Why are U2 re-releasing 'The Joshue Tree'?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Whitty

Babyface
Joined
Mar 30, 2001
Messages
29
Location
UK
I have to admit to being a little puzzled why U2 are re-releasing The Joshua Tree. OK, I realise that, commercially, it's one of their greatest albums in terms of sales, and was a defining album in their career.

Edge has always said that he believes their best music is ahead of them. Does this mean that he believes each album is better than the last? So instead of looking to the future, why re-release an album from the past?

What also puzzles me is why they're re-releasing the album just before Christmas, when the actual 20th anniversary was in February/March 2007. Are they trying to cash in on Christmas sales?

I absolutely love U2, and have been a fan ever since they released the original album back in 1987, but I'm just intrigued by their latest (re)release.
 
Whitty said:
I have to admit to being a little puzzled why U2 are re-releasing The Joshua Tree. OK, I realise that, commercially, it's one of their greatest albums in terms of sales, and was a defining album in their career.

Edge has always said that he believes their best music is ahead of them. Does this mean that he believes each album is better than the last? So instead of looking to the future, why re-release an album from the past?

What also puzzles me is why they're re-releasing the album just before Christmas, when the actual 20th anniversary was in February/March 2007. Are they trying to cash in on Christmas sales?

I absolutely love U2, and have been a fan ever since they released the original album back in 1987, but I'm just intrigued by their latest (re)release.

U2 have often stated they're a business as well as a family as well as a band. And big business is done around Christmas; thus the probable reason for the Christmas relese rather than last spring.

As to the rest of your post, you're not making the 'either-or' argument are you? That "instead of re-releasing the Joshua Tree they should be working on the new album" notion? If you are, well that's rediculous. If you're not, then why worry about whether they release it or not if it doesn't interest you?
 
Remastered, remastered, remastered. Fixing the end of One Tree Hill/beginning of Exit. Remastered. B-sides. B-sides no one has ever heard before. Red Hill Mining Town Video. Live Paris show on DVD. Remastered. Remastered.

There are probably a few more good reasons that I'm missing.
 
But seriously, if these things don't appeal to you/justify a re-release...well, I...I'm speechless.
 
Whitty said:
So instead of looking to the future, why re-release an album from the past?

Just because U2 is re-releasing a drastically improved Joshua Tree doesn't mean they aren't looking to the future. They can certainly do both. It won't have any effect on the progress of the new album.
 
It will make the perfect stocking stuffer :wink:


JT (like many other U2 records) will benefit greatly from a re-master.
 
Re: Re: Why are U2 re-releasing 'The Joshue Tree'?

Snowlock said:


U2 have often stated they're a business as well as a family as well as a band. And big business is done around Christmas; thus the probable reason for the Christmas relese rather than last spring.

As to the rest of your post, you're not making the 'either-or' argument are you? That "instead of re-releasing the Joshua Tree they should be working on the new album" notion? If you are, well that's rediculous. If you're not, then why worry about whether they release it or not if it doesn't interest you?

Thanks for saving me the trouble of posting.
 
The One Tree Hill/Exit error already has been fixed. At least my copy is working properly.
 
To piss off the 9 people who wouldn't want to hear a remastered classic in all its glory piping through a nice set of cans. If you're one of the 9, that's great-----that means we only have 3 or 4 more to hear from. :D
 
wait i'm really confused can someone please clarify....if they are remastering it, how do they already have it? are they re recording a JT? umm, yeah i'm really confused sorry hahaha
 
Rob33 said:
wait i'm really confused can someone please clarify....if they are remastering it, how do they already have it? are they re recording a JT? umm, yeah i'm really confused sorry hahaha

You just confused me.
 
I think it comes down to two things:

1. Remastering (I'm not an audiophile, but those who are say the sound quality on the original CD is pretty crappy.)

2. $
 
the sound quality of the original cd was pretty crappy. the vinyl version sounded better..

i can't wait to hear the new 180gram vinyls.
 
lol, david...sorry haha ok i think i got it now...so they are just releasing another Joshua Tree with better sound quality and remastered songs?

but i still don't understand how the songs are remastered...
 
Remaster (and its derivations, frequently found in the phrases digitally remastered or digital remastering) is a word and concept that became most popular in the digital audio age, although the "mastering" process has existed since recording began. The measure of its success depends on only three things: 1. The skill and experience of the Mastering Engineer. 2. To a lesser extent, the tools used to do the job. 3. The quality of the original source material. Frequently trumpeted with regard to CD and DVD releases, remastering has become a powerful buzzword in multimedia industries, and it generally implies some sort of enhancement of sound and/or picture to a previous, existing product (frequently designed to encourage people to buy a new version of something they already own). For example, the reissue boom that began in the mid-nineties saw remastered versions of the back-catalogues of The Who, The Byrds and others, while remastered editions of first-generation DVD releases are similarly bestsellers. Despite its status as an industry buzzword, however, remastering actually refers to a fairly distinct process, one that does not inherently include the notion of a positive upgrade.

Remastering is, at its core, the process of creating a new master for an album, movie, or any other creation. It tends to nowadays specifically refer to the process of porting a creation from one medium to another, but this is not always the case. For example, a vinyl LP originally pressed from a worn-out copy tape many tape generations removed from the "original" master recording could be remastered and re-pressed from a better condition tape.

Here buzz-speak and practical application collide. In actuality, all CDs created from analogue sources are technically digitally remastered. The process of creating a digital transfer of an analogue tape re-masters the material in the digital domain, even if nothing "special"--no equalization, compression, or other processing--is done to the material.

Ideally, because of their high resolution, a CD or DVD (or other) release should come from the best source possible, with the most care taken during its transfer. This does not always happen. The earliest days of the CD era found record companies using whatever tapes they had lying around to create their CDs, with frequently underwhelming results. An nth-generation tape equalized for vinyl frequency response might be deemed perfectly acceptable by a record company, and (importantly) might be much easier to locate than the "original" source master. Additionally, the earliest days of the CD era found digital technology in its infancy, which also aided often poor sounding digital transfers marked by dropouts, underutilization of Signal-To-Noise Ratio, etc. The earliest days of the DVD era were hardly any different, with early DVD copies of movies frequently being produced from worn prints, with low bitrates and muffled audio. When the first CD remasters turned out to bestsellers--see, for example, the box set boom--companies soon realized that new editions of bare-bones back catalogue items could compete with new releases as a source of revenue. Back catalogue values skyrocketed, and today it is not unusual to see expanded and remastered editions of fairly modern albums (e.g. "New Miserable Experience" by the Gin Blossoms).

Theoretically, digital remastering should solve some of these problems. Original master tapes, or something close to them, can be used to make CD releases. Better processing choices can be used. Better prints can be utilized, with sound elements remixed to 5.1 and obvious print flaws digitally corrected. The modern era gives content providers almost unlimited ways to touch up, doctor, and "improve" their creations and products, and as each release promises improved sound, video, extras and others, producers hope these upgrades will entice consumers into making a purchase.

While digitally remastering films or audio does generally improve their visual and/or sound quality, it is not always appreciated by everyone. Some argue that remastering something from the early 1980s, for instance, is better than a mastering of a recorded medium from the early 1990s. These people may also argue that the remixing of elements of an original recording may hinder the remastered one. A couple of the reasons for remastering engineers to remix elements of a recording include a first-time stereo mix of a particular song where previous releases were only in mono and/or fake stereo (a.k.a. "electronic rechanneling" or simply "rechanneling"), and another being the fact that the original mixdown tape having been damaged and discarded after heavy use. In particular, modern-day heavy use of processes like dynamic range compression and noise reduction may have actually sparked disappointment in the eyes of many fans against many current remixes like The Who's Live at Leeds Deluxe. Those opposed also argue that unless the original recording has been seen, they may also be unaware whether or not there has been considerable update.

Also many remastered CDs from the late 1990s onwards have become casualties of the loudness war, where the average volume of the recording is pushed ever higher at the expense of dynamic range.

-en.wikipedia.org
 
they just really should remaster all the older albums - mostly they sound like shit. Best example what you can do with old material - ist "Beatles - Love" from 2006. Unbelievable great sound.

Also what could be great? a CD like Simply Red and some other act made. To record the hole album new. Whoud be interesting to hear the complete "Boy" album played in 2007.
 
Last edited:
perrypickwick said:
Also what could be great? a CD like Simply Red and some other act made. To record the hole album new. Whoud be interesting to hear the complete "Boy" album played in 2007.

Couldn't agree less: Every U2 album stand for a certain time, a certain period in the past – reflecting the band's mood & style back then. Until now all attempts – apart from live re-arrangements – to re-record older material in the studio has led to inferior efforts:
Take OCTOBER's tune "Tomorrow", that changed from an intense, dramtic built up masterpiece to kind of hip hop, pseudo-soul song in his re-recorded version, sung worse and pointless.
Take all – yes, all – tryings to "improve" songs from POP on the GREATEST HITS. They are a only a shadow of what these beautiful tracks used to be ...

In other words: It does take long for U2 to work in studios and to get the results, they (and us) do hope for – but when you decide to do do, please look for new ideas, new material, new horizons. That, and only that has always been worth the wait ...
 
ok, I don't know technical terms at all so I apologize if you guys have already said this but here it is for the regular folks.

The whole freakin' cd goes from deathly quiet to normal volume. Unless I'm constantly adjusting the volume it's nearly impossible to listen to the last few songs:mad:

that's all
 
Thanks for your replies guys - interesting replies too!

Just to clear one thing up, no, I'm not using the 'either-or' argument. I don't believe that the re-release of the Joshue Tree will impact on the release of the new album, whenever that will be.

I don't think I made myself very clear in my first post, so sorry for any confusion. The point I was trying to make was that if Edge feels that their best music is ahead of them, why would they re-release an album that perhaps they feel isn't their best work?

I can only liken this to something that happened a few years ago, during the Elevation tour. On the Boston DVD, at the end of 'Gone', Edge literally threw his guitar on the ground and kicked it, later saying that the band had 'murdered' the song. Interestingly, the Australian CD single 'Walk On' included this track, so I found myself asking why the band included a track on a CD that they had 'murdered', bearing in mind they have very high standards. It didn't quite make sense to me, but then I am a very logical person! Perhaps an extreme example, but I hope this makes sense....

There seems to be two arguments for re-releasing The Joshua Tree, and they are re-mastering, and money.

I appreciate that remastering produces a better quality of sound. It's interesting then, that, not one, but four different formats are being produced, including a double vinyl album.... And on the remastering front, it would be nice to see the rest of the albums re-released in this way.

And as for the money - I can't blame them for wanting to make lots of it - who wouldn't?! And yes, they are a business as well as a band and friends. I hope that people don't start critisising them for cashing in on Christmas sales, bearing in mind that the 20th anniversary of The Joshua Tree was over 6 months ago. People may ask that they're better than that?

Anyway, I'm sure everyone has their own opinion, and as a forum, it's important to respect each others' views. So that's it, from me. For now.
 
Personally, the idea of a new live DVD, a disc of B-sides and rarities from the Joshua Tree, and a deluxe package is interresting, even exciting to me!

Isn't it possible for a band to both look forwards and backwards?

It's kind of like the new live versions of old songs that U2 started playing on the old tour; Electric Co., Miss Sarajevo, Kite, etc. They looked backwards and found something new.
 
david said:
Also many remastered CDs from the late 1990s onwards have become casualties of the loudness war, where the average volume of the recording is pushed ever higher at the expense of dynamic range.

-en.wikipedia.org

This is what I'm afraid of. HTDAAB was mixed way too "hot" IMO, and it will be a shame if the new JT is the same. That's actually my only worry about the JT re-release...otherwise, I can't wait to hear it.
 
Back
Top Bottom