The Club Album - Will.I.Am

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Sicy said:
rave_smiley.gif
Click to expand...
:applaud:
So good. This needs to be added to the smilie menu.
 
My main objection to club music is the distinct lack of hand-played music on the songs. Can't see that being a problem with this release.

You can always 'get into it', but I can never divorce myself from the fact that the entire song is a guy pushing buttons on a computer.
 
Eh, The remix of LWTSH is like club music and that has bass, guitar and drums. They'll most likely just add electronic music too.
 
I know I may be unpopular for saying this, but I HATE the idea of a club album with electronic beats and a thumping pulse. That crap is done to death these days.

I couldn't stand the Crazy Tonight remix. I know most people thought it was a cool departure and something new, but was it? Some crappy dance beat added to a song is just cheap copying of a genre that is so redundant and throw-away it's not funny.

With apologies to club music fans, I will throw up if they waste their time on this. There are a million artists doing it, we don't need U2 throwing their hat in that ring.

Just my 2 cents.
 
It's the best way we can figure to spell out how that techno dance beat sounds: OONTS OONTS OONTS OONTS!

oonts
 
Feels like the DM album is being put out to be toured. Club album might reach for sounds that can't be reproduced live, and we may hear this at the end of the tour with no intention of 'touring' it.
 
I think it will be a very difficult album for them to release, but I don't think the material itself will be at all 'difficult', quite the opposite. David Guetta, Will.i.Am and RedOne are all essentially pop producers. It won't be difficult/complicated stuff. It will no doubt be pretty clear, crisp, quite poppy. With these guys, I do still think it will be, well, imagine a song like the album version of Magnificent meeting some of it's remixes halfway.

It's still somewhat interesting to me because while U2 have played with a very different end of electronica quite a bit, and have had a sort of dance-ish influence on a few tracks, they've never, ever actually done dance music. Ever. (Commissioned remixes by others don't count.) But, I can't deny that I'm still really bummed by the producer choice. Makes perfect sense in light of Bono's comments on 'interesting' versus 'hit single', I guess, but an interesting hit single would be better (!)
 
Earnie Shavers said:
It will no doubt be pretty clear, crisp, quite poppy.
Click to expand...

absolutely..
you have me thinking about these recent comments, from a Brian Eno interview

...Now you can play me one second of any record from that time, and I'll say "1959" or "1961." I can hear precisely. It's like it has a huge date stamp on it. And I think we're all capable of doing that. You can hear the profile of a sound, in retrospect, so much more clearly than you did at the time. And I think one of the things that's going to be nauseatingly characteristic about so much music of now is its glossy production values and its griddedness, the tightness of the way everything is locked together.
Click to expand...
if the 2000s are defined largely by this pristine, shiny sound.. are U2 dating themselves by diving into the glossiest sounding music of all?
 
Earnie Shavers said:
they've never, ever actually done dance music. Ever.
Click to expand...

That's not really a true statement. I mean what exactly is dance music? It's mainly in the production. Take Salome Zooromancer version. That's probably the most natural sounding house song U2 has ever put out. They are listed in the production credits also. I'd say that qualifies as "doing dance music". :up:
 
Registered Dude said:
if the 2000s are defined largely by this pristine, shiny sound.. are U2 dating themselves by diving into the glossiest sounding music of all?
Click to expand...

In a pure sonic sense, possibly/probably. I mean, I'd say that none of these three producers have so far exactly been the force behind anything that will end up being recognised beyond it's immediate time. Whatever you think of David Guetta, I am sure timeless is not a part of it. His music will date and die with quite a staggering speed. It is plastic pop of the most basic kind. I’m sure some people find it great fun on a dance floor right now, but you won’t in six months, let alone six years.

But of course, in regards to what it is mixed with U2, you never know. They can’t hand it too far over to true dance or club in a sonic sense, so it will no matter what/who still sound a bit different. I mean, at the very least, the ‘oonts oonts’ still has to be Adam and Larry to some degree. Bono will end world poverty all on his own well before he convinces those two that some fleetingly successful French pop DJ will be doing their job.

Like I said, think the album version of Magnificent meeting one of the remix versions halfway. Larry and Adam hand playing a sped up, juiced up version of the same driving beat, sub out the ‘Eno’ synths and replace them with the ‘club’ synths of, say, the Adam K remix, and adjust the structure of it a bit so it fits the way a dance/club songs generally rise/drop/surge etc. Not that hard to imagine.

And if its done well, I guess determined by intent, it could outdo the sound - it could have a feel or depth to it that gives it a longer shelf life. Possibly.

So that makes "Why?" the larger question, I suppose.
 
gvox said:
That's not really a true statement. I mean what exactly is dance music? It's mainly in the production. Take Salome Zooromancer version. That's probably the most natural sounding house song U2 has ever put out. They are listed in the production credits also. I'd say that qualifies as "doing dance music". :up:
Click to expand...

That was them? Always just assumed that was an outside job. Well, I stand corrected.
 
it seems very "in step" with the times to explore this music right now.. compared to say, the Joshua Tree.. which sounded so unlike anything else in 1987

but, hey, surprise me U2
 
No. It would require a ridiculously, insanely successful album giving them a shadow similar to the one they were probably expecting No Line would give to allow them to release Songs of Ascent, except a hundred times that size. For them to release "Oonts Oonts feat. David Guetta" and "Doof Doof feat. RedOne" it would need to be far greater even than the of the amount of room that Achtung Baby gave Numb and Lemon. In other words, no.

And double no. I don't think they could or would release an album of ten 'oonts oonts' tracks. I think it would genre-drift. Dance-Electro-Pop-Rock. And would have a similar pattern to most U2 albums, where there's a few big/anthemic/energetic songs, a few quieter/moody/ballad songs, a few that don't quite fit in either category.

So maybe just a few tracks would be 'proper' big, driving club songs, then perhaps some others would have a more straight structure to them, just with a strong electro-synth sound (Zooropa-like via 2010), and then some more moody or quiet songs with a strong electronica/synth sonic bed (I guess like the Orbit mix of Electrical Storm, without it ever taking off.)

So no, no way they'd release ten original floor filler 'oonts oonts' club tracks. No. And likely no way they ever even release this stuff as it's own album, unless this Danger Mouse project is bigger and better than Achtung.
 
First rule of Club Album: you don't talk about Club Album.

I do believe material from this release will see the light of day, but whether or not the sound and concept leave the studio unscathed is certainly up for debate. I'll start to have hope if the Danger Mouse album is a relatively pure creation. For the moment, I'm picturing Pop with less lyrical bite.

Earnie Shavers said:
"Oonts Oonts feat. David Guetta" and "Doof Doof feat. RedOne"
Click to expand...

Don't forget "Skeet Skeet feat. Brokencyde."
 
I think there's a likely middle ground between both projects, and they're maybe trying to have it both ways between them.

Bono is - to say the least - pretty calculating. He name checks MGMT quite a bit, always in a highly, highly complimentary way. If you look back over the past 10 years of music, very little really crossed over in as much as having 'hits' that were both cool with the cool kids, and popular with the pop kids. Of the very, very few that did, the electro pop of MGMT was one, Gnarls Barkley was another.

I think he/they are simply looking back at an electro-pop-rock hybrid as their way in. Or back in. They - commercially or otherwise - boned it with Pop. They see it as a crossover as now viable, a way in that is back on their turf. But they can't fuck it up.

On the one hand they've nabbed the producer of probably the biggest crossover hit of the decade, as soon as he's proven his ability with guitar based acts. At the same time, Bono continues to namecheck MGMT to a degree probably beyond their creative worth, probably more to do with their creative example. Wouldn't be surprised if this (if not actually sounding anything like it) is where he'd quite like the U2/DM collaboration to kind of roughly land. On the other hand, they're diving back into full-on electronica, but this time, they are making abso-fucking-lutely sure they get a hit or two out of it by lining up three of the most successful hit makers of the past few years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
303
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
dan_smee
I listened to No Line on the Horizon right through tonight for the first time in about 10 years…
2 3
Replies
83
Views
2K
lazarus
lazarus
W
A Boy Falls From the Sky is some U2's best work
Replies
3
Views
2K
zoocarolina
Z
K
U2 Show Logistics Question/Theories
Replies
7
Views
760
lazarus
lazarus
Reggie Thee Dog
Are we NOT discussing the Dolby Atmos Mix of Achtung Baby?
Replies
13
Views
1K
count rushmore
count rushmore

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom