New U2 Album in 2012?

[LuckyNumber7]

I don`t see how it can be argued that they`re as productive as the were in the 80s or 90s. In the from 91-97 they released an album every two years. In the From 2000 - 2009 they released albums (approximately) every 4 years.

I'm not disagreeing with this point but why throw away 98 and 99?

 

[Nick66]

They have unquestionably released far less material, but there is no way to know how much they are writing, except to say it is clearly more than they are releasing.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? So all you're doing is speculating.

If, indeed as you say, there's "no way to know", then how can you back up your repeated assertions in this thread that they're just a "productive" as ever?

The fact is, we don't know how much they've written, beyond off hand comments interviews. And, as others have pointed out, who knows how much of that is just half-finished ideas, abandoned recordings, etc? The only objective criteria to judge how productive they are (or aren't) is looking at what they've actually released. The rest is all just guessing.

 

[GirlsAloudFan]

Let us not forget about the 20 or so songs that they wrote about a nerdy photographer who got superpowers after he was bitten by a radioactive spider.

 

[Niceman]

Well, that's the point, isn't it. So all you're doing is speculating.

If, indeed as you say, there's "no way to know", then how can you back up your repeated assertions in this thread that they're just a "productive" as ever?

Sigh.

No. I'm not just speculating. As I posted before, we know they delayed the last 4 albums. We know there is unreleased material they did with Rubin, DM, Eno & Lanois, and others. They wrote 3 songs one night after a particular 360 show. They played 6 "unreleased" songs during the 360 tour and talked about having a lot more than that which they could. They talk about the songs they're writing all the time.

Do I know they're just as productive "as ever?" No, and I don't think I've quite said that. We do know they are much more productive than their releases would suggest and I wouldn't be surprised if they are writing just as much as ever. For what its worth, Bono did talk about the possibility that this was going to be the band's most productive period. Was it? I have no idea, neither do you. But we do know we're getting less than we're not getting.

 

[Niceman]

Let us not forget about the 20 or so songs that they wrote about a nerdy photographer who got superpowers after he was bitten by a radioactive spider.

I try to. (But good point, and I think altogether it was closer to 30.)

 

[Nick66]

But we do know we're getting less than we're not getting.

Well, that much is certain. But that doesn't mean their productivity now is any where close to where it was in the 80's and 90's. There's just nothing solid to back that up. At least yet.

And the fact is, we don't know just how finished the Rick Rubin stuff is, Song of Ascent, or many of the other things you mentioned. We have some comments by Bono, but you know how that goes...and not much from the others. I'll readily concede an unreleased work of art is still a work of art...but since we haven't seen any of it, we just don't know. At what point does a few scribbles in a notebook, or laying down a few instrument tracks become a song? When does that count as productivity? All we can do is compare apples to apples...what they put out in X period vs. X period.

Now, who knows, maybe in a few years or ten a ton of stuff will be released and we'll say "Wow, the 00's was U2's most productive period." But right now, we don't know.

One more thing, and I'll readily admit to speculating here myself. Reason with me for a moment...when are they likely to be more productive? When they're young and hungry, trying to prove themselves, with small families and few other commitments, putting out albums every couple years...or when they're older, established, with large families, lot's of other commitments, projects, etc (especially Bono), where U2 isn't their entire lives anymore?

Again, that's just speculating on my part. All we can really look at is what they've actually put out there.

 

[Niceman]

Well, that much is certain. But that doesn't mean their productivity now is any where close to where it was in the 80's and 90's. There's just nothing solid to back that up. At least yet.

And the fact is, we don't know just how finished the Rick Rubin stuff is, Song of Ascent, or many of the other things you mentioned. We have some comments by Bono, but you know how that goes...and not much from the others. I'll readily concede an unreleased work of art is still a work of art...but since we haven't seen any of it, we just don't know. At what point does a few scribbles in a notebook, or laying down a few instrument tracks become a song? When does that count as productivity? All we can do is compare apples to apples...what they put out in X period vs. X period.

Now, who knows, maybe in a few years or ten a ton of stuff will be released and we'll say "Wow, the 00's was U2's most productive period." But right now, we don't know.

One more thing, and I'll readily admit to speculating here myself. Reason with me for a moment...when are they likely to be more productive? When they're young and hungry, trying to prove themselves, with small families and few other commitments, putting out albums every couple years...or when they're older, established, with large families, lot's of other commitments, projects, etc (especially Bono), where U2 isn't their entire lives anymore?

Again, that's just speculating on my part. All we can really look at is what they've actually put out there.

First of all, thanks for giving me that an unreleased work of art is still a work of art.

I'll give you that a band is far more likely to be productive when they're young than when they're older. But of course, we all know U2 remains in unexplored waters. No band has ever managed to enter its fourth decade of relevance before, so yeah, I'll give you that "A" band is likely to be exactly the way you describe, but we have reasons to think U2 is bucking the rules - consciously.

I've listed some of the projects they've told us about (and I postulate we haven't heard about everything.) I suspect that when they talk about these songs, that they are actual songs. I've heard the Salome tapes. I'd call most of those songs, but I suspect the band would call them "sketches." It's a little like writing a 500 page novel, but not having done a final proof-read yet. No they're not necessarily in the form they want the song to be on an album, but they are songs.

What about the demo version of Mercy? Or Always? Xanax and Wine? These songs got considerably more work done on them before release, but they weren't just sketches. They were songs.

If U2 is sitting on 50 tracks of the level of completeness of Always, I'd say they're being extremely productive.

 

[U2girl]

There won't be a U2 album for a while, because Bono and Edge will probably be in court for all that Spiderman stuff for a long time.

Quick out of court financial settlement ?

Productivity is easy when you're young, without a family and without a second career.

3 albums and 3 tours each decade seems to be the norm after the 80's.

Powerhour - not only that, DM himself stated he was wrapping up about a year ago.

http://www.atu2.com/news/cee-lo-danger-mouse-is-wrapping-up-u2-project.html

Let us not forget about the 20 or so songs that they wrote about a nerdy photographer who got superpowers after he was bitten by a radioactive spider.

Let us hope Adam and Larry stick their ground, given the praises of Bono and Edge's music on Spiderman.

 

[Hollow Island]

Quick out of court financial settlement ?

Productivity is easy when you're young, without a family and without a second career.

3 albums and 3 tours each decade seems to be the norm after the 80's.

Agree totally with your first point. We shouldn't expect them to be as productive as they were. Along with the reasons you mentioned we should consider that it gets harder to write songs when you've already written a lot.

In the 90s they had 4 albums though. 6 in the 80s, 4 in the 90s, 3 in the 00s, and I'm going to guess 2 this decade then one in the next.

 

[Niceman]

Agree totally with your first point. We shouldn't expect them to be as productive as they were. Along with the reasons you mentioned we should consider that it gets harder to write songs when you've already written a lot.

In the 90s they had 4 albums though. 6 in the 80s, 4 in the 90s, 3 in the 00s, and I'm going to guess 2 this decade then one in the next.

I bet 3 this decade.

But I don't see how it gets harder to write songs when you've already written a lot.

 

[Hollow Island]

there is no way to know how much they are writing, except to say it is clearly more than they are releasing.

Exactly. There is no way to know how much they are writing. They write more than they release, but they release less than they used to so that suggests that they write less than they used to.

Still, the only measure of their productivity is what they release, and it stands to reason that if they were more productive than they seem to be there would be more material being released.

 

[Niceman]

Exactly. There is no way to know how much they are writing. They write more than they release, but they release less than they used to so that suggests that they write less than they used to.

Still, the only measure of their productivity is what they release, and it stands to reason that if they were more productive than they seem to be there would be more material being released.

Well, this was my original point. It doesn't seem to be the case that they are less productive than they used to be, but they ARE releasing less. I was expressing my frustration at that. I don't know if they really are as productive as they claim, that would put them at the level of the 80s, but there seems to be to be enough reason to conclude they are no less productive now than 10, 20 years ago. That was my original point.

 

[Nick66]

But I don't see how it gets harder to write songs when you've already written a lot.

I'm not sure how old you are, but of course it can get harder. The muse goes away, the creativity dries up. It happens. Bono's not immune. Set aside for a moment the quantity of what Bono's written....what about the quality? Most people who follow Bono as a lyricist acknowledge that the quality just isn't as good as it used to be, especially in the 90's. At best, he's more inconsistent.

Perhaps Sting (who, in his prime, was arguably a better lyricist than Bono) said it best recently:

“Writing a song for me is a rare thing now. It gets more difficult as you get older because your filters are much more refined and your inner critic is very tough. When you’re younger, the filters aren’t on. Out it comes. You have to put yourself in a state of grace where you’re open to ideas coming to you. It’s very satisfying when you find one but facing a blank page doesn’t get any easier.”
-Sting

If someone like Sting can lose it, Bono certainly can.

 

[Niceman]

I'm not sure how old you are, but of course it can get harder. The muse goes away, the creativity dries up. It happens. Bono's not immune. Set aside for a moment the quantity of what Bono's written....what about the quality? Most people who follow Bono as a lyricist acknowledge that the quality just isn't as good as it used to be, especially in the 90's. At best, he's more inconsistent.

Perhaps Sting (who, in his prime, was arguably a better lyricist than Bono) said it best:

“Writing a song for me is a rare thing now. It gets more difficult as you get older because your filters are much more refined and your inner critic is very tough. When you’re younger, the filters aren’t on. Out it comes. You have to put yourself in a state of grace where you’re open to ideas coming to you. It’s very satisfying when you find one but facing a blank page doesn’t get any easier.”
-Sting

If someone like Sting can lose it, Bono certainly can.

I'm 38. I published two novels last year. This year I've already published one short story and will publish AT LEAST one novel. I'm not old, but I think I'm older than most on this board. Yeah, I know a lot of people whose creativity has dried up. When I was a freshman in college everyone I knew was an artist. I still know most of those people and almost none of them are still creating anything. Yeah, musicians especially tend to lose the fire. That's one reason why most bands only manage 2 albums. But Bono has talked in the past about why he doesn't think musicians should be different from other artists. Most authors and artists do their best work when they're old. Few novelists are worth reading when they're under 30.

Sting lost it a long time ago. Bono wrote Moment of Surrender in 2009. I don't think the fire is gone.

 

[Nick66]

Sting lost it a long time ago. Bono wrote Moment of Surrender in 2009. I don't think the fire is gone.

Fair enough. He also wrote SUC and Crazy Tonight in 2009.

And actually, I agree with you, I don't think the fire's gone. I think he still feels it. What I do think, however (and this is a guess on my part) is that the words aren't coming to him like the used to...thus the drop in both quantity and quality. Yes, he has brilliant moments like MOS (if you'll excuse the pun), but those are more the exception now than the rule. His recent work is pretty inconsistent, quality wise, IMO.

BTW, what kind of stuff do you write?

 

[Niceman]

Fair enough. He also wrote SUC and Crazy Tonight in 2009.

And actually, I agree with you, I don't think the fire's gone. I think he still feels it. What I do think, however (and this is a guess on my part) is that the words aren't coming to him like the used to...thus the drop in both quantity and quality. Yes, he has brilliant moments like MOS (if you'll excuse the pun), but those are more the exception now than the rule. His recent work is pretty inconsistent, quality wise, IMO.

BTW, what kind of stuff do you write?

I'm not a critic of the middle act of NLOTH, so I can't give you that.

I think Bono hit a real wall during the writing of POP, which led to some of the weakest lyrics he'd had to that point, which got worse as the 00s started. I enjoyed HTDAAB, but I think he/they had to work way too hard to come up with those songs. I imagine they actually wrote 3 or 4 very different albums worth of songs in order to come up with those 11 songs. I see NLOTH as being a return to form, he's getting back on track.

I write sci-fi, fantasy, horror. Visit Luminous and Ominous - Noahkmullette-gillman if you want to check out my work sometime. The first few pages of Luminous and Ominous are posted there. Actually, (and I honestly am not saying this to promote myself, I've been dying to find a non-promotional way to mention this it on this board) I published that novel in late 2010. It takes place in 2012, and the main character is listening to Songs of Ascent on his iphone! If the album isn't out by July, Bono has kind of made a fool of me.... lol

 

[BVS]

It's ironic how so many criticize U2 for approaching their careers in such a business like manner yet those are now judging productivity of art in exactly that way.

Interference

 

[Niceman]

It's ironic how so many criticize U2 for approaching their careers in such a business like manner yet those are now judging productivity of art in exactly that way.

Interference

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying.

Did you mean because some are suggesting that only the art which is published counts as art produced? If so, yeah, that's a good point.

 

[Nick66]

It's ironic how so many criticize U2 for approaching their careers in such a business like manner yet those are now judging productivity of art in exactly that way.

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying.

I'm not quite sure I understood that either...did someone criticise U2's business practices in this thread? I for one am not "judging" their productivity...merely observing it. On the contrary, I completely understand why they're less productive than they used to be.

I published that novel in late 2010. It takes place in 2012, and the main character is listening to Songs of Ascent on his iphone! If the album isn't out by July, Bono has kind of made a fool of me.... lol

Well, you did say it's science fiction. I'm sure in another timeline, we're all happily listening to SOA.

 

[BVS]

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying.

Did you mean because some are suggesting that only the art which is published counts as art produced? If so, yeah, that's a good point.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

I'm not quite sure I understood that either...did someone criticise U2's business practices in this thread?

It's a constant in Interference.

 

[Hollow Island]

Well, this was my original point. It doesn't seem to be the case that they are less productive than they used to be, but they ARE releasing less. I was expressing my frustration at that. I don't know if they really are as productive as they claim, that would put them at the level of the 80s, but there seems to be to be enough reason to conclude they are no less productive now than 10, 20 years ago. That was my original point.

If they are releasing less then how can they fail to seem less productive?

If they're releasing less, and that is the only measure we have of their productivity, then we can only conclude that they are less productive. There is no other way to evaluate their productivity.

They can say whatever they want, but that has no bearing on the evidence of their productivity, which is the product that they release. They release less than they did in the 80s or 90s, so the evidence says that they are less productive.

Without venturing into speculation there is no way to argue that they are as productive as they used to be.

Art doesn't have to be published to be produced, but it does have to be published in order for it's production to be evaluated, discussed, or known. U2 can say they have three new albums, but we cannot consider them to be "produced" unless they are released because we don't have any way to know that they exist.

It's all about evidence! I need the evidence to make a case...I know they're guilty, but all the gut feeling doesn't mean shit unless I can place them at the scene!

 

[BVS]

Yes they are releasing less, this is a fact. And a very obvious one at that...

 

[Hollow Island]

Yes they are releasing less, this is a fact. And a very obvious one at that...

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

 

[digitize]

If they are releasing less then how can they fail to seem less productive?

If they're releasing less, and that is the only measure we have of their productivity, then we can only conclude that they are less productive. There is no other way to evaluate their productivity.

They can say whatever they want, but that has no bearing on the evidence of their productivity, which is the product that they release. They release less than they did in the 80s or 90s, so the evidence says that they are less productive.

Without venturing into speculation there is no way to argue that they are as productive as they used to be.

Art doesn't have to be published to be produced, but it does have to be published in order for it's production to be evaluated, discussed, or known. U2 can say they have three new albums, but we cannot consider them to be "produced" unless they are released because we don't have any way to know that they exist.

It's all about evidence! I need the evidence to make a case...I know they're guilty, but all the gut feeling doesn't mean shit unless I can place them at the scene!

In this case, the correct answer is that "we don't know how productive they've been", not "they haven't been productive". If the only admissible evidence of production is how much they've released (which I do not agree with, but that's irrelevant), then we cannot make assumptions that they either have or haven't been productive regarding what they haven't released.

 

[Hollow Island]

In this case, the correct answer is that "we don't know how productive they've been", not "they haven't been productive". If the only admissible evidence of production is how much they've released (which I do not agree with, but that's irrelevant), then we cannot make assumptions that they either have or haven't been productive regarding what they haven't released.

That doesn't make any sense. They could be more productive than the seem to be, but we cannot make an argument for it, and given the evidence that we have - the work they release - we can only say that they are less productive than they were. How can you say you don't know how productive they are? We can't consider what they haven't released at all because we know nothing about it. The absence of evidence is not evidence. Unless you're Donald Rumsfeld.

 

[Nick66]

If they are releasing less then how can they fail to seem less productive?

If they're releasing less, and that is the only measure we have of their productivity, then we can only conclude that they are less productive. There is no other way to evaluate their productivity.

They can say whatever they want, but that has no bearing on the evidence of their productivity, which is the product that they release. They release less than they did in the 80s or 90s, so the evidence says that they are less productive.

Without venturing into speculation there is no way to argue that they are as productive as they used to be.

Art doesn't have to be published to be produced, but it does have to be published in order for it's production to be evaluated, discussed, or known. U2 can say they have three new albums, but we cannot consider them to be "produced" unless they are released because we don't have any way to know that they exist.

It's all about evidence! I need the evidence to make a case...I know they're guilty, but all the gut feeling doesn't mean shit unless I can place them at the scene!

You're wasting your time.

The absence of evidence is not evidence. Unless you're Donald Rumsfeld.

 

[digitize]

That doesn't make any sense. They could be more productive than the seem to be, but we cannot make an argument for it, and given the evidence that we have - the work they release - we can only say that they are less productive than they were. How can you say you don't know how productive they are? We can't consider what they haven't released at all because we know nothing about it. The absence of evidence is not evidence. Unless you're Donald Rumsfeld.

Are you kidding me? That's like saying that if I flip a coin, before I look at it, I don't know that it's heads, so it has to be tails. If we can only go off of official releases, we have zero evidence about how much U2 have been producing this decade that has not been officially released, so we cannot jump to conclusions in any way whatsoever.

 

[Hollow Island]

we have zero evidence about how much U2 have been producing this decade that has not been officially released

Exactly. 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!

 

[Nick66]

Yeah...this is kind of bizarre.

We could speculate that U2 has written 5 rock operas in the 00's, a few records fusing rock and smooth jazz in the 90's, and 2 country/rap hybrid records in the 80's, all kept secret all these years. After all, we have no evidence they haven't done those things!

In comparing how productive they were in one decade to the next, all we can do is look at the observable data we can verify...what work they've actually released to the public, in one form or another. All the rest is just guessing.

In the future, as the facts change...i.e. they release more records, we can adjust our conclusions. But trying to draw conclusions based on the absence of proof...i.e., trying to prove a negative, is specious.

 

[Hollow Island]

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