1. NLOTH lacks strong singles, like Vertigo, SYCMOYO, COBL, even OOTS. I'm not fond of COBL, and I like even less ABOY. But this leaves 2 very strong singles and one great song (OOTS).

    No Line lacks strong commercial singles, but contains MOS -- one of the best U2 songs of the last two decades, and Magnificent, which also ranks rather high in my book. No Line and Breathe are also great songs. GOYB works well live. The album was perhaps a commercial failure, but I'd say it isn't a musical failure. That's what really matters to me!
  2. Originally posted by 17s:2007: "It's the best thing we've ever done, there'll be some hard rock and trance and Moroccan folk music...."
    2008: "We hit a songwriting vein and we have to work more on these songs to get this project even better but 2009 is going to be U2's year!"
    2009: "We don't have any new hits, Get On Your Boots didn't become the new Vertigo as we wanted it...."
    2010: PRODUCER ADMITS LAST U2 ALBUM WAS FAILURE



  3. Lillywhite really disappointed me with this crap. The only part of NLOTH that isn't great is the part that he produced, so he can just f*** off.
  4. Band wouldnt release the album if they thought the production was crap. Sometimes you get it wrong, you cant expect all releases to be a huge success.
  5. There is a strong tendency in U2 history to mix up commercial and artistic success. Nothing new.
  6. Producer admits last U2 album was failure.

    That'll be why i like it so much


  7. This album will be a fan-favourite because it won't overflow in radios and live shows.
  8. Originally posted by Yogi:Lillywhite really disappointed me with this crap. The only part of NLOTH that isn't great is the part that he produced, so he can just f*** off.

    What did he actually produce on the album? Personally I wouldn't have minded had it been a mix of One Step Closer, Moment Of Surrender, When I Look At The World...songs like those.

    Although that said, my final rating for the album stands around 6 / 10.
  9. It's their best of the 00's imo. But there is not enough catchy songs that could have been a good single. GOYB could, but it didn't work. In France, they just kept playing Magnificent this summer


  10. Breathe and Crazy. Additional production on: SUC, Unknown Caller, Magnificent, No Line.

    Can't see what's wrong with what Lillywhite said. He mentions that the album didn't sell as well as the band expected. That's certainly true.
  11. Originally posted by yeah:[..]

    Breathe and Crazy. Additional production on: SUC, Unknown Caller, Magnificent, No Line.

    Can't see what's wrong with what Lillywhite said. He mentions that the album didn't sell as well as the band expected. That's certainly true.


    Yes, it is. But he also implied that commercial insuccess for a band like U2 must in part be an artistic problem. The assumption seems to be that their best work is both artistically valuable and commercially successful. If we look back, this seems largely true - though of course there'll be people who'll say that pop is the best album ever etc. Given their ability to reach everyone, when they work at their best, lack of commercial success entails some degree of lack of artistic value - at least for U2, and at least according to SL on my reading of what he said.

    Will they be able to produce a best-seller? And will they be able to produce great work? I'd be interested to hear what people think.

    Bono once said EBW was going to be the first single of SoA. A very good song, I think, but is it a single? Doesn't look commercial enough to me. On the other hand, if they have 11-12 songs at the level of the 4 they're playing these days, they might have a very decent album.

    My 4 cents is that U2 should think about enjoy themselves, as they seem to be doing when they play live and when they write and try new songs. Fuck the sales and follow your instinct, as Yoda would say...
  12. Originally posted by JuJuman:[..]

    Yes, it is. But he also implied that commercial insuccess for a band like U2 must in part be an artistic problem. The assumption seems to be that their best work is both artistically valuable and commercially successful. If we look back, this seems largely true - though of course there'll be people who'll say that pop is the best album ever etc. Given their ability to reach everyone, when they work at their best, lack of commercial success entails some degree of lack of artistic value - at least for U2, and at least according to SL on my reading of what he said.

    Will they be able to produce a best-seller? And will they be able to produce great work? I'd be interested to hear what people think.

    Bono once said EBW was going to be the first single of SoA. A very good song, I think, but is it a single? Doesn't look commercial enough to me. On the other hand, if they have 11-12 songs at the level of the 4 they're playing these days, they might have a very decent album.

    My 4 cents is that U2 should think about enjoy themselves, as they seem to be doing when they play live and when they write and try new songs. Fuck the sales and follow your instinct, as Yoda would say...


    I don't think Yoda would say Fuck

    I agree with a lot of what you said, except for the ending. U2 LOVE being the band on top, they love being number 1 and selling the most records. So as much as they love making artistic albums, they also like making casual fans hardcore fans, and NLOTH didn't do that really. They know they made a good album, but they were disappointed with the reaction from the majority of music listeners, not their fans. U2 love making music for their fans to listen to, but I'd bet, 100% of the time, they like making music that EVERYONE wants to listen to instead, which NLOTH wasn't, and they're upset about it, and Lillywhite is right in that respect.