I Don't Get It!!!

[mikal]

you know, if you reply to everyone's quotes seperately like that, you'll have more posts than me by the end of this week.

[Swan269]

Originally posted by mikal
you know, if you reply to everyone's quotes seperately like that, you'll have more posts than me by the end of this week.

you're right, I never thought of trying that before

[t8thgr8]

Originally posted by new orleans


I couldn't agree more!!! I had to go to Atlanta to see them. I think they still have their feelings hurt with the poor # of ticket sales to POP MART. But many people had a problem with POP and tickets sales were not what was expected all over the US. They skipped over New Orleans for Zoo too. That would have easily sold out here. I had to go to Dallas to view that one. The JT tour was in Baton Rouge and it was a hard sell out, but where didn't that show sell out.

wow they skipped over for zoo and jt?!?!? ive always read how much they are fascinated with new orleans. thats pretty lame. i have a pop mart concert poster for the superdome show didnt know it was a flop, i wasnt into u2 back then. that would be crazy to see them on bourbon street walking around the day b4 a concert

[mobonofo]

Well, 2004 is flying by...at least I think so.

We'll have that sucker soon.

[new orleans]

Originally posted by t8thgr8



wow they skipped over for zoo and jt?!?!? ive always read how much they are fascinated with new orleans. thats pretty lame. i have a pop mart concert poster for the superdome show didnt know it was a flop, i wasnt into u2 back then. that would be crazy to see them on bourbon street walking around the day b4 a concert

the crowd at pop in new orleans wasn't that bad, somewhere around 27k

[Michael Griffiths]

Originally posted by new orleans


That makes a lot of sense, where did you get your info. Too bad they didn't start with Eno/Lanois or Lillywhite we'd have a new album by now. I realize they were probably looking for a new or different sound, but time is now a factor for them and U2 fans.

Simple deduction. U2 do not invite a big name player (Lillywhite) into the fray to record songs from scratch (which Lillywhite addmitted he will be doing) if all was going nice and smoothly with Chris Thomas. It just doesn't work that way. They weren't happy with the results. This is not the same as Steve coming in to simply mix songs as he has done in the past. In regards to Chris Thomas, my take is that U2 said something like this to him: "Thanks Chris....we wrote some fine songs together...but that's about it, mate...thanks for the songs....there's the door....I give you MTV, demographic. Good luck." Enter Steve Lillywhite....

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Originally posted by Michael Griffiths

In regards to Chris Thomas, my take is that U2 said something like this to him: "Thanks Chris....we wrote some fine songs together...but that's about it, mate...thanks for the songs....there's the door....I give you MTV, demographic. Good luck." Enter Steve Lillywhite....

That's tough stuff...if it was said.

[mikal]

i want howie b back, personally.

pop=u2's greatest album.....well......besides achtung baby of course!

[Michael Griffiths]

Originally posted by Reggie Thee Dog


That's tough stuff...if it was said.

Don't worry...I'm sure they didn't say that. I was using hyporbole. I'm sure they were much nicer to Chris Thomas than that... but I'm also quite convinced they weren't completely happy with how the material sounded with him at the helm. It just wasn't quite what they were after. Why else would they get Lillywhite to basically come out of retirement to record (at least part of) the album from scratch (setting up mikes, etc)? This early on production is something Lillywhite hasn't done in years...and decades with U2. That's a very bold move....which wouldn't have come about without a good reason.

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Michael, they picked Lillywhite because he produced the albums that they feel had the 'harder edge' rock sound they are looking for. Steve's great with the guitars. Hopefully he'll make Larry and Adam sound fat and balanced too. One thing for sure, we're guaranteed to hear Bono howl a lot more than on previous albums. That's what Lillywhite brings out of Bono.

[EvolutionMonkey]

They probably considered finishing the album themselves but came to the conclusion they needed someone from the outside to 'help' out. In other words I don't think Lillywhite is going to have considerable input like usual producers have. Who knows maybe they just needed somebody to set up the mics.

[U2DMfan]

I dont think there was as much creative difference between the band and Chris Thomas as much as the band changed their creative difference midway through.

For instance, they wanted, raw, rock, guitar heavy songs, and banged out 20 or so, which are were probably preliminary anyways (meaning some songs dissolve and others meld into other songs).

After banging thru those demos from the early sessions (2002), then bringing in Thomas in Spring '03, they may have felt when they originally planned to be done (prior to Christmas, for a Spring release) that they just werent satisifed with their creative direction. Hence, trying to add string sections etc.

At some point and time the band either had to decide to go with the 'raw' guitar sound for the whole album and not be satisifed with 'X' number of tracks, or try to re-engage the creative process.

For instance, anyone who has ever written or recorded music knows that you can change something as subtle as recording location and try to energize creativity, or you can change producers and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. U2 recorded some brilliant things in Berlin 1990, but werent really able to engage the creativity until they returned back to a comfortable surrounding, Dublin, same producers, same band, different locale.

Maybe, and I think it's as logical as guess as any at this point, that the band felt the only way to maximize their creativity was to change producers, because they had "run the course" with Thomas. This isn't really a bad refelction on Thomas, he was probably the same from Day 1 as he was on the last day. But the band are the ones who write, create and record. The music has to come from them.

Going back to raw rock guitar is a great idea and at the time (Dec 2001 into 2002) they were energized by the garage rockers and wanted to capatilize on the energy and enthusiasm from Elevation and ATYCLB.

But how long can that last? How many artists just float out clone albums of themselves over and over. Pearl Jam is one of my fav bands of all time, they put out an album about every 2/3 years, but it's more of the same, and the same, they appease their fans by playing countless concerts and pounding out albums at a fast rate, but the music has suffered. There is no creative or artistic differentiation between No Code and Riot Act, that's a span of 7 years and 4 albums. Not that they are bad albums, and they aren't, but it's just repetitive, there is no energy or vitality, and certainly not what U2 want the most, relevance.

For U2 to be relevant, 25 years into their recording career, means different things to different people. What's important is what it matters to them. I think they don't want the status quo, I think they are not looking for ATYCLB part 2, much in the way they weren't looking for sequels to War, Rattle and Hum, Pop etc.

It's possible that what the band have chosen to do (go back and chase down other ideas) is either going to make this a great record or even better, a relevant record to them.

A relevant record to U2 has proven to be a damn good piece of music. Not everyone will like every song, and if they can maximize their efforts to get a ffew more great tracks onto the album, then why rush it?

What would POP have sounded like, looked like and how would it and POPmart have been recieved, had they not booked that tour and set themselves into a tight deadline?
I think POP is a good album, it could have been astonishing.
I think that the new album would have been good if released at anytime over the last year, but it could be astonishing.

Why aren't more people comfortable with that risk?

[Reggie Thee Dog]

U2DMFan you're posts are some of the most well thought out of all the cr@p I've read in this forum. You are either a genius or completely out of your mind. Great stuff, really. You could be so right, or you could just have way too much time on your hands to think this stuff up. Either way, I'm impressed with the way your think things through and then pose them in a very diplomatic way.

All that I know is that U2 is STILL recording their album....that's it!

[mikal]

i think he's high personally.

at least i only come up with that kind of stuff when i'm high, lol.

carry on.......

[sue4u2]

Originally posted by U2DMfan

I think that the new album would have been good if released at anytime over the last year, but it could be astonishing.

Why aren't more people comfortable with that risk?

because it's not their risk. If the risk isn't one's own then one tends to sit in judgement of what U2 should do faster, better, sooner than they do. Easy to be impatient when it is someone
else's risk.

[new orleans]

Originally posted by U2DMfan
I dont think there was as much creative difference between the band and Chris Thomas as much as the band changed their creative difference midway through.

For instance, they wanted, raw, rock, guitar heavy songs, and banged out 20 or so, which are were probably preliminary anyways (meaning some songs dissolve and others meld into other songs).

After banging thru those demos from the early sessions (2002), then bringing in Thomas in Spring '03, they may have felt when they originally planned to be done (prior to Christmas, for a Spring release) that they just werent satisifed with their creative direction. Hence, trying to add string sections etc.

At some point and time the band either had to decide to go with the 'raw' guitar sound for the whole album and not be satisifed with 'X' number of tracks, or try to re-engage the creative process.

For instance, anyone who has ever written or recorded music knows that you can change something as subtle as recording location and try to energize creativity, or you can change producers and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. U2 recorded some brilliant things in Berlin 1990, but werent really able to engage the creativity until they returned back to a comfortable surrounding, Dublin, same producers, same band, different locale.

Maybe, and I think it's as logical as guess as any at this point, that the band felt the only way to maximize their creativity was to change producers, because they had "run the course" with Thomas. This isn't really a bad refelction on Thomas, he was probably the same from Day 1 as he was on the last day. But the band are the ones who write, create and record. The music has to come from them.

Going back to raw rock guitar is a great idea and at the time (Dec 2001 into 2002) they were energized by the garage rockers and wanted to capatilize on the energy and enthusiasm from Elevation and ATYCLB.

But how long can that last? How many artists just float out clone albums of themselves over and over. Pearl Jam is one of my fav bands of all time, they put out an album about every 2/3 years, but it's more of the same, and the same, they appease their fans by playing countless concerts and pounding out albums at a fast rate, but the music has suffered. There is no creative or artistic differentiation between No Code and Riot Act, that's a span of 7 years and 4 albums. Not that they are bad albums, and they aren't, but it's just repetitive, there is no energy or vitality, and certainly not what U2 want the most, relevance.

For U2 to be relevant, 25 years into their recording career, means different things to different people. What's important is what it matters to them. I think they don't want the status quo, I think they are not looking for ATYCLB part 2, much in the way they weren't looking for sequels to War, Rattle and Hum, Pop etc.

It's possible that what the band have chosen to do (go back and chase down other ideas) is either going to make this a great record or even better, a relevant record to them.

A relevant record to U2 has proven to be a damn good piece of music. Not everyone will like every song, and if they can maximize their efforts to get a ffew more great tracks onto the album, then why rush it?

What would POP have sounded like, looked like and how would it and POPmart have been recieved, had they not booked that tour and set themselves into a tight deadline?
I think POP is a good album, it could have been astonishing.
I think that the new album would have been good if released at anytime over the last year, but it could be astonishing.

Why aren't more people comfortable with that risk?

Nice post and I hope your are right. If it is astonishing it will be worth the wait. Being selfish I want to get as much music out of these guy as possible before the end, and everyday the end gets closer. Now I don't want rushed mediocore albums of course I just want them to put out rushed astonishing albums. You know, have your cake and eat kind of stuff.