u2fan628
The Fly
In order to have a "raw"sound,you need raw emotions.They had that in their younger days and it reflected in the music.
go back to "raw sound"!!!!!!!
- Thread starter logansan33
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
u2fan628 said:
That makes about as much sense as...
oh forget it.
gherman said:
gherman, didn't get the meaning
, what should we think about?Also, I didn't expect my choice of virtuosos would be unpopular, ok, I'll give you hammett, but mustaine is pretty damn good, isn't he. I suspect Joe Satriani won't ruffle any feathers, if not, I'm out.
u2fan628 said:
Actually Supastar, this is a great point.
If 'raw' can be made to equate to 'untamed' it really makes sense. Back then, U2 were much less refined regarding their emotional presentations. This is because those wild displays are what set them apart, in lieu of their skill limitations.
Nowadays, the emotional presenation of their songs are more refined because they finally have the ability to mold their songs into whatever they want them to become. They are no longer at the mercy of just wild displays of emotion and the sometimes accompanying 'messiness' that comes with them.
It's debateable which method has yielded better results, but I don't think there's any doubt that U2 have found something within themselves over the last 2 albums that they've really enjoyed discovering and that enjoyment has been palpable. Particularly on ATYCLB. I don't see how anybody could expect an artist to be any truer to themselves than that. Particularly an artist 25 years into their career.
Last edited:
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Layton said:
I don't buy it for many reasons. First of all if it's real emotion it's "raw" or whatever you want to call it. Also history has proven that many bands have had raw sounds without any true emotion at all. Plus I can list many U2 songs and others till I turn blue that have raw emotion but not a raw sound.
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Layton said:
Exactly. When U2 weren't an expert group of musicians, they had to rely on something else to write great songs. It is this "something else" that created the magic that produced some of the best songs ever written - by anyone. Songs like 'Pride', songs like 'Bad', songs like 'Where The Streets Have No Name' and 'With or Without You' and 'One'. Does anyone think they sat down and plotted out chord progressions for these songs? Or was it that they simply had the floodgates open because they had to let "God walk into the room" in order to write something ethereal? They were relying on trancendence, not chord progressions.
Now that U2 rely on musicianship, they no longer need to rely on that "something else". It's the tradeoff that they have worked hard for, yet the irony is that the real magic occured when they had far more limitations as musicians. Now, the songs aren't usually ethereal. They are very good. Now, they sound professional. 'City of Blinding Lights' is a good example. A quintesential U2 song without the transcendence of that "something else". But there are moments. The end of 'Miracle Drug', most of 'Kite', for example. But most of it is lost in the pre-writing and plotting of chord progressons.
But U2 is enjoying themselves right now.
We must give them that. They had to grow up one day. It was inevitable, and now they're discovering what they always wanted to be. They know what they are doing now....so it shouldn't be as surprising.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Michael Griffiths said:
Sorry but I find this hilarious, especially based on the amount of "I wish U2 would rely on more musicianship" threads.
Achtung_Bebe
New Yorker
Michael Griffiths said:
I agree with most of your post; however, I would add that the change in U2's sound is also a reflection of certain internal impulses--perhaps more so than technical know how. Angst, ambition--these sorts of things. I don't think bands are consciously relying on that "something else"-- rather there's a restlessness that comes through in the music.
U2 has more experience as musicians now, but how much time actually goes into their song-writing and plotting of chord progressions even today?--I was under the impression that U2's creative process was more spontaneous and all over the place. Anyway, I think it has less to do with their maturation as musicians than your post suggested. I think that the difference is that U2 now knows where they are going--or rather that they've arrived-- not what they are doing. I still don't think they know what they're doing
but they do it well so hey 
OnFire
Acrobat
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 386
I don't think they've ever been "raw". I think this is what they might sound like if they went for that though, hope the link works.
http://s59. .com/d.aspx?id=1OD1EJNDBB2PP1H27NH7ABGCPL
http://s59. .com/d.aspx?id=1OD1EJNDBB2PP1H27NH7ABGCPL
Last edited:
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
link no workie for me...
OnFire
Acrobat
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 386
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I know, I couldn't get it to work after I posted and tried re-posting a couple of times
Anyway, if your interested, here's where I got it. This particular artist will let you download his entire catalog for free, that's right free and even someone like me who can't post a freekin link to a downloaded song was able to download and burn cd's from this site
The track I tried to post is called "Ashtray" from Spacegirl & Other favorites.
http://www.brianjonestownmassacre.com/mp3.html
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Why apologize? If you find it hilarious, you find it hilarious. All I can say is, I'm happy I brightened your dayBonoVoxSupastar said:
Secondly, I am not too sure about these threads asking for more musicianship. I don't frequent this board as often as I used to.
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Oh, I agree with you that U2's internal impulses have definitely changed. And I don't think U2 ever consciously relied on that "something else" either. They simply were open to it out of necessity, and therefore allowed it in automatically.Achtung_Bebe said:
I agree with most of your post; however, I would add that the change in U2's sound is also a reflection of certain internal impulses--perhaps more so than technical know how. Angst, ambition--these sorts of things. I don't think bands are consciously relying on that "something else"-- rather there's a restlessness that comes through in the music.
U2 has more experience as musicians now, but how much time actually goes into their song-writing and plotting of chord progressions even today?--I was under the impression that U2's creative process was more spontaneous and all over the place. Anyway, I think it has less to do with their maturation as musicians than your post suggested. I think that the difference is that U2 now knows where they are going--or rather that they've arrived-- not what they are doing. I still don't think they know what they're doing
As for how much time goes into pre-writing and plotting out chord progressions these days, U2 were the ones who stated that they do that for most of their music these days. There was a big article (was it in Rollingstone?) before the release of Atomic Bomb where the band were interviewed on their songwriting process, in which they said they don't have the time to jam out tunes as often, nor the energy, to wait until a chaos forms into a a perfect crystalization - which is what they used to have to do when they were less experienced - and so much of the writing is now done outside of the recording. In fact, Bono went so far as to say that ATYCLB was the first U2 album where they wrote all the music and words for the songs before recording them....instead of relying on the ebb and flow to enter into the recording process.
But I agree with you that U2 now know where they are going, or even how to get to where they want to end up. As Bono put it, never has the sound in their heads been closer to what comes out of the amplifier than it is now. This shows they are more precise musicians now, better technical players and songwriters. Now, they understand how the music works. But the real magic always happens outside of the technicalities, beyond the understanding. There are times when they can still get lost in it. Songs like 'Stateless', for example. Evocative. Ethereal, out of reach. Sublime. Pop melodies can come this way, too. So it isn't limited to the uncommercial. Take 'Mysterious Ways' or 'Pride'. It's simply the way it arrives.
Last edited:
u2fan628
The Fly
The most "raw"song that I've seen them play was EXIT. That song had so much emotion.They put everything they had into it!
Go easy it's my 2nd post!
Go easy it's my 2nd post!
Achtung_Bebe
New Yorker
u2fan628 said:
no need to walk on eggshells--nobody will refute your opinion solely based on your newbie status (I don't think so anyway)
interesting-- I guess I missed/have forgotten that write up. I am now tempted to ship them each a lifetime supply of vitamins, for increased energy.
This 'raw' sound that everyone talks about has nothing to do with their skills as musicians.
As compared to say the presentation of songs on JT, the last two albums ARE relatively over produced. No doubt about that. The songs are more polished and there is just generally a lot going on in them.
Pop also had a lot of production, but it only enhanced the songs.
(Most of them anyway)
The problem with the current songs is that there is unnecessary production.
Take for example Yahweh and Original of the Species.
The live (read :stripped down) versions on the Chicago DVD were infinitely superior to the album versions.
They didn't have any of the 'layers' of instruments which are present on the album and that only added to the emotions conveyed through the songs.
The question is why did the band think that we needed those 'layers' to enjoy the songs on the album?
As compared to say the presentation of songs on JT, the last two albums ARE relatively over produced. No doubt about that. The songs are more polished and there is just generally a lot going on in them.
Pop also had a lot of production, but it only enhanced the songs.
(Most of them anyway)
The problem with the current songs is that there is unnecessary production.
Take for example Yahweh and Original of the Species.
The live (read :stripped down) versions on the Chicago DVD were infinitely superior to the album versions.
They didn't have any of the 'layers' of instruments which are present on the album and that only added to the emotions conveyed through the songs.
The question is why did the band think that we needed those 'layers' to enjoy the songs on the album?
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Interesting discussion...
Metalcap, yes, if it's simply the sound we are talking about, then it can boil down to production, but when we talk about raw in the U2 sense of the word, I think many are talking about the energy and the feel of the song as well.
As far as the production of Atomic Bomb goes, I agree with you. The songs are so stripped down, that a big production can blanket them, cover them up too much. However, some songs demand a layered production to take it out into the ether, no matter how bare boned. Take 'With or Without You', for example. Listen to that on headphones, and lose yourself in all the layers. Not overproduced at all, yet it could have been an acoustic arrangement.
Interesting stuff....
Metalcap, yes, if it's simply the sound we are talking about, then it can boil down to production, but when we talk about raw in the U2 sense of the word, I think many are talking about the energy and the feel of the song as well.
As far as the production of Atomic Bomb goes, I agree with you. The songs are so stripped down, that a big production can blanket them, cover them up too much. However, some songs demand a layered production to take it out into the ether, no matter how bare boned. Take 'With or Without You', for example. Listen to that on headphones, and lose yourself in all the layers. Not overproduced at all, yet it could have been an acoustic arrangement.
Interesting stuff....
I agree that production, when done correctly, can totally take a song to the next level. Excellent example with WOWY. Every layer is just so well structured and perfectly done.
Even the other songs on JT, there's the perfect blend of the rawness of the band and the production.
But after hearing the stripped down versions of OOTS and Yahweh, I can't help but think that the production on HTDAAB really 'tamed' those songs.
And not just those two, the whole album. The songs are all good..the song writting and melodies are excellent...but I think with the proper production, this album could've been something else.
I think it's time U2 got a new mixing team...
Even the other songs on JT, there's the perfect blend of the rawness of the band and the production.
But after hearing the stripped down versions of OOTS and Yahweh, I can't help but think that the production on HTDAAB really 'tamed' those songs.
And not just those two, the whole album. The songs are all good..the song writting and melodies are excellent...but I think with the proper production, this album could've been something else.
I think it's time U2 got a new mixing team...
logansan33
Babyface
WOW! i didnt think this post would get this much "feedback" lol
i was just simply saying that their sound live is much more stripped down to its "raw" form. being JUST vox,guitar,drums,and bass. please dont get me wrong when the EDGE layers on guitars to create that wall of sound ,that is the most beautiful thing in the world. its just that sometimes on the album too much layers(guitars included) can "muddy" up the song.
i was just simply saying that their sound live is much more stripped down to its "raw" form. being JUST vox,guitar,drums,and bass. please dont get me wrong when the EDGE layers on guitars to create that wall of sound ,that is the most beautiful thing in the world. its just that sometimes on the album too much layers(guitars included) can "muddy" up the song.
Michael Griffiths
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Yes, that makes sense..... But when we look at an album such as Achtung Baby, it is probably their most "muddy" album to date. A song like 'Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses' has layer upon layer infused with all kinds of mud. But it's gorgeous mud. Sometimes an album with a groove needs some mud. And it came across nice and dirty live without relying on heavy chords or anything. An album such as 'Atomic Bomb' doesn't need all this mud, however, since it is much more stripped in form and style. It's not so much an album with a "groove" that demands to have a mud dance. Once again, we need to ask the simple question - Does it fit?logansan33 said:
I think Atomic Bomb would have been better with a more stripped production, with a sound closer to how they perform the songs live. Just look what the Beatles did with their last album, Let it Be. They reproduced it without all the heavy production. Anyone listened to the new version? I haven't heard it yet, but it would be interesting I'm sure.
Last edited:
