Is NLOTH2 recorded live in the studio?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Yeah, it sounds more like a whole-band performance than most of their stuff.
 
Bonos vocals sounds very live, no mixed at all. It sounds like they just recorded it in one take and then not mixing it at all :)


What does live in the studio mean?

I think you are confusing some terms here. Unless it's all recorded on the same track(which it's not) there has to be mixing.
 
I think he means that it doesn't sound as pieced-together as many U2 tracks. Sure, every song is recorded live in the studio, certainly to get a usable, dynamic drum tracks, but guitars, bass, keys, and vocals are re-done for clarity and precision. And of course, there is mixing of levels.

Don't jump all over the guy over technicalities - it is indeed a very "live" sounding song! :heart:
 
.. every song is recorded live in the studio?

there is a difference. You'll get songs where they'll mic up the whole band in one big room, drums, bass, guitars, everything and just play the song there and then then mix that take. maybe overdub a vocal part or a guitar solo or something.

Then you get tracks where they'll slowly record them bit by bit. doing the drums+bass, then adding the guitar, and each other bit one by one afterwards. YOu might already know this in which case disregard :huh:

if U2 ever did an album of songs just knocked out in the studio/wherever in single takes totally live with no overdubs I'd be floored :applaud: (if they were any good)
 
He means that there weren't any overdubs. Which is, frankly, an impossibility at this point. But it does feel more raw than NLOTH1, I'll say that much. It's not a compliment in this case (particularly in regards to the vocals, which I've always felt were awful and perhaps slightly out of Bono's range), but it is true.
 
I think he means that it doesn't sound as pieced-together as many U2 tracks. Sure, every song is recorded live in the studio, certainly to get a usable, dynamic drum tracks, but guitars, bass, keys, and vocals are re-done for clarity and precision. And of course, there is mixing of levels.

Don't jump all over the guy over technicalities - it is indeed a very "live" sounding song! :heart:

No one is jumping on anyone in here...

I was just trying to get a clarification.
 
It sounds like a live take of bass, drums, guitars and vocals. I think it was mentioned in the first Q interview.

Then overdubs of synths, backing vocals etc...(some were probably flown over from the original track).
 
Then overdubs of synths, backing vocals etc...(some were probably flown over from the original track).

I don't think so...

From what I gather NLOTH 2 was the original version and then they decided to slow it down a little, thank god...

The overdubs wouldn't match up.
 
I don't think so...

From what I gather NLOTH 2 was the original version and then they decided to slow it down a little, thank god...

The overdubs wouldn't match up.

From Q magazine:
A week after the Olympic playback, Bono treated Q to a private audience of two further unfinished tracks - playing both on his car stereo at teeth-rattling volume whilst being piloted through London's rush-hour traffic. Two versions of the title track were extant: the first is another Unforgettable Fire-esque slow burner that builds to a euphoric coda, the second a punk-y Pixies/Buzzcocks homage that proceeds at a breathless pace.

"We recorded the second version just last night," explained the singer whilst enthusiastically air drumming along to it. "I'm very excited by that one."

Sounds like they had the layered version first, then in a fit of last-minute recording madness laid down a second, sped-up, rockier, more stripped-down version. Much like "Fast Cars," which was re-recorded (from the earlier "Xanax and Wine") on the last night...
 
Both are very good. It is a great song. For a one-off listen I prefer NLOTH 2, but for as a piece of an album, NLOTH 1 is clearly superior.

It does sound much like NLOTH was recorded live in the studio. Not in the big band room at Olympic, but in separate rooms, all wired to provide the clarity, but it does sound live to me
 
Both are very good. It is a great song. For a one-off listen I prefer NLOTH 2, but for as a piece of an album, NLOTH 1 is clearly superior.

It does sound much like NLOTH was recorded live in the studio. Not in the big band room at Olympic, but in separate rooms, all wired to provide the clarity, but it does sound live to me
exactly, they both serve their purpose very well.

i personally think u2 blundered by not making nloth 2 the lead single, that would have represented the album in a far better way than sexy boots.
 
exactly, they both serve their purpose very well.

i personally think u2 blundered by not making nloth 2 the lead single, that would have represented the album in a far better way than sexy boots.

Personally, I'm on the Magnificent-as-first-single bandwagon, especially since we both know the 2nd single receives a fraction of the support the lead single does. I would rather them just use the best song (or one of them) first and see what happens, naive as that may seem.

Or maybe I'm just looking for any reason U2 could have avoided using GOYB or NLOTH2. :wink:
 
They couldve fucked with peoples heads and release UC.

Would have LOVED that. 6 minutes, dark, strange, and only, what 2 mins with vocals.
 
Back
Top Bottom