"Eno and Lanois producing again"

[U2DMfan]

Yeah, I know, no big surprise.
Confirmation anyways.

That is a direct quote from the McGuiness.
Also mentions that they are co-writing as well as producing, of course if you're reading this, you already knew that.

http://www.phantom.ie/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,109

it's at the very end of the interview.
Nothing else noteworthy about the new album.
He said he's not really involved in the creative process etc. but that it sounds promising or whatever he usually says.

 

[Lancemc]

Well thank Christ.

 

[U2girl]

So it's official. I guess that means Rubin's out ?

Looking at their history, I guess that's another hint at a sound change.

 

[flowerchildH]

thank god. the album might not suck like it would of if it was Rubin doing the production. plus the sound should be more experimental with Eno and Lanois not only producing, but writing along with the band as well. i can't wait. we better get an announcement or something soon, or I might explode!

 

[shart1780]

Yeah I'm glad. I used to think it would be great with Rubin, then I remembered he produces for a lot of horrible bands like Linkin Park.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

so they're supposed to be getting more experimental because they're using the guys who've produced the majority of their hit albums?

this logic confuses me.

 

[U2girl]

I think everytime they want/ed to change they used them - UF, JT, AB, ATYCLB. And the albums they produced certainly don't sound alike.

 

[the tourist]

so they're supposed to be getting more experimental because they're using the guys who've produced the majority of their hit albums?

this logic confuses me.

Me too....

 

[powerhour24]

It'll be interesting to see how many songs are credited to all 6 of them, and to read interviews about those.

Thank God Rubin is out. U2's dream producers together officially.

 

[Utoo]

so they're supposed to be getting more experimental because they're using the guys who've produced the majority of their hit albums?

this logic confuses me.

golly, who was there for the change to AB? the weirdness of Zooropa? the change to ATYCLB?

 

[U2girl]

Bit from an interview with Lanois in the magazine Exclaim! in October 2007, talking about places and names that informed his life:

Berlin, late 1990
Berlin was the choice of location for the U2 Achtung Baby record. They wanted to make a rock’n’roll record, but a European one, and they wanted to be in the city where a lot of rock’n’roll records they loved had been born [by] Iggy Pop, Bowie, Eno. [Co-producer] Eno found himself in the very studio he worked in, in the ’70s. He found it very funny. Hansa Studio had a great ballroom as a studio. We were very hungry at that time for breaking new ground. The innovative energy there has not been surpassed. But I feel the work we did in Morocco recently is as strong as the Achtung Baby era.

Morocco 2007
Morocco, like Berlin, was a chosen location by Bono because he wanted to make a record that had the Arabic feel of northern Africa — not necessarily stylistically, but spiritually. I think he's fascinated with ancient ways. It's almost necessary to visit other cultures if you want to be a well-rounded individual. If you're going to have an opinion about another culture it will be a better opinion if you actually have been there. We've had three writing sessions with Eno and U2, and they have all produced a powerful and brave work. Yes, we were recording. Every situation is a recording situation, because we're so good at recording so you might as well turn it on. We were having this discussion about Morocco, before we even went to Morocco, because the two sessions preceding Morocco were in the south of France, and they even have a touch of Morocco even before we had been in Morocco.

 

[Roland of Gilead]

I rembember going "WTF!?!?" when Zoo Station started up on my stereo for the first time. "What the hell is wrong with my cd? Or is it my stereo crashing out?" How could this possibly be the same Eno/Lanois from the UF and JT?

I guess you just had to be there for that mind bender.

 

[jay canseco]

There's no gurantee of success when you change direction, but it takes guts to do it.

 

[U2DMfan]

I guess that means Rubin's out ?

I think so.

I was beginning to think this anyhow, the more I read about what they have been up to. Rubin told the last few bands he's worked with that he wanted all the songs written before they record.

We all know U2 doesn't operate that way, I think they are more interested and concentrated on trying to find some new sounds rather than messing with their recording process.

Also, you'll note in that radio interview McG remarked that he felt there were too many cooks on POP, something that many people have felt about HTDAAB. Keeping it down to Eno and Lanois may help the songwriting and recording go smoother.

I think it's great, great news.
ATYCLB isn't my favorite U2 album but I still think for a 21st century record (they're ALL loud loud loud) I think it sounds pretty damn good.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I'd be happy if Rubin wasn't on board any more. You can't deny the mans body of work, or apparent golden touch, but post-HTDAAB I definitely don't think he's the answer for U2.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

golly, who was there for the change to AB? the weirdness of Zooropa? the change to ATYCLB?

so baisicly what you're saying is that henry rollins was right.

 

[intedomine]

Chris Thomas all over again.....

 

[Utoo]

so baisicly what you're saying is that henry rollins was right.

or basically you're changing the subject with a quip to hide the fact that your comment was ignorant to the band's obvious history, mainly because you'd rather see Rubin at the helm.


but to answer your question, no, Rollins' quote isn't correct. U2 made great stuff before E&L (War, if not more), and they've made great stuff after E&L without them. but what eno & lanois do is 1) write---they always have, despite the new semantics of now they're writing with the band, and 2) get the band excited about exploring music. the combination of those two things leads to excellent products.....products which, looking at the last 23 years, have produced big change despite the same people.

 

[Utoo]

Chris Thomas all over again.....

except that they were far deeper into an album with thomas than they got with rubin...they barely scratched the surface with him. plus, it sounds like most of the work with eno & lanois has been focused on creating new material, not revamping rubin material....unlike htdaab.

 

[U2DMfan]

I'd be happy if Rubin wasn't on board any more. You can't deny the mans body of work, or apparent golden touch, but post-HTDAAB I definitely don't think he's the answer for U2.

Totally agree.
I must own at least 10 Rubin-produced albums, maybe more.
I think he's great but for U2 right now, the direction they seem to be taking, Eno and Lanois are perfect.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

or basically you're changing the subject with a quip to hide the fact that your comment was ignorant to the band's obvious history, mainly because you'd rather see Rubin at the helm.


but to answer your question, no, Rollins' quote isn't correct. U2 made great stuff before E&L (War, if not more), and they've made great stuff after E&L without them. but what eno & lanois do is 1) write---they always have, despite the new semantics of now they're writing with the band, and 2) get the band excited about exploring music. the combination of those two things leads to excellent products.....products which, looking at the last 23 years, have produced big change despite the same people.

thanks champ.

it isn't correct? what rollins has said was that u2 are a mediocre band that were taken to new levels by the genius of brian eno. you're pretty much saying the exact same thing, just ignoring the fact that you're more or less saying the exact same thing, just with a nicer spin on it.

 

[Dorian Gray]

thanks champ.

it isn't correct? what rollins has said was that u2 are a mediocre band that were taken to new levels by the genius of brian eno. you're pretty much saying the exact same thing, just ignoring the fact that you're more or less saying the exact same thing, just with a nicer spin on it.

I think Lanois does more for the band's sound than Eno does. The only time Eno got primary production credit was for the Unforgettable Fire.
JT, AB, ATYCLB, all give it to Lanois.

If you read Dylan's Chronicles, he gives major props to Lanois for creating an environment where songs happen. It's what he's known for.
U2 and Lanois give birth to the music, Eno is more of a wet nurse.

I think because Lanois is such an unassuming character, his role tends to be downplayed.

The guitar lick that opens One, that was Lanois. That deserves a writing credit.

 

[lazarus]

In retrospect, Rubin probably would have been perfect for HTDDAB. He certainly would have cut out all the unnecessary bullshit, and it might have sounded more like it did live.

This is a great move, because I'd like to see the band as studio hounds again, none of this "spend more time writing, less time recording" ATYCLB bullshit that Eno got them on last time.

 

[Utoo]

thanks champ.

it isn't correct? what rollins has said was that u2 are a mediocre band that were taken to new levels by the genius of brian eno. you're pretty much saying the exact same thing, just ignoring the fact that you're more or less saying the exact same thing, just with a nicer spin on it.

sorry, chief, reading this part of my post

but to answer your question, no, Rollins' quote isn't correct. U2 made great stuff before E&L (War, if not more), and they've made great stuff after E&L without them.

might ease your confusion. To clarify.... Boy is pretty well recognized as a great debut album. No Eno or Lanois. I consider War a U2 near-masterpiece. No Eno or Lanois. Pop & HTDAAB---not the strongest albums as a whole, but certainly some gems in there. No Eno or Lanois. It's true they've have helped stimulate several of their big changes, which is what my original post said. If you think that that makes U2 a mediocre band, good for you. I look at those things I mentioned and more and see otherwise.

 

[powerhour24]

To me Rubin is a great facillitator, rarely does he help cull something new from an artist like his work with Johnny Cash on the American Records, and I love some of his RHCP production, but for the most part he's more adept at processing already written material into commercially ready packages.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

sorry, chief, reading this part of my post



might ease your confusion. To clarify.... Boy is pretty well recognized as a great debut album. No Eno or Lanois. I consider War a U2 near-masterpiece. No Eno or Lanois. Pop & HTDAAB---not the strongest albums as a whole, but certainly some gems in there. No Eno or Lanois. It's true they've have helped stimulate several of their big changes, which is what my original post said. If you think that that makes U2 a mediocre band, good for you. I look at those things I mentioned and more and see otherwise.

it's ok slugger, i read it.

there are many bands that have had "great debut albums," have had a run of a couple good albums and then fade away. u2 have obviously not done that, and have had a sustaining power that's been pretty much unprecedented in rock history.

the way i read your post, you sound like u2 can make good albums without eno and lanois, but that they really need eno and lanois to push them to greatness... which is more or less exactly what henry rollins said.

i in no way think u2's a mediocre band... i wouldn't waist all the money i've pissed away on u2 related things if i felt they were "mediocre." but it certainly is fare to say that they do not feel comfortable "pushing the envelope" without eno and lanois being involved. which is fine... the beatles had george martin, u2 has eno and lanois. doesn't take away from either of their greatness... but let's not say it's something other than what it is. every album that is considered to be a "masterpiece" by both fans and critics alike that u2 has made has involved eno and lanois.

they DO rely on them, and they have helped them keep their unbelievable staying power and relevance. so henry rollins IS right when he says that u2 have been able to stay at the apex of rock for so long largely due to the genius of eno and lanois. he's just not right when he says that they simply suck without them. not like he's one to talk... have ya read some of his lyrics? yeesh.

 

[U2girl]

Heny Rollins said they are average (or below average, not sure) and pretty much saved by Eno. I doubt he would use the word "good" in anything re: U2. I think War has just as much critics and fans saying it's a classic as UF.

While Eno and Lanois are the catalyst that help them branch out, I think their staying power is due to the band itself knowing how and more importantly when to move on with their sound. Of course George Martin had a big role in Beatles albums, but the combined forces of songwriting by Lennon and McCartney, and perhaps not unlike U2 - the willingness to experiment with their sound - is what made them great.

 

[Utoo]

it's ok slugger, i read it.

there are many bands that have had "great debut albums," have had a run of a couple good albums and then fade away. u2 have obviously not done that, and have had a sustaining power that's been pretty much unprecedented in rock history.

the way i read your post, you sound like u2 can make good albums without eno and lanois, but that they really need eno and lanois to push them to greatness... which is more or less exactly what henry rollins said.

i in no way think u2's a mediocre band... i wouldn't waist all the money i've pissed away on u2 related things if i felt they were "mediocre." but it certainly is fare to say that they do not feel comfortable "pushing the envelope" without eno and lanois being involved. which is fine... the beatles had george martin, u2 has eno and lanois. doesn't take away from either of their greatness... but let's not say it's something other than what it is. every album that is considered to be a "masterpiece" by both fans and critics alike that u2 has made has involved eno and lanois.

they DO rely on them, and they have helped them keep their unbelievable staying power and relevance. so henry rollins IS right when he says that u2 have been able to stay at the apex of rock for so long largely due to the genius of eno and lanois. he's just not right when he says that they simply suck without them. not like he's one to talk... have ya read some of his lyrics? yeesh.

no worries, boss, pardon the confusion. see, when when you wondered how U2 can expect change by working with guys they've worked with for most of their career, I pointed out that eno and lanois were there for most of the band's big changes. when you asked if i agreed with rollins, i said 'no.' do i think that u2's greatest albums have involved eno & lanois, absolutely. has the work with eno and lanois kept u2 a household name for nearly thirty years? yes. but do i agree with rollins' sentiment that u2 are merely a mediocre band who are only any good at all because of eno and lanois (which is how I read his statement, given that the exact quote has them as "a bar band with a corny singer...with mediocre talent")? no.

it seems that we're essentially on the same page, although i wonder, if we have been all along, what all the prodding was required for at all.

alas, please accept the humblest of apologies. vaya con dios. may the sun shine on your children and your children's children. keep on rockin' in the free world. amen.

 

[TheFirstBigW]

Lanois and Eno have been quite brilliant in shaping and refining U2's gifts so that they would have maximum impact and effectiveness, similar to how a skilled jeweler can cut a diamond to best showcase its natural beauty.

However, they cannot create a truly great band any more than a jeweler could create the Hope Diamond.

Lanois and Eno have played an important role in U2's rise to greatness, but in the end they can only take credit for taking hold of the diamond and giving it an expert cutting.

 

[Irvine511]

Scorsese always edits with Thelma Schoonmaker.

Spielberg always films with Janus Kaminski and edits with Michael Kahn.

this is no different.