Project Zero One / Songs of Ascent / New Album Discussion

[coolian2]

jay-z joining u2 for scarlet was one of the best things they've done in the last six months.

 

[corianderstem]

I wouldn't mind Jay-Z appearing. Better him than the BEP.

 

[BoMac]

Oh christ i hope not!

 

[ozeeko]

Wonder what Bono would think about the new Radiohead album. Would he judge the music on its own terms or continue to mourn the death of pop radio?

Anyway, I was listening to NLOTH for the first time in a year (no joke) the other day, and there were 3 songs that stood out. MOS, F-BB, WAS. These otherworldy tracks. I wanted to go deeper into the songs. I wanted to explore their worlds.

I wonder what would happen if U2 were to expand on the soundscapes of these types of songs and really went for it, in a "musical album" kind of way, as opposed to a "pop album" kind of way. I'm not sure what else U2 can do at this point to surprise me when it comes to just straight up "songs". But MOS, F-BB, WAS. These songs give me glimpses of a different side of U2. More mood. More haze. I want more of this.

And yea, the Radiohead album, I'm not even sure what to make of it. But it transports me in the same way that F-BB does. I want more of this.

Beer is good.

 

[MikeyJB]

Oh please don't let Jay-Z appear on the new U2 album, if only to avoid the glaring 'Coldplay-ripoff' comments.

 

[Marien]

Wonder why you even compare U2 and Radiohead, they aren't in the same league either musically or commercially, how many Cds would Radiohead sell accross the world? I don't think they are risking much, but definitely they aren't risking what U2 would if they follow that path.

 

[Registered Dude]

Wonder what Bono would think about the new Radiohead album. Would he judge the music on its own terms or continue to mourn the death of pop radio?

I think he's said their music is achingly beautiful and coming from another world. something to that effect..

apples and oranges, folks..

 

[MMP]

Wonder why you even compare U2 and Radiohead, they aren't in the same league either musically or commercially, how many Cds would Radiohead sell accross the world? I don't think they are risking much, but definitely they aren't risking what U2 would if they follow that path.

U2 has enough money to go in that way whenever they want. Especially now... and oh, wait, remeber when they didn't have even 1/10 of the money they have now and released an album called Achtung Baby?

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

Beer is good.

 

[Marien]

U2 has enough money to go in that way whenever they want. Especially now... and oh, wait, remeber when they didn't have even 1/10 of the money they have now and released an album called Achtung Baby?

Yes, I agree with you, but what does it have to do to with releasing an album only on line? What advantages would they get from doing that?

By the way I've listened to the new Radiohead album, it has only 8 songs and they sound exactly as other Radiohead songs, well, in fact they had some oniric feeling on them that remembered me of Fez-Being Born.

I'm not a big Radiohead fan, but I think I can recognise when they do something different and that's not the feeling I got yesterday.

 

[MikeyJB]

Yes, I agree with you, but what does it have to do to with releasing an album only on line? What advantages would they get from doing that?

Well, Radiohead are a band without a record label (as were Oasis and Nine Inch Nails before they both split), they have complete control over everything. I really can't see what benefits a band as big as U2 can get out of being tied to a record label in this day and age. They have the influence and financial power to be able to do everything themselves, but instead for some reason they maintain tied to the 'old school' way of doing business in the music industry.

 

[Marien]

Well, Radiohead are a band without a record label (as were Oasis and Nine Inch Nails before they both split), they have complete control over everything. I really can't see what benefits a band as big as U2 can get out of being tied to a record label in this day and age. They have the influence and financial power to be able to do everything themselves, but instead for some reason they maintain tied to the 'old school' way of doing business in the music industry.

I think U2 are still in a record label because they sell Cds, not as many as before, that's true, but they still do and from the words from the members of the band and their manager I understand they think having people working for them in every country in the world is an advantage for them.

Again, it is not that you're telling the best sellers in the world have gone that path, you're talking about important bands within the UK, but nowhere else.

Anyway, I'm not really interested in the business side of U2, but in their artistic side and still I can't see how working as you suggest could produce any benefit for them or for me.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

no new thread yet?

fine

YouTube - Katy Perry Firework - the REAL music video!!!

 

[popacrobat]

if you're going to post katy perry...please, post her.

 

[Chill Mike D]

Yes.

 

[chocky]

I think U2 are still in a record label because they sell Cds

Definitely helps having a record label when you:

1. sell plenty of best of CDs (U2 have 3 already and will probably release another, and a box set, in next few years)

2. want to sell super deluxe remasters

3. release live/collection DVDs

Bands like Radiohead have no interest in what are probably U2's primary (non touring) revenue sources.

 

[mrex]

I think that U2 stays with a label for many reasons, one being that it gives them relavance. I like Radiohead and understand what they are up to. Now, I'm 42 years old. Lots of people my age know nothing about current music. For them, a band that's not on a label obviously isn't "good enough" to be a on a label. Because if a band were good, they'd get signed. This is not my thinking, but it still exists.

For younger people, I don't think it's a issue.

The thing about U2 is that they have fans my age, some older, some younger. They need to stay accesable to as many fans as possible.

Also, without a label, they'd have to build the claw themselves without backing. That would be a huge risk and they might not take it. For them, they will take more chances if they have big backing.

Look at the movies for example, the only guy who makes movies right out of his own pocket is George Lucas. Even guys like James Cameron still use studio backing.
Many small budget and indie film directors still rely on on investors to come up with the cash.

Right now, we're moving into a new era of music/media and there's many unknowns.
I think what Radiohead are dioing is interesting, but I find it a little aloof and exclusive. For instance, I was in my car when I'd heard they'd moved the album up a day or two. If it had been a store release, I would have pulled into the nearest Best Buy and grabbed it immediately. As it was, I had to wait until I got home, went on line, my browser kept getting screwed up on their site, and finally, I gave up.

I'll try again eventually, but right now I've lost a bit of interest. And I loved "In Rainbows."

The other thing that always cracks me up when people talk about how cool it is not to be on a label, is that the band will actually make more money per album than if they were on a label. So if that's the case, why aren't we calling Radiohead greedy for wanting all of that money...

 

[Niceman]

I understand what Radiohead TRIED to do.... but what they ended up doing is making sure that the only way for me to legally buy their new album right now is to pay the price for their new album on just MP3 that I would normally expect to pay for a CD filled with music and artwork shipped right to my door.

I think they're a great band, but I wasn't a fan of In Rainbows.... so I'll pass for now. If a CD were available, I would have bought it.

 

[Hollow Island]

"The King Of Limbs" will be in stores at the end of March, so I don't know where this idea of exclusivity comes from. And they are charging market rates for mp3s. I think anyone who pays for mp3s is a moron.

Radiohead aren't greedy for wanting all that money, they just want to get it all instead of share it with a multinational. "In Rainbows" was cheap too. The LP was $13, compared to $40 for NLOTH. It's smart business practice, and it gives them total freedom and control. It creates more hype, but it's honest excitement, not like the long term manipulation engaged in by the majors. When people like U2 are promoted, they just become part of the noise, and people resent that. They think, "look at these assholes everywhere!" With Radiohead say "hey, we have new album next week" people get fucking excited! Maybe because Radiohead are by far the best band of the last 20 years.

NIN and Radiohead are the most respected artist right now because they understand how music distribution has changed and are using the current system for the benefit of themselves and their fans. They aren't clinging to the monopolistic past where majors rip off artists and manipulate the fans of music. U2 should follow them, but they'd rather try to get people banned from the internet.

As for the best ofs/dvds, best ofs are a waste of time and money and Radiohead seem to understand this. And they have a lot of pro shot, HD bootlegs available FOR FREE. Same with NIN.

It would be nice if U2 still had the balls to release a record this uncommercial - a record that is getting amazing reviews and will go to #1 everywhere, all without a chorus to please the Oprah crowd. A folk/jazz/Flying Lotus/Shakleton record...fuck yeah!!

Why are U2 so concerned with pleasing the wrong ears?

 

[Hollow Island]

Katy Perry should be on the new U2 record.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Maybe because Radiohead are by far the best band of the last 20 years.

By far? Now that's going far.

 

[coolian2]

that's why radiohead fans are the worst.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

that's why radiohead fans are the worst.

Yeah, I could smell that he came from Atease or thereabouts just by that one line.

 

[Hollow Island]

Ok, well who's been better over the last 20 years? Other bands have been better at various times, but no one has consistently put out classic records from 1995 onward. Just like U2 were by far the best band on earth in the late 80s/early 90s. Except for Sonic Youth!

Sometimes U2 fans - a certain type - are like Rolling Stones fans in the late 80s and early 90s: unable to realize that they were great, but are now just shite, to paraphrase Sick Boy.

 

[Hollow Island]

I *really* want to go to U2.com some random day and just see "click here to download the new single". How hard is that? Honestly.

Their label would rather spend a million dollars on embarassing promo that will just put people off U2.

U2 really should do it the way Radiohead do it. Everyone should! What's with REM announcing, in December, that their album is out in March! Just put the fucking thing out when people are still excited about it and before they've forgotten.

 

[Hollow Island]

Oh yeah, a fairly obvious idea that I had the other day, and the root of U2s problem with weak albums since Pop: They make too many changes right when the album is being mastered, dropping songs, changing parts, writing words and then sticking the new stuff on in the heat of creative glory before they have time to reflect on it's quality. It's a sign of lack of confidence.

 

[coolian2]

is a hollow island anything like an echo chamber?

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Sometimes U2 fans - a certain type - are like Rolling Stones fans in the late 80s and early 90s: unable to realize that they were great, but are now just shite, to paraphrase Sick Boy.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

You sure love to state your opinion as fact.

is a hollow island anything like an echo chamber?

I'd be interested to know.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Nobody cares about radiohead anymore

 

[corianderstem]

So when someone gets around to starting a new thread, can they also be sure to start another thread called "Radiohead and U2 - Hash All That Shit Out Here, Please" ?

Thanks.