The album seems to be still progressing...

[zoopop]

Man, everyone needs to calm down.

We're just in between albums, they'll be back

Things to consider:

-U2 released HTDAAB Nov 2004
-Vertigo finished in Dec 2006 (2yrs)

27 month break

-NLOTH released Mar 2009
-360 finished in July 2011 (2 yrs)

-Its Oct 2012 (13 months since 360)

According to the last few albums we still have another 12 months to go or so if they do Fall 2013.

Plus, there just about to release the 360 book so we'll hear from the band then. Its a long break but its the same as the last 2 albums. And I still think they'll release a single of sort next summer. Maybe for a movie to get people excited about U2 again.

 

[Registered Dude]

this is no place for rational thought and/perspective, zoopop

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Lol I read that and my very response in my head was

"get out of here with your logic and such."

 

[Gonna Run 2 U]

All I can hope for, whenever the release, is that it is better than NLOTH. That album did not grow on me.

 

[Nick66]

Man, everyone needs to calm down.

We're just in between albums, they'll be back

Things to consider:

-U2 released HTDAAB Nov 2004
-Vertigo finished in Dec 2006 (2yrs)

27 month break

-NLOTH released Mar 2009
-360 finished in July 2011 (2 yrs)

-Its Oct 2012 (13 months since 360)

According to the last few albums we still have another 12 months to go or so if they do Fall 2013.

Plus, there just about to release the 360 book so we'll hear from the band then. Its a long break but its the same as the last 2 albums. And I still think they'll release a single of sort next summer. Maybe for a movie to get people excited about U2 again.

Well, you've made an informative post, but I don't think the issue is whether we'll hear from the band again. Nobody, to my knowledge, has suggested that.

The issue is, when we hear from them, what will it be? The music will come when it comes; I'm more interested in which direction they're going to take, especially since presumably they're entering their next 'phase'.

 

[Blue Room]

Man, everyone needs to calm down.

We're just in between albums, they'll be back

Things to consider:

-U2 released HTDAAB Nov 2004
-Vertigo finished in Dec 2006 (2yrs)

27 month break

-NLOTH released Mar 2009
-360 finished in July 2011 (2 yrs)

-Its Oct 2012 (13 months since 360)

According to the last few albums we still have another 12 months to go or so if they do Fall 2013.

Plus, there just about to release the 360 book so we'll hear from the band then. Its a long break but its the same as the last 2 albums. And I still think they'll release a single of sort next summer. Maybe for a movie to get people excited about U2 again.

Exactly, they are technically right on schedule. Late fall of 2013 new album, arena tour in spring 2014 of N. America and most likely stadiums in the summer 2014 in Europe. Some of U2's road crew basically confirmed this schedule at the end of 360. Of course nothing is set in stone, but there is nothing out of the ordinary or unexpected either at this point.

 

[corianderstem]

There aren't still people holding onto amusing hope that something is coming out this year yet, are there?

 

[popacrobat]

no

 

[mikal]

I don't know guys. Maybe I'm just being a jerk here, but after following the best album voting threads which inspired me to listen to their 90's albums all the way through this week combined with the fact that I've discovered such amazing music in the last 5-10 years from bands other than U2 (and I like their albums a lot more than U2's 00's material), it only made me less excited for whatever comes out next year.

I hope they surprise me, but I don't see their new album next year getting any kind of reaction out of me the way Tame Impala's new album has.

 

[OpenG180]

IMO, U2 had 13 excellent years from 1984-1997. One excellent album after another. The Beatles had 4 (1965-1969) perfect years. The Rolling Stones had 10 excellent years (1968-1978 ). Pink Floyd had 8 excellent years (1971-1979). David Bowie had 8 excellent years from 1972-1980 (or 11, if you think Let's Dance from 1983 is a great record). It's very, very, very unrealistic to think U2 can have excellent albums again. They HAD their excellent years already. They are past their prime. I know there are ppl who think the 00's output is excellent. Well, they are mediocre to me. NLOTH is a bit better, but it doesn't hold a candle to any of the albums during the 1984-1997 period, including Rattle and Hum. And i can live with that perfectly.
Again, this is all, of course, my opinion and not facts.

 

[Niceman]

MOS had as much to do with Eno/Lanois as it did with U2. When they're not around, U2 is a different band...e.g., they haven't released a good album since War (with the exception of R&H) without those two being involved.

Danger Mouse is a good producer, but I fear U2 wants him involved mostly b/c they think he can help make radio friendly hits for them.

I have a bad feeling they are as lost and directionless as they were in the period immediately following 360.

POP was 1,000 times the album ATYCLB was..... but there's no need to have THAT debate again...

However, I do believe that, especially after NLOTH, Eno&Lanois have proven the band is generally stronger with all 6 members.

I do agree that the band seems lost. If they had something they were crazy excited about, I don't think they would be able to sit on it for a few years. Remember how Bono talked about MoFo in the prime-time special? He said it was the reason to go on tour. If they had a new MoFo.... I think we'd have it too by now.

 

[Niceman]

I think U2's place in the current musical landscape is: they are The Rolling Stones. When both Keith and Mick were 52 years old (same as Bono now) they were releasing Stripped (1995). And they were considered dinousaurs at least since Dirty Work in 1986. The Stones embraced being a dinosaur act. Their tours are made of warhorses. Yes, they released another 2 studio albums after Stripped but they sucked. They were an excuse for the gigantic tours full of warhorses.

My greatest fear is that 360 turned U2 into The Stones. We had a long thread and I got attacked for saying U2 shouldn't be touring a best-of tour, but I saw something dangerous happening there. If the next tour is not new album centric, I think their status will be crystalized.

Ok, I'm also afraid of zombies, but U2 turning into the Stones is probably on par.

 

[Niceman]

Jack White should produce the next U2 album.

This is true. It would do incredible things to both U2 and Jack White.

 

[Babyface82]

I want a new album only to see them live again! That's the truth!

 

[Niceman]

I want a new album only to see them live again! That's the truth!

I'm the opposite. I want the material. A tour is bonus.

 

[Blue Room]

I do agree that the band seems lost. If they had something they were crazy excited about, I don't think they would be able to sit on it for a few years. Remember how Bono talked about MoFo in the prime-time special? He said it was the reason to go on tour. If they had a new MoFo.... I think we'd have it too by now.

Not really, the band is right on schedule. They do plan these things tentatively years in advance, and over a year ago the plan was album in Fall 2013 with a tour in 2014. They are actually right on schedule. Anyone that thought there was going to be a new full U2 album this year was really kidding themselves. U2 want to mount another tour and they feel they need an album to support it. So they are not going to release an album at this stage just for new material without a world tour to follow and it would be too early for their pattern (which includes, marketing, touring personnel and logistics) for an album and tour next year. The pattern could all change after this next album and tour, but right now, that is their plan from everything I have heard.

They have planned it like this for decades. Oddly the only time they fell behind in their recent history and thought there was a problem was the very album you point to, POP.

 

[Niceman]

Not really, the band is right on schedule. They do plan these things tentatively years in advance, and over a year ago the plan was album in Fall 2013 with a tour in 2014. They are actually right on schedule. Anyone that thought there was going to be a new full U2 album this year was really kidding themselves. U2 want to mount another tour and they feel they need an album to support it. So they are not going to release an album at this stage just for new material without a world tour to follow and it would be too early for their pattern (which includes, marketing, touring personnel and logistics) for an album and tour next year. The pattern could all change after this next album and tour, but right now, that is their plan from everything I have heard.

They have planned it like this for decades. Oddly the only time they fell behind in their recent history and thought there was a problem was the very album you point to, POP.

You quoted me, but I don't feel like you were replying to my post. I didn't say they were on or off schedule.

But in any case, they supposedly almost released an album a couple of times in the last 3 and a half years. If they had felt the material was there, we would have had it.

 

[Nick66]

IMO, U2 had 13 excellent years from 1984-1997. One excellent album after another. The Beatles had 4 (1965-1969) perfect years. The Rolling Stones had 10 excellent years (1968-1978 ). Pink Floyd had 8 excellent years (1971-1979). David Bowie had 8 excellent years from 1972-1980 (or 11, if you think Let's Dance from 1983 is a great record). It's very, very, very unrealistic to think U2 can have excellent albums again. They HAD their excellent years already. They are past their prime. I know there are ppl who think the 00's output is excellent. Well, they are mediocre to me. NLOTH is a bit better, but it doesn't hold a candle to any of the albums during the 1984-1997 period, including Rattle and Hum. And i can live with that perfectly.
Again, this is all, of course, my opinion and not facts.

I agree with you on U2's incredible run, though I'd probably cut it off after Zooropa.

However, I really don't get the 00's hate around here, which actually seems to have gotten even more pronounced in the short time I've been here. I do think Bomb was mediocre, at best, and I count is among their bottom three. Basically U2 on cruise control.

But I thought ATYCLB was a breath of fresh air and there are frankly just a lot of great pop and rock songs on that record. It was exactly what U2 needed to do at exactly the right time. But you know my feelings on that.

NLOTH was a mixed bag...occasionally brilliant (e.g. MOS), but incredibly uneven. Still, it was a departure from the last record, and a bold one at that. Though I'm not sure I'm as fond as the record as I was when it came out, the stuff that I like on it I like quite a bit. The best stuff on it is better than the best stuff on ATYLCB, but it's not as complete a record. And again, it's miles ahead of Bomb.

So yeah, their 00's input can't compare with what came before, but as you pointed out, they had a tough act to follow with everything that came before. IMO they did about as well as could be expected for a band in their position, assuming that a big part of their motivation was selling records. With that in mind, I do think the 00's hate here is a little over the top.

 

[The_acrobat]

ATYCLB gets too much shit here. I know, I know... we're all sick of Beautiful Day and Elevation, and our enthusiasm for Walk On has been deluded by how empty the live versions sound compared to the passion of the studio version. Also, if we see In a Little While on a setlist again, this forum might just cause a worldwide implosion into a black hole.

But this album is one of the most important in U2's career. I think back to the fall of 2000. I was fresh out of high school, and was pretty overwhelmed by the adult world and it's infinite possibilities. This album became my compass. Not to mention, it was nice for my favorite band to be back on top. That 1-5 run was pretty much unbeatable. When I look at the world was the album's hidden treasure, the song that took me the longest to "GET", but once I did it hit me like a MACK truck.

After 9/11, the album really took on a whole new meaning. It's almost as if U2 wrote that album know that it was going to take place. ATYCLB gets unfairly lumped in with HTDAAB, when it should stand on it's own as a great piece of work that was more than just another album by the world's biggest band.

 

[Niceman]

Actually, I think In a Little While is by far the best song on ATYCLB. I've never complained about them playing it. Beautiful Day and Elevation are great live too. Now Walk On? Gah. Weakest track they played on 360 by a wide margin....

 

[OpenG180]

I agree with you on U2's incredible run, though I'd probably cut it off after Zooropa.

However, I really don't get the 00's hate around here, which actually seems to have gotten even more pronounced in the short time I've been here. I do think Bomb was mediocre, at best, and I count is among their bottom three. Basically U2 on cruise control.

But I thought ATYCLB was a breath of fresh air and there are frankly just a lot of great pop and rock songs on that record. It was exactly what U2 needed to do at exactly the right time. But you know my feelings on that.

NLOTH was a mixed bag...occasionally brilliant (e.g. MOS), but incredibly uneven. Still, it was a departure from the last record, and a bold one at that. Though I'm not sure I'm as fond as the record as I was when it came out, the stuff that I like on it I like quite a bit. The best stuff on it is better than the best stuff on ATYLCB, but it's not as complete a record. And again, it's miles ahead of Bomb.

So yeah, their 00's input can't compare with what came before, but as you pointed out, they had a tough act to follow with everything that came before. IMO they did about as well as could be expected for a band in their position, assuming that a big part of their motivation was selling records. With that in mind, I do think the 00's hate here is a little over the top.

It's not that i hate the 00'S. I think they were inevitable in terms of decline in quality. What i have a profound dislike of is U2's attitude in the 00's. That whole "we're re-applying for the job [of] best band in the world" shit. I fell in love with U2 in 1991. And i fell in love with both the music and the attitude they had back then. And it was a very different attitude. When i read a Q interview with U2 just before releasing ATYCLB, i knew (or had a feeling) that this U2 were not really my thing. I remember listening to The Ground Beneath her Feet (which i know you don't like) and thinking: this is it. That's the path i want to see U2 walk. A mature one. And a coherent one too. Then came Elevation. Sorry, but this is a shitty song IMO. I could not believe the same band who gave us Your Blue Room, Please and Ground Beneath few years before was producing merda like Elevation. Stuck, BD (never understood why ppl love it so much), Peace on Earth, Grace etc, none of them appeals to me. Kite, Walk On, When i look and New York are good, not great. About HTDAAB, it really is a terrible album, musically speaking. And i can't listen to it on CD or mp3 because it is one of the major victims of the loudness war. I really love some songs on NLOTH (Magnificent, MOS, Cedars, Fez and i like Breathe and Unknown Caller). But i can't call it a very good album.
What i mean is, U2 would decline. But they could, at least, have had a different attitude. Of course, they made great songs after the golden period. MOS being a fine example. But all the others major acts had great songs too after their golden periods. If U2 continues producing music (which i believe they will), i know they will have a great song or two on the next albums. But are those songs and those albums really necessary? To me, the 00's were not necessary. And i'm pretty sure the 10's will not be necessary either. And with a band like U2, i don't want a song being composed and played just for the sake of it. Just to try being the best band in the World again. I wanna feel like it's necessary. I wanna feel like they have to make those songs and that we, the audience, have to listen to them because they actually have something to communicate.

 

[The_acrobat]

Also, I love "BOMB" and NLOTH as well, but they just didn't connect with me in the same way. I'm sure I'll love this new album as well, but I don't know if it's possible for a 31 year old husband and father with a career, house, car payments, etc to connect with an album the way an 18 year old with no worries except girls and what was I going to do next Saturday.

 

[bonocomet]

Actually, I think In a Little While is by far the best song on ATYCLB. I've never complained about them playing it. Beautiful Day and Elevation are great live too. Now Walk On? Gah. Weakest track they played on 360 by a wide margin....

This is exactly how I feel. The only slight exception is that I put Beautiful Day pretty high up there with In A Little While as well.

 

[dan_smee]

This is the typical way I understand it...and while U2's situation could be different, I don't see why that would be the case.

Most notable rock producers get a flat rate/salary up front. And often with some prestigious (or whatever term you like) artist like U2, rather than just boost the salary, the producer gets his flat rate and the artists will toss in a royalty of some kind. Royalties have always been complicated to me because of all the varieties, so I won't even attempt to explain - other than to say - there is little chance DM is paid with an hourly wage (to so speak). In other words - more time in the studio (in this sense) is not going to benefit his pocketbook.

And in country/pop/rap/hip-hop it can be different because of how producers skip around. They can be paid by track. So that is more akin to producers being paid for 'time served', where the more time they spend with the artist, the more they get paid because they are literally doing more work.

Also it is not cost prohibitive for U2 - a band that bothered to build their own studio for the comfort and cost saving - to attach payment of the producer to 'time served', when all of their sessions are long as shit anyhow.

But he's probably working with U2 for all of the obvious reasons other than the money. And if you assume that he DOES work for a flat rate/salary, then his working with U2 or literally anyone else makes no monetary difference. DM could make his basic flat rate (whatever he typically demands) producing elsewhere, with The Shins or whomever. However, maybe that royalty is worth it to him - financially - and it might be contingent on finishing up the album. But even in this case, whether they finish in October of 2012 or July of 2013, it's not going to make him MORE money taking longer.

And if all of this is true, and considering how unprofessional it is to negotiate rates after the fact - there is probably a very good chance DM has already been paid his salary (royalties aside).

And since I mentioned the idea of him getting burned out in the studio with U2 (ala Chris Thomas or whatever) I should mention this aside - his home base of operations is in America. So while he's likely not locked up in the studio with U2 for any set length of time or days, he can't exactly go home too easily with the Atlantic ocean in his way. Any trips back home would have to coincide with U2 taking a break themselves. And U2 has taken breaks but I don't really think this album 'kicked off' in full force until Jan/Feb of this year. DM's sticking around (or not) might depend on how far along they were when they started in Jan/Feb of this year. He could stick with them until mid 2013, I just don't know why he would. Because if things are going swimmingly well, then why do they need all of that time? I think it's a case of U2 (or 3/4's of the members) wanting to take the time regardless. To them, what's the rush?

So maybe a financial benefit to him hanging around can be made - about a potential royalty contingent upon completion of the album. After all, U2 are one of the artists that still sell albums - often hard copies (CD). If that is the case, and it very well could be, you could make the argument that it benefits his wallet to hang in there. Without knowing the contract between U2 and Burton, this is all speculation. But there is a reasonable deduction to be made...I refer to my earlier "charming" remarks.

I agree, and given all of this, you would think he could spend chunks away from the studio while U2 write / develop assuming they aren't nearly at the end. The context of the Black Keys article gives hope that they are nearly at the end, as he can't afford any time to help them out.

 

[Niceman]

I agree, and given all of this, you would think he could spend chunks away from the studio while U2 write / develop assuming they aren't nearly at the end. The context of the Black Keys article gives hope that they are nearly at the end, as he can't afford any time to help them out.

Eh. If you want. It might mean that, or it might not.

 

[trevgreg]

Actually, I think In a Little While is by far the best song on ATYCLB. I've never complained about them playing it.

Just the people who catch 20+ shows on a tour leg...

 

[Niceman]

Just the people who catch 20+ shows on a tour leg...

There are a lot of songs they played more often than IALW which would bother me more. I had a hard time sitting through One and Walk On on the one show I managed to see last time.

 

[mama cass]

But in any case, they supposedly almost released an album a couple of times in the last 3 and a half years.

this is exactly what's throwing me

 

[DevilsShoes]

My greatest fear is that 360 turned U2 into The Stones. We had a long thread and I got attacked for saying U2 shouldn't be touring a best-of tour, but I saw something dangerous happening there. If the next tour is not new album centric, I think their status will be crystalized.

I think the only way the next tour will be album-centric is if said album is a success, if it isn't they'll fall back on the 80's/early 90's classics again.

Sometimes when I hear Edge say how restless the band are and how they are always seeking to carve out new paths, I feel he is almost speaking by rote because the last few albums haven't really reflected this mindset at all.

NLOTH is too much a half-way house to be seriously considered a bold step in any direction really, there just is not the clarity of vision that informed the likes of AB or ATYCLB.

Then again, U2 don't seem to be that interested in really breaking new ground anymore, their main intent appears to be writing that 'classic' song, the one which strikes that universal chord. It's a fine idea but U2 are always at their best when they are striving for something new and not trying to conform to conventional tropes.

I just wonder how conscious U2 actually are of these changes.

 

[Nick66]

It's not that i hate the 00'S. I think they were inevitable in terms of decline in quality. What i have a profound dislike of is U2's attitude in the 00's. That whole "we're re-applying for the job [of] best band in the world" shit. I fell in love with U2 in 1991. And i fell in love with both the music and the attitude they had back then. And it was a very different attitude. When i read a Q interview with U2 just before releasing ATYCLB, i knew (or had a feeling) that this U2 were not really my thing. I remember listening to The Ground Beneath her Feet (which i know you don't like) and thinking: this is it. That's the path i want to see U2 walk. A mature one. And a coherent one too. Then came Elevation. Sorry, but this is a shitty song IMO. I could not believe the same band who gave us Your Blue Room, Please and Ground Beneath few years before was producing merda like Elevation. Stuck, BD (never understood why ppl love it so much), Peace on Earth, Grace etc, none of them appeals to me. Kite, Walk On, When i look and New York are good, not great. About HTDAAB, it really is a terrible album, musically speaking. And i can't listen to it on CD or mp3 because it is one of the major victims of the loudness war. I really love some songs on NLOTH (Magnificent, MOS, Cedars, Fez and i like Breathe and Unknown Caller). But i can't call it a very good album.
What i mean is, U2 would decline. But they could, at least, have had a different attitude. Of course, they made great songs after the golden period. MOS being a fine example. But all the others major acts had great songs too after their golden periods. If U2 continues producing music (which i believe they will), i know they will have a great song or two on the next albums. But are those songs and those albums really necessary? To me, the 00's were not necessary. And i'm pretty sure the 10's will not be necessary either. And with a band like U2, i don't want a song being composed and played just for the sake of it. Just to try being the best band in the World again. I wanna feel like it's necessary. I wanna feel like they have to make those songs and that we, the audience, have to listen to them because they actually have something to communicate.

You make some good points, but look, I think the U2 you're describing does not...and for the most part has not, ever existed. Let's just assume for the moment that your take on the artistic merits of YBR/Please/Ground Beneath Her Feet vs. BD/Stuck/Elevation are correct...i.e. that the the former are superior to the latter, musically. So what? U2, and in particular Bono, for almost all their career have said that mass appeal, and getting played on the radio, making "pop friendly" hits and being relevant is one of, if not the most important, aspects to their approach towards making music. By the bands own measure, they'd take those songs from ATYCLB...the pop hits...than the stuff from Pop and Passengers that you describe seven days a week and twice on Sunday.

I think I can say with confidence that Bono would tell you that Please/YBR and Ground were not successful because they never broke through into the general consciousness, no matter what their musical merits. Remember what Bono said about Zooropa, which is pretty similar to what he later said about Pop...

"I thought of Zooropa at the time as a work of genius. I really thought our pop discipline was matching our experimentation and this was our Sgt. Pepper. I was a little wrong about that. The truth is our pop disciplines were letting us down. We didn't create hits. We didn't quite deliver the songs."

Yes, yes. I know Bono is a revisionist liar. But this attitude towards of the intrinsic value of their music with its commercial success is not recent, as some like to say. Bono has been saying some variation of this since JT. And make no mistake, the radical change in direction for AB was at least as much for commercial considerations as it was for the (genuine) artistic ones. Just as ATYCLB was a direct response to the reaction to Pop, so AB was a direct response, at least partially, to R&H's reception. If Radiohead had made Pop, they would have likely said "f**c it" to the response that record got, and doubled down. That's not in U2's DNA.

The fact is, this band would rather have one HTDAAB than a dozen Zooropas or Pops. We can shake our heads at that and lament the wrongness of this thinking, but by doing so were at odds with what U2 pretty much has always been.

Of course, their reign at the top is pretty much over, so the question is do they change their value system and artistic approach when it comes to music, or continue to try (futilely, IMO) to be the biggest band in the world?

If there's a tension going on in the band right now, I believe it's that. I'd be curious to know, among Bono, The Edge, Larry, Adam and Paul McG., who is on what side.