SOE
Active topics
U2 - Songs Of Experience (2017)
 Tracks: 14
  1. Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:[..]
    I don't think there's anything wrong with being reliant on producers though, MOST mainstream/hugely commercial artists are, even if they pretend not to be.

    U2 has always benefited from using producers in the studio, and they've always used them. Just compare their early live sound and early recorded demos to Boy for example. Steve Lillywhite seriously transformed the sound of those songs, and that's not a bad thing. U2 writes the bones of the music, and the producer (along with U2) help flesh it out.

    I would also think that at this point in their career they need it more than ever. They've had 40 years of jamming out instruments, do you really think they're constantly busting out shit that surprises them? They all know what one another is capable of and they need someone with fresh ears to come in and help coax different things out of the music they make.

    Also something to remember is U2's quest for relevance. They want to stay modern, which is why they bring in producers who know what's popular and cool at the moment to help make U2's songwriting as modern as possible.
    It is their achilles heel. They have such a fear of the word "relevant"

    Just what I've been saying.

  2. Disagreed. If you don't want to be relevant go home.
  3. I guess it depends on how one would define "relevant".

    Where some people see that as a quest for modernity, others see it as the barriers that stopped U2's experimental journey when the 90s ended.

    I agree that U2 should strive to be popular as they always have, but when it interferes with their music that isn't good. But I don't think anyone really knows to what degree their music might change during the creative process (if at all) because of that. There are people who seem to think that U2 would still be making albums like Passengers if Pop was more of a hit with North America. Or that aside, if U2 "stopped catering to casual fans and made music for their hardcore fanbase."

    I think that there's no point in dwelling on it. U2 will do what they want to do in hopes that they please the most people possible, while still keeping it interesting for themselves. I think the moment THAT stops, it'll be all too obvious.
  4. I agree with this statement, along with the caveat that people have different ways of defining what is relevant. Some say a "relevant" album has to be something that tops every chart, even charts that aren't even in your category. I think U2's definition of "relevant" is releasing a product they are proud of and putting on a show that adds value to their overarching narrative as a band.

    Also, I think the conversation of U2 not being "experimental" anymore is somewhat hilarious, especially when people criticize the band for consulting various producers. The whole concept of being "experimental" demands you venture outside of your comfort zone and it would be foolish to explore new sounds on your own when there are a host of other parties that have done exactly that. Either you like the new producers and collabs with DJs or you don't want them to be experimental. You can't have things both ways.
  5. Disagree with whom? By fear of the word relevant, I mean that the fear of being irrelevant drives them in directions to keep them relevant in such a way that they may go overboard sometimes. That being said, U2 has never been afraid to push boundaries, fall down, and pick themselves up and dust off... which is why they'll always be relevant to me.

    If your disagreement wasnt with me, disregard this message.
  6. Originally posted by ahn1991:[..]
    I agree with this statement, along with the caveat that people have different ways of defining what is relevant. Some say a "relevant" album has to be something that tops every chart, even charts that aren't even in your category. I think U2's definition of "relevant" is releasing a product they are proud of and putting on a show that adds value to their overarching narrative as a band.

    Also, I think the conversation of U2 not being "experimental" anymore is somewhat hilarious, especially when people criticize the band for consulting various producers. The whole concept of being "experimental" demands you venture outside of your comfort zone and it would be foolish to explore new sounds on your own when there are a host of other parties that have done exactly that. Either you like the new producers and collabs with DJs or you don't want them to be experimental. You can't have things both ways.
    ^^^ which brings us back to being relevant. I agree with everything you say.

    Look, I was all in on The Unforgettable, Achtung Baby (when a lot of my peers abandoned ship for awhile) And I think NLOTH is fantastic. So, there's no questioning my journey. And I'm all about constant reinvention.

    My initial point here was about how finished the album really is. It's a U2 album thats not "on shelves" yet, to coin an old school phrase. If they came up with something they feel is more relevant from the time they "finished" last song SOE, be it a song, or songs that led them down a completely new path, it's not unlike them to scrap what's done and start over.

    We live in the now, and the millenial target audience moves on to new flavors quickly. Whats done may feel like yesterday to them now. While most older generation folks become more complacent. Look at bands (I'll use Aerosmith as just one example) who have basically put the same record out for 25 years, same music, different lyrics, greatest hits tours to keep the cash flowing and their fans are fine with it. That's all they want. Don't care about the new songs.

    Thank God the boys haven't fallen into that malaise. They have faith in their core fan base and that faith is reciprocated in most of us anticipating the next journey, and the two will never get separated... I grew up with this band from the very beginning. They are (and always will be) the soundtrack of my life. I'm not going anywhere; I'm in it for the long haul. Where the relevance factor comes is with the new generations raised on vanilla and bubble gum and winning them over. (Look up Mike Peters/The Alarm/45 RPM/The Poppyfields/Vinyl the movie for a good story of age and relevance) The kids that were bitching that they got a free U2 album in their ipods will ask again who U2 is. It's about crossing the divide. There is no them, there's only us.

    Ok. Now I'm starting to ramble. Havent filled the tank with coffee yet. In summary... No U2 record is complete until its out and meets their definition of relevance.

    Whew. I need a double espresso after that. Have a good day, friends!

    (too late, right?)
  9. Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
    As the old, complacent guy I'm ok with that!

    Old school... and not. Lillywhite is a producer that hasn't lost his relevance or been defined by the same old sound...
    Yep I'm down with that too, he's worked on some of my favourite stuff of all time, including U2 and beyond.
  10. It'd be kind of awesome if U2 and Steve Lillywhite went into the studio together when they record their final album.

    And it had better be called "Man"!
  11. Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:It'd be kind of awesome if U2 and Steve Lillywhite went into the studio together when they record their final album.

    And it had better be called "Man"!
    Like the idea, but way too soon to start discussing final album.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.