Jump to content

What I do/don't want for the next album...


eaplatt
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Subscriber

 Brilliant post, Mick.

 

You had me at this:

 

Ahhh, such is the subjective nature of Art.

 

And closed the deal with this:

 

I want U2 to not pander to any one of us and make the peice of art that they so see fit.

Exactly!

 

I want an album from U2 full of music that moves them. Not an album full of things that they think will please an audience or heaven forbid, the singles charts.

Happy St Patricks Day Kel! And I must say, lovely green text to mark the occasion.happy.gif

 

I love that even though you weren't big on NLOTH, that you're still waay happier if the band heads to the studio and does what all great bands should do - write music together based on their passion for it, with complete disregard for whether the results will rock a stadium or sell singles.

That is what being a fan of music in general is all about.

 

I just hope they don't wuss out like they did after getting a mixed feeling on Pop.

ATYCLB did have some brilliant tunes on it, but I'll always remember being disappointed that this band that had always just done their thing, and were really amazingly experimental band - considering how big they were, were chickened into playing it safe for the masses.

 Of course it kept them huge for the 2000s, and the tours were great, but in a weird way I'd be just as happy if they'd kept going that experimental path, and ended up playing in the local pub!

 

Still love them though, and at the end of the day it's only rock and roll.

 

Have a few Pints of black for me!

I'll be  heading down to the pub with some mates very shortly.

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Cuss me, and you if we don't get a new release that's a stew of old and new. These guys and their fans and entourage are damned if they attempt to please a segment.

 

Instead, walk on....

wha do you want?! (whatcha wan!>!)

 

Zooropa...vorsprung durch technik (a step ahead through technology)

Zooropa...be all that you can be

 

If the band does not offer a mix they repel most.

 

The evolution will not be televised, but it'll be blogged and phonecast

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber

Only criticism I have is better signature rock.

 

Get on your boots just did not do it for me. Not even close. Live it was decent. Hate the record version of it. Completely forgettable. No line on the horizon song was a pretty good one, but not actual jump up and down fist pumping.

 

One more I guess is I have found U2 always ends their albums pretty dull and starts it off awesome. Save something big for the end.

 

Other than that, keep doin what you're doin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I want U2 to not pander to any one of us and make the peice of art that they so see fit.

 

But should U2 pander to the idiot ideas of the music industry? 

 

That's the sorest point here.

 

I think some of you need to go back and re-read my post; note that I don't talk much about the actual music, so much as how it gets packaged and presented once it gets released. OK, there was that bit about remixes; but as I said, I'm not opposed to remixes that are done well, just the lazy ones. 

 

-- eaplatt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber

some of us prefer not to know the things because what we don't know don't hurt us but the time is arrived for U2 to do something speciale. for sure i won't try to fight alone against the new born babyfans but from atomic bomb U2 's been crossing trip through the desert. of course one song like with or without you can change all the future just 1 but 1 like this is not an easy thing. they need to keep their word especially when they promise. They are in conflicts with too many subjects. they need to clean up something. also the present artificial horizon shows that they are on the way and that's very nice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber

[quote name='eaplatt wrote:


mick james']

I want U2 to not pander to any one of us and make the peice of art that they so see fit.

 

But should U2 pander to the idiot ideas of the music industry? 

 

That's the sorest point here.

 

I think some of you need to go back and re-read my post; note that I don't talk much about the actual music, so much as how it gets packaged and presented once it gets released. OK, there was that bit about remixes; but as I said, I'm not opposed to remixes that are done well, just the lazy ones. 

 

-- eaplatt

 

 

 

Nice one Eap, if we're going into rereading posts than how did I suggest that?  I suggested that I'd be happier if they didn't chicken out after Pop and were playing at my local.

 

Of course we don't want that, and yes it's a sore point for some as many want to pretend they're still that little cult band from 30 years ago.

 

But at the end of they day they are the biggest corporate act out there and have been for a very long time.

So of course the record label will have some involvement, and to some extent the band are obliged to deliver a product that the people paying for it are happy with.  And unfortuanately we're in a time where a desparate record industry will release forty versions of the one album in an attempt to make money. 

Well such is business.  If that's so offensive, there is a million decent indie bands out there that may cause less annoyance to your morals.

 

 The major difference between U2 and nearly every other corporate act is that they still for the most part want to deliver music that is trully from their hearts.  Behind and Bomb pandered to the fans and the industry, and I personally believe NLOTH did not - and that's why I think it's a great album.

 

It would be great if they would ditch the label and go independant like Nine Inch Nails ( it's just a myth that Radiohead did).

But at the end of the day U2 obviously likes the situation they're in, and loves doing big tours - hence the Blackberry ads in the stadiums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='mick james wrote:


eaplatt wrote:

mick james']

I want U2 to not pander to any one of us and make the peice of art that they so see fit.

 

But should U2 pander to the idiot ideas of the music industry? 

 

That's the sorest point here.

 

I think some of you need to go back and re-read my post; note that I don't talk much about the actual
music
, so much as how it gets packaged and presented once it gets released. OK, there was that bit about remixes; but as I said, I'm not opposed to remixes that are done well, just the lazy ones. 

 

-- eaplatt

 

 

 

Nice one Eap, if we're going into rereading posts than how did I suggest that?  I suggested that I'd be happier if they didn't chicken out after Pop and were playing at my local.

 

Of course we don't want that, and yes it's a sore point for some as many want to pretend they're still that little cult band from 30 years ago.

 

But at the end of they day they are the biggest corporate act out there and have been for a very long time.

So of course the record label will have some involvement, and to some extent the band are obliged to deliver a product that the people paying for it are happy with.  And unfortuanately we're in a time where a desparate record industry will release forty versions of the one album in an attempt to make money. 

Well such is business.  If that's so offensive, there is a million decent indie bands out there that may cause less annoyance to your morals.

 

 The major difference between U2 and nearly every other corporate act is that they still for the most part want to deliver music that is trully from their hearts.  Behind and Bomb pandered to the fans and the industry, and I personally believe NLOTH did not - and that's why I think it's a great album.

 

It would be great if they would ditch the label and go independant like Nine Inch Nails ( it's just a myth that Radiohead did).

But at the end of the day U2 obviously likes the situation they're in, and loves doing big tours - hence the Blackberry ads in the stadiums.

 

Giant tours, these days, can't go without a sponsorship from a giant corporation. Radiohead was shopping around for a new record label when they released Rainbows....that 'name your price' was an ad to show that they can sell CD's, even if they were offering it for almost nothing. Even so-called indie bands are sponsored by brands like Vans. Those clueless people who label big bands as 'sellouts' have no clue on how giant tours are run....therefore, all big bands are 'sellouts' to them. Smaller venue tours will never work for U2...imagine Bono singing 4 nights a week? He'll never last!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look I don't know what to say really so I'll rant and think aloud as usual.

 

In some ways, I think U2 were out of ideas and didn't know where to go with NLOTH (as the title suggests) which is why they ended up ditching the Rick Rubin sessions, got old mates aboard to produce NOLTH and just sampled themselves (their previous works and subject matter) a fair bit. They were obviously trying to recapture the Achtung sessions by going back to Morocco.

 

I have been trying to tell myself that NLOTH maybe a bit like Pop and ahead of its time - but that's silly really - Pop was definitely ahead of its time and it sounds very fresh today in comparison to some of the rubbish that's around in the pop scene at the moment. NLOTH on the other hand... I dunno - I struggle with this album - I don't think it has the substance or longevity overall. Bono hailed it as "Achtung Baby on steroids" but that's clearly not the case - to me, NLOTH seems like an overly-calculated affair - it has its moments, but I think it's largely contrived and ultimately forgettable.

 

If U2 were trying to "recreate" the Achtung Baby era with NLOTH (as the parallel sequence of JT meets ATYCLB and R&H meets HTDAAB suggests) then they may risk going more electronic and experimental with the next album (e.g. Zooropa) - but I don't think so - because their overly cautious approach this decade would suggest otherwise. I hope they prove me wrong. I'd like them to throw out something completely off the wall in 2010!!!

 

The U2 of the 2000s has produced some great songs - but they have also been clearly focussed on mass sales and maintaining their egos as "the biggest band in the World" (cases in point - three greatest hits albums in quick succession) and I think that agenda is getting in the way of them showing some truly inspirational and visionary stuff.

 

www.atu2.com has published rumours that the band has been tidying up older songs for yet another greatest hits album. If that is true and they do release another greatest hits album this year (or even next year), I would have to say I'm done with U2 because that to me would be the final indication that they're just in it for the money and no longer interested.

 

Sorry to be a downer. Feel free to ignore. I guess I'm ultimately dismayed with the state of the music industry at the moment - I feel U2, regardless of their legendry status, are still beholden to the wishes of Universal Music -

bland seems to be the go and you have to look very hard to find something challenging or even interesting in the pop business at the moment. Maybe I'm getting old......

 

Please don't get me wrong - I love this band and what they have contributed and represented across the past 20 or so years - I guess I just want to see that continue....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...