SOE
Active topics
U2 - Songs Of Experience (2017)
 Tracks: 14
  1. It's just the video he posted on Instagram with a Snapchat filter to look like a deer. Yes, that exists.
  2. Originally posted by pleasegone:[..]


    And this is very dangerous ground to walk upon. As an artist, they probably don't want to keep making the same album, but the desire to be relevant comes with a cost. Do you pander to young people, and do like George Michael and put Auto Tune all over the place? NO! I don't trust the Ryan Tedders of the world. Is One Republic really that relevant? Will they go down in history? It seems even young people don't view music as life or death as people my age and older did. It's almost like a little hobby or something in the background for most. U2 were part of an era where from 1982-1985 Prince, Madonna, Michael Jackson, and Bruce Springsteen had 4 records combine for around 60 million in sales. One Republic could release another 60 albums and not get 60 million in sales. From 1987 to 1990, U2, Def Leppard, Guns N Roses, and Michael Jackson had 4 albums get over 40 million between them.

    Being relevant today hardly even exists. Lil Wayne? No. Taylor Swift? Be Serious. Adele? Sure, to a point. Bruno Mars? Maybe...but at least he and Adele use old school sounds, and use their own actual singing voice...a novel concept these days.

    I have been clamoring for U2 to produce themselves, and maybe have Lillywhite, Eno, and Lanois around just to offer advice. But I have to accept that they want something they probably won't find, but that's ok. It's not my band as much as I'd like to think so. SOE will probably be ok. But I am in the minority here as far as SOI goes. I don't hate it, but it's my least favorite album. California and the acoustic version of EBW are by far my favorites.


    I get what you're saying, but at the same time U2 have always needed producers with a modern/different take than their own to come in and push their music. There's a really interesting segment in the U2: At The End of the World novel when Bill Flanagan was sitting in on the Zooropa sessions. He describes a jam session where U2 jam all these ideas, sounding like different "eras" of the band as they go from one to the next, but never really sounding like the U2 that was the ZooTV U2. In order to get there, they had to take the "U2 sound" they jammed with, and start attacking it from there using production techniques and all the stuff they had learned from making Achtung Baby. Basically taking the U2 sound that everyone was overly familiar with and fucking with it in order to make something new.

    What I'm saying is, U2 producing U2 would probably sound an awful lot like All That You Can't Leave Behind, which also just sounds like a watered down version of what U2 did in the 80s.

    I agree that it would be interesting and possibly refreshing, but at the same time I like seeing them still experiment in any way possible. As someone else already pointed out, conversations like this were probably being had in the late 80s and early 90s, when people were damning U2 for trying to change with the times and remain relevant. Sure you could argue that things have changed, but maybe not from their point of view.

    There's also a decent chance that they just don't want to tell U2 fans that the well has run dry without the help of young, fresh ears coming in and giving them a revamp. Maybe when U2 jams it out for an hour these days, the ideas they come up with all sound like stuff they've done already, or if not, stuff they know doesn't sound as interesting or good as stuff they've already done. They need to keep the music fresh and new in order to steer clear from having it compared to their old stuff. At the same time, they want a release now to be just as exciting as releases have been throughout their career. Wasn't it Eno who said that an artist's biggest enemy is their history?

  3. Originally posted by pleasegone:
    Being relevant today hardly even exists. Lil Wayne? No. Taylor Swift? Be Serious. Adele? Sure, to a point. Bruno Mars? Maybe...but at least he and Adele use old school sounds, and use their own actual singing voice...a novel concept these days.


    I'm gonna go ahead and stop you right there - don't let a generational difference blind you to hard facts. Let's start up top:

    Ryan Tedder is probably better known for his songwriting than he is for fronting OneRepublic, admittedly a garbage band, but also admittedly one of the most consistent hit-producing bands on mainstream Top 40 radio. Does that matter? Yes.

    In addition to some of the biggest Maroon 5, Adele, Ellie Goulding, Leona Lewis, and Beyonce songs, his songwriting history includes multiple credits on Taylor Swift's 1989, the fastest-selling album to reach 5 million copies in history. Love or hate it, it's there- and to address a point you made later, also quoted above - yes, these acts will go down in history. And yes, they are relevant.

    Madonna? Michael Jackson? They went down in history for controversy and total domination of the pop genre. You want controversy in 2016? Cue up Kanye West. You want domination of pop music? Cue up Swift. The eras have their parallels. You're also comparing sales in two different eras - one of which includes the existence of mass-pirated music. Apples and oranges, to a degree. If you'd like to compare touring revenue between all of these acts, looking at profit margins adjusted for inflation - these currently popular acts are making way more money. Way more.

    Originally posted by pleasegone:
    One Republic could release another 60 albums and not get 60 million in sales. From 1987 to 1990, U2, Def Leppard, Guns N Roses, and Michael Jackson had 4 albums get over 40 million between them.


    I know you're being facetious to some extent, but OneRepublic's last album grossed over 4.5 million copies sold, and that statistic is already over a year old.

    I know, I know, Def Leppard's "Hysteria" moved 9 million copies in its first two years, and I already said this is apples and oranges... but mind you, Def Leppard had 0 YouTube hits in 1987. OneRepublic's "Counting Stars" currently has a meager 1 billion. The first other Ryan Tedder credit that pops into my head is Maroon 5's "Maps" (>300 million YouTube hits, >300 million Spotify streams, etc.). You get the idea. Album sales do not equate to popularity or relevance anymore.

    To put it simply - Ryan Tedder is a super big fucking deal as a producer. You could say he can't write rock music, but he's worked with Chris Cornell... You could say he'd have a negative impact on innovation, but the guy is almost addicted to success. Why not let U2 give him a shot?

    If you don't want to hear the output or you disagree with the decision to work with him, that's fine - you're entitled to your own opinion.

    But if you don't think it's a big deal...I'd have to say you're wrong.
  4. Originally posted by MattG:[..]

    [..]


    I'm gonna go ahead and stop you right there - don't let a generational difference blind you to hard facts. Let's start up top:

    Ryan Tedder is probably better known for his songwriting than he is for fronting OneRepublic, admittedly a garbage band, but also admittedly one of the most consistent hit-producing bands on mainstream Top 40 radio. Does that matter? Yes.

    In addition to some of the biggest Maroon 5, Adele, Ellie Goulding, Leona Lewis, and Beyonce songs, his songwriting history includes multiple credits on Taylor Swift's 1989, the fastest-selling album to reach 5 million copies in history. Love or hate it, it's there- and to address a point you made later, also quoted above - yes, these acts will go down in history. And yes, they are relevant.

    Madonna? Michael Jackson? They went down in history for controversy and total domination of the pop genre. You want controversy in 2016? Cue up Kanye West. You want domination of pop music? Cue up Swift. The eras have their parallels. You're also comparing sales in two different eras - one of which includes the existence of mass-pirated music. Apples and oranges, to a degree. If you'd like to compare touring revenue between all of these acts, looking at profit margins adjusted for inflation - these currently popular acts are making way more money. Way more.

    [..]


    I know you're being facetious to some extent, but OneRepublic's last album grossed over 4.5 million copies sold, and that statistic is already over a year old.

    I know, I know, Def Leppard's "Hysteria" moved 9 million copies in its first two years, and I already said this is apples and oranges... but mind you, Def Leppard had 0 YouTube hits in 1987. OneRepublic's "Counting Stars" currently has a meager 1 billion. The first other Ryan Tedder credit that pops into my head is Maroon 5's "Maps" (>300 million YouTube hits, >300 million Spotify streams, etc.). You get the idea. Album sales do not equate to popularity or relevance anymore.

    To put it simply - Ryan Tedder is a super big fucking deal as a producer. You could say he can't write rock music, but he's worked with Chris Cornell... You could say he'd have a negative impact on innovation, but the guy is almost addicted to success. Why not let U2 give him a shot?

    If you don't want to hear the output or you disagree with the decision to work with him, that's fine - you're entitled to your own opinion.

    But if you don't think it's a big deal...I'd have to say you're wrong.
    I'll add (argue) that 4.5 million in sales in this generation is a very big deal.
  5. Yeah that's sort of my point
  6. Well if U2 had done that in the 80s we would have U2level 42. I would take the Joshua Tree over them or another keyboard dance band. But they did sell millions of albums
  7. Originally posted by hamman:[..]
    Well if U2 had done that in the 80s we would have U2level 42. I would take the Joshua Tree over them or another keyboard dance band. But they did sell millions of albums
    Who wouldn't? And yes, they did sell millions, I think you're missing the point.
  8. I think you dont get it. They dont need to try and sound like anything other than U2. They dont need special producers to make them sound fresh. They should just ve themselves. Its worked out just fine so far.
  9. Except that they always needed special producers. They had to bring Eno and Lanois to push themselves and find a new sound that could not be obtained without them. Then later they needed Flood, Howie B. for their 90's experimentation. They brought many ideas to the table, just like what Danger Mouse and Ryan Tedder are doing now.
  10. Originally posted by cesar_garza01:Except that they always needed special producers. They had to bring Eno and Lanois to push themselves and find a new sound that could not be obtained without them. Then later they needed Flood, Howie B. for their 90's experimentation. They brought many ideas to the table, just like Danger Mouse and Ryan Tedder are doing that now.
    Thanks, Cesar. I was merely talking about selling 4.5 million as opposed to then, but then there's point as well.
  11. Each producer, they felt, took them as far as they could go. And really, did U2 ever stop just being U2?
  12. One thing that defines U2 is their ability to successfully experiment and still sound like themselves, so this Ryan Tedder work will hopefully be something to work forward to.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.