some new lanois comments on new album

[BVS]

Re: Re: some new lanois comments on new album

I agree I'd rather hear things from anyone but Bono, but the news is Bono wants "choruses that will communicate in a stadium" and I just don't think that bodes well.

Stadium arrangements are much more obvious. Take any U2 song; it's dumbed down; the melody's usually simplified and stripped of subtlety and loud and soft in concert form. The strings version of "One" on Popmart, the extra codas to many songs that just work extra hard at driving home the melody for songs like "One" or "Mysterious Ways" or "With or Without You". Many of our favorites are pushed to the sidelines because idiot bellweather fans throw a fuss (I have nothing against bellweather fans, just those who throw a fuss because U2 doesn't play a hit they've heard a million times over the radio).

Bono's gonna screw this up by wanting obvious bigness again like he has all this decade. He really needs help getting over his insecurities over unpopularity because, in recent years, it has combined with age to make U2's music ultra safe and obvious from the first note.

The other band members like The Edge, and Eno and Lanois had better fight back because Bono is gonna kill the originality behind this album. He's gonna wanna be the Beatles or some typical crap like we've mostly had this decade.

I'm worried. Even if Bono of the '80s and early '90s wanted to be big, it was never at the price of creativity and artistic integrity. The new Bono is a sellout. I hope I'm wrong, but his track record hasn't been good.

Where the hell have you been? Are you new to U2 or something? U2 have been doing big since Boy...

Larry's the one that wanted true pop.

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Re: some new lanois comments on new album

I'm worried. Even if Bono of the '80s and early '90s wanted to be big, it was never at the price of creativity and artistic integrity. The new Bono is a sellout. I hope I'm wrong, but his track record hasn't been good.

you're right. it was a total accident that Joshua Tree and AB were massive sellers and sold out stadiums worldwide. they just went into a room for those albums and poured their hearts out, and put it on tape, and then just released the album. no planning, no marketing, just honesty and originality. and, boom! what do you know? they somehow sell 15m copies of JT! and all by accident!

 

[Moser]

I think you shouldn't jump to conclusions and call people sellouts until you've at least heard the material.

U2 has always wanted their albums to sell big. Any band wants that dream. That's why they wait four years for each album. They want to release their very best.

If they were in for the money...we could have seen a couple albums since How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb by now.

 

[LyricalDrug]

I'm not gonna make any assumptions from these vague quotes! Pre-conceived notions only seem to lead to disappointment.

Punk rock from Venus!

 

[LemonMelon]

by Achtung Baby part 2, that doesn't mean repeat themselves, it means the opposite...the idea of Achtung Baby was to break down the Joshua Tree so to speak....Achtung Baby pt. 2 just means we're in for the same idea of finding a new sound...i hope it's true

So "Achtung Baby" is interchangeable with "experimental" now? Must have missed that memo...Zooropa and Passengers were far more bizarre.

 

[Mr. V]

some of you people who are jumping to conclusions without hearing a second of new material are pathetic. pathetic, i tells ya.

 

[SecretFly]

I hope this new album is nothing like HTDAAB which is there worst album ever. Hopefully this new album will explore new boundaries and provide new sounds we have never heard.

 

[last unicorn]

It's really time the new album comes out. The way some people are jumping on every little quote in the media and getting hysterical about is is really ridiculous.
Some of you are killing the album before you haven't even heard one song from it with all your fears and negative assumptions.

I'm sure in the end it will be something totally different.

 

[Rob33]

It's really time the new album comes out. The way some people are jumping on every little quote in the media and getting hysterical about is is really ridiculous.
Some of you are killing the album before you haven't even heard one song from it with all your fears and negative assumptions.

I'm sure in the end it will be something totally different.

yeah, i agree, but what pisses me off even more, and I can already see this happening- if someone doesn't think the album is as "experimental" as they'd like it to be, or expected it to be, they'll automatically express distaste for it and call it a flop or some bullshit like that

oh well, we don't need those kids anyway

 

[U2girl]

Pre-conceived notions only seem to lead to disappointment.

Well, remember all the whining about statements made over a year before the album release comes on (molten metal, punk rock on Venus etc) ? Also the many prophecies on this album being ATYCLB part III, and selling out moaning for the past 8 years ?

 

[Moser]

yeah, i agree, but what pisses me off even more, and I can already see this happening- if someone doesn't think the album is as "experimental" as they'd like it to be, or expected it to be, they'll automatically express distaste for it and call it a flop or some bullshit like that

oh well, we don't need those kids anyway

Whiners=SUCK!!!!

I sure hope this album is experimental though...if not....the one afterwards will be!!!!

 

[Irvine511]

what do people mean when they say "experimental"?

i'd really like a working definition of that. to many, it seems to mean, "what is an interesting sound to me," and is thus totally subjective. bono could fart for 5 minutes and call it a song, and that would totally be experimental. many experiments fail. many experiments that are released really shouldn't have been in the first place because they suck. simply because something is "experimental" doesn't mean that it automatically has integrity either. U2 "experimented" with trip-hop/techno and came out with Pop, which was a naked a grab for the current trend as anything they've ever done. sure, it might have sounded "experimental" to you, but then you might have needed to go out and buy some Underworld records, and some Massive Attack and Morcheeba. and then you'd see that it was only "experimental" for you, and not for people who'd been exposed to such music.

what i think people are really trying to say is that they want the new music to be "fresh." which is to say, alive and modern-sounding and unique and distinctive and memorable. i think AB was that when it came out. such a fresh sound came out of the band experimenting with new sounds, but keep in mind, all that is ultimately wallpaper on the construction of the house, which is the songs.

i want fresh material. that could be an all-accoustic album, it could be an instrumental album, it could be highly electronic dance songs meant for gay clubs (which is what Britney should realize is her future), it could be traditional Irish music. the point is that the band gets excited, and then the material sounds fresh (my theory is that they got bored in the middle of making Pop, and lo and behold, the "techno" trend dies by 1999, because maybe there wasn't all that much there to begin with).

so i can understand wanting U2 to make something "fresh," like AB, but keep in mind, AB was the smartest career decision they've ever made. no, they didn't play it safe, but their bottom line demanded that they had to shake off their holy desert pilgrim image or else they were going to become an 80s nostalgia act very, very quickly.

AB delivered the goods, but musically and financially. they are still able to sell out stadiums today because of AB.

 

[The Disciple]

Actually, this album is going 2 b Acid Rock in Uranus.

 

[corianderstem]

Whenever anyone on this site says "experimental," I take it to mean "anything that doesn't sound remotely similar to the radio-friendly we're-the-biggest-band-in-the-world-and-must-play-it-safe sound of the last two albums."

 

[Numbology]

Great bass riffs...mmm

I can already see it...

Adam: So, Hooky, how do I make the coolest bass riff ever?

Peter Hook: Well, just use the lowest string.

Adam: (searching) Huh? This one?

Peter Hook: Yeah, that one.

 

[PookaMacP]

Re 'big stadium choruses', the bit in the trailer from Lanois' film where he, Edge, Bono and Eno are huddled around a mike sounds like a mighty big chorus and a mighty good one too. Big doesn't necessarily equal bad nor does it necessarily have to equate to bland music, whatever your view of the last couple of albums. Let's just wait and see what happens in the autumn.

 

[BVS]

what do people mean when they say "experimental"?

i'd really like a working definition of that. to many, it seems to mean, "what is an interesting sound to me," and is thus totally subjective. bono could fart for 5 minutes and call it a song, and that would totally be experimental. many experiments fail. many experiments that are released really shouldn't have been in the first place because they suck. simply because something is "experimental" doesn't mean that it automatically has integrity either. U2 "experimented" with trip-hop/techno and came out with Pop, which was a naked a grab for the current trend as anything they've ever done. sure, it might have sounded "experimental" to you, but then you might have needed to go out and buy some Underworld records, and some Massive Attack and Morcheeba. and then you'd see that it was only "experimental" for you, and not for people who'd been exposed to such music.

what i think people are really trying to say is that they want the new music to be "fresh." which is to say, alive and modern-sounding and unique and distinctive and memorable. i think AB was that when it came out. such a fresh sound came out of the band experimenting with new sounds, but keep in mind, all that is ultimately wallpaper on the construction of the house, which is the songs.

i want fresh material. that could be an all-accoustic album, it could be an instrumental album, it could be highly electronic dance songs meant for gay clubs (which is what Britney should realize is her future), it could be traditional Irish music. the point is that the band gets excited, and then the material sounds fresh (my theory is that they got bored in the middle of making Pop, and lo and behold, the "techno" trend dies by 1999, because maybe there wasn't all that much there to begin with).

so i can understand wanting U2 to make something "fresh," like AB, but keep in mind, AB was the smartest career decision they've ever made. no, they didn't play it safe, but their bottom line demanded that they had to shake off their holy desert pilgrim image or else they were going to become an 80s nostalgia act very, very quickly.

AB delivered the goods, but musically and financially. they are still able to sell out stadiums today because of AB.

Excellent post.

 

[Utoo]

what do people mean when they say "experimental"?
.........
"experimental" doesn't mean that it automatically has integrity either. U2 "experimented" with trip-hop/techno and came out with Pop, which was a naked a grab for the current trend as anything they've ever done. sure, it might have sounded "experimental" to you, but then you might have needed to go out and buy some Underworld records, and some Massive Attack and Morcheeba. and then you'd see that it was only "experimental" for you, and not for people who'd been exposed to such music.
.........
what i think people are really trying to say is that they want the new music to be "fresh."
.........
i want fresh material. that could be an all-accoustic album, it could be an instrumental album, it could be highly electronic dance songs meant for gay clubs (which is what Britney should realize is her future), it could be traditional Irish music. the point is that the band gets excited, and then the material sounds fresh

Highlighted the points that are QFMFT.

 

[U2girl]

what do people mean when they say "experimental"?

i'd really like a working definition of that. to many, it seems to mean, "what is an interesting sound to me," and is thus totally subjective. bono could fart for 5 minutes and call it a song, and that would totally be experimental. many experiments fail. many experiments that are released really shouldn't have been in the first place because they suck. simply because something is "experimental" doesn't mean that it automatically has integrity either. U2 "experimented" with trip-hop/techno and came out with Pop, which was a naked a grab for the current trend as anything they've ever done. sure, it might have sounded "experimental" to you, but then you might have needed to go out and buy some Underworld records, and some Massive Attack and Morcheeba. and then you'd see that it was only "experimental" for you, and not for people who'd been exposed to such music.

what i think people are really trying to say is that they want the new music to be "fresh." which is to say, alive and modern-sounding and unique and distinctive and memorable. i think AB was that when it came out. such a fresh sound came out of the band experimenting with new sounds, but keep in mind, all that is ultimately wallpaper on the construction of the house, which is the songs.

i want fresh material. that could be an all-accoustic album, it could be an instrumental album, it could be highly electronic dance songs meant for gay clubs (which is what Britney should realize is her future), it could be traditional Irish music. the point is that the band gets excited, and then the material sounds fresh (my theory is that they got bored in the middle of making Pop, and lo and behold, the "techno" trend dies by 1999, because maybe there wasn't all that much there to begin with).

so i can understand wanting U2 to make something "fresh," like AB, but keep in mind, AB was the smartest career decision they've ever made. no, they didn't play it safe, but their bottom line demanded that they had to shake off their holy desert pilgrim image or else they were going to become an 80s nostalgia act very, very quickly.

AB delivered the goods, but musically and financially. they are still able to sell out stadiums today because of AB.

All that said, their current popularity also has to do with the sucees of ATYCLB imo, and Beautiful day in particular. That single and that album started a whole new era and a new younger audience. (and, if you like, the return of the fans that didn't get into Zooropa and Pop as much)

 

[tomtom]

To make another point - lots of choruses (or should it be chori?) on Pop is a "stadium setting" one....Discotheque, DYFL, Staring at the Sun, IGWSHA, Please, Last Night, Gone...

But personally, I'd like to hear some quieter, more atmospheric stuff this time around.

 

[chrissybaby]

If big choruses are contrived then they sound contrived.

There is a big difference between Pride and COBL.

The former is heartfelt and BIG, the latter is a try hard stadium song...

IMO of course.

And FWIW I do think that as Bono gets older he is the one person in the band that wants the connection with kids, he's fighting to not be The Stones, to be relevant. I just think that bands operate better when they play to their own rules and exist in their own creative space...

 

[last unicorn]

If big choruses are contrived then they sound contrived.

There is a big difference between Pride and COBL.

The former is heartfelt and BIG, the latter is a try hard stadium song...

Well, on the last tour, one of them worked and one hasn't.

I take COBL over Pride any day, just for the feeling and atmosphere, Pride was big back then but is dated now. COBL stands much more for today's U2.

U2 is a live band, thus they make music that they feel will be good(or will even become better) when played live. They're not a singles band.

Whatever the new album will sound like, it will be interesting - and I'm even more excited about this - how they will transform the songs for the live shows.

 

[RedRocksU2]

I am not a fan of stadium shows.. I hope this doesn't pan out..

 

[RedRocksU2]

MOFO Part 2?

 

[Irvine511]

There is a big difference between Pride and COBL.

The former is heartfelt and BIG, the latter is a try hard stadium song...

and for me, the chorus of "Pride" is by far the cheesiest part in a song that's attempting to be big and important (and succeeds, musically, but not lyrically at all). in the name of love? honestly, how cheesy is that?

where as the chorus of COBL is less catchy, but there's so much joy in the naked honesty of such a simple expression -- oh. you. look. so. beautiful. tonight. -- that actually captures quite a complex series of thoughts that's going on in the song, way more complex than what's going on in Pride. COBL looks backwards, looks forwards, looks inwards, looks outwards, and realizes that it's all happening at once and that it's the moment in the concert, that simple moment captured in the phrase "oh. you. look. so. beautiful. tonight." that is ultimately what's timeless, uncontainable, always alive and waiting to be inhabited by performer and audience alike. it's the moment that everything -- the songs, the albums, the tours, the tickets, the marketing -- is designed to enable the creation of. it's the only moment that matters, that period of connection, of oneness. it's the sublime.

but that's my opinion. and i like pointing to COBL when people talk about Bono's supposedly post-2000 dumbed-down lyrics. sure, COBL is something of an attempt at a 21st century "Streets," but there's much more going on in that song than many want to give it credit for.

 

[Utoo]

To make another point - lots of choruses (or should it be chori?) on Pop is a "stadium setting" one....Discotheque, DYFL, Staring at the Sun, IGWSHA, Please, Last Night, Gone...

But personally, I'd like to hear some quieter, more atmospheric stuff this time around.

I'd disagree on the two in red. Watching the live version of IGWSHA, it's downright spooky the way they do it---so much more ambient and moody and dark, so out of place in a stadium---which makes it all that much cooler.

 

[zoopop]

I can't believe alot of you are so against stadium shows. I saw 2 Vertigo arena shows and 1 stadium show (Monterrey Mexico). While the arena shows were great. The stadium show was an event that captured the spirit of U2.

This band is made for stadiums. And because of high ticket prices and lack of promotion, U2 are one of few bands that can play stadiums.

Another thing, demand was through the roof to see U2 live. If anything it will only get worse and getting tickets through ticketmaster last tour was hard enough. Stadium shows will make things a bit less stressful.

 

[Rob33]

I can't believe alot of you are so against stadium shows. I saw 2 Vertigo arena shows and 1 stadium show (Monterrey Mexico). While the arena shows were great. The stadium show was an event that captured the spirit of U2.

This band is made for stadiums. And because of high ticket prices and lack of promotion, U2 are one of few bands that can play stadiums.

Another thing, demand was through the roof to see U2 live. If anything it will only get worse and getting tickets through ticketmaster last tour was hard enough. Stadium shows will make things a bit less stressful.

so do you think tickets will be harder to get on the upcoming tour than the Vertigo tour? In general, that is, taking into account stadiums and arenas...I'm in the U.S. so for me it'll probably be arenas only...

 

[ramblin rose]

I am not a fan of stadium shows.. I hope this doesn't pan out..

From what I've been hearing, it will be mostly stadiums next tour.

Not sure if that will pan out, but that seems to be what they're planning.

Personally, I'm not sure if they can pull that off in the U.S., but I guess if they focus on certain markets and not plan on hitting as many cities as they do with arenas they probably can.

I guess only time will tell.

I hope they at least decide on a mix of arenas and stadiums.

If they do go all stadiums I will totally blame Paul McGuinness, rightly or wrongly.

 

[Moser]

MOFO Part 2?

You're a MAN!!!