The '00's - U2's least productive decade

[LemonMelon]

Again, I ask, what is the purpose of this thread? Seriously, I still have no fucking clue. Anyone with access to a list of U2's albums/side projects who simultaneously was blessed with the much sought-after gift being able to count knows that the '00s was the slowest decade for the band. Are we supposed to be debating the importance of productivity to ones legacy, or was this just an excuse to point out the obvious?

 

[patternshirt170]

Im sorry but I wouldnt put Simple Minds or REM in the same league quality wise as U2.

REMs label made the biggest mistake of their existance signing REM to that giant contract and theyve released crap ever since.

crap? okay, but whether you like them or not has nothing to do with the point in hand.

They were peers for a good part of the '80s with Simple Minds and 1990s/2000s [R.E.M] and influenced and were themselves influenced, befriended and inspired by those 2 acts, amongst others, during the 2 respective eras...

My point was that they've never been an album every 13months band - period, ever.

I do think this current hiatus period was getting daft and they have filled the quieter times previously with other projects [P:OS_1 and MDH] and they count as work lke any actual record does.

 

[The Sad Punk]

Just wait until you see the '10's!

 

[rihannsu]

Dear Lord!

He's not talking about creative ability. He's talking about productivity. Two VERY different things.

I quite understand that they are two different things, but what I am trying to find out is WTF does it matter that they are not as productive now as in the 80's? Why is it even something worth bringing up? So what if they don't do an album a year. The only reason to point it out at all would seem to be to imply that this somehow a failing on their part. The only people who should care about productivity is the bean counters. Everybody else should care more about quality.

Dana

 

[U2girl]

I'm done with this.

Wow. Woooooooooow.

The entire point he's making is that this has NOTHING to do with the "status." He's not having "issues" with it.

And his statement about R&H was not intended for you, it was intended for doctorwho.

I guess that's why he always goes crazy about it, yeah. I'm not sure how "U2-productive" it is when half the material are instrumentals and the record lacks in the department of Bono lyrics, not to mention Eno clearly being in charge musically. The guy even instructed the band to try out different instruments. U2 were not remotely as much in charge as in any regular recording.

I know it was. Again, no clue what it's doing in a reply to a post that said absolutely nothing about Rattle and Hum but anyway.

As was said in another post "MDH was being worked on concurrently with ATYCLB to the point where Lanois was even quoted as saying he did the project to get it over with so that Bono could get back to the U2 album. The other band members were quite involved on various songs and some of the songs even though not credited U2 on the soundtrack had originally been demos for the U2 album and worked on by the band but laid aside."
Material such as GBH and Stateless. (and there are rumours Spiderman musical leftovers are being saved for the next U2 album/s)

I don't see much difference between that and Passengers. U2 was involved in both, as were other people, as were their longtime producers. Both projects overlapped with material that later made it onto U2 albums later (articles on Passengers mention a song or two delayed for the "rock U2 album" to follow). Making a soundtrack vs a one-time coalition of artists.

We can compare the decades after 2010 rolls by, anyway. Should be fun.

"If U2 ever settled this issue, they did it when they included TWO Passengers tracks on the second U2 best of?"
The only reason it made it onto the best of is they lacked material for the Best of and that MS and YBR were a single and a B-side. Doesn't change anything. BTW Edge said in an interview that he and Bono deliberately wrote two "U2 sounding" song at the time, and that's what came out of it. Those two songs.

 

[LemonMelon]

The only reason it made it onto the best of is they lacked material for the Best of and that MS and YBR were a single and a B-side.

If this is the case, where was The Fly (on US editions), Lemon, Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses, and Last Night On Earth?

 

[U2girl]

Desperate times call for desperate measures. AB already got 4 singles, Zooropa got 3 and Pop got 3.

Look at that Edge quote in context and notice how far they were removed mentally from regular U2 sessions (which didn't start until Passengers was over) :

"The Passengers record was a project like that -- an experimental project that we hatched the plan for with Eno. At first it was to be a soundtrack album, but as no appropriate film came up we just kept working and eventually decided to release the record as a pretend soundtrack. So all the sleeve-notes are related to non-existent movies. A lot of people really liked the record. Dance companies use it a lot, film documentary makers -- it's always been licensed to this use or that use. And it has one of my favourite U2 songs on it, which is "Miss Sarajevo."

But isn't that a Passengers' song, rather than a proper U2 song?

Well, it's on Passengers and it is credited as Passengers, but I suppose of the pieces it's the one that Bono and myself probably put the most time into. And at the time both of us realised that it would be really important to have at least a couple of fully fledged songs on the record. So we put a lot of time into "Miss Sarajevo" and "Your Blue Room," just to complete the circle."

And from the main instigator himself

Eno: The Story Behind 'Original Soundtracks 1' | U2 news article from @U2 This can not be passed of as "U2 creative sessions for new U2 material" in any shape or form.

 

[phillyfan26]

I give up.

Laz, you can fight on if you want, but I have lost the battle for reading comprehension and reasoning on this site.

 

[Niceman]

"If U2 ever settled this issue, they did it when they included TWO Passengers tracks on the second U2 best of?"
The only reason it made it onto the best of is they lacked material for the Best of and that MS and YBR were a single and a B-side. Doesn't change anything. BTW Edge said in an interview that he and Bono deliberately wrote two "U2 sounding" song at the time, and that's what came out of it. Those two songs.

If it was just a question of being short on material; why didn't they include some songs from Abbey Road? Or Melancholy and The Infinite Sadness? Oh, I forgot....because, unlike Passengers, U2 didn't write those!!! Anyway; Slug and Always Forever Now sound like U2 to me!!!! For that matter, I can't imagine anyone else coming up with United Colors of Plutonium!

But, for the sake of reading comprehension, why don't we table the discussion of whether Passengers is a U2 album? Can we agree its an album that U2 spent their time writing? If so, then looks like they released an album of material that they spent their time writing in 1995......

 

[lazarus]

U2girl, you seem to have some kind of mental block on what the definition of the term "productivity" means. Again, if you want to have your own thread where you can argue to the end of time what is defined as "U2" and what isn't, be our guest.

THIS thread, the one about productivity, is trying to account for the creative output of the band. Whether or not something was directed or spearheaded by Brian Eno, whether it was meant to be an official release, whether it was experimental and meant to be a diversion, is irrelevant. Doesn't matter. The bottom line is that there is an ALBUM of material, all songs credited to all four members of the band, that came out in 1995, conveniently at a midpoint between Zooropa and Pop, and magically seems to be drawn from the same creative well.

Make of that what you wish. The people here who don't have their heads up their asses sure understand its distinction.