Tracklist announcement timing? - Tracklist Speculation/Discussion

[Celebration]

Does anyone remember how many weeks before release the official tracklist was announced? I seem to recall between 4-6 weeks. I can't wait to see what tracks are included and the order ...

I'm hoping this is a true and cohesive album (JT and AB - even ATYCLB) and not just a collection of songs (HTDAAB). With all classic albums the whole is always great than the sum of the parts. IMO bands that understand the importance of the "album" (U2, Killers, etc.) are the ones that last.

The tracklist could be a clue ... can't wait.

 

[bram]

This post is right on (except I might disagree about the Killers, whose last 2 albums have been so-so for me).

I think I might be more excited to see the tracklist (with times!) than to hear a clip of the new single. It sounds like U2 was more focused on the album this time than they have been in a very long time (and maybe ever). And this makes me very, very excited.

 

[roy]

I think there's a good chance of the tracklisting being shown in the next issue of Q magazine, which I believe is out 1st/2nd of Jan.

 

[68 and I'll owe you one]

Maybe we'll hear something from U2.com before Dec 28th. Q magazine mention that Paul Rees will have more details about the album on Dec 28th. If he's going to reveal more songs / album track list, I doubt that U2 will want Q to break the news....which is why I think we'll hear something on Xmas day, or Boxing day.

 

[lauramullen]

I remember reading the track listing for Bomb online before the album came out, but I don't remember where and how long before.

 

[Yahweh_OMG]

let's hope it will be 14 songs...

 

[vaz02]

14 quality songs. No fillers.

 

[bram]

I'll never understand the obsession with quantity.

 

[Rich79]

I actually hope for once that the lead-off single isn't the first track on the album. No reason why, other than just for a change of pace.

 

[Rich79]

^
actually, it may be because you get used to the first single before you get the album. So, when you finally get the album, the big "grand opening" track is lost on you a little bit and maybe you're even tempted to skip the first one because you know it already.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

^
actually, it may be because you get used to the first single before you get the album. So, when you finally get the album, the big "grand opening" track is lost on you a little bit and maybe you're even tempted to skip the first one because you know it already.

thats an excellent idea, put the lead single three deep into the album. And hopefully the album will be 12-14 good quality songs...anything but eleven!

 

[lazarus]

Unfortunately, they've released the lead track as the first single from the last THREE studio albums. Hopefully, with the new direction the album is taking, the opener might be more atmospheric (comparable to Zooropa, WTSHNN, or Homecoming) than an exciting attention-getter, and won't be the first thing released.

And there's no way in hell we're getting more than 12 songs.

 

[Purplereign]

 

[Clawgrabber]

I'll never understand the obsession with quantity.

all you need to know to understand this concept is Weezer's Green Album

5 years to wait for 10 songs.

pop it in your car as you exit best buy. drive home. 27 mins later you arrive home and the cd ends.

"i waited 5 years for that?"

true, this is an extreme example because the songs were short and u2 songs arent

 

[bram]

all you need to know to understand this concept is Weezer's Green Album

5 years to wait for 10 songs.

pop it in your car as you exit best buy. drive home. 27 mins later you arrive home and the cd ends.

"i waited 5 years for that?"

true, this is an extreme example because the songs were short and u2 songs arent

Well, that's a bit of an extreme example. History would suggest we are getting about 50 minutes of music, even with "only" 11 or 12 tracks.

But I strongly believe that one or 2 extra tracks just for the sake of adding finished material can really hurt a taut, well-sequenced 10-12 song album.

 

[bram]

Unfortunately, they've released the lead track as the first single from the last THREE studio albums. Hopefully, with the new direction the album is taking, the opener might be more atmospheric (comparable to Zooropa, WTSHNN, or Homecoming) than an exciting attention-getter, and won't be the first thing released.

And there's no way in hell we're getting more than 12 songs.

I agree with everything here. A lot.

 

[Clawgrabber]

Well, that's a bit of an extreme example. History would suggest we are getting about 50 minutes of music, even with "only" 11 or 12 tracks.

But I strongly believe that one or 2 extra tracks just for the sake of adding finished material can really hurt a taut, well-sequenced 10-12 song album.

yeah. you are right. i think if the flow is as strong as achtung baby, i'd be happy with just 10 tracks.

i think people just sort of subscribe unknowingly to the law of averages. the more tracks, the more chances for filler...

or

every album inherently will have filler, thus the more tracks, the more the album can make up by having a higher chance for great tracks.

i dunno. i am excited either way. i think part of it is the era of the ipod, wanting to add more than just 10 more songs to the u2 folder, you know? especially after they tease us with "50 or 60 songs" and then we only hear 12. i think this is a big part of where the communication breakdown starts between band/producer comments during recording "punk rock from venus" "edge is on fire" "singing like a bird" and final release when we inevitably listen and say "hey! i don't hear any punk rock from venus!"

it would almost be better if they just didn't mention how many working tracks they had under their belt during recording.

although i do agree that if they do in fact have that many tracks to choose from and spend a couple months figuring out which 12 to use, and what order to put them in, then we are really in for a major treat.

 

[Clawgrabber]

I agree with everything here. A lot.

yes yes yes yes.

if there is only one true thing i am hoping for with this album, it is that the first track on the record will NOT be the first single.

god i hope that is the case. the zooropa example is perfect.

 

[subnet]

it would be cool if single #1 was track #7

 

[zwervers2]

it would be cool if single #1 was track #7

they tried that before and it sucked.



Achtung babyyy

 

[subnet]

reason I mentioned track #7 is a fallback to the album on cassette days, going through a musical journey of 6 full tracks before hearing the first single and second single on the album.

I think it actually worked on AB

EDIT: and it works on Coldplay's latest album

 

[LarryMullenFan]

I'll never understand the obsession with quantity.

Quantity is important when you're addicted

Ok, if it's really good stuff, you might NEED less of it, but you always WANT more
I personally like albums with 12 or 13 songs. Less is usually to short to put the album on repeat, 14 on the other hand might make you loose interest in the end.

 

[Scorpionac]

every album inherently will have filler, thus the more tracks, the more the album can make up by having a higher chance for great tracks.

My thoughts exactly. I don't know what made the band think AMAAW was better than Fast Cars or Smile, or Wild Honey better than Summer Rain. But either way, if there's more songs on the album, there's a higher chance you'll please more people.

Of course they should try and sequence it better this time around, but that should always be a priority. I don't know, does the band think ATYCLB is sequenced well, with those songs in particular? I don't think those are the best songs from the sessions, and the sequence chosen for them is nothing special.

I guess we'll see.

 

[dan_smee]

I suppose, with one song registering 7:30, the thinking could be split into two camps:

1) That the album will be very long, so they will cut down the number of tracks

2) So much of the regular time spent listening to the album is taken up by one track, and they will put more tracks on (hence the need for two more tracks)

I am more inclined to think that number 2 is right. If they really have 50-60 songs, and were looking for two more (additional to what they had originally settled on) it would be because the album didn't balance. In an album of two halves, one song last 7:30 creates terrible imbalance. I am inclined to think that they went for 12 songs.. They had an album of ten, and the balance didn't sit right, so two more created a much better flow. The two songs could have been ones already kicking around, or totally new ones.

 

[Yahweh_OMG]

I would say they had an album of 11 or 12 songs and added two more, which is 13 or 14.

Last time they had 10 songs on an album was Zooropa 16 years ago!

And of course I would rather have quality than quantity, but I feel that we will get both.

 

[Rachel D.]

I don't really care how many songs there are, as long as it's more than ten. Plus, the super-duper, pocket-emptying edition will hopefully have a bonus track (bonus for the U.S., anyway, like "Fast Cars").

I think it's gonna be really good and can't wait to see the tracklisting. The first time I saw HTDAAB's tracklisting was on Yahoo! News, but I don't remember when.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

I'll never understand the obsession with quantity.

The way I look at it...since the end of the Elevation Tour in 2001, we've had a grand total of one album and a few extra curricular singles. Put in perspective, that 7 year gap is longer than the time gap in which every Beatles album was released...some of us I think have just been pretty bored of the band and just want to hear a bunch of new material.

But anyway, the fact that a lot of us would love to hear lots of new U2 doesn't mean we don't want quality...

Is 4 1/2 years since the last album not enough time to create 20 great songs that could make a great double album? In 4 years, from Oct. of 1984 to Oct. of 1988, U2 was able to release TUF, TJT and R&H....and all the awesome corresponding b-sides....just something to keep in mind.

 

[Rachel D.]

^ Edge said they're not using anything they did with Rick Rubin in 2006, so that probably means that most of what they are going to use is circa 2006 or newer, in which time they were working with Eno and Lanois. That's only about two years of working. Their real problem is that they need to spend less time touring if they want to release albums faster (which would be fine with me).

 

[dan_smee]

The way I look at it...since the end of the Elevation Tour in 2001, we've had a grand total of one album and a few extra curricular singles. Put in perspective, that 7 year gap is longer than the time gap in which every Beatles album was released...some of us I think have just been pretty bored of the band and just want to hear a bunch of new material.

But anyway, the fact that a lot of us would love to hear lots of new U2 doesn't mean we don't want quality...

Is 4 1/2 years since the last album not enough time to create 20 great songs that could make a great double album? In 4 years, from Oct. of 1984 to Oct. of 1988, U2 was able to release TUF, TJT and R&H....and all the awesome corresponding b-sides....just something to keep in mind.

I agree with your arguement about quantity.

It is in no ways a trade for quality, but it most definately is needed after such a long wait.

You could pinpoint any 7 year period of their careers where the 3 albums within it would make a phenominal double album.

Something must be said for the journey of creation though. I'm sure that The joshua Tree wouldn't have existed in it's present form if they hadn't released the Unforgettable Fire first etc...

I'm sure a lot of people here would have been rpetty interested in the kind of double album that would emerge from a fusuion of AB > Zooropa > Pop

Or Boy > October > War

 

[ImOuttaControl]

^ Edge said they're not using anything they did with Rick Rubin in 2006, so that probably means that most of what they are going to use is circa 2006 or newer, in which time they were working with Eno and Lanois. That's only about two years of working. Their real problem is that they need to spend less time touring if they want to release albums faster (which would be fine with me).

While it could be true that the only things on this album are ideas that have developed over the last 2 years, I highly doubt it. Songwriters carry ideas around with them for years..melodies, riffs, small bits that weren't able to be turned into anything and set to the side...at least in pretty much every case I've heard of. U2 has often said how they basically have a vault of ideas that they go back and try to rework. For example, the way that COBL was a reworked version of a song from the Pop sessions.