babyman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
words..........
NME: "U2's new album written"
- Thread starter djerdap
- 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.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
oh, that Paul McG is so EVIL! he's only about MONEY MONEY MONEY!
it's never that simple. these things are very, very, very complex, and there's a whole lot more to consider than even the band. i work in media. there are so many forces at play that there's much less choice in these things than you'd think.
i still maintain that a spring/summer release is possible, but if it were a fall release, what's so bad about that? why not wait 4 months if a fall release is going to make for a more successful album.
i also want to address the Springsteen myth. firstly, Bruce's albums aren't nearly what they were from 1975-1985 in terms of sales, wereas U2 can compete today with their 1987-1993 selves. and when "The Rising" was released, no, it wasn't a fall release, but there was an all-out media blitz of the album, it was absolutely everywhere and channeled through every possible media outlet, and he was on the cover of Newsweek. do you think Bruce just records and puts out an album and tours and then he's suddenly ubiquitous? absolutely not. very smart and powerful people get the record on the air, on the news, in the paper, in the magazines, get him on Nightline -- because Bruce's nice is now "national treasure of songwriting/Bard of Truth/American Poet" instead of the working class rocker of the late 1970s. his image is every bit as carefully controlled as U2's, so don't go around thinking that U2 is somehow more or less concerned with selling albums than Bruce is.
Bruce knows *exactly* what he is doing, and his status as an elder statesman who doesn't really sell albums anymore -- though he sells concert tickets, and let's face it, everyone would demand their $$$ back if he didn't play "thunder road" and "born to run" -- but has a niche as Bob Dylan Part 2, and this is consistently maintained in every interview that he'll do from now until the upcoming tour ends. just like Bono has prepped soundbytes, so does Bruce. it's how these thing work.
and this is in no way to degrade Bruce. i'm a huge fan.
but he's every bit a part of the record industry as U2 are.
it's never that simple. these things are very, very, very complex, and there's a whole lot more to consider than even the band. i work in media. there are so many forces at play that there's much less choice in these things than you'd think.
i still maintain that a spring/summer release is possible, but if it were a fall release, what's so bad about that? why not wait 4 months if a fall release is going to make for a more successful album.
i also want to address the Springsteen myth. firstly, Bruce's albums aren't nearly what they were from 1975-1985 in terms of sales, wereas U2 can compete today with their 1987-1993 selves. and when "The Rising" was released, no, it wasn't a fall release, but there was an all-out media blitz of the album, it was absolutely everywhere and channeled through every possible media outlet, and he was on the cover of Newsweek. do you think Bruce just records and puts out an album and tours and then he's suddenly ubiquitous? absolutely not. very smart and powerful people get the record on the air, on the news, in the paper, in the magazines, get him on Nightline -- because Bruce's nice is now "national treasure of songwriting/Bard of Truth/American Poet" instead of the working class rocker of the late 1970s. his image is every bit as carefully controlled as U2's, so don't go around thinking that U2 is somehow more or less concerned with selling albums than Bruce is.
Bruce knows *exactly* what he is doing, and his status as an elder statesman who doesn't really sell albums anymore -- though he sells concert tickets, and let's face it, everyone would demand their $$$ back if he didn't play "thunder road" and "born to run" -- but has a niche as Bob Dylan Part 2, and this is consistently maintained in every interview that he'll do from now until the upcoming tour ends. just like Bono has prepped soundbytes, so does Bruce. it's how these thing work.
and this is in no way to degrade Bruce. i'm a huge fan.
but he's every bit a part of the record industry as U2 are.
rihannsu said:
I think this is completely inaccurate for two reasons:
1. The only people who give a damn about bootlegs are the hardcore fans who'll buy anything U2 releases. Have you ever heard anything bootlegged on the radio? No, nor have I. Casual fans will probably not be aware at all of the recordings. Even many dedicated U2 fans don't care for bootlegs unless they are of an exceptional quality.
2. Plenty of bands nowadays do the "tour it then record it" approach and I think it actually leads to improved sales. I have seen no correlation between performing the album before recording it and a decline in sales. Porcupine Tree toured Fear Of A Blank Planet half a year before its release and I think that actually positively contributed to the band's highest first week sales ever (#31 in the UK).
PookaMacP
War Child
NME really are shocking. They've just culled everything from other magazines (though at least they attribute their sources), they've told us nothing new, and then they stick a title on the article that's totally misleading in terms of Lanois's other comments re recording again in November. Brilliant. I'd prefer this to no news at all since at least they give us a laugh.
What a brilliant name for an album! Keeping the Flava spirit alive.
Axver said:
What a brilliant name for an album! Keeping the Flava spirit alive.
LemonMacPhisto said:
Why ? That way, the album version and the live version will be completely the same and you lose the benefit of a superior live vs album song (superior live performances are U2's biggest strength), plus I don't think U2 would ever be comfortable playing a full album of new material live before the release. Remember how they reacted at the Salome sessions, and those weren't even close to a finished album.
Well said Irvine. I guess Bruce's manager is the "american Paul Mcguiness".
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
Irvine511 said:
Well, the bottomline is good music. And I know this can get very subjective. But at the end of the day if the music is mediocre, it doesn't matter whether they marketed heavily or didn't. I doubt U2's marketing plans and Ipod ads would ever come under fire if the Bomb was universally admired. If everyone considered the end result or the album to be outstanding, there would be no need for things like hype and marketing to point a finger at.
Bomb was not universally hated at first here, at any given time.
Since the marketing has zero to do with the quality of music, I don't see why it is an issue now (if Bomb is so mediocre, what do you care whether it's promoted or not?). I doubt U2 fans would agree on any album to be outstanding, not counting AB and JT - hold on Axver and doctorwho
This is a band that markets itself a lot period. The way they had the triple hype of the album/movie/book in 1988, or the way they milked MTV in 1992 with three specials, and making fancy videos. They hired a major US store to do a press release for Popmart (haha irony, but don't tell me they didn't love the media attention with "U2 announces Popmart in Walmart"), and they had a TV special from one of the biggest US TV networks.
Come 2000, and U2 gets trashed for doing TV appearances - not that they didn't do that before - where they actually play the new songs (never mind the change in music scene in the US). Come 2004, and U2 gets even more trashed for, uh, promoting a device that plays music (did I mention that virtually the entire U2 catalog is now available on a specila edition of said device that plays music?). SELL OUT!
I also like how the 00s U2 get trashed for "following the radio sound" ("Bomb sounds like nothing on the radio, Dad". - Holly Evans), even if there was no problem with, say, 1992 U2 hopping on the Manchester scene, the electronica in 1993 and dance music in 1997, right down to the point of hiring a DJ to produce the album.
Since the marketing has zero to do with the quality of music, I don't see why it is an issue now (if Bomb is so mediocre, what do you care whether it's promoted or not?). I doubt U2 fans would agree on any album to be outstanding, not counting AB and JT - hold on Axver and doctorwho
This is a band that markets itself a lot period. The way they had the triple hype of the album/movie/book in 1988, or the way they milked MTV in 1992 with three specials, and making fancy videos. They hired a major US store to do a press release for Popmart (haha irony, but don't tell me they didn't love the media attention with "U2 announces Popmart in Walmart"), and they had a TV special from one of the biggest US TV networks.
Come 2000, and U2 gets trashed for doing TV appearances - not that they didn't do that before - where they actually play the new songs (never mind the change in music scene in the US). Come 2004, and U2 gets even more trashed for, uh, promoting a device that plays music (did I mention that virtually the entire U2 catalog is now available on a specila edition of said device that plays music?). SELL OUT!
I also like how the 00s U2 get trashed for "following the radio sound" ("Bomb sounds like nothing on the radio, Dad". - Holly Evans), even if there was no problem with, say, 1992 U2 hopping on the Manchester scene, the electronica in 1993 and dance music in 1997, right down to the point of hiring a DJ to produce the album.
U2girl said:
It seems to me that you are essentially saying you prefer the album to be inferior to its potential. What's more, I think your argument is specious as the studio version is never going to sound like the live version, simply due to the differing tools and possibilities at the artist's disposal. A studio version can contain more elements and be more polished and precise; a live version will be more raw and hopefully more energetic and/or meaningful. Both have their pros and cons, and touring the album before recording it won't take those away.
However, what such a tour would do is allow the band to become increasingly familiar with the songs. Perhaps if U2 had toured their albums in the past, they would have realised One was missing a verse, that Bullet The Blue Sky's solo needed to be more emphatic, that The Electric Co. was missing an intro (re: The Cry), etc. We would still get amazing live versions, and the studio versions would sound better than they do.
In any case, do you think we don't have "the benefit of a superior live vs album song" with the Boy album? Almost every track had been played live for at least a year (I Will Follow, The Ocean, and the aforementioned Electric Co. being notable exceptions, only debuting around the time the album was recorded). Yet I would say the best versions of all Boy songs date from after the album's release, with the obvious exclusion of Shadows And Tall Trees, last performed in July 1980.
I don't think that's comparable as the Salome Out-takes were released without the band's permission, and by and large were so unfinished that no-one would ever contemplate touring with those bare bones. If the band did tour an album before recording it, the songs would be in at least some degree of completion and would go public on the band's terms.
In any case, imagine the ticket sales! "Hear U2 perform their new album before it's in the shops!" "Enjoy U2's new album before anyone else!" And so on.
I'm saying I like the live version to be different compared to the album version. In fact the best U2 live songs are the ones that get that something extra live, and to me there are only a handful of songs that are better in the studio: Pride, Desire, One, Kite, OOTS. (this is not to say I don't like them live, I just don't think they improve the studio version)
If U2 tours the fulll 11, 12 songs before recording there is a bigger chance the studio album will be sounding very close to the album version. It lessens the album listening. I like having extra verses, intros, solos etc live.
Well, if the band weren't ok with outtakes being released, what makes you think they'd be okay with playing a full album live before recording ?
Imagine the forum : "I heard the new songs live and they suck. I'm not buying the album." especially given how weak U2 can be live with under-rehearsed material. This could top the Las Vegas Popmart debacle.
If U2 tours the fulll 11, 12 songs before recording there is a bigger chance the studio album will be sounding very close to the album version. It lessens the album listening. I like having extra verses, intros, solos etc live.
Well, if the band weren't ok with outtakes being released, what makes you think they'd be okay with playing a full album live before recording ?
Imagine the forum : "I heard the new songs live and they suck. I'm not buying the album." especially given how weak U2 can be live with under-rehearsed material. This could top the Las Vegas Popmart debacle.
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
My point still remains that... if the music was good, it wouldn't matter. I think Achtung Baby is a brilliant piece of work so I don't care about how much they marketed it. I just think HTDAAB doesn't deserve all the hype hoopla that preceeded it.
U2girl said:
I think I would be inclined to agree with this if Radiohead hadn't shown the possibilities of what this scenario can provide. I would gladly lose a little differentess between studio and live versions to get an album as good as OK Computer (or any of their albums which followed). That said, I don't think it's fair to directly compare the methods that work for certain bands. I don't think U2 has the musicianship chops to pull off what Radiohead can either live or in the studio. That is not to say I prefer Radiohead (I prefer U2 by a very slight margin), but the complexity/originality of some of their music is breathtaking in comparison with U2.
U2girl said:
I like the live versions to be different too, it makes the concert more interesting, but I don't want to think "shit, if only the band had known that song better when they recorded it, the studio version would be even better". Basically, there's a difference between something like the lengthy Bad performances, which blow away the UF version but would NEVER work in the studio, and something like the missing verse at the end of One that would be fantastic if it were in the studio version.
And what of my point regarding Boy?
OK, here, I think you're radically misinterpreting things. Why would they be OK with touring an album before recording it? Because THEY'RE THE ONES AUTHORISING IT! It's their decision, they are choosing how people hear the songs and what they get to hear. The problem with Axtung Beibi is that they didn't get to choose what people heard and it was done without their authorisation.
And as for your cynical forum prediction ... no-one would not buy the album based on some live performances. Seriously, do you think anyone here would do that? The only people at risk of not buying the album are the very same people who aren't in much of a hurry to go to a gig either! If anything, it would convince someone going to a gig for the classic hits that U2 are still producing interesting material that they should buy.
And why on earth would a Popmart Las Vegas debacle happen? There, the band were rushed into a tour. If the band were touring an album before laying down the final takes of the songs, to get to know the songs a bit more before recording, then they'd be going into the tour with the new songs fully rehearsed and the tour would begin on their own terms. Popmart Las Vegas would be impossible. Seriously, have you never encountered any band that has toured an album before recording it? Plenty do it and it's worked wonders for every single one I've encountered. No need for paranoia about Popmart Las Vegas debacles and lost sales.
Zootlesque said:
U2 will promote every album, because, well, it's U2. Obviously the band members will praise it. It's all really just saying "look, we have a new album out".
It is up to the critics, and time, to decide how good the album is.
In a few years, all the "we're competing with Britney" or "punk rock from Venus" soundbytes (or, if you like, "chopping down the JT"), all the promotion, will be forgotten. It's ultimately the music itself that has to stand on its own.
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
U2girl said:
Wrong.
Fuck the critics! My opinion is what matters to me.
Axver said:
Personally I think the studio version of One is fine the way it is. Why would the long Bad not work in the studio ?
What of Boy ? I like the songs both live and studio, and all the Boy songs I like were played on Vertigo. I think I will follow and Electric co (not because of the Cry intro) may be the only ones better live.
Based on some comments I have seen in the past, yes. I remember people condemning Bomb and ATYCLB when all we had were the snippets of songs (some are even condemning LP 12 and we have yet to hear a single note of it). I doubt a live show will change that.
A debacle could happen because it takes U2 a while to get songs worked out on tour, even with well known material from the past. U2 has issues with improvising and playing requests and ad-libs (remember We love you on the last tour or A sort of homecoming on Elevation).
You really think things would go smoothly with brand new material ?
rihannsu
Refugee
xaviMF22 said:
I disagree
playing them live before they record them would only help the songs
it helps them work on the songs...so before they record them..they'll know what works and what doesn't..
I think HTDAAB would have benefited
from this treatment
this worked wonders for Pink Floyd
...
You obviously did not read what I said. I said it WILL work artistically. I agree that the music would/could be better. But for artists at their level of superstardom it would also have a negative impact financially. It worked for Pink Floyd in the days before instant bootlegs. I can't remember who it was but I recently read a comment from a big named artist that they used to play songs live before recording them but since the advent of the internet they don't do it anymore because of the bootlegging problem. U2's stance against commercial bootleggers has been consistant from their earliest days. They don't want to see fans being ripped off by criminals. They have always been fine with fans sharing amongst themselves, but face it, while I don't agree that bootlegging is as damaging as the record companies contend, it DOES have an impact on sales. The other factor to consider is that with downloading available it is harder and harder to continue to promote the album as a format. The other thing to consider is that if you listen to the band talking about their work, they do not consider the album to be the definitive version of their work. They consider the studio work to be a separate entity from the live work and no song is considered finished until it has been developed before an audience. From their point of view, comparing studio to live work is useless because they are two different creative processes. Also, since they consider the audience to be a contributor to the live performance, no amount of rehearsal will ever truly prepare a U2 live set. As soon as the audience becomes involved the songs continue to change, so while some tours have gotten off to better starts then others due to more reheasal time, all of them have taken at least a few shows in before the really gel. That is also why the tend to be better towards the end of the run as long as it hasn't gone on too long or strenuously. They have a better feel now for what breaks they need to keep from burning out.
Everyone acts as if the only people who are affected by negative financial impact are the band themselves and they shouldn't care because they have tons of money. But what about all the other people involved in the process, right down to the poor peons that work in records stores selling the cds? Sure maybe U2 themselves could shrug off declining sales with no problem but how many regular folks along the chain get laid off and loose money when commercial bootlegging cuts into profits. People insist on seeing only that U2 supposedly cares only for making money for themselves, but nobody considers that maybe they care about making money because of the responsibility to all those who work for them. After all this was a major part of the arguement that McGuiness presented to them when they considered breaking up the band for religious reasons after October. When they said they weren't sure about continuing Paul pointed out their responsibility to all those who worked for them and would be affected by their decision and this was a major factor in their decision. If they were truly money hungry they would have been cashing in all these years on the hunger for their live recordings but they don't.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the record companies approaches to the whole internet bootlegging situation, but just pointing out that there are a whole lot more people affected than just the artists and the bigwigs at the record companies.
Dana
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
rihannsu said:
exactly. anyone care to guess what was the biggest selling album of 2006 in the US?
the soundtrack to "High School Musical."
U2 is only one of a handful of artists who can still move big numbers of albums -- witness the nearly 900,000 who bought "Bomb" the first week -- and as such there's a tremendous amount of importance placed on a U2 release that there simply wasn't in 1991.
everything's changed. so U2 has to change. we might not like it, but animosity towards the band for not having "guts" or whatever is misplaced.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Zootlesque said:
i agree. i like "bomb" better than "the rising." (i think about half of "the rising" is brilliant and beautiful, the other half, not so much, and i think "mary's place" is just a weak rip off of "rosalita" where as "cobl" is more of an update and tangent of "streets") i like "bomb" less than "atyclb" but more than "pop." all very subjective.
what isn't subjective is the nearly 900,000 units moved in the US in the first week, very strong critical reviews, a universally acclaimed and sold-out tour (that saw them playing a bravura 100+ dates in 9 months, quite hard working -- why don't we give them credit for this, at their age, they're playing as many dates as they did in 1987, that's some damn hard work and an effort to reach fans), and a bunch of Grammies including Album of the Year.
personal taste aside, how can that not be viewed as a wild success?
powerhour24
ONE love, blood, life
The_acrobat said:
True, but if that was the case, in this day and age it would probably leak about six months before that...not exactly good for business.
roy
Refugee
Irvine511 said:
But did you realise that some people at Pitchfork didn't like it.
matsimon
The Fly
according to Daniel Lanois, the album is written! if they go to record the record in November, will certainly not be launched this year... then, would be strange they to record this year only to launch in the end of the year that comes... remembers that the Adam had said something on March of 2008? this is my opinion... MARCH!
new tour in 2009...
new tour in 2009...
rihannsu, I had an entire argument typed up very competently and coherently explaining why your post was ridiculous, silly and wrong, and then it hit me-
U2 already tours before the album release. The ATYCLB publicity tour. The HTDAAB publicity tour. They're playing songs! For free! Anyone could make a profit selling these authentic, unheard U2 songs to hungry fans. U2 doesn't think that letting people hear the songs live before release hurts the album. They play their songs live to promote it!
We just want them to do this before they master the album.
Never mind the paradox that the only people desperate enough to shell out money to EVIL PROFITEERS for unheard U2 songs are already hardcore enough fans that they know how to get it for free.
U2 doesn't think there is any financial harm in playing songs before hand. Feel free to argue with them if you want, though.
U2 already tours before the album release. The ATYCLB publicity tour. The HTDAAB publicity tour. They're playing songs! For free! Anyone could make a profit selling these authentic, unheard U2 songs to hungry fans. U2 doesn't think that letting people hear the songs live before release hurts the album. They play their songs live to promote it!
We just want them to do this before they master the album.
Never mind the paradox that the only people desperate enough to shell out money to EVIL PROFITEERS for unheard U2 songs are already hardcore enough fans that they know how to get it for free.
U2 doesn't think there is any financial harm in playing songs before hand. Feel free to argue with them if you want, though.
Last edited:
A little U2Tours.com research reveals that before HTDAAB was released they played all 5 of the eventual singles + Miracle Drug in public and on TV. If you wanted, you could hear over half the album for free on YouTube with TV quality video and audio.
Of course, anything recorded at a concert would be grainy noisy handycam footage.
Of course, anything recorded at a concert would be grainy noisy handycam footage.
rihannsu
Refugee
mobvok said:
But you are forgetting that the album had already been stolen and leaked. Also there is a big difference in doing promo performances shortly before release which only utilize some of the songs and the kind of thing you are talking about which is developing the songs for some time on tour before recording. For the last two albums U2 have talked about the idea that in order to even want to tour again they had to have very good songs to inspire them to want to leave home and tour. Given their mindset it is unlikely that they would tour without already having an album recorded to promote. They also quite frequently talk about how difficult it is for them to shift gears from live performing to recording. Even though they do a lot of noodling during soundchecks and what have you they really don't begin to truly write until they have come off the road. They are not the kind of musicians who can jump back and forth between writing and performing. Famous example being the UF tour. They finished the album late and had little time to rehearse before the first gigs, and when they started to consider what songs they wanted to play Edge suddenly realized that he couldn't remember how to play any of their old songs. He had to listen to the albums again and relearn the songs. In spite of the many years since then they still talk about having to relearn their songs before every tour. I just don't think it is something they would ever feel comfortable doing even if they didn't think it would hurt sales, but we can agree to disagree.
Dana
rihannsu said:
Nice, you slip in a "even if they didn't think it would hurt sales" at the very end of your post. A very sneaky way of avoiding saying outright that you were completely wrong about the crippling financial disaster U2 would face from the bootleggers if they ever played songs live before the album release. Oh well, better that then nothing.
Anyways, I did a quick google check and the earliest mention of a leaked U2 album downloadable on the Internet was November 6th. U2 played all 6 songs except OOTS on Top Of The Pops and CD:UK on October 15th and 16th, then at the California Theater on October 26th they added OOTS. All of that before anyone knew that the album had been leaked.
Now I guess we're arguing about what U2 would be comfortable with?
The ideal way of writing a U2 album would go like this:
Arduous studio writing process + all the heavy lifting - 9 months
(At this point U2 usually finishes the album)
(But in our ideal world....)
U2 goes on a small, relaxed arena tour to play some of the new material - 90 days
Incorporating live alterations to studio material - 10 days
Album released!
Super Awesome World-Wide Tour - 1 1/2 years
I know that U2 works the way they feel most comfortable- studio, then tour. But does the schedule I put up sound unreasonable for the band? It wouldn't be the pressure of having a high-publicity tour that must be perfect, just a comparatively quiet test drive.
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
shart1780 said:
Opinions based on absolutely nothing...
After thinking it over, there are 3 issues to deal with in a pre-album tour- financial, artistic, and creative. I've shown that there won't be a financial loss from showing songs early (and there might very well be a chance for profit because touring is very profitable for U2). Artistically, we're in agreement that it would be better for the songs. Creatively? I think the only thing holding them back is U2's desire to stay in a comfort zone where they know how to operate. You think it'll be harder for them to jump back and forth. As far as creativity is concerned, you're right, we aren't the band so we should agree to disagree.
Not looking at other reasons already pointed out in this thread, why would U2 change the well tried, tested album-first, tour-later cycle ?
Obviously they like it that way, or we'd be getting little promo tours all the time.
Considering how unsecure they are about their material and how long their albums take, for all we know a promo tour could get them right back in the studio for extra few months. Imagine an album like UF or Zooropa, and audience responding in a less than enthusiastic manner. It could be like Pop all over, where you'd like to work on the album more, but you booked the tour too early.
Obviously they like it that way, or we'd be getting little promo tours all the time.
Considering how unsecure they are about their material and how long their albums take, for all we know a promo tour could get them right back in the studio for extra few months. Imagine an album like UF or Zooropa, and audience responding in a less than enthusiastic manner. It could be like Pop all over, where you'd like to work on the album more, but you booked the tour too early.
sue4u2
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
shart1780 said:
Right, they are heard so much in tv commercials, and movies.
Oh wait, NOT!
No basis for this argument.. try again..
Similar threads
- Locked
