U2+Double Album=Greatest Band?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

spanisheyes

Forum Moderator, The Goal Is Soul
Joined
Nov 14, 2000
Messages
861
Location
Miami, New Orleans, London, Belfast, and Berlin
Some of the greatest bands of all time have released successful double albums of original material, including The Beatles (White Album), The Rolling Stones (Exile on Main Street), The Who (Quadrophenia/Tommy), and Led Zeppelin (Physical Graffiti).

Would you ever want to see U2 follow in the same fashion as the greatest bands ever and release a double album of original material, or would you have them continue to make successful single albums?

Could you ever see U2 release a double album with guest musicians, or would critics view this as a copying of sorts in the vain of the above classic albums?

And has U2 not releasing a double album of original material been a detriment to their career, or is the double album an experience of the past as is the case of the classic bands above?

Chris
 
spanisheyes said:

Would you ever want to see U2 follow in the same fashion as the greatest bands ever and release a double album of original material, or would you have them continue to make successful single albums?

Could you ever see U2 release a double album with guest musicians, or would critics view this as a copying of sorts in the vain of the above classic albums?

I do NOT want to see U2 release any album full of guest musicians. Seriously. I think it's a terrible idea. Collaborations here and there are perfectly fine, but an album? :no:

Anyway.. I doubt they will. However, the Joshua Tree was going to be a double album originally, so perhaps not, but... who knows what to expect?
 
Hello,

What about Rattle and Hum?
It was a double (vinyl) album, including songs with guest musicians.
U2 said they were going back to the roots of American music with that album and critics viewed it as a copying of sorts in the vain of the above classic albums (and artists).

So for U2 it's "been there, done that"

C ya!

Marty

P.S. IIRC, Exile On Main Street is not totally original material, it also has some covers
 
Popmartijn, you seemed to have missed the part in my post about the double album being original material. Rattle and Hum was made up of half new material, and half live material, and is actually considered a soundtrack. It is true that Rattle and Hum had guest musicians on it, so it may be the closest thing to a double album as described above with the forementioned bands.

What I was talking about is an album made up of 16 to 18 songs never released before. And in the case of Exile on Main Street, it is true that is has some covers, and U2 could easily make a double album and include covers if they want. I guess what I was getting at is that some of the greatest bands ever released double albums, and pushed themselves creatively with the freedom afforded them by the releasing of a double album, and was just wondering if this is in U2's future as well.

Chris

Popmartijn said:
Hello,

What about Rattle and Hum?
It was a double (vinyl) album, including songs with guest musicians.
U2 said they were going back to the roots of American music with that album and critics viewed it as a copying of sorts in the vain of the above classic albums (and artists).

So for U2 it's "been there, done that"

C ya!

Marty

P.S. IIRC, Exile On Main Street is not totally original material, it also has some covers
 
spanisheyes said:

What I was talking about is an album made up of 16 to 18 songs never released before. And in the case of Exile on Main Street, it is true that is has some covers, and U2 could easily make a double album and include covers if they want. I guess what I was getting at is that some of the greatest bands ever released double albums, and pushed themselves creatively with the freedom afforded them by the releasing of a double album, and was just wondering if this is in U2's future as well.

Chris


I wonder if a double album would not be pushing themselves creatively but spreading themselves too thin? From my understanding, they could have easily released a double album for the Joshua Tree, but they wanted to make it as tight and coherent as possible and therefore many songs went to the backburner (used for Bsides or maybe R&H) and only the BEST were used for JT. From this example it seems to me that double albums may be not as well done as U2 aim to do- as far as an overall coherent theme and better music released to the public. For instance, if Always had been included on a second half album to go with ATYCLB, I think it would lessen Beautiful Day. "Less is more" in that instance.

I could be totally misunderstanding the idea of a double album- but I do not think that in any recording session U2 have come out with enough solid songs for a double album. Should they try? :slant: If it ain't broke... but on the other hand I love to see them challenge themselves to try and make enough songs for two albums, but I think in terms of time that would take way too long, and this is a band that needs to be on the road with their music and their people. And I would personally rather have an album with 12 or so of the BEST songs they can make with "NO" flaws than a double album with decent songs.

As far as a collaboration album- :no:
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: U2+Double Album=Greatest Band?

elevatedmole said:
However, the Joshua Tree was going to be a double album originally, so perhaps not, but... who knows what to expect?

Even though the Joshua Tree album was supposed to be a double album, and I believe that the b-sides that we saw from The Joshua Tree would have been worthy to be on The Joshua Tree. I believe that the reason we never saw the album actually become a double album is that it might have been musically a risk for U2 at the time. Even though many of us in this forum love The Unforgettable Fire, it was not the success that U2 were looking for, and many would argue that it was The Joshua Tree that saved U2's career, and helped them to become not just another mediocre band like we saw in the 80's.

I, for one, would love to see U2 make a double album of material that would stretch them musically, and allow them to creatively make an album that would take on different styles of music, as well as even allowing the Edge to sing a few songs himself. Sometimes I think U2 worry too much about what their fans think, or have to much pressure to make the next great album, or make an album that their record company will endorse and support. Haven't U2 proved themselves enough to be allowed to take the risk of a double album that would incorporate many elements that make U2 great, including as mentioned, the Edge's vocals, instrumentals, as well as exploring other styles of music, including irish, blues, and whatever else inspires them?

Chris
 
Last edited:
Unlike The White Album, Blonde on Blonde, London Calling, Exile on Main St, The River, Sign o' the Times, et al, U2's R&H does lean on live material to fill up a lot of its double-album-sized space, so in a crucial way it isn't a true double. But I think it's the only shot we're going to get at a double album from U2 -- they are too far along in their career now to consider one again. A double album has to be done at the just the right time in a band's career -- when they're at their most fertile. Clearly, for U2 that time was the late '80s; the amount of material they produced in 1987 and 1988 is just staggering, in quality as well as quantity. The double-album question was obviously on their minds: as someone has pointed out, JT was originally supposed to be a double (and would have been a damn good one, too).

Neil Young is another major (and prolific) rocker who never made a true double album. Like U2, the closest he came was a two-LP movie soundtrack that combined new material with live recordings (Journey into the Past -- as far as I know it's never been available on CD, which is probably fortunate...)
 
Spanisheyes,
Ummmmmmmm the Joshua Tree did not save U2s career because it did not need to be saved at the time. The Unforgettable Fire was a massive success worldwide cracking the top 10 or top 20 of every country with a chart then. It was also the first U2 album to be released in every country and territory possible. Before this, U2 had only had success in English speaking countries along with the Netherlands and Sweden.

The band went from playing single nights in Theaters on the War tour to 3,000 people, to playing multiple nights in 20,000 seat arena's on the Unforgettable Fire Tour! The band sold more T-shirts and other Fan items than all but the top 5 artist back then.

The Joshua Tree took U2 from being perhaps one of the top 20 bands in the world at the time to being the unquestioned #1 artist, band or singer, in the world.

The only album that saved U2s career was the War album because after the poor sales of Boy and October, the label would have dropped them or not supported them if War had flunked.
 
STING2 said:
The only album that saved U2s career was the War album because after the poor sales of Boy and October, the label would have dropped them or not supported them if War had flunked.

:yes: :yes: :yes:
 
I think the music industry feels double albums have gone the way of vinyl. (I know someone is going to point out that Smashing Pumpkins album a few years ago!)

From a financial point... why release a double 'more expensive' album that many 'average fans' wouldn't buy because of the extra price... when they can release two albums over a longer time span.. and pump out more singles.. and two tours... and more merch... etc...

Money makes the world go round....

and unfortunatley.. the music industry is driven by money...it's a business like any other...
 
personally I feel most albums that clock in over 45 minutes already are too long

I think Dylan's Blonde on Blonde is great, but I can't evenremember the last time I managed to listen to the whole album in one go
 
Back
Top Bottom