The Sad Punk
Blue Crack Addict
It's coz it's Joshua tree and trees are like a natural piece of land like a mountain is
Seems silly to me to be sequencing for vinyl rather than CDs in 1991, especially when you're aiming to release a bold album looking forwards into the nineties. Might as well embrace the medium on the ascendancy, the medium that was clearly going to be the dominant form of releasing music in that decade. It's not like it was 1984 or even 1987 and sequencing for vinyl still made sense.
But then U2 love to talk about embracing the future and rarely do much about it, e.g. Bono's blather about embracing the digital era, taking advantage of the Internet to distribute their music, concerts, etc., and then doing almost nothing about their web presence at all.
You mean you have climbed the highest mountains?
bonocomet said:That still doesn't change what I said above. In the end, I think U2 are responsible for the order of the songs appear on their albums, and back then, I think they still were feeling the pull of the vinyl gravity that shaped their minds. (I think the track list order of the songs on AB kind of proves that.)
That still doesn't change what I said above. In the end, I think U2 are responsible for the order of the songs appear on their albums, and back then, I think they still were feeling the pull of the vinyl gravity that shaped their minds. (I think the track list order of the songs on AB kind of proves that.)
You know, I never thought there was anything wrong with the sequencing on AB until I started reading about it on this thread. You may be right that they had vinyl (or cassette) in mind at the time, but I think track order works just fine on that record either way.
in fact, the only U2 albums I can think that I think are seriously flawed in that regard are R&H (which should have split the live and studio tracks to separate disc) and NLOTH.
Yeah it took me a LONG time to switch to CD, especially if you were older because you already had a VAST record collection by that point, and it was daunting to think of making the switch, and possibly replacing a collection that had been growing since the sixties. I held out for the longest time, and never did replace even a fraction of my vinyl.
*waits to see if my post 66 will begin to make no sense at all*
Just didn't want to get into the whole remaster thing again.
lazarus said:It wasn't just vinyl but mainly cassettes that are the issue here. And I think if you research the sales figures, you'll see that CDs were not outselling that format yet at this point. Didn't happen until well into 1992. So when they're making these decisions (probably summer of 1991) there's a legitimate reason for sequencing in that fashion.
I got a CD player in 1988 (the first year CDs outsold vinyl) and I was one of the first among my friends to have one. The transition wasn't as quick as you think.