eltimbomofo
War Child
nathan1977 said:
Then the album title will have to be "Stop, Drop, Rock and Roll".
(03-30-2007) U2 get to work on new album - NME*
- Thread starter HelloAngel
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Then the album title will have to be "Stop, Drop, Rock and Roll".
Carek1230
Blue Crack Overdose Get me off the internetz!
gerbilwaxer said:
Love it 
eltimbomofo
War Child
Carek1230 said:
I aim to please.
2orangecats
Acrobat
gerbilwaxer said:
Very creative!
fandangamoq
Acrobat
There is this massive debate on these boards as to whether or not HTDAAB or ATYCLB are any good...I personally enjoy both albums, but I only listen to them occasionally, especially compared to the other U2 albums.
I find many of the songs fall quite flat, and seem to suffer from over-production. The seem like these forced pop songs and I don't think it fits U2. I've heard and I understand the arguments for the albums, and like I said, I enjoy them.
But the real problem for me is that people seem to think that U2 are trying to reach out to new fans, and U2 themselves seem to be actively attempting this, but I feel like the harder they try the more it seems that people become bitter towards them. I'm in university and many people here seem to think that U2 are becoming rock-dinosaurs, which I believe is the exact opposite of what they are attempting.
What U2 need to do is make an album that's different. They've been promising one for 8 years, but they need to follow through. They need to shake the "nuetered U2" that was left in the wake of Pop in America. U2 need to prove to the world that they are creative minds still capable of brilliant things. If they can't do this, I'm afraid we will lose them to dinosaur-dom, realeasing nothing but lousy greatest hits albums (well, MORE lousy greatest hits albums) and going on tour every 5 years of so just to keep themselves afloat.
I hate to say it, but this album NEEDS to be a good one.
~A.j.~
I find many of the songs fall quite flat, and seem to suffer from over-production. The seem like these forced pop songs and I don't think it fits U2. I've heard and I understand the arguments for the albums, and like I said, I enjoy them.
But the real problem for me is that people seem to think that U2 are trying to reach out to new fans, and U2 themselves seem to be actively attempting this, but I feel like the harder they try the more it seems that people become bitter towards them. I'm in university and many people here seem to think that U2 are becoming rock-dinosaurs, which I believe is the exact opposite of what they are attempting.
What U2 need to do is make an album that's different. They've been promising one for 8 years, but they need to follow through. They need to shake the "nuetered U2" that was left in the wake of Pop in America. U2 need to prove to the world that they are creative minds still capable of brilliant things. If they can't do this, I'm afraid we will lose them to dinosaur-dom, realeasing nothing but lousy greatest hits albums (well, MORE lousy greatest hits albums) and going on tour every 5 years of so just to keep themselves afloat.
I hate to say it, but this album NEEDS to be a good one.
~A.j.~
Last edited:
MrBrau1
ONE love, blood, life
fandangamoq said:
They're a band in their mid/late 40's.
There's not a sound or song they could record that would change university/college students minds that they're becoming dinosaurs.
Because they're a band in their mid/late 40's.
RavenBlue
Blue Crack Addict
I'll take any piece of news on the new album. Works for me
burningedge101
The Fly
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2003
- Messages
- 191
I'm guessing '08 on this, too. It seems like a lot of ground work might have been laid with the summer beach sessions, so they're not totally starting from scratch.
I for one hope they rock a little bit more. They need to bottle up that angst they have during the outro of the live versions of Gone or the Fly. ATYCLB and HTDAAB are too mellow for me. I want U2 to be a rock band not a pop band. I want intensity, passion. They need some brand new uptempo crowd pleasers like Streets, Sunday, I Will Follow, and Pride. Round out the album with a few ballads but ditch all the mid tempo. pop stuff.
I for one hope they rock a little bit more. They need to bottle up that angst they have during the outro of the live versions of Gone or the Fly. ATYCLB and HTDAAB are too mellow for me. I want U2 to be a rock band not a pop band. I want intensity, passion. They need some brand new uptempo crowd pleasers like Streets, Sunday, I Will Follow, and Pride. Round out the album with a few ballads but ditch all the mid tempo. pop stuff.
silvrlvr
Refugee
MrBrau1 said:
They're a band in their mid/late 40's.
There's not a sound or song they could record that would change university/college students minds that they're becoming dinosaurs.
Because they're a band in their mid/late 40's.
Sad to say that unless we see
U2 + Snow Patrol
U2 + Franz Ferdinand
U2 + Kaiser Chiefs
or some such combinations...
You are right.
Doesn't mean U2 isn't a force in rock, or a force for change in the world. Doesn't mean U2 won't attract another 2 million fans on their next tour. Just means that audience doesn't consider them contemporary.
last unicorn
Blue Crack Addict
Please please NOT.silvrlvr said:
powerhour24
ONE love, blood, life
Because Bomb took so long to make doesn't mean they're not aiming for 2007, now if Rubin doesn't fit and the need to do more sessions again like last time around then we won't be seeing anything until fall 2008 (no spring releases, note that's how they do business nowadays) but at this point they're still on track for 2007, there's just this big paranoia that what happened on Pop/Bomb will again.
silvrlvr
Refugee
Well, as long as the Edge doesn't incinerate between now and then, it's worth waiting.
burningedge101
The Fly
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2003
- Messages
- 191
powerhour24 said:
I don't think '07 is possible if they're using Rubin because he's knee deep in the studio with Metallica until they leave on their sick of the studio tour at the end of June. Metallica probably would need a few weeks to rehearse, so let's say U2 could meet with Rubin in the beginning of June. U2 would need to finish recording the album by the end of July to have enough time to mix it, master it, and gear up marketing to get it out by November (the last month they would willingly release it in '07). Such a timeline seems implausible
bugo
Acrobat
It's not a big deal for there to be a 4 year gap between each U2 album. They have so much to live up to with such a sparkling monster of a career behind them. If I was Edge, I'd probably crack up under the sheer pressure of having to deliver a pleasing enough 'U2 album'. (Especially with the inane diversity of the fans who each differ over what they love and dislike about the band).
If it takes until 2008 or 2010, so what - If it's a bloody brillaint piece of work then it won't matter. Releasing it any earlier than when it's ready will tarnish the quality - And I don't personally want a quick dose of U2, I want the best possible album - They need their time to create that.
Of course, I too feel this album has to be a good one. I found myself disappointed with the last album - Mostly because barely a single song affected me or made me think, like U2 songs usually do.
All that You can;t Leave behind was immense though - second greatest u2 album - though I only say that because it was my first!
Anyway that's enough of my irish rambling,
Later!
If it takes until 2008 or 2010, so what - If it's a bloody brillaint piece of work then it won't matter. Releasing it any earlier than when it's ready will tarnish the quality - And I don't personally want a quick dose of U2, I want the best possible album - They need their time to create that.
Of course, I too feel this album has to be a good one. I found myself disappointed with the last album - Mostly because barely a single song affected me or made me think, like U2 songs usually do.
All that You can;t Leave behind was immense though - second greatest u2 album - though I only say that because it was my first!
Anyway that's enough of my irish rambling,
Later!
Last edited:
silvrlvr
Refugee
bugo said:
Crack? Au contraire. Edge is a thorough professional, and this is what he does. It isn't his responsibility alone: in the end, it's a collaborative effort.
Addressing ThanksAndy's post.
There are 2 problems here. One is the late 90's passing of BillGraham, U2's great unsung (and largely unseen, unless you read Hot Press) musical guru. He was the Dublin journalist who "discovere" U2 for the Irish media back in the late 70's and introduced them to Paul MCGuinness. Graham was both their sdoundboard for ideas, intellectually and musically, and their musical library. For example, when U2 told him that they wanted to explore American roots music in the mid-80's, Graham was the one who introduced them to people like Johnny Cash, black gospel (he searched for obscrure recordings of Southern black hyms) or Woody Gutherie, Grahm not only gave them musical samplings, but suggested how they might be pulled together into a coherent musical statement that spanned an album. Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois were the musical gurus, helping it get recorded and mixed, and throwing in intellectual muscial ideas But Graham was the heart and soul of the operation. He follwed up his JT ideas with giivng the band hip-hop recordings to explore that for AB. When he died in 1996 the band expresseda tthe time he would be sorely missed--though they they had no idea of how their music would suffer. While they have had some great musical moments, they haven't been able to put together a COHERENT album musically or intellectually since. It;s all been feel-good vapor.
Second, and far more sewrious, is the state of the music biz itslef. Unlike the U2 of the 80s, who perfected their sound, the band made a conscious decision with AB to open thems elves to outside influnces and whatever was going on musically at the time, and incorporate that into their new albums. Where is the exciting new sound now, the great new bands, the ideas, the hot new sound? It;s on American Idol. You get the idea. And the band are fixatedthis mode of working. They can no longer work n a vacuum....
There are 2 problems here. One is the late 90's passing of BillGraham, U2's great unsung (and largely unseen, unless you read Hot Press) musical guru. He was the Dublin journalist who "discovere" U2 for the Irish media back in the late 70's and introduced them to Paul MCGuinness. Graham was both their sdoundboard for ideas, intellectually and musically, and their musical library. For example, when U2 told him that they wanted to explore American roots music in the mid-80's, Graham was the one who introduced them to people like Johnny Cash, black gospel (he searched for obscrure recordings of Southern black hyms) or Woody Gutherie, Grahm not only gave them musical samplings, but suggested how they might be pulled together into a coherent musical statement that spanned an album. Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois were the musical gurus, helping it get recorded and mixed, and throwing in intellectual muscial ideas But Graham was the heart and soul of the operation. He follwed up his JT ideas with giivng the band hip-hop recordings to explore that for AB. When he died in 1996 the band expresseda tthe time he would be sorely missed--though they they had no idea of how their music would suffer. While they have had some great musical moments, they haven't been able to put together a COHERENT album musically or intellectually since. It;s all been feel-good vapor.
Second, and far more sewrious, is the state of the music biz itslef. Unlike the U2 of the 80s, who perfected their sound, the band made a conscious decision with AB to open thems elves to outside influnces and whatever was going on musically at the time, and incorporate that into their new albums. Where is the exciting new sound now, the great new bands, the ideas, the hot new sound? It;s on American Idol. You get the idea. And the band are fixatedthis mode of working. They can no longer work n a vacuum....
Yahweh_OMG
New Yorker
silvrlvr said:
I totally disagree with you and Brau.
U2 is not (yet) like the Rolling Stones... it means that every time they released an album and tour, they are making a lot of new fans. I've been to 5 Vertigo shows (maybe like you) and I've seen that the average age is around 25 y.o. The Rolling Stones age is 45-50.... which I don't have anything against, don't get me wrong... but there is a big difference. On the other hand, I'm glad U2 isn't compared to Avril Lavigne.... College rock sucks.
celia
New Yorker
Ooo Im a little behind on the U2 news, this is good to hear!
Yahweh_OMG said:
Agreed! I hope U2 never becomes college rock and compared to bands that are hip right now. I am sorry, but to me, most of the new(er) bands out there all sound alike. A song would come on the radio and you think to yourself "I've heard this before...is this *Fall out boy* or *..fill in the blanks*" At least U2 doesn't sound like 95% of the bands out there. And if one day they end up being compared to one of those bands, I think I might just completely retire from listening to the music.
Mavvie
The Fly
cool!
dj_tranquility
The Fly
love2bmama
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
somebody should fill Adam in on this news, according to someone who met him in NYC this weekend he said "what cd? we haven't started it yet"
And judging from the pics, Adam's been spending a LOT of time in somewhere very sunny.
And judging from the pics, Adam's been spending a LOT of time in somewhere very sunny.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
Latest posts
-
3 Irishmen and a Dutchman Walk Into A Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part III
- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
-
-
-
Hello everyone I'm years late but at least I've found you now!!
- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
-
-
-
