Who the hell told U2 that we enjoy remixes?

[rjhbonovox]

Lay off the remixes. Many of them are worth listening to, and some are incredible. My fav is Mofo (Phunk Phorce Mix).

While that remix is ok at best, their is nothing on that version that is U2 except for Bono's vocal. I mean if your gonna listen to Mofo then you gotta listen to the superb album version and not some crappy DJ's fuc#-up of the song.

 

[namkcuR]

Re: Re: Who the hell told U2 that we enjoy remixes?

Gotta agree, their is hardly one decent remix that has ever been done on a U2 song. The only one I can think of is "Mysterious Ways" perfecto mix by Oakenfold which had decent music in it. But the others seem to be a crappy repetetive dancebeat that go on for about 6 or 7 minutes. No, I gotta say that I never listen to any of the remixes except the above mentioned and then I would rather listen to the superb album version. I think its done when they don't have enough songs for B-sides and to get played in clubs obviously.

I disagree completely. On my break that recently finished, I had a stretch of about 3-4 days where I listened to nothing but U2 remixes. That's how much I enjoy them.

 

[plot180]

While I do appreciate new songs as b-sides rather than remixes, U2 has had some great remixes. They include

The Wanderer Soundtrack mix
Until the End of the World Soundtrack mix
Walk On single mix
Mysterious Ways Perfecto mix
Elevation Influx mix
New Year's Day US mix
New York Nice mix
New York Nasty mix
Even Better than... Perfecto mix
Beautiful Day Quincy & Sonance mix
Discotheque David Holmes mix

I could go on and on...

 

[typhoon]

You guys take bands like U2 and Oasis and Radiohead and Coldplay for granted. There are only a handful of bands still together that have ever released b-sides, like actual unreleased songs, on singles. You have to remember, it's pretty much a lost art. B-sides were common in the 60s/70s/80s when vinyl and cassettes were still the main mediums for listening to music, and there were actual physical B-Sides that needed music to be put on them. The whole concept of B-Sides died with the birth of the CD and the digital age. You think most of the crap bands on MTV and the radio and such give a crap about B-Sides? You think they are even aware of what the concept of B-Sides is? No. I am betting that when all is said and done, U2 will have 3-4 actual B-Side unreleased songs on the singles combined, and that is what they normally do for each LP. People are forgetting how rare just that is anymore. Stop bitching and moaning and taking bands like this for granted.

It's really not as uncommon anymore as you think. Browse Amazon.com sometime. Here's three singles from incredibly mediocre bands I found with non-LP B-sides: Nickelback, Five For Fighting, Finger Eleven. It's not a dead art yet.

The annoying part about U2 and their B-sides is that you know they have better material available.

Why the devil wasn't "Levitate" released as a B-side to "Elevation"? Or they could've thrown "Native Son" on the "Vertigo" single (wouldn't have been any stranger than having "Always" backing "Beautiful Day"), and you'd have three pretty solid non-album tracks right there.

The B-Sides of 1990-2000 was particularly offensive because there were tons of better songs already released, but they gave us mostly subpar remixes and ignored songs like "Slow Dancing" and "Holy Joe."

I agree with some of the others that some of the remixes (e.g., "Lady With the Spinning Head (Extended Dance Mix)," "Mofo (Phunk Phorce Mix)," the "Dirty Day" remixes) are worthwhile and pretty cool in their own right, but I want more new songs, even incomplete ones.

Keeping the remixes and new songs separate would be helpful too. For "Vertigo," for example, they could've released two versions:

Version 1:

• Vertigo
• Are You Gonna Wait Forever?
• Native Son
• Neon Lights

Version 2:

• Vertigo
• Vertigo (Jacknife Lee Mix)
• Vertigo (Redanka Power Mix)
• Vertigo (Temple Bar Mix)

A good single (like "If God Will Send His Angels" or one of Oasis' during their prime) is like a mini-album; cohesive and well worth listening to on its own. For a lot of U2's recent singles, I think most people just rip the new tracks and put them on mix CDs and such.

 

[ultrraviolette]

There are some U2 remixes I like, but for the most part I'm not a big fan. I'd say I like about 20-25% of them.

 

[Niceman]

Remixes are fine, except when they take the place of B-sides. YOU KNOW U2 write a lot of songs that they don't choose to share. They used to write an album a year and still have B-sides. Now it takes 2-4 years to record an album and the B-sides are fewer and fewer!!!

 

[doctorwho]

Yes, but they did used to purposely record cover songs and stuff for b-sides. Especially during the Rattle And Hum to Zooropa Era, they would record a lot of covers for the iintended purpos of having more b-sides. I would much rather have a new cover song, ala Neon Lights from the Vertigo single, then a dance remix of a song we already have.

But... but... the "Vertigo" CD has "Are You Gonna Wait Forever" as a new song, and then "Neon Lights" (as you stated) as a cover. It also included a cool remix.

I think that's perfect.

I agree with KhanadaRhodes in that there is overkill (how many remixes of "Mysterious Ways", "Lemon" and "Discotheque" do we need?), but I look forward to a remix almost all the time. After all, who here isn't anxious to hear the Trent Reznor remix of "Vertigo"? And don't forget that a remix doesn't necessarily mean "dance" - it can mean acoustic or orchestra as well. For example, I adore the Jools Holland remix of "If You Wear That Velvet Dress". I hated the song before this remix. Likewise, the Perfecto Remix of "Lemon" really got me into the song - never liked the album version.

So while not all remixes succeed, I do look forward to them.

Also, as an older person here who has TONS of 45 rpm records, I'd like to point out that MANY times the b-side (or flip-side) or a single was just another album track. Sometimes it was even the a-side song again (or the "radio edit" of the a-side)! In the 60's, singles were far more popular than albums. Often a 45 rpm record would have two new songs only because both songs would go on to be hits. This was true of many Beatles' and even Monkees' records. But from the 80's on, when albums were more popular than singles, the concept of a new song as a b-side faded fast. And now, given that the concept of a CD single is fading even faster (soon, there won't be a CD single - just radio releases and downloads), we might not hear new b-sides ever again.

As such, I think U2 is wicked cool for still providing us with new b-side songs they write and covers of some of their favorite songs.

 

[isabelle_guns]

In general I am not a fan of remixes 'cause when I hear the word remix, I associate "techo" with the word "remix" even thought there are bands that I listen to who have acoustic remixes or different rock remixes. I haven't heard the disc two remixes but in general, I have yet to hear a good U2 remix. I am more of a traditional person. If it is good to begin with, it doesn't need messing with.

 

[rivergoat]

The annoying part about U2 and their B-sides is that you know they have better material available.

Why the devil wasn't "Levitate" released as a B-side to "Elevation"? Or they could've thrown "Native Son" on the "Vertigo" single (wouldn't have been any stranger than having "Always" backing "Beautiful Day"), and you'd have three pretty solid non-album tracks right there.

The B-Sides of 1990-2000 was particularly offensive because there were tons of better songs already released, but they gave us mostly subpar remixes and ignored songs like "Slow Dancing" and "Holy Joe."

I completely agree with you on the B Sides of 1990-2000. While a few good songs were left off of the B Sides 1980-1990, at least they were all different songs.

Looking at the 1990s B Sides on the Best of, I got to wondering how much it had to do with money. Who's catching how much of a royalty for each sale of that CD? Fully half (15 out of 30) songs on the 1990s Best of are remixes. Who owns these mixes anyways?

goat

 

[Ellay]

I see nothing wrong with remixes at all.

Some of them are great, some of them are bad, exactly the same as original songs..

I'd rather have a remix of a great song than a second class B side.

Remixes also allow the songs to be heard by a wider audience - For example, some U2 songs would be inappropriate for playing in a club, whereas the remixes would be.

I'm a fan of M Ways, I'm more than happy to have 10+ mixes of my favourite song..

 

[Ellay]

Keeping the remixes and new songs separate would be helpful too. For "Vertigo," for example, they could've released two versions:

Version 1:

• Vertigo
• Are You Gonna Wait Forever?
• Native Son
• Neon Lights

Version 2:

• Vertigo
• Vertigo (Jacknife Lee Mix)
• Vertigo (Redanka Power Mix)
• Vertigo (Temple Bar Mix)

Agree totally with this, simply because it would be a lot easier to find things in your CD collection!!

 

[usamilo]

I believe the world would be a better place if there were another 20-25 remixes of Lemon. The 15 or so that have been released is simply not enough!

 

[ultraviolet7]

I actually enjoy remixes, as I find it interesting to hear the way DJs rework songs. Some are really good and I like them better than original versions (as with Dirty Day - Junk Day Mix, Elevation - Influx Mix or LWSH - Extended Dance Mix), others are OK and still others are a piece of crap like the Numb - Gimme Some More Dignity Mix.

What I don't dig at all is the band's own reworking of older songs such as the new mixes on Disc 1 of Best Of. Invariably, IMO the new versions subtracted rather than added to the original songs, not to say that some, like Discotheque and Gone were completely ruined. That's the reason why the only disc I ever listen from the 1990/2000 compilation is #2.

 

[Bonochick]

I tend to enjoy remixes.

 

[Renne]

Remixes are bloody awful and I don't see the point in them. However, if they are saving up original material because it still has the potential to develop and become album tracks, then I think I'd rather they not use it as a b-side and I'll tolerate some remixes.

they can still release some stuff as b-sides that they might someday maybe possible want as album material.

after all, i'd rather hear the progression of the development of a song than another dozen remixes.

 

[tarquinsuperb]

The remixes allow everybody to do something a bit experimental and different. It's another something that stops all music just being copies of Stand By Me or Stairway.
Judge each remix on it's own merits - look at Elevation plenty of remixes, some were good some were bad, just like every song remixed or otherwise.
In an ideal world every single would be an EP style release with a couple of B-Sides and a couple of remixes however that's not going to happen.
They are certainly not pointless.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

I think for some, the main problem isn't that they do remixes at all but instead it's because they do so many remixes of one song while infrequently putting out covers or b-sides. I mean there are several songs they haven't released that would be great as a a b-side such as She's a Mystery to Me, the "Won't Get Fooled Again" cover, the cover of "Rain, etc." Hell... there are some live tracks such as the Lovetown version of Desire in which Edge sort of shreds that would be an interesting b-side. Remixes over time do get annoying.

 

[Nate Dogg]

I like remixes....but, not 100% of them...their are some bad ones out there....

 

[Tip Top Prince]

Remixes are bloody awful and I don't see the point in them. However, if they are saving up original material because it still has the potential to develop and become album tracks, then I think I'd rather they not use it as a b-side and I'll tolerate some remixes.

The point is that a lot of U2 songs are made up of multiple layers, and a remix is a chance to re-arrange the layers so some of the hidden ones can reach the surface and be more easily heard.

I'm sure you already knew that though.

 

[smileplease]

One, maybe two remixes are fine, but when there's four or five, it's too many. That's not to say that they won't be any good, but I'm sure for most fans they'd rather a new tune, or a live track.

What really saddened me was the 90-2000 B-sides half of which were remixes. There were some great B-sides from that era that should have been on that disc that didn't make it.

 

[all_i_want]

i like remixes too... and they make things easier in the parties

 

[ClaytonMan]

REMIXES while I have no time for them, I understand why they are put out,
Most are awful there has been very few that I have listened to more than once.
The argument about the b sides is a solid one, put something like Always or Native son on as a b side it shows the progression

but what about the songs that havent made it onto 1 or 2 or even 3 albums then on the 4th wolla U2 find the right way to present it on the next album.

can you imagine what all because of you (even though i still feel it hasnt been produced as good as it could of been) would of sounded like on say the walk on single or stuck in a mo single

 

[nathan1977]

Keep in mind that while in the 80s U2 were far more prolific in their songwriting efforts, leading to more B-sides, the rules of U2 since 1990 or so has been to spend more time exploring sonic textures, to avoid repeating themselves. As a result, they take more time now than they ever did writing and recording new material, to avoid the "Joshua Tree/Rattle and Hum" rut.

Remixes are a way to continue to provide added-value for fans for the singles, without compromising on lesser-quality material getting out there. (Bono talks about how annoyed he was that they released "Sweetest Thing" with ragged unfinished vocals back on the Streets single in 87.)

 

[nathan1977]

That doesn't mean, however, that there's any justification for endless "Lemon" remixes. Just pick a few good ones and go with it!

 

[salty72]

I like only a handfull of the remixes. I know U2 have plenty of live material they can use for b-sides. I thought it was great what they did with The Sweetest Thing singles. Two unreleased live tracks from Red Rocks and 2 tracks live from Boston '81. I wish they would put more live tracks on their singles instead of remixes. I was hoping the HTDAAB singles would feature some live tracks from the Elevation tour(like The Fly or Kite).

 

[Nube Gris]

U2 enjoy "their" remixes

Thats it, its "their" music
If you like them, fine

If not, don't buy them, you don't have to

 

[Lancemc]

You don't know that U2 like all the remixes.

 

[zooroper]

I LOVE REMIXES!!!

Mostly Paul Oakenfold's!!! The Real Thing, Lemon...what's wrong with them?

I even bought Last Night On Earth Single, wich includes the remix of the song PLUS "happyness is a warm gun", "numb soul assasins remix" AND POP MUZIK

 

[neutral]

That Pop Muzik track on the LNOE single is great!

 

[zooroper]

That Pop Muzik track on the LNOE single is great!

I KNOW!!! I'm playing it right now!


NEW YORK, LONDON, PARIS, MUNICH, NEW YORK, LONDON, PARIS, MUNICH, NEW YORK, LONDON, PARIS, MUNICH, NEW YORK, LONDON, PARIS, MUNICH...

NEW YORK, LONDON, PARIS, MUNICH EVERYBODY TALK ABOUT
MMMMMMMM...POP MUZIK!!!