wow! U2 hiphop album...

[maycocksean]

So to answer your question, yes I think U2 are adding fans to their fanbase, but it's not a quantifiable number, it's more about interest, passion, effort, and sheer attraction all rolled into one. The fanbase is volatile, if they made a metal record to follow up Bomb, the same cycle would turn over again, but they would lose the crowd, I initially talked about which is the heart of the adult mainstream. Maybe some of the odler crowd come back into the fold and so on. U2 are so big, I think their following defies any precendented logic about the industry of rock and roll.

The most important step is the next step.
And what determines that will be the band's goal.
Is the goal to add even more fans? Then they probably have to change again, and hopefully they have learned from past mistakes.

I dunno....something like that.

But here's the question. Does it matter whether U2 are picking up YOUNG fans? The underlying issue is what do with the whole concept of rock n' roll as it ages. Rock was born as the music of youth--of the things associated with youth--rebelling, sex etc, and now the rock and roll generation is definitely old. You can take that in the shallow, "party sense" or the deeper "dark loner searching through the hypocrisy for what's real and true" but it still represented what typically happens when people are younger. What does rock look like when it's old? Hopefully not the Rolling Stones. Perhaps U2 will answer that question.

What is it. . .kids want to listen to music that pisses their parents off? Usually (for white kids anyway) it's black music. Well that's not rock anymore. Rock is your parents music. And it's certainly not black anymore. What music fits that bill now? Hip-hop. Defintiely irritates those old fogey parents. And it's definitely black (notwithstanding the potential of Eminem to be the rap's Elvis).

So the question is should U2 risk trying to resonate with young listeners? Wouldn't that inherently mean pissing off older fans (like they did during the 90's)? But wouldn't we come back around eventually? I don't really know the answer to this question. I'm just wondering out loud.

The one thing that is certain--the most recent material is not going to pick up too many new, younger fans (though definitely 80's people who FINALLY realized U2 is where it's at). It's not breaking any new ground, not really making anyone mad, it's not particularly fresh. Whether that's good or bad is up for debate.

Another thought is that U2's music expresses where they are in their lives. I look back at U2 and their musical journey really seems to mirror my own way of relating to life. Since they're about 10 years older than me, I've been about 10 years "behind." I don't think it is coincidence that only now, in my thirties that I began to finally relate to and appreciate the 90's U2 music--the music they recorded when they were the age I am now. (I'm speaking primarily lyrically and spiritually). Does that mean that in ten years I'll finally "get" their albums of the early 21st century? And does that also mean that I surely won't get whatever comes out in the next ten years because I haven't gotten there in my own life?

 

[maycocksean]

I'm just about to go out, so can't properly reply, except to say... Did you see Gangs of New York? Hands That Built, on it's own, is a dull song, but it is a soundtrack song, and not all soundtrack songs are just singles to sell the soundtrack album where they do a shite video clip featuring poorly chopped in edits from the film (umm, Elevation) and otherwise the song has zero relevence to the film. The whole score of that film builds to that song, and it works brilliantly in the movie. Gets a definite pass from me for that.

I did see the movie, and I see your point. It worked well there. But I only saw the movie once but had to listen to (or skip the track) "Hands" over and over again on the 1990-2000 album and that's where I learned to hate it. I guess it doesn't stand so well on it's own, in my opinion. I dunno, I just didn't like the September 11 references, the heavy-handed strings. . .and all that, it just seemed so obvious. But yeah, as part of film score. . .

Personally, I'd love to see U2 make music into their 50's and 60's. Little niche stuff with Edge getting all bluesy and a scratchy voiced Bono howling away about the ills of the world. Won't happen though.

Right there with ya, man. I hope you're wrong though. I hope it does happen.

 

[U2DMfan]

But here's the question. Does it matter whether U2 are picking up YOUNG fans? The underlying issue is what do with the whole concept of rock n' roll as it ages. ..........................

First off, great post, finally some good discussion around here.

It doesn't matter to me, at all. I hope they steer away from the under 20 crowd (in a general, very mainstream sense) as much as possible. Is that what they want?
I guess we'll see in due time.

I'd say, if U2 were to follow gracefully into the paths of their fellow elder rock statesmen, they'd follow Dylan, Bowie and Gabriel rather than any number of other examples. Cast popularity to the wind, young or old, and just make great interesting music that has a chance to actually stand the test of time.

Rock and roll in general is a rebellion, but after 25+ years for a musician, I think that this rebellion must and has to change. It has to be grown up, more sophisticated and not pandering to the listeners, especially the bulk of the hardcore fanbase that has paid for beachouses in south France. IMO, it is not a creative statement to go after the masses when you can't get them, it reads like a cash grab or an ego trip.

As far as relating to the music in a generational sense, I personally never bought into it. I am as old now (31) as Bono was when Achtung came out. Yet, I'd say as far back as my late teens/early twenties, I totally related to it's content. That's not to say my ear hasn't matured, it defintely has, it has given me a greater appreciation for all of that music.

If I could share one exapmle of how music has changed for me, over the years. I started playing guitar years ago, but never got much into, writing and recording until maybe the last 5 years.
Creating music is such a great experience, even when it's bad it's interesting, when it's good it's better than any drug. As I have learned to appreciate more melody, as opposed to some of the hard shit I used to listen to, and as I have learned to appreciate everything that goes into a song, top to bottom, production to the actual instrumentation, my appreciation has grown for all kinds of artists.

Artists I would never have given any credit to maybe 5 years or more ago, I have learned to respect even if I don't own or listen to their music. But with U2, it's almost as if the process has gone backwards. At a time when songwriting has really resonated with me, U2 supposedly goes down this path, yet it seems so insincere, in a sense. I don't buy it. The songs just aren't there, for me. I honestly don't think they are chasing down a creative passion. I think they are up to something else, for sure.

Take a band like the Chilli Peppers, like them or not, they basically did the same thing U2 did, cut it back to bring the strength to the front , added more melodies and harmonies and it was absolutely ace. U2 cut it back, supposedly, to leave their strengths on the drawing board. My personal belief is that, to keep the band together, to keep Bono with his 'stature' so he can execute politically, they made concessions, big artistic and creative concessions. Did they compromise themselves? Well, if this were INXS, hard strapped for fame and cash, then the asnwer is yes. It's U2, mega-rich, mega-famous, mega-lauded, almost universally loved. I think they compromised themselves because they think they had to. And I don't think they did.

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

Take a band like the Chilli Peppers, like them or not, they basically did the same thing U2 did, cut it back to bring the strength to the front , added more melodies and harmonies and it was absolutely ace. U2 cut it back, supposedly, to leave their strengths on the drawing board. My personal belief is that, to keep the band together, to keep Bono with his 'stature' so he can execute politically, they made concessions, big artistic and creative concessions. Did they compromise themselves? Well, if this were INXS, hard strapped for fame and cash, then the asnwer is yes. It's U2, mega-rich, mega-famous, mega-lauded, almost universally loved. I think they compromised themselves because they think they had to. And I don't think they did.

One of U2s strengths is they know when to change. They didn't go out and make another War, even though if they did it probably would have sold more than TUF. If they would have come out in 1991 with another JT I don't think they would still be around. It would have sold, but they woudn't have survived. TJT in alot of ways, was an extension to TUF I think. A bit "tighter" but not a huge step in style.

I think they made a good choice pulling away a bit after AB/Zooropa/Pop. Let themselves follow their own instincts without as much obvious outside influence.

I think now is the perfect time for them to delve a bit more into something else, who knows what. But they've always made the right choices for their Stature and survival. I don't doubt that they'll know where to go from here

 

[LemonAid]

fantastic discussion guys, some terrific insight into things, and I would say you're expressing the thoughts of alot of people....definitly myself...

...I wont even venture into this any deeper, should be in bed, but happened upon these posts, great reading....

...the one thing I would say....or actually 2....

...I remember reading/hearing Bono saying something a few months ago in an interview that frankly scared the shit out of me. Before I say it, I would be of the thought that we are infact going to be in for a change with the next album, but you may recall the comment...something along the lines of:

(paraphrasing)

".....we're interested in seeing what kind of music a rockband can make at the age that we are..... ...there's a whole demographic out there that can be catered for 'if' we are up for the challenge..... ...look at Fleetwood Mac, Rumours sold 25 million records.... "


...ok, ok....that was the general jist of what it was, and I remember being so....off-put by the way he said, however it came out....it sounded like it was off some pie-charts from Interscope or something....

...anyway, I just thought Id put it out there, dont know if any of you remember it, or if its my sleep-deprived brain making it up...


....also, nullifying that comment for a moment, the other point I wanted to make was on the basis of their next 'musical departure'.....which I really think/HOPE TO GOD that there will be....

...the one thing about it that scares me, is the fact that this is indeed going to be the last phase of their career, and seeing the enormous commercial and grammy success they've had with the last 2 albums......I guess what Im worried about is if they feel that there may be a risk for the 'final chapter of U2 History Books' by doing something experimental or risque? ...Im sure they want to go out on 'top' in as many ways as possible...


..anyway, sorry, I dont think I'm being too articulate with my thoughts right now, but perhaps you get where im going?

To reiterate, I hope to god for a departure. Earnie, completely right with 'aiming for the middle' ....because that does not have to equate for middle of the road, just hitting their bases, in the best ways possible...

...anyway, once again....all of the posts of the last 2 pages have been absolutely fascinating, really says alot about the U2 fans...

..night peeps..

 

[U2DMfan]

One of U2s strengths is they know when to change.

After being painfully reminded by public reaction.
(Pop and Rattle and Hum). The War>UF transition was pulled off extremely well but you could argue it's the last time they had a 'timely' change. And that was over 20 years ago.

Maybe their biggest weakness is not knowing when to change until they see a commercial or critical failure. So needless to say, I don't agree.

I will say their changes, timely or not, have been very effective, even if I don't like ATYCLB, it was a hugely succesful album and it was a definite fresh new brand of U2.

 

[U2DMfan]

...ok, ok....that was the general jist of what it was, and I remember being so....off-put by the way he said, however it came out....it sounded like it was off some pie-charts from Interscope or something....

.

...the one thing about it that scares me, is the fact that this is indeed going to be the last phase of their career, and seeing the enormous commercial and grammy success they've had with the last 2 albums......I guess what Im worried about is if they feel that there may be a risk for the 'final chapter of U2 History Books' by doing something experimental or risque? ...Im sure they want to go out on 'top' in as many ways as possible...

The sad thing is, that has been the consistent line from Bono.
He talks about sales, hits and awards as a validation of their greatness. They have a supreme lack of confidence, forget their false bravado, they have a gigantic, frail ego.

On the last paragraph, I think the worst possible prospects for a departure of sound for the next album, maybe even in the near future or if ever, was U2 raking in at the Grammy's like that. They are selling albums and selling out concerts. Is there ANY reason to change what they are doing?

If they care so much about sales, awards etc., and they do, why would they risk a certain 'failure' again?

I think they could go into the studio at the end of this year, talking to the press about "dreaming up new ideas" and walk out of the studio two years later with an album that sounds like a few notches apart from Bomb. Punk rock on venus!!!

Would that surprise anybody?

 

[maycocksean]

Rock and roll in general is a rebellion, but after 25+ years for a musician, I think that this rebellion must and has to change. It has to be grown up, more sophisticated and not pandering to the listeners, especially the bulk of the hardcore fanbase that has paid for beachouses in south France. IMO, it is not a creative statement to go after the masses when you can't get them, it reads like a cash grab or an ego trip.

True. I thought of another artist that was able to tap into that sense of rebellion, from the perspective of old age. Granted he may not of technically been a rocker, but still: Johnny Cash. That cover of "Hurt" is definitely what it means to go out on top. And the rest of that last album of his wasn't too shabby either.

[/i]

As far as relating to the music in a generational sense, I personally never bought into it. I am as old now (31) as Bono was when Achtung came out. Yet, I'd say as far back as my late teens/early twenties, I totally related to it's content. That's not to say my ear hasn't matured, it defintely has, it has given me a greater appreciation for all of that music.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I think my appreiciation of U2's various stages as I've aged has more to do with me, and my personal history than it does a wider experience shared by most other fans.

[/i]
I think they compromised themselves because they think they had to. And I don't think they did. [/QUOTE]

I'm actually about ready to revise an opinion I wrote way back when I first posted in this thread. I don't know that they changed their style strictly because they were following their artistic vision (though, I think that was PART of it). I agree with you that with the exception of TUF, U2 has changed course when it had to (or thought they had to). Part of the reason, I think, is that if you think about it, U2 has always, unashamedly, wanted to be big. They've come right out and said, "We want to be the biggest rock band in the world." For most rock artists, this sort of desire for "bigness" is an anathema. But U2 has always been very upfront about wanting to be huge. In a way, I guess that's why we accept it--they're so frickin' honest about it. Even their music, the soaring sounds that are really just built for stadiums ("Streets" was MADE for a stadium packed with 50,000 screaming fans, not some tiny little club)--no other band would dare try something like that.

And yet with U2 we buy it. Maybe it's because they also explore "big themes" in their music. They're not filling stadiums to sing about partying on Friday night so to speak. I don't know.

They gamble yes, but they're not going to be content to keep losing. If it doesn't work, they'll try something else.

 

[maycocksean]

Going back to the original title of this thread.

U2 making a hip hop record.

I was watching the Elevation Live in Boston DVD tonight and I found that version of "Bullet the Blue Sky" electrifying.

And here's what I realized. Bono can. . .if he wants to . . .rap.
He had those whole little riff, you know where he changes the stuff about the mud huts, and El Salvador (he changes that part of the song all the time since those lyrics are now a bit dated), and he did this thing that was basically a rap. And a good one.

Good enough, that the first time I heard it (I've been watching/listening to the DVD in pieces, sometimes just playing it on my home theater system with the TV off and listening while I do o ther things) that I had one of those "Whoa, wait a minute. . .what's this" moments. It stopped me in my tracks. He had a rhythm, he had a rhyme. He had that intensity. Here's a sample of the lyrics--the topic the guy who killed John Lennon

"I can feel the cold steel,
I can make a wound that won't heal.
38 millimeter like the police
I'm at door with John at the Gilmore
Livin love and peace
Love and peace
Feel like an old shoe, a re-release, soon to be deceased

Pull the trigger
I'm a rock n' roll ******
Bigger than Jesus on a bumper sticker

Pull the trigger
I'm a rock n' roll ******
Bigger than Jesus on a bumper sticker

My pulse is racing, eyes chasing,
for an autograph, I've been waiting

Hey, John, War is over
We don't need your help
America is making war on itself!"

Now if you hate hip hop this may not go down too well, but stick with me for a minute. I say this not as a huge hip hop fan--I generally prefer rock:

Did it sound like the typical hip-hop rapper, i.e. did he sound black? No. If he was reminiscent of anyone it was Eminem. And here's the thing about Eminem. He came in as a white rapper, and he didn't try to sound black (okay maybe he does when he talks, but when he raps. . .). You don't ever mistake Eminem for anyone else. He took the genre and made it his own. He is the Elvis of hip hop.

U2 could, I believe, do something similar. If they did, it wouldn't sound anything like anything you'd ever heard before. They wouldn't sound like Jay-Z or Nelly or Ludacris or any of these guys. They wouldn't sound like Eminem. They would piss off a LOT of faithful fans, especially the older ones. There might be elements of what I saw on that "Bullet the Blue Sky" track, maybe a little of "Playboy Mansion" which to me has both a bluesy and R & B feel to it. Could they pull it off? I really don't know for sure. Should they try? Maybe so.

Again, age is going to factor into the equation. You'd have a band attempting to enter a genre where there really aren't any really, OLD elder statesmen. The genre is too young to have any. And if they won't change until they have to it's not going to be the next album. The next album will be the third installment in this trilogy. It will probably not do as well--and U2 will realize they must once again return to the drawing board. By this time they are fifty? Would they have it in them to dream it all up, yet again?

I hope so.

 

[AtomicBono]

maycocksean, that's really interesting... you're possibly the first person I've ever seen actually seriously consider Bono rapping. and you have some good points.

that said, I don't think Bono rapping would go down well, even if it was good. Mainly because...well...U2 are old, and they have never done rap before. Basically, what you already said. still, you're right about that performance being electrifying. I'd love to see more of that intensity. I don't think we need a whole album of Bono rapping, but if he tried it on a couple tracks...you never know... it could be something.

I think the next album will be different from the last two. Bono has been referring to them as a "pair of albums," and I think everyone in the band has talked about experimentation. This is a good thing.

 

[LemonAid]

The sad thing is, that has been the consistent line from Bono.
He talks about sales, hits and awards as a validation of their greatness. They have a supreme lack of confidence, forget their false bravado, they have a gigantic, frail ego.

On the last paragraph, I think the worst possible prospects for a departure of sound for the next album, maybe even in the near future or if ever, was U2 raking in at the Grammy's like that. They are selling albums and selling out concerts. Is there ANY reason to change what they are doing?

If they care so much about sales, awards etc., and they do, why would they risk a certain 'failure' again?

I think they could go into the studio at the end of this year, talking to the press about "dreaming up new ideas" and walk out of the studio two years later with an album that sounds like a few notches apart from Bomb. Punk rock on venus!!!

Would that surprise anybody?

No, not really. But lets not bury them before they're dead. There's an interesting thing to note about how the band won a horde of grammies for this album and the last. Stop me if I'm being too optimistic, but perhaps they're not as tunnel-visioned as we think and portray them to be....

..bear with me. It occured to me while I was watching the replay of the Grammies, how utterly absurd the awards are as whole, but particularily in the categories that U2 are traditionally playing for. Respect, nostalgia and God knows what else plays such a HUGE role in those categories as to be unbelievable.

Primarily starting with the Best Rock Album award, I mean the split-second I saw A Bigger Bang in there competing for Best Rock Album of the whole year, my (already depleted) faith dropped to an even lower level. Now I love the Stones fine, incredible band who have done some incredible work. But really.......come. on. That takes the piss. And to a lesser extent Neil Young. Now once again, I worship Neil Young....a genius. One of the most defining and dam-right expectation challenging artists there ever has been. But I also know that there is no way that album was any way near his best, let alone a top 5 rock album of the year. A final main example I will put forth is Paul McCartney for Album of the Year.
Now come the fuck on. Im no huge fan of his, I'll admit, but Im also not letting that bias get in the way of a pretty obvious fact, that there was no way that was one of the top 5 albums of the year, it wouldnt even make top 50.

(some would/could say the same about Atomic Bomb, but i'll leave that out...)

Now I know, bashing the credibility of the Grammies is like taking the piss out of a mouse for being 'not big'. But the reason I focused particularily on those three is because, yes you guessed, U2 is only a decade/decade and half from their position in the hierarchy. And I really think (hope?) that we should perhaps give their intelligence some more credit. I remember reading a 2-page special in Word Magazine (really good UK music/film/culture magazine) about U2 where it broke down their Discography into categories of Essential Masterpice, Very Good, Good and For Fans Only. In the introduction, they wrote a few paragraphs about U2's ability to change and so on, that really pinned it for me. It was something along the lines of:

"...thats what U2 do. They just keep on keeping on. As soon as there is the faintest whiff of staleness to what they're doing, they are the first ones to push the emergency button and make a change..."

The whole article was very well written, and particularily well-observed. The reason I bring it up is to entertain the notion that these guys really do know whats going on right now. They did before and I'm sure they do now. Yes, the grammies are great. The publicity amazing, and the sales wonderful. But lets not sell them too short, I'm sure they must know that even though they were there winning the biggest music awards in the world, that just a few weeks earlier they were touring with Arcade Fire, Secret Machines, Franz Ferdinand, etc.......basically where the real quality bar is at, and I dont just mean 'for the kids'.

What I guess I'm hoping is that they can make the distinction. In a way I know that they already have. They know what is good, and more importantly they know that they are still as capable as ever of competing on those grounds and conceivably winning on merit alone. No, the question is whether they have the balls to go and follow through on those instincts. That part I just dont know.

 

[U2DMfan]

The whole article was very well written, and particularily well-observed. The reason I bring it up is to entertain the notion that these guys really do know whats going on right now. They did before and I'm sure they do now. Yes, the grammies are great. The publicity amazing, and the sales wonderful. But lets not sell them too short, I'm sure they must know that even though they were there winning the biggest music awards in the world, that just a few weeks earlier they were touring with Arcade Fire, Secret Machines, Franz Ferdinand, etc.......basically where the real quality bar is at, and I dont just mean 'for the kids'.

I'm sure they know what's going on and have ideas to make great music, but at this point they can't exactly fire Larry.


couldn't resist

Well, I could only hope that some of those opening bands would rub off on them, but if I'm being honest, there have been many occassions in the past and several recently that have led me to believe that U2 are out of touch more than they are not. They care about Grammy's for goodness sakes, maybe in 1987, they didn't know the business as well, but 2006, c'mon. Teenage kids growing up in middle America can figure out that it's a big industry charade that is meaningless. U2 are probably exactly as they seem, insecure and ambitous, which is an interesting combination to say the least. They want to be great, but need you to tell them that they are great, otherwise they couldn't possibly know? Insecure, yet they want to be the biggest. Must be hard to rationalize.

They weren't always insecure, in fact, I'd say that is a new card on the table in the last 6 or 7 years. That changes the dynamics of what they are willing to do, what they want to do, and what they will do. I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I remember albums that did indeed get 'stale' before they caught up to it, in fact they have said it themselves in so many words.

I do have hope that they want to change again, but I am afraid some certain things are here to stay musically and otherwise that are probably no good for U2, in my opinion. For instance, can you say without reservation that U2 would be willing to make an album that had no chance to sell 5 million copies or win awards?
Probably not, I'd guess. So the company line is "we have the ambition to be great, and these things mean we are great"
When really, they could make their best album and see it tank in terms of massive commercial success and if it's too far right or left of the mainstream the grammy's would probably ignore it.

Their ambition has taken them beyond trying to make great music, to trying to make the best music that earns them the "validation" for being great. Otherwise, if there is no validation, then it might as well not exist. Great, not 'just good'.
Which I suppose means awards and sales. Their ambition will only take them as far as the public will allow. That is not a creative musical ambition, that is an ambition of success. At what cost to the music?

 

[maycocksean]

Wasn't there a song by this band . . .

"It's no secret ambition bites the nails of success"

I think there are two basically different views of U2 and I can see merit to both. One view is that they know what's going on and they see where things are headed and will change it up before they get too stale. The other view is that U2 has become blinded by their successes, and desperate to keep that moniker of "biggest band in the world."

I think the truth is somewhere between the two. People are pretty complicated things, and how many of us do anything without a mix of higher and more base motives. And U2 is made up, finally, not of omniscient gods (enough about this Bono as Messiah nonsense), but of human beings.

I've always believed that it's very, very difficult for any human being to keep their heads on straight when you're being fed so much adulation and idol worship. It's easy for us to judge these guys when we've never tasted the elixer of worship. . .something none of us were really made for. So where is U2 in all this? I don't know. Probably trying to keep their heads on straight. Sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing. And that's what we see reflected in the music. All in all, I think they've done a pretty good job of managing to keep the balance most of the time.

Agreed, the Grammies are crap. Did you see the show? Horrible, just horrible. U2 looked kind of embarrassed to be there. Several reviewers suggested that they almost seemed apologetic about winning album of the year over Kanye West. The performances were dismal--definitely not U2 at their finest. The Mary J. Blige duet with U2 was just not what it could have been.
Just by the way U2 looked on stage, I don't think they're blind to how meaningless all the Grammy business is.

However, I also think that U2 would release something that wouldn't sell five million. . .but it would be a "side" project like Passengers. For the main event they're going to put all the commericial, and publicity muscle behind their album to make it HUGE. I don't think that is going to change any time soon. There is a side to these guys that is very business oriented. They've never been real patient with the concept that "I am the Artiste, I make great art that nobody appreciates, screw the fans, screw the pubic, I am great because I say I am." They want to reach a lot of people, and they see value in that. I'm not sure it's totally out of insecurity. . .though again, people are complicated and motives are always mixed.

"I gotta go. . .I'm runnin' out of change. There are somethings, if I could, you know I'd rearrange."

 

[intedomine]

I always thought of Pop as closer to Trip Hop than Hip Hop....

But if U2 were to explore Hip Hop and integrate it with their traditional U2 sound, I think it could be a rather splendid offering...

As long as U2 avoid adopting Hip Hop stereotypes (bling, street culture, meaningless lyrics....

As much as I have little time for Kanye West, if he was to co-produce the album with Eno or Lillywhite, it would certainly excite me.

Let's hope the nect album will be released in 2007...

 

[DignityPassesBy]

Someone said before that they know when to change and i kind of agree with you but i think they know when things are about to change not when to. If you take pop and realease it in 2000 it probably would have sold as big as all that you can't leave behind because of the way the music industry went. Pop was ahead of its time for that reason. Imagine songs like discotheque, mofo, do you feel loved being released now it'd get played to death in night clubs and on radio ... well at least in australia anyway lol

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Pop was ahead of its time for that reason. Imagine songs like discotheque, mofo, do you feel loved being released now it'd get played to death in night clubs and on radio ... well at least in australia anyway lol

Yep.

(I posted the following in another thread a couple of weeks ago...)


I literally just this minute got handed a record company released compilation CD that is on disc one a remixed/dance disc, disc 2 the original tracks.

In the liner notes is the following quote:

----------------------------------------------------

"Action! Now! It's been said before but let's say it again, dance music didn't die, it just cross bred with everything and the kitchen sink and turned into a gnarly, unpredictable little mutt humping the leg of the establishment. It's the bastard child of floor filling and guitar spilling. Otherwise known as artrock/discopunk/selfmutilatedmixrock or simply indie rock with a dance element (pick and choose at your leisure). Here the Modular label, the fold that brought us the widescreen cut'n'paste work outs from The Avalanches and the current electro pin ups Cut Copy, present the first instalment of rule breakers cutting a stylish rug on dance floors across the world.

The eclecticism spreads far and wide. From Brit Grot rockers (the 9-5 ennui-fuelled hedonism of The Rakes, the blistering London screnesterings of The Cazals, the pelting pseudo politico pop of Bloc Party), to psychotic singer songwriters (the racketeering breakdown of Tom Vek, the twined fury of The Fiery Furnaces and the post-desert rock of The Kills), and dancefloor industrialists (Mylo, Erol Alkan and artrock's producer in residence Paul Epworth-under his "Phones" guise, junkyard dum'n'bassists Death From Above 1979). Even Vegas superstars The Killers are part of the act and finish the party.

What do they have in common? A shameless, shamanic, boundary busting attitude that holds their disparate parts together. It's totally about The Now, the past is just an event on the b-side of the horizon. So get yourself on the nearest dancefloor and be part of the revolution.

Priya Elan, NME, August 2005.

-----------------------------------------------------


Can I get a fuckin' Boom-Cha?

Obviously Pop sounds like none of the above. However, if you think Pop wasn't either a legitimate exercise, or don't think it was an exercise that was ahead of it's time....

 

[AtomicBono]

I always thought of Pop as closer to Trip Hop than Hip Hop....

But if U2 were to explore Hip Hop and integrate it with their traditional U2 sound, I think it could be a rather splendid offering...

As long as U2 avoid adopting Hip Hop stereotypes (bling, street culture, meaningless lyrics....

As much as I have little time for Kanye West, if he was to co-produce the album with Eno or Lillywhite, it would certainly excite me.

Let's hope the nect album will be released in 2007...

If U2 are gonna do anything with Kanye, I hope he's producing, because he's actually a pretty good producer (the few songs I've heard him produce anyway). I'd LOVE to see U2 work with hip hop producers because that's where innovation is nowdays, and U2 seems to know this.

U2 are never going to become hip hop, but being inspired by hip hop and maybe integrating elements of hip hop into the next album could work out very well.

 

[maycocksean]

I might also add that not all hip hop has meaningless lyrics and focuses on street culture and bling.

I think U2 would represent the element of hip hop that is not about that.

Agreed that hip-hop, is where the innovation is, in the "big" sense of the word--it's the arena that's having the most influence right now. I know there are all sorts of indie/art rockers that are innovating, but they aren't having a lot of widespread recognition or influence in the mainstream the way hip hop is.

 

[BEAL]

I just received the new rollingstone yesterday. In it, there was a blurb about Kayne West and U2 touring together. They also mentioned a bit where they were planning on "recording" together as well.

That's all it said. I wouldn't mind hearing a song with kayne behind the desk, but I don't think I'd want a u2/west song. Or if the band were to provide the backing track to kayne would be ok too.

 

[U2DMfan]

I'd be okay with U2 just giving them some songs that are halfway or 3/4 complete already and letting Kanye work with them and see what happens. 3 or 4 songs, plus some live tracks, or a remix or whatever could make another 7 song EP.

Put it out as a one-off, clear the cabinet of all the Bomb material and start new in '07 and '08.

 

[Party Boy]

I always liked Bono's Mark Chapman speech from BTBS - Elevation DVD from Boston - that was rappin-esque!

 

[U2girl]

Did everyone miss all members of the band talking about experimenting again after Bomb? (two members protested in 2003 yet only one gets the bashing)

I don't see why everyone seems to be so sure we're getting Bomb part II, everything points that U2 knows they did the "classic U2 sound" to the max by now. They did a song with Dre and are recording with Kanye, but yeah, I guess the days of trying out new things are over. (I would consider Bomb an Edge album, but I guess it doesn't count if it isn't beefed up with the classic chimes but packed with distortion and the sacred effects) A retro album is inevitable with most bands, I don't see why U2 is so banned from it.

I can't wait till people start throwing out two/three year old quotes again when they new album comes out and shouting "They lied!"

As for touring, if Larry's wrists - and Bono's voice - hold on, why not tour in their 50s? (they just talked with Willie Williams on long term touring on current leg of Vertigo tour)
I'd like to see them do a pattern like this: take the rest if the year off when the tour ends and let Bono do his activities, next year they record an album and release whatever they got in 12 months. 2006 off but something new in 2007/early 2008.
I am also thinking with the reported upset in U2 during the last two albums over Bono's solo "career", he might do a bit less of his activism. "I need to serve these men" doesn't sound like he's off to shake more politican hands.

 

[maycocksean]

U2girl your vision of the next few years sounds good to me.

I do worry about Bono's voice though. Maybe it's just me, but's seemed a little more ragged lately. The Grammy performance of "One" was a little rough, I thought.