~Double Album Debate~

[PowerSurge]

And how long must that take you?

depending on the vintage of the wine....the softness and pungency of the cheese...and the level at which the shittiness of my day reached....anywhere from 40-50 minutes.

Well if you're my friend Rob about 15 miunutes, but if you're my mom about a month(of course she gave up cigars )

 

[david]

I think we'll get either a 11 or 14 song album.

 

[bram]

After reading the track descriptions, does anyone get the impression that they are cherry picking their favorite tracks, no matter how same/different they sound? It seems possible that we may be in for a cohesion issue similar to Bomb, except for more jarring transitions (Winter into Crazy Tonight, anyone?). This is obviously a doom and gloom scenario, and I tend to favor the positive outlook. But it seems possible, and I guess I'll just have to hear it to understand how Crazy Tonight fits in with the rest of those tracks...

 

[Aygo]

I think that both ideas (that is, "double disc album" & "13-15 tracks single disc") are pretty possible, despite improbable.

Examples of how that could be possible:

(Single Disc)
Stand up
No line on the horizon
Get your boots on
Breathe
Tripoli
Magnificent
Moment of surrender
One bird (intro)
Unknown caller
Crazy tonight
Every breaking wave
(Coming to the surface) For your love
Winter
The cedars of Lebanon

Disc One
Intro
No line on the horizon I
Get your boots on
Breathe
Stand up
Tripoli
(Coming to the surface) For your love
Moment of surrender
Disc Two
Unknown caller
The cedars of Lebanon
Magnificent
Crazy tonight
Every breaking wave
Winter
No line on the horizon II
One bird (Unknown caller sampling-closing-reprise)

 

[LemonMelon]

^ You would have to assume, of course, that each track is well over 5 minutes each.

 

[LyricalDrug]

Great thread. First question: what constitutes a "double album"? Do we count a 14-track album a double album? On a related but tangential note, was "Rattle & Hum" a double album?

 

[b_digg]

Great thread. First question: what constitutes a "double album"? Do we count a 14-track album a double album? On a related but tangential note, was "Rattle & Hum" a double album?

yes in the cd pre-dominant days rattle and hum was a double album (2 lps or cassettes) Due to the length of cd capacity we havent seen many double albums just what we call "long" albums. (such as the smashing pumpkins discography) come to think of it there one of the very few to actually release a CD double album some say its overblown others call it a modern gem. Go figure.

I am really hoping for a double, I think its time in their career and they are one of the only bands currently working who could pull off a double which holds the listners attention, it would dispell all this "commercial sellouts" talk.

 

[shaun vox]

i think we'll get either a 11 or 14 song album.

b-i-n-g-o

 

[rileybug]

I think we'll be lucky to get 12 songs.

 

[U2girl]

Im finding it hard to agree with those doubters out there, and heres my logic...

lets take a look at some of the quotes and info we know already.

1) the obvious: "u2 penned 50-60 songs"

-this is the quote with the LEAST weight, its normal for band to write a ton of songs, and only the top of the crop make it...but it is encouraging to hear they DO have a lot of material.

2) Eno saying he was mixing "half the album", i think that was back in Nov.

-at this point they were about to move into olympic studios to record more, seems fishy that they'd be mixing while recording...

3) Edge's Quote "album of two halves"

-this one really gets me bc it makes eveything else kinda make sense, and recently him saying he wants people to listen to this album, not just buy it. They are going for the big one folks and thats amazing.

4) Bono's latest "its very long"

5) the fact that they Havent had a studio double album makes it more likley. If the greats (ie, beatles) have a 2LP, why not u2, to get to that level, if not now, then when?

I find it hard to believe that this isnt being talked about as much as it should be. If im in vegas, im betting for a doublem, but I wont be dissapointed if its as single album, but i have a sneaky suspicion that we may be in for an amazing "album of all albums" veryshortly.

Opinions?

Ps_i this forum and especially this very moment, right before the real deal

Also consider

6) Lanois saying "I'm mixing half of the album" a few months ago.

I'm hoping for a double album, if they have the material to deliver it. I'd rather have that over tons of B-sides or a leftover album a year or so from NLOTH release.

 

[b_digg]

Also consider

6) Lanois saying "I'm mixing half of the album" a few months ago.

I'm hoping for a double album, if they have the material to deliver it. I'd rather have that over tons of B-sides or a leftover album a year or so from NLOTH release.

Couldn't agree more

 

[FuruftUta]

I think it will be a "normal" CD with the Songs mentioned in the Q-Magazin. And perhaps 10 more Songs in in the Corbijn film:

http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f196/anton-corbijn-film-featuring-new-music-of-u2-191654.html

 

[Aygo]

^ You would have to assume, of course, that each track is well over 5 minutes each.

Not necessarily. MOS and Winter are long-duration tracks, if the others are the "normal" duration (3-5 min), in the single album we'd have +/- 60/5 minutes for 14 tracks. In the double disc, 35/40 min for each disc.

 

[chocky]

My prediction: 59 minutes including 12 tracks plus one bonus track (ie total 13 new songs)

I believe we'll see a further 5-6 unique songs as b-sides during the course of 2009 (excluding remixes & alternate versions) bring the total to 18-19 new songs.

 

[LastNameonEarth]

I doubt we'll get a double album. Did someone not say the album was available on pre-order for £8.98 somewhere in the UK? That would be outrageously cheap for a double album! I also really, really don't care about the quantity - I'm hoping for some jaw-droppingly fantastic songs, whether that means five songs or twenty-five songs.

 

[last unicorn]

Also, there is no chance in hell Larry would allow for a double LP

And the other band members should listen to Larry because? Last time I checked there were four people in U2. If it's 3 against 1, he's overruled. That's democracy.

 

[MikeyJB]

I don't think they would do anything as important as releasing a double album if one member was against it. I think it would be all or nothing.

 

[bram]

It will definitely be no longer than an hour, even if it's 12 songs. 12 X 5 = 60. In case you were impressed, no, I was not a math major.

 

[bram]

Spiderman probably took a significant amount of creative juices from Edge and Bono too, which limits the amount of material for a double.

 

[Aygo]

It will definitely be no longer than an hour, even if it's 12 songs. 12 X 5 = 60. In case you were impressed, no, I was not a math major.

Pop has 12 tracks and clocks at 60 minutes (which means that the average-duration of each song is 5 min).
This time we have (at least) two songs that pass that average-duration (Moment of Surrender +/- 7:30, Winter +/- 6:00) which increases the possibility of surpassing the 60 minutes mark, whether we get 11/12 songs, or 14-15 songs, or even the double-album idea.

 

[bram]

Yes, but even with MoS and Winter, the other ten tracks would have to average precisely 4:40. That's a long average, and given the lengths of the beach clips, I think it's on the longer end of plausibility.

 

[LyricalDrug]

One thing I'm psyched about from this thread -- coupled with the fact that the band recorded "50-60 songs" -- is my new-found realization that we're gonna be getting tons of great B-sides.

 

[PowerSurge]

Didn't we already get a short detailing of the 5 versions of the album...pricing and all? Can't we determine if there will or won't be a double album from that?

If I remember correctly one of the versions was for around $10. That pretty much nixes the
possibility of a double album, right?

 

[trabantland]

12 songs averaging 4:30 each and 2 songs at 7:00 each. 14 tracks total for 68 minutes released on one (1) CD.

All equals typical back-in-the-day double vinyl release (2 x 32-38 minutes).

 

[bram]

12 songs averaging 4:30 each and 2 songs at 7:00 each. 14 tracks total for 68 minutes released on one (1) CD.

All equals typical back-in-the-day double vinyl release (2 x 32-38 minutes).

All signs point to 11 or 12 tracks though. There could be more, but there is absolutely zero evidence for it besides Bono's vague comment.

 

[LyricalDrug]

Didn't we already get a short detailing of the 5 versions of the album...pricing and all? Can't we determine if there will or won't be a double album from that?

If I remember correctly one of the versions was for around $10. That pretty much nixes the
possibility of a double album, right?

Amazon's list price for the regular CD version is $13.99, and some suggested that "list" price is always a few bucks higher than the actual opening price. For that reason, people assumed it'll be a single album.

In this economy though, I could easily see U2 releasing a double album at a single-album price.

 

[Luv2the9s]

yes in the cd pre-dominant days rattle and hum was a double album (2 lps or cassettes) Due to the length of cd capacity we havent seen many double albums just what we call "long" albums. (such as the smashing pumpkins discography) come to think of it there one of the very few to actually release a CD double album some say its overblown others call it a modern gem. Go figure.

I am really hoping for a double, I think its time in their career and they are one of the only bands currently working who could pull off a double which holds the listners attention, it would dispell all this "commercial sellouts" talk.

I'm sorry buy IMO I don't consider Ratlle & Hum a true double album. In the sence it is a double album if you consider that it had live versions of songs on from their last album, covers and B-sides. But they have yet to put a "Studio Double Album" with news songs and no live stuff and covers on it. As much time between albums as these guys spend they should be able to crank out enough songs for a double album. Hell if the Foo Fighters and Red Hot Chili Peppers can do it I know they can!

 

[BVS]

I'm sorry buy IMO I don't consider Ratlle & Hum a true double album. In the sence it is a double album if you consider that it had live versions of songs on from their last album, covers and B-sides. But they have yet to put a "Studio Double Album" with news songs and no live stuff and covers on it. As much time between albums as these guys spend they should be able to crank out enough songs for a double album. Hell if the Foo Fighters and Red Hot Chili Peppers can do it I know they can!

R&H was considered a double album because length wise it fit on two vinyls...

 

[bram]

I'm sorry buy IMO I don't consider Ratlle & Hum a true double album. In the sence it is a double album if you consider that it had live versions of songs on from their last album, covers and B-sides. But they have yet to put a "Studio Double Album" with news songs and no live stuff and covers on it. As much time between albums as these guys spend they should be able to crank out enough songs for a double album. Hell if the Foo Fighters and Red Hot Chili Peppers can do it I know they can!

Just because they can doesn't mean they should.

 

[ascender_RS]

U2 have often "written" a great number of songs in sessions only to whittle them down to a single album's worth. While this 50-60 is probably the highest number I've heard of, I just can't see them releasing a double album as its not the way they do things.

I'd like to see original songs as B-Sides this time round though as well as the odd remix as its been a real shame for me, the lack of original b-sides over the last few albums.