Author Topic: Why 'No Line' should have been a double.  (Read 1341 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline adam1

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 274
Why 'No Line' should have been a double.
« on: March 22, 2009, 04:24:28 PM »
There are several reasons why I think it should have been a double -


There had been a 5 year gap since 'Bomb'.

Other great bands 'The Beatles' & 'The Stones' have great doubles in their collection. The was U2's chance to have the same.

U2 kept saying they had 60 odd songs and put back the release of the album several times to 'dig up more diamonds'. 

They call the shots with the record company. They release albums when they are ready. If they wanted to release a double, the record company would have had to accept it.

They have a massive world tour to sell. More good songs means more bums on seats.

A good double would have really got everyone excited. It would be something they have never done before.

It will stop an agonizing wait for the next album. There have already been rumours and counter rumours about when this will be released.

U2 say the next batch of songs are virtually ready. However at the moment there is nothing to stop them scrapping, totalling reworking them or forgetting about them.  Thus causing more delays.



Offline ITM

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 399
  • My first cry, it was a joyful noise,
Re: Why 'No Line' should have been a double.
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2009, 06:42:52 PM »
If the wait between records is a short one as a fan I dont mind that one bit.

Achtung Baby then Zooropa was an enojoyable experience.

Rattle and Hum is a double album, a bit of a lark if I recall a quote from Rolling Stone correctly, and as has been oft repeated, the band's methods of crafting songs can be laboured and long.

The tour isn't dependent on a 11 more songs to be successful, as recent ticket sales bear witness to.

And it seems despite The Edge's clarification concerning the release of Songs Of Ascent that five years between another record is highly unlikely.

Would I like a double album of new material releases tomorrow?

Yes please.

I am, however really enjoying the new material over and over again.



Offline Clarky

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 875
  • I've got a head like a lit cigarette
Re: Why 'No Line' should have been a double.
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2009, 09:58:08 PM »
Personally I dont like double albums. There's too many songs to digest. 11 songs on the new album is perfect. That enough for me. Let them release the songs if and when they're ready. I'm not going to whine and b**** about something I have no control over.

hrsan

  • Guest
Re: Why 'No Line' should have been a double.
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2009, 06:01:03 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Personally I dont like double albums. There's too many songs to digest. 11 songs on the new album is perfect. That enough for me. Let them release the songs if and when they're ready. I'm not going to whine and b**** about something I have no control over.

I agree.  Besides, knowing that another album is coming out later this year is something to look forward to.

Offline sceptic prophet

  • Intellectual Tortoise
  • *
  • Posts: 492
Re: Why 'No Line' should have been a double.
« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2009, 07:11:53 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Other great bands 'The Beatles' & 'The Stones' have great doubles in their collection. The was U2's chance to have the same.



Both the White Album and Exile on main Street were double albums on vinyl, but they fit a single CD. They're pretty much as long as the Pop album, I think. Also, they have way too much filler. Also, they were very specific endeavours: The Beatles were trying to show that they could beat anyone else at playing every possible style of popular music previously known to man (  ;D ); The Stones were making a grand statement about roots music: blues, country, rock&roll, gospel, et all. Those albums had to be long.

Offline silkenskies

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 222
  • You got my head filled with songs
Re: Why 'No Line' should have been a double.
« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2009, 08:07:13 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There are several reasons why I think it should have been a double -


There had been a 5 year gap since 'Bomb'.

Other great bands 'The Beatles' & 'The Stones' have great doubles in their collection. The was U2's chance to have the same.

U2 kept saying they had 60 odd songs and put back the release of the album several times to 'dig up more diamonds'. 

They call the shots with the record company. They release albums when they are ready. If they wanted to release a double, the record company would have had to accept it.

They have a massive world tour to sell. More good songs means more bums on seats.

A good double would have really got everyone excited. It would be something they have never done before.

It will stop an agonizing wait for the next album. There have already been rumours and counter rumours about when this will be released.

U2 say the next batch of songs are virtually ready. However at the moment there is nothing to stop them scrapping, totalling reworking them or forgetting about them.  Thus causing more delays.


I think it's the opposite, actually. Had they chosen the best, say, 20-23 songs for a double album, they'd essentially be releasing all of the album-quality songs they wrote at once (because, IMO, probably not all of the songs they wrote will ultimately make it onto an album). So then we'd probably be left with another 4-5 year wait between new material, which, I think we can all agree, is too long to wait. So I'm glad they're spreading it all out. This way they have more time to work on the material and tweak things if need be...although, I'll be the first to say, sometimes that's not always a good thing.  :-[

satellitedog01

  • Guest
Re: Why 'No Line' should have been a double.
« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2009, 09:40:09 AM »
I think they should get rid of the finished material either as a companion album, or giving us effin B-sides at last for a change.

They have tons of music laying around, and you don't need to polish B-sides to release them.

I hate it that they let me wait five years, let me know how fresh they are, then put a syrupy-slick overly sophisticated iPod like gadget of an album(great music, but lacking power, now we've heard live versions), then AGAIN mumble something about a possible quick follow up release, and not giving us any original B-Sides with Boots,

Same problem with the last 2 albums.
 
All that you can't... had only 3!!! original B-sides, 2 of them were truly genuine, and 1 cover version for 4 singles and of those singles variant releases, with loads of live and remix material, which is just rip off.
 
With Bomb it was samey...

Neon Lights was a cover, Are You Gonna Wait Forever is nonsensical Whoish filler, underdeveloped and without much originality. There was no other new song of U2 on those singles. Mystery Girl wasn't new, and fans have probably heard U2 play it live, and better than released, on the Lovetown tour.

There were good/great non album tracks they did not release on singles, but have released with the effin iPod instead.

So, a double LP would be only fair in my opinion. The songs they don't release as B-sides just slow things down, and have the possibility of making any future album sound less original and fresh. I think they should get rid of the fear of imperfection. They never released any perfect album, they probably won't ever... So I guess they should release something that's not laboured to death, every 2-3 years...

And quit being lazy.