If you think Apple would tie a major announcement to U2 again not even a year after the songs of innocence debacle, then you're a crazy person.
Songs of Experience Discussion
- Thread starter crankity crank
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
RoKKeR
Refugee
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,891
We already know U2 has been working with Apple on something that ties into their next album... maybe it's heavier than normal promotion on this service, maybe it's not. Who knows.
prbiker15
Blue Crack Addict
I think they shelved whatever they were working on with Apple.
RoKKeR
Refugee
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,891
prbiker15
Blue Crack Addict
I'm only speculating, as I don't recall hearing any other details about the "partnership" since November:
Bono drops more clues about U2's music partnership with Apple: 'They let us into the labs' | VentureBeat | Media | by Chris O'Brien
Gonna Run 2 U
New Yorker
I'll be very excited if they go the traditional route and announce when it is coming out and the name of the first single. To me, it would mean they are very confident in the material and don't need to rely on another type of release stunt method (though it could also just mean taking a step back and it could be crap but either way).
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
That would be funny if the fallout of Apple's fuck up resulted in U2 releasing SOE exclusively on Google Play Music.
trevgreg
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Funny how almost a year ago, people were criticizing them for probably doing the same old 'traditional' release method for their next album. Then when they finally do something different...
The_acrobat
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
My only fear is the very real possibility that the backlash against SOI will keep SOE from being released. I'm sure Apple wanted to wash their hands of U2 after all that bullshit. They probably imagined that it'd be a runaway success, and then U2 would usher in the new era of Apples streaming service. After the backlash, apple Probably figured "eh fuck these guys... Let's get someone young, hip and best of all, safe"
I don't think U2 will go back to releasing albums the traditional way. They won't be able to handle the blow to their ego when it doesn't even sell a million copies in the U.S. (Which SOI wouldn't have either.).
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
I don't think U2 will go back to releasing albums the traditional way. They won't be able to handle the blow to their ego when it doesn't even sell a million copies in the U.S. (Which SOI wouldn't have either.).
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
ozeeko
Refugee
I like what Adam had to say recently, about just making music for their fans. IMO, that's the best way to go. I'd be very surprised if SOI failed to teach them anything about their fading relevance.
JamietheEdgefan
Refugee
Good points. For me, i'm worried that their drive to write successful pop songs might be the thing that stops Songs of Experience from happening (at least, happening anytime soon).
Has anyone got any idea how successful Songs of Innocence actually was? It's hard for me to tell personally because sales figures are distorted by the free release.
How well have they done on the radio, or with friends etc? For those who've seen the band touring, how are the new songs received by the audience?
From personal experience, none of my friends (early to mid twenties range) were won over, and i've seen many articles claiming SoI failed to yield a 'hit', so it's not looking good to me (though i admit i don't know if i'm gauging the commercial success/failure accurately or not).
Anyway, my concern is that if the band doesn't end up seeing SoI as successful, and still decide to chase that kind of mainstream success (Bono's most recent words on what they're aiming for was something like "what's important right now? Pop music"), that they'll take their sweet time crafting a bunch of hits.
Seems to me if they want hits, they'll be more likely to take a lot of time writing, recording, re-writing, working with several producers etc, all over several years (i.e. as they have done over the past few albums), than they would be to hurriedly record some stuff between tour legs and get it out there.
Their method for writing material so far has taken years, primarily when not touring. So unless they think they can achieve some good songs relatively quickly, mid-tour, i don't see it SoE happening unless they're ok with it not having hits.
Edge did say they were considering the option of releasing stuff quickly, to be fair, but it's hard to know if they'll actually use that approach when they consider a) if they want more hits, or just some new material for the fans, b) if they're capable of making said hits quickly and c) if SoI was a success.
tl;dr: if U2 perceive SoI as a commercial failure, i fear they won't release Songs of Experience. For the same reasons Songs of Ascent wasn't a quick follow up to NLOTH.
/ramble
U2 are a very contradictory band. They contradict each other, they contradict themselves. They were subdued when everything was big and brash and got big and brash when everything around them got subdued.
So trying to figure out what they want to do by listening to what they say is damn near impossible.
So trying to figure out what they want to do by listening to what they say is damn near impossible.
superchuk5
Refugee
Considering how the charts calculate "hits" the odds of SOI yielding a hit dropped astronomically once they released it for free. Sales = almost 0, streaming would be very minimal as well since pretty much anyone with a computer has iTunes. So their only hope would be radio, and really how likely is mainstream radio to play U2 (or any rock) today? I doubt you can even chart with just AAA or Rock Radio airplay. It's interesting that they wanted to make hits and their release strategy pretty much eliminated the possibility that they'd have traditional hits. Guess it goes back to some comments from Bono after the release, saying that the charts were "broken."
In terms of whether or not SOI was successful, that 30 million downloads stat is pretty impressive. The PR backlash was rough, but if SOI was a "failure" was that just based on Internet backlash or are there hard numbers that can prove the album failed, like poor sales would for a traditional release? Contrary to the narrative and considering how the release strategy may have killed the possibility of a hit, the empirical evidence of the album's performance seems pretty solid. If anyone has any data that indicates failure I'm interested (something like perception would be really useful).
I'm a college student, and at my campus it pretty much seemed like the release never happened. Not great, but also not the pitch forks and torches backlash some writers seem to suggest.
Want SOE and hope its real (the lyric quotes in that RS article was a big plus) but after living through the "new album this year!" shenanigans from 2009-2014 I think I've got a healthy skepticism.
JamietheEdgefan
Refugee
Very good points. It is indeed kind of ironic that a band chasing hits made it so difficult for themselves to find out if they had achieved it or not. Bono said leading up to the tour that seeing how the audience reacted to the new material would be the band's first real glimpse at how successful the album really was.
But it's fair enough when you consider they wanted to release the album in a special, non-traditional way that could get more attention.
As others have pointed out, it's very sad that the backlash against the release method overshadowed the actual music. They say that any publicity is good publicity, but whenever i saw a u2 article after the release of SoI, or posts made my friends on Facebook or whatever, 9 times out of 10 it was just about how U2 had yet again managed to be the most annoying band in the world. The album itself didn't seem to make a big splash at all in my circles, only yet more ammunition about how awful the band is.
I remember that 30 million number - was that people who had willingly downloaded the album, rather than the many who had it automatically given to them? If the former, then yeah that is impressive.
Personally, i haven't seen any tunes like the Miracle, Every breaking wave, California etc make any kind of dent in popular culture in the same way that vertigo or beautiful day did (or before that, one, or with or without you). Songs that are kind of timeless, that you hear all the time on radio, at parties on playlists, at bars, sung by cover bands at pubs etc. Maybe it'll still happen, but i certainly haven't seen it so far, and i think that's the greatest indicator of real success - i.e. cultural impact.
Then again, watching the videos of the new tour, i have noticed that the crowd seems to absolutely love Every Breaking wave. Cheering like mad after every chorus, singing along to every word. I really haven't seen a new u2 song take off like that live since i think vertigo. So that's a pretty great thing, i guess?
Just thinking out loud, but i wonder if they'll take that crowd reaction to the piano and vocals-driven EBW and try to write more material like that? They stated before SoI that they wanted material that could be played acoustically, and since have only played EBW acoustically. Maybe the next studio album will end up featuring a real acoustic song or two? As long as it's a strong as Every breaking wave (one of the few U2 songs that's good enough to be played in a bare bones structure - i think most u2 songs sound best with Edge's crazy guitar and atmospheric synths), then i'm all for it.
I'm totally in the same position as you regarding not getting my hopes up - i distinctly remember impatiently waiting for an announcement for Songs of Ascent (and later, an untitled Dangermouse/Red One album) from 2009 to the end of the 360 tour. It occurred to me yesterday that i vowed to not be so optimistic if u2 made a similar promise again, and yet hear i am thinking/hoping there's a chance Songs of Experience could happen mid-tour, haha.
crazyu2
The Fly
SBU2
War Child
The charts are to some degree, broken, and thus, regardless the quality of music U2 produce in the future, any significant impact on the industry that will lead to sustained or further relevance is massively unlikely. If the band accept this, they'll possibly be a massive shift in the sound of future albums, since they'd be no longer producing songs tailored towards the mainstream in the hope of creating a hit, but more towards the fans and what they perhaps want to hear.
With that said, surely the ambition of every artist producing music, young and old, is for as many ears as possible to hear it? That's clearly U2's approach, and regardless of future relevance, I never foresee that changing. I never foresee U2 accepting their producing an album solely for it's fans, with little care towards it's success commercially in the mainstream.
As for Songs of Innocence, it's indeed difficult to judge it's success due it's unique distribution. I strongly believe however, had Every Breaking Wave been the first and lead single for the album, it would have made a much bigger and more sustaining impact in the mainstream. It was interesting hearing Noel Gallagher's comments in a recent interview, who as we know speaks with honesty, when asked are U2 and bands of the like still relevant? He answered with 'Well if they keep writing songs like Every Breaking Wave, they'll be relevant'. The issue with EBW is, wasn't it released as a single in it's original format, however then promoted in a different format? Which was a little strange, even if the promoted version was arguably more powerful.
With that said, surely the ambition of every artist producing music, young and old, is for as many ears as possible to hear it? That's clearly U2's approach, and regardless of future relevance, I never foresee that changing. I never foresee U2 accepting their producing an album solely for it's fans, with little care towards it's success commercially in the mainstream.
As for Songs of Innocence, it's indeed difficult to judge it's success due it's unique distribution. I strongly believe however, had Every Breaking Wave been the first and lead single for the album, it would have made a much bigger and more sustaining impact in the mainstream. It was interesting hearing Noel Gallagher's comments in a recent interview, who as we know speaks with honesty, when asked are U2 and bands of the like still relevant? He answered with 'Well if they keep writing songs like Every Breaking Wave, they'll be relevant'. The issue with EBW is, wasn't it released as a single in it's original format, however then promoted in a different format? Which was a little strange, even if the promoted version was arguably more powerful.
trainmaniac
War Child
It's always complicated to define what the hell is "producing music the fans want to hear". For example, I'm expecting from U2 new perspectives, something link Crystal Ballroom or Sleep Like a Baby Tonight. If they want to go back to 3 chords, delay and the thruth, I won't buy the new music!
On the other hand, it's also obvious that they have a lot of fans that really want them to do more songs sounding like the 80s. Look at Iris, for me is no surprise the song doesn't impress too much live, as it's just an old formula without the proper bridges between the different parts. But the fact is that for most fans, is their prefered music in the last album - the least innovative, by far.
I want U2 to forget bullshit about relevance and being able to play the song with just an accoustic guitar. I think that what they have done for half of SOI, and I think they had a lot of fun trying new things. In that direction, I just wish that they continue much more years producing new stuff. The other direction... I will pray for best of concerts, or concerts for fans and playing those songs we never had the chance to see live..
On the other hand, it's also obvious that they have a lot of fans that really want them to do more songs sounding like the 80s. Look at Iris, for me is no surprise the song doesn't impress too much live, as it's just an old formula without the proper bridges between the different parts. But the fact is that for most fans, is their prefered music in the last album - the least innovative, by far.
I want U2 to forget bullshit about relevance and being able to play the song with just an accoustic guitar. I think that what they have done for half of SOI, and I think they had a lot of fun trying new things. In that direction, I just wish that they continue much more years producing new stuff. The other direction... I will pray for best of concerts, or concerts for fans and playing those songs we never had the chance to see live..
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Not at all. Many musicians would love to be the fifty-thousandth most popular artist in their genre if they could just make music for a living. And you should know your limitations as an artist in terms of popularity. If you don't, you're delusional. U2's pursuit of popular relevance is purely delusional. Imagine a Swedish death metal band wanting to be the most popular band in the world. Maybe some of them do, but it's probably not the case most of the time. While not the same thing with U2 - is contrasted to illustrate the larger point. At the point that Swedish death metal band tries to become more and more popular the music has to inevitably change.
And that is the problem for people that care about music as art. Changing the music so that it can be more popular and heard by as many people as possible is an artistic compromise. The integrity of an artist is often attached to a lot of codified bullshit notions (punk, indie, etc.). I'm not talking about any of that nonsense. But there is nothing more damning to an artist in this regard than their clearly changing music to be more accessible, for more popularity.
For a lot of us that care about artistry in music, it's more about trying to make the best piece of music possible. And when we see what is popular - from the 1950's to today and everything in between - it's not hard to notice that there is a higher grade of artistry and musicianship in stuff that is less popular than what hits the charts. And so much of what hits the charts (most, really) is buoyed by things that have literally nothing to do with the artistry of the music. Trends, fads, zeitgeist, sexual attraction, etc.
Those that are vying for the charts have to compete on those grounds. For an artist that doesn't easily fit on those grounds, it becomes inevitable that it changes the music. It doesn't have to be worse but it almost always is - because of the nature of what creates a "hit" to begin with. If you are a rock band and of a certain age, you are not going to have those hits. The audience that creates those "hits" will not allow it. They never have. And if you do your best to covet them, you are inevitably going to be making artistic compromises that are distasteful to some of your longtime fans.
It's a cop out to say "this is what U2 want to do" when the criticism here is THAT VERY THING. Nobody can argue with a straight face (to someone who is slightly informed) that U2's previous work was as polished and overthought as their 21st century work. That is - in terms of wanting maximum popularity. If it was, they were both hideously wrong and EXTREMELY lucky that it worked.
Truth is, they changed the way they write songs. Literally. The questions are - was this a natural change - with a desire towards stronger craftsmanship and musicianship - or should we just take them at their constant word - that it's all about pop culture 'relevance'? I think it's both, personally. I completely get the notion of wanting to write songs in a different way - a more classical way, I've done it myself as a songwriter.
But the constant egotism and desire for relevance has harmed the artistry of their music. Undeniable to me (at least not denied with any credibility). In that it has driven them away from places of creative risk into the pandering garbage that opens Songs of Innocence. Woah-Oh-Oh. It's like U2 doing a hideous version of one of the myriad U2 clones. Sad. And THAT is the lead single we get in 2014, whereas in years past we might get...Numb. Anyone that believes this is the same sort of thing is a U2 apologist deluxe. Which is fine unto itself, this is a U2 fan forum after all...but completely useless to an objective conversation about what U2 can't seem to get right ever again.
All this said another way, the actual songs of Songs of Innocence are largely fine and easily some of their best work of the 21st century. But it was all run through a 'car wash' to get it more accessible to people mostly born after POPmart ended. That includes the Apple debacle and the sheen of production which is the most blatantly 'pop' thing this band has ever done...in their mid-50's. The optics of all this are totally embarrassing. And it's a shame.
While I haven't listened to SOI in maybe 3 or 4 months, I just listened to Invisible for the first time in a while the other day. That's a great song - and with the Super Bowl ad - if they were ever going to have a big hit again - that was it. But...the very idea that they stuffed it into that ad made - in large part - that 'hit making crowd' reflexively say "nah". That HAS ALWAYS been the case. This is what I mean. Even when they made one of their best songs of the last 16 years, they couldn't get out of its way. Why? Because of this ambition that is definitely NOT shared by "every artist".
trevgreg
Rock n' Roll Doggie
What exactly is the music that all of us fans want to hear though? At the end of the day, I doubt there's just one concrete style or type of song everyone gravitates to.
SBU2
War Child
In hindsight, ambition was perhaps the wrong word to use, and generalising so vastly, was naive too. Hope would be more fitting to demonstrate the question I was intending to ask. However then the question becomes a matter of stating the obvious.
It's a fair question to ask, and one which can never be answered specifically. I guess, and I can only speak for myself, fans want to hear music less tailored towards the mainstream, and something more organic, whatever that may be. As seen previously, producing music without the thought of a hit in mind, ironically, can produce a hit. However I feel it's reached that stage now, with the band, that producing a hit close to the impact Beautiful Day or Vertigo made, is borderline impossible, given the current state of the charts.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
You mean YOU'RE not impress much, right?
You don't understand Iris' structure if that's how you summarize it.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Mrs. Garrison
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Not to make an SOE thread about SOI, but i had not listened to SOI for a few weeks either until today. I played a few songs and those last five songs are just fucking great. Then i thought about the "weaker" songs and decided to make what would have been a much better (imho) tracklisting:
invisible
california
every breaking wave
crystal ballroom
iris
raised by wolves
cedarwood road
sleep like a baby tonight
this is where you can reach me now
the troubles
At this point i dont care if there are "hits" and really do wish the band would have let Danger Mouse produce the entire album instead of bringing in XYZ producer. The songs i have heard live, RBW and CR are fantastic from what i have seen on YouTube.
My hope for SofE is this, stop trying to rub sugar and honey all over what could be great material. Stick with a producer, have confidence in them and yourself too. Forget about radio and the pop kids. Let that go. If you make truly great music...they will show up...and if they dont..who gives a fuck? You are U2, the sun has shined brighter on you than any other living musician active today, appreciate that for what it is.
invisible
california
every breaking wave
crystal ballroom
iris
raised by wolves
cedarwood road
sleep like a baby tonight
this is where you can reach me now
the troubles
At this point i dont care if there are "hits" and really do wish the band would have let Danger Mouse produce the entire album instead of bringing in XYZ producer. The songs i have heard live, RBW and CR are fantastic from what i have seen on YouTube.
My hope for SofE is this, stop trying to rub sugar and honey all over what could be great material. Stick with a producer, have confidence in them and yourself too. Forget about radio and the pop kids. Let that go. If you make truly great music...they will show up...and if they dont..who gives a fuck? You are U2, the sun has shined brighter on you than any other living musician active today, appreciate that for what it is.
aMansAman
War Child
In some recent radio clip I heard Bono say that he feels that SOI sounds "too glossy" at times. Interesting, because didn't they call in Tedder to work on some tracks to polish them up, to sound more poppy? I doubt that the original production which DM did was near "glossy".
U2 are predictable and a piece of chaotic junk at the same time. Adam talking about making music rather for the fans.... Bono talking about "pop music" which is the thing that really matters...
I still have hope in SoE. If they just keep going down the road doing things instead of thinking of how to do things. They could finish SOE during/shortly after the 2 Legs of 2015. Then releasing it for Christmas or spring 2016. If they keep messing with the material it won't get better.
If they trust in people like the LAMB producer SOE could sound interesting. And that's meant as a compliment.
U2 are predictable and a piece of chaotic junk at the same time. Adam talking about making music rather for the fans.... Bono talking about "pop music" which is the thing that really matters...
I still have hope in SoE. If they just keep going down the road doing things instead of thinking of how to do things. They could finish SOE during/shortly after the 2 Legs of 2015. Then releasing it for Christmas or spring 2016. If they keep messing with the material it won't get better.
If they trust in people like the LAMB producer SOE could sound interesting. And that's meant as a compliment.
I am not getting hopes up for SOE being released.
Considering how much as been off on this release and U2s tendency to get scared and back off of claims/ideas....I wouldn't be shocked to see this tour end up like 360 where it turns into a greatest hits, with more early stuff played in first set, with the 2nd set staying about the same.
Could be wrong with reports of a studio being back stage....I just think with backlash of SOI probably killed any chance of SOE coming out
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Considering how much as been off on this release and U2s tendency to get scared and back off of claims/ideas....I wouldn't be shocked to see this tour end up like 360 where it turns into a greatest hits, with more early stuff played in first set, with the 2nd set staying about the same.
Could be wrong with reports of a studio being back stage....I just think with backlash of SOI probably killed any chance of SOE coming out
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Mrs. Garrison
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
U2 should sue Apple for the disastrous release of SOI
Gonna Run 2 U
New Yorker
Please just release the album
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Flying FuManchu
New Yorker
Noel also said Crystal Ballroom was the best song on the album/ not on the album if you didn't get the deluxe.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Registered Dude
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
U2 Guitar Tech Says Next Album Is ‘More Rock and Serious’
not sure what "rock and serious" sounds like.. but, always nice to get a new tidbit
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
More serious than dead mothers, bombings and child abuse within the church? That's pretty fucking serious.
ozeeko
Refugee
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
