Downsides to a possible Double-Album

[Rich79]

I know this topic comes up a lot, but the more I think about it, the more I can't see a downside to U2 using these "30-40" songs they have written so far to put out a double-album.

At first thought, sure you think that they might be sacrificing quality for quantity, but think about it for a second:

First, have you ever known U2 to produce crap? I know I haven't.

Second: Typically, it appears that one fan's personal favorite U2 songs differ greatly from another's. So, wouldn't it make you think that a greater number of people will accept a double album? There is such a wealth of material in there, that you're bound to like at least a single album's worth of it (10-12 tracks).

Think about the White Album by the Beatles. Personally, I see it as the ideal double-album, but do I put it on my stereo and go "Ooh, let me listen to that wonderful Revolution 9 again"? No. I simply can't listen to it (among a number of other tracks), but the album is within my top 3 Beatles albums.

My point is this, one person is always going to like certain tracks over others, so the tracks on a double album that you may say are throwaway, may be another fan's treasure.

If U2 puts out a single-album again, maybe you'll find about 7-8 standout tracks; but I think with a double-album you will have a better probability of enjoying about 13-15+ tracks. Wouldn't any fan want that? Especially in a time when it takes 4 years between every album?

 

[dr. zooeuss]

i agree- this constant fear of there being "filler" on an album completely ignores the differences in personal taste.

I like ATYCLB and HTDAAB, but I can't agree with Edge's statement that HTDAAB had "no filler"

It's his opinion- granted his opinion carries more weight than mine, but if only about half the album really interests me at any given time, wouldn't a double album be that much better?

Also we need to remember the power of U2's music to grow on you and change over time. Often the songs that instantly appeal to you are not the ones that you love over the long haul- their ability to make both is one of the many things that makes them a truly great band.

 

[Varitek]

Yeah, One Step Closer and A Man and A Woman sounded like filler to me.

A double album might not have the same ratio of great songs to filler as a single album. It might have the same amount of great songs and more filler. It may be that htey haven't produced crap because they trim the crap off and produce single albums instead of doubles. It may be that their in 30-40 pieces, there are some that are so similar that they will be combined and then trimmed. We really can't know what "30-40 songs" means, and I trust them to stick to their instincts about making the album as they've never failed so far.

Doesn't mean I don't want to hear all the rejects come out as b-sides or leaks though!

 

[Niceman]

I think one of the weaknesses of the last few U2 albums is this need to make every song a potential single. A double-album might allow for more experimentation.....

 

[Dalton]

Am I the only one who felt that AMAAW is one of U2's finest moments in the 2000's?

I absolutely love that song.

 

[dr. zooeuss]

Am I the only one who felt that AMAAW is one of U2's finest moments in the 2000's?

I absolutely love that song.

no, you're not the only one- I think so too!

I see it as in a category with Spanish Eyes, Mysterious Ways and possibly In a Little While, as having a certain feel that I think (knowing little about music) maybe comes from the use of minor chords and notes lyrically, and has very very soulful and romantic lyrics.

incredible song. probably the most under-promoted on the album. I still sometimes wonder why they didn't release it as a single...

 

[PookaMacP]

Wouldn't any fan want that?

Good topic, but no. Although I agree that individuals' tastes are necessarily subjective, I think that the problems of a double-album far outweigh the benefits. When I think of my favourite albums, what most of them have in common is an economy with time. I have long been a champion of the short and concise album rather than a long, rambling record that loses track of itself here and there. For example, though many might argue that Radiohead's inclusion of the Amnesiac tracks with Kid A would have made for a stronger album, one of Kid A's finest qualities in my opinion is that it is only 10 songs long, keeping a unified body to the work. Brevity works for Highway 61 Revisited (9 songs), which in my mind is the greatest album ever made. If, for example, the Joshua Tree had been extended to include Luminous Times, Sweetest Thing, etc, think what it would have lost in that unifying thematic structure. 11 songs that make a great album from start to finish are in my book much stronger even than a 15 song album that is weighed down by its weaker tracks. It is also very difficult to keep any unifying theme constant across anything longer than 10/11 tracks. The White Album is an excellent example of a quality double album, but even at that it frustrates every fan by the digressions into mediocrity (even if that mediocrity can be subjective). How many other great double albums have ever been made - apart from live records? I honestly can't name any. Prince's Sign O The Times has some great songs, but also quite a few mediocre ones.

In addition, I think that U2's history indicates that 30-40 'pieces' translates not into 30-40 songs but rather into 10-11 quality songs that might make up a coherent album. Even if there are 30 songs in there, I think it is unlikely that they are all strong enough to make a double album rather than being held over for another album when they can be further worked on or released as b-sides.

I'm all for economy, for keeping it short and keeping it sweet. Let them concentrate the creativity across 45 minutes rather than diluting it across 2 hours. If there is enough material to make a great double album, then by all means, but I sincerely doubt it.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Yeah, One Step Closer and A Man and A Woman sounded like filler to me.

One Step Closer is not filler, it's a poignant song to a person who is leaving this life on to the afterlife. It's not the most 'dramatic' or 'big' song they've ever done, but it surely ain't filler. I think people miss the inner beauty of this song, because they don't look at the true meaning of this song.

As for A Man and a Woman...not a terribly strong song, but still not filler...

As for a double album... If HTDAAB only kept your attention for half the album a double album could only be worse...right...

 

[dr. zooeuss]

One Step Closer is not filler, it's a poignant song to a person who is leaving this life on to the afterlife. It's not the most 'dramatic' or 'big' song they've ever done, but it surely ain't filler. I think people miss the inner beauty of this song, because they don't look at the true meaning of this song.

I've spent some time thinking about this, and agree One Step Closer is a nice sentiment, but that doesn't automatically make it a strong song. I think of it more as a poem or a spoken word piece. Same with The First Time. The musical components on these are SO understated that I often feel they might as well not even be there. I'd rather read the lyric sheet, and almost invariably skip ahead to the next track.

 

[U2girl]

I think all U2 fans will collectively eat their hats the day U2 can come up with strong 20-30 songs for a double album.

 

[Aygo]

No. U2's albums always had fillers (or weaker songs), so it'll always happen.

If it has to be a double album, I prefer a double EP, each disc with 6 to 8 tracks (35-45 minutes), to be original and not to have too much tracks.

 

[Rich79]

Yeah, One Step Closer and A Man and A Woman sounded like filler to me.

That is exactly what I'm talking about. "A Man and a Woman" and "One Step Closer" were two of the strongest tracks on "How to", in my opinion. I think the weak ones were "Sometimes..." and "Original", just because they feel like they were made for the sole-purpose of being hit singles. Anyway, where one person finds filler, another may find beauty...and I would have to think that the band finds beauty in every single track that they put on an album. So, if they found enough material that they deemed as "great" to put on a double-album, why not let them? Yes, you're more likely to find tracks you say are "filler", but keep in mind that someone out there likes those tracks.

I'm not saying that I'm predicting that this is what they'll do. I'm simply saying that I enjoy experimentation and I think that they would have more of a chance to explore that with more tracks to work with. Especially since I doubt they'll get on a big experimental kick again like the 90's and have a whole decade's worth of powerhouse material. So, I'm hoping they milk this phase of their career for all it's worth.

 

[Varitek]

Well yes, when I (and most fans) call a song on a u2 album "filler," it's just weaker than the others, but still greater than most other stuff out there. There's only a few U2 songs I genuinely don't like. And if they produced a double album I'd probably drown in my own drool, but I'll do that when any new album comes out, double or not. I just trust their instincts to trim and produce whatever they think is best, especially with Eno and Lanois working with them, and to put the right amount of time into each song to get it album-ready (which means a double would take much longer). And they haven't shown any desire to produce a double album.

Butsomeday I really hope we get to hear the miles of unreleased tape they have!!

 

[ahittle]

I'd like to hear "filler" if it meant experimental pieces and stuff not obviously ear-marked for singles. The last two albums definitely played it safe.

The weird stuff on The White Album isn't filler in my book - it nicely balances the more well-known tracks. A double album with 20 soaring epic songs would be exhausting.

If "filler" means lame, half-hearted songs, then I'd vote no.

 

[chocky]

Two points:

1. Joshua Tree is a brilliant album. When you add the 7 b-sides it makes an even more brilliant double album. But I wonder if it would have been the commercial success it was if it were released as a double album. I also enjoyed the drip-feeding of quality b-sides over 12 months.

2. The Cure's new album will be released in 2 formats: a standard 13 track commercial release and a limited-edition 26 track double album with 7 extra songs and 6 instrumentals.

If U2 have a desire to release 25-30 songs I'd prefer either of those ideas rather than a stock double album. ie a limited edition "fan" release double-album (perhaps only available through U2.com) or a single album followed by 4 singles each with 3 new b-sides.

 

[dr. zooeuss]

Two points:

1. Joshua Tree is a brilliant album. When you add the 7 b-sides it makes an even more brilliant double album. But I wonder if it would have been the commercial success it was if it were released as a double album. I also enjoyed the drip-feeding of quality b-sides over 12 months.

2. The Cure's new album will be released in 2 formats: a standard 13 track commercial release and a limited-edition 26 track double album with 7 extra songs and 6 instrumentals.

If U2 have a desire to release 25-30 songs I'd prefer either of those ideas rather than a stock double album. ie a limited edition "fan" release double-album (perhaps only available through U2.com) or a single album followed by 4 singles each with 3 new b-sides. [/

QUOTE]

The additional tracks on "The Complete U2" were like B-sides to "Bomb."

 

[U2girl]

Also imagine having 25-30 new songs on tour. Try building a setlist around that one.

 

[PookaMacP]

The Cure's new album will be released in 2 formats: a standard 13 track commercial release and a limited-edition 26 track double album with 7 extra songs and 6 instrumentals.

If U2 have a desire to release 25-30 songs I'd prefer either of those ideas rather than a stock double album. ie a limited edition "fan" release double-album (perhaps only available through U2.com) or a single album followed by 4 singles each with 3 new b-sides.

I like this idea. I'm not a fan of the Cure, but ideas like this can only be a good thing for music, since the technology is now there to bring the bands closer to their fans.

 

[cobl04]

I'd much prefer a 12 song album with another 12-15 b-sides released with the singles.

 

[ahittle]

How did the talk turn into 30 songs? That is a lot of songs. Most of your classic double albums clock in at around 20 (or even a couple less).

That's due to the time limitations of vinyl, but I can't imagine anyone putting out two solid CD's full of new material.

Sure, the White Album is 30 songs, but a good chunk of those are song segments and little experiments (Honey Pie, Piggies, etc.). That set is 1.5 hours long, but most of your "classic" doubles are an hour, or an hour and some change. I like Wilco's Being There as a newer double set - 19 tracks, 1.2 hours long. They could have put out one long CD, but it works as a double set. Same with Ryan Adams's Cold Roses - 18 songs and 1.2 hours.

On a side note, Counting Crows are supposed to be working on a set (not even sure that it's a double) called Saturday Night, Sunday Morning - one half rock, one half quiet, contemplative. Good idea for a double.

But to put out something like 240 minutes of music would be insane. I'd be up for songs along the lines of MLK and 4th of July to allow breathers. You really have to pace a good double album

 

[GibsonExplorer]

Ben Harper's Both Sides of the Gun