U2 working with pop songwriter for new album

[Von Schloopen]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out

Backspacer is their best album.

 

[An Cat Gav]

Yeah, agree with this. Depeche Mode has been brought up in this thread, and I believe they worked with TWO producers for the whole of last decade (Ben Hillier and somone else who did Exciter whose name escapes me). And they are working with Hillier again on their next one which is due out next year. How many producers have U2 got into bed with over the last twelve years? I've lost count. From my pov it seems that DM are unconcerned with being "relevent" and don't give a dog shit about getting into the Top 40. And ironically Wrong was seven light years better than any of NLOTH's singles. Go figure.

I'm sure U2 have worked with Ben Hillier too.

 

[BVS]

I think a bigger issue than ageism in criticism of rock warhorses is the tough comparison of new material to classic older work.

What's more likely to be said: "The Cure is older than they were before so this album is gonna SUCK" or "They'll never top Disintegration, so who cares?" I'm thinking the latter. It's an obstacle artists with a large catalogue have to deal with, but 35-40 year olds face the same thing.

But I think ageism plays a part in that "they'll never top Disintegration" mentality.

And The Cure is a perfect example of how agesim effects how we look at a band. We have a hard time relating to a 50 year old with teased black hair and smeared lip stick singing about depressed longing.

I love the Cure, but I have a hard time taking Robert Smith seriously still, he's become a caricature for me. And many say that about Bono(and I understand). We want our rocks stars to be ageless, to remain in the same ideal where we fell in love with them. Some still want the long hair Bono in high pants and suspenders yelling at politicians from the stage, but not actually doing anything about it.

But one thing I think Bono(and Stipe to an extent) has done well that other lyricist of aging bands haven't is that he aged in his lyrics. He sang about mid life crisis, he sang about the vulnerability of growing old, and he also became more optimistic in his writing. I think Bono's "new found" optimism is probably one of the greatest criticisms in Interference, but the truth is we expect our elders to have SOME answers, we expect a father of four to have some hope for the future. This is an area that I don't think Depeche Mode or The Cure have done so well in. Now, of course this doesn't play well when trying to keep your audience demographic young, the teenagers aren't going to exactly relate to these revelations about life, but I do think it keeps him honest and relateable to those that are aging with them.

 

[BVS]

Yeah, agree with this. Depeche Mode has been brought up in this thread, and I believe they worked with TWO producers for the whole of last decade (Ben Hillier and somone else who did Exciter whose name escapes me). And they are working with Hillier again on their next one which is due out next year. How many producers have U2 got into bed with over the last twelve years? I've lost count. From my pov it seems that DM are unconcerned with being "relevent" and don't give a dog shit about getting into the Top 40. And ironically Wrong was seven light years better than any of NLOTH's singles. Go figure.

I could really care less how many producers they've worked with. You can look at it several different ways. You can look at it as stagnation if you constantly work with the same producers all the time, or you can look at it as trying too hard.

DM have been consistent, to the point of stagnation at times. I don't really think DM have pushed themselves musically sense Ultra, and I think most of that new sound really came from their own band struggles. Wrong was a good song, but I think it could have fit on almost any album of theirs in the 90's or 2000's. But to say they are not concerned is a stretch, they debuted Wrong at an awards show lip syncing their performance.

 

[LemonMelon]

And The Cure is a perfect example of how agesim effects how we look at a band. We have a hard time relating to a 50 year old with teased black hair and smeared lip stick singing about depressed longing.

Well, OK. I can buy this. We scoff at Jagger for singing about the same carnal topics he did when he was 20. And I do agree that the makeup hasn't aged well on Robert Smith.

However, age does not specifically place a ceiling on quality, which is what I assumed you were referring to. These artists would receive praise for tweaks they made to these areas of failing, not continue to be flogged purely because they're old. I think we can both agree that time will give you incentive to change if you don't do it on your own.

As an aside, I don't see how this relates to Bono. He's got a rock star image that could perhaps be toned down in the coming years, but I've always considered his songwriting fairly ageless, besides the first couple of records, and the rest of the band looks quite presentable IMO. No reason for them to be labeled dinosaurs unless the music took a nosedive.

 

[Niceman]

But I think ageism plays a part in that "they'll never top Disintegration" mentality.

Dude, no one has been able to top Disintegration. I can say I prefer Achtung Baby, but I can't tell you its a definitively better album.

 

[BVS]

However, age does not specifically place a ceiling on quality, which is what I assumed you were referring to.

Of course not, that was never the argument. This whole thing started when someone suggested that age played a part on public perception and how seriously you are taken as a viable part of the musical landscape, and then was it easier for solo artists vs bands to age. Hollow was arguing that ageism didn't exist, but I think most here agree that it plays a part. The quality could be there, in fact I argue that it can be even better, but won't get recognized as so due to age.

As an aside, I don't see how this relates to Bono. He's got a rock star image that could perhaps be toned down in the coming years, but I've always considered his songwriting fairly ageless, besides the first couple of records, and the rest of the band looks quite presentable IMO. No reason for them to be labeled dinosaurs unless the music took a nosedive.

Once again, it really doesn't matter if their music took a nosedive or not, I think it's harder for them to be considered a game changer anymore.

I think if you removed the who, and somehow you were able to play the songs without anyone knowing who this was who recorded them, songs like NLOTH and MOS would have been able to make a much bigger impact back in 2009. In otherwords if somehow the listener could be convinced those songs were recorded by the next Arcade Fire rather than a "has been" U2 they would have gotten noticed more. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think those songs would have shaken up the industry and taken off to be huge underground hits on the blogoshpere, but they would have gotten much bigger recognition and been a part of the talked about landscape.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Pearl Jam? They had one good album ever.

even if you don't like an artist, to make a statement like that is simply asinine.

I wouldn't consider Pearl Jam... old.

eddie vedder is 4 years younger than bono.


there are maybe 2 to 3 radiohead songs that i can listen to without cringing. that doesn't mean that i don't respect what they've done, and know that they a whole lot of people like a lot of what they've done. it's just not for me. same goes for the cure and depeche mode. in fact i can't name one depeche mode song i like.

but i do realize that saying that radiohead, or the cure, or depeche mode... has had one good album and a couple of good songs ever would be an asinine statement to many.


pearl jam purposefully slid out of the mainstream after kurt's suicide. considering that despite this they still enjoy a very high level of success might lead one to believe that a lot of people disagree with your asinine assessment of their work.

 

[Yahweh_OMG]

Dude, no one has been able to top Disintegration. I can say I prefer Achtung Baby, but I can't tell you its a definitively better album.

Desintegration, Achtung Baby , Joshua Tree and Pornography are my 4 favourite albums by the 2 best bands ever.....

 

[YBORCITY]

Reading all of these threads and posts, it seems to me there is an air of desperation from the Band at this point. I am wondering if they are going away to dream it all up again and they are finding nothing there. A little unsettling to me.

 

[corianderstem]

Reading all of these threads and posts, it seems to me there is an air of desperation from the Band at this point.

I think you mean desperation from the fans.

 

[Niceman]

even if you don't like an artist, to make a statement like that is simply asinine.



eddie vedder is 4 years younger than bono.


there are maybe 2 to 3 radiohead songs that i can listen to without cringing. that doesn't mean that i don't respect what they've done, and know that they a whole lot of people like a lot of what they've done. it's just not for me. same goes for the cure and depeche mode. in fact i can't name one depeche mode song i like.

but i do realize that saying that radiohead, or the cure, or depeche mode... has had one good album and a couple of good songs ever would be an asinine statement to many.


pearl jam purposefully slid out of the mainstream after kurt's suicide. considering that despite this they still enjoy a very high level of success might lead one to believe that a lot of people disagree with your asinine assessment of their work.

More people like N-Synch than Pearl Jam. If the only reason why you think I should give Pearl Jam credit is because they have fans, I'm not the one being asinine. (Actually insulting someone for sharing their sincere opinion on music might be the most asinine part of all this.) I believe they had one pretty good (not great) album and then a few good songs and that's it. If it hurts you to hear that opinion expressed, then maybe having discussions on message boards isn't for you.

I am surprised to discover Eddie is only 4 years younger than Bono, but Pearl Jam is still 11 years younger, as a band, than U2.

 

[Niceman]

Desintegration, Achtung Baby , Joshua Tree and Pornography are my 4 favourite albums by the 2 best bands ever.....

How did you like Bloodflowers?

 

[Niceman]

And by the way, I seem to recall television ads hawking Pearl Jam albums not so long ago. I wouldn't call that intentionally sliding out of the mainstream. I would call that trying hard and.....gasp!... failing.

"I meant to do that." - Pee Wee Herman.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

More people like N-Synch than Pearl Jam. If the only reason why you think I should give Pearl Jam credit is because they have fans, I'm not the one being asinine. (Actually insulting someone for sharing their sincere opinion on music might be the most asinine part of all this.) I believe they had one pretty good (not great) album and then a few good songs and that's it. If it hurts you to hear that opinion expressed, then maybe having discussions on message boards isn't for you.

I am surprised to discover Eddie is only 4 years younger than Bono, but Pearl Jam is still 11 years younger, as a band, than U2.

thank you... i'll go back to message board posting 101 and refresh my skills, so that my posts can be as clever and insightful as yours. it helps to have goals in life.

 

[Hollow Island]

Of course not, that was never the argument. This whole thing started when someone suggested that age played a part on public perception and how seriously you are taken as a viable part of the musical landscape, and then was it easier for solo artists vs bands to age. Hollow was arguing that ageism didn't exist, but I think most here agree that it plays a part. The quality could be there, in fact I argue that it can be even better, but won't get recognized as so due to age.

If ageism is a big problem then why does it not affect solo artists? There is nothing to suggest that is the case, and you're presenting an unverifiable opinion as fact.

Also, you say that " The quality could be there, in fact I argue that it can be even better, but won't get recognized as so due to age," but that's just speculation and is not supported by the success of:

Pearl Jam (first #1 in 2009 since 1996, number one single in 2006)
Radiohead and Foo Fighters (no need to mention how successful they are)
Depeche Mode (check out the stats)
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Green Day
Metallica

These are only the mega bands, and they're all 17-30+ years old. Strong sales, big gigs, and new work is regarded as being among their best.

Of course, there are several other veteran artists that I mentioned that

1. have new work regarded as among their best
2. play decent sized shows
3. headline festivals
4. have hits
5. win awards
6. get great reviews

But they're not valid because

a) they only have one good record
b) not enough success
c) coasting on past glories
d) solo artists don't count because they have it easier
e) too old (odd for an argument about ageism)
f) they "hide behind cartoons," which somehow negates their age
g) not old enough (though I don't see how anyone can say a 20 year old band isn't old)

Which are all opinions used because evidence contradicts the opinion, and once you and Von Snoopy get an idea nothing can change your mind.

Once again, it really doesn't matter if their music took a nosedive or not, I think it's harder for them to be considered a game changer anymore.

Rock music is a marginal art form. It's being pushed underground, which is why there have only been a handful of big rock bands to come around in the last 15 years and stay big (Linkin Park, Nickleback, Coldplay...??). Rock bands, young or old, are not game changers any more. There hasn't been one since the Nu Metal and OK Computer in the late 90s.

If you turn on the radio, or look at the bands coming to your local arena, you'll probably see that most of them are veterans of the days when rock ruled.

 

[Hollow Island]

And by the way, I seem to recall television ads hawking Pearl Jam albums not so long ago. I wouldn't call that intentionally sliding out of the mainstream. I would call that trying hard and.....gasp!... failing.

"I meant to do that." - Pee Wee Herman.

You really don't know what you're talking about if you don't think that Pearl Jam shunned the mainstream in the mid 90s. You know nothing about them. And that someone in their 30s would be ignorant of that is shocking.

By the way, they're still huge. And even if they're younger than U2, they're still an old rock band.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

And by the way, I seem to recall television ads hawking Pearl Jam albums not so long ago. I wouldn't call that intentionally sliding out of the mainstream. I would call that trying hard and.....gasp!... failing.

"I meant to do that." - Pee Wee Herman.

yes, you're right. they did. with target, none the less. sell outs! mainstream whores!

oh, wait... that's right. they refused to sign with a major record label, choosing to release the album with their own independent record label instead in order to avoid the hypocrisy of record labels, releasing the album only through pearljam.com, itunes, independent record stores, and yes, target, for those fans who are in areas far from quality independent stores who still want a physical copy.

the album was also their first since no code to go to #1, and their longest charting album since yield.

but yea, you're right. they whored out and still failed to be successful. for shame.

 

[gvox]

But I think ageism plays a part in that "they'll never top Disintegration" mentality.

And The Cure is a perfect example of how agesim effects how we look at a band. We have a hard time relating to a 50 year old with teased black hair and smeared lip stick singing about depressed longing.

I love the Cure, but I have a hard time taking Robert Smith seriously still, he's become a caricature for me. And many say that about Bono(and I understand). We want our rocks stars to be ageless, to remain in the same ideal where we fell in love with them. Some still want the long hair Bono in high pants and suspenders yelling at politicians from the stage, but not actually doing anything about it.

But one thing I think Bono(and Stipe to an extent) has done well that other lyricist of aging bands haven't is that he aged in his lyrics. He sang about mid life crisis, he sang about the vulnerability of growing old, and he also became more optimistic in his writing. I think Bono's "new found" optimism is probably one of the greatest criticisms in Interference, but the truth is we expect our elders to have SOME answers, we expect a father of four to have some hope for the future. This is an area that I don't think Depeche Mode or The Cure have done so well in. Now, of course this doesn't play well when trying to keep your audience demographic young, the teenagers aren't going to exactly relate to these revelations about life, but I do think it keeps him honest and relateable to those that are aging with them.

This is probably your best post ever on this board.

 

[Niceman]

thank you... i'll go back to message board posting 101 and refresh my skills, so that my posts can be as clever and insightful as yours. it helps to have goals in life.

Glad I could do my part.

 

[Niceman]

You really don't know what you're talking about if you don't think that Pearl Jam shunned the mainstream in the mid 90s. You know nothing about them. And that someone in their 30s would be ignorant of that is shocking.

By the way, they're still huge. And even if they're younger than U2, they're still an old rock band.

All I know about them, all I care to know, is that I liked Mother Love Bone. I enjoyed Temple. Ten was okay and I only liked a few songs after that. I don't care to know a lot about a band whose work doesn't interest me. How weird would it be if I did? Even those of us in our "30s" tend to not follow bands we aren't impressed by.

 

[Niceman]

yes, you're right. they did. with target, none the less. sell outs! mainstream whores!

oh, wait... that's right. they refused to sign with a major record label, choosing to release the album with their own independent record label instead in order to avoid the hypocrisy of record labels, releasing the album only through pearljam.com, itunes, independent record stores, and yes, target, for those fans who are in areas far from quality independent stores who still want a physical copy.

the album was also their first since no code to go to #1, and their longest charting album since yield.

but yea, you're right. they whored out and still failed to be successful. for shame.

I kinda think any band who is willing to shell out TV ads level money wants their albums to sell. Call me crazy!

 

[DevilsShoes]

I'm not entirely sure that solo artists are really anymore immune to ageism than bands to be honest.

I look at the likes of Elton John, Rod Stewart and even Paul McCartney, and it seems to me that the mainstream by and large just don't care about their newer offerings. Critically the work may be very well received (particularly in the case of McCartney), but the average man in the street would probably struggle to name the title of at least one album they've released since their heyday.

One 'golden oldie' who has managed to swerve the effect is Robert Plant, his Raising Sand album was embraced by both the critics and the public. His follow up album however (notably without Alison Krauss) sank without a trace.

 

[corianderstem]

... which is a shame, because it's pretty damned good!

 

[Niceman]

I'm not entirely sure that solo artists are really anymore immune to ageism than bands to be honest.

I look at the likes of Elton John, Rod Stewart and even Paul McCartney, and it seems to me that the mainstream by and large just don't care about their newer offerings. Critically the work may be very well received (particularly in the case of McCartney), but the average man in the street would probably struggle to name the title of at least one album they've released since their heyday.

One 'golden oldie' who has managed to swerve the effect is Robert Plant, his Raising Sand album was embraced by both the critics and the public. His follow up album however (notably without Alison Krauss) sank without a trace.

McCartney has had a lot of solo albums critically lauded which didn't deserve it. I don't know if his latest is any good, but he may be suffering from boy who cried wolf syndrome.

 

[Hollow Island]

I'm not entirely sure that solo artists are really anymore immune to ageism than bands to be honest.

I look at the likes of Elton John, Rod Stewart and even Paul McCartney, and it seems to me that the mainstream by and large just don't care about their newer offerings. Critically the work may be very well received (particularly in the case of McCartney), but the average man in the street would probably struggle to name the title of at least one album they've released since their heyday.

One 'golden oldie' who has managed to swerve the effect is Robert Plant, his Raising Sand album was embraced by both the critics and the public. His follow up album however (notably without Alison Krauss) sank without a trace.

The mainstream doesn't care about Elton, Rod, or Paul because of the kind of music they make, not the fact that they're old. But they probably sell more records (Rod in particular) than most young rock bands who, if the climate was like the 90s, would be playing arenas.

Weller, Dylan, Cohen, and Nick Cave are all doing pretty damn well, and Cave is probably the youngest, and he's been putting out records for over 30 years with the Birthday Party, Bad Seeds, and Grinderman.

Plant's last one got grammy nominations and a Brit award nomination, so it didn't really disappear.

There are several reasons why "the man on the street" (does he know joe the plumber?) won't know about albums by old people, and they're the same reasons he probably won't know the last album by younger artists: Unless you seek out new rock music, you're not going to find it because it's not on the radio, and it's not on TV. It's online, and only if you want it.

 

[Hollow Island]

All I know about them, all I care to know, is that I liked Mother Love Bone. I enjoyed Temple. Ten was okay and I only liked a few songs after that. I don't care to know a lot about a band whose work doesn't interest me. How weird would it be if I did? Even those of us in our "30s" tend to not follow bands we aren't impressed by.

I don't mean that you should follow them because you're in your 30s, I just don't see how you could have been culturally aware and into music in the 90s and be ignorant of their loud shunning of fame.

 

[Irvine511]

thank you... i'll go back to message board posting 101 and refresh my skills, so that my posts can be as clever and insightful as yours. it helps to have goals in life.

just FYI:

please realize that opinion matters more than fact in here. it's simply not possible to not be a fan of a band but at the same time recognize that they are successful, respected, and good at what they do. if we do not like the band then they are terrible and that's all there is to it. you can point to all the ticket sales, album success, TIME magazine covers and cultural impact you want but that's not going to change anything because opinion trumps everything. it doesn't matter how well Backspacer sold in 2009. in my opinion, it didn't sell well. in my opinion, Pearl Jam doesn't sell out arenas and play 2.5 hour shows. it doesn't matter if they do because in my opinion they don't.

 

[Niceman]

I don't mean that you should follow them because you're in your 30s, I just don't see how you could have been culturally aware and into music in the 90s and be ignorant of their loud shunning of fame.

Yeah, I heard them loudly exclaiming that they were shunning fame, but their album releases were just as loud and public as ever. I kinda think the fact that their music wasn't that great is the only reason they weren't bigger after the second album.

 

[BVS]

If ageism is a big problem then why does it not affect solo artists? There is nothing to suggest that is the case, and you're presenting an unverifiable opinion as fact.

Think about it for a second. When you go see a rock band you want to see youth, it's much more obvious when there are four or five aging individuals vs one. When you're a solo artist you have yourself to answer to, when you're in a band you have 3 to 4 others that have to come along for the ride. So it's much easier for Bowie to make a drastic change than it is an entire band.

Now think about the solo artists that are close to the same age as U2 or older and that have done well.

They usually write more from a first person story telling narrative rather than a universal narrative. Springsteen can write about growing old and you know he's writing about himself, U2 write about growing old and it starts to make it difficult to sing along to.

When Johnny Cash was getting older it would have been quite ridiculous to see him coming out on stage with his black suits trying to kick out the stage lights with a full piece backing band behind him. So he went almost entirely acoustic, brought everything to a bare bones intimate sound and production. That's much easier for a solo artist than a band to be able to do.

There are a dozen reasons why it doesn't effect solo artists as much as bands, some are much more implicit than others. But just take a look around, it's pretty obvious.

Pearl Jam (first #1 in 2009 since 1996, number one single in 2006)
Radiohead and Foo Fighters (no need to mention how successful they are)
Depeche Mode (check out the stats)
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Green Day
Metallica

Once again you fail to really mention any bands that are the same age as U2 with the exception as DM and their critical claim has dropped quite a bit. They are surviving doing what they do best, they haven't really been(dare I say it) relevant in long while.

I'm not sure where you are getting that Pearl Jam had a #1 in 2009, but you are right it did pretty well. Mainly because they decided to actually do promotions for it, so it was almost a coming out of retirement for the casual audience.

Green Day, a bit younger, and I'm pretty sure they'll start feeling it soon. It's difficult for me to take a 40 year old seriously when he's wearing skinny jeans and eyeliner.

Chili Peppers have definitely seen a drop in their appeal but are still performing pretty strong. They may be close to the only band that proves your point. As far as appeal and "relevance" I would say they are pretty close to U2 in today's market.

Metallica, their last two albums have been completely panned by the critics. I'm suprised you even brought them up.