U2 working with pop songwriter for new album

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rachel D. said:
Exactly. Larry is there to counteract Bono, so let's hope he's doing his job. If not...
Click to expand...

I think it's funny that people say this. Larry is on the record pushing U2 towards more pop centric music and hesitant to be more experimental.
 
KUEFC09U2 said:
How can people judge someone based on the work they do with a boyband? should we not wait until we actually hear something he has done with U2 before we proclaim him to be a shit producer?, i
Click to expand...

I agree, we don't know what it's going to sound like. It might actually be awesome. I'm just wondering what their motives are for working with this kind of producer; are they trying to diversify their sound and bring in some new ideas or are they trying to be hip with the kids?
 
BVS said:
I think it's funny that people say this. Larry is on the record pushing U2 towards more pop centric music and hesitant to be more experimental.
Click to expand...

It's based on the idea that Larry doesn't like crap and nonsense, not that he doesn't like pop music.
 
Why is anyone judging anything at this point, since we don't know a) what's actually happening, if anything; and b) see point A.
 
BVS said:
I think it's funny that people say this. Larry is on the record pushing U2 towards more pop centric music and hesitant to be more experimental.
Click to expand...

100% truth.

__________________________________________________________________
Forgive me if I rant about this subject...

When Bono says "Larry saves us from ourselves" or words to that effect, it's just another case of Bono politicking about the bands scattered creative decisions and melding it into a unified public 'vision'. They cater to Larry so he won't retire and end the band. His role in the band is...to make it as simple as possible, the last wall of resistance to final creative decisions. So like any 'political' spin, there is a morsel of truth to it.

But when Bono says things like "Larry saves us from ourselves" (or whatever), he's also being polite and loyal to a friend and 'brother'. Rather than saying "it was a bad decision to leave off Mercy but Larry thought it was too long" he'll bite the bullet and come up with a way to portray that it was entirely a 'band decision'. Even though a reporter from Blender magazine shone objective light on that truth, by saying it was Larry that objected. Why? Probably Because no 'pop song' could be 6 minutes long. "Too much of a good thing is a bad thing" as the Sloganeer likes to say. Larry has said that he wants to hear U2 songs on the top40 jukebox at his local pub. That's what he wants.

Why did they spend months and months using Tunisian instrumentation and whatever else in 08, to then scale back? Why did Lanois get so frustrated with the band, after going out and telling the press they had made the equivalent of another Achtung Baby? Was it all label assholes like Iovine? Or does Iovine have a strong ally inside the band in those discussions? It doesn't take much imagination and deductive reasoning to see what has gone on here. It happened in 2003 as well. 'Need more hits'...=...'Larry doesn't like it'.

Larry was the culprit in this regard many times, he said (and you can see this in one of those POPmart videos) that he wanted them to make a pop album when they actually made POP. Larry wanted that 'return to basics' that would become ATYCLB, and the band then appeased him, rather than break up...and then Bono sells it to the fans like all four of them are always on the same page and desirous of the same things.

U2 have changed their outlook on many things, collectively, to stay together, as the same 4 guys, and be able to keep going. And the biggest part of the compromise to keep going is appeasing Larry. His health is part of that concern as well, he doesn't have to keep going...but in order to go away from his family for so long, to put himself through the rigors of touring, he says "then you're going to give me what I want...'catchy radio hits'" And then Bono the Politician goes into the mode of selling that compromise as the vision of U2. That is the company line. Believe that shit and, much like a broken 'album release date', surrender to the perpetual frustration.

And for people that just want to believe in the myth and romanticism of U2, that somehow 4 grown men could always agree on everything for 30+ years, and that there is no real 'fissure' on the Larry-side of things (when obviously there is) they have ready built excuses to parrot.

Like...somehow Larry is the one saving them from embarrassment.
That's funny on a few different levels.

The only man that can save this band from future embarrassment is the Bone Man. Bono has to be willing to stand up for some kind of BIG creative ambition and be willing to SINK, critically and commercially and he has to tell everyone else involved "fuck everything THIS is what we are doing!"

When U2 were at the zenith of greatness, it was Bono driving the car.
Not even Edge can lay as much claim. He'll say it himself, it was always Bono pushing them. Edge has become as mundane as Larry at times, especially in his returning to the comfort of radio-friendly spaces. They all need a fire lit under their asses and they need to let Bono have the keys to the engine.

I am genuinely concerned about the legacy of U2.
I'd question anyone's musical historical IQ if they weren't concerned as well.
Not because of this bullshit about a pop producer...but generally speaking. There is Stones territory and there is Aerosmith territory. And they aren't the same thing.
 
joerags said:
U2 is triying to be a Top 40 band that can appeal to the today's hip youth (i.e. Lady Gaga, Katie Perry, etc.)
Click to expand...

it's never going to happen though is it... they should either bow out gracefully before they make complete twats of themselves, or accept their destiny as an OLD band and turn into the Stones :D

ffs though, they've had their time at the top of the game, it's not going to last forever, nothing ever does, so why not enjoy that privilege, because it is indeed a rare privilege they been lucky to have! seriously, they can't have it all, all the time!

personally i'm hoping they will keep going, and keep making good music because that's what they do, while being true to themselves, and not as an attempt to be hip and cool, and not seeking desperate measures to be something they're not...
 
joerags said:
U2 is triying to be a Top 40 band that can appeal to the today's hip youth (i.e. Lady Gaga, Katie Perry, etc.)
Click to expand...

Sadly, this seems to be the case. When they rub shoulders with their airhead celebrity buddies, they want to hear "Oh my gaaaawd, Bono I luuuuurve your new song!" They need their ego stroked. I fear the new album will have three or four horrendous syrupy pop atrocities, which would pretty much wreck it as a body of work.
 
Larry wouldn't let "Mercy" on HTDAAB because 6:31 was too long to be a pop song? But he allowed the 5:47 that is "City Of Blinding Lights" on it? How did "Unknown Caller" or "Moment Of Surrender" make it on No Line On The Horizon? Grace clocks in at 5:31, how did that make it on "All That You Can't Leave Behind"?

Maybe they scaled back on the African influence cause it sucked? That's what Eno thinks:

"... none of that [experimental music] really appeared on the record ... because it sounded kind of synthetic. It sounded kind of like 'world music' add-on. I'm sure it would have got a few people saying, oh, how interesting, they've broken out into North African music, but actually it just didn't sound convincing. We were very impressed by the music while we were there, but there was no realistic or emotionally satisfying way of marrying it using the music that we were doing, so in the end not very much of it at all showed through."

They respect Iovine's opinion so much they left his favorite song off "No Line On The Horizon"? That seems like an odd way to kowtow to the label head. Not that there's any shame in seeking Iovine's opinion. He's been intimately involved with some of the greatest records I've ever heard.
 
I actually wish they wouldn't feel the need to tour every album, tho it's how you make $$$$. If like to think they have enough but they (esp bono and edge) are bad investors ;)

Just make a few out there albums, die hards lap them up, Larry can stay home in the mean time. Then ready to your again, strive for those big songs if that's what they want
 
U2DMfan said:
And the biggest part of the compromise to keep going is appeasing Larry. His health is part of that concern as well, he doesn't have to keep going...but in order to go away from his family for so long, to put himself through the rigors of touring, he says "then you're going to give me what I want...'catchy radio hits'" And then Bono the Politician goes into the mode of selling that compromise as the vision of U2.
Click to expand...

Well, that was a laugh and a half.

By the way, do you actually have a quote of Larry saying that (ie give me what I want) or is this just something you made up?

Hell, I guess Vertigo was actually written by Larry (or at least the "give me what I want.." part)! Who knew?

You read it here first Interference: "Blame Larry" is the new "Bono lied". :wink:
 
Von Schloopen said:
Not that there's any shame in seeking Iovine's opinion. He's been intimately involved with some of the greatest records I've ever heard.
Click to expand...

Quote from Reznor:
“We were on [Interscope]. And I have had Jimmy Iovine, the president of that label, come up to me on every record from With Teeth onwards saying I should do some sort of urban thing — it was Timbaland for a while, then it was Pharrell for a while — because ‘that’s how you sell records.’ The idea seemed so preposterous and insulting.”

So there's no shame in seeking Iovine's advice? He's a moron and clearly has no integrity.

I took a look at his credits and the only really good record he's produced is Easter. He's engineered some OK records, but he's hardly Flood, and it's not like he's done much of note since the mid 80s.
 
U2DMfan said:
100% truth.

__________________________________________________________________
Forgive me if I rant about this subject...

When Bono says "Larry saves us from ourselves" or words to that effect, it's just another case of Bono politicking about the bands scattered creative decisions and melding it into a unified public 'vision'. They cater to Larry so he won't retire and end the band. His role in the band is...to make it as simple as possible, the last wall of resistance to final creative decisions. So like any 'political' spin, there is a morsel of truth to it.

But when Bono says things like "Larry saves us from ourselves" (or whatever), he's also being polite and loyal to a friend and 'brother'. Rather than saying "it was a bad decision to leave off Mercy but Larry thought it was too long" he'll bite the bullet and come up with a way to portray that it was entirely a 'band decision'. Even though a reporter from Blender magazine shone objective light on that truth, by saying it was Larry that objected. Why? Probably Because no 'pop song' could be 6 minutes long. "Too much of a good thing is a bad thing" as the Sloganeer likes to say. Larry has said that he wants to hear U2 songs on the top40 jukebox at his local pub. That's what he wants.

Why did they spend months and months using Tunisian instrumentation and whatever else in 08, to then scale back? Why did Lanois get so frustrated with the band, after going out and telling the press they had made the equivalent of another Achtung Baby? Was it all label assholes like Iovine? Or does Iovine have a strong ally inside the band in those discussions? It doesn't take much imagination and deductive reasoning to see what has gone on here. It happened in 2003 as well. 'Need more hits'...=...'Larry doesn't like it'.

Larry was the culprit in this regard many times, he said (and you can see this in one of those POPmart videos) that he wanted them to make a pop album when they actually made POP. Larry wanted that 'return to basics' that would become ATYCLB, and the band then appeased him, rather than break up...and then Bono sells it to the fans like all four of them are always on the same page and desirous of the same things.

U2 have changed their outlook on many things, collectively, to stay together, as the same 4 guys, and be able to keep going. And the biggest part of the compromise to keep going is appeasing Larry. His health is part of that concern as well, he doesn't have to keep going...but in order to go away from his family for so long, to put himself through the rigors of touring, he says "then you're going to give me what I want...'catchy radio hits'" And then Bono the Politician goes into the mode of selling that compromise as the vision of U2. That is the company line. Believe that shit and, much like a broken 'album release date', surrender to the perpetual frustration.

And for people that just want to believe in the myth and romanticism of U2, that somehow 4 grown men could always agree on everything for 30+ years, and that there is no real 'fissure' on the Larry-side of things (when obviously there is) they have ready built excuses to parrot.

Like...somehow Larry is the one saving them from embarrassment.
That's funny on a few different levels.

The only man that can save this band from future embarrassment is the Bone Man. Bono has to be willing to stand up for some kind of BIG creative ambition and be willing to SINK, critically and commercially and he has to tell everyone else involved "fuck everything THIS is what we are doing!"

When U2 were at the zenith of greatness, it was Bono driving the car.
Not even Edge can lay as much claim. He'll say it himself, it was always Bono pushing them. Edge has become as mundane as Larry at times, especially in his returning to the comfort of radio-friendly spaces. They all need a fire lit under their asses and they need to let Bono have the keys to the engine.

I am genuinely concerned about the legacy of U2.
I'd question anyone's musical historical IQ if they weren't concerned as well.
Not because of this bullshit about a pop producer...but generally speaking. There is Stones territory and there is Aerosmith territory. And they aren't the same thing.
Click to expand...

Great post!

U2 should steer clear of Stones and Aerosmith territories, but if they had to choose one...
 
U2DMfan said:
100% truth.

__________________________________________________________________
Forgive me if I rant about this subject...

When Bono says "Larry saves us from ourselves" or words to that effect, it's just another case of Bono politicking about the bands scattered creative decisions and melding it into a unified public 'vision'. They cater to Larry so he won't retire and end the band. His role in the band is...to make it as simple as possible, the last wall of resistance to final creative decisions. So like any 'political' spin, there is a morsel of truth to it.

But when Bono says things like "Larry saves us from ourselves" (or whatever), he's also being polite and loyal to a friend and 'brother'. Rather than saying "it was a bad decision to leave off Mercy but Larry thought it was too long" he'll bite the bullet and come up with a way to portray that it was entirely a 'band decision'. Even though a reporter from Blender magazine shone objective light on that truth, by saying it was Larry that objected. Why? Probably Because no 'pop song' could be 6 minutes long. "Too much of a good thing is a bad thing" as the Sloganeer likes to say. Larry has said that he wants to hear U2 songs on the top40 jukebox at his local pub. That's what he wants.

Why did they spend months and months using Tunisian instrumentation and whatever else in 08, to then scale back? Why did Lanois get so frustrated with the band, after going out and telling the press they had made the equivalent of another Achtung Baby? Was it all label assholes like Iovine? Or does Iovine have a strong ally inside the band in those discussions? It doesn't take much imagination and deductive reasoning to see what has gone on here. It happened in 2003 as well. 'Need more hits'...=...'Larry doesn't like it'.

Larry was the culprit in this regard many times, he said (and you can see this in one of those POPmart videos) that he wanted them to make a pop album when they actually made POP. Larry wanted that 'return to basics' that would become ATYCLB, and the band then appeased him, rather than break up...and then Bono sells it to the fans like all four of them are always on the same page and desirous of the same things.

U2 have changed their outlook on many things, collectively, to stay together, as the same 4 guys, and be able to keep going. And the biggest part of the compromise to keep going is appeasing Larry. His health is part of that concern as well, he doesn't have to keep going...but in order to go away from his family for so long, to put himself through the rigors of touring, he says "then you're going to give me what I want...'catchy radio hits'" And then Bono the Politician goes into the mode of selling that compromise as the vision of U2. That is the company line. Believe that shit and, much like a broken 'album release date', surrender to the perpetual frustration.

And for people that just want to believe in the myth and romanticism of U2, that somehow 4 grown men could always agree on everything for 30+ years, and that there is no real 'fissure' on the Larry-side of things (when obviously there is) they have ready built excuses to parrot.

Like...somehow Larry is the one saving them from embarrassment.
That's funny on a few different levels.

The only man that can save this band from future embarrassment is the Bone Man. Bono has to be willing to stand up for some kind of BIG creative ambition and be willing to SINK, critically and commercially and he has to tell everyone else involved "fuck everything THIS is what we are doing!"

When U2 were at the zenith of greatness, it was Bono driving the car.
Not even Edge can lay as much claim. He'll say it himself, it was always Bono pushing them. Edge has become as mundane as Larry at times, especially in his returning to the comfort of radio-friendly spaces. They all need a fire lit under their asses and they need to let Bono have the keys to the engine.

I am genuinely concerned about the legacy of U2.
I'd question anyone's musical historical IQ if they weren't concerned as well.
Not because of this bullshit about a pop producer...but generally speaking. There is Stones territory and there is Aerosmith territory. And they aren't the same thing.
Click to expand...

I always doubted the hype of Big Bad Larry pushing the others around. The other three aren't lemmings that jump up whenever the drummer says so. And the chase for pop goes on...as long as Bono says. It's not hard to see the one member of the band most obsessed with being no. 1.

Larry did start the debate on Mercy, but yes, the others agreed. Sounds like he had a good reason, one which Blender doesn't specify. As a fan of Mercy... 6 minute plus song with a loose structure is completely out of place on the one record where U2 really did make 11 singles (and an album over 60 minutes is too long which is Bono's reasoning). Just as Fast cars is out of place on a record loaded with vintage chimes. It's also worth noting Eno is also on record as agreeing the Morocco sessions weren't all that great in the end. I'd love to know what album Lanois was talking about with the AB comparisons...because the one we got certainly doesn't stand up to the comparison. Iovine doesn't have much of a say since his favourite, Every breaking wave, was not on NLOTH at all.

2003, we don't need much deduction. Adam and Larry took the brakes off Bono and Edge overestimating the material. Remember this wasn't "we're not sure this is the right direction" issue like AB. It was more of a "maybe this isn't good enough" issue. And the next producer agreed. "You need more songs."

"he wanted them to make a pop album when they actually made POP" - as far as I know that was always the ironic quip from Bono around ATYCLB era. That record is not U2 back to basics despite the media running with that label. It's U2 making a pop record. If anything Bomb was the back to basics (at least that was the plan). I will second this question By the way, do you actually have a quote of Larry saying that (ie give me what I want) or is this just something you made up?
 when we have the singer of the band on record plethora of times wanting to have hits, be on the charts and be no.1 (well before the 2000's rolled along)

And yeah well, a band doesn't go on for 30 years+ without some compromises along the way. And a band in their 20s or 30s surely won't have the same circumstances in their 40's and beyond. As for health...I'd say Bono's back is a bigger issue than Larry's wrists.

The issue is not so much Bono at this point (he wanted JT to be a double album until Edge saved the situation by pushing for a single album. and no doubt Bono was the man pushing most for Passengers. let's not overreact on his opinion) than the guitar player resting on his laurels. We won't get anything new, much less great, unless the guy with the guitar lays off the cliche riffs and the umpteenth re-write of Walk on-ish chimes. JT or AB were great at least as much thanks to The Edge's sounds as they were due to the lyrics.
 
Hollow Island said:
Quote from Reznor:
“We were on [Interscope]. And I have had Jimmy Iovine, the president of that label, come up to me on every record from With Teeth onwards saying I should do some sort of urban thing — it was Timbaland for a while, then it was Pharrell for a while — because ‘that’s how you sell records.’ The idea seemed so preposterous and insulting.”

So there's no shame in seeking Iovine's advice? He's a moron and clearly has no integrity.

I took a look at his credits and the only really good record he's produced is Easter. He's engineered some OK records, but he's hardly Flood, and it's not like he's done much of note since the mid 80s.
Click to expand...

Selling records = no integrity. Got it.

He engineered this:

e34329qckxw.jpg


He engineered & mixed this:

d098514198j.jpg


and this:

f35552vbbno.jpg


he mixed this:

f60983m6var.jpg


he produced this:

o37594tl2hw.jpg


and this:

c60334h8d12.jpg


and this:

f92156zh2ls.jpg


and this:

d79392n0u31.jpg


and this:

f85427uz4zk.jpg


Now, you may have your own opinion, but those are all really, really good records. A few of them are great. Hell, they're all sitting on a shelf in my basement. Nothing he says can erase the fact he mixed "Jungleland" and "Porrohman" or he produced "Romeo & Juliet" and "Because The Night." I'd ask his opinion as well. And If I didn't agree with it, I'd do as I pleased, just like U2 did with "Every Breaking Wave."
 
U2DMfan said:
100% truth.

__________________________________________________________________
Forgive me if I rant about this subject...

When Bono says "Larry saves us from ourselves" or words to that effect, it's just another case of Bono politicking about the bands scattered creative decisions and melding it into a unified public 'vision'. They cater to Larry so he won't retire and end the band. His role in the band is...to make it as simple as possible, the last wall of resistance to final creative decisions. So like any 'political' spin, there is a morsel of truth to it.

But when Bono says things like "Larry saves us from ourselves" (or whatever), he's also being polite and loyal to a friend and 'brother'. Rather than saying "it was a bad decision to leave off Mercy but Larry thought it was too long" he'll bite the bullet and come up with a way to portray that it was entirely a 'band decision'. Even though a reporter from Blender magazine shone objective light on that truth, by saying it was Larry that objected. Why? Probably Because no 'pop song' could be 6 minutes long. "Too much of a good thing is a bad thing" as the Sloganeer likes to say. Larry has said that he wants to hear U2 songs on the top40 jukebox at his local pub. That's what he wants.

Why did they spend months and months using Tunisian instrumentation and whatever else in 08, to then scale back? Why did Lanois get so frustrated with the band, after going out and telling the press they had made the equivalent of another Achtung Baby? Was it all label assholes like Iovine? Or does Iovine have a strong ally inside the band in those discussions? It doesn't take much imagination and deductive reasoning to see what has gone on here. It happened in 2003 as well. 'Need more hits'...=...'Larry doesn't like it'.

Larry was the culprit in this regard many times, he said (and you can see this in one of those POPmart videos) that he wanted them to make a pop album when they actually made POP. Larry wanted that 'return to basics' that would become ATYCLB, and the band then appeased him, rather than break up...and then Bono sells it to the fans like all four of them are always on the same page and desirous of the same things.

U2 have changed their outlook on many things, collectively, to stay together, as the same 4 guys, and be able to keep going. And the biggest part of the compromise to keep going is appeasing Larry. His health is part of that concern as well, he doesn't have to keep going...but in order to go away from his family for so long, to put himself through the rigors of touring, he says "then you're going to give me what I want...'catchy radio hits'" And then Bono the Politician goes into the mode of selling that compromise as the vision of U2. That is the company line. Believe that shit and, much like a broken 'album release date', surrender to the perpetual frustration.

And for people that just want to believe in the myth and romanticism of U2, that somehow 4 grown men could always agree on everything for 30+ years, and that there is no real 'fissure' on the Larry-side of things (when obviously there is) they have ready built excuses to parrot.

Like...somehow Larry is the one saving them from embarrassment.
That's funny on a few different levels.

The only man that can save this band from future embarrassment is the Bone Man. Bono has to be willing to stand up for some kind of BIG creative ambition and be willing to SINK, critically and commercially and he has to tell everyone else involved "fuck everything THIS is what we are doing!"

When U2 were at the zenith of greatness, it was Bono driving the car.
Not even Edge can lay as much claim. He'll say it himself, it was always Bono pushing them. Edge has become as mundane as Larry at times, especially in his returning to the comfort of radio-friendly spaces. They all need a fire lit under their asses and they need to let Bono have the keys to the engine.

I am genuinely concerned about the legacy of U2.
I'd question anyone's musical historical IQ if they weren't concerned as well.
Not because of this bullshit about a pop producer...but generally speaking. There is Stones territory and there is Aerosmith territory. And they aren't the same thing.
Click to expand...

Post of the decade, because it sums up where this band has went off course. More Bono. Larry, play the drums and do what Bono tells you for the next few albums. Bono doesn't need a pop-songwriter. He needs a drummer who plays the damn drums and lets the creatives be creative.
 
corianderstem said:
Why is anyone judging anything at this point, since we don't know a) what's actually happening, if anything; and b) see point A.
Click to expand...

You broke my mind with that post. Infinite memory loop.



Honestly who gives a shit? I trust that whatever U2 puts out, at least the fans will enjoy it. Whether or not U2 stays relevant to the mainstream eye? Who. Gives. A. Shit.

I'll always love em. If this is it, then it's it. Maybe it was meant to be. If there's more, then that's awesome too. I mean, they've done it 12 times over 30 years and none of their material 'upsets' me.

I welcome whatever U2 is put out. Regardless of what it is, they're [in my eyes] the greatest band ever.

The only thing I want is all the nonsense to stop. Working with 900000 producers and artists and scrapping every project. Just get a goal in mind and continue to work at it until you've got what you want. It's silly.
 
LuckyNumber7 said:
You broke my mind with that post. Infinite memory loop.



Honestly who gives a shit? I trust that whatever U2 puts out, at least the fans will enjoy it. Whether or not U2 stays relevant to the mainstream eye? Who. Gives. A. Shit.

I'll always love em. If this is it, then it's it. Maybe it was meant to be. If there's more, then that's awesome too. I mean, they've done it 12 times over 30 years and none of their material 'upsets' me.

I welcome whatever U2 is put out. Regardless of what it is, they're [in my eyes] the greatest band ever.

The only thing I want is all the nonsense to stop. Working with 900000 producers and artists and scrapping every project. Just get a goal in mind and continue to work at it until you've got what you want. It's silly.
Click to expand...

OMFG Sane people. :yikes: Get out of this thread while you still can!


:panic:
 
U2DMfan said:
100% truth.

__________________________________________________________________
Forgive me if I rant about this subject...

When Bono says "Larry saves us from ourselves" or words to that effect, it's just another case of Bono politicking about the bands scattered creative decisions and melding it into a unified public 'vision'. They cater to Larry so he won't retire and end the band. His role in the band is...to make it as simple as possible, the last wall of resistance to final creative decisions. So like any 'political' spin, there is a morsel of truth to it.

But when Bono says things like "Larry saves us from ourselves" (or whatever), he's also being polite and loyal to a friend and 'brother'. Rather than saying "it was a bad decision to leave off Mercy but Larry thought it was too long" he'll bite the bullet and come up with a way to portray that it was entirely a 'band decision'. Even though a reporter from Blender magazine shone objective light on that truth, by saying it was Larry that objected. Why? Probably Because no 'pop song' could be 6 minutes long. "Too much of a good thing is a bad thing" as the Sloganeer likes to say. Larry has said that he wants to hear U2 songs on the top40 jukebox at his local pub. That's what he wants.

Why did they spend months and months using Tunisian instrumentation and whatever else in 08, to then scale back? Why did Lanois get so frustrated with the band, after going out and telling the press they had made the equivalent of another Achtung Baby? Was it all label assholes like Iovine? Or does Iovine have a strong ally inside the band in those discussions? It doesn't take much imagination and deductive reasoning to see what has gone on here. It happened in 2003 as well. 'Need more hits'...=...'Larry doesn't like it'.

Larry was the culprit in this regard many times, he said (and you can see this in one of those POPmart videos) that he wanted them to make a pop album when they actually made POP. Larry wanted that 'return to basics' that would become ATYCLB, and the band then appeased him, rather than break up...and then Bono sells it to the fans like all four of them are always on the same page and desirous of the same things.

U2 have changed their outlook on many things, collectively, to stay together, as the same 4 guys, and be able to keep going. And the biggest part of the compromise to keep going is appeasing Larry. His health is part of that concern as well, he doesn't have to keep going...but in order to go away from his family for so long, to put himself through the rigors of touring, he says "then you're going to give me what I want...'catchy radio hits'" And then Bono the Politician goes into the mode of selling that compromise as the vision of U2. That is the company line. Believe that shit and, much like a broken 'album release date', surrender to the perpetual frustration.

And for people that just want to believe in the myth and romanticism of U2, that somehow 4 grown men could always agree on everything for 30+ years, and that there is no real 'fissure' on the Larry-side of things (when obviously there is) they have ready built excuses to parrot.

Like...somehow Larry is the one saving them from embarrassment.
That's funny on a few different levels.

The only man that can save this band from future embarrassment is the Bone Man. Bono has to be willing to stand up for some kind of BIG creative ambition and be willing to SINK, critically and commercially and he has to tell everyone else involved "fuck everything THIS is what we are doing!"

When U2 were at the zenith of greatness, it was Bono driving the car.
Not even Edge can lay as much claim. He'll say it himself, it was always Bono pushing them. Edge has become as mundane as Larry at times, especially in his returning to the comfort of radio-friendly spaces. They all need a fire lit under their asses and they need to let Bono have the keys to the engine.

I am genuinely concerned about the legacy of U2.
I'd question anyone's musical historical IQ if they weren't concerned as well.
Not because of this bullshit about a pop producer...but generally speaking. There is Stones territory and there is Aerosmith territory. And they aren't the same thing.
Click to expand...

Larry Mullen Junior says F.O.A.D. :D

(just messing :wink:)

but yeah, i bet he probably would! lol!!

and, c'mon dude, maybe there is also something in the future that will be "U2 territory", who knows what they will bring to the mix? hopefully something new and different, not just following in Aerosmith's or the Stones shoes

i know i pontificate as much as the next Interferencer, but mostly it is in jest with my tongue glued firmly to my cheek, but when push comes to shove i reckon we shouldn't really try to tell U2 how to be U2, hell, if they tried to tell me how to do my job i would tell em to eff off because they're not qualified lol, so maybe we should have a little faith in them and hope they will come up with some good stuff whichever avenues they choose to take to get there... look at the change from JT to AB, then Zooropa and POP and back again, it's been a real rollercoaster ride and i'm glad they took those risks back then because we got some great music out of it... maybe they still have it in them!
 
bono_man2002 said:
The last time U2 dabbled in Pop the result was freaking awesome. Hopefully we find out by the end of this decade :happy:
Click to expand...

Pop has a really nice mix of radio friendly tunes, Please, Miami, Wake Up Dead Man, Discotheque......I definetly hear Boyzone and Take That pop shite influence.
 
Von Schloopen said:
Selling records = no integrity. Got it.

He engineered this...
Click to expand...

Mostly great records. Of course, like Steve Lillywhite, he hasn't been responsible for anything even bordering on classic since the 80s. Many producers simply lose their touch, and U2 needs to find someone who hasn't if their desire is to keep making great records. Lanois hit a great stretch in the late 90s, but both he and Eno lack consistency these days.

Which is why I'm in favor of Danger Mouse. I'm not saying DM is currently at his peak, but it's undeniable that he's only 5 or 6 years removed from it, at most.
 
LemonMelon said:
Mostly great records. Of course, like Steve Lillywhite, he hasn't been responsible for anything even bordering on classic since the 80s. Many producers simply lose their touch, and U2 needs to find someone who hasn't if their desire is to keep making great records. Lanois hit a great stretch in the late 90s, but both he and Eno lack consistency these days.

Which is why I'm in favor of Danger Mouse. I'm not saying DM is currently at his peak, but it's undeniable that he's only 5 or 6 years removed from it, at most.
Click to expand...

No doubt. He's hasn't done anything decent in 25 years, but his production credits are important cause they illustrate Iovine has roots in really amazing records. Combine that with his 30 year relationship with the band, and I can see why they talk shop with him.

I'd hope in 15 years The Black Keys talk shop with Danger Mouse. Whether he's producing them or not. Whether he's doing top 40 stuff or not.
 
Von Schloopen said:
Selling records = no integrity. Got it.

He engineered this:

e34329qckxw.jpg


He engineered & mixed this:

d098514198j.jpg


and this:

f35552vbbno.jpg


he mixed this:

f60983m6var.jpg


he produced this:

o37594tl2hw.jpg


and this:

c60334h8d12.jpg


and this:

f92156zh2ls.jpg


and this:

d79392n0u31.jpg


and this:

f85427uz4zk.jpg


Now, you may have your own opinion, but those are all really, really good records. A few of them are great. Hell, they're all sitting on a shelf in my basement. Nothing he says can erase the fact he mixed "Jungleland" and "Porrohman" or he produced "Romeo & Juliet" and "Because The Night." I'd ask his opinion as well. And If I didn't agree with it, I'd do as I pleased, just like U2 did with "Every Breaking Wave."
Click to expand...

Exactly, not much of note since the mid 80s.

And where did I say selling lots of records= no integrity? Looks like you missed that point too. Here's the quote again:

“We were on [Interscope]. And I have had Jimmy Iovine, the president of that label, come up to me on every record from With Teeth onwards saying I should do some sort of urban thing — it was Timbaland for a while, then it was Pharrell for a while — because ‘that’s how you sell records.’ The idea seemed so preposterous and insulting.”

The NIN example shows Iovine to be a man of extremely poor judgement, ignorant of the artists he deals with, and crassly commercial, and without integrity. Not because he wants hits, but because he is pressures people to sacrifice their integrity to get them. Sadly, I know that to a lot of people that's an outdated concept, but it really does matter. Records last forever, but hits are fleeting. Very few songs enter the canon, so to tailor something that will last forever to a moment is absurd.

Iovine seems like the kind of guy who'd have pressured Scorsese to make a Porky's film because it would be a hit.

As an aside, NIN don't need help to get hits. You think he'd know that, working for their label and all, never mind being a person who is supposedly knowledgeable about music.

I'm curious to see how you'll misinterpret this.
 
Hollow Island said:
Exactly, not much of note since the mid 80s.

And where did I say selling lots of records= no integrity? Looks like you missed that point too. Here's the quote again:

“We were on [Interscope]. And I have had Jimmy Iovine, the president of that label, come up to me on every record from With Teeth onwards saying I should do some sort of urban thing — it was Timbaland for a while, then it was Pharrell for a while — because ‘that’s how you sell records.’ The idea seemed so preposterous and insulting.”

The NIN example shows Iovine to be a man of extremely poor judgement, ignorant of the artists he deals with, and crassly commercial, and without integrity. Not because he wants hits, but because he is pressures people to sacrifice their integrity to get them. Sadly, I know that to a lot of people that's an outdated concept, but it really does matter. Records last forever, but hits are fleeting. Very few songs enter the canon, so to tailor something that will last forever to a moment is absurd.

Iovine seems like the kind of guy who'd have pressured Scorsese to make a Porky's film because it would be a hit.

As an aside, NIN don't need help to get hits. You think he'd know that, working for their label and all, never mind being a person who is supposedly knowledgeable about music.

I'm curious to see how you'll misinterpret this.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Jimmy gave Trent the worst possible advice.
 
Von Schloopen said:
No doubt. He's hasn't done anything decent in 25 years, but his production credits are important cause they illustrate Iovine has roots in really amazing records. Combine that with his 30 year relationship with the band, and I can see why they talk shop with him.

I'd hope in 15 years The Black Keys talk shop with Danger Mouse. Whether he's producing them or not. Whether he's doing top 40 stuff or not.
Click to expand...

They've worked with a lot of people with really amazing records. Doesn't mean that those people can't lose it (ie Eno), or that they can't become clueless (ie Iovine). They'd be better off seeking Flood's advice than anyone else. They should really work with him again. He has been working on incredible records since the early 80s and he seems more concerned with quality than hits...though working with 30 Seconds to Mars (with Lillywhite) is :lol::lol::lol:

The list is really impressive! And it doesn't even include the Unforgettable Fire.


 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 2 Listening Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
6K
namkcuR
N
R
U2 Planning to release new album as a app?
Replies
13
Views
1K
GirlsAloudFan
GirlsAloudFan
BlueSilkenSky
Dancing With The Devil ch. 38
Replies
21
Views
3K
BlueSilkenSky
BlueSilkenSky
BlueSilkenSky
New Fanfic- Dancing With The Devil ch.1
Replies
4
Views
1K
BlueSilkenSky
BlueSilkenSky
B
Will.i.am worked with U2 on new album?
7 8 9
Replies
262
Views
15K
Gilead12
G

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom