Someday U2 will have a new album. Today is not that day. discuss.

[The_acrobat]

Slow day?

.... well, Bono was in Omaha last night.... singing Stand by Me at a wedding....

Better update U2gigs.com!

 

[Spun2U]

.... well, Bono was in Omaha last night.... singing Stand by Me at a wedding....

Better update U2gigs.com!

This is what happens when you can't get a new album ready. Doing sideline work.

 

[ChargedVT]

The frustrating part is that when Bono says they are working hard and lost in the music and then he's gallivanting all over the globe, he's obviously aware that us fans are seeing that and surely he's thinking "the fans must think I'm having them on".

 

[subnet]

Lost in country music in Nebraska. Sheesh.

 

[Spun2U]

He's taken in some fashion in NYC. Glad he's spending some time with his family.

 

[mikal]

I am so lost Interference right now you guys.

 

[LemonMirrorSky]

Despite moments of near brilliance ('Please', 'Velvet Dress', 'Gone'), ATYCLB is a much stronger album overall than Pop. The first 7 songs on ATYCLB represent the longest string of unadulterated melody--in its purest form--ever found on a U2 album.

I disagree that ATYCLB is a much stronger album overall. Both albums have highs and lows. I just think that Pop has greater highs, that's all. For example: ATYCLB has the maudlin Stuck In A Moment (acoustic version was much better and suited the song better), the dumb Elevation and the less said about the last few verses of Kite, the better. Whereas Pop had some questionable lyrics on Playboy Mansion, undercooked production on Please but otherwise I think it is a brilliant album that captured the zeitgeist at the time very well. Anyway, I agree with that person who stated that ATYCLB is much better than HTDAAB at least.

I don't love ATYCLB and never have. But I respect that album well enough, I guess. I get what u2 were trying to do there and while I have my issues with it and always will, I can pretty well stomach it. Meaning the music itself.

HTDAAB is another matter altogether.

I agree pretty much completely with this.

Nope. The Joshua Tree was brilliant, Grammy or no Grammy.

 

[cypress]

ATYCLB was important because it moved U2 in another direction for the new millenium, and that really cannot be overstated...however it was more of a "half-album" because the back half seemed like an afterthought. Bomb, however, was a more complete album beginning to end. It just felt like they put a lot more into it and it showed.

NLOTH was better than both, IMO, as long as you eliminate songs 5,6 and 7. The 8 remaining songs are all excellent, and that's how i listen to the album now. The decision to open with GOYB as the first single was disasterous to the album's health. In @U2's fan survery, GOYB finished dead last when they asked fans what their favorite song on the album was. It reminded me alot of when they debuted Pop to the world with Discotheque. It's sad because, much like Pop, there are so many strong songs on NLOTH.. but it was torpedoed for good with the Grammy-opening performance of GOYB - which was an excellent performance of a poor song.

I suspect that U2 is sizing up the competition for Album of the Year and trying to figure out when will be the optimal time to release their new material. I believe that Grammy awards are more important to the band than most fans realize and it drives certain decisions they make. This Grammy season is a really strong year for album releases so they are passing on it for what they hope will be more fertile ground next year.

As a pure fan of U2, i don't care if they win awards or go Top 40 here in the U.S. anymore (I mean have you looked at the vast wasteland that is our top 40 these days?). I'd rather they steer clear of trying to "manufacture" a hit like they did with GOYB and go for pure experimentation like they did on Zooropa and they showed recently with 'Fez/Being Born'. That's really where U2 excels and the place where I'd like to see them go.

 

[Galeongirl]

lol, so because an album has won more grammy's, it's automatically better than the other? I don't even want to know what bullshit has won Grammy awards these days.

 

[lemonfly]

We need some new polls before EYKIW completely hits the self-destruct button. Six months to kill. Or twelve.

 

[trevgreg]

I'd rather they steer clear of trying to "manufacture" a hit like they did with GOYB and go for pure experimentation like they did on Zooropa and they showed recently with 'Fez/Being Born'. That's really where U2 excels and the place where I'd like to see them go.

It wasn't an attempt to "manufacture" a hit though. Edge came up with a riff that he liked and they tried making a song out of it for a long time (he is a guitar player, after all). The decision for it to be released as a single is another thing altogether. In terms of being an album track or being played in a live setting, it's not that terrible.

I don't mind Zooropa or Fez myself, but I don't want an entire album solely of experimentation and ambient stuff either. I'm not quite sure why people assume this is the music that U2 would automatically make in spite of everything. Just because it lacks guitar or hooks and screams "different" doesn't necessarily make it good every time.

 

[the scuv]

Didn't Larry mention about releasing before the end of the year, & then release again (ie 2 projects). Rather than 'butchering' the DM sessions, could this latest 'in the studio' be amounted to that.

There's also Iovine's Beats internet music service thing that's trying to get off the ground. Could U2 be linked into this in an attempt to curb piracy of their new album? Which also leads onto keeping things under wraps to again, reduce possible piracy.

I think we need a Dangermouse Afro icon!

 

[ChargedVT]

I just hope that after all this waiting and with obviously dozens of songs recorded across 4 years with at least 3 producers, that we get more than just 11 songs.
Release the older songs like North Star or Glastonbury as B-sides if you have to!
Or just release a 15 track, 65 minute album!
Okay neither situation is likely but we gotta have dreams yeah?

 

[ChargedVT]

Didn't Larry mention about releasing before the end of the year, & then release again (ie 2 projects). Rather than 'butchering' the DM sessions, could this latest 'in the studio' be amounted to that.

There's also Iovine's Beats internet music service thing that's trying to get off the ground. Could U2 be linked into this in an attempt to curb piracy of their new album? Which also leads onto keeping things under wraps to again, reduce possible piracy.

I think we need a Dangermouse Afro icon!

I'd love to think so but no. We've seen too many comments from people in the know that suggest nothing this year.

What they COULD do is release the first album in March, start the tour shortly after and release the second album in November. But, well, experience has caused us to discount this.

 

[digitize]

I just hope that after all this waiting and with obviously dozens of songs recorded across 4 years with at least 3 producers, that we get more than just 11 songs.
Release the older songs like North Star or Glastonbury as B-sides if you have to!
Or just release a 15 track, 65 minute album!
Okay neither situation is likely but we gotta have dreams yeah?

I'd rather have an album with eleven good songs than an album with those eleven songs plus Glastonbury and North Star.

Glastonbury occupies a position in my ranking of U2 songs similar to that of Big Girls Are Best.

 

[Blue Room]

U2 rap-scream_mp3

Again, the last 10 seconds of this clip sum up Bono's opinion (and mine) about this thread.

We will get new U2 music! (sometime)

 

[The Slow Loris]

lol, so because an album has won more grammy's, it's automatically better than the other? I don't even want to know what bullshit has won Grammy awards these days.

I don't think anyone said that. The main point is that if an album is so terrible (as Bomb & ATYCLB are oftentimes accused by rabid U2 fans), then it probably wouldn't even be nominated for a grammy, let alone SWEEP them while also making history! I'm not a huge fan of award shows, but I know if I were in a band and were recognized at being the best in the world in any music genre, I would feel pretty good about it, and it would be nice if my fans would back me up. I know I was proud of U2 when they kicked everyone's butt with both ATYCLB & Atomic Bomb....but I guess that must make me a naive simpleton according to the elite U2 fan.

 

[Edge Evans]

I agree with you on all counts.

 

[jeevey]

And I don't think we could say that an album winning an award necessarily proves that's it's not very good after all.

It does look like U2 values awards. They may or may not engineer records specifically to win them but they usually look sincerely happy about it, esp. in the post-Pop era. Maybe that's because they really were just chasing popularity, or maybe it's because they valued the affirmation more after so nearly losing the mainstream audience.

 

[The Slow Loris]

And I don't think we could say that an album winning an award necessarily proves that's it's not very good after all.

It does look like U2 values awards. They may or may not engineer records specifically to win them but they usually look sincerely happy about it, esp. in the post-Pop era. Maybe that's because they really were just chasing popularity, or maybe it's because they valued the affirmation more after so nearly losing the mainstream audience.

Regarding your first point: Very true. Otherwise we would have to concede that The Joshua Tree was not a good album since it won Album of the Year. The fact is, that album captured the attention of a generation. It did it in a very subtle way and, despite it almost demanding that attention, it did it by whispering its way into the consciousness of the mainstream, and then turning that whisper into a scream from the collective rooftop of the mainstream (the 'Streets video from an LA rooftop is not without significance whatsoever)....this was U2's call to the generation, and intentionally cemented them at the very forefront of the mainstream that many a U2 fan despise. Yet it was intentional on U2's part, just as it has always been.

 

[LemonMirrorSky]

The main point is that if an album is so terrible (as Bomb & ATYCLB are oftentimes accused by rabid U2 fans), then it probably wouldn't even be nominated for a grammy

lol. Okay, with that logic then Kelly Clarkson's Stronger must be one cracker of an album.. since it won Best Pop Album and all. Maybe I should go pick it up.

 

[Van Cleef]

lol. Okay, with that logic then Kelly Clarkson's Stronger must be one cracker of an album.. since it won Best Pop Album and all. Maybe I should go pick it up.

No, you should not because i know from your posts you have good taste.

Music is not a competition. It shouldn't be anyway.

So, who fuckin cares about grammy's and such?

Only the few among us who justify their lousy tastes using the "grammy" as something we should value.

May i remind some of you about Milli Vanilli?

 

[The Slow Loris]

No, you should not because i know from your posts you have good taste.

Music is not a competition. It shouldn't be anyway.

So, who fuckin cares about grammy's and such?

Only the few among us who justify their lousy tastes using the "grammy" as something we should value.

May i remind some of you about Milli Vanilli?

Who cares about Grammys? U2. And if you wanted to be the biggest band in the world, you probably would too.

 

[Van Cleef]

Who cares about Grammys? U2. And if you wanted to be the biggest band in the world, you probably would too.

Because bigger is always better, right?

 

[The Slow Loris]

lol. Okay, with that logic then Kelly Clarkson's Stronger must be one cracker of an album.. since it won Best Pop Album and all. Maybe I should go pick it up.

Why must we insist on using extremes to make a point? There's a lot of middle ground between "Terrible" and "a cracker of an album". It appears you completely missed the point.

 

[The Slow Loris]

Because bigger is always better, right?

Yup, that's right Van Cleef, that's right. You hit the nail on the head (just following your lead with the sarcasm). Now back to being sincere: U2 have always said they want to be the biggest band in the world, but ALSO the best. They have also continually said that it would be a shame to be great at the art, but bad at the business. So, no, Van Cleef, the biggest does not mean the best, but by no means are the two mutually exclusive.

 

[LemonMirrorSky]

No, you should not because i know from your posts you have good taste.

Haha thanks.

Why must we insist on using extremes to make a point? There's a lot of middle ground between "Terrible" and "a cracker of an album". It appears you completely missed the point.

No I understand your point. I was just having some fun with the Kelly Clarkson example. But you don't seem to understand my point that: Just because Atomic Bomb won a boatload of grammies does not shake my own personal opinion that it is a mediocre album compared to say, Achtung Baby, Joshua Tree or Pop. Just because the world loves it does not mean that I have to love it too. We all have our personal preferences anyway.

 

[Van Cleef]

Yup, that's right Van Cleef, that's right. You hit the nail on the head (just following your lead with the sarcasm). Now back to being sincere: U2 have always said they want to be the biggest band in the world, but ALSO the best. They have also continually said that it would be a shame to be great at the art, but bad at the business. So, no, Van Cleef, the biggest does not mean the best, but by no means are the two mutually exclusive.

Why do you care so much about what they think and want?

It should always be about what you think, baby...

 

[popacrobat]

this argument is pretty ridiculous.

nobody is saying grammys = awesome, great, great, great music. but it doesn't have to be that grammys are reserved for bubblegum pop types only, and some of those top 40/billboard 100 songs can be pretty damn good anyway. (read: some).

that said, how many times has bono gone on about having a single that catches fire, or puncturing the social sphere or something? for u2 to win grammy awards as a 40/50 year old rock band, "dad rock" label or not, it means that they were successfully able to puncture whatever mainstream sphere they wanted to, and the songs, at the least, resonated with the general public to a fairly good extent.

u2 want their songs to be heard everywhere. grammys for a rock band can be an indication of success because of that.

that doesn't mean that sometimes you can't make it on your own is better than say, streets, one, the fly or bad because it won song of the year in 2006. it simply indicates that u2 created a song that was widely appreciated, circulated, played and well-received.

 

[The Slow Loris]

Why do you care so much about what they think and want?

It should always be about what you think, baby...

Fair enough.