New album in the works while in NZ and Australia

[Yahweh]

The "lots of hits" statement bothers me on a few levels.

1. I hope the band doesn't sacrifice experimentation with new sounds for the sake of one of these "hits"

2. They will be lucky to have any hits based on their age, so why don't they just write music for the musics sake. I am sure the fans will follow them out on a limb as they have before. U2 writing pre-calculated songs meant to be hits has always sounded forced.

3. Paul Mcguinness has seemed to become overly consumed with "hits" and concert "sellouts" so much so that they are willing to say venues sold out on the 360 tour when they really didn't. I know U2 has always been about getting their music to as many people as possible but there manager these days is portraying pure greed and materialism, whether that is right or wrong it bothers me.

I am willing to wait as long as it takes to make another brilliant album, No Line On The Horizon was a step in the right direction but I hope that the next record isn't a step backwards from that.

 

[Utoo]

We don't even know for sure if Songs of Ascent has thrown Eno/Lanois/Lilywhite overboard and put Burton in charge of the ship.

I agree in that they might still be two separate projects, especially given the comments from Bono or someone a few months back about four separate projects. However, the recent Lanois interview in Rolling Stone indicated that he is not involved with any of U2's current projects---implying that if SOA is kept as a Lanois/Eno work, then it's currently on hold. It's hard to say what they're doing....one moment, I think they're morphing the SOA songs; next moment, it seems to me that they're more likely doing something entirely different.

 

[Niceman]

SOA was just about finished in 2008. Eno & Lanois may not be needed any further on that one?

 

[doctorwho]

The notion that U2's creativity was anywhere near as cravenly commercially driven by a desire to be popular then as it is now is the myth.

"The Fly" was in no way an attempt to kiss up to the mainstream. Neither was much of Achtung Baby. Even the most simple songs are shockingly complex compared to what U2 has done the last 10 years.

You can talk about slow songs being popular, etc, but it's not that predictable. "Bad" is not a radio-friendly song and wasn't intended as such. And the irony is that U2 needed success more than ever in those early days, as a struggling band and didn't cave in, yet now it does because of an addiction to the money and fame and hanging out with celebrities and people '80s U2 would have rightly branded war criminals or people who sold out the working class like Bill Clinton.

With all due respect, "One" is very, very different from the Joshua Tree in both the instrumentation and in Bono's singing style which was vastly superior at that latter point. You're right it's more mainstream than "The Fly", but it's still very different.

This is the type of response I actually expected.

As I wrote, "One" could have fit on JT with changes. U2 purposely made changes on AB to differentiate from JT. However, we all know the story of how AB pulled together because of "One". Why is that? Is it possibly because U2 finally hit on a tune that was similar enough to what they knew, yet fresh enough to stand out?

Even with U2's more recent work, it stands separate from the mainstream. Some may say that The Killers or Coldplay or Franz Ferdinand or whomever else you pick are U2's inspiration. I claim it's the other way around. Often I hear a recent U2 song - perhaps something from ATYCLB or HTDAAB - and on one of those band's next album, there is a very similar track. I hear more bands using Edge's famous echo delay effect.

Are U2 trying to fit in a bit more? That's debatable. I recall a famous comment from Edge's daughter when HTDAAB was released. She stated that the album sounded like nothing on the radio. So if U2 are really all about the "hit single", why have they created music that sounds like nothing else out there?

What some call "producing hits" is really nothing more than making the music more accessible. "Pop" had some great tracks - but many were not really that accessible to a general audience. The same is true for NLOTH. I adore NLOTH, just as I adore TUF, but neither album had really accessible tracks (barring a few exceptions). Instead, they featured great music. And if given the chance, people will buy the music.

JT, AB and ATYCLB, in contrast, had strong songs, but also accessible music. People could relate to the themes and sounds far more easily than on some of U2's other works. This is what created the hits. U2 didn't "sell out", they simply made more accessible music. But what stood out on those albums - especially JT and AB - is the fact that they were indeed albums. ATYCLB's biggest weakness is the fact that it is a collection of songs. Does that necessarily make it an album? The point is debatable as it depends on your definition of album.

Adam is right in that NLOTH should be grouped with ATYCLB and HTDAAB - but it really is also a shift away from those albums, just as R&H can be grouped with TUF and JT yet was shifting away from albums as well. R&H had some accessible tracks, but it also had some very interesting sounds - just like NLOTH. And that, to me, is very encouraging.

If the U2 you prefer is the less accessible type, then you may be in luck. From the new songs played in concert, it doesn't sound like U2 have produced any bubblegum pop tracks. Perhaps they still have one or two of those on the new album - they are needed to get the album SOME radio play. But so far, with tracks we've all heard, this album sounds like an extension of the creativity shown on NLOTH, but not quite the accessibility of ATYCLB.

But as has been pointed out, U2 sounding like U2 or even making more accessible songs doesn't guarantee a hit. So even with tons of bubblegum pop, it doesn't mean U2 will have a hit. The question is, though, are U2 still trying hard to be accessible (and therefore "relevant") or will they focus on creating a great album hoping hits will come from that? U2 can do this, they have in the past.

 

[U2387]

Well, say what you want about their last 2 hits, BD and Vertigo, they were not caving in to the mainstream or playing to the lowest common denominator.

Sure, they weren't exactly U2 out of their comfort zone, but they sounded nothing like the pop/hip hop crap on the radio in the 2000s.

Not sound wise, genre wise, not production wise. Nothing at all indicates lowest common denominator pandering.

I would agree that U2 is guilty of a bit too much second guessing(IMHO) recently, but thats only based on the fact that NLOTH(track) and MOS were recorded in one take and are 2 of my favorite U2 songs this decade.

It seems like EBW and Boy Falls.. came a lot more naturally than some of the other stuff they've been doing, and that, combined with their willingness to explore new producers, I think bodes well.

I will always maintain that No Line was simply a victim of the wrong 1st single and no promotion for said single. Magnificent I think was a lot better than and had that anthemic quality people associate with U2 much more than COBL, WITS and Crazy. So I think it would've done well, even though I endorse 100% of DoctorWho's words on this, had the radio not boycotted it.

It wasn't as experimental as some (read, Bono!) led us to believe it would be, but I certainly can't go along entirely with Adam's grouping of it with ATYCLB-HTDAAB and dismissing it as the 00s direction and everything from now on as something new.

Listen to all 3 back to back, NLOTH is a clear departure, even if its not a "WTF, this is U2???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[Niceman]

Listen to all 3 back to back, NLOTH is a clear departure, even if its not a "WTF, this is U2???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

This is exactly what I think. Will we look back and think of the 3 of them as a trilogy? That depends on what happens next. If the next album is a WTF change, then we may, but if it isn't, then I think we will link it more to NLOTH and leave ATYCLB and HTDAAB as their own era.

 

[powerhour24]

I've never bought into the trilogy thing, and I will never lump NLOTH in with the first two 2000's albums.

 

[ndmaxfield]

I agree in that they might still be two separate projects, especially given the comments from Bono or someone a few months back about four separate projects. However, the recent Lanois interview in Rolling Stone indicated that he is not involved with any of U2's current projects---implying that if SOA is kept as a Lanois/Eno work, then it's currently on hold. It's hard to say what they're doing....one moment, I think they're morphing the SOA songs; next moment, it seems to me that they're more likely doing something entirely different.

New York magazine's latest issue has a whole write-up on Spiderman (very in-depth). At one point, Bono talks about how Julie Taymor rejected at least one song (something called "A Freak Like Me Needs Company") that Bono felt strongly could be a hit (she made them replace it with another song called "Deeply Furious", which Bono feels doesn't have hit potential). As things have evolved with Spiderman since this past February, when the show finances were put back in order, I wonder how many songs like this have been tossed from the show and might have re-entered U2's "radar" as potentially useful album material??? BTW: The previews for Spiderman start tomorrow (11/28), so the show material may not be fully locked-in until January when it opens (I wonder if they're holding some songs to see what the audience likes/dislikes, and then if they don't make the show whether U2 has - as a "plan B" - some ideas about including them on a forthcoming album)???

 

[U2girl]

While U2 have shifted directions several times, each album still retains the "essence" of U2. Songs like "One" or "Wild Horses" might have worked on JT. Sure, some obvious differences exist (like the intro to "Horses" or Bono's scratchier singing on "One") - but these were intentional. Remove them and they work rather well with JT. Yet, AB still remains a very different album that JT. Some songs on TUF could have worked on "War", in fact, one might argue that "Pride" belongs a bit more on "War" than it does on TUF. Likewise, NLOTH has songs like "Crazy" which definitely blend in with ATYCLB and HTDAAB, but it also contains "Moment of Surrender", which is very fresh for U2. If MOS belongs on any other album, it might be R&H. Speaking of R&H, we had pop songs, rock songs, blues songs, jazz songs, old style songs and fresh songs. It was really a great mix.

My point is that to say the next album will be "radically different" is, by definition, setting it up for failure. U2 has an unique sound. We are fortunate that this sound is as diverse as it is. Most artists don't have that. Still, the sound is present: one hears echoes of "October" in "New York" - two songs released nearly 2 decades apart, yet still vastly different tracks.

I challenge artists like Bon Jovi, Aerosmith, REM, Beyonce, Gwen Stefani, or whoever else you like to be as diverse as U2. Only two artists come close: The Beatles and Madonna. Yet, even with them, you hear the basic elements of their sound throughout their work.

Therefore, if U2 can some how pull in the magic of "Moment of Surrender", keep pop-rock songs more like "Beautiful Day" (and not a "copy" of it), slow songs like WOWY, yet still flow with the zeitgeist of today's music and themes, then I'll be happy. And I have a feeling U2 will do just that. Bono's poetic lyrics allow for multiple interpretations - something that worked in 1983 will still work in 2013. And the bands sound just creates classic music. This is why "Boy" still sounds fresh today.

But if you are expecting something so new and different, then you will be upset. If U2 actually created such an album, then they'd lose all of what makes them U2.

Perhaps you'd like less "hits". The thing is, the albums that produced the biggest hits worldwide for U2 are also considered their most influential and best selling albums - namely JT and AB. You may argue that the songs on those two albums were just so good they couldn't help but be hits. That is, U2 had no intention of making them classics. I love the myth of U2, but really, that's what it is - a myth. There's the "magic" of Santa too, which I love at this time of year. And there is reality. I'm sure U2 wanted those songs to be hits - they were released as singles and promoted. U2 wanted those albums to have hit songs. This is their career. U2 wanted that success and worked hard to achieve it. Proof is the songs themselves: slow love songs like WOWY and "One" often zoom to the top of the charts. Fun pop/rock songs like MW often make for great hits (ask the Black Eyed Peas - they've made a career out of bubblegum pop/rock music).

What I hope for is another NLOTH type album. I'm not crazy about every track, but then, that's true for every U2 album. But I want more of an album than a collection of singles. NLOTH wasn't quite perfect in that regard, but it was the closest U2 have come to that idea since the AB (or maybe "Zooropa"). To me, that is U2's strength - the album. Hits will come if they focus on creating a great album. Also, if U2 want a strong first single, keep the idea simple - forcing it with songs like "Discotheque" or GOYB doesn't work. Save those for second or third singles. Instead, stick with something a bit more traditional and that can appeal to everyone (e.g. "Pride", WOWY, "Desire", and BD).

For now, I'm looking forward to the album.

U2 has had 3 major changes in their sound - UF, AB and - yes, whatever this forum thinks of the record - ATYCLB.

None of them sounded like anything before, for the most part. While lyrically "Who's gonna ride..." has similarities to 80's Bono in writing, musically it's completely different to 80's U2. I agree the band saying "'we're one, but we're not the same" had the same passion of the band that said "what more in the name of love?" but it was clearly a different (interpretation/version of the) band. The very idea for that album was to get away from 80's U2. For UF, U2 deliberately wanted to get away from the straightfoward bass/drums/guitars sound after the first three albums. And with ATYCLB they got out of the long shade of AB and the 90's. Just like now it seems they're ready to get out of the 00's era...

Pride is a hint to JT. Almost half of NLOTH would fit in easily on previous two 00 albums, so it's not the departure DANIEL LANOIS was busy hyping about. The argument could be made because U2 chose to be different again and again in their sound, they continued to survive the years, and combined with a clever look into current sounds (dance/electronica in the 90's, pop music in the 00's, American music in mid-80s) with U2 putting their own spin on those sounds.

I really don't care if the album has *hits* (and it is irrelevant re: the band if McGuiness think they have *hits*), they usually arrive during the process. I just want a real album, with that spark and inspiration the best U2 work has.

 

[U2girl]

SOA was just about finished in 2008. Eno & Lanois may not be needed any further on that one?

It's probably in the back seat now. SOA is not a rock album, which is what this Danger Mouse album has been described as. Plus there would probably be a mention of SOA sailing over to DM in the press/band statements - just like we read Bomb went to Lillywhite after Thomas, and NLOTH started with Eno/Lanois when Rick Rubin didn't work in 2006.

 

[Screwtape2]

New York magazine's latest issue has a whole write-up on Spiderman (very in-depth). At one point, Bono talks about how Julie Taymor rejected at least one song (something called "A Freak Like Me Needs Company") that Bono felt strongly could be a hit (she made them replace it with another song called "Deeply Furious", which Bono feels doesn't have hit potential). As things have evolved with Spiderman since this past February, when the show finances were put back in order, I wonder how many songs like this have been tossed from the show and might have re-entered U2's "radar" as potentially useful album material??? BTW: The previews for Spiderman start tomorrow (11/28), so the show material may not be fully locked-in until January when it opens (I wonder if they're holding some songs to see what the audience likes/dislikes, and then if they don't make the show whether U2 has - as a "plan B" - some ideas about including them on a forthcoming album)???

Interesting observations there. That would explain why the album is being held off until next year.

 

[ndmaxfield]

Interesting observations there. That would explain why the album is being held off until next year.

Here's a link to the article...Inside Broadway's Most Expensive Musical Ever, Julie Taymor's 'Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark' -- New York Magazine

 

[dan_smee]

It's probably in the back seat now. SOA is not a rock album, which is what this Danger Mouse album has been described as.

Can you provide a source. As I haven't read the quotesd in a long time I may be wrong, but I don't think they ever mentioned what sort of album the DM album is...

 

[DoctorGonzo]

The notion that U2's creativity was anywhere near as cravenly commercially driven by a desire to be popular then as it is now is the myth.

[...]

Indeed, its this lack of texture and loud and soft that is killing U2 because it would rather get played on the radio than tell the pop kids to "screw" off, as Bono did in 1991/1992.

U2 is making nice music, but it's feeding off my previous love of them as a band. It's not making GREAT music anymore, though I just know it can. Maybe someone should rob U2 of all its wealth so the band can find its soul again.

Moreover, experimentation isn't simply enough. The odd thing is that my favorite songs on NLOTH are the single-like stuff: Magnificent, Crazy, and Breathe. MOS lacks sufficient variation and the entire album has Edge conservatively creating simple melodies on that boring old 2000s electric guitar setting. Pop had some of these same problems; the basic melodies (especially in the guitar work) weren't good enough. I love "Do You Feel Loved?", "Mofo" and the single version of "Please" and nothing else. Miami had a great rhythm track, but a lousy guitar melody. "Last Night on Earth" has a great opening groove with Bono rapping and Edge's guitar sound, but the chorus section is uninspiring. "Staring at the Sun" is conservative U2.

It's a hard thing, but the band has to be experimental enough to make songs sound very different, but also find great melodies without resorting to what's already been established as popular.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, and I think a lot of the problems with U2's recent output have a great deal to do with this sense of playing it safe.

I know that's such a horrible trope to bring out, as it's been abused so much in the history of artistic criticism. But I really do think it applies here.

The band goes through the motions of being experimental and pushing itself into new territory, and then pulls back at the last minute. They jet off to Morocco and do a bunch of predictably experimental things - recording outside, using local folk singers, etc. And then after a few months it's time to throw that away and head back to make the album in Dublin with a more traditional approach because well... we can't have a U2 album that doesn't sound like a U2 album should. This isn't the '90s.

The idea of what a U2 song "is" has come up in interviews with the band more and more in recent years. I think the first mention was Passengers when they explained releasing the album as a U2 project wouldn't make a ton of sense. I agreed with that then, and I still do.

The problem is that after Pop, the band decided to get back to the idea of what "U2 is really about". But OK, even that made sense. They had been extremely experimental for a decade, and it was time to do something else. Maybe something even a little familiar. Some saw it as too familiar, but I can't hate on them too hard for one album's worth of material.

But ever since then there has been this not-so-subtle feeling that U2 has become a definable sound. The press on All That You Can't Leave Behind never failed to mention the "classic U2 sound" and the last two albums have tried to break out of that territory with limited success. The band even mentioned the Moroccan influences had to be purged to make the music more U2-ish. I'm inclined to believe the band drank too much of their own Kool-Aid after ATYCLB and did the opposite of what they did after Rattle and Hum. Instead of reacting in a way to confound critics, the group embraced the idea of U2 being sold to them by the media. All of those bitter Joshua Tree fans who gave up on the group after Achtung, Baby, finally got their wish. The band started to believe the hype about their '80s output. Which, from a creative standpoint, was very dangerous.

"This sounds good and exciting, let's record it and release it" guided the development of Achtung, Baby. Everything was on the table except the expectations and associated rules built up over the previous decade.

"This sounds good and exciting, but can we shape it to fit people's expectations?" has been the guiding principle since ATYCLB.

Experimentation is a process, not an ingredient, and that's something the band seems to have lost sight of. You either look to break new ground, or you don't. You don't go into sessions with the idea of making something new, then change gears and go back into the same territory you just left, hoping that some of the inspirational pixie dust follows you.

The band worked on songs in a French disco early in the HTDAAB sessions, then with Chris Thomas... then back with the same old people in the same studios. For NLotH, the band worked at Abbey Road with Rick Rubin, then in Morocco... then back to the same studios with the same people.

U2 got their feet wet somewhere new - creatively and literally - and went back into the comfort zone of Eno / Lanois / Lillywhite in the confines of Dublin. Now I'm very aware AB started off at Hansa in Berlin and ended at Windmill Lane, and Pop was very much a product of Hanover Quay / Windmill, but that was a different era, with a much different approach.

With Hansa, the band eventually realized being there was more about getting into a state of mind and unshackling themselves from what they had been doing, and where they had expected to go. It was a means to an end, not an end. They came to understand that recording in Berlin was not a magic creative bullet, but it allowed them to abandon their comfort zone. I think they could have finished the album in Denver, with the same result.

Now you can get the sense that the group sits down and says "If we go to Morocco, that's experimental! That's the kind of place bands go when they want magic to happen!" But there's no real investment in changing the process to allow any new creative directions to be followed through to their natural end. At some point, the band packs itself up and heads home to U2 Land. The mindset never really changes that much. It's the by-the-numbers approach of tired bands. "Yeah, we're going to spend a few months in [EXOTIC LOCATION] recording with [LEGENDARY PRODUCER(S)]."

With AB, Zooropa and Pop, you get the idea that the band didn't look up U2 in the dictionary before laying down a track. Now... not so much.

 

[powerhour24]

To be fair, they finished AB in Dublin after difficulties in the more 'exotic' recently reunited Berlin.

 

[coolian2]

SOA was just about finished in 2008. Eno & Lanois may not be needed any further on that one?

if we expand on this, it means we'll either see this new album discussed in the article in two years (still a shorter gap than between how to etc etc and no line on the horizon), or not at all.

shit.

 

[purpleoscar]

Here's a link to the article...Inside Broadway's Most Expensive Musical Ever, Julie Taymor's 'Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark' -- New York Magazine

A song called “A Freak Like Me Needs Company,” for the eight-stilettoed Arachne and her Furies to sing near the end of the show, was apparently less right. “I thought, and still do, that it would be a hit,” says Bono. “A percussive eighties Paradise Garage dance piece with a fantastic hook. Julie was like, ‘No … ’ And I said, ‘Julie, isn’t this what you call a ten o’clock number?’ And she goes, ‘Who cares what time it is?’ ”

They can always put it on an album if she doesn't like it.

 

[DoctorGonzo]

To be fair, they finished AB in Dublin after difficulties in the more 'exotic' recently reunited Berlin.

That's... exactly what I said.

 

[powerhour24]

OK, sorry, I thought you were comparing when they used to just of full force for something to starting something new and retreating in the past decade... I skimmed, I'm multitasking.

 

[DoctorGonzo]

All is forgiven.

 

[rjhbonovox]

This - ''It's sounding great: lots of hits.'' and the way Mercy has been destroyed makes me think the new album will be U2's last desperate attempt to get new fans under the age of 15. Its gonna be embarrassing.

 

[subnet]

it doesn't really matter who they target with their next album

those under 15 have their ipod
those between 16 and 35 have their iphone
those over 35 have their ipad

they'll still download mp3s illegally

so what really matters is how they intend on filling stadiums in 2014+. or do they shut that production down with a clubby record?

 

[mikal]

that would be funny if this whole "hits" comment is a misunderstanding and McG really said "the album is tits".

 

[Vlad n U 2]

This - ''It's sounding great: lots of hits.'' and the way Mercy has been destroyed makes me think the new album will be U2's last desperate attempt to get new fans under the age of 15. Its gonna be embarrassing.

You worry too much.

 

[mrex]

that would be funny if this whole "hits" comment is a misunderstanding and McG really said "the album is tits".

Oh yeah...that hit the spot!

 

[corianderstem]

"this album is full of tits" = an album full of songs about sex

 

[purpleoscar]

"this album is full of tits" = an album full of songs about sex

Oh yeah Songs of Ascent. We'll have them on the cover walking over 2 suspiciously shaped mountains and the back cover will have Adam like on Achtung Baby with his fifth member ascending.

 

[mrex]

We all seem to have different ideas about what "hits" means. But the thing is, having a big song off an album is very imporatnt today, and NLOTH proved that. No big single=no album interest.

In NYC there are two rock stations, one plays mostly modern rock, and one plays classic rock. However, the modern rock station does NOT PLAY album tracks. They play Kings of Leon, but only the singles...they play My Chemical Romance, but only the singles...they play Broken Bells, but only the one single so far. They are not digging into the albums to see what else is there. They don't even play a band like The Flaming Lips, and there's never a Radiohead song past OK Computer.

That being said, if U2 doesn't have a big single, thier new music won't be played. Sure, you'll hear Pride or Streets or BD, but nothing off of NLOTH.
The band understands this and knows that they need very accesible songs.
I don't think it's selling out, I think it's jsut the reality of the market. And, I've never thought that it was, or is, possible for U2 to sell out, because thay have always shot for hits and popularity. They just did it their way.

Do I think that they overthink? Yes. But maybe they have finally caught onto this. If there's ever a band that tries to figure out their weaknesses and habits, and adjuct them to move forward, it's U2.

One last thing...listening to the God Save The Queen stuff, which I heard a while back, made me realize that DM seems to be working off loops also. Eno inspires the band with loops, maybe DM's loops will just be different enough to get the band to go down an avenue they haven't yet persued...

 

[nirniva]

This - ''It's sounding great: lots of hits.'' and the way Mercy has been destroyed makes me think the new album will be U2's last desperate attempt to get new fans under the age of 15. Its gonna be embarrassing.

Don't be silly. That's what the club album is for!

 

[powerhour24]

OONTS OONTS OONTS