Cactus Annie
Refugee
Yeah, Bruce will never let an overated pop singer cover one of his songs and insist on doing a duet in a song which is supposed to be a sang by a solo singer. And he wouldn't try to turn himself into a pop singer either.
wished U2 was a little bit like The Boss
- Thread starter phommel
- 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.
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
phommel
Refugee
but that's all a matter of taste!
And there are not a few poople who think that this least productive decade of U2 is also mediocre to their standards....
last unicorn
Blue Crack Addict
One of the great things about Bono's voice is that he can sing almost anything, while most "rock singers" are restricted to rock.
kingofsorrow
Refugee
i think this applies to his lyrics also. he can write words to fit just about anyone. perfect example ; sugar daddy. that is so much a tom jones song, but bono did an excellent job with the lyrics.
ZOOTVTOURist
Refugee
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 1,700
Now you did, glad I could help you – The "Tunnel Of Love Express" single was a three live song package from the beautiful 1988 tour "Tougher Than The Rest", "Be True" and the incredible acoustic version of "Born To Run", released by CBS. It's really worth the buy, if you find it somewhere around.
Exactly, that's why I wrote so
Yes not bad either, but for this discussion here, this list only shows, that U2 haven't the same amount of creative album output as Mr. Springsteen. Fact is, that there much longer gaps in between studio albums & tours, Fact is, that U2 prefer to publish as bridges inbetween compilations with just one or two new original tunes or lose themselves in side projects, that last an eternity. I remember the "Spiderman-News" being from 2004, and the result has yet to be listened to. And fact is, that so far the band has produced in the last decade only two proper studio albums, they brought on the road under the label U2:
- All That You Can't Leave Behind
- How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb
- No Line On The Horizon (to be confirmed, no date yet)
In the same period, Springsteen pubished and toured (or will do so) under his name:
- The Rising
- Devils And Dust
- The Seeger Sessions
- Magic
- Working On A Dream (to be released, with a date in January)
... that's 4:2, even 5:3 for the Boss ...
Salome
you are what you is
actually, I started of my sentence with "in the public conscience"
even if this entire forum would agree that All that you can't ... and How to dismantle ... are absolute trash wouldn't change the fact they will never be regarded / looked back on as such by the general public
no matter what some fans might think these albums strengthened U2's position (and will enable them to move on again musically if they wish to do so)
at the same time the avarage person would have trouble naming an album Springsteen released in the 90s
this has little or nothing to do with my personal opinion
now, I'm aware that some people start to fume and froth at the mouth when the reaction of the avarage music listener is brought into debate
but unfortunately (or fortunately, depending how you look at it) it does seem to matter to U2 does and therefore influence the process of creating an album
it seems to me that Springsteen is just releasing albums to mostly please himself and his followers and anything beyond that is a bonus ( I do think back in the 90s after the relative flop that was Human Touch / Lucky Town Springsteen spent a lot of time wondering what to do and therefore was far less productive then he is nowadays)
U2 still wants to attract new people and therefore feel they need to put more time in their work to achieve this
I don't think 1 is inherently better than the other
also, most of the band members have young children now and they might want to spend some time with them while they are growing up
I actually think this is the main reason the band hasn't been more productive
and I don't blame them at all
Jimmy Jazz
The Fly
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2004
- Messages
- 239
The Chimes Of Freedom EP is still in print and it has all that plus his great cover of Bob Dylan's Chimes Of Freedom.
The Disciple
New Yorker
Springsteen's New Album Confirmed
November 17
Link
Columbia Records has confirmed that Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band’s new album 'Working on a Dream ' will be released on January 27, 2009.
The 12-track LP — Bruce’s 24th — was produced and mixed by Brendan O’Brien, who last helmed the band’s 2007 'Magic'.
“Towards the end of recording Magic, excited by the return to pop production sounds, I continued writing,” Springsteen says in a statement. “When my friend producer Brendan O’Brien heard the new songs, he said, ‘Let’s keep going.’ Over the course of the next year, that’s just what we did, recording with the E Street Band during the breaks on last year’s tour. I hope Working on a Dream has caught the energy of the band fresh off the road from some of the most exciting shows we’ve ever done. All the songs were written quickly, we usually used one of our first few takes, and we all had a blast making this one from beginning to end.”
The tracklisting is as follows:
'Outlaw Pete'
'My Lucky Day'
'Working On A Dream'
'Queen Of The Supermarket'
'What Love Can Do'
'This Life'
'Good Eye'
'Tomorrow Never Knows'
'Life Itself'
'Kingdom of Days'
'Surprise, Surprise'
'The Last Carnival'
Bonus tracks:
'The Wrestler'
'A Night With the Jersey Devil'
November 17
Link
Columbia Records has confirmed that Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band’s new album 'Working on a Dream ' will be released on January 27, 2009.
The 12-track LP — Bruce’s 24th — was produced and mixed by Brendan O’Brien, who last helmed the band’s 2007 'Magic'.
“Towards the end of recording Magic, excited by the return to pop production sounds, I continued writing,” Springsteen says in a statement. “When my friend producer Brendan O’Brien heard the new songs, he said, ‘Let’s keep going.’ Over the course of the next year, that’s just what we did, recording with the E Street Band during the breaks on last year’s tour. I hope Working on a Dream has caught the energy of the band fresh off the road from some of the most exciting shows we’ve ever done. All the songs were written quickly, we usually used one of our first few takes, and we all had a blast making this one from beginning to end.”
The tracklisting is as follows:
'Outlaw Pete'
'My Lucky Day'
'Working On A Dream'
'Queen Of The Supermarket'
'What Love Can Do'
'This Life'
'Good Eye'
'Tomorrow Never Knows'
'Life Itself'
'Kingdom of Days'
'Surprise, Surprise'
'The Last Carnival'
Bonus tracks:
'The Wrestler'
'A Night With the Jersey Devil'
However you want to slice the pie and compare things, U2 do have a pathetically small output since Zooropa (and if you were alive in 1989-1991, people were bitching then about how long they took to come out with Achtung, although for once the wait was worth it). As of the end of 2008, the otherwise healthy Irish combo will have produced a grand total of THREE studio albums in the preceding 15 calendar years (1994 through 2008 -- no, I'm not counting Passengers). In the 80s, Prince used to write and record that many albums (either for himself or his minions) in 4 months.
The industry and its practices for album-releases has obviously changed a great deal since the 80s, and in fact it's still in a process of change as CD sales are becoming a lesser priority with each passing year. This is another aspect, where, as a seasoned U2 fan, I sometimes wish they weren't so in touch with the times. Springsteen, who we're comparing them to, seems less bothered by craftsmanship and marketing the latest global blockbuster than U2 are (I'm not saying he doesn't craft carefully to maximize his sales -- often he does -- but simply that he doesn't obsess over it as much as the U2ers do). In 100 years, nobody is going to remember how popular U2 were, or how "visible" they were at middle-age. Everyone in the future who cares will judge musicians on their songs from their major releases, and U2 haven't produced enough in recent years.
It's cool that U2 care so much about their craft and are so critical of themselves that they refuse to release anything they consider sub-par, but I think they've definitely gone too far in the direction of 'crafted product' (and I say this as someone who loves their last two albums). I mean, The Beatles recorded Please Please Me in one day, and I think it's better than Pop, which took a year or something...
There's something to be said for working on a fixed schedule with deadlines.
The industry and its practices for album-releases has obviously changed a great deal since the 80s, and in fact it's still in a process of change as CD sales are becoming a lesser priority with each passing year. This is another aspect, where, as a seasoned U2 fan, I sometimes wish they weren't so in touch with the times. Springsteen, who we're comparing them to, seems less bothered by craftsmanship and marketing the latest global blockbuster than U2 are (I'm not saying he doesn't craft carefully to maximize his sales -- often he does -- but simply that he doesn't obsess over it as much as the U2ers do). In 100 years, nobody is going to remember how popular U2 were, or how "visible" they were at middle-age. Everyone in the future who cares will judge musicians on their songs from their major releases, and U2 haven't produced enough in recent years.
It's cool that U2 care so much about their craft and are so critical of themselves that they refuse to release anything they consider sub-par, but I think they've definitely gone too far in the direction of 'crafted product' (and I say this as someone who loves their last two albums). I mean, The Beatles recorded Please Please Me in one day, and I think it's better than Pop, which took a year or something...
There's something to be said for working on a fixed schedule with deadlines.
bono_man2002
Blue Crack Addict
What has u2 released in the 00's that will be remembered for years to come?..."Oh the band from the iPod commercial....yeah they were a bit of a one hit wonder!"
StaySafeTonight
The Fly
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Messages
- 128
Yeah I really wish U2 were more active as a band as well. I actually think Bruce has a harder job as a solo act. I just say so having been in positions where I have been a solo musician, a solo musician with a backing band, and a frontman of a band of 3 other guys I knew like brothers.
Writing music with my guys was much much easier... It was fluid and we had great songs after playing around with them for literally minutes, going home and critiquing the recordings, writing better lyrics, and then tweaks here and there afterwards.
Trying to write/record on my own or getting the backing band to play what I want or have them record things right was nearly impossible.
I just think Bruce is kind of a workaholic. And to be honest-- U2 is my favorite band- But I think Bruce's music in the late 90s and into the 00s was more adventurous and experimental for him.
(Plus I think The Seeger Sessions album and tour was the best thing Bruce has ever done)
U2 are great, but I think they are enjoying life a little more since the mid 90s. Seriously 3 studio albums since 1993? Without breaking up!?!?!
Hey if I had mansions, yachts, jets, or freaking towers and hotels all over the world I wouldn't be too motivated to make music either!
Writing music with my guys was much much easier... It was fluid and we had great songs after playing around with them for literally minutes, going home and critiquing the recordings, writing better lyrics, and then tweaks here and there afterwards.
Trying to write/record on my own or getting the backing band to play what I want or have them record things right was nearly impossible.
I just think Bruce is kind of a workaholic. And to be honest-- U2 is my favorite band- But I think Bruce's music in the late 90s and into the 00s was more adventurous and experimental for him.
(Plus I think The Seeger Sessions album and tour was the best thing Bruce has ever done)
U2 are great, but I think they are enjoying life a little more since the mid 90s. Seriously 3 studio albums since 1993? Without breaking up!?!?!
Hey if I had mansions, yachts, jets, or freaking towers and hotels all over the world I wouldn't be too motivated to make music either!
PopFly
War Child
Two relatable points for U2's current recording process...
* Bruce's working process for Magic and this upcoming album seems comparable to what U2 did with Achtung Baby/Zooropa....record one album, but then have enough extra material and keep recording during touring breaks to release a second album. U2, alternatively, seem to be going through the same thing here but instead of releasing one album, they're keeping the recording process going.
* Bruce releasing Human Touch and Lucky Town on the same day in 1991. This has been universally regarded as a bad move; the ideal would've been to just cull one very good album from the two average albums. The latest rumour is that U2 may release one proper album in 2009 and then do a web-only release later in the year a la In Rainbows or the new Eno/Byrne record.
* Bruce's working process for Magic and this upcoming album seems comparable to what U2 did with Achtung Baby/Zooropa....record one album, but then have enough extra material and keep recording during touring breaks to release a second album. U2, alternatively, seem to be going through the same thing here but instead of releasing one album, they're keeping the recording process going.
* Bruce releasing Human Touch and Lucky Town on the same day in 1991. This has been universally regarded as a bad move; the ideal would've been to just cull one very good album from the two average albums. The latest rumour is that U2 may release one proper album in 2009 and then do a web-only release later in the year a la In Rainbows or the new Eno/Byrne record.
I think StaySafeTonight made some good points here:
This is what I think, too -- that it's harder to come up with passable new material on your own. If anything, U2 should have it easier than Springsteen does in terms of coming up with tunes and lyrics. Having said that, we also know that U2 are a very democratic group and that no one of them gets to lord over the others, so I suppose that has slowed them down before (as when Larry and Adam basically rejected the early recordings of HTDAAB).
Totally agree. Springsteen does seem to be writing endlessly, and he's the kind of artist who could put out a 4-CD (Tracks) box-set of unreleased songs that were all of very high quality. In contrast, Edge jokes about how the guys in U2 have a pact that if any of them goes down in a plane crash, the survivors are charged with destroying their unreleased recordings because they're so bad.
Yes, you're right, of course. At the same time, though, would you try really hard to stay in the public eye and at the forefront of media, technology, culture, celebrity-profile, etc. in that same situation ... because U2 do do this.
As a music fan, I would rather they released 6 albums in 15 years and play half as many gigs to 75% smaller audiences. But I don't hold it against them -- you have to admire their spunk in fighting to stay on top, for a bunch of old farts.
This is what I think, too -- that it's harder to come up with passable new material on your own. If anything, U2 should have it easier than Springsteen does in terms of coming up with tunes and lyrics. Having said that, we also know that U2 are a very democratic group and that no one of them gets to lord over the others, so I suppose that has slowed them down before (as when Larry and Adam basically rejected the early recordings of HTDAAB).
Totally agree. Springsteen does seem to be writing endlessly, and he's the kind of artist who could put out a 4-CD (Tracks) box-set of unreleased songs that were all of very high quality. In contrast, Edge jokes about how the guys in U2 have a pact that if any of them goes down in a plane crash, the survivors are charged with destroying their unreleased recordings because they're so bad.
Yes, you're right, of course. At the same time, though, would you try really hard to stay in the public eye and at the forefront of media, technology, culture, celebrity-profile, etc. in that same situation ... because U2 do do this.
As a music fan, I would rather they released 6 albums in 15 years and play half as many gigs to 75% smaller audiences. But I don't hold it against them -- you have to admire their spunk in fighting to stay on top, for a bunch of old farts.
AndrewCowley
Refugee
I've always thought that U2 don't easily make music. From what I've heard and read about U2 in the studio it seems like a very painful process. They aren't a 'jam' band. I do believe that you could put U2 in a room and say 'play' and nothing would happen. I think even now 30 years on (perhaps moreso than ever) making music is hard for them. So much seems to hang on a guitar idea from Edge or a lyric from Bono. And then the pain starts; they have to try to fit a song around those bare bones things.
Whereas I think people like Springsteen (talked about here), Neil Young, Nick Cave, Pearl Jam (to name a few) are more natural with their songcraft, so album releases come easier.
Whereas I think people like Springsteen (talked about here), Neil Young, Nick Cave, Pearl Jam (to name a few) are more natural with their songcraft, so album releases come easier.
last unicorn
Blue Crack Addict
Yes really. How DARE they? We want U2 to suffer in order to release great music.
And obviously you weren't good at maths. I wasn't either, but still good enough to know that they have released more than 3 albums since 1993.
Bro, if you count albums of all original material under the name "U2", there is Pop (1997), ATYCLB (2000), and HTDAAB (2004). That would be three.
Also, I don't think sarcasm was required in your response to Last Unicorn -- s/he wasn't criticizing U2 for enjoying themselves, just pointing it out as a fact.
StaySafeTonight
The Fly
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Messages
- 128
Exactly! And thank you! I'm not criticizing anyone. There is nothing wrong with what they are doing nowadays and I can't blame them. I was just stating a that 80s and early 90s were mostly about making music and now they are enjoying all their hard work paying off! Good on them!
Plus 'Passengers' is NOT a U2 album, and greatest hits are compilations-not studio albums. I'm awful at math- But I can count to three.
I'll still be your friend though last unicorn
(psst! PS: I'm a "he" despite the girly-sounding name
)Geez... waiting for this new album has made this forum hostile!
last unicorn
Blue Crack Addict
I'm not hostile. I just thought your post was very negative towards U2.
I don't like these comparisons and I still think it's easier to make a record if you're alone and not in a band.
You might have experienced it differently, but I would think that it's more difficult if you're in a band, especially in a band like U2 where there is a democracy and everyone can weigh in on every decision.
OK, if you only count these albums mentioned above, you're right, but U2 made some more than that and were also involved in a lot of other projects. Passengers, Million Dollar Hotel are still U2 albums for me, though others may see it differently.
I don't like these comparisons and I still think it's easier to make a record if you're alone and not in a band.
You might have experienced it differently, but I would think that it's more difficult if you're in a band, especially in a band like U2 where there is a democracy and everyone can weigh in on every decision.
OK, if you only count these albums mentioned above, you're right, but U2 made some more than that and were also involved in a lot of other projects. Passengers, Million Dollar Hotel are still U2 albums for me, though others may see it differently.
Salome
you are what you is
besides that I don't believe this for a second I thought it was quite obvious that I was just trying to point out that it's not like Springsteen's output has always been that high
~ you can't just randomly compare 1 artist's output in 1 stage of his career to another artist's output in another stage of his career
but ok
anyways
if the album will be released next year then that would mean 3 albums being released in the period 2000-2009
while not a great feat it's also not as desperate as some make it out to be
Beautiful day ? The comeback of ATYCLB ? Healing of the entire nation on the third leg of Elevation tour ?
The Sad Punk
Blue Crack Addict
I think he was sort of joking and also oh come on.
The Sad Punk
Blue Crack Addict
I'm saying that in the the historical context of 9/11, that's not even going to be a footnote.
Irishteen
Blue Crack Addict
I think in the solo act vs band situation each has their pros and cons
In a band, more members means more musical ideas which can mean more songs however every member has to like a song enough to release it meaning they spend longer on albums
For a solo musician, while they have to write the entire album themselves they are the ones who decide what songs go on it; which is probably the first 12 songs they write. Look at Lucky Town/Human Touch with Springsteen, one bad album and one slightly better one but together they could of been decent but he was on his own so had no one telling him they won't allow him to use the songs.
I think with the E Street Band Bruce is in a better position, one he has more people to contribute to musical ideas but he still most likely has the final say.
In a band, more members means more musical ideas which can mean more songs however every member has to like a song enough to release it meaning they spend longer on albums
For a solo musician, while they have to write the entire album themselves they are the ones who decide what songs go on it; which is probably the first 12 songs they write. Look at Lucky Town/Human Touch with Springsteen, one bad album and one slightly better one but together they could of been decent but he was on his own so had no one telling him they won't allow him to use the songs.
I think with the E Street Band Bruce is in a better position, one he has more people to contribute to musical ideas but he still most likely has the final say.
StaySafeTonight
The Fly
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Messages
- 128
Sorry if I sounded like I was singling you out! I wasn't! I was just saying it seems like lately whenever someone contributes an opinion on this forum someone else has to knock it down.
I'm actually a little frustrated myself on the whole U2 topic as well. I have wanted this is album for about 1/4 of my life!
But as far as the Boss vs. U2 for work ethic I think the Boss is working his ass off lately. Hey! Maybe U2 will kick it up a couple notches once they reach Bruce's age!
No, but it will be more than a footnote in the historical context of U2's career.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
as a huge fan of both, i think we underestimate how much of a democracy U2 is compared to Bruce. he pretty much writes the songs and tells the E Street Band what to play -- yes, it's collaborative, but it's not a democracy at all. just like any Hollywood movie with a heavyweight director is collaborative, but it is not a democracy. it's Bruce's band, period.
i think his music is, and always has been, also less innovative and interesting than U2 (his lyrics, however, are a step above even Bono at his best), and despite the quality of much of The Rising and Magic, it's not too different than what he was producing in 1984. now, this isn't a bad thing at all. it's just a different thing than U2 tries to do, which is start from scratch each and every time.
and at this point in their careers, Bruce knows who he is and how he will be remembered and so there's a kind of "fuck it" quality to what he's doing now -- he's been liberated by the success of The Rising and Magic, he's now a certified national treasure, and no one talks about the 1990s. U2 isn't where he is (not that they've had similar career trajectories), and i do think they can get paralyzed by self-analysis and self-absorption.
and i think at the end of the day what U2 is trying to pull off is harder to do. Springsteen writes music and puts to song powerful stories and ideas about real people and real life. it's a pretty traditional thing, and no one really does it better. U2 uses music to try to get at something different, something more akin to collective transcendence and ecstasy -- it's the difference between telling a story and casting a spell. i think this is reflected in their concerts as well. they're the two best concerts i've ever seen. no one i've seen approaches U2 or Bruce at their best. Bruce is the most energetic, emotional, barnstorming performer i know. U2 has a slippery, almost mysterious 4th dimension when they connect. it's the difference between "Born to Run" and "Streets." arguably, but probably, their best respective live songs. but in the lyrics, in what each song wants to accomplish, you'll find the difference.
one is not better than the other. but i think one is more like capturing lightning in a bottle. and that takes much longer.
and if you don't own the live album from the Seeger Sessions, you really should go get it.
i think his music is, and always has been, also less innovative and interesting than U2 (his lyrics, however, are a step above even Bono at his best), and despite the quality of much of The Rising and Magic, it's not too different than what he was producing in 1984. now, this isn't a bad thing at all. it's just a different thing than U2 tries to do, which is start from scratch each and every time.
and at this point in their careers, Bruce knows who he is and how he will be remembered and so there's a kind of "fuck it" quality to what he's doing now -- he's been liberated by the success of The Rising and Magic, he's now a certified national treasure, and no one talks about the 1990s. U2 isn't where he is (not that they've had similar career trajectories), and i do think they can get paralyzed by self-analysis and self-absorption.
and i think at the end of the day what U2 is trying to pull off is harder to do. Springsteen writes music and puts to song powerful stories and ideas about real people and real life. it's a pretty traditional thing, and no one really does it better. U2 uses music to try to get at something different, something more akin to collective transcendence and ecstasy -- it's the difference between telling a story and casting a spell. i think this is reflected in their concerts as well. they're the two best concerts i've ever seen. no one i've seen approaches U2 or Bruce at their best. Bruce is the most energetic, emotional, barnstorming performer i know. U2 has a slippery, almost mysterious 4th dimension when they connect. it's the difference between "Born to Run" and "Streets." arguably, but probably, their best respective live songs. but in the lyrics, in what each song wants to accomplish, you'll find the difference.
one is not better than the other. but i think one is more like capturing lightning in a bottle. and that takes much longer.
and if you don't own the live album from the Seeger Sessions, you really should go get it.
achtung_girl
New Yorker
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 3,047
that's why he's called the boss...
and that's why I love them both so much!
thanks!This is a hugely intelligent post, and you have single-handedly restored my faith in this forum.
And nice Obama photo.
Similar threads
