New U2 Album in 2012?

[digitize]

No evidence about what they have or have not produced since nothing has been released, so they haven't produced anything. They're working on producing a record, and until it comes out they haven't produced anything.

We have no evidence that Iraq has WMDs so they must have lots and lots and will fucking kill us all!

I think you and I are going off of different definitions of "produced". They have obviously produced things that they haven't released. If we are considering production to be just what they released, have they been less productive than in the 80s and 90s? Well yes, obviously. But it is also unreasonable to make the statement that, because we don't know exactly how much they have and have not produced but not released, they haven't produced any unreleased material. I really think that we just need to accept that we honestly don't know how much they have produced on that front (like you and probably everyone else, I strongly hesitate to take Bono's word at face value).

I really think this is just a semantical debate over the definition of "production". In a literal sense, production has no requirement of release, and we don't know for sure how much has been produced. I'm fairly certain that production of unreleased material has been more than nothing, but less than Bono would state. Neither I nor anyone on this forum knows for sure, but it's foolish to assume that it is zero. But it terms of production of final products? That has been much lower, as evidenced by... well, the fairly significant average wait between albums this past decade. And maybe that's evidence that U2 have produced less unreleased stuff this decade than in past decades, because they haven't had enough to cull albums from. Or maybe not... it's possible that they have treasure troves and just don't want to release it, although that would surprise me. Who knows? We don't.

 

[BVS]

Well yeah, of course. But are they less productive? That's what the debate is about.

How do you measure art in terms of productivity?

I'm not sure if you can, but even if you could I don't think amount of releases would be the way.

 

[mikal]

the latest Bono quote in Rolling Stone magazine suggests that the band now has 67 albums done, they're just not sure which one they're going to release.

 

[corianderstem]

I'd like to hear a U2 song about what possessed Bono to act as a character witness for Courtney Love. The man has fucking lost it. I guess all that time hanging with the Bush clan distorted his view of what decent people are like.

Courtney Love Uses Bono as Character Reference for New Condo | Music News | Rolling Stone

I'm more surprised he only wrote a paragraph. He must not think very highly of her after all.

Wasn't he also a character witness in court when Peter Buck threw a hissy on an airplane some years ago?

the latest Bono quote in Rolling Stone magazine suggests that the band now has 67 albums done, they're just not sure which one they're going to release.

The worst one.

 

[Hollow Island]

I think you and I are going off of different definitions of "produced". They have obviously produced things that they haven't released. If we are considering production to be just what they released, have they been less productive than in the 80s and 90s? Well yes, obviously. But it is also unreasonable to make the statement that, because we don't know exactly how much they have and have not produced but not released, they haven't produced any unreleased material. I really think that we just need to accept that we honestly don't know how much they have produced on that front (like you and probably everyone else, I strongly hesitate to take Bono's word at face value).

I really think this is just a semantical debate over the definition of "production". In a literal sense, production has no requirement of release, and we don't know for sure how much has been produced. I'm fairly certain that production of unreleased material has been more than nothing, but less than Bono would state. Neither I nor anyone on this forum knows for sure, but it's foolish to assume that it is zero. But it terms of production of final products? That has been much lower, as evidenced by... well, the fairly significant average wait between albums this past decade. And maybe that's evidence that U2 have produced less unreleased stuff this decade than in past decades, because they haven't had enough to cull albums from. Or maybe not... it's possible that they have treasure troves and just don't want to release it, although that would surprise me. Who knows? We don't.

You're right, we don't know if the well is dry or if they're just more selective. That's why the only way we can judge their productivity is to measure what they release. Their job is to produce records, and because they are producing (releasing) fewer records than in previous decades, we can only say that their rate of production has declined.

 

[Hollow Island]

How do you measure art in terms of productivity?

I'm not sure if you can, but even if you could I don't think amount of releases would be the way.

Of course you can. The more art you produce the more productive you are. It's pretty simple.

Here's an example. Bowie in the 70s: very productive. Bowie in the 00s: not so much. Maybe he records an album every other day, but since he's only put out two records in the last 12 years and nothing since 2003 it would be absurd to say he's a productive musician. Now, if he decides to put out a bunch of material that view would have to change, but as it is there is no evidence to support the idea that he is a productive musician.

 

[Niceman]

I consider the band's own reports of what they have done evidence that they likely have done what they say.

I would need evidence to conclude Bono is lying.

 

[BVS]

Of course you can. The more art you produce the more productive you are. It's pretty simple.

Here's an example. Bowie in the 70s: very productive. Bowie in the 00s: not so much. Maybe he records an album every other day, but since he's only put out two records in the last 12 years and nothing since 2003 it would be absurd to say he's a productive musician. Now, if he decides to put out a bunch of material that view would have to change, but as it is there is no evidence to support the idea that he is a productive musician.

So if you don't see it or hear it, it doesn't exist?

Fallen trees don't make a sound if no one is around.

 

[Nick66]

So if you don't see it or hear it, it doesn't exist?

Fallen trees don't make a sound if no one is around.

Ugh. Why do people seem to think that the inability to prove or disprove a negative is a valid way to make an argument.

OK, I'm going to make a statement. Prove to me this is wrong:

"In secret sessions in 2011, U2 recorded more new songs than they had in their entire 30-year history prior to that. However, they decided to keep these songs secret and hold off releasing them until 2025."

Now, prove that statement wrong.

 

[dan_smee]

This is bullshit. U2 were easily as productive in the period 2009-2009 as there were in any single year of the 80's

 

[Niceman]

Ugh. Why do people seem to think that the inability to prove or disprove a negative is a valid way to make an argument.

OK, I'm going to make a statement. Prove to me this is wrong:

"In secret sessions in 2011, U2 recorded more new songs than they had in their entire 30-year history prior to that. However, they decided to keep these songs secret and hold off releasing them until 2025."

Now, prove that statement wrong.

Prove? No. But what you've written is 100% different than what I claimed because: U2 hasn't CLAIMED that they did that. However, U2 has mentioned numerous sessions, albums, and songs written and put aside in the last ten years.

It's more like this: I claim to be wearing black pants. If you can't disprove it, you should assume I'm wearing black pants.

 

[BVS]

Ugh. Why do people seem to think that the inability to prove or disprove a negative is a valid way to make an argument.

OK, I'm going to make a statement. Prove to me this is wrong:

"In secret sessions in 2011, U2 recorded more new songs than they had in their entire 30-year history prior to that. However, they decided to keep these songs secret and hold off releasing them until 2025."

Now, prove that statement wrong.

You're missing the point by miles!

This isn't about proving something right or wrong.

 

[Niceman]

Of course you can. The more art you produce the more productive you are. It's pretty simple.

Here's an example. Bowie in the 70s: very productive. Bowie in the 00s: not so much. Maybe he records an album every other day, but since he's only put out two records in the last 12 years and nothing since 2003 it would be absurd to say he's a productive musician. Now, if he decides to put out a bunch of material that view would have to change, but as it is there is no evidence to support the idea that he is a productive musician.

Again you equate production with selling. By your definition Van Gogh was never productive because all his hundreds of paintings sat in a house until he was dead.

Is my mic on? Can you hear me? I ask because your posts don't show much proof you do.... You're neither engaging with my point nor giving ground. Please see the first line of my signature....

 

[Diemen]

Of course you can. The more art you produce the more productive you are. It's pretty simple.

Here's an example. Bowie in the 70s: very productive. Bowie in the 00s: not so much. Maybe he records an album every other day, but since he's only put out two records in the last 12 years and nothing since 2003 it would be absurd to say he's a productive musician. Now, if he decides to put out a bunch of material that view would have to change, but as it is there is no evidence to support the idea that he is a productive musician.

Honestly I'm kind of flabbergasted that this is being received as if it's a controversial thing to say.

So some of you are defining "productive" differently. Okay. Let's all accept that we can use different definitions of the word and, oh, I don't know, move on?

 

[Nick66]

Honestly I'm kind of flabbergasted that this is being received as if it's a controversial thing to say.

 

[Niceman]

So some of you are defining "productive" differently. [/i]

The whole "debate" began because I bemoaned the fact that U2 is apparently writing as much as 10, 20 years ago, but releasing so little. The semantic argument about the word "productive" is just a way to be argumentative. We can use whatever words anyone prefers, but my original point still stands.

Why are we arguing again?

 

[lemonfly]

I consider the band's own reports of what they have done evidence that they likely have done what they say.

I would need evidence to conclude Bono is lying.

I would never describe Bono as a liar, but his definition of what constitutes a finished song does seem to conflict with what the other members of U2 deem to be finished. To paraphrase Adam Clayton: "When Bono hears two notes...he hears a song, whereas I hear a starting point".

 

[Niceman]

I would never describe Bono as a liar, but his definition of what constitutes a finished song does seem to conflict with what the other members of U2 deem to be finished. To paraphrase Adam Clayton: "When Bono hears two notes...he hears a song, whereas I hear a starting point".

Fair enough. But I would judge the "starting points" which we call the Salome version of Heaven and Hell and the "demo" version of Mercy to be songs, not just starting points. I suspect Adam is calling them starting points.

I know they went back and worked the songs before releasing them to the world, but H&H and M were songs way before then.

 

[trevgreg]

Here's an example. Bowie in the 70s: very productive. Bowie in the 00s: not so much. Maybe he records an album every other day, but since he's only put out two records in the last 12 years and nothing since 2003 it would be absurd to say he's a productive musician. Now, if he decides to put out a bunch of material that view would have to change, but as it is there is no evidence to support the idea that he is a productive musician.

I remember that he pushed his record company to put out his last album out in 2003 since his other one had been released only the year before. And that previous one was basically the equivalent of two recorded albums too, since the first version was shelved. So he did have a creative streak going there for awhile, but it's been about eight years or so since he released anything, so yeah!

 

[Niceman]

I remember that he pushed his record company to put out his last album out in 2003 since his other one had been released only the year before. And that previous one was basically the equivalent of two recorded albums too, since the first version was shelved. So he did have a creative streak going there for awhile, but it's been about eight years or so since he released anything, so yeah!

Yeah, they say he's retired. It's the saddest news in music, as far as I'm concerned, since Michael Hutchence died.

 

[digitize]

I keep holding out for a final album/tour. Or even just a tour. I was ten years old when he last tired, I believe.

 

[Niceman]

I keep holding out for a final album/tour. Or even just a tour. I was ten years old when he last tired, I believe.

Yeah, I'm hoping and praying for a final gasp of Ziggy. Without question he's #1 on the list of artists I've never seen live that I want to. Prince is #2.

 

[Niceman]

You know what? I take it back. Tom Waits is #2. Prince is #3.

 

[trevgreg]

Yeah, he would be one of the few remaining artists I wouldn't mind catching live. I'm sure he's living up the life of leisure though with his wife and daughter though, so god bless him.

 

[mama cass]

I managed to see Bowie in 2002 or 2003(?) - he was wonderful... it felt really epic and he didn't disappoint... his voice was just amazing live too - just like the records but better, richer, fuller somehow, well, real i guess... sometimes i find singers can be a bit ropey with their live vocals, but Bowie was fabulous, sung like a dream, like the legendary dreamy rock god that he is lmfao

funniest thing was on my way to the gig from the underground - you could spot the Bowie fans in their red shoes LOL

 

[digitize]

I managed to see Bowie in 2002 or 2003(?) - he was wonderful... it felt really epic and he didn't disappoint... his voice was just amazing live too - just like the records but better, richer, fuller somehow, well, real i guess... sometimes i find singers can be a bit ropey with their live vocals, but Bowie was fabulous, sung like a dream, like the legendary dreamy rock god that he is lmfao

funniest thing was on my way to the gig from the underground - you could spot the Bowie fans in their red shoes LOL

You're making me really, really jealous...

 

[mama cass]

You're making me really, really jealous...

if you want a giggle - here's a crappy internet review i wrote about that gig at the time - i was on a bit of a post-gig high so it's a bit over-exuberant and i was 9 years younger than i am now LOL

ahhhh where do i start??? ah jeesus well it was an evening that went way beyond expectations.... paris was freezing so i didn’t wanna hang about outside too long hahaa and i hate queues and i’m a last minute junkie too, so i kinda jumped off the metro at Bercy just gone eight, ran straight into the dark arena and headed for the orchestra pit, to the sounds of Dandy Warhols heroin is so passé oh jeesus just big smiles and swooping soul moment... audience was hushed and mesmerised... I don’t know many of their songs, but they were excellent oh yeah i recognised the one that goes something like "cause i like you" hahaa audience were a little sleepy though and not really rocking at that point... and they finished their set just before 9... I managed to squeeze my way thru masses of sardine-packed bodies and ended up about 30 feet from the front... oh jeesus, then the anticipation and electricity began to mount... and mount... and you kinda think the interim music is pretty loud as it is and then there’s that moment where the sound is fucking WHACKED UP hahaa and the adrenaline just rushes thru every atom of your body and you know you’re about to get airborne hahaa anyway a very very wide widescreen screen suddenly burst into life across the back of the stage, with digital animated images of the band appearing one by one, morphing into reality images, and then white lights camera fucking ACTION wham bam hot stonking fucking launch into Jean Genie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and Bercy just about took off and headed into another galaxy wooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!! HALLELUJAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahaha ahh jeesus Bowie was just fucking gorgeous and beautiful... so radiant and present... switching thru the evening from poised performer to sweet giddy giggly overexcited chatty teenager and then back again... ah man he was lovely... it felt like such a privilege to be there... he just filled the whole venue... felt v. warm and intimate... he was on absolute tiptop form... his voice, live, is just something else... so resonant and rich... much more rounded and mellow than his recordings i felt... that was a beautiful surprise for me... oh jeesus and his band were totally fucking tight! electric and electrifying!!! it was so much more rock n roll and energetic than i was expecting ~ felt like i was flying all night... after Jean Genie he played some stuff off his new album, then came classics like Fame and China Girl, and an absolutely killer performance of Hello Spaceboy (one of the highlights for sure) jeesus totally fucked out frantic frenzied heavy sublime intense intense intense electric explosion of guitars, drums, bass and white light... the drummer was awesome... he was totally there and manic just beating the shit right outta his drums!!! also did Under Pressure and his bassist sang Freddy Mercury’s part oh my GOD she was fantastic! as well as being a brilliant bassist she had an amazing voice ~ the two of them were just incendiary together... and he was really really sweet to her... just lovely... also played more classics like Ashes to Ashes, Fashion, plus an absolutely beautiful rendition of Loving the Alien... very moving and emotional... the whole audience was as one... just a special moment... also did a great great version of I’m afraid of Americans and i’m a bit ashamed to say the crowd went totally fucking mental with that one! hahaa followed by beautiful beautiful Heroes with the whole auditorium on their feet! then there was Changes for the encore ~ seemed to develop a bit of a bad stt tttutter on that one though and an absolutely gorgeous version of Let’s Dance ~ he slowed it right down to start with... didn’t recognise it at first until i heard him sing the line "to the song that’s playing on the radio" ahhhh adrenaline rush and big smiles hahaa and then he really fucking went for it big time and rocked it right up!! and then a rock n roll Suffragette City, followed by a fucking fantastic grand finale with Ziggy!!!
ctd... and at the end he walked away from the mic to mad mental cheering and applause, before turning round to dash back and belt out "but Ziggy played geeeeeetaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" woooooooooooooooooooo hahahaaa ah just a perfect ending.... he did a ton of other stuff too, from his new album and some more obscure stuff that about 2 people recognised haha... there were some really beautiful theatrical moments too... he had a raised walkway bridge thing running along the back of the stage, level with the wide screen, plus two raised jetty like walkways projecting out towards the audience on either side... there was this beautiful moment during a slow song (but eejit brain cannot remember which one!) where he disappeared from view, and then reappeared standing motionless in the middle of the raised walkway at the back... standing just perfectly still... silhouetted against the screen... commanding 18,000 people with his mesmerising stage presence and voice, the audience just utterly captivated and hushed in the moment... ahhh and then some abstract cloud type images just floated serenely across the screen behind him... it was just one of those simple theatrical moments that just really move me and take me someplace else and stay permanently in my soul... jeesus well i’ve rabbit-rabbited on enough hahaa but it was a lovely night, he played til just before midnight! pure joy it was... really 'up' and felt really transformed at the end... everyone’s faces were all lit up, radiant and glowing... twas a beautiful experience which will always stay with me...

 

[Hollow Island]

Again you equate production with selling. By your definition Van Gogh was never productive because all his hundreds of paintings sat in a house until he was dead.

Is my mic on? Can you hear me? I ask because your posts don't show much proof you do.... You're neither engaging with my point nor giving ground. Please see the first line of my signature....

I'm not ignoring your points, I'm disagreeing. Nowhere do I equate "producing" with "selling." U2 could release an album that sells 0 copies, but it would still be released.

If you want to talk about Van Gogh, he could have gone around the south of France telling people about all of his paintings, but unless they could be seen nobody would know that they existed. People could have accepted what he claimed, but those who draw conclusions from evidence would have said he was unproductive because they couldn't verify his statement.

However, the reason I ignored that analogy is because it is incredible faulty. He had no work in galleries because nobody wanted it. That's more like a musician with 4 complete albums shopping them to labels and receiving no interest, so the remain unreleased. A better example would be Picasso, who was always in demand, talking about having 100 paintings and not selling or showing any of them. Then people would say - providing they care about evidence when they make decisions - that Picasso, who was prolific but now talks about his work without showing it to anyone, is less productive than he was.

I don't see what's so hard about this to understand. U2 say they have a lot of songs, but if they did they would release them. What they have is material that they are working on, that is not complete (it's complete when all 4 agree that it is), and will not be released until it is.

What evidence do you have that makes you believe that they are as productive as they were? Did they send you SOA and the club record and the rock record and you neglected to share it with us?

They make reocrds. They put out fewer than they did. Therefore they are just as productive. Unsound logic.

They make records. They put out fewer than they did. Therefore they are less productive. Sound logic.

You could introduce unprovable conditions into the first statement, but that would make the argument fallacious. There is no way to make your argument valid.

 

[Hollow Island]

So if you don't see it or hear it, it doesn't exist?

Fallen trees don't make a sound if no one is around.

No, but neither of us can say if a record exists or not unless we hear it, and if one has the job of making things (like albums or singles) and they cease to make them at the rate that they did, then they are less productive.

 

[Nick66]

They make reocrds. They put out fewer than they did. Therefore they are just as productive. Unsound logic.

They make records. They put out fewer than they did. Therefore they are less productive. Sound logic.

...and there it is.