New Album Ideas

[Earnie Shavers]

Yes, no more backwards. As much as I worship Achtung Baby as if it were my own firstborn child, I never want to hear Achtung Baby 2. Or Pop 2. Or Zooropa 2. Or The Joshua Tree 2. And I certainly don't want to hear a mish/mash compilation of all of the above. Something new. Something from the future.

 

[namkcuR]

I've been doing some thinking and I think I've developed a theory - I think U2 are going through their 'White Album' phase right now. As in the Beatles' White Album.

That double-album had pretty much zero flow to it, zero concept. The only concept was just to write and record the best songs they could and put them on record, rather than to make a good album, in the sense of having any kind of flow musically, lyrically, and/or conceptually. There were definitely great songs there, but only a fool would argue that WA as a whole had the kind of cohesiveness that many other Beatles' records had. What we need to remember though, is that after their White Album, the Beatles made another 'album' album - cohesiveness, flow, and all - that can and is hailed as a masterpiece. That was Abbey Road.

So I think U2 are in their 'White Album' phase now, and I think and hope that in the future, they have another 'album' album in them. We'll see.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

'Album' album.

 

[U2DMfan]

I've been doing some thinking and I think I've developed a theory - I think U2 are going through their 'White Album' phase right now. As in the Beatles' White Album.

I have always thought U2 patterned the Beatles on purpose, not to a 'tee', but followed their career path closely.
I thought that ATYCLB was sort of their White Album when it came out in terms of being a more raw effort. (silly in retrospect)

Actually I do think that's exactly what they were aiming for. They wrote tons of songs during those sessions, most of them are on both albums (more or less)

so the thing is, The Beatles got it done with one double album, U2 has done it with two, 5 years apart. All of us know the reasons, I am making the point that the pressure on U2 is only heightened with the gap.

Could you imagine a double album coming out in 2000? Finished or 'unfinished' songs, aside, it would have been brilliant and U2 would have been acclaimed as taking a pretty bold step.

As it is, I think the: 1-calculation of the band, 2-lack of production (2 albums, 22 songs in 5 years) have upped the ante, and the pressure on them to produce quality is even higher.

Basically what I mean is, ATYCLB should have been a double album with 20-24 tracks, nuts and bolts U2, released in 2000 and just be done with it. It would have at least seemed more sincere, no? The quality would have been similar, more raw, but when you are writing basic pop/rock songs, rawness is a plus.

I think the reception would be much better than what it is now, and the pressure on the band would be lessened.

When you are Tyrantosaurus Rex of the rock world and you only put out an album when the olympics is held every 4 years, you are just making it harder on yourselves, I think. It's difficult for U2 to be more prolific, I know. But look at all these songs they wrote and recorded? Why not release 20+ of them at the same time?
Start the new phase fresh, quit asking yourself to repeat yourself.

The idea HTDAAB took so long to record does not help the natural inclintion one might have, to take the songs as 'pop' tunes just written on a creative whim like the Beatles. U2 seemed to go about it the oppsoite way. So in that respect, I don't think it's their White Album as such. If the Beatles had taken those 20 odd songs and then spent 2 years honing them down to 43 minutes, 11 songs. Then not only does The White Album lose it's uniqueness, it likely loses a TON of character and freshness.

I appreciate exactly the comparison you make and basically agree. I guess my issue would have been, for U2 to be done with this phase 4 years ago, and they'd already be on to something very interesting. Instead, by the time we will see the next phase of U2, it could be as many as 5 years.

Too long of a time, IMO. Understanding all the reasons for the gaps, just saying, U2 would do themselves a favor by putting out more material, and should have in 2000, IMO. when you limit yourself to 11 song, 43 minute standards set some 30 years ago, I think auidences anymore, especially audiences listening to U2 can stand 70 minutes of music, if not more. A rock buying public, a gigantisaurus band liek U2, a double album, a true White Album-like record would have been huge and warmly recieved.

 

[U2DMfan]

yeah that was a little convuluted, but you get my drift.

in short=I think ATYCLB or Drive or Jubilee, whatever the hell they wanted to call it should have been finished off as a double album.

And right now in 2005, I think we could be enjoying a new phase of U2, and would appreciate the 2000/2001 album even more.
Because it really I think, it's the one thing the band haven't done.

They haven't released a shit load of music at one time.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Brilliant.

 

[U2DMfan]

11 album tracks
Always
Summer Rain
Are You Gonna Wait Forever
Levitate
Love You Like Mad
Flower Child
Ground Beneath Her Feet
Stateless
plus you have Tough (Sometimes), OOTS, Love and Peace
that could have materialized at the time.

that's 22 songs and not even factoring what the hell
happened to Sun, Moon, Stars and other tracks like it.

It would have been great, I think.

 

[U2girl]

Good analogy with the White album

As for new ideas - I'd like them to stay away from Eno/Lanois/Lillywhite combo for a while because I think that added somewhat to the U2 sound on the last two albums because if they do it again, they will IMO get the third huge backlash of their career. Get someone new.

I would like it if they'd do an album of music like Stateless or Ground beneath her feet, more ethereal. (maybe Mercy being kept away is a hint?)

 

[bathiu]

As for new ideas - I'd like them to stay away from Eno/Lanois/Lillywhite combo for a while because I think that added somewhat to the U2 sound on the last two albums because if they do it again, they will IMO get the third huge backlash of their career. Get someone new.

I would like it if they'd do an album of music like Stateless or Ground beneath her feet, more ethereal. (maybe Mercy being kept away is a hint?)

PEOPLE! Someone kidnaped the real U2girl and is posting under her name now... call 112... quick!!!!!!

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

I've been doing some thinking and I think I've developed a theory - I think U2 are going through their 'White Album' phase right now. As in the Beatles' White Album.

That double-album had pretty much zero flow to it, zero concept. The only concept was just to write and record the best songs they could and put them on record, rather than to make a good album, in the sense of having any kind of flow musically, lyrically, and/or conceptually. There were definitely great songs there, but only a fool would argue that WA as a whole had the kind of cohesiveness that many other Beatles' records had. What we need to remember though, is that after their White Album, the Beatles made another 'album' album - cohesiveness, flow, and all - that can and is hailed as a masterpiece. That was Abbey Road.

So I think U2 are in their 'White Album' phase now, and I think and hope that in the future, they have another 'album' album in them. We'll see.

Are you saying the White Album isn't hailed as a masterpiece?? It has to be one of the most critically acclaimed albums by anyone I would have thought..and I'd disagree about the lack of flow..in a weird way the lack of cohesion actually serves to glue the songs together..its like a weird little universe of an album.

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

11 album tracks
Always
Summer Rain
Are You Gonna Wait Forever
Levitate
Love You Like Mad
Flower Child
Ground Beneath Her Feet
Stateless
plus you have Tough (Sometimes), OOTS, Love and Peace
that could have materialized at the time.

that's 22 songs and not even factoring what the hell
happened to Sun, Moon, Stars and other tracks like it.

It would have been great, I think.

Yeah I was thinking the other day that the reason there is quite a bit of similarity to ATYCLB with HTDAAB is that they had these big pop songs like 'Species, SYCMIOYO, that were left over from 2000 and wanted people to hear them so they made a phase 2 of what they started with All That... and ditched most of the rock stuff..but yeah, if they had brought out a double album in 2000 it would have been very interesting.

 

[AtomicBono]

11 album tracks
Always
Summer Rain
Are You Gonna Wait Forever
Levitate
Love You Like Mad
Flower Child
Ground Beneath Her Feet
Stateless
plus you have Tough (Sometimes), OOTS, Love and Peace
that could have materialized at the time.

that's 22 songs and not even factoring what the hell
happened to Sun, Moon, Stars and other tracks like it.

It would have been great, I think.

Agreed, as far as I'm concerned those are all album-worthy tracks... well, Levitate needs some lyrical work (Bono REALLY likes that "freedom has a scent like the top of a newborn baby's head" line...) but I think all those others could have been on a double album... that would have been amazing.

U2girl - I totally agree, if they do something "too U2" they will suffer severe backlash, go with Jacknife Lee or someone. And ethereal like Mercy, that would be heaven.

 

[RademR]

before Chris Thomas was originally mentioned, there were some rumors about Rick Rubin producing the album.

He's friends with the band, was supposedly one of the first people they send a copy of the new album to for comments.

I think his production history is great and he is a very versatile producer, has worked with so many genres. I think the sound the he fuses with u2 could be very fresh. Definetly not "too u2."

 

[U2DMfan]

Well if I can borrow an idea from Bono about celebrity being currency, and turn into album tracks being currency.

The fact that they "spent" a track on Wild Honey, Grace or In A Little While, when the fans very well could have got Wild Honey, Grace, In A little While, FLower Child, Love You Like Mad etc. would have made each track less "expensive" if you know what I mean.

Meaning, an 11 track album pretty much is what it is.
If you don't like 3 or 4 tracks, you aren't left with much.
A 20 song work gives you sooo many chances.

Of course, the argument is "you can get all those songs anyways". I am talking about attracting new fans, making an album that truly could be a timeless masterpiece. What if people thought, "yeah ATYCLB is a nice album" what if it was twice as long? "damn U2 made a shit load of good songs". To me it's the difference in an album that really stands up against all their best work and just another good album by a great band. They have to do something out of the box to really get the 'relevance' they want. They are going to be huge if they release an album or not, me, I'd liek to see them go for the goal.

The average fan has no f'ing clue what Levitate is. Who is to say they wouldn't have loved it as much or more than all the rest? I know U2 has a tough time making album selections, but their idea of a short album is outdated. Yes, most young kids have ADD, but you aren't going to get those kids to buy much more than Vertigo on Itunes anyways. The last 5 years U2 are making b-sides as good as some album tracks, which is a first, for me at least.

The greatness of the White Album or even Infinite Sadness by the Pumpkins, is there are so many tracks to choose from. so many different sounds, it would be hard not to be very pleased with at least most of it.

Kind of useless to wish for something in hindsight, but I think it really shows what could have been an outstanding effort. ATYCLB as it is now, 5 years later is regarded by most as another good U2 album, could have been better.

What does it mean for the next album?
Well, I'd expect nothing more than 11, maybe 12 tracks.
It's just U2's method of operation.
And I don't want a double album, NOW, that would take forever for them to release. I am hoping for a Zooropa-type release.

Realistically, I think it's going to be in the ATYCLB/HTDAAB vein, maybe a little more sound oriented than those two, but still centered around the song primarily. Same breakdown of songs that U2 typically has, a couple of slow ones, a couple uptempo, a ballad or two, an acoustic song, maybe a piano song. Also, I think even though I want Eno or Flood, I think it's a near lock Lillywhite will work the next album. He didn't quit his big time job for nothing.

So I think they are defintely going to take this late-Beatles thing at least one more album. After all, they have to finish off this trilogy.

 

[U2DMfan]

before Chris Thomas was originally mentioned, there were some rumors about Rick Rubin producing the album.

He's friends with the band, was supposedly one of the first people they send a copy of the new album to for comments.

I think his production history is great and he is a very versatile producer, has worked with so many genres. I think the sound the he fuses with u2 could be very fresh. Definetly not "too u2."

the thing about Rubin is he usually has 3 or 4 projects going back to back. U2 spends so long in the studio, I doubt they would want to work with his timeline. Plus, he might be a little too hands-on for U2's tastes, that's debatable.

That said, Rubin would probably make a great sound with U2, he has produced some absolutely great stuff over the years. The sound on By The Way by RHCP is great. The Audioslave record was pretty nice sounding too. Not to mention all the older stuff or even the Johnny Cash stuff. A guy who can produce Slayer, then the Beasties, then Johnny Cash, is my type of producer.

I still think it's gonna be Lillywhite again.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Good analogy with the White album

As for new ideas - I'd like them to stay away from Eno/Lanois/Lillywhite combo for a while because I think that added somewhat to the U2 sound on the last two albums because if they do it again, they will IMO get the third huge backlash of their career. Get someone new.

I would like it if they'd do an album of music like Stateless or Ground beneath her feet, more ethereal. (maybe Mercy being kept away is a hint?)

An album that has the feel of Stateless and Ground Beneath Her Feet is sooooooo what I'd love. There's room there for big songs or rockin' songs as well, it's all in the details and the depth.

As an aside, with all this production talk, Stateless has flawless production. Probably their best overall. Perfect.

Also, the backlash is on their doorstep waiting to come in and trash the house. They are soooooo close to it. I read and hear far more negative stuff about U2 now then ever before. I think that how U2 close off their career will go a long way to determining how they are forever immortalised, and if they finish it off with 3 or 4 shallow pop albums over 10-15 years - they're fucked. If they finish it off with a couple of mindblowing, critically acclaimed, sonicaly amazing, deep albums they'll sit at the mountain top forever. They've done what they felt they needed to after Pop's failure in the US. They're the biggest band in the world and the only other band that can claim the title openly hold them up as their greatest inspiration. Like I said in another thread, the way for U2 to show some balls now is to take the risk of not being the biggest band in the world. Show all these teenagers who have been suckered in by the pied piper songs like Vertigo, with HTDAAB sitting on their shelves next Sum 41 and Gwen Steffani, what real music is. Finish it off with some amazing music that no-one will forget.

 

[LJT]

Just wondering is there anybody out there that honestly think that U2 have lost it? Or just that they have made some bad decisions producer wise/song selection wise?

 

[RademR]

no way they have lost, at least imo.

I think people are more upset with the direction they've gone in...either too "pop" or "safe", whatever.

HTDAAB is a great album to me. I would just like to see them switch it up.

But ya, some slight changes and better production and the album could have been better.

 

[AtomicBono]

An album that has the feel of Stateless and Ground Beneath Her Feet is sooooooo what I'd love. There's room there for big songs or rockin' songs as well, it's all in the details and the depth.

As an aside, with all this production talk, Stateless has flawless production. Probably their best overall. Perfect.

Also, the backlash is on their doorstep waiting to come in and trash the house. They are soooooo close to it. I read and hear far more negative stuff about U2 now then ever before. I think that how U2 close off their career will go a long way to determining how they are forever immortalised, and if they finish it off with 3 or 4 shallow pop albums over 10-15 years - they're fucked. If they finish it off with a couple of mindblowing, critically acclaimed, sonicaly amazing, deep albums they'll sit at the mountain top forever. They've done what they felt they needed to after Pop's failure in the US. They're the biggest band in the world and the only other band that can claim the title openly hold them up as their greatest inspiration. Like I said in another thread, the way for U2 to show some balls now is to take the risk of not being the biggest band in the world. Show all these teenagers who have been suckered in by the pied piper songs like Vertigo, with HTDAAB sitting on their shelves next Sum 41 and Gwen Steffani, what real music is. Finish it off with some amazing music that no-one will forget.

Agreed, totally. Except about Stateless because I... haven't exactly heard it... but Ground Beneath Her Feet is amazing, anything that has THAT feel has got to be good!

I do think that no matter what U2 does they're bound to be loved and hated. I mean, even The Beatles had critics! However, I also agree that if they do another album too similiar to the ATYCLB/HTDAAB "back to roots" feel, there will be severe backlash. Of course if they try and do something different they will also get backlash and risk losing some of their teenage audience, but it's worth the risk, because the reward will be far greater. Besides, the supposed failure Pop was what got ME hooked to U2 (I was nine at the time). There are plenty of teens looking for music that goes beyond Good Charlotte and Avril Lavigne. U2 will ALWAYS gain new fans with every album... they just have mass appeal like that.

LJT - no, I don't think that U2 has lost it. I consider How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb my fourth favourite album now, though this may change (I've been listening to October lately, oddly enough). Pop and Achtung are my two favourite albums, and I doubt anything could top Pop for me because it was the first album I really loved, but you never know. I have total faith in my boys, they could come out with another masterpiece. U2 has already broken so many rules - just the fact that they're TOGETHER, the same five guys (don't forget about Paul!), for over 25 years! That's INSANE! Never been done before...and probably never will again. So I don't believe they're bound to the rule of "bands create their masterpiece by the time they're 30, then it's downhill" or whatever. U2 certainly doesn't feel that way, otherwise they probably would have quit. They still feel they have music they need to make. Who knows, maybe U2's greatest album, their ultimate masterpiece, hasn't been created yet. I really do think Mercy hints at something far greater than what they've been doing for the last five years... people can call the song overrated, but it takes me to a higher level and I have to say, even in its possibly "unfinished" form, it is better than anything on their last two albums. There is something so open about it... open, but not obvious. I can't really put it into words, but if it's an indication of where U2 is headed, then they really could make their best album. If not, well, I've still got Pop, Achtung, and Joshua Tree to listen to, and I'm sure whatever U2 releases will at least be GOOD.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Except about Stateless because I... haven't exactly heard it... but Ground Beneath Her Feet is amazing, anything that has THAT feel has got to be good!

!!!!!!!!!

Stateless is my favourite post-Pop U2 song.

Here in Australia we had The Ground Beneath Her Feet tacked on the end of ATYCLB, and I had heard the song obviously long before ATYCLB was released, so it wasn't like it was surprise or anything, but listening through that album then going into Ground Beneath really felt like swimming out of the shallows and into the depths. I'd go through the whole album thinking, yes, yes, this is good, but not great, where is the magic of old? And then Ground comes on and there it was. Pre-ATYCLB I'd thought it was a very very good song, but not extraordinary. Coming after 11 songs of ATYCLB it was. Then I heard Stateless, which completely blew me away. It's an amazing, beautiful song. I hate to think that this may have been the natural progression post-Pop that U2 forced themselves away from.

Download Stateless RIGHT NOW! You'll cry at how good it is.

 

[LJT]

Wooo just a bit tired of the negativity really surrounding HTDAAB..its great and yeh its probably my fourth favourite too...the arguments really about the album have been done to death now...i think everyone more or less believes its a very good album, so really i don't see the point in all this overanlysing...its just a bit pointless now..yeh they could have had a different producer, different song selections..the songs though are still great songs...all i can think is that people are just a bit disappointed that there isn't anything mind-bending....still great songs on the album for us to love...

I doubt anyone wants them to experiment just for experimentations sake, that would be worse than anything they have ever done..After Pop i think they had worked whatever vein of creativity they were in out of their system, now they are bleeding a new vein and maybe the next album they will open another (its probably pretty draining on them ) Mercy is great and i hope it is maybe a sign of things to come.....at the moment though this album seems to have divided the fan community when everyone actually agrees they are good songs That is just a tad puzzling to me

In some ways i can agree with the band that this is one of their best albums yet...the songs sound the most complete on the actual album compared to some others on the like of the Joshua Tree in that it took them to be played live to become complete (but the Joshua Tree has better songs when they are played live so to speak)..Maybe thats what they mean when they say its a complete album as such.

ahh AtomicBono i could email you stateless its a beautiful song..umm if that's allowed

 

[Zoots]

Okay, that's it! I need 'Stateless' right now!

muralee_s@hotmail.com

Please?

 

[LJT]

Done and dusted

the ending is very Bowiesque well in my opinion at least...

i also really love dancin shoes...Bono sounds like an old time black female jazz singer in it

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Lordy, someone email these people! Quick!! I'm at work, so can't....


I've got no home in this world. Just gravity, luck and time.
I've got no hope in this world. Just you. And you are not mine.

It's such a perfect U2 song. Great lyrics, and Bono delivers them brilliantly, subtle changes in his voice throughout. The ghostly backup singing, whole song flows so well, Edge's guitar....

 

[Zoots]

Done and dusted

the ending is very Bowiesque well in my opinion at least...

i also really love dancin shoes...Bono sounds like an old time black female jazz singer in it

Thanks!

After listening to it once, I like it... but not as much as Levitate! But Stateless definitely sounds new and different!

 

[neutral]

Levitate

 

[Zoots]

Levitate

 

[shart1780]

They better change their sound next time around. They've released two ""down to earth" albums in a row. They need to make some real out there music next time.

I don't think they will though.

 

[Zoots]

Okay, I'm liking Stateless more the second time around! Quite a sexy number.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Yeah, Stateless isn't immediate. It will be a few listens over time, then suddenly.... you know how it goes with those kind of U2 songs.