Where's the damned new U2 album? Part III

[bono_212]

True. Where I live, at least, the all-Christmas stations tend to be the ones that do play classic U2 a lot, but wouldn't shake a stick at anything newer than about 1990. I can think of 2 or 3 other, more AC-oriented stations that might play a new U2 single that don't switch to all-Christmas.

Well, I don't expect to hear U2 on the Top-40 stations, so it's going to be the more AC-oriented stations I'm referring to . And, really, even the one's that play pre-90s U2 still tend to rotate the new singles pretty frequently. Though, Magnificent was not as well-played. And forget any singles after that one. Radio-wise, NLOTH was a flop. HTDAAB did well no the radio, though, in my experience.

 

[digitize]

If so, he had a beautiful day in NYC!

I just moved from New York back to Austin. You're making me miss it there.

 

[Babyface82]

they're all in vacation! noboby's working! I need desperately to know where Edge is!!!!!!

 

[ClaytonsKitten]

Well, I don't expect to hear U2 on the Top-40 stations, so it's going to be the more AC-oriented stations I'm referring to . And, really, even the one's that play pre-90s U2 still tend to rotate the new singles pretty frequently. Though, Magnificent was not as well-played. And forget any singles after that one. Radio-wise, NLOTH was a flop. HTDAAB did well no the radio, though, in my experience.

I do remember hearing Vertigo quite a bit on Top 40 type-stations then. But my first experience with HDDAAB was seeing the video for All Because of You on the MTV-U channel being pumped through my local university. I was a broke college student at the time, driving to and from campus while working on campus and babysitting for spare cash. That video caught my attention and was responsible for pulling me back into the U2 folds after I had stopped listening to them during the Elevation years for a number of reasons.

 

[bono_212]

Going a bit further back, EVERYTHING from ATYCLB seemed to get played on EVERY station.

 

[DoctorGonzo]

There were no announced release dates for Fall 1996, Fall 2003, Fall 2008.
Those were just guesstimations by members of the band.
And they've done that this time around too.

If you're looking for an actual release date as the metric for a "delay", U2 have never delayed an album, ever.

To be fair, with HTDAAB, the band got as far as delivering "Native Son" to the label for release as the first single.

Then the band slammed on the brakes and went back to the studio.

 

[jeevey]

I We all know Edge is all that is needed for final mixing anyways.

And where is Edge these days? Oh, that's right, I don't think there's been word of him about the time of leaving Electric Lady. Where could he be? Hmm.....

 

[ClaytonsKitten]

And where is Edge these days? Oh, that's right, I don't think there's been word of him about the time of leaving Electric Lady. Where could he be? Hmm.....

Doing the final mixing whilst on board his spaceship, of course.

 

[Babyface82]

Doing the final mixing whilst on board his spaceship, of course.

more likely he's in his yacht with his family!

 

[Nick66]

All this stuff about "delays" is silly. There is no delay. The band will work on this album exactly until they stop working on it, and not a second sooner. And it will be 'finished' when they stop working on it, not when it's 'finished'.

U2 still working on this record in some form or another, and the record being released by year's end are not necessarily inconsistent concepts.

 

[jeevey]

You should make sure your avi goes in that post permanently.

 

[mikal]

All this stuff about "delays" is silly. There is no delay. The band will work on this album exactly until they stop working on it, and not a second sooner. And it will be 'finished' when they stop working on it, not when it's 'finished'.

U2 still working on this record in some form or another, and the record being released by year's end are not necessarily inconsistent concepts.

The use of the word "delay" is basically a shorter way of saying "the album
coming out later than the expectations the band set".

Would you prefer that everyone said the latter?

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

 

[*I*]

To be fair, with HTDAAB, the band got as far as delivering "Native Son" to the label for release as the first single.

Then the band slammed on the brakes and went back to the studio.

The band slammed their brakes? I dont believe that for a second. The label obviously had a problem with that song and its lyrical content. I would say that the band had their brakes slammed by the label. I bet there was all kinds of anti-establishment content on the original record that got whitewashed by interscope. Xanax and wine is another one of those obvious flip flopped songs by them. Iovine gets the demo, deems it anti-corporate/establishment and makes them soften it up. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Now you have to search and dig for the deep cuts for anything of substance and relevant truth out of U2. Sad, really. Thats why I wish U2 would produce and distribute their album in house on their own independent label. Without influence and editing. THAT'S why theyre irrelevant. No more disney channel pillowy soft rounded and padded edges, just the cold hard truth. Under interscope they are incapable of anything close to that.

A common theme among U2 fans is "Bono hasnt written a good album of lyrics since POP!!!1!".
Which album was interscope's first record with U2? I rest my case.

 

[martha]

Bono said HE didn't want to sing Native Son all the time, so the band reworked it. The labels don't censor anything nowadays.

 

[*I*]

Bono said HE didn't want to sing Native Son all the time, so the band reworked it. The labels don't censor anything nowadays.

source?

 

[popacrobat]

Did it occur to anyone that for Larry, perhaps finalizing the artwork and photography, shooting the first video, making tour arrangements, and doing interviews with certain publications is part of "finishing" the album?

It might be mixed and getting mastered shortly, but that doesn't mean it's capital-D done.

Glad to see you're protecting this house too.

 

[martha]

My memory from when the record came out. I read it in an interview somewhere. I don't have the time or inclination to look it up. You could source your suppositions.

 

[Nick66]

The band slammed their brakes? I dont believe that for a second. The label obviously had a problem with that song and its lyrical content. I would say that the band had their brakes slammed by the label. I bet there was all kinds of anti-establishment content on the original record that got whitewashed by interscope. Xanax and wine is another one of those obvious flip flopped songs by them. Iovine gets the demo, deems it anti-corporate/establishment and makes them soften it up. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Now you have to search and dig for the deep cuts for anything of substance and relevant truth out of U2. Sad, really. Thats why I wish U2 would produce and distribute their album in house on their own independent label. Without influence and editing. THAT'S why theyre irrelevant. No more disney channel pillowy soft rounded and padded edges, just the cold hard truth. Under interscope they are incapable of anything close to that.

A common theme among U2 fans is "Bono hasnt written a good album of lyrics since POP!!!1!".
Which album was interscope's first record with U2? I rest my case.

LOL. No record label has been able to tell U2 what to do for quite some time. U2 junked Native Son because they (correctly) knew the song wasn't the first single they needed. And it certainly would not have been part of any iPod ad.

That's not to say U2 aren't influenced by the likes of Iovine, they certainly are. But no one tells them what to do...they do it because it's what they want to do, and they call the shots on every aspect of recording, promotion and touring.

 

[*I*]

My memory from when the record came out. I read it in an interview somewhere. I don't have the time or inclination to look it up. You could source your suppositions.

If they made him censor the album by rewriting the lyrical content, what makes you think they didnt make him give some half-assed excuse?

Listen to Xanax and Wine. Listen to what he's saying. A message to all of those in a prescription induced submissive and accepting haze. That turns into Fast Cars? A song about the same thing more or less but crossed with someone who is voluntarily immature. It doesnt even make sense after the edit. And it was then left off of the main record because it still had its original theme even without the use of the word Xanax. Better not piss off Phizer. Listen to Native Son. Now listen to the senseless satanic dribble in Vertigo. It went from sticking up for an innocent's rights to what? the devil tempting Jesus with all that the eye can see? WTF? Better not piss off the CCA.

Youre kidding yourself if you think U2 arent censored to the masses.

 

[dabiggestu2fan]

If they made him censor the album by rewriting the lyrical content, what makes you think they didnt make him give some half-assed excuse?

Listen to Xanax and Wine. Listen to what he's saying. A message to all of those in a prescription induced submissive and accepting haze. That turns into Fast Cars? A song about the same thing more or less but crossed with someone who is voluntarily immature. It doesnt even make sense after the edit. And it was then left off of the main record because it still had its original theme even without the use of the word Xanax. Better not piss off Phizer. Listen to Native Son. Now listen to the senseless satanic dribble in Vertigo. It went from sticking up for an innocent's rights to what? the devil tempting Jesus with all that the eye can see? WTF? Better not piss off the CCA.

Youre kidding yourself if you think U2 arent censored to the masses.

If you ask me, I think U2 is only censored by U2. I think they are the ones who get cold feet about the reaction to certain songs and thus they change them. I love native son but i think in that aspect they made the right decision to change it to Vertigo. It would have never done good as a single. Listen, this is not the same U2 from the 90's that said fuck it, we don't care about what people will say/react. 2000's U2 is much more self conscious about what they release thus resulting in safer more radio friendly songs.

 

[lazarus]

Agree with the above.

If you think Iovine had the power to censor U2, you're deranged.

 

[*I*]

LOL. No record label has been able to tell U2 what to do for quite some time. U2 junked Native Son because they (correctly) knew the song wasn't the first single they needed. And it certainly would not have been part of any iPod ad.

That's not to say U2 aren't influenced by the likes of Iovine, they certainly are. But no one tells them what to do...they do it because it's what they want to do, and they call the shots on every aspect of recording, promotion and touring.

Go on youtube and read the people's comments on Native Son's videos. Each one is praise and confusion.

The point you made about U2 not wanting to use Native Son because it wouldnt gel with an Apple ad is slightly ridiculous. To think U2 is in the studio tailoring a song to fit a commercial on tv is disgusting and if that were true I would have to stop listening to them altogether.....
Hell, maybe they did. The evidence would certainly point to that. Was it by preference or pressure? Thats the million dollar question.

You cant deny the fact that U2 got ultra soft at the same exact time interscope showed up. And theres clearly evidence that U2/Bono still have that passion for justice with Native Son. Think about this; They were in the studio writing what would be HTDAAB for years before it got flip turned upsidedown and rewritten in those last few months. That would suggest Native Son's lyrics were developed and refined over a whole hell of a lot longer period of time than Vertigo's lyrics were. Bono wouldnt have held on to those same lyrics for that long if he wasnt sure about them. They had an album ready for release at the time they turned over Native Son to Iovine. They were ready to go. Apple wasnt even a glimmer in their eye at that point in time.

Im supposed to believe that he feels more strongly about Vertigo's lyrics? Lyrics that he probably spent a few weeks on compared to the years that Native Son had? Nah brah.

 

[*I*]

I want to hear the rest of those Chris Thomas songs.

 

[*I*]

2000's U2 is much more self conscious about what they release thus resulting in safer more radio friendly songs.

You mean interscope's U2

 

[*I*]

Agree with the above.

If you think Iovine had the power to censor U2, you're deranged.

He's the head of Interscope, why exactly does he not have the power to tell them to change lyrics to songs on an album he's distributing on his label? I dont understand.

 

[dabiggestu2fan]

You mean interscope's U2

No I think U2's sound in the 2000's was a direct result of the relative failure of POP(in their eyes). Plain and simple. They are afraid of failure in terms of sales and thus make safer music rather then more daring music that could be amazing but a commercial flop. This has nothing to do with their record label. IMHO

 

[Nick66]

Go on youtube and read the people's comments on Native Son's videos. Each one is praise and confusion.

Well what people say on Youtube about Native Son is probative of absolutely nothing except perhaps that people on Youtube like to argue about songs.

To think U2 is in the studio tailoring a song to fit a commercial on tv is disgusting

Of course, I never said that. I said Native Son never would have been in an iPod ad. And it certainly would not have. Actually, if you read Walker Issacson's excellent biography of Steve Jobs (he also did a fantastic bio on Einstein, BTW), you'll learn exactly how all that came about...and how Bono basically begged Jobs to use the Vertigo in the ad.

Im supposed to believe that he feels more strongly about Vertigo's lyrics? Lyrics that he probably spent a few weeks on compared to the years that Native Son had? Nah brah.

Well, I don't know how Bono feels about Vertigo's lyrics vs. Native Son's. What I do know is that he correctly surmised that Vertigo had more potential to be a hit and take them where they wanted to be. But let's be clear...that's something U2 wanted, not something they were forced into.

The notion that U2 are these delicate artists being manipulated and controlled by evil corporate suits is just absurd, and it's frankly ridiculous that anyone who knows the first thing about how this band operates would think so.

 

[Nick66]

No I think U2's sound in the 2000's was a direct result of the relative failure of POP(in their eyes). Plain and simple. They are afraid of failure in terms of sales and thus make safer music rather then more daring music that could be amazing but a commercial flop. This has nothing to do with their record label. IMHO

Now THIS makes sense. And has the added benefit of being completely true.

 

[*I*]

OK. So its the 'POP recoil' vs. 'struggling band needs big marketing record label's help and with that comes influence' argument. I know Im not the only one who has these suspicions either. No one can deny the fact that U2 hasnt put out a song close to 'electric co' 'wire' 'mother's of the disappeared' or 'sunday bloody sunday' caliber of protest song since theyve been with Interscope. God knows theres been a need for one in the past 13 years. Instead they deafeningly shut their mouths? To compensate for PoP's sales? When the fan base has been brought up on protest songs to begin with? That makes absolutely no sense to me.
I can see them taking out the DJ and synthesizers and shit in favor of a classic Guitars Bass and Drums sound but softening the lyrical content? That's what's absurd. I dont see what lyrical content has to do with sales, especially when the lyrical content used instead makes use of the same melodies but makes little coherent sense.