As per Lanois, U2 recording next week, going electro!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
But I do have to say that all the Eno/Lanois albums have a very "tinny", MIDI-like sound...Beautiful Day should sound like this huge anthem, and it bleats like a sheep. Always frustrates me when I listen to it. I have no idea what Lanois mentioned about wanting to hear Larry on the record...for most part, I feel the drumming sounds castrated.

But I do like the nice meshing of sound you have on ATYCLB of different instruments (electric and acoustic guitars, piano, synths, bass)...I feel that what E/L are good at is blending the instruments, yet maintaining their individuality. I think it has to do with Eno almost always wanting to operate off of a synth "bed". And I think HTDAAB would have been a far better album for it...that, and non rank-amateur quality mixing/compression.
 
Achtung Baby was arguably Edge's best guitar album, and yet you can't hear his guitar parts half the time. That's what pisses me off the most, though there's plenty of pissed off to go around.

I can make a list, in fact:
Zoo Station Chorus
Even Better Than the Real Thing Riff
Until the End of the World Outro
The Fly: Second Half of the Solo/Chorus, Last Verse, Outro
TTTYAATW: All Guitar
Love Is Blindness Solo (Bono Drowns it Out)
 
tomtom said:
for most part, I feel the drumming sounds castrated.

I agree on this. Does anyone remember the early live (or "live") performances of Beautiful Day when Larry couldn't decide whether to play his main part or the electronic beats that cling to the two and four? They eventually settled on him playing along with the loop, but he definitely felt reigned in.
 
ahittle said:


I agree on this. Does anyone remember the early live (or "live") performances of Beautiful Day when Larry couldn't decide whether to play his main part or the electronic beats that cling to the two and four? They eventually settled on him playing along with the loop, but he definitely felt reigned in.

wait what? can you explain this please? what do you mean two and four? you mean like the beats that fall on 2 and 4 when you count it? :confused:
 
phillyfan26 said:
Achtung Baby was arguably Edge's best guitar album, and yet you can't hear his guitar parts half the time. That's what pisses me off the most, though there's plenty of pissed off to go around.

I can make a list, in fact:
Zoo Station Chorus
Even Better Than the Real Thing Riff
Until the End of the World Outro
The Fly: Second Half of the Solo/Chorus, Last Verse, Outro
TTTYAATW: All Guitar
Love Is Blindness Solo (Bono Drowns it Out)

Zoo Station chorus guitar sounds panned right to mid, not really all that more buried than anything else. This is analog recording and it's U2 at their most indirect attempt to sound direct. The overdubbed harmony is louder because it's more important. I don't disagree with this mix.

Even Better....two different verse guitars going. One in the right channel is playing the "riff" and you are right it is quiet, too quiet.
My guess=they had to accomodate the two vocal dubs, not disturb the bass and drums without making it sound jarbled. Is that a word? Maybe it should be louder, I think they made a concentrated decision to get that vocal harmony right. Score.

Until the End of the World, I don't even have to bring up the song to listen to it. I agree but I'd also refer to down below #3.

On the album the Fly solo and outro is fine, of course I heard it in 1991 before 1,000 live versions that followed it. The live versions beat the entire hell out of the studio version, so it seems that the listener has been cheated here. Hard to make an argument against the Fly in 1991, now it's easy. That was a mindfuck single.

Again, Love is Blindness, before the live versions THAT was the song. Afterwards, yeah you can see where the solo is diminshed. The aim of that song on the album is to be haunting. Success. It's not supposed to be a guitar solo wank.

I don't totally disagree overall, I think there are a few factors at play.

1. You younger folk are, no mattter how much you object, generally oblivious to the sound quality of every album before Pop. Louder does not equal better. Muddier doesn't mean lack of quality of mixing or mastering, it means technology was inferior.
It's hard to prove the point unless you are a young audiophile.

2. Accepting that even some of the younger folk get that much, on Acthung there were (thank God) 6, 7 tracks going on at the same time, diverse ideas, someting going on besides the melody brow beat. In that mix, it diminshes everything else. Take the example that a ....say, 4 track mix is X, every track you add diminishes the sound quality of X.

3. After years of hearing improved live versions, if you hear the Sydney version of Love is Blindness first, or at the same time or even listen to it at the most, it gives your ear a natural bias.

When Achtung Baby came out in late 1991, you wouldn't find many people griping about the sound, in fact the only gripes were that u2 were a studio band and Eno and Lanois crafted this album around their marginal talents.

It's a worse mix but it's relative. Also, there are things that can't be apologized for, like the end of Until the End of the World.
 
Last edited:
the tourist said:


Muddy. Reverb-heavy. Murky.

That was the point - they wanted that kind of production. They needed that sound.

Eno and Lanois always get the sound the band wants: from the landscapes of UF, to the warm/big space sound of JT, to the murky sound of AB, and the slick, polished up sound of ATYCLB. Of course it's another thing to compare studio and live versions of songs.

Reggie: If they feel they have another masterpiece in them, why not say so ? At least if they fail, they will fail big, too ! :wink:
 
Originally posted by tomtom
for most part, I feel the drumming sounds castrated.

That's our Larry for you!
 
tomtom said:
But I do have to say that all the Eno/Lanois albums have a very "tinny", MIDI-like sound...Beautiful Day should sound like this huge anthem, and it bleats like a sheep. Always frustrates me when I listen to it. I have no idea what Lanois mentioned about wanting to hear Larry on the record...for most part, I feel the drumming sounds castrated.

I couldn't agree more. I don't like the song on ATCYLB (and HTDAAB). It's seems to be produced and mixed using MIDI program
 
Inner El Guapo said:


Zoo Station chorus guitar sounds panned right to mid, not really all that more buried than anything else. This is analog recording and it's U2 at their most indirect attempt to sound direct. The overdubbed harmony is louder because it's more important. I don't disagree with this mix.

Even Better....two different verse guitars going. One in the right channel is playing the "riff" and you are right it is quiet, too quiet.
My guess=they had to accomodate the two vocal dubs, not disturb the bass and drums without making it sound jarbled. Is that a word? Maybe it should be louder, I think they made a concentrated decision to get that vocal harmony right. Score.

Until the End of the World, I don't even have to bring up the song to listen to it. I agree but I'd also refer to down below #3.

On the album the Fly solo and outro is fine, of course I heard it in 1991 before 1,000 live versions that followed it. The live versions beat the entire hell out of the studio version, so it seems that the listener has been cheated here. Hard to make an argument against the Fly in 1991, now it's easy. That was a mindfuck single.

Again, Love is Blindness, before the live versions THAT was the song. Afterwards, yeah you can see where the solo is diminshed. The aim of that song on the album is to be haunting. Success. It's not supposed to be a guitar solo wank.

I don't totally disagree overall, I think there are a few factors at play.

1. You younger folk are, no mattter how much you object, generally oblivious to the sound quality of every album before Pop. Louder does not equal better. Muddier doesn't mean lack of quality of mixing or mastering, it means technology was inferior.
It's hard to prove the point unless you are a young audiophile.

2. Accepting that even some of the younger folk get that much, on Acthung there were (thank God) 6, 7 tracks going on at the same time, diverse ideas, someting going on besides the melody brow beat. In that mix, it diminshes everything else. Take the example that a ....say, 4 track mix is X, every track you add diminishes the sound quality of X.

3. After years of hearing improved live versions, if you hear the Sydney version of Love is Blindness first, or at the same time or even listen to it at the most, it gives your ear a natural bias.

When Achtung Baby came out in late 1991, you wouldn't find many people griping about the sound, in fact the only gripes were that u2 were a studio band and Eno and Lanois crafted this album around their marginal talents.

It's a worse mix but it's relative. Also, there are things that can't be apologized for, like the end of Until the End of the World.
:up:
 
Inner El Guapo said:


Zoo Station chorus guitar sounds panned right to mid, not really all that more buried than anything else. This is analog recording and it's U2 at their most indirect attempt to sound direct. The overdubbed harmony is louder because it's more important. I don't disagree with this mix.

Even Better....two different verse guitars going. One in the right channel is playing the "riff" and you are right it is quiet, too quiet.
My guess=they had to accomodate the two vocal dubs, not disturb the bass and drums without making it sound jarbled. Is that a word? Maybe it should be louder, I think they made a concentrated decision to get that vocal harmony right. Score.

Until the End of the World, I don't even have to bring up the song to listen to it. I agree but I'd also refer to down below #3.

On the album the Fly solo and outro is fine, of course I heard it in 1991 before 1,000 live versions that followed it. The live versions beat the entire hell out of the studio version, so it seems that the listener has been cheated here. Hard to make an argument against the Fly in 1991, now it's easy. That was a mindfuck single.

Again, Love is Blindness, before the live versions THAT was the song. Afterwards, yeah you can see where the solo is diminshed. The aim of that song on the album is to be haunting. Success. It's not supposed to be a guitar solo wank.

I don't totally disagree overall, I think there are a few factors at play.

1. You younger folk are, no mattter how much you object, generally oblivious to the sound quality of every album before Pop. Louder does not equal better. Muddier doesn't mean lack of quality of mixing or mastering, it means technology was inferior.
It's hard to prove the point unless you are a young audiophile.

2. Accepting that even some of the younger folk get that much, on Acthung there were (thank God) 6, 7 tracks going on at the same time, diverse ideas, someting going on besides the melody brow beat. In that mix, it diminshes everything else. Take the example that a ....say, 4 track mix is X, every track you add diminishes the sound quality of X.

3. After years of hearing improved live versions, if you hear the Sydney version of Love is Blindness first, or at the same time or even listen to it at the most, it gives your ear a natural bias.

When Achtung Baby came out in late 1991, you wouldn't find many people griping about the sound, in fact the only gripes were that u2 were a studio band and Eno and Lanois crafted this album around their marginal talents.

It's a worse mix but it's relative. Also, there are things that can't be apologized for, like the end of Until the End of the World.

:up: :up: :up:

Though I still think the studio version of The Fly is the best.
 
Axver said:
...since everything I know is wrong.

Finally! You finally admit it. Whew... and I was getting worried. :sexywink:

As for the topic... eh. I've heard so many statements over the years about U2's next work - both from U2 and others - that it means nothing to me. I will wait until I hear the actual music first. :yes:
 
An Cat Gav said:


:up: :up: :up:

Though I still think the studio version of The Fly is the best.

well, one thing that bugs me about the Fly on the album is the solo doesn't have the same feel, it's just not as powerful as it is live....that's just how I hear it :shrug:

while we're on the subject....if you listen to 1992 Washington D.C.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_JMjqC2PKZo

notice at the interlude in the middle at around 2:54...notice right when the next verse starts, that beautiful guitar playing by Edge?

on the album, that is practically nonexistent, and really disappointing, it's probably my favorite part of the song starting at that point and the album version is totally muffled and quiet....and in this live version, it sounds brilliant, between that riff and Bono's explosive "I remember when we could sleep on stones...." verse...

anyway I hope this is somehow made more clear when AB is remastered
 
doctorwho said:

As for the topic... eh. I've heard so many statements over the years about U2's next work - both from U2 and others - that it means nothing to me. I will wait until I hear the actual music first. :yes:

I read this today - in an interview from Catherine Owens.
If this has been posted already then shoot me. :wink:

http://www.rte.ie/arts/2008/0222/catherineowensinterview.html

Have you heard any of the new U2 record?
Well they're still working on it, but I believe that I'm going to hear some tracks this week. We're beginning to talk about the next tour. I've heard very good things from Adam about it so I can't wait to hear it. I think it'll be very interesting given the politics of the world right now. I think it'll be an interesting project. Working on a new tour will be interesting. It has to all still be debated, but now that we're all had this new experience it's going to be interesting to see how the tour goes. We tend to roll things over from one process to the next so it'll be interesting to see what we take from this.

Presumably your visuals will be - and have always been - very much influenced by whatever music U2 make?
Oh yeah, it's always driven entirely by the music so that's why I'm as excited as anyone else to hear the new material, to see where it'll take my input or what direction I'm going. It's exciting, it always is!
 
MW got canceled out of U23D ? Too bad.

Good to hear they're talking about the next tour already.
 
sue4u2 said:


I read this today - in an interview from Catherine Owens.
If this has been posted already then shoot me. :wink:

http://www.rte.ie/arts/2008/0222/catherineowensinterview.html

Have you heard any of the new U2 record?
Well they're still working on it, but I believe that I'm going to hear some tracks this week. We're beginning to talk about the next tour. I've heard very good things from Adam about it so I can't wait to hear it. I think it'll be very interesting given the politics of the world right now. I think it'll be an interesting project. Working on a new tour will be interesting. It has to all still be debated, but now that we're all had this new experience it's going to be interesting to see how the tour goes. We tend to roll things over from one process to the next so it'll be interesting to see what we take from this.

Presumably your visuals will be - and have always been - very much influenced by whatever music U2 make?
Oh yeah, it's always driven entirely by the music so that's why I'm as excited as anyone else to hear the new material, to see where it'll take my input or what direction I'm going. It's exciting, it always is!

nope never seen that before! Thanks :hyper:
 
Rob33 said:
hey when do you guys think the album name will be released?

sometime over the summer. i would make my educated guess to be between late June (optimistic) and early august.
 
:drool: I can't see them pushing all of this talk back a year. This thing is coming out in the fall for sure unless they suddenly decide the album is terrible out of the clear blue.
 
Back
Top Bottom