Eno / Rubin Comments in March issue of Q Mag

[cg]

Stuck = plastic soul/gospel
Elevation = weird, fuzzed out pop/rock
Walk On = earnest, piano-driven ballad (with guitars)

Not sure what they have in common.

we are totally on a different wavelength. saying they "flow" doesn't mean they have everything in common or that all 3 sound the same. that's ridiculous. who would want that?

the themes of stuck and walk on are completely in accordance with one another. friendship/love/loss/ etc.

all 3 songs have soul. that's what they have in common. the instruments used have nothing to do with the "flow" or the impact of the songs.

 

[financeguy]

I'm kind of surprised at Eno being pissed off over not getting a songwriting credit for ATYCLB, but I speak as someone that has a pretty low opinion of ATYCLB so I struggle to understand someone actually WANTING to get the credit for it.

 

[U2FanPeter]

I get the impression that Eno must have made more than 10mil from all his U2 work. I've also heard the Lanois is crazy expensive for those that want to procure his production abilities.

 

[The John Tree]

I can say that ATYCLB "flows" better than HTDAAB.

But HTDAAB is my 2nd favorite U2 album (behind AB and yes, above JT). While it may not "flow", when I listen to it back to back all I hear is "good song, good song, good song, good song" all the way through.

And the same could be said for ATYCLB, but I like HTDAAB's songs more.

 

[Chizip]

my toilet flows well but it's still shitty

bomb > behind

 

[U2Man]

my toilet flows well but it's still shitty

bomb > behind

do you never clean it with the brush when you're done?

 

[thrillme]

This is getting blatantly absurd. Every other band I follow could start recording an album now and have it out by November. I wouldn't be shocked if some of them got it out by the end of July! And these are a real mix of bands, from different parts of the world playing different genres (everything from pop-rock to death metal), some in their twenties and some as old or older than U2. I cannot comprehend why U2 are so fucking slow. I don't think it can be put down to perfectionism either, as some of the other bands I know who can spit out albums quickly are perfectionists (and frankly produce much better mixed and packaged albums than U2 have for years). I think it's simply a lack of talent and/or a greater passion for living like rockstars than actually being rockstars.

I don't think that's true, I think it's because U2 really cling to "live is where they live." Granted I know U2 don't tour your part of the globe as often as others, but even a 2 year long tour of N. America and Europe can take a toll on the people touring. The jetlag, time differences, I'm surprised U2 aren't completely loopy from all that flying.

Do those same bands who can spit out albums quickly and are perfectionists, also tour as much as U2?

Virtually every U2 album has had a tour to support it. I don't really follow that many bands the way I do U2, but I don't assume every band that records an album will tour soon after that album is released. Some of the bands I like haven't toured in years.

A new U2 album, usually means a U2 tour is imminent. I think some U2 fans want the new album out sooner, because they feel that a tour is likely to follow. If U2 became a studio band, didn't tour anymore, yeah, they could probably spit out albums quickly within months instead of years.

Am I wrong in that some people are missing this big part of the equation when it comes to a U2 album release?

To us, the fans, it might look as laziness or lack of talent. Perhaps to U2, an album means an album, publicity for the album, then most likely a tour of the album, and all the logistics and financial planning for all that.

Any band who has toured as much as U2, isn't lazy in my book. Plus some bands who put out good albums, aren't so great when playing live.

///

Er yeah, back to topic, I'd echo those who said why is he complaining now, when he was listed that way on prior albums?

I tend to prefer the albums more that weren't produced by Eno.

Seems you get more "rock" out of U2 if Eno isn't as involved or not involved.

 

[BEAL]

I agree with the above post. Besides the Stones, what other bands go on massive world tours and then pump out a album 5-6 months later, and do it again?

If U2 were to release a album without a tour, I think it wouldn't take so long, but then people would bitch that they're not going on tour.

If I had a wife and kids (stress the kids) and I was travelling all over the world for 2-3 years, I'd probably want at least 6 months of down time at home with them.

People talk about U2 living the "rock star" life, and I don't think they are, unless you count Bono flying to D.C, or the rest of the group spending time with family????

Remember, Edge's family has just gone through a crisis. How is it fair to ask him to just lock himself in a studio somewhere?

I do find it a little annoying that the albums now take so long to come out (the past two). I would actually prefer that they become more of a studio band, and not tour, it might mean we get more music from them.

There is other music out there that will tide me over. Plus there'll be a few releases (IMAX) that'll get the excitment going.

 

[doctorwho]

bomb is a non-experimental hodge podge of sounds that u2 (and other musicians) have had past success with. i like some of the songs a lot, but i doubt i will ever love listening to the whole album front to end - and that is the only u2 album i would say that about.

I love reading comments from fans. It's interesting to read the above, because the only albums I can even come close to tolerating from start to end are UF and AB! I adore HTDAAB, but it has some tracks I really dislike. The same is true for "Zooropa". And while JT has some classics, the fact that all the songs sound the same is annoying. The few JT tracks that are different aren't good (IMO). In other words, I tend to skip tracks on just about every album. And I don't have a problem with this. Loving every track is a tough thing to do, even for the artist who created these songs!

 

[gherman]

I can say that ATYCLB "flows" better than HTDAAB.

But HTDAAB is my 2nd favorite U2 album (behind AB and yes, above JT). While it may not "flow", when I listen to it back to back all I hear is "good song, good song, good song, good song" all the way through.

And the same could be said for ATYCLB, but I like HTDAAB's songs more.

This is exactly how I feel

 

[jedi Larry]

"Bono needs to be involved in the studio to a much greater degree than he was for Bomb."

Maybe if he wasn't out trying to save the world so much he would be......and we'd get an album once every 2-3 years instead of 4-5.

 

[TheFirstBigW]

I was always under the impression that Eno and Lanois cobbled Beautiful Day together from Always. It's very much a studio-concocted song, just looped parts and awkward edits (ever listen to how cold that bridge comes in? that's not a performance). If he was that crucial to the making of that song, he probably should get credit - a lot was hanging in the balance on that "comeback" single.

In U2 by U2, I believe it was Larry who implied that Edge was the primary architect of Beautiful Day. He said that Edge worked on that song mercilessly, refusing to settle for anything less than a perfect song.

 

[jedi Larry]

The only songs I've heard are Eno musical concotions are two from UF: can't remember their names but they're mentioned as being musical creations of Eno by one of the band.

This comes from Bill Flanagan's book U2 At the End of the World.

 

[Snowlock]

This is getting blatantly absurd. Every other band I follow could start recording an album now and have it out by November. I wouldn't be shocked if some of them got it out by the end of July! And these are a real mix of bands, from different parts of the world playing different genres (everything from pop-rock to death metal), some in their twenties and some as old or older than U2. I cannot comprehend why U2 are so fucking slow. I don't think it can be put down to perfectionism either, as some of the other bands I know who can spit out albums quickly are perfectionists (and frankly produce much better mixed and packaged albums than U2 have for years). I think it's simply a lack of talent and/or a greater passion for living like rockstars than actually being rockstars.

In part it's because they're not true musicians. These guys are all self taught. Their songs typically come from jam sessions built from snippets that Edge brings in. Writing from jam sessions isn't exactly efficient.

The other part is because they just don't have to. Even other gigantic bands like The Rolling Stones need to tour for cash or relevency or exposure; what have you (read: The Police). U2 will get plenty of exposure this year whether they release an album or not. Whatever DVD they release this year won't suffer bad sales from fan malaise or competition. They're family guys and adults with other interests outside the band. They just flat out don't need us as much as we need them.

Lastly I think you have to take into consideration Bono's quote of "two bad albums in a row and you're done." I think he really believes that; they all do, and that makes them very tentative with their material and that adds to the delays.

Saying they suffer from a lack of talent after all of their accomplishments is certainly a stretch.

 

[shart1780]

Some would say they should break up now, then.

 

[Salome]

and that would belong in the stupidest thing you ever heard a u2 fan say thread

 

[Zoots]

How about this...

They should have broken up after Pop.

Better?

 

[U2Man]

no.

but i agree with axver - they are ridiculously slow.

 

[Bodnex]

This is getting blatantly absurd. Every other band I follow could start recording an album now and have it out by November. I wouldn't be shocked if some of them got it out by the end of July! And these are a real mix of bands, from different parts of the world playing different genres (everything from pop-rock to death metal), some in their twenties and some as old or older than U2. I cannot comprehend why U2 are so fucking slow. I don't think it can be put down to perfectionism either, as some of the other bands I know who can spit out albums quickly are perfectionists (and frankly produce much better mixed and packaged albums than U2 have for years). I think it's simply a lack of talent and/or a greater passion for living like rockstars than actually being rockstars.

Or a desire to spend time with their families/chill out after over a year on the road.

Nah, you're probably right, they're a bunch of self-absorbed dickheads who can't make music.

 

[Bonochick]

and that would belong in the stupidest thing you ever heard a u2 fan say thread

While I disagree with it also, let's not insult the opinions of others.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

yes, god damn U2 for aging, god damn them for having familys,

they should just constantly be locked away in a studio year after year just to please there fans,

 

[shart1780]

and that would belong in the stupidest thing you ever heard a u2 fan say thread

I didn't say I thought they were bad. Bomb was definitely their worst abum since Rattle and Hum. If their next album is the same quality as Bomb then I think that would be two bad albums in a row by U2 standards.

My point really was that there are many, many U2 fans who think U2's last albums weren't good.

 

[Salome]

How to dismantle is #2 on my list of U2 albums I like the least
but how that would equal to the bad having to quit just doesn't make any sense

and I didn't mean my former post as a personal attack to anyone, just that it is a very strangeway of reasoning in general

 

[bazza]

how can you not like HTDAAB... hope your not one of the fans that is stuck in the 80's and does want any thing other than JT sounding tracks...

 

[Aygo]

I didn't say I thought they were bad. Bomb was definitely their worst abum since Rattle and Hum. If their next album is the same quality as Bomb then I think that would be two bad albums in a row by U2 standards.

My point really was that there are many, many U2 fans who think U2's last albums weren't good.

Thankfully, that opinion belongs to you, to some guys around here in the forum and to some outsider folks and it's not a generalized statement!

 

[t8thgr8]

yes, god damn U2 for aging, god damn them for having familys,

they should just constantly be locked away in a studio year after year just to please there fans,

and you should be constantly locked away in english class

 

[MrBrau1]

HTDAAB is the 3rd best U2 album.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

HTDAAB is the 3rd best U2 album.

You're holding the list upside down there.

 

[MrBrau1]

You're holding the list upside down there.

You think AB is the worst U2 record?

Followed by JT?

What a let down.

 

[shart1780]

Then who's to judge when U2 has "two crap albums"? The general feeling among fans is that U2 have gone downhill fast in the past seven years. There's a reason a lot of people make comments like the band is phoning in their performances. It's because the last two records have been so much less daring and interesting than the U2 pre-ATYCLB. U2 have found their safe place and decided to rest on their laurels like classic aging rockers. They need to break out of this fast. Unfortunately I don't see them doing this any time soon, despite what Bono may be saying.

If it's Bono's decision the band will never retire because he'll think each subsequent album is U2's best ever. Heck, he says one of his favorite songs is Window In the Skies. That's scary.