david
ONE love, blood, life
The Ruben stuff was shelved and I thought in this interview he said the material for the new album was pretty much all newly written material?
New Edge interview 11/20/2008
- Thread starter purpleoscar
- 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.
PowerSurge
New Yorker
I think thats what was said indeed.
I for one don't give a crap about the Rubin material. I just don't think it could have been that good judging by what Rubin and the band were saying about the sessions.
I for one don't give a crap about the Rubin material. I just don't think it could have been that good judging by what Rubin and the band were saying about the sessions.
Aygo
Rock n' Roll Doggie
But... won't those Rubin song be outdated and senseless (in the creator's mind) when they pick them up again?
I don't see the band get together with Rubin again before 2011/2.
I don't see the band get together with Rubin again before 2011/2.
mkdominatr
Refugee
To me that sounds like the nice and politically correct way of saying they hated the results and didn't take to him as a producer very well....
Aygo
Rock n' Roll Doggie
That's what sounds to me too. In fact, I never was and I'm still not a fan of Rubin's overrated work as a producer.
PowerSurge
New Yorker
I don't think he's overrated, I think he's being cast as some musical messiah that can take any artist and make them produce amazing work. Thats simply not the case. Not all producers can work well with all kinds of artists. In this case I think the match was a wrong one.
Rick Rubin is a fantastic producer...U2 are a phenomenal band...but apparently they just don't gel together, but it doesn't take anything away from either party.
Aygo
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I'm not only talking about Rubin's work with U2. His work - in general - doesn't please me, doesn't fascinate me and leave like "WOW!". In fact, I think it's pretty boring and bland for me.
the tourist
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
- Messages
- 27,919
I'm hoping it to be b-sides or a mid-tour ep.
Rob33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Just saw this on U2.com , not sure if this is new or not but I hadn't seen this photo before...Bono's looking pretty cool, actually so is Larry 
U2.com | Official News
U2.com | Official News
Yahweh_OMG
New Yorker
I like Saints... i think it was really good live.
The Sad Punk
Blue Crack Addict
Just saw this on U2.com , not sure if this is new or not but I hadn't seen this photo before...Bono's looking pretty cool, actually so is Larry
U2.com | Official News
Awesome, it appears that Bono's totally going for the somewhat out of focus back of neck look, and Larry's rocking the poor resize pixelation style. If you seek Amy, this is going to be incredible.
PowerSurge
New Yorker
Well, whether or not you or I openly acknowledge his success in the business is irrelevant because its well documented by the rest of the music world. He's more than earned his stripes...but like I said, regardless of how good he is as a producer and how good U2 are as a band it doesn't mean when they come together it will automatically make magic.
Aygo
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Once again, I'm not only talking about Rubin+U2. Rubin's work (Johnny Cash, RHCP, Neil Diamond, etc etc etc) doesn't please me.
shaun vox
New Yorker
who produced "Bomb" ??
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I own a ton of Rubin stuff, from Slayer to Neil Diamond, and generally, I think he does a great job. But meshing his process and U2's process never made a lot of sense to me. I would guess, that after working with him they knew they had to write the 'old way'. Which is to make it up as they go, in the studio. The complete opposite of what Rubin does.
So, I don't personally think it speaks to anything about the quality of the music.
Also, I would guess (by what we heard on the beachies/WITS) that stylistically it didn't really meet up with their ambitions for the record. WITS is a sweet sugary song but that sound is about as much of a departure from ATYCLB/HTDAAB as the songs on boths of those albums are. Which is to say, it isn't, at all.
I think U2 needed Eno and Lanois for the writing and the comfortable process following the Thomas ordeal. Or else, this album may have been even longer in the tooth.
Good move, U2.
So, I don't personally think it speaks to anything about the quality of the music.
Also, I would guess (by what we heard on the beachies/WITS) that stylistically it didn't really meet up with their ambitions for the record. WITS is a sweet sugary song but that sound is about as much of a departure from ATYCLB/HTDAAB as the songs on boths of those albums are. Which is to say, it isn't, at all.
I think U2 needed Eno and Lanois for the writing and the comfortable process following the Thomas ordeal. Or else, this album may have been even longer in the tooth.
Good move, U2.
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
He got the main credit but actually only produced about half of it.
You probably know this, this is just FYI for whoever.
Lillywhite doesn't deserve all the blame (Flood, you dissappoint me)
1 Vertigo-Lillywhite
2 Miracle Drug-Lillywhite/Glanville/Lee
3 Sometimes-Thomas/Lillywhite/Hooper
4 LAPOE-Eno/Lanois/Thomas/Lee/Flood
5 COBL-Flood/Thomas/Lee
6 ABOY-Lillywhite
7 A Man And a Woman-Lee
8 Crumbs-Lillywhite-Lee
9 One Step Closer-Thomas/Lanois/Lee
10 OOTS-Lillywhite-Lee
11 Yahweh-Thomas
12 Fast Cars-Lillywhite
what a fucking mess this is.
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Just to explain what I mean, in simple terms without getting into a track by track investigation.
Too many cooks with their fingers in the pie.
The pie itself, too long in the oven.
Too many cooks with their fingers in the pie.
The pie itself, too long in the oven.
Mrs. Garrison
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
that pie was a little bit over done if you ask me
I'm looking more into the direction of the guy that added ship foghorn sounds and a bunch of guitar sounds in Crumbs, among other things. Jacknife. Flood as well - he should have been fired after Pop.
They should have let Lillywhite handle all the final mixes, alone.
buzzkill27
War Child
Exactly.....one would hope that U2 learned their lesson from this overproduced album(HTDAAB)....when I saw opened the CD jacket and saw the production credits that read like "Produced by...with additional production by" I groaned....and the songs sure sounded way the hell overproduced.
Yeah, I agree....I especially have confidence in this record now that Edge himself has actually mentioned it...and he has confirmed it's 7+ minutes...I can't wait!!! What if we get another live epic like Bad? WOW
Why does my gut tell me that "Moment of Surrender" is a reworked "Mercy"???
PolarCamel
The Fly
I think you people are just exaggerating. "Production" can mean a whole bunch of different things, sometimes opposite when pertaining to the affect they have on a song's shape and sound.
U2 are a slick live band, and HTDAAB sounds like an album made by a slick live band. If anything, the album was actually rather UNDER-produced according to the terms some people here use.
A major part of this band's charm comes from the (for most of their career) wide gap between the feel of the songs on record with all the extra tracks and shadings and on stage - with altered arrangements designed to be playable, yet inclusive with the main harmonic elements and the most distinctive sound elements that give the song its special character on the album.
HTDAAB is the closest U2 ever sounded (since say, war, and some of R&H) to a stage setting, except that it resulted in the elimination of the aforementioned gap, and the songs lacked the emotional dimension of a live setting, and thus they sounded bleak and unidimensional.
As for over production and over crediting - If a song has 2 or 3 or 4 production credits it doesn't necessarily mean that it's over-produced in the sense that the sound was over-thought and polished too much according to diverted views and tastes of too many different people.
In fact, in U2's case (as in many other bands') it'd rather mean that one, Brian Eno, had put a keyboard line down to tape when playing with the band, and the band had used the same track with a take they recorded with Chris Thomas a year later, and eventually using on top, the guitars recorded with Mr. Lee, or Nellee or Lilly' or whoever was available to set up the mics and give an overlook at the session on that specific day of the project in the studio.
In music biz, whoever touches the console on a track that is finally incorporated into a song, gets credit for the song on the album sleeve, as long as he got paid for that specific session. That's essential fairness and that is what's common. It's true that sometimes the production credit might allude to a certain vibe or character to which the person credited made a contribution, but often it is just an honest gesture of honor for fulfilling some merely technical duties.
So finally, the way most of you people use the term "Overproduced" to describe HTDAAB is IMHO just a misconceived cliche. If anything, that album's main problem was that most of the SONGS on it, with all due respect to preceding U2 standards, were relatively SHITE, and our conclusion from that experience, will be that the next time the boys wanna "keep it real" and go back to the "primary colors of Rock and Roll", they should be brave enough to take the songs on a short tour before improving on them and subsequently recording them, or just write better ones at first place!
U2 are a slick live band, and HTDAAB sounds like an album made by a slick live band. If anything, the album was actually rather UNDER-produced according to the terms some people here use.
A major part of this band's charm comes from the (for most of their career) wide gap between the feel of the songs on record with all the extra tracks and shadings and on stage - with altered arrangements designed to be playable, yet inclusive with the main harmonic elements and the most distinctive sound elements that give the song its special character on the album.
HTDAAB is the closest U2 ever sounded (since say, war, and some of R&H) to a stage setting, except that it resulted in the elimination of the aforementioned gap, and the songs lacked the emotional dimension of a live setting, and thus they sounded bleak and unidimensional.
As for over production and over crediting - If a song has 2 or 3 or 4 production credits it doesn't necessarily mean that it's over-produced in the sense that the sound was over-thought and polished too much according to diverted views and tastes of too many different people.
In fact, in U2's case (as in many other bands') it'd rather mean that one, Brian Eno, had put a keyboard line down to tape when playing with the band, and the band had used the same track with a take they recorded with Chris Thomas a year later, and eventually using on top, the guitars recorded with Mr. Lee, or Nellee or Lilly' or whoever was available to set up the mics and give an overlook at the session on that specific day of the project in the studio.
In music biz, whoever touches the console on a track that is finally incorporated into a song, gets credit for the song on the album sleeve, as long as he got paid for that specific session. That's essential fairness and that is what's common. It's true that sometimes the production credit might allude to a certain vibe or character to which the person credited made a contribution, but often it is just an honest gesture of honor for fulfilling some merely technical duties.
So finally, the way most of you people use the term "Overproduced" to describe HTDAAB is IMHO just a misconceived cliche. If anything, that album's main problem was that most of the SONGS on it, with all due respect to preceding U2 standards, were relatively SHITE, and our conclusion from that experience, will be that the next time the boys wanna "keep it real" and go back to the "primary colors of Rock and Roll", they should be brave enough to take the songs on a short tour before improving on them and subsequently recording them, or just write better ones at first place!
It seems to me that POP, ATYCLB, and Bomb all have the same production characteristics in terms of sound, if a bit different in terms of styles. Styles meaning the kind of songs (i.e. Mofo verses Stuck).
They are all super-multi-layered recordings that are in your face volume-wise. And if you listen on headphones you can probably pick out at least 25 instrumental parts on each song from any of those albums.
When I think of production, I imagine a producer sitting in the control booth with an engineer. The engineer is the one with hands on the board handling the levels and doing what the producer asks. The producer is sitting there saying "Yeah, good vocal take Bono...maybe try another and this time try singing the first verse in a more whispering type tone...." or "Edge, why don't you try playing an arpeggio part on the chorus instead of power chords...."
etc.
Or it can be just a guy sitting at the controls. But I don't think U2 would give much credit to them if that was the case. Wasn't Zooropa produced by Edge with Eno?
They are all super-multi-layered recordings that are in your face volume-wise. And if you listen on headphones you can probably pick out at least 25 instrumental parts on each song from any of those albums.
When I think of production, I imagine a producer sitting in the control booth with an engineer. The engineer is the one with hands on the board handling the levels and doing what the producer asks. The producer is sitting there saying "Yeah, good vocal take Bono...maybe try another and this time try singing the first verse in a more whispering type tone...." or "Edge, why don't you try playing an arpeggio part on the chorus instead of power chords...."
etc.
Or it can be just a guy sitting at the controls. But I don't think U2 would give much credit to them if that was the case. Wasn't Zooropa produced by Edge with Eno?
PolarCamel
The Fly
Yes Zooropa was produced by Edge and Eno, I think the characterisic you gave for production work is kind of in line with the classic job definition, but it varies to a greater or lesser degree of involvement.
Some producers just sit back and give insight, and some, like Danny and Eno play a role in actually creating the musical atmosphere in which a take is happening, a role so dominant at times, that it is practically an element in songwriting process, if the band just "writes by accident", as they often do.
I think this is what had led to the songwriting credits controversy U2 had with Eno over ATYCLB, and what led them to evetually invite him and Dan to participate as songwriters in the France and Fez sessions in 2007.
Even going way back to the UF documentary, one gathers the impression that Eno & Lanois are much more interfering in the technical performance of the song than the description you gave. On the other hand, judging from interviews and stuff, I suspect that Lillywhite is more in line with that 'hands off' thing, as well as is Rick Rubin. Now I don't know about Lee, or Flood, or Hooper or any of this guys, but I think that generally U2 does like to bring in people that can either contribute a very clear insight on the music happening, or can offer enhancing instrumental contribution by playing or challenging the band's playing.
That's what they always say about Lanois (We play better when he's around), that was a crucial element of their work with Howie B (playing against all this loops, soundscapes and patterns he was creating) etc.
But still I believe that not every track is created with the same level of involvement on the producer's side, some things just happen and get recorded, while other things are essentially collaborative, in the very physical sense of it - the performance, playing the instruments, shooting ideas as each other. So when you try to judge a producer's influence on a track you should have that in mind.
Some producers just sit back and give insight, and some, like Danny and Eno play a role in actually creating the musical atmosphere in which a take is happening, a role so dominant at times, that it is practically an element in songwriting process, if the band just "writes by accident", as they often do.
I think this is what had led to the songwriting credits controversy U2 had with Eno over ATYCLB, and what led them to evetually invite him and Dan to participate as songwriters in the France and Fez sessions in 2007.
Even going way back to the UF documentary, one gathers the impression that Eno & Lanois are much more interfering in the technical performance of the song than the description you gave. On the other hand, judging from interviews and stuff, I suspect that Lillywhite is more in line with that 'hands off' thing, as well as is Rick Rubin. Now I don't know about Lee, or Flood, or Hooper or any of this guys, but I think that generally U2 does like to bring in people that can either contribute a very clear insight on the music happening, or can offer enhancing instrumental contribution by playing or challenging the band's playing.
That's what they always say about Lanois (We play better when he's around), that was a crucial element of their work with Howie B (playing against all this loops, soundscapes and patterns he was creating) etc.
But still I believe that not every track is created with the same level of involvement on the producer's side, some things just happen and get recorded, while other things are essentially collaborative, in the very physical sense of it - the performance, playing the instruments, shooting ideas as each other. So when you try to judge a producer's influence on a track you should have that in mind.
popshopper
Acrobat
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 459
I believe Flood is only listed on Love and Peace and City of Blinding Lights as parts of both songs originated during the Pop sessions.
Brilliance. Could not agree more. I've been saying this for donkey's years.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
For the record, Flood was also a Zooropa producer, and is listed first, before Eno.
Similar threads
