U2: Protecting this House since 1976 -> AKA, more new album talk - Page 7 - 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 08-12-2013, 08:53 PM   #121
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 02:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by *I* View Post
I only brought it up because we're about to hear the 'new era of U2'. And Im afraid its going to be more of the same, thats all. It all feels a lot like when we elected Obama and everyone was on the wagon for change and hope. Then sadly the fact that it will never change becomes more glaringly obvious.
This take is HOT. It's melting my keyboard, this hot take.
__________________

PhilsFan is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 08:57 PM   #122
*I*
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 123
Local Time: 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazarus View Post
You penetrated the secret U2 conspiracy!

Give me a break. You're suggesting that the band members are outright lying to press and fans about their creative control, and that's out of line as far as I'm concerned.

You deserve no respect around here for your bullshit theories.
How is it a theory dude? They went soft. Obviously. Who doesnt agree with that? Now the question is when. Id say right around 2000. What happened in 2000? Island fell and Interscope took over.

Do you not see the train of thought here?

I think youre immensely underestimating the influence and control Iovine and the rest of the higher ups have at that label. Its the biggest label in the world. U2 is just a band. Its not even close.
__________________

*I* is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 08:59 PM   #123
Blue Crack Addict
 
mikal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Black Lodge
Posts: 26,607
Local Time: 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by *I* View Post
Im pretty sure you have no idea who I am because I have no idea what youre talking about. Could you quote something 'I' said from that?
Wait. Then who the hell are you?

PS. Do you like Lost?
mikal is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 09:01 PM   #124
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 276
Local Time: 04:21 PM
The lyrics went soft. And more generic.

The problem is the music went soft and more generic too.

I think we can't blame the record company for that.

U2 simply lost a great deal of the inspiration they used to have.
Van Cleef is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 09:15 PM   #125
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
jeevey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Rue St. Divine
Posts: 4,096
Local Time: 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by *I* View Post
U2 is just a band.
Is anyone else laughing at this a little bit? Surely there aren't many artists in the world that have maintained their leverage with their labels as well as U2, have demanded or gotten the same creative control, or have the sales power and influence to push the label around. They are not "just a band" in any ordinary business sense.
jeevey is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 09:24 PM   #126
*I*
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 123
Local Time: 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikal View Post
Wait. Then who the hell are you?

PS. Do you like Lost?
the first episode was ok, it was too abc family for my tastes though.
*I* is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 09:40 PM   #127
*I*
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 123
Local Time: 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeevey View Post
Is anyone else laughing at this a little bit? Surely there aren't many artists in the world that have maintained their leverage with their labels as well as U2, have demanded or gotten the same creative control, or have the sales power and influence to push the label around. They are not "just a band" in any ordinary business sense.
Sure, their stature allows them a ton of privileges. No doubt. But come on, Universal? Youre comparing U2s power to Universal's? WAT

If Bono pens a lyric that one of Universal's interests dont agree with, gone. Theres no way a band of U2's size with U2's audience would be able to say everything they want on a recording that these people pay to distribute. Theyre not going to cannibalize themselves for the sake of artist integrity or whatever you want to call it. And U2 arent going to jeopardize their stake in this either. Universal has a lot more going on and people invested than Island did. U2 has a lot more heads now to appease.

remember, when U2 got picked up by Universal/interscope U2 was very much on the down and out. No body expected them to go back to basics, they just assumed they saw a band go from what they were in 1980 to what they became in 1997. That was the evolution and that was that. People lost interest in the sound and expected them to die out and fade away like all the grunge bands did around that time. Not only was U2 from the era of dying music at the time, they were from the one before. I would imagine that leaves you with very few bargaining chips.

Enter interscope: Tons of money to back up a huge promotion and their access to media exposure and theyre back in the public eye with their classic sound. Presto Chango, U2 is back on top. with shackles.
*I* is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 09:52 PM   #128
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 66,915
Local Time: 02:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by *I* View Post

Sure, their stature allows them a ton of privileges. No doubt. But come on, Universal? Youre comparing U2s power to Universal's? WAT

If Bono pens a lyric that one of Universal's interests dont agree with, gone. Theres no way a band of U2's size with U2's audience would be able to say everything they want on a recording that these people pay to distribute. Theyre not going to cannibalize themselves for the sake of artist integrity or whatever you want to call it. And U2 arent going to jeopardize their stake in this either. Universal has a lot more going on and people invested than Island did. U2 has a lot more heads now to appease.
If you think a band of U2's stature and clout are allowing record executives to censor their lyrics, then you're nuts.
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 10:02 PM   #129
Blue Crack Supplier
 
lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 40,889
Local Time: 11:21 PM
Clearly that's already been established.

I'm cynical about institutions and corporations, but I also know the biggest band in the world could have signed with whoever they wanted to, and if a label tried to censor them they'd probably just say fuck off and not release anything.

I wonder who could get an appointment with Obama first--Bono or Iovine. You're underestimating the former's power, as record execs are a dime a dozen.
lazarus is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 10:26 PM   #130
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
jeevey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Rue St. Divine
Posts: 4,096
Local Time: 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazarus View Post
.... the biggest band in the world could have signed with whoever they wanted to, and if a label tried to censor them they'd probably just say fuck off and not release anything.
Yes. I beleive U2 may listen to Iovine more than they ought, but really. There isn't a record exec in the world who wouldn't be dying to sign U2, even knowing that they are temperamental sons of bitches who do exactly what they like and nothing else. There are very few acts in the world who have the earning potential of this band, even in their weakest 1998/1999 incarnation.
jeevey is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 11:29 PM   #131
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Winterfell
Posts: 3,825
Local Time: 02:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by *I* View Post
I only brought it up because we're about to hear the 'new era of U2'. And Im afraid its going to be more of the same, thats all. It all feels a lot like when we elected Obama and everyone was on the wagon for change and hope. Then sadly the fact that it will never change becomes more glaringly obvious. God I hope it changes this time but is it even possible under that label? That's all Im asking. People seem to be partial to these recent silly soft lyrics all of a sudden. Im telling you right now, Get on your boots failed because of the lyrics, period. I remember the unveiling quite clearly and everyone was jumping up and down for that one.....and then they sat down and processed the lyrics.
Would it really be a new era if it was more of the same?
Steved1998 is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 11:36 PM   #132
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Winterfell
Posts: 3,825
Local Time: 02:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by *I* View Post
Sure, their stature allows them a ton of privileges. No doubt. But come on, Universal? Youre comparing U2s power to Universal's? WAT

If Bono pens a lyric that one of Universal's interests dont agree with, gone. Theres no way a band of U2's size with U2's audience would be able to say everything they want on a recording that these people pay to distribute. Theyre not going to cannibalize themselves for the sake of artist integrity or whatever you want to call it. And U2 arent going to jeopardize their stake in this either. Universal has a lot more going on and people invested than Island did. U2 has a lot more heads now to appease.

remember, when U2 got picked up by Universal/interscope U2 was very much on the down and out. No body expected them to go back to basics, they just assumed they saw a band go from what they were in 1980 to what they became in 1997. That was the evolution and that was that. People lost interest in the sound and expected them to die out and fade away like all the grunge bands did around that time. Not only was U2 from the era of dying music at the time, they were from the one before. I would imagine that leaves you with very few bargaining chips.

Enter interscope: Tons of money to back up a huge promotion and their access to media exposure and theyre back in the public eye with their classic sound. Presto Chango, U2 is back on top. with shackles.
No way.. U2 was one of the biggest bands in the world and had just finished a wildly successful tour. It may have not sold out in America, but overseas people went nuts. You can't compare U2 to the grunge bands of the time. There's a big difference between U2 and Candlebox. U2 had sold millions of albums and was wildly popular before grunge had ever hit the radio.. Some people may have felt U2 had made a misstep with Pop, but that did nothing to take away from their world-wide popularity. U2 only have shackles on because they've been a bunch of pussies since the Million Dollar Hotel Soundtrack. They're self imposed shackles because they fear they won't have a hit.

Oh and Grunge may have died, but that was always a sub genre of alternative, which has flourished and evolved to whatever it is today.
Steved1998 is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 11:41 PM   #133
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 189
Local Time: 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazarus View Post

Me neither, until recently.

I like that song more than most people but I'd be ashamed to quote it as such.

But this raises the question: was Yahweh inspired by UnderArmour? Have U2 been Protecting This House since 2004?

It's also possible that this was a thinly-veiled reference to Larry's trouble keeping time while performing.

Click. Track.
Not sure about Larry's click track but the Acoustic version of Yahweh performed near the end of the Vertigo Tour shows each night was always my favourite part of that tour. So beautiful and chilling. I just plain adore "Yahweh". It is actually the song I like best from HTDAAB.
Mount Temple is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 11:47 PM   #134
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,253
Local Time: 02:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by *I* View Post
I only brought it up because we're about to hear the 'new era of U2'. And Im afraid its going to be more of the same, thats all. It all feels a lot like when we elected Obama and everyone was on the wagon for change and hope. Then sadly the fact that it will never change becomes more glaringly obvious. God I hope it changes this time but is it even possible under that label? That's all Im asking. People seem to be partial to these recent silly soft lyrics all of a sudden. Im telling you right now, Get on your boots failed because of the lyrics, period. I remember the unveiling quite clearly and everyone was jumping up and down for that one.....and then they sat down and processed the lyrics.


Cheer up.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 11:58 PM   #135
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 189
Local Time: 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Cleef View Post
The lyrics went soft. And more generic.

The problem is the music went soft and more generic too.

I think we can't blame the record company for that.

U2 simply lost a great deal of the inspiration they used to have.
You do have a point of some regard but hey. There has been some real quality song writing since 2000.

I feel their inspiration of old may have been fresher at the time but every artist (s) has a certain amount of "amazing works" in them and then it changes. U2 are not the same ages or in the same time period anymore and like you and I we can't stay young forever creating mind blowing music for 20-30+ years on end. It's impossible! So go back and listen to ATTCLB to NLOTH and take it with a grain of salt. Some really strong gems.

One last thought....Rattle & Hum is pretty weak and that was put together during their pinnacle of success and prosperity 87-93. So yeah , cut the boys a break.

98% of the bands that have been, are or who will be wish they had a career like U2.
Mount Temple is offline  
Old 08-13-2013, 12:01 AM   #136
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Winterfell
Posts: 3,825
Local Time: 02:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mount Temple View Post
You do have a point of some regard but hey. There has been some real quality song writing since 2000.

I feel their inspiration of old may have been fresher at the time but every artist (s) has a certain amount of "amazing works" in them and then it changes. U2 are not the same ages or in the same time period anymore and like you and I we can't stay young forever creating mind blowing music for 20-30+ years on end. It's impossible! So go back and listen to ATTCLB to NLOTH and take it with a grain of salt. Some really strong gems.

One last thought....Rattle & Hum is pretty weak and that was put together during their pinnacle of success and prosperity 87-93. So yeah , cut the boys a break.

98% of the bands that have been, are or who will be wish they had a career like U2.
The only way they'll have good song writing again is if the Edge gets another divorce or zombie Reagan starts bombing South America.
Steved1998 is offline  
Old 08-13-2013, 12:03 AM   #137
Refugee
 
kingofsorrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: C.E.O. of the international men of leisure
Posts: 2,194
Local Time: 02:21 AM
i can't stop

kingofsorrow is offline  
Old 08-13-2013, 12:11 AM   #138
Refugee
 
Globo14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 1,207
Local Time: 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mount Temple View Post
98% of the bands that have been, are or who will be wish they had a career like U2.
That's a mighty bold claim.
Globo14 is offline  
Old 08-13-2013, 01:17 AM   #139
Blue Crack Addict
 
last unicorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: lost in poetry
Posts: 19,446
Local Time: 07:21 AM
Everyone thinking that Bono, someone who can argue world leaders into anything he feels is right, would let any record label executive, no matter how long they've known each other, have such a strong influence on his band's music really needs to think twice. I do not believe that. U2 aren't that kind of band. I've heard many stories, including interviews from band members, about U2 trying to convince skeptical people from the record company to have certain songs released or to accept certain song titles and lyrics and such.

And U2's music and lyrics have changed because they, as human beings, have changed, like everyone else is changing in the course of 20 - 30 years, it's a natural process, new priorities, a new mindset, new interests, a new awareness of things. Everyone changes and it's good that way. It would be very unnatural and not at all cool if a band like U2 would still write the same music they did 25 years ago. I want them to be authentic and if their current music reflects their personal development process, I'm fine with that, even though I accept that their new ways of expression may not appeal to everyone at the same time. I'd rather have an authentic "soft" Bono (even though I don't think he became "soft", whatever that means) than him trying too hard to be someone he isn't or isn't any more. That would be embarrassing.

That said, I'm fine with their recent music and still consider NLOTH to be one of my favorite albums. Also because as a person I've also grown and changed and U2's current themes simply do connect with me much more than something from the 1990's would right now. That's just my personal approach.

I like to be surprised by the band and I hope they come up with something new, not something that gives me the feeling that I've heard it before.
last unicorn is offline  
Old 08-13-2013, 01:56 AM   #140
War Child
 
pacemaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 688
Local Time: 02:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by *I* View Post
If Bono pens a lyric that one of Universal's interests dont agree with, gone. Theres no way a band of U2's size with U2's audience would be able to say everything they want on a recording that these people pay to distribute.
Not only are these two sentences frustratingly false, but they are also contradictory. If a record label has any influence over any of their bands, it is the small to middling ones. If U2 answered to Interscope in this Illuminati type conspiracy way you seem to think they do, they wouldn't have been able to lay low since the end of the 360 tour (about 2 years, 2 weeks) doing whatever they pleased. U2's size and U2's audience play only to the direct favor of U2. Without Interscope, U2 still exists and continues to do what the U2 machine pleases. Do you honestly believe that any of the four of them would allow themselves to be censored instead of buying out the rest of their contract to a label that is treating them like a winner from American Idol?

The shift in lyrical writing can be attributed to a number of things, all of which are not Interscope's influence. For example, in the wake of POP's relative failure, U2 lost the confidence of their initial explosion and the "swagger" they gained in the first half of the 90s. As a result, they play it safe by going "back to basics" which led to Bono thinking he had to write lyrics that are more universal, thus fairly pedestrian. You also have to consider the fact that he has lost his creative magic and can now only try to write what he thinks are classic U2 lyrics.

If Interscope could edit Bono's lyrics there is no way they would have let all those goofy lines in the last three albums stay. Certainly, Interscope will always have influence to some degree (hopefully a great deal less this time around seeing as how the middle 3 on NLOTH not only failed to produce a hit as planned, but have also seemingly become the nadir of U2's catalog), but U2 sells itself despite Bono's lyrics.
__________________

pacemaker is offline  
 

Tags
christmas music, fall 2013, fall 2014, larry at a baseball game, lillywhitewashing, new album, new album please, sillywhite, spring 2014, u2

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 01:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×