go back to "raw sound"!!!!!!!

[logansan33]

hello everybody!!! this is only my second post so be good to me!! i've been a fan of the boys since 1980 and they are one of my main influences as a musician. my question is this.....does anyone else think their sound is a bit "over produced". their sound on the first 2 maybe the 3rd(war) albums is really just raw guitar sound. i am impressed with their live "vertigo" dvd because its just the four of them playing and you can hear each of them distinctly. just my opinion though. what do you guys think????

 

[Miricale_Drug]

i agree - it even carries on with UF. Can you imagine them allowing ASOH with its vocal line (Which does sound a bit scream-ish at times) being on a record now.. or bad with its similar qualities?

I think no - and we're worsee off 4 it

 

[Irishteen]

I would love to see a return to the early 80's style, their first three albums are just so great, I would love to see the band make a quick, raw sounding album

 

[cjboog]

I don't think it was really all that great sounding in War and October, but I think an updated Boy style album would be great! I was listening to A Day Without Me and Electric Co. in the car yesterday thinking how great the album would sound if it was rerecorded or something. Anyway, I really love the rawness of Boy and would love to hear that same kind of rawness on a later album. That being said though, I wouldn't mind the exact opposite either.

 

[thelaj]

I actually think HTDAAB has godawful production. Listen to X&Y for a well produced album. It sings through a good sound system. Bomb on the other hand sounds muddy and flat.

 

[annie_vox]

I would love to see a return to the early 80's style, their first three albums are just so great, I would love to see the band make a quick, raw sounding album

I agree that they were great... But I don't want them to go back! I want them to move forward and produce a new sound. If they go back I guess that means that they can't do anything new again... and you all know what thet means

 

[logansan33]

dont get me wromg i think all their albums are great......all except "discowhatever" lol. i just think with 25 years behind them and the EDGE starting to solo a bit ( i mean actually bending notes and such) that they could create a well done raw guitar,bass,drums and vox album!! that could really sound different than the previous 3 or 4. its not going back, its just applying 30 years of experience!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[zoopop]

Maybe by them playing the old "Boy" songs on the Vertigo tour ;Electric Co., A Cat Dubh, Into the Heart, Gloria ( I know) they will get back to that raw/punk sound. "Vertigo" flirts with that notion a bit.

 

[BVS]

When did U2 ever make a "raw" album?

 

[GibsonGirl]

When did U2 ever make a "raw" album?

Bingo!

 

[Chizip]

When did U2 ever make a "raw" album?

Havent you watched wrestling? Raw is War.

Hence, U2's raw album is War.

 

[Bono's shades]

I think people are using "raw" in a relative sense. U2 have never sounded as raw as some other bands, but compared to the slickness of the production of the last two albums, their first three albums almost sound like punk rock.

 

[BVS]

I think people are using "raw" in a relative sense.

Perhaps, but it still seems uninformed to ever label a U2 album as being raw...

 

[LMP]

what is "raw"?

little to no production?

banging on trashcans like the white stripes?

i think X&Y isn't produced that well, it sounds too soulless and spacey, in response to whichever poster mentioned that.

 

[CMIS]

I would really love to hear Edge just letting go, flying off the handle. He is such a great guitarist, I know he is not a virtuoso in the vein of Hammett or Mustaine, but I think his composition is supreme. I think he is the one member of U2 who will probably keep getting better till the day they call it a day (oh man, is that gonna be sad)

 

[BVS]

I know he is not a virtuoso in the vein of Hammett or Mustaine,

As in Kirk Hammett? You've got to be kidding? Him and virtoso don't belong in the same sentense.

I use to have a guitar teacher who would teach a solo or a scale and then say "this is how Hammett would fuck it up."

 

[gherman]

I think he is the one member of U2 who will probably keep getting better till the day they call it a day (oh man, is that gonna be sad)

I think some people here should think about this statement a little more.

 

[doctorwho]

I think people are using "raw" in a relative sense. U2 have never sounded as raw as some other bands, but compared to the slickness of the production of the last two albums, their first three albums almost sound like punk rock.

See, I don't think the last two albums are as nearly as over-produced as many claim. Or if they are, then UF, JT, AB, "Zooropa" and "Pop" were equally over-produced.

Listen to the CD single version of "Pride". There's an extra verse of the chorus in there - however, in that verse, Bono's vocals weren't touched. As a result, he sounds, well, raw and scratchy. But the rest of the song has him "cleaned up". This is clearly the effects of production. All of U2's albums from UF on are this way, and I'd argue that this is there even in the first 3 albums.

So if by "raw" one means not over-produced, then I doubt this will happen. Over-production, sometimes to the point of ruining a song, happens a lot on U2's albums. It's their nature, for better or worse. But if you mean "raw" in terms of energy... well, it's impossible to have 45-year old men become like 19-year olds again. But I find U2 just as invigorating now on some songs. I could do with a few less of their ballads (not a big fan of some of them, even on AB).

 

[clifedge]

I actually think HTDAAB has godawful production. Listen to X&Y for a well produced album. It sings through a good sound system. Bomb on the other hand sounds muddy and flat.

You have got to be kidding me. Coldplay would be no good without overproduction. X&Y is their worst to date. Not that I don't listen to it. But it sure as heck isn't any better than Bomb.

 

[cypress]

U2's last several albums have been very well-produced but not over-produced. They have been produced to deliver the sound the band wants the consumer to hear, period. That is NOT "over-production".

In their early days, the albums sounded more raw for a couple of reasons: one, the band was itself less polished than they are now.. WAY less polished.. and, two, they did not have the $ to pay for top-notch production. If anything what you are hearing today is closer to the exact sound U2 wants you to hear than it was in the past.

It would be interesting to hear what some of those early albums would sound like if U2 were to re-record them today with all of the resources available to them today and all they have learned over the last 30 years.

 

[Zoomerang96]

u2 has said said they were going after raw sounds for two albums already, and look at the trash they came out with.

raw is supremely over-rated anyway. edge should throw his guitars away and play keyboards/piano for a spell.

it might be interesting enough to make bono's lyrics seem less painful.

 

[angelordevil]

I would really love to hear Edge just letting go, flying off the handle. He is such a great guitarist, I know he is not a virtuoso in the vein of Hammett or Mustaine, but I think his composition is supreme. I think he is the one member of U2 who will probably keep getting better till the day they call it a day (oh man, is that gonna be sad)

I wish I had photoshop abilities...

"Raw" is not really a word I associate with U2. I'd love for them to get back to "weird."

 

[Achtung_Bebe]

I ran across this Adam quote that I think applies to this discussion. It's from Bass Player Novemeber 11, 2000:

BP: How important is your three-piece lineup to this free-form approach?

AC: Three pieces can be limiting, but there's something to be said for learning your chops as a three-piece. If you can hang together that way, it becomes easy to know if the instruments and people you're adding on top are right or not. I'm grateful this was never a band with a keyboard player and another guitar player, because then what chops would I have ever needed?

Still, we've almost always augmented our records with keyboards and other things. We got a lot of attention with the Pop record, since we'd all become very interested in club music and computer-generated loops. But those were things we'd been using pretty much from Unforgettable Fire onward. Lots of bands in the late '90s were saying, "We use the studio as an instrument" -- but we were doing that with Brian Eno as early as 1984. It's not that we don't like what U2 does naturally; it's just that we sometimes want to stretch what U2 can be, and where it can go.

The fact that U2 is such an amazing live band may support the notion of wanting a more "raw" sounding album--they sound amazing and make an impact without hiding behind much production. Because U2 does shine live, it's logical to say that U2 possesses a raw energy. Ofcourse there's going to be more production on an album recording than a live performance, but if gone to the extreme the music may end up sounding distant and lifeless. I think this is because you wind up losing a certain human quality. Bono kept saying that they're producing the sound of four guys playing in a room--I guess this makes sense when you consider the fact that little more than guitars, bass and drums are used by the band. There were more bells and whistles on Pop than on ATYCLB for example. Although, I may be confusing the concepts of being "stripped down" and being "processed" here. btw I think that "raw" is being used in a relative sense for the purpose of this discussion, as someone mentioned earlier--hense the use of quotation marks.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

I think the author of this thread is looking for U2 to sound a little less glossy and produced, but I think at this stage of their career that they can't throttle it back that much. I mean they're never going to sound like they did between Boy and UF.

We have the U2 we have now because of those early albums. Sounding "raw" is just not in the cards anymore. And if you think that hearing Kirk Hammet called a virtuoso is funny, what about calling Mustaine a virtuoso!! And I love 80's Metal too!!

 

[AtomicBono]

dont get me wromg i think all their albums are great......all except "discowhatever" lol. i just think with 25 years behind them and the EDGE starting to solo a bit ( i mean actually bending notes and such) that they could create a well done raw guitar,bass,drums and vox album!! that could really sound different than the previous 3 or 4. its not going back, its just applying 30 years of experience!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OKAY YEAH XTREME WOOO!!!!!!!! DISCOWHATEVER SOLO PULLOFF BEND NOTES!!!!!!!! WATCH OUT OR THE EDGE WILL CUT YOU!!!!!

yeah, less production would be nice. Or just different production. Pop has tons of production work but I think it sounds brilliant. The last two albums, especially HTDAAB, sound far too bright and they have too many unnecessary sounds. with Pop all the added sounds fit the overall dark, layered feel of the album, but with ATYCLB and HTDAAB being "song oriented" and "stripped down," there's still too much going on.

 

[U2girl]

See, I don't think the last two albums are as nearly as over-produced as many claim. Or if they are, then UF, JT, AB, "Zooropa" and "Pop" were equally over-produced.

If we're talking over-produced U2 albums, Pop is the first one against the wall.

U2 has always been using studio as an additional instrument, so if you think they will make an album consisting just of bass, drums, guitar and vocals, good luck with that.

 

[Poco]

I also would like to see U2 return to that older more raw sound!
I still love the later albums, but if i am honest i do miss the original less produced sound!
Having said that "Angel Of Harlem" is my all time favourite U2 song

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

As in Kirk Hammett? You've got to be kidding? Him and virtoso don't belong in the same sentense.

I use to have a guitar teacher who would teach a solo or a scale and then say "this is how Hammett would fuck it up."

Kirk has been using way too much wah and it just distorts all of his playing. It all sounds the same.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

I remember Bono once remarking that Achtung Baby was far more "processed" than Pop ever was. And not too many complain about Achtung Baby being overproduced.....so it seems as though we are talking about two different types of production. I would agree with Bono about Pop. It isn't as processed as Achtung Baby. Pop actually sounds much more "raw" in fact. Yet there are many, many loops and samples interlaid. Just goes to show that overproduction can't necessarily be quanitified with technicalities. We just need to ask the question - does it fit or not? Achtung Baby sounds great with all the processing and, as some would say, "overproduction". Yet Achtung Baby isn't raw in a production sense whatsoever. It's the music, such as 'The Fly', that comes across as "raw".

This brings us back to Atomic Bomb.... It's not that it's necessarily overproduced. There's a lot less going on than Achtung Baby and maybe even Pop. The songs are stripped down. Therefore any kind of production sounds big around these stripped down songs. In that regard, perhaps U2 should have went with an extra stripped down production? Especially when you compare the live to the studio versions...

 

[JMScoopy]

I'd love to see them re-do the street mission and the fool demos from 78, so we'd have decent recordings of them.