Next Album Rumours Thread III - The Gospel of Adam

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I suspect U2’s name is mud amongst the elite producer club. Why would any of them bother working with U2 when there’s a good chance U2 will kick you out and then shop the material you worked on to another producer?



Yea, even if Danger Mouse had kept his experiences to himself you can practically harvest the bummed out energy from his post-SOI interviews.

Other than name recognition and cred, I’m not sure Godrich would do much good for U2 these days anyway and I’m surprised they didn’t try working with him after Pop.

I’ve mentioned it before, but I’d like to see the band work with Jeff Lynne in some capacity. Highly likely though that they’re stuck with whoever is already in their camp and can justify the Paycheck Vs. The Bullshit.
 
And before Danger Mouse, there was Lanois complaining about NLOTH. And before that there were scrapped sessions with Rock Rubin. And before that there was a scrapped album recorded with Chris Thomas. They're all rock royalty, and U2 burned them.
 
I think U2 is on that line of either being remembered as legendary or just a really great band that had some amazing albums. My hope for them would be to have a swan song that would leave them in the former category and not the latter.

As much as U2 are maligned for their recent work, they're *easily* going to be remembered as legendary. I mean they had 15 years straight of can't-go-wrong work. From 1980-1995, the worst thing you could say about them was that they were over-exposed and the Rattle & Hum film was humorless. But the music was untouchable. Even their greatest failure - Pop - had its heart in the right place.

They then came back in 2000 with a universally acclaimed album that, in the USA at least, just also happened to become the security blanket for a nation mourning in the wake of 9/11.

Live? It's not even a question. With the exception of maybe Bruce Springsteen and Metallica, there is no other band even in the same stratosphere as a U2 live show.

I give this band a ton of shit, but their reputation as legends, in my opinion, is untouchable.
 
The writing credits issue was what ultimately drove a wedge between the band and Eno/Lanois, but Eno also publicly griped about the band leaving more 'adventurous' sounding work on the cutting room floor and opting for radio-safe material.
 
I really hope they've had a team working quietly on "vault" releases. Since they can no longer rely on relevance with new music, it could seem like the music video and concert remasters point towards the beginning of shoring up their legacy as they... edge towards retirement.

The relevance they keep trying for is the wrong kind, but I digress. Most relevant artists these days are accessible to their fans in one way or another. U2, for all their bluster about new media and virtual this and that, is largely inaccessible. Their online presence is basically limited to poems and tributes that Bono writes... and reminder posts about upcoming youtube premieres. Even when Edge had his twitter account during NLOTH/360... it was so sparse, and ultimately short lived and then abandoned.

They'll be legends, for sure. I think their journey from 1980-1997 will be regarded as one of the best runs for a rock band. It'll be interesting to see how the tides of opinion turn on their post-Bomb discography in the years after they're done, but I suspect most of the discussion will focus on the 80s-00s and the rest will be largely footnoted.
 
With Eno and Lanois it was less about the process and more about receiving writing credits.

Yeah, until they received writing credits on NLOTH and had no control over the direction it went. Eno didn't voice his displeasure beyond how Moment of Surrender was handled, but Lanois seemed pretty put out by their abandoning the adventurous music they'd made. They're all still friends so ot couldn't have been that serious a dispute, but I'd be shocked if they worked together again. And Lanois is a pretty chill, discreet guy - if he was willing to complain in public I can only imagine what he'd say in private.
 
I really hope they've had a team working quietly on "vault" releases. Since they can no longer rely on relevance with new music, it could seem like the music video and concert remasters point towards the beginning of shoring up their legacy as they... edge towards retirement.

The relevance they keep trying for is the wrong kind, but I digress. Most relevant artists these days are accessible to their fans in one way or another. U2, for all their bluster about new media and virtual this and that, is largely inaccessible. Their online presence is basically limited to poems and tributes that Bono writes... and reminder posts about upcoming youtube premieres. Even when Edge had his twitter account during NLOTH/360... it was so sparse, and ultimately short lived and then abandoned.

They'll be legends, for sure. I think their journey from 1980-1997 will be regarded as one of the best runs for a rock band. It'll be interesting to see how the tides of opinion turn on their post-Bomb discography in the years after they're done, but I suspect most of the discussion will focus on the 80s-00s and the rest will be largely footnoted.

I guess you guys are right. I know that they are already in "legendary" status. But still would love them to end on a high note and not a whimper.

One really could say that they had were bulletproof from 1980 to 2005. I mean if you can group weaker albums like October and R&H in with the 80's material, I think that Pop, while one of my favorites, can be given a bit of a pass in the later material. Especially since they went on to even greater success with ATYCLB. Every band has their lulls, but if you come back strong then the streak continues I think.

I say to 2005 because obviously ATYCLB was a huge album for them, but let's not forget that they got EIGHT grammys for Bomb - the album and the songs on it. Vertigo, Sometimes You Cant... and City of Blinding Lights were all well received.
Bomb is my least or second least fave of theirs, but the public liked it.

I can't think of another band that had 25 years of being on top.
 
Last edited:
And since I’m up and rambling. Does anyone else think it would be pretty interesting if U2 let Nigel Godrich produce their next one? I mean i have no idea how he would mesh with the band. But I do feel like he someone that could push their boundaries to do something unique and interesting and sort of let them organically evolve into songs and not push - “is this a proper song that can be sung with just piano or acoustic guitar?”.
Didn't he produce the single version (U2 7 version) of Walk On?

I remember liking that one a lot, though the atmosphere was stripped back a bit, but made up for with a sense of urgency.
 
Next record Eno and Lanois please. See the record through. Give them song writing credits. Avoid songs like Boots.
 
Last edited:
It'll never happen. Eno said he thinks he's done working on other people's music and Lanois will probably work with Beach House. They're sending him some stuff.
 
Didn't he produce the single version (U2 7 version) of Walk On?

I remember liking that one a lot, though the atmosphere was stripped back a bit, but made up for with a sense of urgency.

The fact that they had Nigel Godrich work on a fairly bland song like Walk On is pretty tragic.
Although I must admit I do like what he did on the song.
 
Last edited:
The fact that they had Nigel Godrich work on a fairly bland song like Walk On is pretty tragic.
Although I must admit I do like what he did on the song.
In retrospect it may be due to him trying to get a studio-quality take of the live version. I do like the hallelujahs at the end.
 
Adam was on U2XRadio talking with Rocky about Record Store Day and at the end of the segment she asked him what to expect next from the band, and he said that they've been working on acoustic versions of their songs.
 
Adam was on U2XRadio talking with Rocky about Record Store Day and at the end of the segment she asked him what to expect next from the band, and he said that they've been working on acoustic versions of their songs.

Can't say I'd be excited about them going in an acoustic direction, personally :lol:

Then again, I think we're so far out from new music that they could just be at the stage where they're messing around and experimenting with different sounds (like in that Paul Epworth interview you posted recently).

If they were/are in the final months and stages of an album, I might be a little more concerned. But I think they're far enough away that it's unlikely there's anything meaningful being put together right now.

From an Edge interview yesterday: "We just finished five years of touring together. We’ve all been enjoying a little bit of a break to pursue our own personal projects and just recharge our own batteries, so that when we come back together we’re fully enthusiastic about working with U2".

I imagine the work they've done so far - if any - will likely be radically overhauled by the time they release it. They might have not even started working with a producer (or they're being secretive about it)...
 
From an Edge interview yesterday: "We just finished five years of touring together. We’ve all been enjoying a little bit of a break to pursue our own personal projects and just recharge our own batteries, so that when we come back together we’re fully enthusiastic about working with U2".

This is my biggest gripe with the band at the moment.

All the remaining creative potential is being sucked up & wasted by all this touring. Subsequently having less time and energy to dedicate a genuine amount of effort into recording albums.

They aren't adding anything to their legacy by touring these days. They're becoming a nostalgia act - with two years dedicated to revisiting an album from 30 years ago.

They should've quite touring after 360 and focused on cementing their legacy with a quick succession of 3-4 late-career albums between 2010-2020.

With all the touring distractions, U2 only managed 2 albums in the past (2010-2020) decade.
 
Last edited:
They should've quite touring after 360 and focused on cementing their legacy with a quick succession of 3-4 late-career albums between 2010-2020.

No.
The band has always been at its best onstage.
Fans want to see the band play.
Quitting touring would harm their legacy, not help it.
 
No.

The band has always been at its best onstage.

Fans want to see the band play.

Quitting touring would harm their legacy, not help it.



Seriously. Plus, their tours are far more innovative and imaginative than anything they’re recording.

These days, the tour is more important than the album.
 
It's that dreaded word again, acoustic.

Words cannot express how little I am interested in hearing acoustic versions of U2 songs. I accept the occasional B&E acoustic song at concerts because I understand that Larry probably needs a break. The acoustic versions of the SOI songs I listened to maybe twice when it first came out and never again. I have no interest in hearing watered down versions of their songs.

After a very active (by U2's standards) 5 years between 2014-2019, I always knew 2020-2021 would be largely inactive for the band, similar to 2012-13. I'm sure they have songs they are working on at a very casual pace. I'm sure they have an idea of what they want to achieve with their next album/tour. Like somebody said, the tour is more important than the album at this point. I'm sure their team are working hard on the next tour as we speak.

I'm certain we won't hear a note of new material in 2021. They're probably waiting to see what the probability of a world tour will be like in 2022 before they move ahead with anything.
 
he said that they've been working on acoustic versions of their songs.

Re-reading this it sounds like he's talking not about new material, but maybe hinting at (supplemental) material for the next Best Of... package. Or new arrangements for Bono's book or something.

I'm mostly looking for reasons to not have to believe an acoustic album is coming. I usually love the mid-album "acoustic" tracks they've sprinkled throughout their career, but I don't think we'd get a bunch of Drowning Mans and Staring at the Suns at this point in time...
 
Adam was on U2XRadio talking with Rocky about Record Store Day and at the end of the segment she asked him what to expect next from the band, and he said that they've been working on acoustic versions of their songs.

sandra-bullock-wtf.gif
 
If U2 release an 'unplugged' album of old songs for their next album, then they can get fucked. Might as well split up. That's the kind of tired unimaginative crap Rod Stewart and Simply Red would do.

But then I forget, they've got Guy Oseary as their manager now. A guy who will happily whore the band out to the lowest common denominator. Gone is any genuine ambition or creativity.

Old U2 would be cringing at them now.
 
Adam was on U2XRadio talking with Rocky about Record Store Day and at the end of the segment she asked him what to expect next from the band, and he said that they've been working on acoustic versions of their songs.

Oh no!!! Not acoustic versions!!!! Simple Minds did that too, and it sounded disgusting! Please let this not happen. Get back to new songs or retire.
 
No idea why U2 seem obsessed with acoustic songs. They’re bad at doing that. Like, really bad. There’s not a single song of theirs that is improved by playing it acoustically. Not one. Even songs they recorded acoustically and then played live electric (Running To Stand Still!) sound better electric.
 
Jeez, folks.

They’re due another Best Of; this could be bonus material. The acoustic versions of The Miracle & EBW are my preferred ones and the BBC session with the orchestra was also great, so I’m not calling this the creative end of the band either.
 
Back
Top Bottom