U2's quest for the 'perfect pop song' -- new album talk continued

[JamietheEdgefan]

You're assuming that all the ideas brainstormed by the U2 team were used on this current tour. I'm sure there are things they decided to hold off on, due to new technology or not fitting in with the rest of the bells and whistles.

They have people that just sit around and dream up shit like this, and I doubt they just turn their brains off for three years. And I'm sure they've already had the discussion of "where do we go next after the monstrosity we just toured with?"

That's a good point, didn't Bono actually come up with the idea for the 360 'claw' towards the end of the vertigo tour?

 

[lazarus]

I think he came up with the idea of eating 360 bearclaws. That probably inspired someone else on the crew.

 

[DevilsShoes]

You're assuming that all the ideas brainstormed by the U2 team were used on this current tour. I'm sure there are things they decided to hold off on, due to new technology or not fitting in with the rest of the bells and whistles.

They have people that just sit around and dream up shit like this, and I doubt they just turn their brains off for three years. And I'm sure they've already had the discussion of "where do we go next after the monstrosity we just toured with?"

Good point.

360 ended about a year ago and they've had long breaks in between tour legs. Tour fatigue isn't the excuse. Plus they're hinted at going in a different direction next time (arenas), so less technology may be involved next time around touring.

Tour fatigue's definitely not the problem, but a year isn't really very long, at least not in U2 terms. 360 was an enormous effort, not only with its sprawling scale but with all its protracted interruptions. Its 'on-off' nature may well have allowed the band longer periods of rest but you can just imagine how relieved they must have been when they could finally draw a line under it.

LIke you say though, next time they tour it may be an altogether more stripped back affair both in scale and technology, but even so, I can still imagine how daunting 2013 would appear, staring down the barrel again at yet another hefty undertaking of live engagements to fill a significant portion of their calendar.

One things for certain though, the next album can't be a low-key, minimalist offering, it has to a biggie, especially if they want to win back relevance. That's why SOA never got the geenlight, now is not the time for some surreal, pensive proposal, now is the time for (potentially) one last ditch effort at seizing mass popular appeal and, if they want to do it properly, I think the live campaign has to match it.

 

[popacrobat]

. Its 'on-off' nature may well have allowed the band longer periods of rest but you can just imagine how relieved they must have been when they could finally draw a line under it.

Why? to me, touring a 360 schedule is exactly what the band probably likes the most. It's not as physically taxing as it is being on the road two years straight, they get to spend time with their families or whatever. Plus, it seems like they legitimately love touring.

That said, I don't know and you don't how how relieved or sad they were to have the tour end. That's just speculation based off of what we perceive their reactions to be.

 

[DevilsShoes]

Oh, they certainly love touring, there's no way they would have gone around the world so many times if they didn't, and if I'm being honest, there is probably a whole mix of emotions they go through both at the start and end of a tour. You can still have too much of a good thing though.

It's like playing Glastonbury, I'm sure they loved it and are glad they've now done it, but at the same time, they're probably OK with not having to do it again this year.

 

[Edge425]

360 ended about a year ago and they've had long breaks in between tour legs. Tour fatigue isn't the excuse. Plus they're hinted at going in a different direction next time (arenas), so less technology may be involved next time around touring.

U2 Fans To Get 'Vertigo' In September; LP Due In November August 2004

U2 Reveal New Album Title in August 2000

Fall 2012 means we should be hearing something about a single fairly soon. And less than two months from now single/album title/tracklist. ... absolute zero right now except they've been working with Danger Mouse. Unless they're going for the most stealth release campaign of their lives...

Good points and thanks for the history about the album releases in 2000 and 2004. If we don't hear anything in the next three months, then its probably going to be late fall 2013 for the new album. Tour in 2014.

 

[Steved1998]

There will be no stealth release

There will be no EP

They won't try anything new

There won't be anything special for the fans through U2.com

The album will be out sometime next year

This is U2 we're talking about.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

Douche chill!

 

[JamietheEdgefan]

I think he came up with the idea of eating 360 bearclaws. That probably inspired someone else on the crew.

 

[mikal]

maybe, we'll see.

 

[U2girl]

That's a good point, didn't Bono actually come up with the idea for the 360 'claw' towards the end of the vertigo tour?

There was the story of a dinner and Bono using two forks to demonstrate the "claw"...certainly I think he suggested playing in the round next time at the last Vertigo show(s).

 

[U2girl]

Good point.





Tour fatigue's definitely not the problem, but a year isn't really very long, at least not in U2 terms. 360 was an enormous effort, not only with its sprawling scale but with all its protracted interruptions. Its 'on-off' nature may well have allowed the band longer periods of rest but you can just imagine how relieved they must have been when they could finally draw a line under it.

LIke you say though, next time they tour it may be an altogether more stripped back affair both in scale and technology, but even so, I can still imagine how daunting 2013 would appear, staring down the barrel again at yet another hefty undertaking of live engagements to fill a significant portion of their calendar.

One things for certain though, the next album can't be a low-key, minimalist offering, it has to a biggie, especially if they want to win back relevance. That's why SOA never got the geenlight, now is not the time for some surreal, pensive proposal, now is the time for (potentially) one last ditch effort at seizing mass popular appeal and, if they want to do it properly, I think the live campaign has to match it.

Well, they had a huge tour with 360 without a big album (even a single). I think this could be liberating instead of daunting.

They just might be too old at this point to have worldwide (read: US) hits.

 

[LadySpinHead]

I'm so tired of the "too old" argument. Put a good song out there and the public will respond. Haven't people been saying they're "too old" since Pop?
I think what probably hurts them more is that they are U2, and people have preconceived ideas about them, good and bad- since for 30+ years, they've always had a presence in pop (yes, pop) music.

 

[Niceman]

For most bands, not having released anything since 2009, would be more than enough incentive to knuckle down in the studio and get something out there ASAP to remind people that they are still around.

I think the band at this point is a lot more interested in releasing a masterpiece than reminding people they're still around. They're not going to put out an album to just put out an album. That's why we're waiting.

 

[Danny Boy]

I think the band at this point is a lot more interested in releasing a masterpiece than reminding people they're still around. They're not going to put out an album to just put out an album. That's why we're waiting.

Which runs the risk of them fucking around with it to the point that it's no longer a masterpiece.

 

[purpleoscar]

I think the band at this point is a lot more interested in releasing a masterpiece than reminding people they're still around. They're not going to put out an album to just put out an album. That's why we're waiting.

Yes especially when Bono has already used the Achtung Baby reissue as an opportunity to tell the public exactly that. Bono said it was a new sound so they probably will be cautious and get some outside opinions as they take a break from the material every so often for some objectivity. It's the "make or break" adventurous attitude that I'm excited about.

 

[U2DMfan]

They are, more or less, at the same point they were in 2008.
Right down to the reinvention talk.

In that case, around summer 2008, they decided to delay the album to work on some "hits". Stand Up Crazy Tonight. What a wonderful decision.

Will they make the same mistake or will they just put the fucker out?

They already have a different set of ears in there with them as we speak.
That's part of the reason of going with someone different as producer.

 

[purpleoscar]

They already have a different set of ears in there with them as we speak.
That's part of the reason of going with someone different as producer.

Yes but there is a bias. Brian Eno thought Winter was so great but it definitely sounded like a so-so Coldplay b-side at best. When you change your sound it can lead to new and great things but for many bands it often flops. I'm sure Jimmy Iovine will be listening and other artists and friends in industry will be commenting on what they hear. Talking about Achtung Baby as a standard should push the band right to the wall. They are competing against themselves. It's easy to say you're going to make a dramatic successful change like Achtung Baby but it must be bloody hard to do. Why do we need another U2 album? The guys want the general public to get that buzz when they hear new U2 and that desire to buy the fucking album and listen to it until the laser bores a hole through the fucking CD.

 

[U2DMfan]

They are better off with a bias from "Anyone but Jimmy Iovine". Specifically someone born this side of Watergate. Anyhow, they said the same thing last time, specifically Lanois made the Achtung comparison. And then it was (guess who) that told them to go get some more hits. So we got a delay plus a couple of pretty heinous songs tacked on to an otherwise solid album.

 

[U2girl]

A downside of course is the non Eno-Lanois U2 albums just don't have the same track record.

UF, JT, AB, ATYCLB, NLOTH. With the latter decisively less of a reinvention compared to the other three, despite the hype from Lanois. Less "we need a masterpiece" and more "we need something fresh" this time.

On the other hand there's Bomb + first three albums with Lillywhite, two flops and a glorified mid tour EP-turned album. Only War might qualify as a great record.


And they listened to Iovine so much his favourite song was nowhere near NLOTH. And if we listen to Eno all the time we'd be without Streets, we'd have Winter and first single MOS. Pass.

 

[Steved1998]

U2 cut their balls off sometime after 1997. Actually they only really had balls during the 90s. Maybe it's because those are the songs that got me into the band, but I feel that everything since 97 has grown old, very fast. Sure, I like their albums when they're first released, but nothing has the staying power of AB, Zooropa and Pop. Everything from the lyrics to Edge's and Adam's riffs are perfect during the 90s.

They've had some good songs during the 2000s, but to me, they're either good or they're boring. They've had mostly mediocre shit since 2000: Grace, In a Little While, Wild Honey, Stuck,Peace on Earth; everything off Bomb aside from City, Vertigo Miracle Drug and Original; everything off No Line aside from No Line, and Moment of Surrender. Maybe the band I got into never existed.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

U2 cut their balls off sometime after 1997. Actually they only really had balls during the 90s. Maybe it's because those are the songs that got me into the band, but I feel that everything since 97 has grown old, very fast. Sure, I like their albums when they're first released, but nothing has the staying power of AB, Zooropa and Pop. Everything from the lyrics to Edge's and Adam's riffs are perfect during the 90s.

They've had some good songs during the 2000s, but to me, they're either good or they're boring. They've had mostly mediocre shit since 2000: Grace, In a Little While, Wild Honey, Stuck,Peace on Earth; everything off Bomb aside from City, Vertigo Miracle Drug and Original; everything off No Line aside from No Line, and Moment of Surrender. Maybe the band I got into never existed.

But yet you still decide to follow the band and jump into a forum about the new album

 

[LemonMelon]

Steve's lost the plot. He needs let his masturbating Daffy GIF do the talking.

 

[Jive Turkey]

I think he might be onto something about losing their balls after Pop. It was truly the last time it felt like they did whatever they wanted to do without worrying about how it would be received. Even after Zooropa, there was a lot of talk from people wanting them to return to a more traditional rock and roll feel. The band themselves even spoke of it, then said 'fuck it' and gave us Pop. I'm not saying they don't release anything good anymore; I like a great deal of NLOTH, but it still feels as if they're looking around while making their music. I realize this isn't a revelation, I'm just saying what steve is writing isn't complete diarrhea. And I often wonder if I'd be as big a fan of the band if I was only introduced to them today

 

[corianderstem]

It was truly the last time it felt like they did whatever they wanted to do without worrying about how it would be received.

This. Yes, we can't say that they're not doing what they want to now, but the "how it will be received" bit is key.

I really wish they'd say "fuck it" to that part.

 

[ndmaxfield]

U2 cut their balls off sometime after 1997. Actually they only really had balls during the 90s. Maybe it's because those are the songs that got me into the band, but I feel that everything since 97 has grown old, very fast. Sure, I like their albums when they're first released, but nothing has the staying power of AB, Zooropa and Pop. Everything from the lyrics to Edge's and Adam's riffs are perfect during the 90s.

They've had some good songs during the 2000s, but to me, they're either good or they're boring. They've had mostly mediocre shit since 2000: Grace, In a Little While, Wild Honey, Stuck,Peace on Earth; everything off Bomb aside from City, Vertigo Miracle Drug and Original; everything off No Line aside from No Line, and Moment of Surrender. Maybe the band I got into never existed.

Right on.

 

[doctorwho]

U2 cut their balls off sometime after 1997. Actually they only really had balls during the 90s. Maybe it's because those are the songs that got me into the band, but I feel that everything since 97 has grown old, very fast. Sure, I like their albums when they're first released, but nothing has the staying power of AB, Zooropa and Pop. Everything from the lyrics to Edge's and Adam's riffs are perfect during the 90s.

They've had some good songs during the 2000s, but to me, they're either good or they're boring. They've had mostly mediocre shit since 2000: Grace, In a Little While, Wild Honey, Stuck,Peace on Earth; everything off Bomb aside from City, Vertigo Miracle Drug and Original; everything off No Line aside from No Line, and Moment of Surrender. Maybe the band I got into never existed.

"Zooropa" and "Pop" - barring songs like "Stay" and "Staring at the Sun" - have had no staying power. Maybe you mean in terms of how much die-hard fans enjoy the album, but not in the public's perception.

NLOTH, IMO, is right up there with "Zooropa" and "Pop" in every facet. There were a few questionable tracks on NLOTH, but I feel this way about "Zooropa" and "Pop" as well. And NLOTH also had no staying power.

What U2 *really* need is a powerful album that also has hit songs. JT and AB stand out because they were both brilliant albums AND each had many memorable songs that became part of the culture. So powerful were those hit songs that they continue to propel U2 today.

If U2 want to reproduce that, then they have to abandon crap like "Crazy Tonight" (although the remix they did in concert was brilliant) and other such sappy nonsense. They can't be too obscure, like "Zooropa" or "Pop" as it will alienate them from the more "average fan". And they need a great first single with a solid follow-up track.

Far easier said than done, of course. And given that U2 have touched on so many topics and reinvented themselves a few times, it's tough to state how much they really have left.

Personally, I would like to see an album that has at least some lyrics more devoted to where their faith is now - after marriages and kids and wisdom and maturity. They have their failures, but have had success. Where is God in that now? How has their view of God changed? Do they feel they can still "change the world"? Musically, I enjoy much of what was on NLOTH. If U2 want soulful, follow MOS, not "Crazy". And then, add in several tracks with that special beat that make for a great single. That type of album could be fascinating.

P.S. When "Zooropa" was released, a lot of fans said the same thing you just did - maybe the band they loved never existed. I was almost one of them.

 

[Niceman]

Which runs the risk of them fucking around with it to the point that it's no longer a masterpiece.

Yeah, they could ruin a song or they could take a crap song like Native Son and turn it into Vertigo. We have NO IDEA of the quality based on the release date.

 

[Jive Turkey]

"Zooropa" and "Pop" - barring songs like "Stay" and "Staring at the Sun" - have had no staying power. Maybe you mean in terms of how much die-hard fans enjoy the album, but not in the public's perception.

Appealing to the lowest common denominator isn't something I look for in the music I listen to. I'd rather an album full of exciting, adventurous music than one full of songs that appeal to the widest audience

 

[An Cat Gav]

I think he might be onto something about losing their balls after Pop. It was truly the last time it felt like they did whatever they wanted to do without worrying about how it would be received. Even after Zooropa, there was a lot of talk from people wanting them to return to a more traditional rock and roll feel. The band themselves even spoke of it, then said 'fuck it' and gave us Pop. I'm not saying they don't release anything good anymore; I like a great deal of NLOTH, but it still feels as if they're looking around while making their music. I realize this isn't a revelation, I'm just saying what steve is writing isn't complete diarrhea. And I often wonder if I'd be as big a fan of the band if I was only introduced to them today

Agreed. i often think that too.

If i was a teenager now I doubt that NLOTH (good album though it is) would have turned me into a fanatic. For me it was seeing them play Bad at live Aid, then I discovered The Unforgettable Fire album, the release of the Joshua Tree, the only slightly disappointing Rattle and hum and then what seemed like the eternity of three whole years until the album of my life was released, Achtung Baby, closely followed by ZOO TV, Zooropa, Passengers and then Pop.

Obviously if I was young now those incredible thingswould have happened 20 years ago and the bands recent output, good though a lot of it is, would not have inspired me to investigate the band's bck catalogue. Which would be a real shame. I see it with my younger friends and family friends, trying to get them to like U2 is a very hard job as they judge them by their more recent efforts, in the 90s all I had to do to convert my friends was make them a tape of the recently released Ab or TJT!