New Music Rumors and Such, Continued

[digitize]

So, guys, how 'bout that new album speculation?

 

[Niceman]

It's more than other albums, and a lot more than most acts in their peer range.

U2 don't have any peers!

 

[last unicorn]

I disagree so much, so so much.

But let's leave it at that and I'll just ask a question instead.

Since when is 7 out 11 songs from the new album "so few"?

More than one fourth of the show was new songs. With a 30-year career, I can't see how you can expect more.

It's more than other albums, and a lot more than most acts in their peer range.

I agree. I was actually surprised with the number of NLOTH songs U2 were playing. And with the fact they actually kept all of them in the set. I don't think this can be expected by a band with their status and history. If they were notorious for playing small clubs and changing their set for every gig, I'd say yes you could expect them to play every single song from the new album, but not if you consider how big their back catalogue is. They could easily play a greatest hits show like most acts with their status and maybe throw in one or two new songs, but I think they really liked the new material, even though I also think it wasn't easy for them to find a good way of performing the new songs. As for them not "fitting" the stage - or the other way round: I've thought about that as well but I don't believe it was U2's intention to build a stage that would fit their new material. I think, with this tour especially they just wanted to have a special stage design without thinking about the new album. It's true that the stage and the feeling of the NLOTH songs don't match very well, but on the other hand I've always found it interesting how they managed to transfer the new songs into the live setting - and they really worked very well live.

 

[An Cat Gav]

I understand that TGBHF was included on some copies of the album.... but it wasn't even a new song at that point. How can it be a proper part of the album?

And yes, I think ATYCLB meanders away into nothingness....

As far as i'm aware TGBHF was recorded around the same time as some of the ATYCLB songs so it's not like it was plucked from a bygone age, (it's a real shame that it wasn't released as a single to promote TMDH but I understand why they couldn't).
I'm aware that it doesn't count as a proper song on that album to most of you, but the copy I have doesn't list it as a bonus track, simply track 12, so in my book that makes it a bona fide ATYCLB song, ditto Fast Cars on HTDAAB.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

So, guys, how 'bout that new album speculation?

Yeah, uh, 'bout that ... Bono dropped the CD in the toilet.

 

[lazarus]

I'm aware that it doesn't count as a proper song on that album to most of you, but the copy I have doesn't list it as a bonus track, simply track 12, so in my book that makes it a bona fide ATYCLB song, ditto Fast Cars on HTDAAB.

You can think of it however you want. But you're wrong. And you're contradicting yourself by saying that you know they doesn't count as proper songs followed by saying they're "bona fide" album songs. How can those thoughts co-exist?

The band described cutting Fast Cars and Mercy from the album in an interview. The Ground Beneath Her Feet has lyrics written by SOMEONE ELSE, was originally intended as a single-only release, and wound up coming out on a soundtrack album before ATYCLB. It's also completely aesthetically different from what's on that album (and one could say the same thing about Fast Cars, which would sound more at home on No Line).

There is a definitive tracklist, a complete series of songs that everyone around the world can experience as a whole. An extra song tacked onto the end doesn't automatically make it part of that sequence, just as the bonus disc that came with U.S. copies of ATYCLB containing Summer Rain isn't meant to be part of it.

When you have a re-issue of a classic album and they include bonus demos, remixes, outtakes, whatever, is that supposed to be part of the album too? Because, hey, it's on the same disc! It's printed on the back of the case!

No.

 

[An Cat Gav]

You can think of it however you want. But you're wrong. And you're contradicting yourself by saying that you know they doesn't count as proper songs followed by saying they're "bona fide" album songs. How can those thoughts co-exist?

The band described cutting Fast Cars and Mercy from the album in an interview. The Ground Beneath Her Feet has lyrics written by SOMEONE ELSE, was originally intended as a single-only release, and wound up coming out on a soundtrack album before ATYCLB. It's also completely aesthetically different from what's on that album (and one could say the same thing about Fast Cars, which would sound more at home on No Line).

There is a definitive tracklist, a complete series of songs that everyone around the world can experience as a whole. An extra song tacked onto the end doesn't automatically make it part of that sequence, just as the bonus disc that came with U.S. copies of ATYCLB containing Summer Rain isn't meant to be part of it.

When you have a re-issue of a classic album and they include bonus demos, remixes, outtakes, whatever, is that supposed to be part of the album too? Because, hey, it's on the same disc! It's printed on the back of the case!

No.

It's early in the morning here and I am a little hungover so sorry for the contradiction.
Most CD's state if a track is a bonus or not, these aren't labelled as such.
I meant to say in my last post that both albums suffer so much without the inclusion of Fast Cars and TGBHF that I can't bear to think of them without them. Once again sorry but my headache distracted me.
Anyway, no need to get so irate, who rattled your cage anyway?

 

[coolian2]

You can think of it however you want. But you're wrong. And you're contradicting yourself by saying that you know they doesn't count as proper songs followed by saying they're "bona fide" album songs. How can those thoughts co-exist?

The band described cutting Fast Cars and Mercy from the album in an interview. The Ground Beneath Her Feet has lyrics written by SOMEONE ELSE, was originally intended as a single-only release, and wound up coming out on a soundtrack album before ATYCLB. It's also completely aesthetically different from what's on that album (and one could say the same thing about Fast Cars, which would sound more at home on No Line).

There is a definitive tracklist, a complete series of songs that everyone around the world can experience as a whole. An extra song tacked onto the end doesn't automatically make it part of that sequence, just as the bonus disc that came with U.S. copies of ATYCLB containing Summer Rain isn't meant to be part of it.

When you have a re-issue of a classic album and they include bonus demos, remixes, outtakes, whatever, is that supposed to be part of the album too? Because, hey, it's on the same disc! It's printed on the back of the case!

No.

is it that that egregious to you that a number of us choose to listen to the album and the bonus track instead of stopping on that snooze called grace? (also the name of a woman).

if the rest of the album was within a mile of being as good as the bonus track we wouldn't cling onto it as much, i'm sure.

 

[mama cass]

i love the track "Grace", but also consider TGBHF to be the perfect album closer for ATYCLB... is this allowed?

 

[mirrorballman]

i love the track "Grace", but also consider TGBHF to be the perfect album closer for ATYCLB... is this allowed?

No. Go stand in the corner.

 

[coolian2]

i love the track "Grace", but also consider TGBHF to be the perfect album closer for ATYCLB... is this allowed?

i'm happy with it!



i've done a bit of hunting around, and i got atyclb before i was a u2 fan who knew what the bonus tracks etc etc were, and sure enough, there's nothing about my copy to suggest tgbhf is a bonus track. i even remember the import into itunes made no note of it being anything out of the ordinary.

 

[lazarus]

is it that that egregious to you that a number of us choose to listen to the album and the bonus track instead of stopping on that snooze called grace? (also the name of a woman).

if the rest of the album was within a mile of being as good as the bonus track we wouldn't cling onto it as much, i'm sure.

Hey, I know the album is weak. And I'm not saying people should stop the disc before the song comes on, or wait a while before continuing (although if I'm not mistaken, there's a longer pause put in between Grace/TGBHF and Yahweh/Fast Cars than the other songs on the albums). They should just be aware that it isn't really part of the album. A band like U2 wouldn't choose to end an artistic statement with an optional track.

i've done a bit of hunting around, and i got atyclb before i was a u2 fan who knew what the bonus tracks etc etc were, and sure enough, there's nothing about my copy to suggest tgbhf is a bonus track. i even remember the import into itunes made no note of it being anything out of the ordinary.

Well how would it? As I said above, there are plenty of re-releases with bonus tracks that load into iTunes with the same lack of designation.

 

[An Cat Gav]

Hey, I know the album is weak. And I'm not saying people should stop the disc before the song comes on, or wait a while before continuing (although if I'm not mistaken, there's a longer pause put in between Grace/TGBHF and Yahweh/Fast Cars than the other songs on the albums). They should just be aware that it isn't really part of the album. A band like U2 wouldn't choose to end an artistic statement with an optional track.





Well how would it? As I said above, there are plenty of re-releases with bonus tracks that load into iTunes with the same lack of designation.

I got a copy of Pop when I was in Tokyo and it features Holy Joe as the last song, it's described as a bonus track on the back cover.

 

[coolian2]

Well how would it? As I said above, there are plenty of re-releases with bonus tracks that load into iTunes with the same lack of designation.

the method of operations with u2, both in itunes and on the back covers re: re-releases is to state that it's a bonus track, for what it's worth.

 

[mirrorballman]

I'm not saying people should stop the disc before the song comes on, or wait a while before continuing ... They should just be aware that it isn't really part of the album.

I have to agree with this. There's a tracklist core for each album that gets recorded and is considered as "the record," anything beyond that (written or unspecified) is bonus material.

I have CD's from Asia ending Achtung Baby with Lady with the spinning head, ending POP with Holy Joe, ending No Line On The Horizon with the faster mix of the title track. Same goes for Fast cars and The Ground Beneath Her Feet. So they definitely shouldn't be considered as album tracks. TGBHF wasn't even meant for ATYCLB since it was written 3 years earlier for Million Dollar Hotel, but you've already mentioned this before.

Nevertheless, as pointed out correctly: No ones saying "don't listen to the track when the album officially ends!" Heck, if you want, you can mix Waka Waka at the end of each album just to be more upbeat after Grace!

 

[coolian2]

I have to agree with this. There's a tracklist core for each album that gets recorded and is considered as "the record," anything beyond that (written or unspecified) is bonus material.

I have CD's from Asia ending Achtung Baby with Lady with the spinning head, ending POP with Holy Joe, ending No Line On The Horizon with the faster mix of the title track. Same goes for Fast cars and The Ground Beneath Her Feet. So they definitely shouldn't be considered as album tracks. TGBHF wasn't even meant for ATYCLB since it was written 3 years earlier for Million Dollar Hotel, but you've already mentioned this before.

i agree with this too. it's just that of all of their bonus tracks, the ground beneath her feet actually fits in its position both thematically and musically. it's (in my opinion, obviously) much easier buy into the thought process that it belongs there.

i hate getting into this debate, because at it's very roots it's idiotic.

 

[An Cat Gav]

i agree with this too. it's just that of all of their bonus tracks, the ground beneath her feet actually fits in its position both thematically and musically. it's (in my opinion, obviously) much easier buy into the thought process that it belongs there.

i hate getting into this debate, because at it's very roots it's idiotic.

I go along with this too.

 

[mirrorballman]

i agree with this too. it's just that of all of their bonus tracks, the ground beneath her feet actually fits in its position both thematically and musically. it's (in my opinion, obviously) much easier buy into the thought process that it belongs there.

Fair enough.

i hate getting into this debate, because at it's very roots it's idiotic.

No I don't want to go on for pages either, just wanted to share what my view about the matter was. And I agree that at its core it's not worth to get into an argument about something like that.

 

[Tyagu_Anaykus]

7... Sometimes 6 (when the title track or "Unknown Caller" were omitted). Do you think that +/- 28% of new songs is enough?

So, to you they should always release an 2CD album with 24songs... Only then It would be 100% new songs??


Playing 7 or 6 from a new album is very, very good.

 

[Tyagu_Anaykus]

Yeah, uh, 'bout that ... Bono dropped the CD in the toilet.

Does that means it will be a CRAP album?

 

[mirrorballman]

Playing 7 or 6 from a new album is very, very good.

This.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Does that means it will be a CRAP album?

Not on my watch it won't be!

 

[mikal]

So, guys, how 'bout that new album speculation?

glad i'm not the only person who's annoyed everytime they read this thread.

 

[Catman]

Does that means it will be a CRAB album?

 

[Registered Dude]

according to Lillywhite's July 16 tweet, he's heading in to mix the Beady Eye album, having finished his vacation.

doesn't really sound like he's been doing anything with U2

 

[schnumi]

according to Lillywhite's July 16 tweet, he's heading in to mix the Beady Eye album, having finished his vacation.

doesn't really sound like he's been doing anything with U2

Good, didn't you know Flood was the producer of the new music/album?

O i wish it was true.

 

[mikal]

this is my current new album prediction:

- U2 is going to play 2-3 new songs throughout the 2010 tour. they're going to gauge both fan and public reaction. if the reaction is extremely positive, they're going to release the album in time for Xmas (assuming they have an album ready). if the fan reaction is not so positive, they're going to go to Plan B and cram in the studio in early 2011 and try to get the album out before the US tour.

this way, U2 appeases the fans by playing some new material to hold us over while playing it safe on their end.

 

[Screwtape2]

- U2 is going to play 2-3 new songs throughout the 2010 tour. they're going to gauge both fan and public reaction. if the reaction is extremely positive, they're going to release the album in time for Xmas (assuming they have an album ready). if the fan reaction is not so positive, they're going to go to Plan B and cram in the studio in early 2011 and try to get the album out before the US tour.

If the band were to play a few new songs what exactly would be considered a positive reaction by the fans? I think it is fairly common for an audience to be less active and energetic while taking in a song they are hearing for the first time. How the band interprets or misinterprets the reaction is my one worry in testing songs.

What would everyone else consider a positive audience reaction to a song that is new to everyone or almost everyone (in shows after Turin)?

 

[digitize]

I think their new album will be released in 2026, and it will consist entirely of Rod Stewart covers.

 

[God Part III]

I think their new album will be released in 2026, and it will consist entirely of Rod Stewart covers.

Dreams do come true