Did Lanois Ruin NLOTH A Little?

[Batfink27]

Listening to the songs live theres a real power and heaviness about them.On the album they sound too over produced and light.A perfect example of this is the song NLOTH. I think they would have been amazing with a dirtier heavier sound.

 

[SethVincent]

Listening to the songs live theres a real power and heaviness about them.On the album they sound too over produced and light.A perfect example of this is the song NLOTH. I think they would have been amazing with a dirtier heavier sound.

I U2 LIVE so in the context of is LIVE better than Studio I would have to agree

Still I would take NLOTH the whole CD over anyone else out there

Also I thought the exact same thing AFTER listening to Barcelona One that the song NLOTH for me anyway was much better LIVE

Let me add MOS better LIVE

Damn LOL all the songs are better LIVE !!!!!! (see first sentence)

 

[LemonMelon]

Nah, U2 doesn't do heavy and dirty. Achtung Baby was the closest they've ever come, and that sound would not suit the lyrics provided for NLOTH. Not on record anyway. Live, it's just a consequence of the situation. I think NLOTH is very well produced.

 

[dan_smee]

NLOTH the song live is mega on the cd. Would not in a million years describe it as light. It is very heavy, and the distortion is

If you think Lanois ruined NLOTH, go into a dark room, get some amazing speakers or headphones, turn MOS up as loud as possible and close your eyes

 

[Moser]

NLOTH the song live is mega on the cd. Would not in a million years describe it as light. It is very heavy, and the distortion is

If you think Lanois ruined NLOTH, go into a dark room, get some amazing speakers or headphones, turn MOS up as loud as possible and close your eyes

Yes.

 

[Niceman]

I think NLOTH is brilliant. But I would like a dirtier sound for the band.

 

[Moser]

Did Lanois Ruin NLOTH A Little?

Ruin a little bit. Now that I think of it, can that statement be considered an oxymoron?

 

[digitize]

Sorry, but no. What Brian and Danny did on songs like NLOTH, Magnificent, MOS, UC, F-BB, WAS, Cedars, and even Boots is pretty mind-blowing.

 

[powerhour24]

NLOTH the song live is mega on the cd. Would not in a million years describe it as light. It is very heavy, and the distortion is

If you think Lanois ruined NLOTH, go into a dark room, get some amazing speakers or headphones, turn MOS up as loud as possible and close your eyes

 

[BVS]

Listening to the songs live theres a real power and heaviness about them.On the album they sound too over produced and light.A perfect example of this is the song NLOTH. I think they would have been amazing with a dirtier heavier sound.

I'm curious as to why you think Lanois was the culprit in holding back this "dirtier heavier sound"? Why not Eno?

 

[U2DMfan]

Outside of the 'Loudness War problem', (relatively speaking) it sounds pretty good to me.

In that it doesn't sound like the audio was massacred (see: previous 3 albums) beyond the mastering.

I haven't been playing 'audiophile' much lately...just trying to enjoy the music.
Although I listen to headphones 90% of the time.
But generally I think it sounds alright.

Could the guitar have been more raw or heavy on NLOTH (title track)?
Maybe, but I don't really see it lacking. The guitar (lead riff) on Boots sounds really good, IMO. Again, this is all relative to how they compress the ass out of everything...

 

[dan_smee]

True, the loudness war is a tedious one.

I am an advocate of dynamic range, but I also appreciate that there are very few albums or songs these days mixed properly with regards to dynamic range. If U2 are to compete in the world of the 'fast-food, instant gratification' generation, they have to confirm to current industry standards, however disappointing it is

 

[U2girl]

No, but I wish he'd lay off the "innovative" hype before the album came out.

 

[onyourkneesboy]

Nah, U2 doesn't do heavy and dirty. Achtung Baby was the closest they've ever come, and that sound would not suit the lyrics provided for NLOTH. Not on record anyway. Live, it's just a consequence of the situation. I think NLOTH is very well produced.

See my thread "The official: BRING BACK FLOOD thread" with this content:

Maybe it's too late for Songs Of Ascent, but for the next album I think they really should bring back Flood.

I think Eno is great and there's enough proof of that, but where as Eno can push U2 out of their comfortzone, on NLOTH he pulled them too much IN HIS comfortzone, I think...
Sure NLOTH is a great album with lot's of great songs on it but it lacks some kind of "unsuspected dirtyness" in which Flood is a master.
When you listen to an album like for example Songs Of Faith And Devotion by Depeche Mode one must really admit how great he was here in making a "mostly electronic band" sound dark, atmospheric, sweaty, heavy, etc..

NLOTH has great layered songs, very slick & tied produced (apart from the clipping in for example IGCIIDGCT) but it just doesn't like sweat, a cracked fingernail, sleepless nights, a slap in the face from someone or somewhere you didn't expect... I mean: Achtung Baby had that! Can you remember the first time you heard The Fly? Or Acrobat, Zoo Station, UTEOTW, the distorted wah-wah intro of Mysterious Ways ? The sound of a Nina Simone-like song performed in an abandoned cathedral in space in Love Is Blindness? And how fantastic is Edge's heavy, swaying almost weeping solo here...

Then there's Zooropa: ??? Numb, Lemon, Crashed Car, The Wanderer, Zooropa (the song)! Again, U2 NOT sounding like classic U2 and sounding completely reinvented mostly because Flood was at the buttons...

And like the album or not: POP was again a great achievement by giving the classic U2 sound a great kickin'! Discotheque, MOFO, etc..

My point is: Flood is a master in creating fantastic new atmospheres in songs because he's a sound master! He can create sounds that really can make a band sound heavy.. and new! Enough examples of that.. I think when Flood would have been on board on NLOTH, and they let him have the same freedom and impact as they did on AB, Zooropa and POP, then this album would have suprised us even more... Whether you like it or not: Edge still sounds like "classic Edge" on 99% of the songs. Also I miss the experimentation they did on Larry, Adam and even on Bono's voice on the other more "daring and bold" albums...

I'm not talking about the intro's on NLOTH, but the songs as a whole. And in that case there's just too little:?what-the-hell? is this U2? Like we had in the 90's... And let's be honest: technically there's enough to play with nowadays. So much new invented stuff and gear to play with in the studio for producers and the band... just get Flood on board again and fuck-up the "classic U2 sound" again. Mostly kicking Edge out of his comfort zone! U2 sounding muddy, dirty, and experimental again!

 

[PookaMacP]

Well, Lanois:

1 Wrote the chorus melody for Moment of Surrender
2 Had a big hand in shaping Cedars of Lebanon
3 Came up with the intro to FEZ
4 Sings like a bird himself
5 Didn't co-write Crazy, Boots, SUC or Breathe

So, my answer would have to be no. In any case, it's very hard for us to know without hearing the original patterns. The music was born and evolved with Eno and Lanois so it's very hard to think of the counterfactual, somebody else produced it.

Lanois doesn't get enough credit: when things go right, Eno (though he is brilliant) gets it in spades, when things go wrong, Lanois seems to get it in the neck.

 

[Galeongirl]

Uh.. No.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

No, nothing was ruined in the making of NLOTH. Thank you, come again.

 

[last unicorn]

I think Lanois is one of the best "things" that could happen to U2.

I love both versions of NLOTH. One great thing about their live performances and this tour in particular is that they can make great live versions of the new songs by developing them even further. I don't know if the "dirty" sounding NLOTH would actually work on the album. The version they went for fits general atmosphere of the album very well.

 

[kpod]

More likely that he saved it.

 

[An Cat Gav]

In answer to the title of the thread: Yes, if you swap the name Lanois for Lillywhite.

 

[alanah]

If you think Lanois ruined NLOTH, go into a dark room, get some amazing speakers or headphones, turn MOS up as loud as possible and close your eyes

 

[nielsgov]

In answer to the title of the thread: Yes, if you swap the name Lanois for Lillywhite.

Yeah Lillywhite ruined NLOTH with the middle three songs. I don't hate them but they remind too much of HTDAAB and that's not a very good sign. Although I think Boots really rocks

 

[donkeytimes]

Here is the deal with Danny in my opinion. Danny doesn't appear to look down on the boys (I'm not saying Eno does.) What I mean is, Lanois seems to really relish the odd nature of the group dynamic, the limitations of Larry's playing - Adam's playing, etc. He will use it as a strength.

Eno has the same belief's - but I think it has the potential to be colder is spots and a more moody relationship, whereas Danny seems warmer. I feel this in their production style as well. Lanois is very warm, gritty, but beautiful. Eno meanwhile is cooler, slick surfaces, obtuse. Together it can be magic. When they produce separately they are very different.

If it were up to Lanois (and Eno) Stand Up and Crazy wouldn't be on this record. These songs are just not what they are about. Stand up is bad white funk, and Crazy is just vanilla with no bite - and they disrupt the album feel.

If we consider the snippets of "kingdom" etc, we know other more suitable material WAS around if chosen - this material is prob. what Lanois/Eno were also very excited about - but alas it will have to wait for the "Songs of Ascent" or the later night album we have been promised by U2.

We shall see - if U2 would just buy in and do a real album from start to end, cohesive and stop thinking about the Vertigo's just for the sake of art (I am not saying eliminate the radio songs forever and always,) then I think us die-hards would finally be satisfied.

 

[monsieur fly]

I don't mind the album and live versions sounding a little different because their roles are different. As Brian May once said, you can get quite airy-fairy on a record, but not so in a massive stadium. I like the fact that these live renditions are sounding a little different because U2 have been criticised for playing to track too much. Therefore, I would hesitate about criticising Lanois. People seem to forget what a big improvement NLOTH is on HTDAAB, as far as production goes.

 

[adamswildhoney]

No, but I wish he'd lay off the "innovative" hype before the album came out.

Ditto!

 

[powerhour24]

^Well it sounds like a lot of the experimental stuff got clipped, hopefully to coalesce into SOA, NLOTH is kind of a hybrid of new sounds and hooky U2 that will sell which I think they reverted to during the delay from October to March in order to avoid falling on their faces after 5 years... hopefully they'll be braver with SOA.

Not that I don't love NLOTH, but I agree that a lot of what we read about sounded more new and different compared with what we got in the end.

 

[monsieur fly]

I would have liked Flood to have produced SUC because it had potential. The problem is that it was white boy funk done HTDAAB style which means it didn't sound remotely funky. It needed loops, decks, lots of exotic distortion on the vocals and guitar- then it might have worked better.

 

[purpleoscar]

I like being able to easily hear the instruments without too much distortion. The album sounds great and so is Lanois.

 

[dan_smee]

I suppose this question depends on your perspective too. Some people prefer HTDAAB style U2, which Lanois definately worked against

 

[monsieur fly]

I suppose this question depends on your perspective too. Some people prefer HTDAAB style U2, which Lanois definately worked against

Thank god!