After spending years on Songs of Innocence, they recorded the acoustic version that's on the deluxe edition in about a week.
For the band, it was a test of whether they'd met their goal for the album: writing songs that would work in the barest arrangements. "We had to go in and test the theory," says Bono. "I saw the Edge with his head in his hands, and he said, 'It's taken us three years to finish this album, and you're saying we have to do another album in a week?' I said, 'Edge, all the work over the last three years is going to mean that we can do it." He just went 'Ah!'" And he said, 'We can do it in a week. Will we put it out? We don't have to. Let's just try.' It got pretty frenetic at the end."
There goes the "they can't play the new stuff live" theory.
Not sure how many people here have watched the Australian 60 Minutes interview yet but the very final question/ answer was very interesting. Edge answers he's thought about life post-U2
The female interviewer asked "Can you ever imagine a life post-U2?"
Edge: "I think... I try to imagine the end of U2 and I can but the one thing I realize is that we would still be friends if U2 stopped being a band.
Bono: "For sure"
It seems different the way he answered this, mainly where he says he CAN imagine life after U2, with the whole band present & Bono's posture as Edge answered. I'm not crying wolf & saying the sky is falling because they may continue to be a band & make music for many years to come but this last response from Edge felt to me like they really might be looking to culminate their career. The typical answer has been something like 'we can't imagine doing anything else' but this answer felt unrehearsed & believable. If 40 years falls in 2016 & they have the plan for Songs Of Experience & Songs of Ascent, & typical U2 world tours last 2-3 years, they will have achieved the 40 year mark. That number carries a lot of weight for this band. I'm sure this possibility has been discussed in other parts of the forum but I get the feeling they put in overtime & got the 3 album project together over the past 5 years to open this possibility to come true.
Does anybody here actually think U2 can't play their new songs live?
And the order in which they will be singles is most likely the order in which they appear on the album.So I guess we know what songs will and won't be singles...
Tedder/Epworth stuff? Yep. Danger Mouse? Nope.
If I bought tickets to a more acoustic show.....I would be PISSED!
Definitely agree. Hope they don't do that.If they're talking two different arena shows, but one is acoustic? Ugh. No thanks.
IF this concept is realized in the end. In the end I'm sure fans will complain about both settings.
Why is that a surprise? It's always been an issue. With an album heavy on production, which the danger mouse material is, it's even more likely.
I'm not so sure about that idea of two different show setups for the tour, sounds like a logistical challenge and like a lot of stress for the band, even more rehearsals and thus, as we all know, more of being underrehearsed and messing things up. Why compromise? Do an arena tour first and tune things down a bit, then the stadium tour the next year if you want that loud rock'n'roll show. I'm skeptical about that concept, not sure how they think they can work this out.
If I bought tickets to a more acoustic show.....I would be PISSED!
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
It doesn't seem like a good idea
If they're talking about an arena show and a club show... sure, sounds amazing.
If they're talking two different arena shows, but one is acoustic? Ugh. No thanks.
Definitely agree. Hope they don't do that.
oh c'mon, let em do what they want
"There is talk of doing two different kinds of shows," says Clayton. "One night would be a kind of loud, explosive rock & roll kind of event and then the other night's show take the acoustic arrangements of some of the songs, and kind of present those songs in a much more intimate way."