U2+Double Album=Greatest Band? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong > Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-17-2002, 03:03 AM   #1
Forum Moderator
The Goal Is Soul
 
spanisheyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Miami, New Orleans, London, Belfast, and Berlin
Posts: 861
Local Time: 03:01 AM
U2+Double Album=Greatest Band?

Some of the greatest bands of all time have released successful double albums of original material, including The Beatles (White Album), The Rolling Stones (Exile on Main Street), The Who (Quadrophenia/Tommy), and Led Zeppelin (Physical Graffiti).

Would you ever want to see U2 follow in the same fashion as the greatest bands ever and release a double album of original material, or would you have them continue to make successful single albums?

Could you ever see U2 release a double album with guest musicians, or would critics view this as a copying of sorts in the vain of the above classic albums?

And has U2 not releasing a double album of original material been a detriment to their career, or is the double album an experience of the past as is the case of the classic bands above?

Chris
__________________

__________________
"The truth is when that singer is saying something that comes from right down within him, and it affects you right down within you. That's when you start talking about great music, as distinct from nice music." -- Bono
spanisheyes is offline  
Old 06-17-2002, 03:52 AM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
elevatedmole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: On a backwards river
Posts: 3,546
Local Time: 06:01 AM
Normal Re: U2+Double Album=Greatest Band?

Quote:
Originally posted by spanisheyes

Would you ever want to see U2 follow in the same fashion as the greatest bands ever and release a double album of original material, or would you have them continue to make successful single albums?

Could you ever see U2 release a double album with guest musicians, or would critics view this as a copying of sorts in the vain of the above classic albums?
I do NOT want to see U2 release any album full of guest musicians. Seriously. I think it's a terrible idea. Collaborations here and there are perfectly fine, but an album?

Anyway.. I doubt they will. However, the Joshua Tree was going to be a double album originally, so perhaps not, but... who knows what to expect?
__________________

elevatedmole is offline  
Old 06-17-2002, 08:37 AM   #3
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,798
Local Time: 01:01 PM

Hello,

What about Rattle and Hum?
It was a double (vinyl) album, including songs with guest musicians.
U2 said they were going back to the roots of American music with that album and critics viewed it as a copying of sorts in the vain of the above classic albums (and artists).

So for U2 it's "been there, done that"

C ya!

Marty

P.S. IIRC, Exile On Main Street is not totally original material, it also has some covers
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 06-17-2002, 09:06 AM   #4
Forum Moderator
The Goal Is Soul
 
spanisheyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Miami, New Orleans, London, Belfast, and Berlin
Posts: 861
Local Time: 03:01 AM
Popmartijn, you seemed to have missed the part in my post about the double album being original material. Rattle and Hum was made up of half new material, and half live material, and is actually considered a soundtrack. It is true that Rattle and Hum had guest musicians on it, so it may be the closest thing to a double album as described above with the forementioned bands.

What I was talking about is an album made up of 16 to 18 songs never released before. And in the case of Exile on Main Street, it is true that is has some covers, and U2 could easily make a double album and include covers if they want. I guess what I was getting at is that some of the greatest bands ever released double albums, and pushed themselves creatively with the freedom afforded them by the releasing of a double album, and was just wondering if this is in U2's future as well.

Chris

Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn
Hello,

What about Rattle and Hum?
It was a double (vinyl) album, including songs with guest musicians.
U2 said they were going back to the roots of American music with that album and critics viewed it as a copying of sorts in the vain of the above classic albums (and artists).

So for U2 it's "been there, done that"

C ya!

Marty

P.S. IIRC, Exile On Main Street is not totally original material, it also has some covers
__________________
"The truth is when that singer is saying something that comes from right down within him, and it affects you right down within you. That's when you start talking about great music, as distinct from nice music." -- Bono
spanisheyes is offline  
Old 06-17-2002, 09:59 AM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 07:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by spanisheyes

What I was talking about is an album made up of 16 to 18 songs never released before. And in the case of Exile on Main Street, it is true that is has some covers, and U2 could easily make a double album and include covers if they want. I guess what I was getting at is that some of the greatest bands ever released double albums, and pushed themselves creatively with the freedom afforded them by the releasing of a double album, and was just wondering if this is in U2's future as well.

Chris

I wonder if a double album would not be pushing themselves creatively but spreading themselves too thin? From my understanding, they could have easily released a double album for the Joshua Tree, but they wanted to make it as tight and coherent as possible and therefore many songs went to the backburner (used for Bsides or maybe R&H) and only the BEST were used for JT. From this example it seems to me that double albums may be not as well done as U2 aim to do- as far as an overall coherent theme and better music released to the public. For instance, if Always had been included on a second half album to go with ATYCLB, I think it would lessen Beautiful Day. "Less is more" in that instance.

I could be totally misunderstanding the idea of a double album- but I do not think that in any recording session U2 have come out with enough solid songs for a double album. Should they try? If it ain't broke... but on the other hand I love to see them challenge themselves to try and make enough songs for two albums, but I think in terms of time that would take way too long, and this is a band that needs to be on the road with their music and their people. And I would personally rather have an album with 12 or so of the BEST songs they can make with "NO" flaws than a double album with decent songs.

As far as a collaboration album-
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 06-17-2002, 10:34 AM   #6
Forum Moderator
The Goal Is Soul
 
spanisheyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Miami, New Orleans, London, Belfast, and Berlin
Posts: 861
Local Time: 03:01 AM
Re: Re: U2+Double Album=Greatest Band?

Quote:
Originally posted by elevatedmole
However, the Joshua Tree was going to be a double album originally, so perhaps not, but... who knows what to expect?
Even though the Joshua Tree album was supposed to be a double album, and I believe that the b-sides that we saw from The Joshua Tree would have been worthy to be on The Joshua Tree. I believe that the reason we never saw the album actually become a double album is that it might have been musically a risk for U2 at the time. Even though many of us in this forum love The Unforgettable Fire, it was not the success that U2 were looking for, and many would argue that it was The Joshua Tree that saved U2's career, and helped them to become not just another mediocre band like we saw in the 80's.

I, for one, would love to see U2 make a double album of material that would stretch them musically, and allow them to creatively make an album that would take on different styles of music, as well as even allowing the Edge to sing a few songs himself. Sometimes I think U2 worry too much about what their fans think, or have to much pressure to make the next great album, or make an album that their record company will endorse and support. Haven't U2 proved themselves enough to be allowed to take the risk of a double album that would incorporate many elements that make U2 great, including as mentioned, the Edge's vocals, instrumentals, as well as exploring other styles of music, including irish, blues, and whatever else inspires them?

Chris
__________________
"The truth is when that singer is saying something that comes from right down within him, and it affects you right down within you. That's when you start talking about great music, as distinct from nice music." -- Bono
spanisheyes is offline  
Old 06-17-2002, 10:38 AM   #7
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 85
Local Time: 11:01 AM
Unlike The White Album, Blonde on Blonde, London Calling, Exile on Main St, The River, Sign o' the Times, et al, U2's R&H does lean on live material to fill up a lot of its double-album-sized space, so in a crucial way it isn't a true double. But I think it's the only shot we're going to get at a double album from U2 -- they are too far along in their career now to consider one again. A double album has to be done at the just the right time in a band's career -- when they're at their most fertile. Clearly, for U2 that time was the late '80s; the amount of material they produced in 1987 and 1988 is just staggering, in quality as well as quantity. The double-album question was obviously on their minds: as someone has pointed out, JT was originally supposed to be a double (and would have been a damn good one, too).

Neil Young is another major (and prolific) rocker who never made a true double album. Like U2, the closest he came was a two-LP movie soundtrack that combined new material with live recordings (Journey into the Past -- as far as I know it's never been available on CD, which is probably fortunate...)
Am I Zoo is offline  
Old 06-17-2002, 03:25 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
wertsie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: on a country road...
Posts: 4,752
Local Time: 06:01 AM
....Hmmm...Maybe years down the road, after they're long gone as sort of a nostalgia thing...I dunno...
wertsie is offline  
Old 06-18-2002, 03:07 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:01 AM
Spanisheyes,
Ummmmmmmm the Joshua Tree did not save U2s career because it did not need to be saved at the time. The Unforgettable Fire was a massive success worldwide cracking the top 10 or top 20 of every country with a chart then. It was also the first U2 album to be released in every country and territory possible. Before this, U2 had only had success in English speaking countries along with the Netherlands and Sweden.

The band went from playing single nights in Theaters on the War tour to 3,000 people, to playing multiple nights in 20,000 seat arena's on the Unforgettable Fire Tour! The band sold more T-shirts and other Fan items than all but the top 5 artist back then.

The Joshua Tree took U2 from being perhaps one of the top 20 bands in the world at the time to being the unquestioned #1 artist, band or singer, in the world.

The only album that saved U2s career was the War album because after the poor sales of Boy and October, the label would have dropped them or not supported them if War had flunked.
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-18-2002, 05:33 PM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
wertsie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: on a country road...
Posts: 4,752
Local Time: 06:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The only album that saved U2s career was the War album because after the poor sales of Boy and October, the label would have dropped them or not supported them if War had flunked.
wertsie is offline  
Old 06-20-2002, 05:58 PM   #11
Babyface
 
FLYNNTASTIC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Boston, MA USA
Posts: 26
Local Time: 06:01 AM
I think the music industry feels double albums have gone the way of vinyl. (I know someone is going to point out that Smashing Pumpkins album a few years ago!)

From a financial point... why release a double 'more expensive' album that many 'average fans' wouldn't buy because of the extra price... when they can release two albums over a longer time span.. and pump out more singles.. and two tours... and more merch... etc...

Money makes the world go round....

and unfortunatley.. the music industry is driven by money...it's a business like any other...
FLYNNTASTIC is offline  
Old 06-21-2002, 12:41 AM   #12
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,044
Local Time: 01:01 PM
personally I feel most albums that clock in over 45 minutes already are too long

I think Dylan's Blonde on Blonde is great, but I can't evenremember the last time I managed to listen to the whole album in one go
__________________

__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×