Flood to produce next U2 album?

[Dorian Gray]

That's who I'd like to see..

Mr MacPhisto's rumor that the new album is due this summer left me wondering...

Both Eno and Lanois are staying away from producing for the next few years, so...

who should U2 work with this time?

------------------
And I felt like a star...

 

[Blue Room]

Maybe they will just produce it themselves. After all, most of the music is already done supposedly and is from the ATYCLB sessions. So if that is true, technically Eno and Lanois will still be the producers for a majority of it. I think they should bring in Steve Lillywhite for any new songs they add on top of the stuff already done.

 

[Krasno The Great]

Originally posted by Blue Room:
I think they should bring in Steve Lillywhite for any new songs they add on top of the stuff already done.

Kennedy agrees.

Not CK

 

[Roland of Gilead]

Lillywhite would be perfect. His work on the acoustic version of Stuck shows how a B-side can surpass the A-side.

------------------
"I know that this is not goodbye." -Kite

 

[Flood & The Mercury Acid]

yes, I would like to see the band work with Flood again

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

Whens the next album coming out???
and when is the 1990' 2000 due?????????
oh yeah, i was gonna uise dorian grey as a nick, but didnt. i did read the bok though, very good book. recommended.

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

Flood as the primary producer again? I dunno.
I was listening to Pop with several friends yesterday (mostly U2 fans) and we all had the same general reaction: Great songs but very poorly recorded. The sound is nothing short of dreadful. Unforgivably bad for the best band in the world. It sounds like it was recorded in a barn. It's a rock record, a PARTY record that you can't crank because the sound distorts too much at high volume. I've had this same discussion with a lot of people over the last four years and most of them agree.
I love Flood. He's done great work with U2 and with the Smashing Pumpkins but I really have my doubts after Pop.

MAP

 

[popkidu2]

They should've done what Noel from OASIS always does with a new album before he approves the final mix. Put it in a crappy boom box and see how it'll sound to the average person listening on the street. When it sounds good there, you know it's awesome.

When you have a zillion dollar speaker system you can make a fart sound amazing.

That being said, I think Pop is awesome. But you're right, some of the mixes could probably be better....

------------------
And I feel like I'm slowly slowly slowly slipping under.

And I feel like I'm holding onto nothing.

ADAM (talking about Elevation):
"I like it, it's very hard to play live...(starts smiling) I don't understand what it's about, it's good."

 

[Dorian Gray]

Originally posted by Matthew_Page2000:
Flood as the primary producer again? I dunno.
I was listening to Pop with several friends yesterday (mostly U2 fans) and we all had the same general reaction: Great songs but very poorly recorded. The sound is nothing short of dreadful. Unforgivably bad for the best band in the world. It sounds like it was recorded in a barn. It's a rock record, a PARTY record that you can't crank because the sound distorts too much at high volume. I've had this same discussion with a lot of people over the last four years and most of them agree.
I love Flood. He's done great work with U2 and with the Smashing Pumpkins but I really have my doubts after Pop.

MAP

But he did engineer Joshua Tree...
I think with the type of music U2 are doing now, it would be less likely that there would be recording difficulties. Maybe Flood just didnt have time to finish everything. (that seems to be the thing with Pop)
Just a thought..

BrownEyedBoy, check out the 'news today' post. That will answer your new album question. Oh, and re: Dorian Gray, I never actually read the play. I just used it cause it was mentioned in 'The Ocean'.

------------------
And I felt like a star...

[This message has been edited by Dorian Gray (edited 11-21-2001).]

 

[tomtom]

Matthew, I could not agreee more with you. The recording and especially the MIXING of POP was horrible.Think what it could have been had the mixing been different.

 

[ishkash]

Yeah I agree with the fact that POP was badly produced, maybe Flood at the helm of things is not a very good idea, but he has worked on some masterpieces too.I think Lillywhite fits well if the band doesnt want to take drastic drifts from the current trend, maybe they should invite Godrich for balance and a different perspective.

------------------
I began to understand Indian Sadhus and and the begging bowls of the Hindu Priests that get dignity out of the way.And that maybe humility is the eye of the needle that we all have to pass through.-- Bono

All that you reason
ALL THIS THAT

 

[camiloj]

my vote is for Steve Lillywhite, he did a great job with the music production on Live in Boston and he was the man in the beginning, I have particularly enjoyed any U2 songs he puts his hands on.

 

[brettig]

*associates any shortcomings of pops production to the time left to finish it rather than flood's ability

 

[Salome]

they should ask Richard D. James or Jon Spencer

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[This message has been edited by Salome (edited 11-22-2001).]

 

[hermes]

I think POP was a major time crunch, they had a tour on the way, etc. etc.

Flood has recorded some pristine records, especially when he was the sole producer on a project.

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

Brettig and Hermes might be right about the poor sound quality on Pop being due more to the time crunch than to Floods abilities. It's even possible that the sound is as it is because the band wanted it that way. I remember Bono saying that Pop sounded great on his car stereo. Of course Bono's car stereo probably costs more than any of our cars...

MAP

p.s.- If only the boys could have had another month or two to work on Pop. Imagine.