U2 working with pop songwriter for new album

[zoopop]

Voodoo Lounge is a good album Especially compared to Bridges, Steel Wheels, & A Bigger Bang.


U2 being relevant at this stage in their career vs The Stones being relevant (back in the 80s) are two complete different beast.

U2 being relevant is them wanting to get their new music heard. U2 is very up front with their new music. The opening of their tours cover at least 70% of new material. And they want to play these songs at shows. Every U2 'Tour Program' each member talks about the new songs joyfully.

The Rolling Stones on the other, back in the 80's, was a breakup period. They didn't even tour Dirty Work, Mick went solo, Keith hated Mick, and when they did return in 88-89 w/ Steel Wheels it wasn't the Rolling Stones anymore. They returned w/ backup singers, horns, keyboards (sampled sounds) & MAJOR PRODUCTION ON STAGE!! They went from a garage sounding band to a full fledged production on stage. Take a look:

The Rolling Stones - (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction - Hampton Live 1981 OFFICIAL - YouTube

This was the 1981 Tour, many Stone fans see this as the last true Stones tour before it turned to:

Rolling Stones - Satisfaction - Live '89 Atlantic City - YouTube

Drastic change for the Stones. I think this change had alot to do w/ what Mick wanted.

I still enjoy the Stones live but putting U2 into this context is a bit extreme. Sure their the same age as the Stones in the 80's but if U2 brought on extra band members because Bono wanted it that way, I don't think that will fly with the U2 fan base.

Point being, U2 are not at this point in their career & I don't see them wanting to be relevant for the wrong reasons. Its still about the tunes for them.

 

[gvox]

Edge lives and dies by his rig. He can't change the delay without it being synced beforehand; think of what a delay that's out of sync with Larry would do to the rhythm of the track

Wait up a sec, you play, right? I'm pretty sure Edge knows how to trigger a tap delay that is in sync to a count-in Larry gives him. Yeah, he can do that, I'm fairly confident Edge's delay is of nil-to-maybe-minor concern in hauling out an older track. That delay (even the dual/stereo/whatever one) ain't that hard to whip up..

 

[LemonMelon]

Right, and that's why I singled out Pop tracks in particular. Certainly Edge has shown that he can play One Tree Hill at a moment's notice, and A Sort of Homecoming.

I figure we don't hear more Boy and October tracks because U2 doesn't think all that much of them, and it's a relative minority that requests them. It blows, especially after Vertigo teased us with them.

 

[subnet]

it would be nice to have Adam create a bassline akin to Vlad The Impaler.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

I am the coolest bassline, yeah.

 

[gareth brown]

haha wow that second stones video looks a bit overkill...

 

[doctorwho]

Voodoo Lounge is a good album Especially compared to Bridges, Steel Wheels, & A Bigger Bang.


Drastic change for the Stones. I think this change had alot to do w/ what Mick wanted.

I thought about this post for a few days.

I gree with your assessment that U2 aren't quite like the Stones at this point. U2 still have that fire and in an error of illegal downloads and legal "cherry picking" on iTunes, they still generate strong sales. While the end of the 360 tour relied more on catalog songs, the beginning of the tour showcased 7 NLOTH songs, which is typical for U2.

What I did have some issue with was the videos you referenced. One was Stones from the early 80's, the other from the late 80's. It was a change - but an expected one, no? By the late 80's, there was the technology for the Stones to put on that type of production. One of U2's criticisms of the JT era shows is that people in back couldn't see them. That changed with ZOO TV, just as it changed for the Stones by the end of the 80's.

Also, you commented on the back-up singers and horns the Stones used. But U2 also did the same on the LoveTown Tour. Some was with B.B. King, but some was not. Also note the obvious back-up singers on R&H. As it seems fans really want just the 4 main U2 members on stage, we haven't experience back-up singers much since, but this works well for the Stones.

In other words, while I see your main point, I think we have to expect changes in the tours due to better technology as well as differences between tours (otherwise, it's like watching a sequel that is exactly the same as the original). The Stones should thank Mick because his vision for the tours has kept them "relevant" at least as far as live acts go.

 

[U2DMfan]

They could put out a masterpiece and it wouldn't matter. The public wouldn't have it.

I agree with what you said, re: age and the Stones.
They have surely made some decent music over the last 30 years.

And this sentiment I quoted is exactly what U2 ran up against in 2009, IMO.
Although it wasn't just about age. It was also about over-saturation.
I also think the situation in '89 and '97 was similar.

All in all, I think there were a shitload of people in 2009 ready to give a good hard kick to U2's balls. They made an album that had flaws, and that was all the excuse they needed. Most of it being an over-correction (by pop culture) for the adulation of the last two albums, which were...not bad. But certainly not worthy of the praise. U2 hagiography was pretty rampant there for awhile.

So yeah, age is always a superficial factor.
I believe the reaction to NLOTH was a pop culture comeuppance.

 

[OpenG180]

I still enjoy the Stones live but putting U2 into this context is a bit extreme. Sure their the same age as the Stones in the 80's

Mick and Keith were 52 years old in 1995. They are the same age as the Stones in the 90's. During their Voodoo Lounge tour.

 

[Hollow Island]

I agree with what you said, re: age and the Stones.
They have surely made some decent music over the last 30 years.

And this sentiment I quoted is exactly what U2 ran up against in 2009, IMO.
Although it wasn't just about age. It was also about over-saturation.
I also think the situation in '89 and '97 was similar.

All in all, I think there were a shitload of people in 2009 ready to give a good hard kick to U2's balls. They made an album that had flaws, and that was all the excuse they needed. Most of it being an over-correction (by pop culture) for the adulation of the last two albums, which were...not bad. But certainly not worthy of the praise. U2 hagiography was pretty rampant there for awhile.

So yeah, age is always a superficial factor.
I believe the reaction to NLOTH was a pop culture comeuppance.

When compared to greatness, "decent" is bad, and the bad stuff is criminal. U2 have been "decent," and that, when compared to the Joshua Tree, is terrible.

Age has an effect of the sales, but not on critical standing, and not on public perception.

Scott Walker, Leonard Cohen, Paul Weller, Dylan, Sonic Youth, Nick Cave, Mission of Burma, Primal Scream, Wire, Flaming Lips are all very respected and recognized for great work in their old age. They've also all taken a lot of shit for records that, while not being bad, pale in comparison to the great work they've done.

Even "younger" artists like Spiritualized (8.8 from Pitchfork today, 80 on metacritic) PJ Harvey, Radiohead, Pearl Jam, Staphen Malkmus, and Damon Albarn (all mid 40s) have as much respect than they've ever had.

If age doesn't work against those goats why does it work against U2? One common denominator is that they don't talk about relevance, about hits, and about how brilliant their own music is.

Another thing is that the "public" as it was even 10 years ago doesn't exist. The monoculture is dead, and we're better off for that.

Also, the music has to be strong enough to swim in the ego of its creator. U2s music hasn't been good enough to withstand the public perception of their megalomania, which seems to have increased over the last 12 years. That contributes to the comeuppance.

 

[BVS]

When compared to greatness, "decent" is bad, and the bad stuff is criminal. U2 have been "decent," and that, when compared to the Joshua Tree, is terrible.

But can't you say that about the majority of acts that have recorded what many believe to be a classic album?

Radiohead's recent albums are terrible comparated to OK Computer and Kid A.

Pearl Jam are terrible compared to Ten.

Age has an effect of the sales, but not on critical standing, and not on public perception.

Sure it does, bands do not age well in the public or critic's eyes like solo artists do.

Scott Walker, Leonard Cohen, Paul Weller, Dylan, Sonic Youth, Nick Cave, Mission of Burma, Primal Scream, Wire, Flaming Lips are all very respected and recognized for great work in their old age. They've also all taken a lot of shit for records that, while not being bad, pale in comparison to the great work they've done.

You notice a pattern here don't you? Mostly solo artists, and the bands you did list, only one actually had recognition outside small portions of music listeners.

If age doesn't work against those goats why does it work against U2? One common denominator is that they don't talk about relevance, about hits, and about how brilliant their own music is.

I'm not sure if I heard U2 talk about how "brilliant" their own music is, but I guaranteed you most of those listed have said something to the effect of "this is some of the best music we've recorded in our career" at least once in their career.

Another thing is that the "public" as it was even 10 years ago doesn't exist. The monoculture is dead, and we're better off for that.

This is one of the few sentences I agree with...

Also, the music has to be strong enough to swim in the ego of its creator. U2s music hasn't been good enough to withstand the public perception of their megalomania, which seems to have increased over the last 12 years. That contributes to the comeuppance.

You honestly think their megalomania has increased over the last 12 years? I would say that U2's megalmania was it's highest 87 through 97, I think you would have to be blind not to see that.

 

[Hollow Island]

But can't you say that about the majority of acts that have recorded what many believe to be a classic album?

Radiohead's recent albums are terrible comparated to OK Computer and Kid A.

Pearl Jam are terrible compared to Ten.

Check out metacritic. Kid A has a score of 80, same as TKOL. HTTT got an 85. In Rainbows has an 88. I'm talking about your opinion, or mine. I hate the last PJ record, but it was very well reviewed (79%) and generally well liked.

Sure it does, bands do not age well in the public or critic's eyes like solo artists do.


You notice a pattern here don't you? Mostly solo artists, and the bands you did list, only one actually had recognition outside small portions of music listeners.

Sonic Youth, Primal Scream, Flaming Lips...all really obscure with their classic albums and headling festivals and such. Not that I see what that has to do with anything. The point is that old bands are not universally derided. Some maintain credibility, respect, and popularity. U2's current standing can't be blamed on age.

Solo artists do age better though.

I'm not sure if I heard U2 talk about how "brilliant" their own music is, but I guaranteed you most of those listed have said something to the effect of "this is some of the best music we've recorded in our career" at least once in their career.

Didn't U2 say NLOTH was reinventing rock n roll? And Bono says that their records have to be great...that's not really for them to judge, is it?

You honestly think their megalomania has increased over the last 12 years? I would say that U2's megalmania was it's highest 87 through 97, I think you would have to be blind not to see that.

"U2s music hasn't been good enough to withstand the public perception of their megalomania, which seems to have increased over the last 12 years. That contributes to the comeuppance."

I know, self quoting is tacky.

 

[Registered Dude]

Didn't U2 say NLOTH was reinventing rock n roll? And Bono says that their records have to be great...that's not really for them to judge, is it?

Pre-album hype is usually peppered with these sorts of overblown quotes.. afterwards though, they're incredibly critical of their own work.. beyond a few songs (One, Stay, MOS), I don't think they'd say their work is brilliant

 

[Von Schloopen]

Meh, those are all artists living off past glories. Dylan is the only one who sells any records. I've seen Paul Weller many times, and the biggest ovations he gets all nite are for the 35 year old The Jam tunes or big hit singles from the 17 year old Stanley Road album. His records hit high on the UK chart, then go away 1 week later. His new records don't attract listeners or concert goers.

And I love his new records. They're better than The Jam.

 

[BVS]

Sonic Youth, Primal Scream, Flaming Lips...all really obscure with their classic albums and headling festivals and such. Not that I see what that has to do with anything. The point is that old bands are not universally derided. Some maintain credibility, respect, and popularity. U2's current standing can't be blamed on age.

I think it's fairly common knowledge that the more popularity or the more common knowledge the public has of you the more critics and haters you have. You should try comparing apples to apples in such conversations.

Didn't U2 say NLOTH was reinventing rock n roll? And Bono says that their records have to be great...that's not really for them to judge, is it?

Don't remember the reinventing anything quote.

Did Sonic Youth say their last album was just ok? What band worth their salt doesn't say their album has to be great otherwise it's not worth releasing?

 

[Zoocoustic]

Maybe U2 simply needs to quit being U2 again for a while? When they did this in the early 90's, it worked. They quit being themselves, became something else, and we got some of their best work. I don't care if it was supposed to be irony or whatever, The Fly didn't give a sh*t about relevancy. Watch any early 90's Bono interview and tell me that guy was worried about success. It may have all been an act, but perhaps the real irony was that in trying to NOT be themselves, they became something BETTER.

 

[DGP00666]

Taste is the enemy of art.

 

[Von Schloopen]

The Fly had One and Mysterious Ways in it's back pocket. That record didn't take off cause people thought "OMG, U2 don't care!" It took off because those 2 tunes crossed over to pop radio.

 

[doctorwho]

When compared to greatness, "decent" is bad, and the bad stuff is criminal. U2 have been "decent," and that, when compared to the Joshua Tree, is terrible.

If you at least compared it to AB or TUF, then I'd side with you.

Seriously, JT is a great album, but it helps that it came out at the right time when the world was ready for their big break-out. I'm not sure if JT would have such an impact today.

Regardless, I feel NLOTH is in that upper echelon. Does it have faults? And how (I'm looking at you "Crazy Tonight"). But it also has some of the best songs U2 has made since AB, IMO. The reason it "failed" (comparatively speaking) is not because of quality.

Age has an effect of the sales, but not on critical standing, and not on public perception.

Scott Walker, Leonard Cohen, Paul Weller, Dylan, Sonic Youth, Nick Cave, Mission of Burma, Primal Scream, Wire, Flaming Lips are all very respected and recognized for great work in their old age. They've also all taken a lot of shit for records that, while not being bad, pale in comparison to the great work they've done.

I haven't heard of all of those artists. And that alone says a little something - they aren't super huge. As was already stated, the bigger an artist is, the more critical people become and the more flaws they'll find.

Even "younger" artists like Spiritualized (8.8 from Pitchfork today, 80 on metacritic) PJ Harvey, Radiohead, Pearl Jam, Staphen Malkmus, and Damon Albarn (all mid 40s) have as much respect than they've ever had.

Pitchfork has never been a fan of U2. So if that's your standard, may as well ask NME what they think of Bono or U2 and let the criticism fly!

If age doesn't work against those goats why does it work against U2? One common denominator is that they don't talk about relevance, about hits, and about how brilliant their own music is.

I've also grown tired about Bono's comments regarding relevance. I think he meant well initially (when ATYCLB was released) but a decade later, it's stale. If Bono wants to remain relevant, he has to stop talking about being relevant.

That said, there is truth to Bono's words.

Elton John also complained how his songs aren't played on the radio. Many artists aren't always recognized or even given the chance. Older performers like Elton and Randy Newman and Sting found renewed success by having songs in movies or commercials! Even newer artists like Moby (over a decade ago) and Kings of Leon had to breakthrough via commercials. And I blame corporate radio for that. Even in the 80's and early 90's, any artist could be heard - old and new. Suddenly, radio is a corporation and only select songs are heard.

thing is that the "public" as it was even 10 years ago doesn't exist. The monoculture is dead, and we're better off for that.

If by monoculture you mean everyone thinking the same, then I think we are MORE monoculture now than ever. TV, radio, and the internet bombard us with the same thing over and over. This has allowed for some crap to rise to the top because we are told that it is "good".

Also, the music has to be strong enough to swim in the ego of its creator. U2s music hasn't been good enough to withstand the public perception of their megalomania, which seems to have increased over the last 12 years. That contributes to the comeuppance.

The comeuppance this time was two-fold: a crappy lead single and Bono's activism. U2 have always been activists, but Bono's recent work was a little too much for many. Then throw in that "not paying taxes" bit (totally false, but again, the monoculture we live in today has convinced many that this must be true) and there was lots of Bono hate (ironically coming the most from people who don't pay any taxes and have their hands out for any freebie they can get).

U2 may look at GOYB and "Discotheque" and scratch their heads. Why did those songs "flop" while other faster paced songs worked so well? "Vertigo", BD, "Desire", and "Pride" - all lead singles - had better lyrics (more relatable) and great hooks. "Discotheque" was a bit too out there for many fans. People do not associate discos with U2. GOYB was just all around confusing. Both songs deserve a spot on the album, but not lead singles. A lead single often has to carry the album. Second singles sometimes work wonders, but lots is on that lead single.

The Fly had One and Mysterious Ways in it's back pocket. That record didn't take off cause people thought "OMG, U2 don't care!" It took off because those 2 tunes crossed over to pop radio.

Exactly! "The Fly" only worked as a new single because it show-cased U2's change in style and sound. But U2 quickly followed up that song with the far more radio-friendly MW. And even as that song was still doing well on the charts, U2 released "One" giving AB a "one-two punch" to keep it in people's minds.

NLOTH is a strong album, but not quite as radio-friendly. That played a huge role. No big radio hits means no one knows U2 has a new album (well, other than die-hards). Hearing "Beautiful Day" for months on end sure helped ATYCLB.

Overall, I don't think age played as big of a role as many. As U2 aged, there will be less 14 year olds clamoring for U2 on the radio - but the fact is, a catchy good song does get attention, despite age. Cher had a #1 hit with "Believe" when she was 53. That auto-tuned song may not be a great example, but it shows that age alone doesn't prevent success.

 

[Hollow Island]

Meh, those are all artists living off past glories. Dylan is the only one who sells any records. I've seen Paul Weller many times, and the biggest ovations he gets all nite are for the 35 year old The Jam tunes or big hit singles from the 17 year old Stanley Road album. His records hit high on the UK chart, then go away 1 week later. His new records don't attract listeners or concert goers.

And I love his new records. They're better than The Jam.

Past glories? PJ Harvery won the mercury prize and put out one of the best (and most admired) records of the last decade or two. Radiohead and Pearl Jam are both massive, and I can't think of another modern band given the same respect as Radiohead. Dylan still puts out good records to great acclaim. Scott Walker is more revered and influential now than ever before. Same with Nick Cave, and Leonard Cohen's last album did quite well in all respects. Sonic Youth's last record was their most popular in some time and they played the whole thing live. Malkmus' last record ended up on a bunch of best-of lists. Spiritualized's new record - people fuckin love it! as they did the last one. Primal Scream's last record did quite well, though they've been coasting on Screamadelica for a year or more, and they can headline festvals whenever they want. The Lips are arguably more popular than they've ever been. And if you think Damon Albarn is coasting, well, I can't do anything for you there.

Now, Weller! His albums might not be massive hits, but they are hits, and they get great reviews. And Wake Up The Nation was nominated for the mercury prize. And his new records are better than the Jam, but they're pretty out there, especially for his trad rock fans.

Your argument about old artists not being given a chance in bunk. Sure, 12 year old girls might not buy their records, but they don't even buy rock records anymore.

 

[Hollow Island]

I think it's fairly common knowledge that the more popularity or the more common knowledge the public has of you the more critics and haters you have. You should try comparing apples to apples in such conversations.

Go look at a list of the best bands of all time and you'll see that is false. And the discussion isn't about popularity, it's about old bands "getting a shot."

All of the artists I mentioned are fairly popular or legendary, and are all in the same category as U2.

You can't say
1. old bands don't get a chance
2. well, super massive don't get a chance cos critics don't like big bands (which is absolutely false; see paragraph one).

Pearl Jam, Radiohead, Dylan, and Cohen are all super popular anyway, and if Primal Scream can headline glastonbury any time they must be doing alright too.

I should also add that Dr Dre and Snoop headline Coechella last night. Not exacltly spring chickns, those guys. And didn't New Order headline in 05? Don't the Cure headline festivals all over the world and get decent reviews for their wretched records? Don't Depeche Mode still sell a shit tonne of tickets, a bunch of records, and get solid reviews?

 

[Von Schloopen]

Your argument about old artists not being given a chance in bunk. Sure, 12 year old girls might not buy their records, but they don't even buy rock records anymore.

You haven't proven anything bunk. You list a bunch of old artists who put out records critics like. Spiritualized will sell 10,000 records. Primal Scream have seen their sales go in the toilet. They've even done one of those "nostalgia" shows where they play their 20 year old album in it's entirety.

Gorillaz? The one where they're fronted by cartoon characters? Old people can sell lots of records if they replace their image with a cartoon avatar?

Critics liking a record does not = mainstream public acceptance.

Got any examples of a 50+ year old artist doing what Adele did last year? How bout what Green Day did in 2004/2005?

 

[Hollow Island]

I haven't heard of all of those artists. And that alone says a little something - they aren't super huge. As was already stated, the bigger an artist is, the more critical people become and the more flaws they'll find.



Pitchfork has never been a fan of U2. So if that's your standard, may as well ask NME what they think of Bono or U2 and let the criticism fly!

Who cares if they're not super huge? As I said to BVS, look at any list of the best artists ever and you'll see that popularity isn't an impediment. In fact, popularity helps a hell of a lot.

Pitchfork gave Bomb 6.9, slammed ATYCLB and NLOTH, and LOVES everything up to Zooropa.

NME gave NLOTH 7, Bomb 9, and ATYCLB 7, so I don't think they dislike U2 all that much.

But this isn't about "indie media," it's about old artists getting a fair shake. And they do. Maybe not from kids, but from adults who are into music and from the media they're treated the same as everyone else.

 

[BVS]

You make missing a point an art form.

 

[Hollow Island]

You haven't proven anything bunk. You list a bunch of old artists who put out records critics like. Spiritualized will sell 10,000 records. Primal Scream have seen their sales go in the toilet. They've even done one of those "nostalgia" shows where they play their 20 year old album in it's entirety.

Gorillaz? The one where they're fronted by cartoon characters? Old people can sell lots of records if they replace their image with a cartoon avatar?

Critics liking a record does not = mainstream public acceptance.

They all play big shows. Gorillaz more or less ditched the cartoons on Plastic Beach, but that's immaterial! Damon's and old goat, and he's still bringing it commercially and critically.

Pearl Jam, Radiohead, Dylan...no mainstream public acceptance for them! Same with Weller - 5 straight number one albums, huge shows...poor git, he must be dying for recognition. I'm pretty sure the Scream's last record was number one, and the one before it had their biggest hit. The point is that their age isn't held against them.

If you want to focus on mainstream public attention, you should acknowledge that rock is no longer mainstream. The days of rock band ruling the top 10 died with Kurt Cobain.

I'll mention another old band whos age isn't a hinderance: the Chili Peppers.

 

[Von Schloopen]

Who cares if they're not super huge?

We're talking mainstream acceptance. Super huge is the point.

Think Joshua Tree, or Achtung Baby, or All That You Can't Leave Behind.

I can see the Doobie Brothers at the local county fair this summer. Is that all the proof you need to determine they're doing as well as Jack White?

 

[Hollow Island]

You make missing a point an art form.

He said NME and Pitchfork aren't U2 fans and I proved him wrong. Point made, point refuted.

The larger discussion is about old bands not being given a chance, I point out several old artists, from their mid 40s to 70s, who are still successful commercially and critically. How is that missing a point exactly?

 

[BVS]

I point out several old artists, from their mid 40s to 70s, who are still successful commercially and critically. How is that missing a point exactly?

You haven't pointed out one BAND in the same shoes as U2 that are able to do both.

 

[Niceman]

I see a lot of bands being listed who are not in U2's weight class when it comes to sales, popularity, influence, and age.

Compare U2 to Depeche Mode, REM, Faith No More, or the Cure maybe, but they don't really have peers at this point. Pearl Jam? They had one good album ever. Gorillaz? Dylan? Cohen? These are not U2's peers.

 

[Hollow Island]

We're talking mainstream acceptance. Super huge is the point.

Think Joshua Tree, or Achtung Baby, or All That You Can't Leave Behind.

I can see the Doobie Brothers at the local county fair this summer. Is that all the proof you need to determine they're doing as well as Jack White?

How is super huge the point? There have been very few records made, ever, like U2s massive ones, and the only rock albums that have compared to ATYCLB since then have been Nickleback, Linkin Park, Creed, American Idiot, and a Foo Fighters album or three (another old goat, that Grohl!), and the Chilis (more old fuckers). Everyone I mentioned plays big shows, and most sell a decent amount of records, some win or are nominated for awards and all get good reviews. If that's not being "given a shot" or doesn't count as success than I don't know what does.

Obviously not, because they're playing the county fair, not playing large venues or headlining festivals, or having albums top lists or get great reviews. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there.