U2 working with pop songwriter for new album

[LuckyNumber7]

Wrong again, I would really love them to tour b-sides and rarities. Its a cool thing to do. Obviously not a stadium tour but a small arena job. How many times do we really need to hear Streets or Pride. I remember an interview with Bono after a Zoo TV gig when they were playing 8 straight songs from AB, he said "we might lose some of the pop kids, but we don't need them". U2 need that attitude NOW!

That's a pretty careless thing to say (and a pretty rude way to say it...). You think you're the only one going to the show? There aren't 20,000 interferencers in each city, and of the 70,000 fans that fill these stadiums a very small few would be crazy excited over a bsides tour. That's a quick way to take the only guarantee away from U2 and force them to continue to question themselves.

Yeah id like to see it, but I still know its an awful idea...

 

[purpleoscar]

It's not rocket science guys! U2 could play 2 or 3 max b-sides per concert and the rest will be the war horses the majority of the audience wants to hear.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

i've never even heard of Race Against Time! lol!

Was goin to tell you it was the B side to Streets but its actually an A Side. Go figure, the two B Sides (Silver & Gold, Sweetest Thing) are far more well known.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

It's not rocket science guys! U2 could play 2 or 3 max b-sides per concert and the rest will be the war horses the majority of the audience wants to hear.

Yeah well that's not a B sides and rarities tour. That's jut mixing up th setlit so its not a greatest hits tour.

 

[Dfit00]

It's not rocket science guys! U2 could play 2 or 3 max b-sides per concert and the rest will be the war horses the majority of the audience wants to hear.

Rocket science is not that challenging.

 

[Joey788]

I don't think a rarities tour would work unless it's marketed as such. They can either start mixing up their setlists a lot more, including fewer hits and more deep cuts; or they can do an arena and theater concert in each city. Arenas get the usual U2 setlist of hits, new songs, and a couple deep cuts. The theater concert is all material for the hardcore fans. There are certainly enough of them in major markets to fill a theater.

 

[Niceman]

Yea... they don't need to play Pete The Chop, but they have such a vast catalog that they can, and should, mix it up more.

They don't need to play Pete the Chop, but they do need to play Whatever Happened to Pete the Chop!

 

[ChargedVT]

everyone calm yout titties. Next news we'll hear is likely from Adam as he does his Walk In My Shoes event in Dublin on April 26.

/unsubscribes from thread

I wouldn't get too excited about that. Even if someone does ask him about their next album it will be the usual non-commital but positive-sounding words, eg "It's sounding great but there's a long way to go". Still, one could always hope he'll say "First single drop June xx, album in August"

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

That's a pretty careless thing to say (and a pretty rude way to say it...). You think you're the only one going to the show? There aren't 20,000 interferencers in each city, and of the 70,000 fans that fill these stadiums a very small few would be crazy excited over a bsides tour. That's a quick way to take the only guarantee away from U2 and force them to continue to question themselves.

Yeah id like to see it, but I still know its an awful idea...

here's the thing...

other bands do it.

springsteen does it. mccartney sorta does it. pearl jam does it. heck, the rolling stones do it more than u2 does.

all of them are doing just fine when it comes to ticket sales. perhaps not to u2's level, other than the stones, but they're paying the bills.

i don't think anyone truly wants a tour of just b-sides... but an exploration of any of the hundreds of album tracks that are largely ignored by u2, and sure, the occasional b-side that's popular with fans (a celebration?), worked into the regular rotation is not that big a deal.

it seems like u2's formula is new songs + warhorses + single we haven't played in a while = set list. wash, rinse, repeat.

what would it hurt to toss twilight into the set? why is it that we'll never hear last night on earth played live again? are people really going to stop coming to shows if they play trip through your wires, or exit, or wire, or two hearts beat as one?

they have such an amazing back catalog. for them to ignore the majority of it is a crime.

 

[Blue Room]

I agree with the assessment. The reason they do it the way they do is because that is what the are the most comfortable with. They will always go with that as it has served them well over the years and that forumula clearly has.

They still throw the diehards the occassional bone. I never thought Ultraviolet or the Unforgettable Fire would be done again. I would have never thought in my wildest dreams they would play full band Zooropa either. Yet they were all done last tour. Same could be said for Electric Co or The Ocean on Vertigo. I seriously doubt it will ever change. But it is not as bad as we make it out to be sometimes IMO.

 

[purpleoscar]

I think what the band really wants is new songs that can compete with the old ones. That will be the only way to freshen up a tour. "Lots of hits".

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

you'd think the Achtung Baby retrospective would remind them that hits like One just happen...

 

[popacrobat]

and how do you know it hasn't reminded them of that?

 

[super fly guy]

I cant beleive they dropped no line from the last tour,it rocked live. And breathe!

 

[LuckyNumber7]

here's the thing...

other bands do it.

springsteen does it. mccartney sorta does it. pearl jam does it. heck, the rolling stones do it more than u2 does.

all of them are doing just fine when it comes to ticket sales. perhaps not to u2's level, other than the stones, but they're paying the bills.

i don't think anyone truly wants a tour of just b-sides... but an exploration of any of the hundreds of album tracks that are largely ignored by u2, and sure, the occasional b-side that's popular with fans (a celebration?), worked into the regular rotation is not that big a deal.

it seems like u2's formula is new songs + warhorses + single we haven't played in a while = set list. wash, rinse, repeat.

what would it hurt to toss twilight into the set? why is it that we'll never hear last night on earth played live again? are people really going to stop coming to shows if they play trip through your wires, or exit, or wire, or two hearts beat as one?

they have such an amazing back catalog. for them to ignore the majority of it is a crime.

I'm 100% on board with you. I agree, stuff like Two Hearts or Hawkmoon or dare I say Acrobat or Red Hill Mining Town or blah blah blah I just improvised that list... doesn't see the light of day.

But at the same time... it's Interference. I think everyone is dead serious about wanting an absolute b-sides/rarities tour. Like I said before, I'm all for mixing up the set list. Constructing a concert set, not a greatest hits set. They've got a ton of material that would just be awesome out there that they never use.

Also, all but one of those acts you named are probably acts U2 doesn't want to be just yet. They don't want to be Springsteen. They don't want to be The Rolling Stones. They don't want to be McCartney. They want to be with it and in the now. Which is why I'm saying, from U2's POV, the last thing they want to do is run such a concert. Their wash + rinse + repeat cycle is the only thing keeping them clean at this point. Adding some new clothes in the mix, whether it be new material or using stuff like Two Hearts to liven up a set... that's fine. I just don't think going all out on it is a good idea. I don't think it even sounds like fun. And most importantly, I don't think it's ever going to happen.

 

[Von Schloopen]

If you knew about his label troubles (he's been on two) you wouldn't boil it down to crankiness. And those troubles have nothing to do with the example I use.



Me neither, in fact I said the opposite, and Trent is a big hip hop fan. You're completely ignoring what I'm saying and talking about a bunch of other shit in an attempt to refute it. It's really weird.



Maybe, but I doubt it, and it's easily the worst record ever made.



Again, you're talking about things that are immaterial to the argument I'm making.



I don't know, do they?

You're a big fan of fallacies. It's very amusing.

There's the problem. Not every thing I state is in relation to your argument. That's why my post is of one thought, not broken down point by point like yours. You seem agitated & I'm afraid further discussion will upset this thread, so, PM me if you'd like to continue this discourse.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

and how do you know it hasn't reminded them of that?

Because they're allegedly looking to hire pop writers?

 

[popacrobat]

Because they're allegedly looking to hire pop writers?

Based off of one tweet that said he's looking forward to hearing feedback from Bono? Or maybe it was two tweets.

 

[Von Schloopen]

and hits like Streets are the product of hard labor and effort.

 

[rjhbonovox]

What I would also like to see is U2 shows where they concentrate on one album. A full setlist of Pop for example. Like in the middle of the show, where they reel off Pop from 1 to 12. That would be a cool thing to do.

 

[Niceman]

What I would also like to see is U2 shows where they concentrate on one album. A full setlist of Pop for example. Like in the middle of the show, where they reel off Pop from 1 to 12. That would be a cool thing to do.

I want to see them do a show like The Cure's Trilogy tour. They could go out and play Boy from beginning to end, take 15 minutes, then play The Joshua Tree from beginning to end, take a break, then Achtung Baby all the way through!

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

and hits like Streets are the product of hard labor and effort.

Streets wasn't a hit... at least in comparison to with or without you and still haven't found what I'm looking for.

Oh, the irony.

 

[HBK-79]

Crazy Tonight? Absolutely... Boots? I think Boots was them trying to be trippy and experimental, but not wanting to go all in, so it ended up sounding like utter dog shit.

Elevation = Vertigo = GOYB

Same anthemic rock concept/formula

U2 should steer clear of Stones and Aerosmith territories, but if they had to choose one...

Forgive me if I seem ignorant.

But what do the Stones territory and Aerosmith territory each consist of?

 

[DondeEsta]

If this is legit, then U2 will be to 2012 what Metallica was to 2011, worrying announcement of ill-fated collaboration and then the release of a truly terrible flop of an album.

Really the only way I see this ending is not only U2 losing many, many old fans but failing to gain any new ones which would be paradoxic to thier current desire for 'hits'. If they want them then they just need to write good hookish smart pop songs which they've already done tons of in their career, not work with people that pen the hits of a pretty-boy machine that 16-year-old girls masturbate to (pardon my french, I had to say it).

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Elevation = Vertigo = GOYB

Same anthemic rock concept/formula

That's honestly exactly how I see it. I was shocked when people didn't agree about saying that about GOYB...

Forgive me if I seem ignorant.

But what do the Stones territory and Aerosmith territory each consist of?

I think he means Golden Oldies.

 

[mama cass]

Elevation = Vertigo = GOYB

Same anthemic rock concept/formula

no chance


Elevation > Vertigo > GOYB

 

[Niceman]

no chance


Elevation > Vertigo > GOYB

Elevation < Vertigo < GOYB but they ARE more or less the same formula.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Elevation = Vertigo = GOYB

Same anthemic rock concept/formula

Forgive me if I seem ignorant.

But what do the Stones territory and Aerosmith territory each consist of?

I don't think boots sounds anything like vertigo whatsoever. Vertigo is a classic verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus rock song. Same thing goes for Elevation, and the same goes for thousands of rock and pop songs since the 60s and earlier.

Boots doesn't even have a chorus. It doesn't follow that classic pattern whatsoever. Yes, it has a guitar riff and a staccato cadence to the vocal delivery. That's where the comparisons end. Thematically it's not in the same ballpark as the other two.


As for the stones vs. aerosmith... I believe its pretty simple.

The stones don't make music that's relevant to pop culture anymore, but they're not really trying either. They just do what they do.

Aerosmith on the other hand turned into a bunch of utter whores in their quest to stay relevant in pop culture.

U2 fans seem to be deathly frightened of turning into the Stones. They should be afraid of becoming Aerosmith.

 

[mama cass]

Elevation < Vertigo < GOYB but they ARE more or less the same formula.

do you mean ">" or "<"??

i don't think formulas matter though - while a formula might produce an amazing song in one case, you can't bank on it working every time... you need magic and a spark... if those are missing, a formula will only be a formula...

 

[Niceman]

do you mean ">" or "<"??

i don't think formulas matter though - while a formula might produce an amazing song in one case, you can't bank on it working every time... you need magic and a spark... if those are missing, a formula will only be a formula...

I prefer Vertigo to Elevation and I prefer GOYB to Vertigo.