Update from U2.com

[Aygo]

And nothing against Rubin, he's done some good things, but he's just so commercial and not the kind of worker I'd like to see U2 work with(...)

Well, Timbaland is the most commercial you can have in the Present and h worked recently with Bjork.

My point with Rubin is that, the kind of production that Rubin does what bring some kind of damage to the experimental and unusual stuff U2 seems to wanting to do. And why should they work the songs as far as they can if Rubin can come and strip them all back in the end? Rubin is not the kind of guy that likes to work details over and over until they're noticeable.

 

[Utoo]

god Eno

Freudian sip?

 

[powerhour24]

Or simply proclaiming what many around here would have you think? Haha, listening to some of his own stuff, musical god? Sure why not.

 

[U2DMfan]

And nothing against Rubin, he's done some good things, but he's just so commercial

In what respect is Rubin's work more commercial than U2's latest work?

Rubin is more popular than Eno, Lanois, Lillywhite, Flood, etc., because he is more prolific and has generally worked with more popular and sometimes better artists.

In any event, Rubin is just a fucking producer. The band will determine the sound.

Rubin has produced, among others, Slayer's 'Reign in Blood' and Johnny Cash's 'American' recordings, give them a listen, contrast and tell me the commercial value over say, the Bee Gees chorus falsetto of Window in the Skies.

I don't mean to jump on just one particular comment, but if people want U2 to acheive their supposed zenith in this late stage of their career, the absolute best thing they can do is write the songs before they record. A novice musician with a clue would agree with that.
If they do this, and they know this, they need a Rubin-like character, if that's Fidelman or Rubin, fine. Eno and Lanois were always creative catalysts, this time they seem to be trying to help the creative process along. I think it's great news.

Whoever produces needs some 'songs' to work with, Lillywhite said he didn't have enough, he and Larry and Adam wrecked that album (surely JMO), I don't think Rubin would ever graduate to that kind of decision making process. He expects the band to have made those decisions. If they have 25 songs to work on, they better be good enough to work on or else, what the fuck are they doing? And that is the rub between the Rubin system and the 25 year U2 system. U2 sits around and waits for ideas to formulate 4/5 into the album's recording, Rubin wants ideas that are pretty much complete. I am not convinced he's going to procude the album, but among the 500 worst things U2 could do on album #12, hiring Rubin to produce isn't close to showing up.

 

[U2DMfan]

Well, Timbaland is the most commercial you can have in the Present and h worked recently with Bjork.

My point with Rubin is that, the kind of production that Rubin does what bring some kind of damage to the experimental and unusual stuff U2 seems to wanting to do. And why should they work the songs as far as they can if Rubin can come and strip them all back in the end? Rubin is not the kind of guy that likes to work details over and over until they're noticeable.

Rubin is not a bare bones producer, he's a producer of songs.
He's done elaborate mixes and stripped down affairs, what he demands is the goods, the songs. U2 are trying to find the songs, I've said it before, morseso than anything they want Rubin's ear.

Yeah, they might have song XYZ and Rubin might say "shouldn't we add a viola here...or shouldn't you add harmonies here, with an accompanying piano etc." That is a creative influence but he's widley known for catching prime takes, that said he won't be a dead man behind the desk, for sure. What he's not going to do is lay down a whole track like Eno might do or have done in 1991. Mostly they want him to sniff it out. In this respect, he'll serve in much the same respect that Lillywhite did in '04.
Hopefully with better decisions.

 

[martha]

putting that inspiration through a collander of slick production and commercial appeal.

Like ATYCLB?

 

[Peterrrrr]

In what respect is Rubin's work more commercial than U2's latest work?

Rubin is more popular than Eno, Lanois, Lillywhite, Flood, etc., because he is more prolific and has generally worked with more popular and sometimes better artists.

In any event, Rubin is just a fucking producer. The band will determine the sound.

Rubin has produced, among others, Slayer's 'Reign in Blood' and Johnny Cash's 'American' recordings, give them a listen, contrast and tell me the commercial value over say, the Bee Gees chorus falsetto of Window in the Skies.

I don't mean to jump on just one particular comment, but if people want U2 to acheive their supposed zenith in this late stage of their career, the absolute best thing they can do is write the songs before they record. A novice musician with a clue would agree with that.
If they do this, and they know this, they need a Rubin-like character, if that's Fidelman or Rubin, fine. Eno and Lanois were always creative catalysts, this time they seem to be trying to help the creative process along. I think it's great news.

Whoever produces needs some 'songs' to work with, Lillywhite said he didn't have enough, he and Larry and Adam wrecked that album (surely JMO), I don't think Rubin would ever graduate to that kind of decision making process. He expects the band to have made those decisions. If they have 25 songs to work on, they better be good enough to work on or else, what the fuck are they doing? And that is the rub between the Rubin system and the 25 year U2 system. U2 sits around and waits for ideas to formulate 4/5 into the album's recording, Rubin wants ideas that are pretty much complete. I am not convinced he's going to procude the album, but among the 500 worst things U2 could do on album #12, hiring Rubin to produce isn't close to showing up.

Well he produced WITS, and that the most commerical song they ever done, catchy chours, swinging music

 

[Aygo]

Well he produced WITS, and that the most commerical song they ever done, catchy chours, swinging music

Their most commercial song ever done? What about Vertigo, Elevation, Sweetest Thing or ABOY?

 

[powerhour24]

In what respect is Rubin's work more commercial than U2's latest work?

Rubin is more popular than Eno, Lanois, Lillywhite, Flood, etc., because he is more prolific and has generally worked with more popular and sometimes better artists.

In any event, Rubin is just a fucking producer. The band will determine the sound.

Rubin has produced, among others, Slayer's 'Reign in Blood' and Johnny Cash's 'American' recordings, give them a listen, contrast and tell me the commercial value over say, the Bee Gees chorus falsetto of Window in the Skies.

I don't mean to jump on just one particular comment, but if people want U2 to acheive their supposed zenith in this late stage of their career, the absolute best thing they can do is write the songs before they record. A novice musician with a clue would agree with that.
If they do this, and they know this, they need a Rubin-like character, if that's Fidelman or Rubin, fine. Eno and Lanois were always creative catalysts, this time they seem to be trying to help the creative process along. I think it's great news.

Whoever produces needs some 'songs' to work with, Lillywhite said he didn't have enough, he and Larry and Adam wrecked that album (surely JMO), I don't think Rubin would ever graduate to that kind of decision making process. He expects the band to have made those decisions. If they have 25 songs to work on, they better be good enough to work on or else, what the fuck are they doing? And that is the rub between the Rubin system and the 25 year U2 system. U2 sits around and waits for ideas to formulate 4/5 into the album's recording, Rubin wants ideas that are pretty much complete. I am not convinced he's going to procude the album, but among the 500 worst things U2 could do on album #12, hiring Rubin to produce isn't close to showing up.

Again I do value some of what Rubin has done, like Cash's American recordings, but for many artists he's little more than a recording engineer, Eno and Lanois have helped inspire them and push them out of their comfort zone and that's what most people around here are hoping has happened again, I suppose now that they've already worked with them Rubin won't kill the inspiration (The Fly ) but why go to him when you're already with a team who's helping you do great work?

 

[Aygo]

Again I do value some of what Rubin has done, like Cash's American recordings, but for many artists he's little more than a recording engineer, Eno and Lanois have helped inspire them and push them out of their comfort zone and that's what most people around here are hoping has happened again, I suppose now that they've already worked with them Rubin won't kill the inspiration (The Fly ) but why go to him when you're already with a team who's helping you do great work?

Exactly!

 

[Peterrrrr]

Their most commercial song ever done? What about Vertigo, Elevation, Sweetest Thing or ABOY?

Sure, the songs you namned are rock/pop songs, but they don't come near the catchy swinging sound that WITS have.

 

[Utoo]

Well he produced WITS, and that the most commerical song they ever done, catchy chours, swinging music

Sure, the songs you namned are rock/pop songs, but they don't come near the catchy swinging sound that WITS have.

All due respect, but this is the kind of thinking that is going to have people disappointed in whatever will come, and also seems to gloss over what has come in the past.

"Catchy" and "commercial" do not equal each other, and this is the mistake that so many people on this forum make. Yes, a catchy song is more likely to be commercially successful. But just because a song is catchy and commercially successful doesn't mean that it's tainted in some way, less of a song, a "sellout," or any of that crap. You can write a song with the aim of being commercially successful; yes, it'll likely be "catchy." You can also write a "catchy" song just because it's what you think is going to be a good song. People here seem to think that if U2 write a song that's "catchy," it must've been to make a quick buck. What an idiotic way to think. Every single album is marked by "catchy" songs. Why someone would think that they wrote Elevation or ABOY for commercial success, and yet Pride, WOWY, SBS, Discotheque or IWF are purely for art, is beyond me....I think it has more to do with one's opinion of a given album than an actual thought process about the song/album.

Yeah, you could say this song is catchier than this one, this one has a more "accessible" riff than this one, etc. But such an argument really has no end. Other factors may lead one to conclude that the band is after commercial success, but the catchiness of WITS alone shows no more money hunger in 2006 than does the catchiness of Gloria for 1981.

If we're going to label U2 as commercial sellouts if singles off the next album are "catchy," then they've been sellouts since 1980. Passengers II would be the only way to appease the 3% of U2fandom with such an opinion.

 

[roy]

If we're going to label U2 as commercial sellouts if singles off the next album are "catchy," then they've been sellouts since 1980. Passengers II would be the only way to appease the 3% of U2fandom with such an opinion.

Too bloody right.

 

[U2girl]

Utoo.

I think the militant wing would actually only get more ammo if we get Passengers part II. You know..."so they CAN do music like this ! They deliberately made cash on the last two albums!".

 

[Aygo]

All due respect, but this is the kind of thinking that is going to have people disappointed in whatever will come, and also seems to gloss over what has come in the past.

"Catchy" and "commercial" do not equal each other, and this is the mistake that so many people on this forum make. Yes, a catchy song is more likely to be commercially successful. But just because a song is catchy and commercially successful doesn't mean that it's tainted in some way, less of a song, a "sellout," or any of that crap. You can write a song with the aim of being commercially successful; yes, it'll likely be "catchy." You can also write a "catchy" song just because it's what you think is going to be a good song. People here seem to think that if U2 write a song that's "catchy," it must've been to make a quick buck. What an idiotic way to think. Every single album is marked by "catchy" songs. Why someone would think that they wrote Elevation or ABOY for commercial success, and yet Pride, WOWY, SBS, Discotheque or IWF are purely for art, is beyond me....I think it has more to do with one's opinion of a given album than an actual thought process about the song/album.

Yeah, you could say this song is catchier than this one, this one has a more "accessible" riff than this one, etc. But such an argument really has no end. Other factors may lead one to conclude that the band is after commercial success, but the catchiness of WITS alone shows no more money hunger in 2006 than does the catchiness of Gloria for 1981.

If we're going to label U2 as commercial sellouts if singles off the next album are "catchy," then they've been sellouts since 1980. Passengers II would be the only way to appease the 3% of U2fandom with such an opinion.

Tomaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

 

[rihannsu]

All due respect, but this is the kind of thinking that is going to have people disappointed in whatever will come, and also seems to gloss over what has come in the past.

"Catchy" and "commercial" do not equal each other, and this is the mistake that so many people on this forum make. Yes, a catchy song is more likely to be commercially successful. But just because a song is catchy and commercially successful doesn't mean that it's tainted in some way, less of a song, a "sellout," or any of that crap. You can write a song with the aim of being commercially successful; yes, it'll likely be "catchy." You can also write a "catchy" song just because it's what you think is going to be a good song. People here seem to think that if U2 write a song that's "catchy," it must've been to make a quick buck. What an idiotic way to think. Every single album is marked by "catchy" songs. Why someone would think that they wrote Elevation or ABOY for commercial success, and yet Pride, WOWY, SBS, Discotheque or IWF are purely for art, is beyond me....I think it has more to do with one's opinion of a given album than an actual thought process about the song/album.

Yeah, you could say this song is catchier than this one, this one has a more "accessible" riff than this one, etc. But such an argument really has no end. Other factors may lead one to conclude that the band is after commercial success, but the catchiness of WITS alone shows no more money hunger in 2006 than does the catchiness of Gloria for 1981.

If we're going to label U2 as commercial sellouts if singles off the next album are "catchy," then they've been sellouts since 1980. Passengers II would be the only way to appease the 3% of U2fandom with such an opinion.

Great post. The last two albums may not be as boldly experimental as some of the previous ones but oddly enough they are the two that I will play several times through before moving on to the next in my cycling through their catalog. They are also the ones that best improve my ability to cope with the world in general. I have been able to keep a much more positive focus in my life by listening to ATYCLB and HTDAAB on a regular basis. Also, while a lot of people bashed U218 I find that I can actually spend days listening to nothing but that with the occasionally intrusion of Boy and October to round it out a little more.

While many deride the last two albums as being too mainstream I don't find they really sound like anything else out there. They are still different and against the grain from what I can see. I think people get too hung up on comparing one U2 album to another rather than comparing them to other albums released in the same time frame. I would love to see a good comparison of Bomb to other hit albums released the same year. That, to me is a more valid comparison.


Dana

 

[lazarus]

I think much of the negative reaction from fans here regarding the last two albums stems from a fear that the band will never leave this comfort zone. I felt that The Bomb was an improvement in the energy department over its predecessor, and enjoy every one of the songs on it, but there's still a part of me that thinks "could I handle 1 more album like this?"

What's refreshing about these recent statments is that the band isn't talking like they were in 2000, or even 2004. They aren't saying stuff like "this is our first album" or "we're working on the art of crafting perfect pop songs". What we're hearing is a claim to a certain sense of adventure. They're in a foreign place, allowing some of the local culture to affect their creative thoughts as well as the realized sonics themselves. This is a GOOD thing. When I hear Larry talking about (to him) exotic time signatures, or things like 8 minute long songs, it sounds very far from anything we've hear since the beginning of the decade.

Let's keep in mind that Brian Eno didn't even produce Bowie's famous Berlin trilogy. He was a co-songwriter and musician on parts of each record. Tony Visconti is the one who actually helmed the boards. So it's certainly feasible that an album only partially written and assisted by Eno can still deliver the goods in terms of experimentation.

The best news imagineable, really, IMO. 10 songs in 2 weeks and "composing has never come so easily" gives me a small glimmer of hope that they'll realize they're onto something special here, bottle it before it gets too watered-down or tempered, and get that shit out in the bloom of spring where other beautiful things are born or come back to life.

 

[Aygo]

What's refreshing about these recent statments is that the band isn't talking like they were in 2000, or even 2004. They aren't saying stuff like "this is our first album" or "we're working on the art of crafting perfect pop songs". What we're hearing is a claim to a certain sense of adventure. They're in a foreign place, allowing some of the local culture to affect their creative thoughts as well as the realized sonics themselves. This is a GOOD thing. When I hear Larry talking about (to him) exotic time signatures, or things like 8 minute long songs, it sounds very far from anything we've hear since the beginning of the decade.

This is what leaves me more excited in all of these news we've been reading.

 

[martha]

If they do make a "Passengers 2" style album, people will claim it's not U2.

 

[LemonMelon]

If they do make a "Passengers 2" style album, people will claim it's not U2.

The Brian Eno Band

 

[GibsonGirl]

‘They don’t do 4/4,” says Larry. ‘They work in 5/4 and 6/8 and 3/4. They work in very complex rhythms so it’s very interesting for us to be a part of. It’s definitely a learning curve for us…”

Dear lord! Is it really happening?

 

[BEAL]

Seems like it. I'll be very interesting to see how much of these recordings make it to a album.

The best part of all of this is that Larry seems to be very excited about the work they're doing. I doubt he would have been this cheerful during the sessions with Chris Thomas.

Hopefully we'll keep getting updates from U2.com. We should probably know more by the end of the month what they plan on doing with this music, either put it down in a studio, or meet later in the year with Eno/Lanios.

I still don't see a new album until Nov2008

 

[Lancemc]

How come I didn't see this until just now? Jesus Christmas. Writing songs with Eno and Lanois? That's exactly what I've been asking for since, well, as long as I can remember asking for U2 music.

 

[TheFirstBigW]

I don't mean to jump on just one particular comment, but if people want U2 to acheive their supposed zenith in this late stage of their career, the absolute best thing they can do is write the songs before they record.

I don't know about that...only time will tell...

Douglas Adams, the author of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books, wrote his first few books without creating any kind of outline beforehand...it was freestyle writing through improvisation similar to U2's songwriting style.
Later in his career, he began to write detailed story outlines before he started a new book, and although he wrote some good books after that, none of them seemed to have the same spark of magic and spontaneous brilliance that made his first few books so successful.

In other words, if U2 abandon their improvisational songwriting style in favor of a more deliberative and structured approach, will it improve their music, or will they end up creating better crafted songs that lack their usual spontaneous magic?

Only time will tell...

 

[catlhere]

Can U2 pull off an 8 minute song? The closest I would guess is Lemon at almost 7, and even that get's a little dragged out with repetitiveness.

I'm looking forward to what the new album has to offer though. Hopefully in a couple months we can get some samples.

 

[EdgeIsTooSexy]

no security ?

 

[BVS]

Can U2 pull off an 8 minute song? The closest I would guess is Lemon at almost 7, and even that get's a little dragged out with repetitiveness.

Lemon suffers more from too many ideas going on rather than being repetitive.

Bad is 8 minutes on Wide Awake in America and it's about the perfect length...

 

[XHendrix24]

Lemon suffers more from too many ideas going on rather than being repetitive.

You shut your mouth when you're talking to me.

"Lemon" is easily one of U2's greatest works. Ever.

Anyhoo, I really, really like this news. I would totally be for U2 experimenting with foreign sounds, as long as they don't go too far into the "world music" scene. Think somewhere around Remain in Light, but not quite Rei Momo.

 

[BVS]

You shut your mouth when you're talking to me.

"Lemon" is easily one of U2's greatest works. Ever.

Yeah it's a great song, but it's obvious the song was two different songs put together(which they have admitted).

You have a story about a woman(apparently inspired by a picture of his mother) and then there's a commentary of man and technology. The two songs don't meld well in some areas and the "Midnight..." lines just sound thrown in.

 

[LMP]

While trying to sound like Prince.