Discussion of U2's future: new singles, new tour, etc.

Originally posted by MWSAH:[..]

For sure...I still don't understand why they put the weakest songs on the album. I only like COBL, SYCMIOYO, All Because Of You and Original of the Species.

The rest are fillers in my opinion.
Native Son beats Vertigo, Yahweh Alternate Version beats Yahweh Album Version, Smile beats One Step Closer, Xanax and Wine beats Fast Cars (which I didn't get with the album), Mercy beats Miracle Drug etc. It could and should have been much better. And maybe U2 are doing this now with the new album. Reworking/re-ordering the songs before it's too late.

Originally posted by drewhiggins:[..]

Exactly my choice. I didn't like the Yahweh alternate. You didn't get Fast Cars on yours?

I quite like One Step Closer.

Originally posted by aussiemofo:[..]

You don't rate Love and Peace...? No way Miracle Drug should get bumped off the album. One of Bomb's best and one of the Vertigo Tour's highlights.

I believe it was Brian Eno's wife.

Originally posted by MWSAH:[..]

Nope, probably an European version. It stops with Yahweh.

Originally posted by drewhiggins:[..]

A reason not to bother with the second disc on Best of 1990-2000. North and South of The River and Your Blue Room make it worthwhile to have it, though. I'm not a huge fan of Thriller. Overrated album, but some real great tunes on it. Anyway, have U2 ever released something truly terrible (album-wise)?



[..]

I hope it hasn't been the mixing that's taken this long, and trying to get a perfect sound. They may have recorded 50-60 songs (that we know of) but how many of those are any good, potentially, and live? 45 of those could be complete crap, or even just simple riffs or drum loops. They left Pop as it was - not overly mixed, rough as sandpaper, but look at how immensely popular that record is. But the problem is, to appeal to the young crowd, you have to overproduce your music and fine-tune it to a point where it is no longer fine.

Do U2 need a massive chart-topper? They've had enough of them and people know that their work is going to be decent, no matter if they make a critically-panned record - you don't spend three years in a studio, and have it be a complete piece of crap. It's no longer sufficient enough to spend a few months in a studio. How would an album like Boy stand up today? Granted, pretty well, but how would it sell (which is the whole point of recording and the music industry)?

Originally posted by thefly07:[..]

I don't think U2 has released anything truly terrible


Who knows what it is taking longer, I'm sure that 45 of the songs are not crap and we are still gonna get their best, if not some of their best, work. I honestly think Pop could have been so much more had they spent more time on it, the songs that grew during Popmart like Please and Last Night, Gone etc sound more complete..I know that Pop gets its merits for being raw and whatnot, which is fine and that's why I love it, but I think had it been finished, the response would have been totally different and wouldn't be known as the "worst" album.

But I agree, I hope this record is not over produced, and I don't think U2 needs another chart topper but I think they are going to get one, they always will. I of course would love them to get another one and have a sweep at the grammy's again.

I think Boy today would be regarded as a nice indie record from a promising young band, but probably wouldn't sell a whole lot....but when the guys grow up....different story

Originally posted by drewhiggins:[..]

You've hit the nail on the head, Jake.


The delay could be taking longer for any number of reasons:

- playing the songs to see what they'll sound like in a live environment
- doing photo shoots for the cover or the booklet / pre-press releases
- coming up with revised names or final titles of songs
- coming up with ideas for videos, promotions, distribution
- mixing the record, if it's gonna be their best, it has to be mixed to the nth degree

I'd like to see U2 take another few Grammy awards or even get a World Music Award, be up there with the best. Apparently you have to sell 100 million albums in 25 years or something. The kind of stuff U2 has achieved, even before they've reached 50 themselves, is beyond unbelievable.

Would you have bothered with Pop if it hadn't had U2's name on it? I wouldn't have. That's an innovative album, and so were the seven albums before it. U2 doesn't need to innovate anymore - the sad thing with music, is there anywhere to go, anywhere new to break ground in? Streets will be remembered for decades to come. A song you hear on the radio by some new artist won't be, and for all the right reasons.

And it is true what Bono said at the Hall of Fame "because there would be no U2, the way things are right now". That's come through because of determination, and hanging on, and making music relevant to today. Pride is still relevant; so is Bullet The Blue Sky, Sunday Bloody Sunday, Zooropa, When I Look At The World, Tomorrow...they all have themes, and artists today are still singing about that sort of stuff; some of it almost 30 years later. To be told your drummer is crap and to get rid of him, yet still be the original line-up it was in 1980 is awesome, and selling records and remasters, and people still loving them...there's no word for it.

Originally posted by drewhiggins:[..]

the sad thing with music, is there anywhere to go, anywhere new to break ground in?

Originally posted by drewhiggins:

1) being louder than the competition, in the mastering process, also known as the loudness war
2) maybe having the music with beats that drown out the vocals

Originally posted by yuri31:[..]

that's exactly what I hate and that's exactly why other kids at school think I'm crazy