Next Album Rumours Thread II - Songs of Ass Scent

[womanfish]

How damaging does everyone think Guy Oseary has been to the band creatively since he became manager?

Managers often have input, or rather their own thoughts, on what artistic direction their clients may be taking. Paul McGuinness was sceptical about them working with Brian Eno initially (again showing that managers don't really have an artistic eye).

With Guy Oseary, you see the industry he's involved in and its just fame hungry pop megastardom tacky shit. Wouldn't at all be surprised if he recommended the dreaded Ryan Tedder. He was after all presiding over the Apple debacle too.

It's just all corporate bullshit isn't it now and hearing their singles of late, corporate music for businessmen in suits. Granted, the genius shines through now and then on Songs of Experience (Love Is All We Have, Little Things, Lights of Home, 13) but their career is now dictated by shallow music.

Not sure how you can say that there is much "shollow" music on SOI or SOE. Sure I agree with some, Showman in a way, although it has some meat to it, Volcano/American Soul, Miracle, although again, it has some deeper meaning, Best Thing, but again, sort of a Sweetest Thing for the 2010's.
Other than that, I would put most of it up there with their past catalog.

 

[rennowba]

Exactly. They didn't hand pick a guy whose only other client is a washed up pop star who has difficulty realizing that she's not hip and cool with the kids anymore because they were jonesing for indie cred.

Sounds like his two clients to me [emoji2]

 

[Hollow Island]

 

[Flying FuManchu]

They’re too old and too distracted by investments and chillaxation to put in the effort to make a great full album... also today’s marketing also demands more time and effort from musicians. They don’t want to do that to make that cultural impact they crave b/c they believed they earned it (and they have) and feel no need to promote properly.

So it goes back to the art. Unfortunately, there are millions of Edge style players out there, so unless he’s willing to shake it up (again too old to probably do it), U2 will be putting out what they’ve been putting out for the past decade.

 

[danm]

U2 have unfortunately been chasing a big radio hit since 2009. They had them with Beautiful Day and Vertigo, but then decided to lead off their return to experimentalism on No Line with probably the worst single they’ve ever released - Get On Your Boots. They tried it again with Miracle in 2014 and GOOYOW in 2017.

They’re at the stage of their career now where they don’t need to go chasing radio hits. It doesn’t matter if their albums don’t break records. The music industry and the way we consume music now is so different to 2004 let alone their heyday.

It’s a shame because in amongst the largely crappy lead singles since 2009, they’ve created some great stuff. SOE has a few absolute gems on there. They should just focus on creating good music rather thinking they have to have a catchy radio hit or two on every album.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

It’s always tiring to hear people rank U2 albums but boy it gets exhausting to hear the same old criticisms for 10 years.

They’re valid, but what’s the point? It’s almost as though because the band can’t move on, neither can the fans.

 

[PopFly]

U2 have unfortunately been chasing a big radio hit since 2009. They had them with Beautiful Day and Vertigo, but then decided to lead off their return to experimentalism on No Line with probably the worst single they’ve ever released - Get On Your Boots. They tried it again with Miracle in 2014 and GOOYOW in 2017.

The problem is that all five of these songs are mostly cut from the same U2 pop/rock sounding cloth. Pride, WOWY, Desire, The Fly, and Numb sounded nothing like each other, which I think is what make them more effective as lead singles. It's both "new U2 song, cool" and "wait, is this cool new song by U2?"

It’s a shame because in amongst the largely crappy lead singles since 2009, they’ve created some great stuff. SOE has a few absolute gems on there.

Case in point, how better received are any of the last three studio albums if the lead singles are one of Magnificent/Breathe/Moment Of Surrender for NLOTH, Raised By Wolves/Troubles for SOI, or Red Flag Day for SOE?

 

[DeVaul]

There was no saving SOI with a different single; it was boned by the release method. My votes go to Magnificent, Volcano and Red Flag Day... which are all very classic sounding, so what do I know?

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Shouldn’t they be cooking up a ton of music during the pandemic? Free time in abundance I would think.

 

[super fly guy]

Should that not be over cook??[emoji6]

Shouldn’t they be cooking up a ton of music during the pandemic? Free time in abundance I would think.

 

[lazarus]

They did try to warn us:

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Bono's pandemic hobby was devouring large quantities of sourdough

 

[david]

 

[DeVaul]

Songs of Flatulence

 

[gvox]

There was no saving SOI with a different single; it was boned by the release method. My votes go to Magnificent, Volcano and Red Flag Day... which are all very classic sounding, so what do I know?

SOI with Invisible included and as a lead off single..Every Breaking Wave...hell, Song For Someone...all better and would have even introduced new listeners to their music far better. The release method might have been made slightly more palatable by an audience primed by one of those great songs, leaving them wanting the album. There was nothing released and promoted heavily prior to make people want the album, that's the brutal reality of it for me.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

You can't discuss the disaster of the Songs of Innocence lead up and release without first talking about Invisible - from many different fronts.

--the return of the band was warmly received in early 2014. Invisible as a free download wasn't a hit, but it was well received and I think it was downloaded 3 million times in that first couple of weeks. They launched the return at the Super Bowl - only the biggest single day of TV in the US.

--Ordinary Love was also, again, not a smash hit but well received. Their performance on the first Fallon Tonight Show went over well. They had the Golden Globes as well.

--and then... nothing. Instead of capitalizing on the positive momentum they just went away. Why? We're they hopping Invisible was going to be a Vertigo level hit and when it wasn't they decided they needed to go back and Lillywhite-wash the album? Was it something in trying to play the songs live that changed their thoughts around a full on Danger Mouse album? It was the first of many baffling marketing decisions.

--back to be Invisible, and specifically the release method. It was a free release through the iTunes store... but you had to go and download it. It wasn't pushed to every iTunes library automatically. If they would have just repeated this same release method then everything about 2014 could have been markedly different - and the album wouldn't continue to be a punch line 6 years later.

 

[phanan]

It's too bad, because Invisible was a great song.

 

[lazarus]

Headache nailed all of it.

In many ways, the beginning of the end for the band.

In the grander pop culture scheme it’s the Apple Invasion that made them a punchline, but for us loyal fans, the damage was already done when they brought in the pop producers to water down most of Danger Mouse’s work.

 

[dan_smee]

The period 2014-2017 is the nadir of U2 second-guessing, over producing and pfaffing around instead of acting.

If the Super Bowl clip of invisible had a tag line under it “like our Facebook page to hear about our new album, Songs of Innocence”. And they announced that album for, say, one month’s time they would have capitalised on the 3 million downloads and could have used Fallon to talk about it - “hey everyone, pre-order the album on iTunes to get it free. We just want to share this one with the world.”

 

[ascender_RS]

I’d love to hear versions of those songs from the Danger Mouse sessions.

It was a very strange period with Invisible, Ordinary Love and then... nothing like you said.

What I really don’t get is that they haven’t needed the money for many years, so what have they got to lose by trying something different and taking a bit of a risk with their music or the release & promo strategy.

 

[gvox]

You can't discuss the disaster of the Songs of Innocence lead up and release without first talking about Invisible - from many different fronts.

--the return of the band was warmly received in early 2014. Invisible as a free download wasn't a hit, but it was well received and I think it was downloaded 3 million times in that first couple of weeks. They launched the return at the Super Bowl - only the biggest single day of TV in the US.

--Ordinary Love was also, again, not a smash hit but well received. Their performance on the first Fallon Tonight Show went over well. They had the Golden Globes as well.

--and then... nothing. Instead of capitalizing on the positive momentum they just went away. Why? We're they hopping Invisible was going to be a Vertigo level hit and when it wasn't they decided they needed to go back and Lillywhite-wash the album? Was it something in trying to play the songs live that changed their thoughts around a full on Danger Mouse album? It was the first of many baffling marketing decisions.

--back to be Invisible, and specifically the release method. It was a free release through the iTunes store... but you had to go and download it. It wasn't pushed to every iTunes library automatically. If they would have just repeated this same release method then everything about 2014 could have been markedly different - and the album wouldn't continue to be a punch line 6 years later.

I had forgotten how decently Ordinary Love had done and it's place on the timeline, but at the time it felt too much like a companion to Window In the Skies. So sure, a pleasant enough of a song, but not lead single / promo vehicle territory.

We definitely agree on Invisible. I feel they really missed the boat on that one. I know a certain very famous former producer of theirs feels the same way.

 

[lazarus]

Considering how relentlessly they've continued to pursue the youth market and the charts and refused to take the hint, I'm surprised they haven't made more attempts at an Oscar.

Scorsese literally made a film called "The Irishman"; you'd think they would have found a way to latch a song onto that one.

If Guy Oseary was actually earning his paycheck he'd contact someone from Netflix asking if any directors are looking for original songs.

Of course, it's hard to win as of late if you're an aging artist; it's not like any U2 song could have beaten Shallow, Let It Go, Adele's Skyfall, etc. Elton John only won last year because the film itself was about his life.

Too bad they did their James Bond track back when no one gave a shit, because if they did one now it might have some chance. Not that Bond would go with some geriatrics when they can get someone relevant like Billie Eilish.

 

[DeVaul]

We definitely agree on Invisible. I feel they really missed the boat on that one. I know a certain very famous former producer of theirs feels the same way.

Hmmm? Honestly curious!

 

[pacemaker]

Considering how relentlessly they've continued to pursue the youth market and the charts and refused to take the hint, I'm surprised they haven't made more attempts at an Oscar.

Totally. I like to think that when all is said and done, people will look back at U2’s career as a lot more tumultuous than it seemed. Most bands deal with substance and/or financial issues... U2 are really just four talented, corny dudes who have had issues balancing their music with their image. They’ve been putting their eggs in the wrong baskets for too long in an attempt at redemption before they pack it in.

Recently I’ve started to wish that they were more prolific, individually. I want more Adam & Larry tracks. More Edge scores. The smaller stuff tends to work better than the bigger, more spidery, stuff. It would be nice to have more from over the years. They’re over it, and I don’t really blame them.

 

[AndrewCowley]

Totally. I like to think that when all is said and done, people will look back at U2’s career as a lot more tumultuous than it seemed. Most bands deal with substance and/or financial issues... U2 are really just four talented, corny dudes who have had issues balancing their music with their image. They’ve been putting their eggs in the wrong baskets for too long in an attempt at redemption before they pack it in.

Recently I’ve started to wish that they were more prolific, individually. I want more Adam & Larry tracks. More Edge scores. The smaller stuff tends to work better than the bigger, more spidery, stuff. It would be nice to have more from over the years. They’re over it, and I don’t really blame them.

They will be remembered for their live shows. And this will put their legacy in a very good light.

 

[the tourist]

I think they’ll be remembered mostly through their studio output from 1983-1991. That’s one of the top handful of 8-year runs for any band.

 

[lazarus]

Not 1993? Zooropa is almost universally praised, even if a percentage of obtuse listeners jumped ship when it came out.

I think we're looking at a 10-year run of studio recordings as good as any band in history.

 

[dan_smee]

Not 1993? Zooropa is almost universally praised, even if a percentage of obtuse listeners jumped ship when it came out.

I think we're looking at a 10-year run of studio recordings as good as any band in history.

While I agree it is an all time stint, and my personal taste would agree - I’ve got to think that 99% of the population would put the Beatles 1963-1970 well ahead of it. And they don’t get the extra three years.

 

[Hollow Island]

I think most people would laugh at U2's 83-93 being put up there with 70s Bowie or the Stones up to Exile or Zep...but then again, 20 years ago U2's run was held in higher esteem than Bowie's 70s.

The Beatles' run is always held ahead of everyone else. That's a constant because it's a fact.

I think U2 will be remembered as an inconsistent, occasionally brilliant studio band, and a consistently brilliant, transcendent and innovative live band. But who the fuck knows.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

The Rolling Stones are contemporaries with The Beatles and should be regarded as such.