New U2 Album in 2012?

[corianderstem]

Well, it makes sense that he was involved in whatever umpteen billion projects that could have become albums (Songs of Ascent, the Danger Mouse thing, the "dance" thing), and that was going on while all the Spiderman stuff was going on.

So that doesn't seem so far-fetched to me. Or was Spiderman starting initial work while they were finished NLOTH?

 

[Irvine511]

it was when Spiderman was in super-crisis last winter (January 2011) and they were gutting the show and slitting Julie's throat.

 

[corianderstem]

Yeah, they were still yammering about the three new albums they had planned at that time (I think), so that makes sense.

 

[Irvine511]

i hope she doesn't try to ruin Songs of Ascent after Bono ruined Spiderman.

 

[Niceman]

Julie Taymor in her lawsuit alleged that Bono ruined Spiderman because he was too busy recording the new U2 album.



know hope.

Hallelujah!

 

[corianderstem]

i hope she doesn't try to ruin Songs of Ascent after Bono ruined Spiderman.

Taymor threw Songs of Ascent under the bus!

 

[Rachel D.]

Julie Taymor in her lawsuit alleged that Bono ruined Spiderman because he was too busy recording the new U2 album.



know hope.

Really? Well, at least Bono had his priorities straight. I wonder if this was the album that they supposedly almost released last May.

 

[Niceman]

Really? Well, at least Bono had his priorities straight. I wonder if this was the album that they supposedly almost released last May.

It's hard to know. They seem to have a lot of albums in process.

That's the frustrating thing. I don't buy for a second that U2 is less productive now than they were 10, or maybe even 20 years ago. They just don't share. Listen to HTDAAB and it's clear that it's really the "Best-of 2001-2004" and not a single album.

 

[U2DMfan]

They recorded the Joshua Tree as a planned double album, in 6 months.
Which was in the end, about 18 or so songs?

Whereas, we can only associate about 30 tracks recorded between 1999 and 2004.
Roughly speaking that is...
3 songs per month in 1986 and 0.5 a song a month about 15 years later.

Or I could use the Achtung and Zooropa era. Or toss in Rattle and Hum with TJT and expand the window they were recorded in to demonstrate the same thing.

To sum, they are demonstrably less productive than they used to be.

They also do NOT have "albums in process".
One of these years you're going to learn not to listen to the Boneman. He thinks coughing in a microphone to a beat constitutes a "song". 10 of those is an "album".

 

[Scorpionac]

They also do NOT have "albums in process".
One of these years you're going to learn not to listen to the Boneman. He thinks coughing in a microphone to a beat constitutes a "song". 10 of those is an "album".

That's where you're wrong. If Bono farts into a microphone on three separate occasions and smells a single each time, the band has three albums.

 

[mama cass]

my god... U2 fans are BRUTAL!!!

 

[Registered Dude]

productivity stems from inspiration .why is this so hard for some people to comprehend?

I dont want shit songs. I want good songs that happen "when god walks through the door" or however Bono describes it.

 

[BVS]

They recorded the Joshua Tree as a planned double album, in 6 months.
Which was in the end, about 18 or so songs?

Whereas, we can only associate about 30 tracks recorded between 1999 and 2004.
Roughly speaking that is...
3 songs per month in 1986 and 0.5 a song a month about 15 years later.

Or I could use the Achtung and Zooropa era. Or toss in Rattle and Hum with TJT and expand the window they were recorded in to demonstrate the same thing.

To sum, they are demonstrably less productive than they used to be.

They also do NOT have "albums in process".
One of these years you're going to learn not to listen to the Boneman. He thinks coughing in a microphone to a beat constitutes a "song". 10 of those is an "album".

This is a rather silly way to break it down. We can't really relate released songs to how many they've recorded or written. For all we know they've recorded a shit ton but are just scared to release them.

 

[Von Schloopen]

Going from 3 kids in the 80's to 13 now won't help your productivity any. I can't get jack done with only 1.

 

[mikal]

Going from 3 kids in the 80's to 13 now won't help your productivity any. I can't get jack done with only 1.

true.

 

[Nick66]

They recorded the Joshua Tree as a planned double album, in 6 months.
Which was in the end, about 18 or so songs?

Whereas, we can only associate about 30 tracks recorded between 1999 and 2004.
Roughly speaking that is...
3 songs per month in 1986 and 0.5 a song a month about 15 years later.

Or I could use the Achtung and Zooropa era. Or toss in Rattle and Hum with TJT and expand the window they were recorded in to demonstrate the same thing.

To sum, they are demonstrably less productive than they used to be.

They also do NOT have "albums in process".
One of these years you're going to learn not to listen to the Boneman. He thinks coughing in a microphone to a beat constitutes a "song". 10 of those is an "album".

Excellent way to break it down. Otherwise, you'd have to believe in some conspiracy theory that U2 has recorded tons of new material but is somehow "afraid" to release it.

And the notion that U2 is as productive now as they were in the 80's or 90's is specious, and I can't believe anyone would even suggest that.

 

[mikal]

Excellent way to break it down. Otherwise, you'd have to believe in some conspiracy theory that U2 has recorded tons of new material but is somehow "afraid" to release it.

I believe that's more than a conspiracy theory considering U2 shied away from releasing their last two albums (and you could throw in Songs Of Ascent) due to them not feeling the album was good enough, only to polish it and in my opinion, make the album worse (NLOTH's middle 3, for example).

 

[BVS]

Excellent way to break it down. Otherwise, you'd have to believe in some conspiracy theory that U2 has recorded tons of new material but is somehow "afraid" to release it.

Why are you giving into the hive?

 

[Nick66]

I believe that's more than a conspiracy theory considering U2 shied away from releasing their last two albums (and you could throw in Songs Of Ascent) due to them not feeling the album was good enough, only to polish it and in my opinion, make the album worse (NLOTH's middle 3, for example).

Perhaps...but let's be careful about the term "releasing". That implies there's some kind of finished material to release. Is there some kind of indication that they have a couple albums of material "in the can" that's just sitting there waiting to be released?

I think it's more likely that there's a lot of half-finished ideas, partial takes, etc. the band has yet to fully develop. Even a lot of the "b-sides" from the latter part of the decade that did see the light of day sound unfinished...so I'm not sure why anyone expects the legendary Songs of Ascent stuff to be any different. If it's even that finsihed.

In any event, if it's not out there, we can't really count it as "productivity" can we? That's like saying an artist is "productive" because she has a lot of half-finished paintings. "Productive", by its definition, means to "produce"...not "work on". By any metric, U2 doesn't produce material at the same rate that they did in the 80's and 90's. We can only speculate as to how much they've actually done.

I agree with your comments on NLOTH, however.

 

[BVS]

Even a lot of the "b-sides" from the latter part of the decade that did see the light of day sound unfinished...

Is this fact or your opinion? I want to make sure...

In any event, if it's not out there, we can't really count it as "productivity" can we? That's like saying an artist is "productive" because she has a lot of half-finished paintings. We can only speculate as to how much they've actually done.

But what if she has a lot of unfinished paintings that just haven't left her studio yet?

 

[Niceman]

They recorded the Joshua Tree as a planned double album, in 6 months.
Which was in the end, about 18 or so songs?

Whereas, we can only associate about 30 tracks recorded between 1999 and 2004.
Roughly speaking that is...
3 songs per month in 1986 and 0.5 a song a month about 15 years later.

Or I could use the Achtung and Zooropa era. Or toss in Rattle and Hum with TJT and expand the window they were recorded in to demonstrate the same thing.

To sum, they are demonstrably less productive than they used to be.

They also do NOT have "albums in process".
One of these years you're going to learn not to listen to the Boneman. He thinks coughing in a microphone to a beat constitutes a "song". 10 of those is an "album".

You're ignoring the difference between writing a song and releasing a song. I believe him that they are writing and recording. However, the business side gets in and they only release a small portion of what they write now.

 

[Niceman]

I believe that's more than a conspiracy theory considering U2 shied away from releasing their last two albums (and you could throw in Songs Of Ascent) due to them not feeling the album was good enough, only to polish it and in my opinion, make the album worse (NLOTH's middle 3, for example).

ATYCLB, HTDAAB, and NLOTH were all significantly delayed, SOA is MIA. We know they never used some of the songs from the Rubin sessions. The Danger Mouse sessions are still at large. Etc., etc., etc. And then, one would assume we DON'T hear about most of what they write and shelve.

The problem is that MILLIONS of dollars are at stake every time U2 release an album. It's a business decision which effects many many many people, not simply an artistic choice. And so, they have to write far more songs than they release in order to create what they think will be the optimum product.

 

[Niceman]

Perhaps...but let's be careful about the term "releasing". That implies there's some kind of finished material to release. Is there some kind of indication that they have a couple albums of material "in the can" that's just sitting there waiting to be released?

I think it's more likely that there's a lot of half-finished ideas, partial takes, etc. the band has yet to fully develop. Even a lot of the "b-sides" from the latter part of the decade that did see the light of day sound unfinished...so I'm not sure why anyone expects the legendary Songs of Ascent stuff to be any different. If it's even that finsihed.

In any event, if it's not out there, we can't really count it as "productivity" can we? That's like saying an artist is "productive" because she has a lot of half-finished paintings. "Productive", by its definition, means to "produce"...not "work on". By any metric, U2 doesn't produce material at the same rate that they did in the 80's and 90's. We can only speculate as to how much they've actually done.

I agree with your comments on NLOTH, however.

I see a difference between producing and releasing.

 

[lemonfly]

I find it difficult to swallow the notion that U2 are hoarding a plethora of completed songs, much less several completed albums. I do believe they have dozens (if not hundreds) of musical sketches, lyrical ideas, guitar parts, drum beats etc sitting on studio hard drives waiting to be developed...but that hardly constitutes finished projects ready for prime-time. And regarding SOA, I believe that Bono and only Bono has indicated that such as project was in existence and completed (or near completed). The other three have been much more reticent. This leads me to think that 1) There was indeed a project under the heading "Songs of Ascent" but 2) such a project comprised of three completed tracks and some musical doodles. It's likely that the "club" album and the DM work is in a similar state of development. The idea that they have three finished albums just sitting on the shelf just seems like...wishful thinking by desperate U2 fans (I'm one of them).

 

[powerhour24]

I've been out of the details loop for awhile, but I'm fairly certain Bono is not the only one who has spoken of SOA as a total project, & Paul McG spoke of the DM sessions as nearly a complete album's worth of material a year ago, so there's more to it than you're admitting.

 

[Niceman]

I find it difficult to swallow the notion that U2 are hoarding a plethora of completed songs, much less several completed albums. I do believe they have dozens (if not hundreds) of musical sketches, lyrical ideas, guitar parts, drum beats etc sitting on studio hard drives waiting to be developed...but that hardly constitutes finished projects ready for prime-time.

I don't get this way of looking at things. Myself, I write novels. I always write far more than I publish. Some of them end up being incomplete, some end up being not quite good enough, in my opinion. And that's without some big executive sitting over me and demanding that I follow a prudent schedule.

They released HTDAAB in 2004, 4 years after ATYCLB. Including Fast Cars, it was 12 songs. Does anyone really think these four creative artists only wrote 3 songs every year during that period? You're hypothesizing that they're extreme dilettantes. I imagine that U2 get together at least every couple of months and write a half dozen songs together. I also suspect that Bono and Edge each show up to those sessions with 3 or 4 songs they've been working on in the meantime that they're excited about. Does that mean they then go ahead and write, construct, 4 albums with finished tracklistings? No. But all of those sessions do get recorded. If they wanted to include one of those songs in an album eventually, sure they'd work on it some more (to death) but that doesn't mean the song wasn't already what you and I would consider a coherent song. I'm sure many of them are.

Think about the beach clips. Those songs were not in their final forms, but they weren't sketches. They were real songs.

Anyone who thinks U2 is only writing as much as they're releasing is suggesting the band almost never writes. That's pretty ridiculous.

 

[trevgreg]

Also consider the fact that the songs they write could have alternate takes too. Xanax and Wine = Fast Cars, Native Son = Vertigo, that sort of thing. I imagine that there is a pretty big pile of material from which to build off of for that reason alone. How many songs that is though exactly, who knows?

I can't picture anything they're doing mostly just being sketches or that sort of thing. We already know there's quite a few unreleased songs out there that they've mentioned in interviews and such. Of course, there will be various songs that are incomplete, but that's the same deal with any bands out there.

 

[Hollow Island]

I don`t see how it can be argued that they`re as productive as the were in the 80s or 90s. In the from 91-97 they released an album every two years. In the From 2000 - 2009 they released albums (approximately) every 4 years.

I don't know how to express this without descending into a chasm of tautology, but if they're working on songs that don't make it onto the final work - the product - then the songs are just stops on the way to the station. It's like if you're writing and discard paragraphs or pages, or whole ideas while you're working on a story. The things you get rid of aren't part of the production. They're part of the work that led to the production.

Even if you disagree with that assessment, I think a good indicator of their decreased productivity is the absence of b-sides. It's likely that they release everything that they think of as being good enough to be released. We can speculate on why that is - commercial considerations or whatever - but that's irresponsible and obviously can't be verified, and veers dangerously close to Rumsfeldian logic.

They don't release as much material as they used to, which is the only tool we have to accurately verify their level of productivity.

 

[Nick66]

They don't release as much material as they used to, which is the only tool we have to accurately verify their level of productivity.

Watch it...you're interjecting reality, and a conclusion based on observable data, into the discussion. That's frowned upon.

 

[Niceman]

I don`t see how it can be argued that they`re as productive as the were in the 80s or 90s. In the from 91-97 they released an album every two years. In the From 2000 - 2009 they released albums (approximately) every 4 years.

I don't know how to express this without descending into a chasm of tautology, but if they're working on songs that don't make it onto the final work - the product - then the songs are just stops on the way to the station. It's like if you're writing and discard paragraphs or pages, or whole ideas while you're working on a story. The things you get rid of aren't part of the production. They're part of the work that led to the production.

Even if you disagree with that assessment, I think a good indicator of their decreased productivity is the absence of b-sides. It's likely that they release everything that they think of as being good enough to be released. We can speculate on why that is - commercial considerations or whatever - but that's irresponsible and obviously can't be verified, and veers dangerously close to Rumsfeldian logic.

They don't release as much material as they used to, which is the only tool we have to accurately verify their level of productivity.

I'll say it again: Writing and releasing are not the same thing. They have unquestionably released far less material, but there is no way to know how much they are writing, except to say it is clearly more than they are releasing.

If you don't consider an unshared work of art a work of art, then you have a different definition of a work of art than I have.

Van Gogh's work didn't sell while he was alive. By your definition he was never productive.