@U2 Forum

U2 => General U2 Discussion => Topic started by: catorce on July 07, 2018, 03:50:12 AM

Title: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: catorce on July 07, 2018, 03:50:12 AM
I'm just wondering because of what happened with Eno/Lanios not getting co-writing credits from earlier albums
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: McSwilly on July 07, 2018, 11:05:07 AM
I think the last few albums have been over produced and perhaps they should just get in a room with Steve Lillywhite and play some damn rock and roll. That said, my kids are grooving to the popish remix of Love Is Better...
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: wons on July 07, 2018, 09:33:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm just wondering because of what happened with Eno/Lanios not getting co-writing credits from earlier albums

They didn't get writing credits on earlier albums because they did not deserve any. They are producers and that is their job. The band are experts at writing and creating music. The problem comes with which version of the song to put on the album. How many attempts in the studio do they make for an individual song? Do they go with the original version after doing 8 takes when they thought they were improving it? That's where Eno/Lanios/Lillywhite come in.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Tortuga on July 08, 2018, 07:54:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm just wondering because of what happened with Eno/Lanios not getting co-writing credits from earlier albums

They didn't get writing credits on earlier albums because they did not deserve any. They are producers and that is their job. The band are experts at writing and creating music. The problem comes with which version of the song to put on the album. How many attempts in the studio do they make for an individual song? Do they go with the original version after doing 8 takes when they thought they were improving it? That's where Eno/Lanios/Lillywhite come in.

It has been widely recognized that Lanois came up with the guitar riff for One, which is a central feature of the song and, according to interviews, is what got it started.  I think  in many cases their contributions are as great as Larry’s or Adam’s.  We know Summer of Love was a One Republic song as it is documented on Youtube.  Yet no writing credit for Tedder on the album.

Whether or not a producer gets a writing credit is a negotiated term upfront.  They can be paid a fee and percentage of sales or they can be a part owner of the song in perpetuity.  It is whatever arrangement the artist and producer come to. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: davis on July 08, 2018, 10:07:43 AM
Since UF the producers have played major roles in U2 albums.  Eno and Lanois wrote and played parts on almost every song on every album they worked on with the band.  Often, Eno, working on his own after hours, pushed songs in different directions that the band then bought into and took further.  Without the synergy they've had with certain producers we wouldn't have any of the best albums in anything like the form they exist in.  That's just how it is.  When it works, it's brilliant.  When it doesn't (Songs of Innocence), well...
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Tortuga on July 08, 2018, 11:44:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Since UF the producers have played major roles in U2 albums.  Eno and Lanois wrote and played parts on almost every song on every album they worked on with the band.  Often, Eno, working on his own after hours, pushed songs in different directions that the band then bought into and took further.  Without the synergy they've had with certain producers we wouldn't have any of the best albums in anything like the form they exist in.  That's just how it is.  When it works, it's brilliant.  When it doesn't (Songs of Innocence), well...

Its also interesting that the songs from NLOTH that most people refer to as the “good ones” are the ones Eno and Lanois have explicit writing credits on.  Where they participated, Eno and Lanois are 5th and 6th members of the band.  They are like George Martin to the Beatles.  For those who got to know U2 during the UF to AB era, they are part of the sound that defined U2.  That is why so many saw ATYCLB as a return to form.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: rlabs19 on July 08, 2018, 12:30:10 PM
I don't think its a problem for them to be dependent upon producers. In fact, I'd argue it leads to better albums. TUF and TJT are masterpieces, and while I think the songs are amazing, I'm not sure they would've turned out the way they did without Eno and Lanois.

Same holds for other bands, too. Infidels by Dylan is completely different than his other work because of Knopfler, IMO. DMB had Lillywhite for a lot of years who definitely pushed them in a certain direction, Petty had Iovine.... The list goes on.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: wons on July 08, 2018, 03:49:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm just wondering because of what happened with Eno/Lanios not getting co-writing credits from earlier albums

They didn't get writing credits on earlier albums because they did not deserve any. They are producers and that is their job. The band are experts at writing and creating music. The problem comes with which version of the song to put on the album. How many attempts in the studio do they make for an individual song? Do they go with the original version after doing 8 takes when they thought they were improving it? That's where Eno/Lanios/Lillywhite come in.

It has been widely recognized that Lanois came up with the guitar riff for One, which is a central feature of the song and, according to interviews, is what got it started.  I think  in many cases their contributions are as great as Larry’s or Adam’s.  We know Summer of Love was a One Republic song as it is documented on Youtube.  Yet no writing credit for Tedder on the album.

Whether or not a producer gets a writing credit is a negotiated term upfront.  They can be paid a fee and percentage of sales or they can be a part owner of the song in perpetuity.  It is whatever arrangement the artist and producer come to. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The riff for one came up when the band was jamming in Berlin. Lanois experiments during Achtung Baby were all in the style of Joshua Tree which the band did not want to repeat. Edge would often shake his head when he came in the door of the studio hearing Lanois experimenting with sounds reminiscent  of the Joshua Tree. U2 by in large write their own music and do most of the work when it comes to the direction, style, and sound they want to have on the album. Larry's and Adams contributions to the music have always been as significant as Bono's and Edge's.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: wons on July 08, 2018, 03:52:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Since UF the producers have played major roles in U2 albums.  Eno and Lanois wrote and played parts on almost every song on every album they worked on with the band.  Often, Eno, working on his own after hours, pushed songs in different directions that the band then bought into and took further.  Without the synergy they've had with certain producers we wouldn't have any of the best albums in anything like the form they exist in.  That's just how it is.  When it works, it's brilliant.  When it doesn't (Songs of Innocence), well...

Not true, the majority of the bands sound and direction is from them. The producers help and give advise, but its up to the band to decide what they really want. Thats the quality of the bands work typically never falters from album to album. The producers may change, but the band is the same. The band is the key indgredient.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: wons on July 08, 2018, 03:57:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't think its a problem for them to be dependent upon producers. In fact, I'd argue it leads to better albums. TUF and TJT are masterpieces, and while I think the songs are amazing, I'm not sure they would've turned out the way they did without Eno and Lanois.

Same holds for other bands, too. Infidels by Dylan is completely different than his other work because of Knopfler, IMO. DMB had Lillywhite for a lot of years who definitely pushed them in a certain direction, Petty had Iovine.... The list goes on.

The most important parts of many songs are already there before real production on an album begins. Its the band and their playing together which is key. Steve Lillywhite always complained that the band should tour before the album, because the live versions they created were often superior to anything they did in the studio. Think about what U2 does with their songs in a live setting. No producers involved there. More evidence that the key ingredient is the band and this is just another thread attempting to throw crap at the band which they don't deserve. But its the internet and most people would rather say something critical whether its valid or not than say something nice.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: davis on July 08, 2018, 04:57:34 PM
I'm not sure why you think I (or others) am "throwing crap" at U2 by acknowledging the role of the producers. 

If you read up on how albums like Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby were made, you would acknowledge the amazing creative synergy between band and producers.  It's not a knock on the band.  After all, it was they who sought out Eno when they needed a fresh start.  You could also listen to demos from Achtung sessions, for instance.  Few of the songs began in anything like the form we know them now. 

No artists work alone.  Writers have editors, musicians have producers, etc.  It doesn't diminish the art or the artists at all (when the partnerships are productive). 
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Tortuga on July 08, 2018, 05:37:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not sure why you think I (or others) am "throwing crap" at U2 by acknowledging the role of the producers. 

If you read up on how albums like Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby were made, you would acknowledge the amazing creative synergy between band and producers.  It's not a knock on the band.  After all, it was they who sought out Eno when they needed a fresh start.  You could also listen to demos from Achtung sessions, for instance.  Few of the songs began in anything like the form we know them now. 

No artists work alone.  Writers have editors, musicians have producers, etc.  It doesn't diminish the art or the artists at all (when the partnerships are productive).

Don’t try and understand the logic or waste your time arguing it.

Have you read Lanois’ book “Soul Mining”?  Lots of interesting discussion on how he collaborates with the artists he produces, including U2 content.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: wons on July 08, 2018, 09:48:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not sure why you think I (or others) am "throwing crap" at U2 by acknowledging the role of the producers. 

If you read up on how albums like Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby were made, you would acknowledge the amazing creative synergy between band and producers.  It's not a knock on the band.  After all, it was they who sought out Eno when they needed a fresh start.  You could also listen to demos from Achtung sessions, for instance.  Few of the songs began in anything like the form we know them now. 

No artists work alone.  Writers have editors, musicians have producers, etc.  It doesn't diminish the art or the artists at all (when the partnerships are productive).

Look at the thread title. Lots of people write and work alone including U2. The producers do their job, but to say that U2 would not have their songs or albums without them is just grossly false.

After all, most of the bands best work is not in the studio, its live. Most of what U2 does live is better than what they do on record. No better evidence than that, to show that what the producers do for U2 is rather minor.

Beware of the fan that sits down at concerts and never buys the artist music!
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Johnny Feathers on July 09, 2018, 09:18:28 AM
Seriously, what is up with this dogmatic "fans sitting down" drum-beating?  Didn't one thread already get shut down on this topic?

Also, of COURSE bands are dependent on producers.  Sometimes it comes down to producers just offering suggestions: what if you added a verse here, and held off on the chorus until here?  What about adding a pre-chorus?  Sometimes it's more instinctive: think of Brian Eno's push to put Elvis Presley And America on TUF.  The band wasn't recording that song with the intention of it being a final product.  Or his use of the Oblique Strategy cards to get musicians out of their own patterns of thinking and playing.  If producers didn't matter, then bands wouldn't bother changing them, or chasing down certain ones.

None of this is to say that U2 don't make their own music.  At the end of the day, the producers' job is to help the band realize the music they want to make.  But there's no way TUF sounds like what it does without Eno and Lanois helping to guide things--even playing on the songs in certain instances.  The line between the musicians and producers at times is extremely nebulous.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: wons on July 09, 2018, 01:55:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Seriously, what is up with this dogmatic "fans sitting down" drum-beating?  Didn't one thread already get shut down on this topic?

Also, of COURSE bands are dependent on producers.  Sometimes it comes down to producers just offering suggestions: what if you added a verse here, and held off on the chorus until here?  What about adding a pre-chorus?  Sometimes it's more instinctive: think of Brian Eno's push to put Elvis Presley And America on TUF.  The band wasn't recording that song with the intention of it being a final product.  Or his use of the Oblique Strategy cards to get musicians out of their own patterns of thinking and playing.  If producers didn't matter, then bands wouldn't bother changing them, or chasing down certain ones.

None of this is to say that U2 don't make their own music.  At the end of the day, the producers' job is to help the band realize the music they want to make.  But there's no way TUF sounds like what it does without Eno and Lanois helping to guide things--even playing on the songs in certain instances.  The line between the musicians and producers at times is extremely nebulous.

You can tell from the video of the making of the Unforgettable Fire Video that the band is running things often to the frustration of Eno and Lanouis. Although the band are not often credited they probably should get co-producer credit. The Police's first album was produced by the band itself. Each album there after, the Police were co-producers. So a producer can help, but it is not necessarily a necessity. Then there is U2 live and what they do with the music live, which on average, is usually better than what they did in the studio.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Johnny Feathers on July 09, 2018, 02:26:19 PM
Well, to each their own regarding recorded vs. live.  They're very different processes--one is the actual creation of a song--each and every part, all the sounds, the mix, etc.--and the other is how best to recreate that song in a live environment.  That recreation can be very faithful to the recording, or it can be an entirely different take on it.  In U2's case, it also involves the question of how much pre-recorded or additional material is needed.  There's not really any better/worse IMO, but I suppose someone could prefer one versus the other.  Having just seen Radiohead, I was a bit surprised at how faithfully they kept to the original recorded arrangements.  U2 tends to be a bit more spontaneous, which can be good or bad.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Luzita on July 09, 2018, 03:13:22 PM
It is definitely true their producers have contributed to U2's albums, and deserve credit for their roles.

However, as we all know, certain people are irrationally hostile to the band. One of the ways that hostility manifests is by exaggerating the role of their producers, particularly Eno and Lanois, thus robbing the band of credit for their music. I don't think that is the intention of most of the posters on this thread, but once those memes go out there on the web they tend to bounce around.

Also, the people involved -- that is, the band and Eno and Lanois -- have their own motivations. They are all basically decent people so there's never been any huge nastiness between them, but there was a period, after ATYCLB, when they fell out. They eventually made up, but I feel I have noticed a certain degree of subtle sniping during that period.

For example, on whether Lanois came up with the basic guitar riff for One -- I've found several different versions of events, even looking only at Lanois' own comments. 

In an interview from 2007, http://www.riffyou.com/riff-redux-u2-producer-daniel-lanois-achtung-baby/ Lanois said this:

“The song “One,” is one of my favorites. That had an interesting journey because we laid down a chord sequence for that before taking a break ... but it had not found its song yet – it was still in the bedrock state. Then, Eno and I ... laid down what I called ‘the mantra’ … it was a thematic surprise for the gang when they came in."

So here, he appears to be taking credit for the basic foundation of "One."

In an interview from 2016, https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/daniel-lanois-my-life-in-15-songs-108584/u2-one-1991-110979/ Lanois says this:

"We threw around a lot of chord sequences and in the end I took Edge's side and we worked out a way to use all the chord sequences, which gave us the opportunity to have more of a dynamic swing to the song. ... We had the track done in Berlin and then back in Dublin ... Bono ... said, "Dan why don't you play a little guitar part to try and juice me up," and so I overdubbed a part that made the finish line"

Hmmm. Sounds a bit different, no?

Then there's the version in From The Sky Down. The documentary includes archival footage from the Achtung Baby sessions and shows Edge bringing in suggested riffs for a song originally called "Sick Puppy," which Bono and Edge started before coming to Berlin. Some of it evolved into One, some evolved into Mysterious Ways.

As a producer, Lanois certainly had a hand in the development of the song, but to say he came up with the original riff on which One is based is almost surely an overstatement.



Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Tortuga on July 09, 2018, 03:46:15 PM
None of us know definitively.  I doubt Lanois, U2, and the people who were in the room remember and if they ever read this stuff their fans write they are probably amused that people care about such things. 

What I will say is that the One riff is pure Lanois stylistically.  If you know his solo work you know he plays exclusively with his fingers and that riff sounds like the kind of stuff he plays.  Listen to San Juan from his Shine album.  Do I know for a fact it was his riff?  No, I don’t and my only interest in it is my curiosity about how musicians work together and how their influences combined to create that song.

As for the idea this is being said to take away from U2 that is just silly.  People who are musicians themselves are very interested in the song creation process.   I’m equally a fan of U2 and Lanois.  This idea that someone is trying to diminish U2’s creative credibility, which has been proven beyond doubt by their creative output, sounds like the silly arguments we used to have in high school.  Who cares?  Lanois and U2 are on the same team and its not a competition in the first place.

I guess this has become more of a “fan” forum instead of a meangingful music forum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: ShankAsu on July 09, 2018, 04:03:02 PM
There's a few albums where U2 seems to rely on Lanois and Eno too much.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Johnny Feathers on July 09, 2018, 04:19:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There's a few albums where U2 seems to rely on Lanois and Eno too much.

I’m curious which ones you’re referring to. I’d say TUF has the biggest Eno/Lanois thumbprint on it, but I might also say that as a positive, since on some days it’s my favorite. JT also certainly shares that influence, but I think it’s maybe a little subtler. AB doesn’t really reflect Lanois at all to me—it seems it might have succeeded despite him, rather than because of him. The later albums again share some hints of their influence, but I actually find them kind of bland sounding.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Luzita on July 09, 2018, 04:28:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
None of us know definitively.  I doubt Lanois, U2, and the people who were in the room remember and if they ever read this stuff their fans write they are probably amused that people care about such things. 

What I will say is that the One riff is pure Lanois stylistically.  If you know his solo work you know he plays exclusively with his fingers and that riff sounds like the kind of stuff he plays.  Listen to San Juan from his Shine album.  Do I know for a fact it was his riff?  No, I don’t and my only interest in it is my curiosity about how musicians work together and how their influences combined to create that song.

As for the idea this is being said to take away from U2 that is just silly.  People who are musicians themselves are very interested in the song creation process.   I’m equally a fan of U2 and Lanois.  This idea that someone is trying to diminish U2’s creative credibility, which has been proven beyond doubt by their creative output, sounds like the silly arguments we used to have in high school.  Who cares?  Lanois and U2 are on the same team and its not a competition in the first place.

I guess this has become more of a “fan” forum instead of a meangingful music forum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Saying such things to take away from U2 is indeed silly, but I believe some people do it. I am a writer, so I notice the subtext in online comments. Some who go on about U2's producers are motivated by malice towards the band, rather than being legitimately interested in the creative process. And the memes they start can take on a life of their own. Again, I don't think that is the intention of most of the posters in this thread.

I'm not familiar with Lanois' solo work and I am not a musician. I'm sure you know much more about guitar styles than I do, and can bring much more to the discussion when it comes to technical knowledge of music. This is definitely a fan forum, but that doesn't mean it can't include serious music discussions. I appreciate learning from those who know more than I do.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Tortuga on July 09, 2018, 04:36:36 PM
If you like U2, especially tracks like 4th of July, Exit, UF and JT b-sides, Fez, Cedars of Lebanon, then check out Lanois’ solo work.  ‘Shine’ and ‘This is What is’ would be good places to start.  You will probably like it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: miryclay on July 09, 2018, 05:02:01 PM
Imho, Eno & Lanois' contribution to the music has been understated but who would disturb a cash cow?
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Luzita on July 09, 2018, 05:04:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you like U2, especially tracks like 4th of July, Exit, UF and JT b-sides, Fez, Cedars of Lebanon, then check out Lanois’ solo work.  ‘Shine’ and ‘This is What is’ would be good places to start.  You will probably like it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK, I'll check it out.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: wons on July 09, 2018, 08:54:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, to each their own regarding recorded vs. live.  They're very different processes--one is the actual creation of a song--each and every part, all the sounds, the mix, etc.--and the other is how best to recreate that song in a live environment.  That recreation can be very faithful to the recording, or it can be an entirely different take on it.  In U2's case, it also involves the question of how much pre-recorded or additional material is needed.  There's not really any better/worse IMO, but I suppose someone could prefer one versus the other.  Having just seen Radiohead, I was a bit surprised at how faithfully they kept to the original recorded arrangements.  U2 tends to be a bit more spontaneous, which can be good or bad.

Oh there is definitely better and worse when speaking of recorded and live. That's why Steve Lillywhite wished the band would tour with the songs for 6 months before they recorded them.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: hotty375 on July 11, 2018, 06:42:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not sure why you think I (or others) am "throwing crap" at U2 by acknowledging the role of the producers. 

If you read up on how albums like Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby were made, you would acknowledge the amazing creative synergy between band and producers.  It's not a knock on the band.  After all, it was they who sought out Eno when they needed a fresh start.  You could also listen to demos from Achtung sessions, for instance.  Few of the songs began in anything like the form we know them now. 

No artists work alone.  Writers have editors, musicians have producers, etc.  It doesn't diminish the art or the artists at all (when the partnerships are productive).

Look at the thread title. Lots of people write and work alone including U2. The producers do their job, but to say that U2 would not have their songs or albums without them is just grossly false.

After all, most of the bands best work is not in the studio, its live. Most of what U2 does live is better than what they do on record. No better evidence than that, to show that what the producers do for U2 is rather minor.

Beware of the fan that sits down at concerts and never buys the artist music!


Beware of the fan who knows nothing about how the band who he/she is a fan of make their music! What producers do for U2 is 'rather minor'??!! You can't possibly believe that, for to paraphrase you, that is at best 'grossly false' or impolitely total BS. And this isn't U2-bashing at all. As other posters have said, making albums is almost always about synergy between the band members, producers, mixers, engineers etc, but especially producers. U2's optimal scenario is Eno/Lanois producers, Lillywhite mixing, and Flood as engineer IMHO. And the creative process for every band is extremely subjective. Go and trawl the internet for Steve Lillywhite, Eno, Lanois interviews etc. about working with U2. Watch the Classic Albums JT-- indeed, watch the whole series and you will get a better understanding of how albums are made. Some songs are already written. Some haven't even been dreamed up. Some need a lot of work etc. The Blondie Parallel Lines one is good-- Mike Chapman explains how Heart of Glass formed from that great keyboard loop etc. And surely you must have listened to the Achtung Baby demos/sessions? I think there is a lot of stuff in 'U2 by U2' book that gives insight into some of the songs and how they ended up with the finished versions.

Here is a quote from a Steve Lillywhite interview:

Musically, the band still struggles, but they’re overachievers - if they can’t do something, they’ll hammer away at it until they can. They want to do their best work, even today. Complacency never took root in U2. They want to make great albums, and they want to have hits. More than anything, they want their music to mean something to people. I can’t say enough good things about them.

Lillywhite isn't a musician, Eno and Lanois especially are. On JT, Lanois's guitar is RTSS, Eno's 'keyboard' riff IS MOTD etc. And they will have similar contributions to everything else they have worked on with U2.

I absolutely agree that U2 have a real aptitude for recreating already-recorded ( and already-produced) songs for live performance-- and that has made them what they are. And in the Boy/October/ War era, their live performances from this time were far superior to the recorded material, but of course, it was just guitar/bass/drums/vox then. But what they have done since the UF-era onwards recreating the albums songs for live performance has been outstanding.

Every band has 'their' producer--Radiohead/Nigel Godrich, Oasis/The Verve- Owen Morris, Beatles/ Martin, etc etc and they wouldn't be where they are today without them, and they wouldn't have their songs/albums as we know them without their producers at the helm of the recording process.

However, to answer the question-- every band is dependent on producers! U2's problem has been forgetting what they are good at and not playing to their strengths. There is never going to be cohesion on an album when there are 6/7 producers involved, especially that effin' One Republic dude. Candy floss production gets candy floss sounds and melodies. Too many cooks etc. And probably why you get Volcano on one album , and American Soul on another ( Glastonbury was the best of the bunch lyrically IMO). And SFS/ 13 etc-- can never get agreement on the finished article. And if it was an attempt to get a modern sound to keep them 'relevant' to a younger audience, it's not worked. They haven't had a big single since HTDAAB. And i think The Edge in particular needs a Lanois to push him guitar-wise. Everything has gotten a bit lazy. The last truly great U2 album was ATYCLB, and even that is 2 songs too long ( a symptom of the 'CD' age--the best albums almost always fitted on one side of a C90 cassette  :))

There's a review of SoE that ends with 'In the wake of the promising Songs Of Innocence and the triumphant Joshua Tree tour, Songs Of Experience might prove to be a stumble even they cannot recover from.'. I'm afraid that this may be true, sadly.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Tortuga on July 11, 2018, 08:27:13 AM
Its kind of mind-boggling to hear someone suggest that producers don’t play on U2 albums when there are videos all over the place SHOWING them playing in the studio.  There were NLOTH behind the scenes videos showing Eno and Lanois playing on parts that we all later heard in the songs on the release.  Even the Magnificent video showed them playing with the band.  Then the reference to their live performance is what really matters....did you not see the 360 tour when they put Lawless up on the screen playing under the stage.  Obviously U2 is not “embarrassed” by it.  To be defensive about it is so odd.  Its how modern music is made and there is nothing deceptive or “shameful” about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: achtungx on July 11, 2018, 08:49:28 AM
I go away to another site for awhile after the great stoppage of '17... drop in here to read a random interesting thread... only to find it's still the same cesspool that it was at the stoppage. Some people think that the band is too precious and that everything that doesn't explicitly praise the band member's abilities must be a dig on them. It's ridiculous. Of course producers "color" and album and steer it in a direction. To admit this doesn't lessen the amazingness of the band's catalog. Also, of course producers introduce ideas and parts to bands. That's how you stimulate creativity and new veins of thinking and seeing of things. It's not a damn insult to the band. They pay the producers and engineer to be on the same team. To help. If Edge was left to his own devices, they'd probably still be tweaking Native Son for it's 2020 release. 

I'm so glad that I came back. Maybe I'll stop back in another 8 months or so.

Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Johnny Feathers on July 11, 2018, 09:29:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I go away to another site for awhile after the great stoppage of '17... drop in here to read a random interesting thread... only to find it's still the same cesspool that it was at the stoppage. Some people think that the band is too precious and that everything that doesn't explicitly praise the band member's abilities must be a dig on them. It's ridiculous. Of course producers "color" and album and steer it in a direction. To admit this doesn't lessen the amazingness of the band's catalog. Also, of course producers introduce ideas and parts to bands. That's how you stimulate creativity and new veins of thinking and seeing of things. It's not a damn insult to the band. They pay the producers and engineer to be on the same team. To help. If Edge was left to his own devices, they'd probably still be tweaking Native Son for it's 2020 release. 

I'm so glad that I came back. Maybe I'll stop back in another 8 months or so.



Please, don't leave me here alone!
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Luzita on July 11, 2018, 09:43:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

However, to answer the question-- every band is dependent on producers! U2's problem has been forgetting what they are good at and not playing to their strengths. There is never going to be cohesion on an album when there are 6/7 producers involved, especially that effin' One Republic dude. Candy floss production gets candy floss sounds and melodies. Too many cooks etc. And probably why you get Volcano on one album , and American Soul on another ( Glastonbury was the best of the bunch lyrically IMO). And SFS/ 13 etc-- can never get agreement on the finished article. And if it was an attempt to get a modern sound to keep them 'relevant' to a younger audience, it's not worked. They haven't had a big single since HTDAAB. And i think The Edge in particular needs a Lanois to push him guitar-wise. Everything has gotten a bit lazy. The last truly great U2 album was ATYCLB, and even that is 2 songs too long ( a symptom of the 'CD' age--the best albums almost always fitted on one side of a C90 cassette  :))

There's a review of SoE that ends with 'In the wake of the promising Songs Of Innocence and the triumphant Joshua Tree tour, Songs Of Experience might prove to be a stumble even they cannot recover from.'. I'm afraid that this may be true, sadly.

I agree that SOE is not their most cohesive album, but it's a terrific album none the less. It's got some great songs, lots of good ones, a few that are just ok, and none that are bad.  On ATYCLB, about half the songs are filler.  Some reviewer might have opined that SOE "might prove to be a stumble" but many people, almost surely the majority of fans, don't agree at all. I'd say it's their best album since Achtung Baby.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: wons on July 11, 2018, 10:33:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Its kind of mind-boggling to hear someone suggest that producers don’t play on U2 albums when there are videos all over the place SHOWING them playing in the studio.  There were NLOTH behind the scenes videos showing Eno and Lanois playing on parts that we all later heard in the songs on the release.  Even the Magnificent video showed them playing with the band.  Then the reference to their live performance is what really matters....did you not see the 360 tour when they put Lawless up on the screen playing under the stage.  Obviously U2 is not “embarrassed” by it.  To be defensive about it is so odd.  Its how modern music is made and there is nothing deceptive or “shameful” about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one ever said Lanois never picked up and played a guitar in the studio or played something that actually made it onto the record. Its the creative process that is being discussed and with that, the band is overwhelmingly the most important factor.

Pointing out someone playing keyboards during a live song has NOTHING to do with the discussion at all. Its the band that creates what occurs live and most U2 songs sound better live than the original recording. Lanois, Eno, and Lillywhite are not involved in the live process, which once again, significantly shows the importance of the BAND relative to the Producers when it comes to the creative process. The fact that what U2 does LIVE beats most of what they do in the studio is very telling!

Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: wons on July 11, 2018, 10:38:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I go away to another site for awhile after the great stoppage of '17... drop in here to read a random interesting thread... only to find it's still the same cesspool that it was at the stoppage. Some people think that the band is too precious and that everything that doesn't explicitly praise the band member's abilities must be a dig on them. It's ridiculous. Of course producers "color" and album and steer it in a direction. To admit this doesn't lessen the amazingness of the band's catalog. Also, of course producers introduce ideas and parts to bands. That's how you stimulate creativity and new veins of thinking and seeing of things. It's not a damn insult to the band. They pay the producers and engineer to be on the same team. To help. If Edge was left to his own devices, they'd probably still be tweaking Native Son for it's 2020 release. 

I'm so glad that I came back. Maybe I'll stop back in another 8 months or so.

Its a FAN FORUM, not a critical/attack forum. You should expect see fans talking about what they love about the band as well as defending the band when they feel criticism is absurd, unnecessary or outright attack on the band. That's how most fan forums work.

The most magical thing about U2 is what they do in the live setting. Most of their songs beat their studio versions, which proves that the band, not the producers, are the most critical part of the creative process.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Tortuga on July 11, 2018, 10:39:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

However, to answer the question-- every band is dependent on producers! U2's problem has been forgetting what they are good at and not playing to their strengths. There is never going to be cohesion on an album when there are 6/7 producers involved, especially that effin' One Republic dude. Candy floss production gets candy floss sounds and melodies. Too many cooks etc. And probably why you get Volcano on one album , and American Soul on another ( Glastonbury was the best of the bunch lyrically IMO). And SFS/ 13 etc-- can never get agreement on the finished article. And if it was an attempt to get a modern sound to keep them 'relevant' to a younger audience, it's not worked. They haven't had a big single since HTDAAB. And i think The Edge in particular needs a Lanois to push him guitar-wise. Everything has gotten a bit lazy. The last truly great U2 album was ATYCLB, and even that is 2 songs too long ( a symptom of the 'CD' age--the best albums almost always fitted on one side of a C90 cassette  :))

There's a review of SoE that ends with 'In the wake of the promising Songs Of Innocence and the triumphant Joshua Tree tour, Songs Of Experience might prove to be a stumble even they cannot recover from.'. I'm afraid that this may be true, sadly.

I agree that SOE is not their most cohesive album, but it's a terrific album none the less. It's got some great songs, lots of good ones, a few that are just ok, and none that are bad.  On ATYCLB, about half the songs are filler.  Some reviewer might have opined that SOE "might prove to be a stumble" but many people, almost surely the majority of fans, don't agree at all. I'd say it's their best album since Achtung Baby.

With regard to the music I think its largely personal taste with post-NlOTH being more pop-friendly so it just depends on what you like.  But I would argue that the lyrics have been on a decline starting with HTDAAB.  Its subjective of course but I think its a legit argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: wons on July 11, 2018, 10:42:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

However, to answer the question-- every band is dependent on producers! U2's problem has been forgetting what they are good at and not playing to their strengths. There is never going to be cohesion on an album when there are 6/7 producers involved, especially that effin' One Republic dude. Candy floss production gets candy floss sounds and melodies. Too many cooks etc. And probably why you get Volcano on one album , and American Soul on another ( Glastonbury was the best of the bunch lyrically IMO). And SFS/ 13 etc-- can never get agreement on the finished article. And if it was an attempt to get a modern sound to keep them 'relevant' to a younger audience, it's not worked. They haven't had a big single since HTDAAB. And i think The Edge in particular needs a Lanois to push him guitar-wise. Everything has gotten a bit lazy. The last truly great U2 album was ATYCLB, and even that is 2 songs too long ( a symptom of the 'CD' age--the best albums almost always fitted on one side of a C90 cassette  :))

There's a review of SoE that ends with 'In the wake of the promising Songs Of Innocence and the triumphant Joshua Tree tour, Songs Of Experience might prove to be a stumble even they cannot recover from.'. I'm afraid that this may be true, sadly.

.  On ATYCLB, about half the songs are filler. 

No way! ATYCLB is one of U2's greatest U2 albums of all time. Fans and Critics agree with the album selling over 12 million copies worldwide and winning 7 Grammy awards! It is U2's fourth biggest selling studio album!
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Johnny Feathers on July 11, 2018, 12:01:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Fans and Critics agree

They don't, actually.  That's the whole point of having a forum.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Tortuga on July 11, 2018, 12:34:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I go away to another site for awhile after the great stoppage of '17... drop in here to read a random interesting thread... only to find it's still the same cesspool that it was at the stoppage. Some people think that the band is too precious and that everything that doesn't explicitly praise the band member's abilities must be a dig on them. It's ridiculous. Of course producers "color" and album and steer it in a direction. To admit this doesn't lessen the amazingness of the band's catalog. Also, of course producers introduce ideas and parts to bands. That's how you stimulate creativity and new veins of thinking and seeing of things. It's not a damn insult to the band. They pay the producers and engineer to be on the same team. To help. If Edge was left to his own devices, they'd probably still be tweaking Native Son for it's 2020 release. 

I'm so glad that I came back. Maybe I'll stop back in another 8 months or so.

Its a FAN FORUM, not a critical/attack forum. You should expect see fans talking about what they love about the band as well as defending the band when they feel criticism is absurd, unnecessary or outright attack on the band. That's how most fan forums work.

The most magical thing about U2 is what they do in the live setting. Most of their songs beat their studio versions, which proves that the band, not the producers, are the most critical part of the creative process.

Its a FAN forum, not a FANBOY forum.  Being a fan doesn’t mean you have to like everything an artist does or be their apologist.  U2 doesn’t need someone to go around defending them from their own fans on a U2 forum.  No one is telling you to be more critical of the band.  How about letting everyone share their own thoughts and opinions without attacking and criticizing them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: wons on July 11, 2018, 12:47:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I go away to another site for awhile after the great stoppage of '17... drop in here to read a random interesting thread... only to find it's still the same cesspool that it was at the stoppage. Some people think that the band is too precious and that everything that doesn't explicitly praise the band member's abilities must be a dig on them. It's ridiculous. Of course producers "color" and album and steer it in a direction. To admit this doesn't lessen the amazingness of the band's catalog. Also, of course producers introduce ideas and parts to bands. That's how you stimulate creativity and new veins of thinking and seeing of things. It's not a damn insult to the band. They pay the producers and engineer to be on the same team. To help. If Edge was left to his own devices, they'd probably still be tweaking Native Son for it's 2020 release. 

I'm so glad that I came back. Maybe I'll stop back in another 8 months or so.

Its a FAN FORUM, not a critical/attack forum. You should expect see fans talking about what they love about the band as well as defending the band when they feel criticism is absurd, unnecessary or outright attack on the band. That's how most fan forums work.

The most magical thing about U2 is what they do in the live setting. Most of their songs beat their studio versions, which proves that the band, not the producers, are the most critical part of the creative process.

Its a FAN forum, not a FANBOY forum.  Being a fan doesn’t mean you have to like everything an artist does or be their apologist.  U2 doesn’t need someone to go around defending them from their own fans on a U2 forum.  No one is telling you to be more critical of the band.  How about letting everyone share their own thoughts and opinions without attacking and criticizing them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, I have an opinion myself and I'm not going to shut up while someone is sh**ting on something I love. The idea that we should just have threads where people who like to sit down at U2 concerts and don't purchase their music anymore get free reign to just criticize the band without anyone objecting or offering a different opinion is absurd.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: wons on July 11, 2018, 12:49:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Fans and Critics agree

They don't, actually.  That's the whole point of having a forum.

They did on ATYCLB. The fans purchased 12 million copies, one of the biggest selling albums in the early 00s. The critics gave the band 7 grammy awards for the album, one of the highest number of grammy wins by one album in Grammy history. So, fans and critics did indeed AGREE!
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Johnny Feathers on July 11, 2018, 12:51:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Fans and Critics agree

They don't, actually.  That's the whole point of having a forum.

They did on ATYCLB. The fans purchased 12 million copies, one of the biggest selling albums in the early 00s. The critics gave the band 7 grammy awards for the album, one of the highest number of grammy wins by one album in Grammy history. So, fans and critics did indeed AGREE!

Wons, again: it doesn't seem you understand what we are telling you.  WE have different opinions on this.  WE are fans.  Just like you.  Hence, WE are in disagreement here.  There's room for more than one opinion on this forum.  Please stop insisting we all share yours.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: laoghaire on July 11, 2018, 02:02:36 PM
ATYCLB is 1/3 filler to me.

Somebody mentioned feeling that lyrics have been declining since whatever album. Disagree! I think Bono hit his stride lyrically with TJT and think there has been no decline. Sure, some stinkers ("Grace... it's the name of a girl" - really?) but they are spread around, and the gems keep coming ("the worst things in the world are justified by belief").

That was fun. I like having opinions. I like hearing opinions. I just get cranky when opinions are presented as facts.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Tortuga on July 11, 2018, 02:32:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
ATYCLB is 1/3 filler to me.

Somebody mentioned feeling that lyrics have been declining since whatever album. Disagree! I think Bono hit his stride lyrically with TJT and think there has been no decline. Sure, some stinkers ("Grace... it's the name of a girl" - really?) but they are spread around, and the gems keep coming ("the worst things in the world are justified by belief").

That was fun. I like having opinions. I like hearing opinions. I just get cranky when opinions are presented as facts.

That is exactly the spirit I’m trying to encourage here.  Unfortunately some people just seem to thrive on conflict.  I can ignore the personal insults easily enough but I wish we had a little more moderation because I think it ruins a forum when you have the personal attacks and criticism of other posters instead of respectful disagreement with their opinions, recognizing that its just two different opinions.  But as they say...”Don’t let something or another grind you down”.

By the way, I love the lyrics to Grace!  That line is about reclaiming the spiritual meaning of a word that has come to simply mean “elegant or beautiful”.  You can’t pull out that one line by itself.

How about a new thread on the topic of lyrics you do or don’t like?  All opinions welcome!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Vox on July 11, 2018, 02:54:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That was fun. I like having opinions. I like hearing opinions. I just get cranky when opinions are presented as facts.

This is key for me.  Great statement. 

All of the sudden this week, there are a lot of new threads, from a couple different new posters, that have titles akin to something like "Everything U2 Did after 1985 is Total Garbage..."  Opinions are good.  Differences are what makes the world go around.  But it's hard to have a good back-and-forth when that's where the starting line is set.  And then to act all wounded when people feel they have to stand up to a finite blanket statement like that.  What really makes it funny is that, in theory, I agree with the feelings behind a lot of these posts.  It's just that they're said in such a sh**ty, confrontational way that it makes them seep with a certain toxicity... Perhaps it's just a language barrier thing...

Funny how it seems so prevalent all of the sudden this week, though... 
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Luzita on July 11, 2018, 03:52:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
ATYCLB is 1/3 filler to me.

Somebody mentioned feeling that lyrics have been declining since whatever album. Disagree! I think Bono hit his stride lyrically with TJT and think there has been no decline. Sure, some stinkers ("Grace... it's the name of a girl" - really?) but they are spread around, and the gems keep coming ("the worst things in the world are justified by belief").

That was fun. I like having opinions. I like hearing opinions. I just get cranky when opinions are presented as facts.
100% agree with this! Even the 1/3 filler on ATYCLB. I said half before but that was an overstatement.

Regarding Bono’s lyrics, yes there are some clunkers but I don’t feel the proportion is increasing. SOE has the notorious refu-Jesus but it also has lots of beautiful/evocative/clever lines in Little Things, 13, Lights of Home, The Showman, etc.

“Sometimes
I wake at four in the morning
When all the darkness is swarming
And it covers me in fear”

“When the wind screams and shouts
And the sea is a dragon’s tail
And the ship that stole your heart away sets sail”

As for opinions as facts — yeah, pet peeve. Esp. if people respond with outrage when their non-facts are calmly challenged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Tortuga on July 11, 2018, 04:50:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
ATYCLB is 1/3 filler to me.

Somebody mentioned feeling that lyrics have been declining since whatever album. Disagree! I think Bono hit his stride lyrically with TJT and think there has been no decline. Sure, some stinkers ("Grace... it's the name of a girl" - really?) but they are spread around, and the gems keep coming ("the worst things in the world are justified by belief").

That was fun. I like having opinions. I like hearing opinions. I just get cranky when opinions are presented as facts.
100% agree with this! Even the 1/3 filler on ATYCLB. I said half before but that was an overstatement.

Regarding Bono’s lyrics, yes there are some clunkers but I don’t feel the proportion is increasing. SOE has the notorious refu-Jesus but it also has lots of beautiful/evocative/clever lines in Little Things, 13, Lights of Home, The Showman, etc.

“Sometimes
I wake at four in the morning
When all the darkness is swarming
And it covers me in fear”

“When the wind screams and shouts
And the sea is a dragon’s tail
And the ship that stole your heart away sets sail”

As for opinions as facts — yeah, pet peeve. Esp. if people respond with outrage when their non-facts are calmly challenged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bono has ALWAYS had a mix of brilliant lyrics and stinkers.   All the way back to “A picture in gray, DORIAN gray, just me by the sea.”  IMHO the stinker ratio has gone up since HTDAAB.  But there are still recent songs that are lyrically perfect: Every Breaking Wave, Landlady... where all the metaphors tie together perfectly with multiple layers.  The clunkers like “smell of a newborn baby’s head” are just freebies you throw away.  JT through Pop were the golden years.  Those songs were less direct and more open to interpretation.  Today’s material is a little too on the nose too much of the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Tortuga on July 11, 2018, 05:00:11 PM
But just to clarify, do you see the title of this thread as something that should set people off?  To me there is nothing wrong with it.  I don’t think its possible for a band to be TOO dependent on a producer, which was my reply.  (Producers are just part of the team.) But I don’t think its a trolling or intentional insult title.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: laoghaire on July 11, 2018, 07:37:20 PM
People titling threads with hot takes is fun. I dunno, some posts are just too "these opinions are facts, you're not a true fan / a mindless, slavish fanboy/girl" for me. One can come out with a hot take in a fun way - "October was their best album!! Who's with me??"

Ah, I do think EBW was lyrically genius - I mean it, genius. Also love Little Things lyrics, those hit me right between the eyes.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Luzita on July 11, 2018, 09:17:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

All of the sudden this week, there are a lot of new threads, from a couple different new posters, that have titles akin to something like "Everything U2 Did after 1985 is Total Garbage..."  Opinions are good.  Differences are what makes the world go around.  But it's hard to have a good back-and-forth when that's where the starting line is set.  And then to act all wounded when people feel they have to stand up to a finite blanket statement like that.  What really makes it funny is that, in theory, I agree with the feelings behind a lot of these posts.  It's just that they're said in such a sh**ty, confrontational way that it makes them seep with a certain toxicity... Perhaps it's just a language barrier thing...

Funny how it seems so prevalent all of the sudden this week, though...

All of this is completely on target. I, too, am bewildered as to why this forum is suffering an epidemic of unreasonable topic titles that seem chosen to provoke conflict rather than invite discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Tortuga on July 12, 2018, 05:36:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

All of the sudden this week, there are a lot of new threads, from a couple different new posters, that have titles akin to something like "Everything U2 Did after 1985 is Total Garbage..."  Opinions are good.  Differences are what makes the world go around.  But it's hard to have a good back-and-forth when that's where the starting line is set.  And then to act all wounded when people feel they have to stand up to a finite blanket statement like that.  What really makes it funny is that, in theory, I agree with the feelings behind a lot of these posts.  It's just that they're said in such a sh**ty, confrontational way that it makes them seep with a certain toxicity... Perhaps it's just a language barrier thing...

Funny how it seems so prevalent all of the sudden this week, though...

All of this is completely on target. I, too, am bewildered as to why this forum is suffering an epidemic of unreasonable topic titles that seem chosen to provoke conflict rather than invite discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Am I just completely insensitive?  Looking through the posts I don’t see any recent ones that look inciteful.  Maybe the one about JT being over-rated?  But I don’t find that offensive at all.  I am really curious what titles you see as being this way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: laoghaire on July 12, 2018, 06:06:31 AM
Yeah I took that one as a hot take rather than an actual statement of stubborn fact.

The posts that bug me aren't topic starters. And there are just a few.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Vox on July 12, 2018, 07:23:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But just to clarify, do you see the title of this thread as something that should set people off?  To me there is nothing wrong with it.  I don’t think its possible for a band to be TOO dependent on a producer, which was my reply.  (Producers are just part of the team.) But I don’t think its a trolling or intentional insult title.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The title of this one is fine.  I just mentioned other posts in this one because I liked laoghaire's comment.   

And I would answer yes, U2 have always been pretty dependent on producers.  I was all for U2 taking a break from Eno/Lanois and seeing what happens (I was excited to hear they were working with Rubin and especially Danger Mouse).  But U2 have always been notoriously tough on producers.  Lately I've been wondering what one more Eno/Lanois collaboration would sound like...  I also find it interesting that it seems we used to get detailed accounts of the recording process for every album up to and including No Line on the Horizon.  The last two albums?  Not as much.  I'm sure there's all sorts of disclosure agreements everyone signs who works with them to not talk about it.  But it's my belief that they really burned out Danger Mouse.   
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Luzita on July 12, 2018, 08:59:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

All of the sudden this week, there are a lot of new threads, from a couple different new posters, that have titles akin to something like "Everything U2 Did after 1985 is Total Garbage..."  Opinions are good.  Differences are what makes the world go around.  But it's hard to have a good back-and-forth when that's where the starting line is set.  And then to act all wounded when people feel they have to stand up to a finite blanket statement like that.  What really makes it funny is that, in theory, I agree with the feelings behind a lot of these posts.  It's just that they're said in such a sh**ty, confrontational way that it makes them seep with a certain toxicity... Perhaps it's just a language barrier thing...

Funny how it seems so prevalent all of the sudden this week, though...

All of this is completely on target. I, too, am bewildered as to why this forum is suffering an epidemic of unreasonable topic titles that seem chosen to provoke conflict rather than invite discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Am I just completely insensitive?  Looking through the posts I don’t see any recent ones that look inciteful.  Maybe the one about JT being over-rated?  But I don’t find that offensive at all.  I am really curious what titles you see as being this way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People's perceptions can differ, of course.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: Dali on July 14, 2018, 11:51:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think the last few albums have been over produced and perhaps they should just get in a room with Steve Lillywhite and play some damn rock and roll. That said, my kids are grooving to the popish remix of Love Is Better...
I agree. Why don't they just travel to Indonesia and jam with Steve there where he now lives? That sounds like fun.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Steve Lillywhite always complained that the band should tour before the album, because the live versions they created were often superior to anything they did in the studio. Think about what U2 does with their songs in a live setting. No producers involved there.

Touring before recording the songs in the studio would probably work in the current climate of the music industry in which tours are more important for the bottom line anyway than the album. Getting to listen to new songs that are not recorded yet would certainly increase the draw of the concert tickets. I feel they should try it. They might even create a new industry trend with it and put rock music back on the map through it sounding as fresh as it only can in a live setting.
Title: Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
Post by: laoghaire on July 14, 2018, 01:59:23 PM
People wouldn't be enthusiastic hearing unknown music. It takes me several listens to get into a song.

In the old days, there would be no reasonable way around that. But today, they can drop an album the usual way, tour it, and then release digital tracks of any song they felt like they improved - like they do with the different mixes. I guess they did that with EBW - the "radio edit" was what they figured out live, better than the bonus acoustic version on the deluxe album.

What I really want, though, is live from the mixing desk recordings. Dublin 1993 sounds soooo good. Of course it was a completely flawless performance but even less perfect performances, if the audio quality is tops, I want that. Why can't I have this? I will buy these albums. With money. Take my goddamn money!