Should U2 work exclusively with Eno and Lanois from now on ?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
U2girl

U2girl

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Sep 28, 2000
Messages
21,111
Location
slovenija
The few albums they did without them after UF - Rattle and Hum, Pop, Bomb - mostly got shot down. Even All that... - while not as well received as the other three - produced a classic U2 song and a very good opening half. They used several producers on Pop and Bomb, and it seems sessions (except AB) tend to go more smoothly with their dynamic duo producers - and after initial Rick Rubin sessions, they turned back to them on this next album, even co-writing with them.

That said, do you think U2 should "adopt" Eno and Lanois for all their albums in the future, or would you like to see them work with someone else again ?
 
I disagree with the notion that Atomic Bomb got shot down. It was extremely well received in the public and seems to be as divisive as Pop on here.

As for whether or not they should exclusively use Lanois or Eno, I dunno. I'd like to hear this album first to see where they pushed them to go this time before I make that judgment.
 
I do think they should just work with Eno and Lanois
in a way whatever is it they exactly add to the band has become a part of the band

also, whenever they do not work with Eno / Lanois we get the situation that they are not satisfied with the producer(s) they do work with, change their thoughts at some point and we get an incoherent batch of songs
 
I'd like to know in what world winning a Grammy for Album of the Year is part of getting shot down. It also won Grammys for 3 separate songs on the album.

Also:

Ranked best album of 2004 by USA Today
Ranked best album of 2004 by Paste Magazine
Ranked #1 in best albums of 2004 by The New York Times
Ranked #2 in best albums of 2004 by The Los Angeles Times (Robert Hilburn)
Ranked #4 in best albums of 2004 by Q magazine
Ranked #3 in liveDaily's top albums of 2004
Ranked #8 in Village Voice 2004 Pazz & Jop Poll (a survey of 793 critics)
Ranked #23 in Top40-charts.com's best albums of 2004
Ranked #25 in PopMatters.com's best albums of 2004
Ranked #8 in best albums of 2004 by Village Voice
 
lazarus said:
I'd like to know in what world winning a Grammy for Album of the Year is part of getting shot down. It also won Grammys for 3 separate songs on the album.

Also:

Ranked best album of 2004 by USA Today
Ranked best album of 2004 by Paste Magazine
Ranked #1 in best albums of 2004 by The New York Times
Ranked #2 in best albums of 2004 by The Los Angeles Times (Robert Hilburn)
Ranked #4 in best albums of 2004 by Q magazine
Ranked #3 in liveDaily's top albums of 2004
Ranked #8 in Village Voice 2004 Pazz & Jop Poll (a survey of 793 critics)
Ranked #23 in Top40-charts.com's best albums of 2004
Ranked #25 in PopMatters.com's best albums of 2004
Ranked #8 in best albums of 2004 by Village Voice
Click to expand...

Grammys suck, remember the heat U2 took here for that win ? :shrug:

Yes the critics did like it, roughly in the same ratio of positive:negative reviews as ATYCLB from what I remember; though there were more "rehash, Stones-like" comments in Bomb reviews. Also the tour I think was more critisized compared to Elevation.

By "Bomb shot down" I refer mostly to the - especially internet - U2 fans reaction. Yes, its two predecessors do have their critics too but it's more relentless with Bomb.
 
lazarus said:
I'd like to know in what world winning a Grammy for Album of the Year is part of getting shot down. It also won Grammys for 3 separate songs on the album.

Also:

Ranked best album of 2004 by USA Today
Ranked best album of 2004 by Paste Magazine
Ranked #1 in best albums of 2004 by The New York Times
Ranked #2 in best albums of 2004 by The Los Angeles Times (Robert Hilburn)
Ranked #4 in best albums of 2004 by Q magazine
Ranked #3 in liveDaily's top albums of 2004
Ranked #8 in Village Voice 2004 Pazz & Jop Poll (a survey of 793 critics)
Ranked #23 in Top40-charts.com's best albums of 2004
Ranked #25 in PopMatters.com's best albums of 2004
Ranked #8 in best albums of 2004 by Village Voice
Click to expand...


yeah um....it won every possible award it was could have won at the grammy's, there's no minimizing that...taking all things into consideration, no matter how you look at it, you can't say that HTDAAB was "shot down"....combine the album with the tour and it was actually a major success :shrug:

but yeah, to answer this question fairly, we'd have to hear the new album first....
 
U2girl said:
Grammys suck, remember the heat U2 took here for that win ? :shrug:

Yes the critics did like it, roughly in the same ratio of positive:negative reviews as ATYCLB from what I remember; though there were more "rehash, Stones-like" comments in Bomb reviews. Also the tour I think was more critisized compared to Elevation.

By "Bomb shot down" I refer mostly to the - especially internet - U2 fans reaction. Yes, its two predecessors do have their critics too but it's more relentless with Bomb.
Click to expand...


Seems to me that you are taking into account the opinions on here a little too strongly. There is a very vocal minority that seems to complain a lot in the U2 online world. This was true of the old WIRE and it remains true of today's Interference. I think the comments you are seeing in this thread suggest that when the more silent posters actually write, they aren't nearly as dismissive of "Bomb" as that very loud minority.

I will also say this - I saw Zoo Station, a U2 cover band, last week. They performed "Vertigo" and EVERYONE in the room was bouncing and hopping to the song. It received a far better response than "Beautiful Day". I'm starting to think that "Vertigo" may one day be a more beloved song and considered a real rocker by U2! If the album or lead single were so hated by fans and casual fans, I doubt the album would have enjoyed the sales and successes it had.

Going back to your original question, should U2 always work with Eno/Lanois? It does seem that those two producers get the most out of U2. They help U2 redirect their focus - a feat accomplished three times. They push U2 to be more creative and innovative. They push Bono to sing his best. And while I always feel there are a few clunkers on the Eno/Lanois albums, they have contained some brilliant tracks. However, I do feel that by working with other producers, such as Lillywhite, Flood, etc., U2 get to mix things up and remain more fresh.

Given we are nearing the end of U2's career, it's difficult to say how many more albums are left (especially at the one album every four years pace). If U2 decide to focus more on music, less on touring and retire with some great stuff, without worrying about sales, then Eno/Lanois is the way to go for the rest of their careers. However, if U2 like their current pace of music production and want to keep challenging themselves, then I think they will have no choice but to use other producers as well.
 
The Bomb was not shot down. Despite its flaws, it is still a good record and much more satisfying that the Eno/Lanois ATYCLB IMHO.

And Pop is an amazing record. So, no, they should not work exclusively with them.
 
This is an interesting question. I guess I don't really care what they do as far as producers, since I feel the band always seems to know when they've done it right or not. However, as they get older they are naturally less inclined to take risks on new and unknown collaborators, which tends to lead them back to Lanois and Eno.

I can think of two reasons why they tend to return to the 'Dynamic Duo':

1) Clearly, on Pop, they ran into some problems with the producers and engineers. They had made a point of not working with E & L on this record, but then found it hard to finish it off and keep on schedule. We all know that the relative "failure" of Pop weighs heavy on the minds of U2, and they're very afraid of making a studio-schedule mistake of that magnitude again. (As an addendum to that point, I think -- although HTTDAAB is brilliant and the band were very pleased with it -- they also were thinking of the Pop problem when they got rid of the 1st producer and brought in Lillywhite to "save" the record. I'm exaggerating the scale of the problem, but I'm sure they are damn scared these days of trusting new people with their career products.)

2) U2 are legends in their own time. Frankly, a lot of producers -- except the ones they've already worked with -- are bound to be intimidated by them. They seem to thrive on producers who are more like collaborators (like Lanois) than ones who simply offer advice and twist the knobs (like Jimmy Iovine). So, bringing in new people means it's less likely that the chosen producer(s) will pick up a guitar and have a loose jam with U2. Besides, as we know the U2-guys are somewhat embarrassed by their own musical deficiencies and tend to be more comfortable with people that know them.


For all of this, I would still like to see the band work with new people from time to time, just to keep things fresh.
 
They should not work exclusively with Eno and Lanois, no. Never want to paint yourself into a corner, artistically. No good for anyone.

I still think that they should work with Dave Fridmann (former bass player in Mercury Rev, and equally renowned/reviled producer of records by Sleater-Kinney, Weezer, Flaming Lips, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, and Sparklehorse, among others), at some point. It could well be a disaster, but the results would almost certainly be interesting. ...And I don't think it's possible that Fridmann would be intimidated by them, either. I'd love to hear what'd happen if somebody like that crazy bastard pushed this band to the brink, if not all the way off the edge. Could be insane.
 
If you shout... said:
They should not work exclusively with Eno and Lanois, no. Never want to paint yourself into a corner, artistically. No good for anyone.
Click to expand...

But Eno/Lanois albums, whatever we may think of them, certainly differ among themselves - even if they used the same producers.

I liked what Godrich did with that Walk on single version; was he the one that, upon working with McCartney, basically fired his backing band from the studio sessions ? He doesn't seem like someone that gets intimated by U2. Any quotes how they got along during the making of Walk on single ?
 
I kind of think that maybe they should. Most of their best work has been produced by them, certainly their best albums. They ae almost like members of the group, they contribute more musica;ly than Larry I'm sure. U2 and Eno-Lanois are a perfect combination.
I would love them to mix it up a bit and have other producers but it has rarely workrd out that well.
Ideally I would love them to produce their own stuff, but who knows how that would turn out.
 
U2girl said:
But Eno/Lanois albums, whatever we may think of them, certainly differ among themselves - even if they used the same producers.

I liked what Godrich did with that Walk on single version; was he the one that, upon working with McCartney, basically fired his backing band from the studio sessions ? He doesn't seem like someone that gets intimated by U2. Any quotes how they got along during the making of Walk on single ?
Click to expand...

Hey may not have even worked with them directly. If it was just a remix, all they had to do was give him the master tapes. I'm sure they respect his work regardless.
 
Good shout on Goodrich, I'd like to hear something by them produced by him. I would have liked to have heard more from William Orbit as I loved what he did with Electrical Storm.
 
Zooropa and Pop, 2 of their most interesting albums were not produced by the team of Eno & Lanois. So I say no.
 
They've had two good projects with U2, one that wasn't as good on U2's part, and one that they fucked up on. I think, if anything, they need to look outside the box a little more, try something new.
 
There so many other producers I would be interested in seeing U2 work with that it would be extremely disappointing for me if they decided to paint themselves into that particular corner. It would also be out-of-character for them, especially considering their relatively recent propensity to challenge themselves with each passing record.
 
No, as awesome as Eno and Lanois are together and separately, I have to agree with not putting yourself in a corner. I think it would make an interesting album somewhere down the line if they just produced one themselves, or let The Edge take care of it.
 
I don't agree. The albums Eno and Lanois have worked together on are all VERY different. So I don't know what kind of corner you guys could be talking about. As Eno is something who probably loathes repeating himself, and Lanois attempts to stay as true to the artist's muse as possible, this combination isn't going to result in something stagnant.

Of course we'll all have to re-evaluate our positions once the new album comes out, but I'm not too worried.
 
As someone else hear mentioned it seems to be a real problem for U2 to find others that can really get them going creatively. I think it is a problem of people either being intimidated or just to used to dealing with the typical fragile egos of most stars. I think Lillywhite mentioned that producers often have to do a lot of mollycoddling but that U2 just needs a swift kick up the ass. Bono always says that Steve's favorite line is "Just do your job." Lillywhite seems to be a closer for them, someone who will come in towards the end and say enough already just finish the damned thing. Eno and Lanois know best how to jumpstart the band's creativity. Bono talks about how when Lanois is in the room they play better just because he's there. Eno is good at getting them out of ruts and sparking new ideas. Bono especially has a brain that works at warp speed and there are probably not many who can keep up with him much less keep him stimulated. If Bono gets bored that's not good. I think that may be part of what happened with Chris Thomas given Bono's comment that "you can only go so far with riff-o-rama". Also I think it might be a factor in them not getting back with Rubin. Bono's comment was that "Rubin was very silent, but it was the loudest silence you ever heard." To someone like Bono who loves a good arguement, silence might seem very offputting even if it is communicative. I can't help thinking it might be too much like a fathers disapproval or percieved disaproval which would not be very conducive to creativity. The awe factor is definitely a problem in some respects as I remember Bono talking about a new engineer that they had when working on Bomb who had been a fan for 20 years and Bono was amused watching this guy watch them and discover as he put it "just how crap we really are behind closed doors." Bono thought it was fascinating watching this realization overtake the young guy. No matter what other qualities any potential producers might have the most important I think will be the confidence to browbeat them when necessary and the wisdom to know when to let them be.

Dana
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
U2 Show Logistics Question/Theories
Replies
7
Views
741
lazarus
lazarus
cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
D
Other bands/artists who've worked with as many great producers as U2?
Replies
4
Views
485
lazarus
lazarus
MrsSpringsteen
Billie Eilish Thought U2 Was From Scranton
Replies
1
Views
729
lazarus
lazarus
D
Paul Epworth provides some interesting insight into U2's songwriting process.
Replies
24
Views
2K
An Cat Gav
An Cat Gav

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom