pop tunes.. there's nothing really challenging about them.. but they're great, so people loved the album :up:

Let me guess that you weren't already a fan in 1991? Because the album was INCREDIBLY challenging at the time!
 
As for new music, I think Edge may have a new guitar tone between Stingray, Glastonbury and the new version of HMTMKMKM.
 
And then there's the influence of European/UK dance music scene....


...which was a big party and not nearly as dark as what U2 was doing. Okay, you can hear that party vibe in a few songs, but that's certainly not the whole album. The rough, industrial layer added by the band on some songs was not as big in the rest of the world as it may have been in Eastern Europe. And the trip hop beats on So Cruel and Tryin' to Throw Your Arms Around the World wouldn't be common for a few more years.

I listened to a lot of techno/electronica/whatever when I was in high school back in the late 80's, and believe me when I say Achtung Baby still came as a shock because of who was doing it.
 
Let me guess that you weren't already a fan in 1991? Because the album was INCREDIBLY challenging at the time!

my brother bought the album, so I first heard it through him.. wasn't into U2 at the time

I remember it was weird, dark, and took time to get into.. but it wasn't difficult.. most songs are still verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus..

More challenging to my ears were Kid A, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, Bowie's Low, etc..
 
I guess it depends on our definitions of mainstream.. Achtung had a bold, new sound for u2.. but the songs are still conventional pop tunes.. there's nothing really challenging about them.. but they're great, so people loved the album :up:
The Madchester soundscapes which we find in "The Fly", "Mysterious Ways", "Lemon" or EBTTRT inspiration was already hitting some charts, but it was no way mainstream.
AB wasn't an easy album to diggest. Neither were most of its songs, even the easiest ones.
Don't forget U2 didn't know at the point they were gonna release something even more daring such as Zooropa, Passegers or Pop. AB was defying then, specially from a huge band at the times.
 
Achtung did not come to the mainstream. The mainstream came to it because it was released by a band on top of the world. It was not a safe album by any stretch of the imagination, and it's a minor miracle it sold so well for so long. Mysterious Ways and One were perfectly chosen singles.


AB wasn't an easy album to diggest. Neither were most of its songs, even the easiest ones.


This is a pretty common revisionist version of history that I see in here. The album wasn't easiest to digest for hardcore U2 fans, but not the overall populace. The album was bold for U2. U2 grabbed the best of underground influences that were gaining popularity and incorporated into their sound. The songs were still pretty pop in stucture.

And I don't know if I would label So Cruel or TTTYAATW as trip hop...:huh:


"Mainstream" right now would be another ATYCLB, and that's the last thing I want to hear from this band.

Really? What do you consider mainstream bands and which ones sound like ATYCLB?
 
my brother bought the album, so I first heard it through him.. wasn't into U2 at the time

I remember it was weird, dark, and took time to get into.. but it wasn't difficult.. most songs are still verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus..

More challenging to my ears were Kid A, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, Bowie's Low, etc..

My experience, and the experience of other U2 fans I knew at the time was that the album blew our minds, and no not just because it was good. It took us a while to even figure out if it was good!

Kid A was simple to my ears by comparison! It isn't just as simple as breaking verse-chorus structure, these songs came from another planet and we didn't know what to think about them! ESPECIALLY coming from U2.

I don't think newer fans can appreciate how the release of this album from the Rattle & Hum boys turned the world upside down at the time! We felt like U2 was dead and had been replaced by another band entirely.....
 
This is a pretty common revisionist version of history that I see in here. The album wasn't easiest to digest for hardcore U2 fans, but not the overall populace. The album was bold for U2. U2 grabbed the best of underground influences that were gaining popularity and incorporated into their sound. The songs were still pretty pop in stucture.


It's not revisionist. I was there, like a lot of other people. It was digestible because of the follow-up singles. Had they released The Fly and then dropped Ultraviolet or something I don't know that you'd be looking at 7x platinum or whatever it did here. BECAUSE it was U2, and BECAUSE it was still verse-chorus-verse, it allowed people to ease themselves into the change. But the sounds were abrasive in many places (particularly on the first song), and we know that the band and Eno INTENTIONALLY were trying to inverse every known quantity about the band. That is why I call it "difficult". You don't necessarily have to abandon traditional song structure to challenge people.

And I don't know if I would label So Cruel or TTTYAATW as trip hop...:huh:

I don't care what you would label them. All I know is that when I was hearing stuff like Portishead, Massive Attack, etc. I would hear those songs and recognize them as having similar beat styles. It's in the rhythm section, not Edge or Bono, and the same thing found on The Playboy Mansion and the end of If God Will Send His Angels, but of course by then many artists had played with that kind of sound already.

Really? What do you consider mainstream bands and which ones sound like ATYCLB?

This is always the same argument with you, and it's tiring. This isn't about comparison to specific artists. It's about what goes down smoothly with the general public, the U2 As Salve For All The Worlds Ills mode, comfort music.
 
so at what point did edge reinvent his hairstyle? we have shots of him with his long locks in Night and Day, and in photoshoots from AB. I think at that moment we had the new U2 sound. everything starts from the hairstyle changes.
 
It's not revisionist. I was there, like a lot of other people. It was digestible because of the follow-up singles. Had they released The Fly and then dropped Ultraviolet or something I don't know that you'd be looking at 7x platinum or whatever it did here. BECAUSE it was U2, and BECAUSE it was still verse-chorus-verse, it allowed people to ease themselves into the change. But the sounds were abrasive in many places (particularly on the first song), and we know that the band and Eno INTENTIONALLY were trying to inverse every known quantity about the band. That is why I call it "difficult". You don't necessarily have to abandon traditional song structure to challenge people.

I was there too. Like I said, it was difficult for those that were already U2 fans, but for those that weren't it wasn't that abrasive. It's kinda the beauty of the album, for all those fans they lost they gained new ones + a few.

I don't care what you would label them. All I know is that when I was hearing stuff like Portishead, Massive Attack, etc. I would hear those songs and recognize them as having similar beat styles. It's in the rhythm section, not Edge or Bono, and the same thing found on The Playboy Mansion and the end of If God Will Send His Angels, but of course by then many artists had played with that kind of sound already.
I realize what you're trying to say about the rhythm section, I just don't see the similarities with trip hop. The rhythm section in those two songs are interesting but too light to be trip hop.


This is always the same argument with you, and it's tiring. This isn't about comparison to specific artists. It's about what goes down smoothly with the general public, the U2 As Salve For All The Worlds Ills mode, comfort music.

Calm down, not trying to pick a fight. I'm trying to understand what you're saying. So do you think the songs on ATYCLB would be "mainstream" in any decade? That's the question I was trying to ask, don't you think mainstream changes from era to era?

That's the only reason I asked about specific artists. I don't think ATYCLB would be mainstream in 1981 or 95, so why would it be in 2011? I really have no grasp of what is mainstream in rock anymore, so that's what I'm trying to ask.
 
It took us a while to even figure out if it was good!

Kid A was simple to my ears by comparison! It isn't just as simple as breaking verse-chorus structure, these songs came from another planet and we didn't know what to think about them! ESPECIALLY coming from U2.

I don't think newer fans can appreciate how the release of this album from the Rattle & Hum boys turned the world upside down at the time! We felt like U2 was dead and had been replaced by another band entirely.....

nice.. I probably would have felt the same way had I been listening to u2 before it came out. must have been a really exciting time to be a big u2 fan. :up:

You don't necessarily have to abandon traditional song structure to challenge people.

very true.. I was equating mainstream with conventional.. maybe not the most solid of arguements .
 
Yeah, without question. For me it was THE most exciting time to be a U2 fan! :)

In my first year at high school and it was a great slap in the face. I recall they had covered "Night and Day" a year before and thought that this was the direction they were going into. But instead we got the pleasant surprise of AB. What a period to dig U2.
 
It's not revisionist. I was there, like a lot of other people. It was digestible because of the follow-up singles. Had they released The Fly and then dropped Ultraviolet or something I don't know that you'd be looking at 7x platinum or whatever it did here. BECAUSE it was U2, and BECAUSE it was still verse-chorus-verse, it allowed people to ease themselves into the change. But the sounds were abrasive in many places (particularly on the first song), and we know that the band and Eno INTENTIONALLY were trying to inverse every known quantity about the band. That is why I call it "difficult". You don't necessarily have to abandon traditional song structure to challenge people.



I don't care what you would label them. All I know is that when I was hearing stuff like Portishead, Massive Attack, etc. I would hear those songs and recognize them as having similar beat styles. It's in the rhythm section, not Edge or Bono, and the same thing found on The Playboy Mansion and the end of If God Will Send His Angels, but of course by then many artists had played with that kind of sound already.



This is always the same argument with you, and it's tiring. This isn't about comparison to specific artists. It's about what goes down smoothly with the general public, the U2 As Salve For All The Worlds Ills mode, comfort music.

Agree with all of the above. I was hoping ATYCLB would turn out more like MDH but instead was very flat, not a pleasant surprise.
 
I realize what you're trying to say about the rhythm section, I just don't see the similarities with trip hop. The rhythm section in those two songs are interesting but too light to be trip hop.

Not every trip hop song has some big fat beat. Considering the wide range of the bands that are associated with the genre, I don't think what I'm saying is some kind of stretch. A lot of the stuff on Massive Attack's Blue Lines isn't heavy either, including the first track:

YouTube - Massive Attack - Blue Lines - Safe From Harm

And that's the artist that is often most identified with the genre! But to try and show something that I think sounds a lot like what U2 songs I mentioned, listen to the beat that comes in at around the 1:00 mark here:

YouTube - Portishead - Roads -

and now this:

YouTube - U2 - So Cruel


The beats to my ears are similar but the one in So Cruel is any less pronounced or thinner than on the Portishead track. Now that's a lighter track from Dummy but I'm just trying to say that I think U2 was actually anticipating this burgeoning sound or catching its development very early (the Portishead didn't come out until 1994). There is a distinct heaviness to what U2 was doing rythym-wise on some of the AB songs and I don't know what else to compare it to.

Here's two more to listen to:

YouTube - Portishead - Pedestal

YouTube - U2 - Tryin' To Throw Your Arms Around The World
 
Not to intentionally derail the topic at hand, but...

I gotta be honest, lazarus: I really did not correlate trip-hop at all w/ the aforementioned U2 tracks. I confess I've never listened to much of that sub-genre, but the Massive Attack track you mentioned is the sex :drool:

*looks further into Massive Attack & Portishead discography*
 
In terms of AB being difficult... it sure was for me the first time I heard it. And now, it is my favorite album of all time.

I remember Zoo Station totally fucked with my brain the first time I heard it, I thought "What is this!?!" It took me a while to digest that track and finally one day it hit me and I was like "wow... this is amazing!"

I know many other U2 fans and listeners have had similar experiences. Maybe its just me, but I have never heard any other band create songs with a similar sound to what some of the songs on AB sound like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom