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?
