New Edge interview 11/20/2008

[Salome]

I reckoned the chance of a double album was never more than 0.05%

 

[PowerSurge]

I reckoned the chance of a double album was never more than 0.05%

Well, I think it was honestly a better chance then what you mentioned due in part to the large amount of solid material that they came out with and the multiple mentions of having 2 or 3 albums worth of material by Edge.

I think the band had to have at least briefly talked about it at some point though I doubt it went any farther than that.

 

[mama cass]

The last example of a band that late in their career released a double album was RHCP's Stadium Arcadium, which I didn't like at all.

Kate Bush did it beautifully with her "Aerial" and its "Sea of Honey"/"Sky of Honey"

 

[boosterjuice]

Rarely does a band have a great double album. Actually, I can't think of any double album that wouldn't improve if its selected best songs were on one album only, and the rest was released as B-Sides or as a bonus disc.

U2 coudn't do a "great" double album at their creative peak - when they were doing The Joshua Tree (I love its B-sides, but I don't think a double album, as Bono wanted it to be at first, would be a smart idea). First and foremost it should be about quality and cohesiveness, and not about quantity. The last example of a band that late in their career released a double album was RHCP's Stadium Arcadium, which I didn't like at all.

I think Radiohead did it best after their 2-year long In Rainbows sessions - they released a great 10-song album and a second bonus disc to go with it (which was very good, but the tracks were inferior to the ones on the real album IMO). What's wrong with B-sides, anyway?

Smashing pumkins: Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness

RHCP: Stadium Arcadium.

 

[Aygo]

Rarely does a band have a great double album. Actually, I can't think of any double album that wouldn't improve if its selected best songs were on one album only, and the rest was released as B-Sides or as a bonus disc.

U2 coudn't do a "great" double album at their creative peak - when they were doing The Joshua Tree (I love its B-sides, but I don't think a double album, as Bono wanted it to be at first, would be a smart idea). First and foremost it should be about quality and cohesiveness, and not about quantity. The last example of a band that late in their career released a double album was RHCP's Stadium Arcadium, which I didn't like at all.

I think Radiohead did it best after their 2-year long In Rainbows sessions - they released a great 10-song album and a second bonus disc to go with it (which was very good, but the tracks were inferior to the ones on the real album IMO). What's wrong with B-sides, anyway?

As long if the supposed double album doesn't have 25 songs (and abunch of fillers and weak songs), it's okay.
If it turns to be some sort of double "EP" with great 7 or 8 songs in each disc (separating the raw songs from the overworked ones - as Edge suggested), I think it could be a smart step.

 

[Zoots]

I'm late to the party! But this is exciting!

that is one of the better interviews in a long time, hopefully we can say the same about the upcoming album!

Amen!

The "two halves" quote really makes me think that it's going to be a double album. After all this waiting and hype, it almost has to be a double album; waiting this long just to get eleven songs would seem a little anticlimactic as opposed to the idea of two disks. (But I'll take it either way!)

I hope you are correct! ray: So what if most double albums sound better when reduced to a single CD? Some of you people do not understand the concept of double albums at all. I seriously doubt that double albums strive for being a tight collection of stellar tracks! It's all about the album experience. The filler is part of that story or experience. Thank god The Wall wasn't made into a single album!

GODAMMIT SPIDERMAN! You ruin everything!

!!!

 

[U2girl]

White album, Exile on Main street, Blonde on blonde, London calling, Bitches brew, Electric Ladyland, Sign o' the times, Tommy, Quadrophenia ... plenty of classics that were double albums.

 

[Zoots]

And besides... The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The Who, Led Zeppelin have all made double albums... and really fucking excellent albums too! Do you really think U2 won't consider the idea at some point if they want to be known as one of the greatest bands ever? As long as they are not fussy about every song on the album being 5 stars worthy, I think they will consider it... if not now, maybe for the next one.

White album, Exile on Main street, Blonde on blonde, London calling, Bitches brew, Electric Ladyland, Sign o' the times, Tommy, Quadrophenia ... plenty of classics that were double albums.

Exactly! Haha we posted at the same time and said the same thing.

 

[U2girl]

Well, technically Rattle and Hum was released on 2 LPs... but I wouldn't put it past them to try it someday.

 

[Zoots]

Well, technically Rattle and Hum was released on 2 LPs... but I wouldn't put it past them to try it someday.

I forgot about that! I never think of it as a double cos it's all on one CD. Well, shit... now I'm less optimistic about them making a double album.

 

[bram]

I think that this article strongly suggests a SINGLE album as opposed to a DOUBLE album. You wouldn't need 2 more songs unless you were putting out a single album. If they needed to post pone the release of a double album because of a couple of songs they would have released part 1 first, work on the second part and release it later....which they still might do, but I doubt it.

In the end I think that we're pretty much getting a single album out of this.

And thank goodness!

I don't know if I'm more excited about U2 not releasing a double album or the fact that this will end the incessant (and baseless) predictions that they will/could/should release one.

 

[PowerSurge]

And thank goodness!

I don't know if I'm more excited about U2 not releasing a double album or the fact that this will end the incessant (and baseless) predictions that they will/could/should release one.

Really?

I kind of think it would have been a cool idea.

 

[last unicorn]

I don't see why our speculations should be "baseless". So far no one from the U2 camp has said anything about making or not making a double album. I don't think it's impossible. But I also feel that a double album has to be a double album, not a single album with a lot of fillers to make it double. I think with "50 to 60" songs written, the possiblity of a double album is there. And don't forget the glorious "Sea and Sky" video.

 

[bram]

After the 100 songs of ATYCLB, 50 or 60 doesn't mean much. Especially when U2 and Jimmy Iovine agree that they don't have enough to put together a single album of, presumably, quite a bit less than 50-60 songs.

I'm one of those (in the minority?) who is very strongly opposed to U2 attempting a double album. I listen to albums for the most part--not individual songs--so quantity doesn't really attract me. I want a single artistic piece that I can revisit again and again that has a certain ebb and flow. None of my favorite albums are double--most are probably in the 40-50 minute range and I don't think that it's coincidental that most great and classic albums are somewhere around here.

Just because no one has or hasn't said anything about making a double album doesn't make it even remotely likely. I don't see anyone predicting a triple album. And as others have pointed out--nearly all of the "great" double albums could arguably do with some trimming. And many of them would fit very comfortably on one modern CD anyway.

 

[U2girl]

Do you really think U2 won't consider the idea at some point if they want to be known as one of the greatest bands ever?

I think that having done a great album and tour, they'd have to add a great song for the ages (I would settle for a 3rd masterpiece but I figure this is more likely). Sort of like their Stairway to heaven or Comfortably numb.

 

[U2DMfan]

Did you people ignore the post on the previous page?
They needed two more songs.

You don't sweat a 3-4 month delay for two songs when you already have...16.

One album.

 

[bram]

Did you people ignore the post on the previous page?
They needed two more songs.

You don't sweat a 3-4 month delay for two songs when you already have...16.

One album.

Thank you. Let it stop.

 

[djerdap]

White album, Exile on Main street, Blonde on blonde, London calling, Bitches brew, Electric Ladyland, Sign o' the times, Tommy, Quadrophenia ... plenty of classics that were double albums.

Like I said, rare, not impossible.

And half of those would have benefited from some cutting.

Most importantly, what was my main point, all of those albums were released when those bands were at their creative, commercial and artistic peak - although U2 is solid these days, I think that times of records like The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby are far behind us.

I hope I'm wrong though.

 

[buzzkill27]

After the 100 songs of ATYCLB, 50 or 60 doesn't mean much. Especially when U2 and Jimmy Iovine agree that they don't have enough to put together a single album of, presumably, quite a bit less than 50-60 songs.

I'm one of those (in the minority?) who is very strongly opposed to U2 attempting a double album. I listen to albums for the most part--not individual songs--so quantity doesn't really attract me. I want a single artistic piece that I can revisit again and again that has a certain ebb and flow. None of my favorite albums are double--most are probably in the 40-50 minute range and I don't think that it's coincidental that most great and classic albums are somewhere around here.

Just because no one has or hasn't said anything about making a double album doesn't make it even remotely likely. I don't see anyone predicting a triple album. And as others have pointed out--nearly all of the "great" double albums could arguably do with some trimming. And many of them would fit very comfortably on one modern CD anyway.

I agree....in this Attention Deficit Disorder world it seems like most people don't have the attention span to listen to anything that might take up more than an hour of their time(you need to grab people)...you have more of a chance of U2 releasing another album Zooropa style than getting a double album......not that I wouldn't want one personally.
As far as the 50 to 60 songs recorded go,I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of the songs are the Rick Rubin session songs that U2 have put off to the side for now..if U2 told Jimmy Iovine this past summer that the album just needed two more songs..it was two more songs that they hadn't recorded yet...that would fit the album's theme or concept,instead of a number of songs that were already recorded but didn't work well with the rest of the album.

 

[last unicorn]

Did you people ignore the post on the previous page?
They needed two more songs.

You don't sweat a 3-4 month delay for two songs when you already have...16.

One album.

I don't think he meant it in terms of .... quantity.

 

[eas]

I think it's important to keep in mind that many double LP albums such as London Calling or Blonde on Blonde were in fact only 65-70 minutes long. Pop was about 60 minutes long. I am hoping for a "single" album of 65-70 minutes, maybe 14-15 songs.

 

[PowerSurge]

I don't see why our speculations should be "baseless". So far no one from the U2 camp has said anything about making or not making a double album. I don't think it's impossible. But I also feel that a double album has to be a double album, not a single album with a lot of fillers to make it double. I think with "50 to 60" songs written, the possiblity of a double album is there. And don't forget the glorious "Sea and Sky" video.

Well then what are you basing it on? Hope?

Hey, I'm not attacking you personally...I myself played into the double album discussion a few months ago as well. But lets have a quick discussion about this.

What is everyone REALLY basing the double album rumor/speculation on? There hasn't been anything at all concrete thats been pointing to that possibility other than a great big dose of hope. So if thats what we're basing it on then it is indeed "baseless" Because in a sense, people here have been "hoping" for a double album for as long as I can remember....I remember the talk about it during the ATYCLB days.

Again, I'm not trying to jump on your post....I'm just trying to get things straight, because even I finally said to myself "What the hell is out there that would point to a double album???" and thats when I started getting that notion out of my mind.

 

[Irishteen]

'You know what? This album needs two more songs, and it will be exactly what we have in mind.'


That could easily mean more than a single album

Maybe it's an album with a theme and they think it needs a couple more songs to make it better and more coherent



Some people are just too negative around here; what's the harm in hoping for a double album? It's not impossible so why not hope maybe they'll surprise us.

The fifth best selling album of the last 3 years was a double and they sell for more so maybe Paul wants them to make a double album

 

[PowerSurge]

I think it's important to keep in mind that many double LP albums such as London Calling or Blonde on Blonde were in fact only 65-70 minutes long. Pop was about 60 minutes long. I am hoping for a "single" album of 65-70 minutes, maybe 14-15 songs.

Well its also important to state the fact that double albums comprise a miniscule number of the total albums ever released...that being said a large number of them were actually really really good so it does behoove a band like U2 or any big band capable of producing alot of great music during recording sessions to put one out.

The fact remains that a lot of bands can barely put out enough material for ONE album, let alone two.

In the end its actually a pretty good bet that if a band has the material and guts to put out a double album the numbers point to it being pretty good.

That being said...U2 are probably not going to put out a double album.

 

[PowerSurge]

'You know what? This album needs two more songs, and it will be exactly what we have in mind.'


That could easily mean more than a single album

Maybe it's an album with a theme and they think it needs a couple more songs to make it better and more coherent



Some people are just too negative around here; what's the harm in hoping for a double album? It's not impossible so why not hope maybe they'll surprise us.

The fifth best selling album of the last 3 years was a double and they sell for more so maybe Paul wants them to make a double album

Its not being negative, its being logical. There isn't harm of a double LP at all...it would actually be great. Nothing is impossible...hell they might release a TRIPLE album...but lets get serious here. We're having a discussion on the probability of that happening. And the probabililty is very low. People can hope all they want...they can hope that there will be a big box of cash sitting under their tree on Christmas morning...but the probability of that happening is low (unless your Dad's name is Trump)

 

[bram]

I think it's important to keep in mind that many double LP albums such as London Calling or Blonde on Blonde were in fact only 65-70 minutes long. Pop was about 60 minutes long. I am hoping for a "single" album of 65-70 minutes, maybe 14-15 songs.

This point is absolutely key.

I don't think he meant it in terms of .... quantity.

No, you're right--I think he meant quality. Which makes it even more obvious that this is a single, normal-length album.

 

[bram]

'You know what? This album needs two more songs, and it will be exactly what we have in mind.'


That could easily mean more than a single album

Maybe it's an album with a theme and they think it needs a couple more songs to make it better and more coherent



Some people are just too negative around here; what's the harm in hoping for a double album? It's not impossible so why not hope maybe they'll surprise us.

The fifth best selling album of the last 3 years was a double and they sell for more so maybe Paul wants them to make a double album

I actually think you're being negative by hoping for a double-album. A) because it would the wrong choice artistically, critically, and financially and B) you're setting yourself up with hopeful expectations (however slight) that have virtually zero chance of being realized--thus vastly increasing the likelihood of your disappointment being greater than mine when the album clocks in at 46:27.

If U2 genuinely has enough material to release 2 CDs worth, than that's exactly how they should release it. I'm all for getting a Rubin CD in one year's time or a more experimental Brian and Danny album a few months after the NLOTH. But first I want the band to give us the best damn 45 minutes they've got left in them.

 

[PowerSurge]

I think it's important to keep in mind that many double LP albums such as London Calling or Blonde on Blonde were in fact only 65-70 minutes long. Pop was about 60 minutes long. I am hoping for a "single" album of 65-70 minutes, maybe 14-15 songs.

You reference two albums that make your point seem valid when it reality there are plenty examples of fantastic double LP's that span well over 70 minutes that nullify your argument:

Beatles - White Album - 93 min

Pink Floyd - The Wall - 89 min

and dare I go there? Notorious B.I.G. - Life after Death - 109 min - first hip hop double album to go DIAMOND....and he was DEAD!!!! HA!

 

[Irishteen]

I actually think you're being negative by hoping for a double-album. A) because it would the wrong choice artistically, critically, and financially and B) you're setting yourself up with hopeful expectations (however slight) that have virtually zero chance of being realized--thus vastly increasing the likelihood of your disappointment being greater than mine when the album clocks in at 46:27.

If U2 genuinely has enough material to release 2 CDs worth, than that's exactly how they should release it. I'm all for getting a Rubin CD in one year's time or a more experimental Brian and Danny album a few months after the NLOTH. But first I want the band to give us the best damn 45 minutes they've got left in them.

Why would it be the wrong choice artistically, critically and financially?

I can hope for a double album if I want and if it's a single album then fine that's what it is; it's not like U2 are the only band I like. If U2 release a crap album, so what? I'll live, I'll listen to other bands who can release even better albums than them.

I just want the band to release the album; it's probably not going to be the best album of the year so what? I can live just give me a single, double, triple or anything release an EP and I'll live.

 

[ramblin rose]

Well then what are you basing it on? Hope?

Yeah really. I'm not even clearly on what basis a double album was ever in the cards other than wishful thinking.

But, whatever, if people want to keep this dream alive....