The forthcoming album and Zooropa

[65980]

i don't really like the name Songs of Ascent, so i may not like the album content based on that title.

I agree, they've got to change it!

Album about new ideas:
Songs of Invent

Album about sales of NLOTH:
Songs of Descent

Album about Bono's boyhood camping trips:
Songs of pup tent

Album about post-coital bliss:
Songs of energy spent

Album about sharing the tour bus with Adam in the early days:
Songs of Ass Scent

 

[powerhour24]

Exactly, and many of their biggest hits weren't exactly tailor-made for the radio at the time, like WOWY/ISHFWILF/One and BD and Mysterious Ways might be poppy but they weren't the norm for their time. Make what you want to make, release it and see what happens, do a better job of promotion than the singles this time around if you want, but don't write the music around that promotion.

 

[powerhour24]

I think Songs of Ascent is a pretty cool title, very un-rock n roll, a bit like the joshua tree was all those years ago. On the whole, when it comes to picking album names, U2 normally get it spot on.

I fully agree with this. The theme is pilgrimage, so basing the title on the 'Song of Ascents' psalms sung by religious pilgrims makes sense, and yes it's out-of-left-field for a rock band, I hope it stays, just like when NLOTH was a 'provisional' title for a long time, I was so glad when it survived.

 

[cdirani]

How is it predictable?

I mean, unless it's an instrumental disc, it'll features songs.
So, we'll have songs, anyway.
And the quasi-religious (if not indeed religious) content it's kind of giving away.

Of course, it won't be literal and I may love the songs.

I was just trying to set the record straight..."songs of ascent" is a bit predictable for U2. They can call it whatever they like.

 

[bram]

No offense to everyone posting ideas, but the band's blueprint going forward is vastly preferable to anything that's been suggested here. Give us Songs of Ascent. And then finish the Rubin album (ideally without too much space between them). Two opportunities for a great album instead of the one big, 2-disked mess. Despite all their talk of 45s, the band does still care about the album as a whole--as they should. Post-Rubber Soul/Pet Sounds/Sgt. Peppers rock has been waaaaaay more interesting than the single-focused era preceding it.

 

[powerhour24]

^

So much truth right there.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

how about another rattle hum album? part 2? . half live, half studio.With covers and alt versions of other songs. Except this time........ unlike the first time, u2 are a legendary band , hall of famers, that can at least in some way put themselves in rocks mantle. The accusation back then about u2 getting ahead of themselves. Putting the band along side rock;s elite artists by covering classic songs and acting like they had already sealed their path to the hall of fame. A fair point. I thought the studio tracks were good. Joshua tree was huge but before that they were only between respectable and big. Would be a great fuck you to the critics to do a rattle and hum album now. YEAH, WE ARE LEGENDS ASSHOLES. lol. heres a song we stole from your mother...

 

[65980]

Good idea. They can start the album with a live version of "One".

"This song, Mary J. Blige stole from U2... we're stealing it back.... Oh, wait, I also stole it from us... whoops!"

 

[kingofsorrow]

YEAH, WE ARE LEGENDS ASSHOLES. lol. heres a song we stole from your mother...

"This song, Mary J. Blige stole from U2... we're stealing it back.... Oh, wait, I also stole it from us... whoops!"

 

[allbecauseofu2]

"heres a song eno stole from the passengers, we;re stealing it back"

 

[Rich79]

No.

U2 has enough trouble picking 11 songs. Plus it's better to have a very good/great album compared to inevitably weaker double album.

I always have to shoot this argument down. I will always favor a double album mostly just because more is better; and before you say "Not necessarily", think of this example:

I love the White Album, so does one of my best friends. The songs I like most are definitely not the songs he enjoys the most. If that album would have been trimmed down, I'm almost positive a good 5 or so songs (at least) that I really enjoy would have been cut. More is better, because your chance of liking more songs is greater. They may not be the same songs your friends like, or even the popular consensus likes, but great songs to you nonetheless. One man's trash is another's treasure, to use the old cliche'. Many consider POP to be U2's throwaway album. I think it is their masterpiece. So, I'm willing to risk having about 10-12 songs I might think are not terrific (and in U2 world, that means they're still probably pretty damn good - just to make another point that more U2 is almost a guaranteed win) in exchange for 10-12 songs that I think are amazing; especially with the more recent U2 albums where I tend to think only about 7 songs or so are really standout tracks. Inevitably weaker is relative.

Sorry, bit of a tangent on double albums, instead of the real topic of this thread.

 

[Rich79]

No offense to everyone posting ideas, but the band's blueprint going forward is vastly preferable to anything that's been suggested here. Give us Songs of Ascent. And then finish the Rubin album (ideally without too much space between them). Two opportunities for a great album instead of the one big, 2-disked mess. Despite all their talk of 45s, the band does still care about the album as a whole--as they should. Post-Rubber Soul/Pet Sounds/Sgt. Peppers rock has been waaaaaay more interesting than the single-focused era preceding it.

Give us Songs of Ascent (hopefully better than NLOTH). Finish the Rubin material (which doesn't sound exciting in the least, since "Window" came from those sessions). Get the Spiderman thing done (which I pray Larry is able to talk the band down from doing a full-band album out of this. Any ounce that's left of U2's "coolness" will die the day we see "Spiderman: The Musical by U2" in stores). Get it all out of the way and then do something truly experimental and heavier, like the U2 of the 90's that was actually cool to like and kind of badass; ya know, the U2 material that helps me argue with people that they actually are a "Rock Band"; no more of this heartwarming, saving the world through music baloney. Of course, by the time the three discussed projects are out of the way, they will all be pushing 60 years old. Whatever they do, I will give it a chance. They are still my favorite band.

As far as them still keeping the album as a whole in mind. I don't buy it. NLOTH, and to an extent HTDAAB, are the only two U2 albums I can say really don't feel like they have a solid "identity" or "mood/atmosphere" to them. The year 2000 is the last time I feel like they had their eyes on making an "album" instead of "let's just pick the songs we like and maybe they'll end up fitting together somehow"

Okay, I've had two long posts. I'll shut up for a little while now.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

they need to release that clockwork orange play stuff,lol

 

[bram]

Give us Songs of Ascent (hopefully better than NLOTH). Finish the Rubin material (which doesn't sound exciting in the least, since "Window" came from those sessions). Get the Spiderman thing done (which I pray Larry is able to talk the band down from doing a full-band album out of this. Any ounce that's left of U2's "coolness" will die the day we see "Spiderman: The Musical by U2" in stores). Get it all out of the way and then do something truly experimental and heavier, like the U2 of the 90's that was actually cool to like and kind of badass; ya know, the U2 material that helps me argue with people that they actually are a "Rock Band"; no more of this heartwarming, saving the world through music baloney. Of course, by the time the three discussed projects are out of the way, they will all be pushing 60 years old. Whatever they do, I will give it a chance. They are still my favorite band.

As far as them still keeping the album as a whole in mind. I don't buy it. NLOTH, and to an extent HTDAAB, are the only two U2 albums I can say really don't feel like they have a solid "identity" or "mood/atmosphere" to them. The year 2000 is the last time I feel like they had their eyes on making an "album" instead of "let's just pick the songs we like and maybe they'll end up fitting together somehow"

Okay, I've had two long posts. I'll shut up for a little while now.

While I'm not sold on the double album idea, I definitely can't argue with anything you said here. Great post.

I hope by the time the band finishes these 3 in-the-works projects, they can finally retire from trying to get on the radio and just make music that is interesting to them with a high degree of replay value. I have a sneaking suspicion that this approach could actually provide them with another hit single of the way-out-of-the-mainstream variety (e.g. WoWY).

 

[allbecauseofu2]

u2 should release a double album and then a a bonus dvd with extras tracks. dvd only. lets get serious.

 

[Niceman]

u2 should release a double album and then a a bonus dvd with extras tracks. dvd only. lets get serious.

Like Linear?

 

[allbecauseofu2]

that or rattle and hum part 2,lol. still think that would be great. u2 vs the critics.

 

[bram]

U2 should release a 7-disc album with 2 bonus DVDs, a digital download film, and 13 widgets designed by Bono's sons.

 

[digitize]

U2 should release a 7-disc album with 2 bonus DVDs, a digital download film, and 13 widgets designed by Bono's sons.

And give it away for free.

 

[bram]

Obviously. Anything less just confirms their rampant selfishness and greed.

 

[Zooronaut]

they need to release that clockwork orange play stuff,lol

Hell yes.

 

[torn vinyl]

A double album would be great. Maybe then we'd get 11 good songs. Seriously, if they put out a double record, and a couple non-album singles, it would be amazing, provided they didn't spend years making it...but...

...I think everyone ought to lower their expectations a lot and accept that there is next to no chance of U2 being anywhere near as good as they were or doing anything radical, like a White Album style orgy. They're well past the tail end of their peak years and haven't given any indication that they are capable of work even close to the originality and quality of 84-93. They're an old band who is immensely successful and they don't have the hunger any more. They have adopted the Rolling Stones model; this is their Steel Wheels era.

 

[nielsgov]

...I think everyone ought to lower their expectations a lot and accept that there is next to no chance of U2 being anywhere near as good as they were or doing anything radical, like a White Album style orgy. They're well past the tail end of their peak years and haven't given any indication that they are capable of work even close to the originality and quality of 84-93. They're an old band who is immensely successful and they don't have the hunger any more. They have adopted the Rolling Stones model; this is their Steel Wheels era.

Is this because you don't like NLOTH?

There are enough people that really like the new album and I actually had the feeling that NLOTH could have been their best album but that it came just short of Achtung Baby.
Almost nobody likes the Rolling Stone's latest albums (from what I've heard, I don't listen to them) so comparinf U2 with the Rolling Stones is a bit harsh.

 

[bram]

A double album would be great. Maybe then we'd get 11 good songs. Seriously, if they put out a double record, and a couple non-album singles, it would be amazing, provided they didn't spend years making it...but...

...I think everyone ought to lower their expectations a lot and accept that there is next to no chance of U2 being anywhere near as good as they were or doing anything radical, like a White Album style orgy. They're well past the tail end of their peak years and haven't given any indication that they are capable of work even close to the originality and quality of 84-93. They're an old band who is immensely successful and they don't have the hunger any more. They have adopted the Rolling Stones model; this is their Steel Wheels era.

Why would we need to lower our expectations if their work post-1993 is ostensibly sub-par? You'd think the last 16 years would have learned us.

 

[mikal]

A double album would be great. Maybe then we'd get 11 good songs. Seriously, if they put out a double record, and a couple non-album singles, it would be amazing, provided they didn't spend years making it...but...

...I think everyone ought to lower their expectations a lot and accept that there is next to no chance of U2 being anywhere near as good as they were or doing anything radical, like a White Album style orgy. They're well past the tail end of their peak years and haven't given any indication that they are capable of work even close to the originality and quality of 84-93. They're an old band who is immensely successful and they don't have the hunger any more. They have adopted the Rolling Stones model; this is their Steel Wheels era.

good news. some of the longtime members and i have all come to the conclusion that your opinions are indeed fact and everyone should take on your opinions as their own. keep up the great work.....from all of us!

 

[OrARoundabout]

Hell yes.

Yeah, srsly...they got to get on this shit...17 years overdue

 

[torn vinyl]

Why would we need to lower our expectations if their work post-1993 is ostensibly sub-par? You'd think the last 16 years would have learned us.

Not that the work has been sub-par - the albums are still really good for the most part. They are just not nearly as good as they were before and I think it's unreasonable to expect a 30 year old band to be as good as they were when they were at their best.

And Rolling Stone consistently gives the Stones new albums 4-5 stars.

 

[torn vinyl]

good news. some of the longtime members and i have all come to the conclusion that your opinions are indeed fact and everyone should take on your opinions as their own. keep up the great work.....from all of us!

OMG, like I will put IMHO after every sentence IMHO, LOL.

It's troubling that you and other long time members talk about me. A fiction.

 

[mikal]

OMG, like I will put IMHO after every sentence IMHO, LOL.

It's troubling that you and other long time members talk about me. A fiction.

we talk about you.....a lot. i'm talking like once every half hour. it's hot.

 

[bram]

Not that the work has been sub-par - the albums are still really good for the most part. They are just not nearly as good as they were before and I think it's unreasonable to expect a 30 year old band to be as good as they were when they were at their best.

And Rolling Stone consistently gives the Stones new albums 4-5 stars.

Personally, I think ATYCLB and NLOTH easily slide into the upper half of their oeuvre. I don't really expect U2 to deliver anything that would eclipse JT, AB, or UF (even if they could somehow be 20 or 30 years old again). With a little track tweaking (and less concession to pop/radio ideals) NLOTH would be damn near flawless. If SOA is released soon and roughly equivalent in quality to NLOTH, I'd put this decade's output up against both the 80s and 90s without conceding any drop in quality. I wouldn't be surprised at all if I'm out there arguing that 00s U2 wins out over 90s U2 once SOA is released. We'll see.