babyman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
words..........
rihannsu said:It would work artistically but in these days of instant worldwide bootlegging it would be a financial disaster. The bootlegs hit the internet before the band has even left the venue so recording songs after they've been played live is pretty useless.
Dana
Axver said:Fear Of A Blank Planet
LemonMacPhisto said:
One day, I hope they do the somewhat common "tour it then record it" route.
Irvine511 said:and this is in no way to degrade Bruce. i'm a huge fan.
but he's every bit a part of the record industry as U2 are.
U2girl said:Why ? That way, the album version and the live version will be completely the same and you lose the benefit of a superior live vs album song (superior live performances are U2's biggest strength)
plus I don't think U2 would ever be comfortable playing a full album of new material live before the release. Remember how they reacted at the Salome sessions, and those weren't even close to a finished album.
U2girl said:I'm saying I like the live version to be different compared to the album version. In fact the best U2 live songs are the ones that get that something extra live, and to me there are only a handful of songs that are better in the studio: Pride, Desire, One, Kite, OOTS. (this is not to say I don't like them live, I just don't think they improve the studio version)
If U2 tours the fulll 11, 12 songs before recording there is a bigger chance the studio album will be sounding very close to the album version. It lessens the album listening. I like having extra verses, intros, solos etc live.
Well, if the band weren't ok with outtakes being released, what makes you think they'd be okay with playing a full album live before recording ?
Imagine the forum : "I heard the new songs live and they suck. I'm not buying the album." especially given how weak U2 can be live with under-rehearsed material. This could top the Las Vegas Popmart debacle.
U2girl said:I'm saying I like the live version to be different compared to the album version. In fact the best U2 live songs are the ones that get that something extra live, and to me there are only a handful of songs that are better in the studio: Pride, Desire, One, Kite, OOTS. (this is not to say I don't like them live, I just don't think they improve the studio version)
If U2 tours the fulll 11, 12 songs before recording there is a bigger chance the studio album will be sounding very close to the album version. It lessens the album listening. I like having extra verses, intros, solos etc live.
Well, if the band weren't ok with outtakes being released, what makes you think they'd be okay with playing a full album live before recording ?
Imagine the forum : "I heard the new songs live and they suck. I'm not buying the album." especially given how weak U2 can be live with under-rehearsed material. This could top the Las Vegas Popmart debacle.
Zootlesque said:My point still remains that... if the music was good, it wouldn't matter. I think Achtung Baby is a brilliant piece of work so I don't care about how much they marketed it. I just think HTDAAB doesn't deserve all the hype hoopla that preceeded it.
U2girl said:It is up to the critics, and time, to decide how good the album is.
Axver said:
I like the live versions to be different too, it makes the concert more interesting, but I don't want to think "shit, if only the band had known that song better when they recorded it, the studio version would be even better". Basically, there's a difference between something like the lengthy Bad performances, which blow away the UF version but would NEVER work in the studio, and something like the missing verse at the end of One that would be fantastic if it were in the studio version.
And what of my point regarding Boy?
OK, here, I think you're radically misinterpreting things. Why would they be OK with touring an album before recording it? Because THEY'RE THE ONES AUTHORISING IT! It's their decision, they are choosing how people hear the songs and what they get to hear. The problem with Axtung Beibi is that they didn't get to choose what people heard and it was done without their authorisation.
And as for your cynical forum prediction ... no-one would not buy the album based on some live performances. Seriously, do you think anyone here would do that? The only people at risk of not buying the album are the very same people who aren't in much of a hurry to go to a gig either! If anything, it would convince someone going to a gig for the classic hits that U2 are still producing interesting material that they should buy.
And why on earth would a Popmart Las Vegas debacle happen? There, the band were rushed into a tour. If the band were touring an album before laying down the final takes of the songs, to get to know the songs a bit more before recording, then they'd be going into the tour with the new songs fully rehearsed and the tour would begin on their own terms. Popmart Las Vegas would be impossible. Seriously, have you never encountered any band that has toured an album before recording it? Plenty do it and it's worked wonders for every single one I've encountered. No need for paranoia about Popmart Las Vegas debacles and lost sales.
xaviMF22 said:
I disagree
playing them live before they record them would only help the songs
it helps them work on the songs...so before they record them..they'll know what works and what doesn't..
I think HTDAAB would have benefited
from this treatment
this worked wonders for Pink Floyd
...
rihannsu said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the record companies approaches to the whole internet bootlegging situation, but just pointing out that there are a whole lot more people affected than just the artists and the bigwigs at the record companies.
Zootlesque said:
Well, the bottomline is good music. And I know this can get very subjective. But at the end of the day if the music is mediocre, it doesn't matter whether they marketed heavily or didn't. I doubt U2's marketing plans and Ipod ads would ever come under fire if the Bomb was universally admired. If everyone considered the end result or the album to be outstanding, there would be no need for things like hype and marketing to point a finger at.
The_acrobat said:
You forget who their manager is. $$$$
It doesn't matter if they finish the record on January 1st of 2008, it won't be released until October/November.
Irvine511 said:
what isn't subjective is the nearly 900,000 units moved in the US in the first week, very strong critical reviews, a universally acclaimed and sold-out tour (that saw them playing a bravura 100+ dates in 9 months, quite hard working -- why don't we give them credit for this, at their age, they're playing as many dates as they did in 1987, that's some damn hard work and an effort to reach fans), and a bunch of Grammies including Album of the Year.
personal taste aside, how can that not be viewed as a wild success?
mobvok said:A little U2Tours.com research reveals that before HTDAAB was released they played all 5 of the eventual singles + Miracle Drug in public and on TV. If you wanted, you could hear over half the album for free on YouTube with TV quality video and audio.
Of course, anything recorded at a concert would be grainy noisy handycam footage.
rihannsu said:
But you are forgetting that the album had already been stolen and leaked. Also there is a big difference in doing promo performances shortly before release which only utilize some of the songs and the kind of thing you are talking about which is developing the songs for some time on tour before recording. For the last two albums U2 have talked about the idea that in order to even want to tour again they had to have very good songs to inspire them to want to leave home and tour. Given their mindset it is unlikely that they would tour without already having an album recorded to promote. They also quite frequently talk about how difficult it is for them to shift gears from live performing to recording. Even though they do a lot of noodling during soundchecks and what have you they really don't begin to truly write until they have come off the road. They are not the kind of musicians who can jump back and forth between writing and performing. Famous example being the UF tour. They finished the album late and had little time to rehearse before the first gigs, and when they started to consider what songs they wanted to play Edge suddenly realized that he couldn't remember how to play any of their old songs. He had to listen to the albums again and relearn the songs. In spite of the many years since then they still talk about having to relearn their songs before every tour. I just don't think it is something they would ever feel comfortable doing even if they didn't think it would hurt sales, but we can agree to disagree.
Dana
shart1780 said:Maybe it would be a cool thing if U2 cared more about an album's quality than how many more millions of dollars they can add to their vault.
shart1780 said:Maybe it would be a cool thing if U2 cared more about an album's quality than how many more millions of dollars they can add to their vault.