No recording sessions until November!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
LemonMacPhisto said:
It could come out in 2012, but the single mixes would be coming well into 2014.

LOL.... my brother and I were talking about this yesterday. I wish they'd wait till they really "finished" the songs b4 releasing the albums.

On the last album alone, the single versions of ABOY and OOTS were far superior 2 the album versions.
 
i just want them to release the album, i know it will be good. ya i wish they would hurry the hell up about it, but by now (being a u2 fan), i'm kind of used to the wait...

i love all their records, even the last two, i thought they were awesome. HTDAAB to me doesn't really stand up with many of their others, but i still listen to it a lot. It's better than "October," to me by far their worst record.

At this point in the careers, like someone mentioned, almost being 50...I'm SO HAPPY with where they are at. My favorite band is still immensly popular and are they are putting out good music, and are still relevant. Can't think of too many other legendary bands that could say this at 50. And most importantly, they are still awesome live.

Do I wish they put out records more frequently? ya. Do I wish Bono would shut up during "One"? ya. i'll still be rushing on here to see if a leak came out; i'll still line up the day tickets are on sale for their next tour, no matter how much I don't want to hear "Pride" live ever again in my life :)

They will never release another Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby, not going to happen...I still love their new stuff and I am happy they are still putting out good records. It's like some people here want them to apologize for winning grammys, i always thought that was a good thing.....
 
Eh, I'm not expecting much from this album. Bomb just got me down. here are a lot of other releases I'm more psyched about at the moment.
 
"Get a life, will you people"?

I realize I'm late getting around to this beaten-to-death thread, but I just want to say... "Get a life, will you people?" (Thank Shatner for the inspiration.)

I can't take all this bitching about the band's slow working method and lack of career-spontaneity. I think you people need some sense of perspective. Let me help you:

U2's peers are The Teardrop Explodes, Public Image Ltd., Japan, and Simple Minds. Where are these bands now? Oh, wait... they're all completely dead-in-the-water to the point where no one remembered them even back in 1990. Where are U2? It seems they're the biggest group in the world, just as they were back in 1987 when no one had heard of the Internet or Acid House, and OJ Simpson was only a football player

For this simple fact alone, they're almost above career-criticism, it seems to me. I'm not saying you can't complain about their music or their new direction or latest album, but I can't stand everyone bitching on the basis of Internet-rumours and your ridiculous expectations of a 30-year-old rock band, which, by all standards of logic, should have passed its peak about 20 years ago and long-since imploded.


And, for the record, I (personally -- I allow you to disagree) resent the notion expressed above that "they'll never make another 'Joshua Tree' or 'Achtung Baby'". According to my own critical opinion, this did make another one: it was called, 'How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb', easily one of the greatest rock albums I've heard in the post-punk era. I frickin' love 'Atomic Bomb', and I'm baffled by the indifferent response it gets on fansites (namely this one).

I suspect some of the indifference long-time fans have to ATYCLB and 'Bomb' is down to the overexposure (and pre-exposure) to the material that the average fan has nowadays in the hyper-media Internet age. Since most of you are now tracking the band's every move before they even get in the studio, I can't but be surprised that you're bored of an album six months before it appears in the shops.

Rant over.
 
yeah i kinda agree with you
im actually totally stoked theyre going to be in the studio in november and really im very impatient
yeah bomb rocks theyre are some pretty strong lyrics in the songs and riffs are pretty sweet too.
i applaud the band :D
 
Re: "Get a life, will you people"?

65980 said:
I realize I'm late getting around to this beaten-to-death thread, but I just want to say... "Get a life, will you people?" (Thank Shatner for the inspiration.)

I can't take all this bitching about the band's slow working method and lack of career-spontaneity. I think you people need some sense of perspective. Let me help you:

U2's peers are The Teardrop Explodes, Public Image Ltd., Japan, and Simple Minds. Where are these bands now? Oh, wait... they're all completely dead-in-the-water to the point where no one remembered them even back in 1990. Where are U2? It seems they're the biggest group in the world, just as they were back in 1987 when no one had heard of the Internet or Acid House, and OJ Simpson was only a football player

For this simple fact alone, they're almost above career-criticism, it seems to me. I'm not saying you can't complain about their music or their new direction or latest album, but I can't stand everyone bitching on the basis of Internet-rumours and your ridiculous expectations of a 30-year-old rock band, which, by all standards of logic, should have passed its peak about 20 years ago and long-since imploded.


And, for the record, I (personally -- I allow you to disagree) resent the notion expressed above that "they'll never make another 'Joshua Tree' or 'Achtung Baby'". According to my own critical opinion, this did make another one: it was called, 'How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb', easily one of the greatest rock albums I've heard in the post-punk era. I frickin' love 'Atomic Bomb', and I'm baffled by the indifferent response it gets on fansites (namely this one).

I suspect some of the indifference long-time fans have to ATYCLB and 'Bomb' is down to the overexposure (and pre-exposure) to the material that the average fan has nowadays in the hyper-media Internet age. Since most of you are now tracking the band's every move before they even get in the studio, I can't but be surprised that you're bored of an album six months before it appears in the shops.

Rant over.

Very weill said! :yes:
 
Re: "Get a life, will you people"?

65980 said:


U2's peers are The Teardrop Explodes, Public Image Ltd., Japan, and Simple Minds. Where are these bands now? Oh, wait... they're all completely dead-in-the-water to the point where no one remembered them even back in 1990.








Nah, there are quite a lot of bands around from U2 times
 
Nice post 65980, but there are 80's bands that survived the years well too: REM, Bon Jovi (laugh all you want but you can't deny they didn't pass the test of time too), Red hot chili peppers, Depeche Mode ...

Can they make another JT or AB ? I think if everything clicks, yes. If they can get an album with a central theme AND strong songs, and if Bono gets another lyrical inspiration.
 
Ha ha

U2girl said:
Nice post 65980, but there are 80's bands that survived the years well too: REM, Bon Jovi (laugh all you want but you can't deny they didn't pass the test of time too), Red hot chili peppers, Depeche Mode ...

Can they make another JT or AB ? I think if everything clicks, yes. If they can get an album with a central theme AND strong songs, and if Bono gets another lyrical inspiration.

I knew someone would bring up REM and Depeche Mode... wasn't thinking of those other two.

OK look, REM didn't become commercially 'big' until about 1987 ro 1988. By 1996 they were in (apparently) non-stop commercial decline. So they had about 6 or 7 years at a commercial & "profile" peak. Yes, they're still very active but they're not at all relevant in pop culture or even rock culture anymore, and haven't been for several years. This contrasts sharply with U2.

Depeche Mode are a somewhat similar story, on top of which they're not very prolific since the late 90s. Basically they cut new albums (which may be quite good, I admit) every 5 or 6 years, then go on a greatest hits tour. That they can still sell-out stadiums (can they?) is to their credit, but are they doing it on the strength of their current material? I don't think so.

Bon Jovi and the Chili Peppers are NOT of U2's generation. They date from around 1983-1984, and achieved fame in the late 80s with the help of a lot of hair. I can respect the Chili Peppers, but then there's the fact that Bon Jovi is the worst band in the history of civilization...
 
Yeah, I will never understand the respect that Bon Jovi gets on these forums. They may be the best of a crap genre (cheese metal), but they failed to transcend it, country-tinged album or no. And this means they are still crap.

Guns 'n' Roses achived more in a 5 year period and essentially 2 albums than BJ did in 25 years and 10+ albums. Sticking around for a long time means NOTHING, not when you're making lowest-common denominator music. There are plenty of bands that have been around as long, they just didn't appeal to mall culture and never had mainstream popularity.

I wouldn't lump the Chili Peppers in with BJ at all. As annoying as they can be at times, and as watered-down as recent material may be, at least they carved out their own sound in a time when few alternative bands were using Parliament-Funkadelic as a springboard. They have at least appeared vital at numerous times throught their career, something that can't be said for Bon Jovi. They're still relatively hip, and have always embraced their relationship to necessary industry evils like MTV with a lot of creativity. I never, ever felt like the Peppers were pandering to stay afloat. You certainly can't say the same about Bon Jovi, who have enlisted hired gun songwriters and producers throughout their career, pathetically attempted to relive past glories ("It's My Life" a.k.a. "Livin' on a Prayer 2"), or in this latest move, bitch themselves out to the county music demographic.

And it all depends on what we mean by "surviving", anyway. U2 Girl is right in that all these bands are still able to live off a career making music, which is an achievment unto itself. Some, like Depeche Mode, have a pretty adoring legion of fans that will still pick up their new material, even if that fanbase has shrunk. R.E.M. can lay claim to the same thing, though I imagine they have a bit more critical credibility. These bands are at least still following their own muses, and appear unconcerned about the marketplace.

I don't agree that U2 should be considered above criticism, but they have managed to stay relevant, and appear much younger than many bands their own age, which is worthy of much respect.
 
shart1780 said:
Eh, I'm not expecting much from this album. Bomb just got me down. here are a lot of other releases I'm more psyched about at the moment.

i feel your pain man.u2 to me have turned into the rolling stones.
(thats a bad thing)
its like michael jordan, he was good in his prime and when he made a comeback he failed. no air jordan.
i dont see any new songs that will be as good or powerful as
"wowy, bad,one,stay" (yes i have seen the new recording clips)
not impressed.

but they did make JT and achtung so you never know.
its a 50/50 chance they will make an epic album.
 
Re: Ha ha

65980 said:


I knew someone would bring up REM and Depeche Mode... wasn't thinking of those other two.

OK look, REM didn't become commercially 'big' until about 1987 ro 1988. By 1996 they were in (apparently) non-stop commercial decline. So they had about 6 or 7 years at a commercial & "profile" peak. Yes, they're still very active but they're not at all relevant in pop culture or even rock culture anymore, and haven't been for several years. This contrasts sharply with U2.

Depeche Mode are a somewhat similar story, on top of which they're not very prolific since the late 90s. Basically they cut new albums (which may be quite good, I admit) every 5 or 6 years, then go on a greatest hits tour. That they can still sell-out stadiums (can they?) is to their credit, but are they doing it on the strength of their current material? I don't think so.

Bon Jovi and the Chili Peppers are NOT of U2's generation. They date from around 1983-1984, and achieved fame in the late 80s with the help of a lot of hair. I can respect the Chili Peppers, but then there's the fact that Bon Jovi is the worst band in the history of civilization...

They're all bands from the 80's, and whether or not you like their music and whether or not they have relevance, they're still around and popular. I think anyone surviving for this long can be respected. It's not like U2 is the only 80's band that is still alive, as your post seemed to say earlier. Though I'd argue they had a tougher way than anyone else due to being such a massive band at the end of the 80's. Perhaps Inxs would be on the list too, but they're really not nearly as big as they were with Hutchence around.

Can you say the sucess of AB and the reinvention didn't at least in part influence stuff like Songs of faith and devotion, What's the frequency Kenneth and Keep the faith ?
 
i wouldn't say Bon Jovi's music is still relevant. most people laugh at the thought of them now, and pretty much wish they would go away. if anything, jon bon jovi gets more attention from drooling women, but that doesn't mean that their music is relevant, and that crap song "It's My Life" has been out for over 5 years, and they haven't released anything even close to being as popular since.


As far as the Chili Peppers go, they're still relevant in my eyes, but not even near U2 level. all of the bands mentioned are definitely on a different tier than U2.
 
i like the chilis now more than ever, never would've guessed they'd age this well... to me they're the one band that give U2 a run for their money.. fortunately for them both (perhaps) they complement each other well, and never were trying to do the same things musically or artistically.
 
lazarus said:
What lessens the excitement is the whole rigid, corporate-mindedness of the whole thing. Sure, they're experimenting in Fez and all that, but McGuinne$$ says it has to come out in the fall, and that's all there is to it. You're never again going to experience the joy of a Zooropa, which wasn't known about until what, a month before it came out? 4 months between recording and release? There's no point in even dreaming of some kind of early surprise, because it ain't happening.

You get the sense they are following a pre-determined schedule instead of making the music when they want to, and instead of releasing it when it's ready, when marketing research says it is. Pop didn't perform (relatively) poorly because it came out in the spring, it was because (a) people weren't ready for it, and (b) they didn't pick the right singles. Zooropa, which still managed to go multi-platinum, didn't approach Achtung's sales because it was fucking OUT THERE, and they didn't tour it in the U.S., not because it came out in the summer.

What the fuck do these guys have to prove? The bravest thing they could do isn't make Punk Rock from Venus, it's putting something out when it's done and not waiting for Mr. Moneybags to say when.

While you raise valid points in that neither "Zooropa" nor "Pop" had strong lead-off singles (and that "Zooropa" wasn't really promoted much in the U.S.), I have to agree with McGuinness on the timing of the release.

Holiday album sales are huge - even in the era of illegal downloads. In fact, it's the one time of year that an artist can really sell a decent sum of albums. Maybe you do not care about such things, but if I were an artist and just spent several years working on an album, I know I'd want people to buy it. And the best time for that to happen is during the holidays.

A solid album will sell well any time of year. Kanye's newest album is set to sell about 800,000 copies its first week. However, I can guarantee that had he released this album in a few more months, it would have crossed the million threshold and maybe more. In fact, if Kanye's album catches on, look for a huge holiday boost where he may come close to matching these first week sales then!

Holiday sales mean that a top selling album may chart again or resurface in the Top 100 the following holiday season. Both of U2's last two albums (not the compilations) saw a significant second holiday season boost. ATYCLB sold almost as many copies during its second holiday season as "Pop" did in its second-fifth week of initial sales (in the U.S.).

Maybe you feel that U2 shouldn't care about sales, but they do - in fact, they have for a very long time. It's always been their goal to produce high quality music with a message that also connects with the masses. They are one of the few artists ever to successfully accomplish this. I will not begrudge U2 releasing an album in the 4th quarter if it means stronger sales. In fact, I even take pride seeing U2 at the top of the album charts!

All of that said, given that U2 clearly aren't ready for an album release any time sooner, I think releasing next fall is perfect timing. Any sooner and they may be rushing it - and I don't want that. So many factors go into a hit album - not just good music. Great lead off singles, the right promotion, TV appearances, videos, possible commercial tie-ins, etc. are needed. Gone are the days when artists would get played on the radio just by releasing an album. With the advent of MTV, suddenly more and more was at stake. A strong video spurred interest. An appearance on TV spurred interest. And, now, sadly, commercial tie-ins spur interest. Many artists, of which U2 may be one, might not even receive much radio airplay if their song doesn't immediately generate tons of interest. Commercials and TV appearances and such are needed. It's a sad reality, but hit music stations have a shorter attention span that most teenagers - it's either a hit NOW or it's off the air in a week.

Strong holiday sales also help catch the attention of the industry. When HTDAAB sold nearly 840,000 copies its first week in the U.S., that made news. "Vertigo" received more airplay. The album stayed in the Top 5 through the holiday season and was certified as Triple Platinum come early 2005. These strong sales in turn helped the tour.

If you are all about the music, the good news is that, IMO, U2's music is still very good. And really, does it make a big difference if they release an album in July vs. October? Logic dictates that fans like us will buy it whenever, and the casual fan is more likely to buy it or receive it as a gift during the holidays. It's a winning situation for both U2 and the fans - if you can tolerate those few extra months. :)
 
If I remember correctly, McGuinness once said that he wants an album to last two Christmasses.. Releasing an album in November will boost holidays sales in the first month and if the game is played by the rules (an October-November tour) they'll be able to sell a lot of albums the year after.
 
Just got this official Lanois press release in my inbox:

Dofasco Hamilton Music Awards Presents DANIEL LANOIS with Brian Blade

Live in Concert
Saturday November 17, 2007
Hamilton Place Theatre
Doors at 8PM, Show at 9PM
1 Summers Lane
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

...

Hamilton: Dofasco Hamilton Music Awards & Festival is proud to present Daniel Lanois with Brian Blade, Saturday November 17th at Hamilton Place Theatre in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Lanois’ is performing in Hamilton in support of his debut film, “Here Is What Is” that premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in September. Toronto’s Winter Garden Theatre was completely sold out for the premiere as were two live performances. Fans can expect an incredible performance in Hamilton’s state-of-the-art soft seat theatre, as Lanois will be introducing new songs that are featured in the film and on his next solo album.

The Hamilton concert will be Lanois’ last live performance of the year. Lanois will spend the balance of 2007 in the recording studio with Brian Eno and U2.

...
 
Last edited:
I think some of us as fans see two seperate issues intertwined.

There is the laborous studio sessions, which for some is barely tolerable (personally, I can wait), and thus the gripes about McG's 'holiday release plan' come through. Seeing that if the album were finished in Feb. 08, we likely would not see it until Novemeber.

Then there is the other dynamic to that, the fact that if U2 knows the album will not drop until November/December and that in any given year, they'd need to have the album delivered to the label by probably July. Then it seems they will work until July no matter what.

Who could envision Bono (in this example) letting a set of songs sit on a shelf for 4 months (waiting to be delivered to the label), while it is well documented that he rewrites lyrics not only every day but sometimes constantly as the song is being for that day.

They would get restless and feel the need to tweak ....and tweak.....and tweak.....and all of a sudden like in 2003, who knows, perhaps they scrap it altogether. I'd doubt that would happen again but the point is, Zooropa, even with 'volume on modern stereos' issues aside, really captures the essence of something, those songs could have only gone one other way.
Watered down.

If any of you are painters, filmmakers or writers or more pointedly, musicians, then you know sometimes you can just overdo something. You can take it far past what you liked about it in the first place. Sometimes it is better, sometimes not.

When you are U2 and creative impluses sometimes mean 'complete overhaul', I don't know how that could be a good thing. A week or two before U2 gave ATYCLB as a finished record to Universal, Beautiful Day was called, Stir My Soul. We all know it was called Always at one time, in between called Jubilee. This is a relatively short window to where that first melody motif showed up in a jam, morphed and ended up BD. A fine song but what was left on the cutting room floor? That one probably has to be seen as a success there are examples we know about and surely examples we don't know about that would show a different result.

In sum, I'd say for some of us fans, we subconsciously believe that the longer they spend in the studio, the worse the outcome.
And with Paul McGuiness business model on releases, it almost requires too much time in the studio.

Most of us into our late 20's on up, realize that a few months mean nothing. Especially when a U2 album cycle, with the tour and all, is sort of like the Olympics anymore. Might as well get it right.

There is a difference, to me at least. between U2 finishing the album in Spring 08 and holding it to Christmas 08. Without the other issues I stated previously, this is fine. With the current business model of U2, their built-in creative model, it almost requires that they tamper with the results of the great ideas and that ends badly more often than not, IMO. That is unless you want the most 'flawless and featureless' music you could possibly get.
 
Last edited:
U2DMfan said:

If any of you are painters, filmmakers or writers or more pointedly, musicians, then you know sometimes you can just overdo something. You can take it far past what you liked about it in the first place. Sometimes it is better, sometimes not.

Seems like Lanois agreed on this back in the 80's:
It's a very delicate situation here. I've seen this band play songs to death when we thought we were actually improving them and then we've gone with the first take after we've done six or seven.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, furthermore, here is an excerpt from an article back in 2004:

Last night Bono gave two of the handful of fans who keep vigil outside the studio a lift home, the condition being they listen to different mixes of the new tracks in his car and nominate their preferences. Lillywhite, a garrulous gent with the air of a used car salesman styled for Miami Vice, recalls Bono doing the same with a postman who wandered into the studio.

"That's one of the things Bono uses," says the Edge. "He'll throw on different things at home and see which gets the best reaction when the hooverings happening. As a band, famously, we will literally ask anyone."
 
That game can be done for any other U2 album though. Who knows what else missed the cut ?

Their biggest mistakes in that area, IMO, are 1) leaving the Batman song off Zooropa, 2) not putting Heartland - it was written before JT was released right? - on JT and Trip through your wires on Rattle and Hum and 3) not putting Stateless, Ground beneath her feet and Levitate on ATYCLB - as Bono wished.


If the Bomb alternative outtakes were what they wanted to go with in 2003, I'm glad they waited, it helped the album.
 
U2DMfan said:
Yeah, furthermore, here is an excerpt from an article back in 2004:

Last night Bono gave two of the handful of fans who keep vigil outside the studio a lift home, the condition being they listen to different mixes of the new tracks in his car and nominate their preferences. Lillywhite, a garrulous gent with the air of a used car salesman styled for Miami Vice, recalls Bono doing the same with a postman who wandered into the studio.

"That's one of the things Bono uses," says the Edge. "He'll throw on different things at home and see which gets the best reaction when the hooverings happening. As a band, famously, we will literally ask anyone."
I think that things like this could actually be beneficial to their music every once in a while. It's kind of like where movies are test screened for an audience before their release to determine what works and what doesn't.

For example, when James Cameron test screened Titanic before its release, audience input helped him to edit and cut certain scenes that dramatically improved the audience's perception of the movie.

Of course, U2's music is art, but there's nothing wrong with pursing the goal to entertain at the same time. IMO, the best art has entertaining/appealing qualities to it while maintaining its artistic integrity at the same time, which many of U2's songs manage to do.
 
U2DMfan said:
Yeah, furthermore, here is an excerpt from an article back in 2004:

Last night Bono gave two of the handful of fans who keep vigil outside the studio a lift home, the condition being they listen to different mixes of the new tracks in his car and nominate their preferences. Lillywhite, a garrulous gent with the air of a used car salesman styled for Miami Vice, recalls Bono doing the same with a postman who wandered into the studio.

"That's one of the things Bono uses," says the Edge. "He'll throw on different things at home and see which gets the best reaction when the hooverings happening. As a band, famously, we will literally ask anyone."




I have no doubt that that's why the band are so nonchalant about playing "beach clips" so loudly from the homes in the SOF. On the ones from last year, you can hear the beachgoers clap and cheer at the end of one of the tracks---there's no way the band up above didn't notice.
 
rihannsu said:


The band has been in the studio for at least a week or so because fans have been meeting them coming and going, but Lanios and Eno won't be joining them again until November.

Dana

Cool, how do you know this?
 
Back
Top Bottom