U2start.com | Denver Vs Rattle & Hum?

Originally posted by germcevoyI hold them seperate

We all should do it, but were too lazy...

Originally posted by LikeASong[..]We all should do it, but were too lazy...

again its all a metter or preference. Great sound + no audience = Soundboard to me (some aren't bad though)

Great Sound + audience = Broadcast = perfect

Alex

17 years

I'm no fan of London 87, too. Sorry. Serious echo problems in the vocals. It's sometimes referred to as the "mother of all bootlegs". But I prefer Denver 100%. The remastering was done magnificiently.

My R&H booklet states three songs were taken from the Denver 87 show, but they were recorded on the 8th. I wonder where the rest of this recording is. I mean - they wouldn't let the tape roll just during those three songs, would they?

Alex

LikeASong

17 years

Originally posted by germcevoyGreat sound + no audience = Soundboard to me (some aren't bad though)

Great Sound + audience = Broadcast = perfect

Amen.

LikeASong

17 years

Originally posted by AlexMy R&H booklet states three songs were taken from the Denver 87 show, but they were recorded on the 8th. I wonder where the rest of this recording is. I mean - they wouldn't let the tape roll just during those three songs, would they?

Indeed, they must taped the whole show, but any song from Denver 11-08 has leaked or surfaced as a Soundboard bootleg. Shame...

germcevoy

17 years

Originally posted by LikeASong[..]Indeed, they must taped the whole show, but any song from Denver 11-08 has leaked or surfaced as a Soundboard bootleg. Shame...

I'm sure U2 has soundboard recordings of all their shows which will never surface. I heard once that all their shows are recorded (visually or audio) for 'archive' purposes

LikeASong

17 years

Originally posted by germcevoyI'm sure U2 has soundboard recordings of all their shows which will never surface. I heard once that all their shows are recorded (visually or audio) for 'archive' purposes

I honestly wish it was true, but I think it's a false rumor. There's no use in taping 1400 concerts. I can believe that they tape many shows (more than the ones which surface), but they cannot tape ALL their shows. Impossible.

And even if it was true, there are no possibilities of only 50, maybe 70 shows have surfaced so far...

MirrorballBoy

17 years

Originally posted by LikeASong[..]I honestly wish it was true, but I think it's a false rumor. There's no use in taping 1400 concerts. I can believe that they tape many shows (more than the ones which surface), but they cannot tape ALL their shows. Impossible.

And even if it was true, there are no possibilities of only 50, maybe 70 shows have surfaced so far...

Indeed. Why should the band have all these bootlegs.. They're no use, why should the band have all the Boy-shows, for example?

u2met86

17 years

Originally posted by LikeASong[..]I honestly wish it was true, but I think it's a false rumor. There's no use in taping 1400 concerts. I can believe that they tape many shows (more than the ones which surface), but they cannot tape ALL their shows. Impossible.

And even if it was true, there are no possibilities of only 50, maybe 70 shows have surfaced so far...

I don't know. According to an atu2.com interview with Marc Marot, who worked closely with U2 at Island for years (and re-negotiated their recording contract in 1999), it is possible that they record all their live stuff. Perhaps he's exaggerating here because they definitely do not "film everything," at least not in high quality film, but you can judge. Here's an excerpt:

Oh, okay. Speaking of releases like this, how come U2 has never issued a complete, start-to-finish live concert album? I mean, surely that idea came up, didn't it?

That's the kind of thing that a fan would be more obsessive about than a band. Because they obviously have released Unforgettable Fire [Ed. note: Mr. Marot likely meant to say [i]Under a Blood Red Sky[/i]] and they released Rattle and Hum. They would view it as they've released two live albums. But I don't think they've ever needed something...You know, I obviously manage lots of bands now, and one of the things that I still do all these years later is that I keep, on my desk, every record that U2 has ever recorded. And the thing that is just astonishing is if you look at 1980 to 1990, and you look at all the music they released, I don't know when you would think they could possibly get another record out. Because they pretty much released an album a year for 10 years. I think it's eight albums in 10 years, isn't it?

Very much so -- certainly in the '80s.

If you go Boy, October, War, Unforgettable Fire, Under a Blood Red Sky, Joshua Tree, Rattle and Hum, and Wide Awake in America, you've got eight releases there, if I'm right, in 10 years.

That's true. And you're certainly right -- there have been things like Wide Awake in America, but it just comes up every now and then that there is not one full concert, from start to finish, available as an album.

Well, you know what? They record everything. They film everything. Their archive is impeccable. I know it. I've seen it -- impeccable. It'll happen! It's just that I think they've got other things on their agenda, y'know?

Part 2 of this interview (which includes the above excerpt) can be found here:
http://www.atu2.com/news/article.src?Cat=12&ID=4280&Key=&Year=

(The entire interview is awesome, by the way! I recommend you read the whole thing just for fun because it is a brief yet revealing account from a long-time Island and U2 insider.)

Originally posted by MirrorballBoy[..]

Indeed. Why should the band have all these bootlegs.. They're no use, why should the band have all the Boy-shows, for example?

Good point; it doesn't seem to make sense to keep everything, especially material that old.

That being said, keep the following in mind:

1) Every professional sports team watches a tape of the previous game before going onto the next to review their mistakes and such. In that light it seems natural that U2 would at least tape and review everything to get maximum improvement in minimum time.

2) I once read an interview with Bon Jovi and the guy asked, "When did you start taping your shows?" It was obvious that he meant taping all shows but not releasing them (i.e., taping them for review and study), and Bon Jovi responded and briefly mentioned how important and helpful that process has been.

3) Have you guys ever seen The Joshua Tree documentary DVD? Because 15 years later or so, they go back and it seems that they have all their takes on the full 24 or 48 tracks, because you can see them at the mixing board going through and playing with the levels on each input as they listen. They say stuff like, "Input 8 is The Edge raking his guitar strings," and "Thank God we didn't use this take because I don't know what we were thinking." Now, perhaps they only keep the final master cuts that make the album but my point is that they seemed to have an extraordinary amount of unnecessary recordings lying around in a vault somewhere.

4) Unlike most artists, U2 owns the rights to their master tapes. That doesn't necessarily reveal much here except that they exert a ton of control over what they record, so if they really wanted to tape every show they could probably do so.

5) As for the shows from the Boy era, I can't speak for venues back in 1980 but I know some of those very same small clubs in New York City today will offer to give the artist a recording of the show via the mixing board for a small fee, so even before U2 had a touring entourage that built entire stages, it may have been easy and even convenient to have most of those venues tape those early gigs.

In short, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised either way. I just thought it would be fun to investigate and see if I could come up with an interesting case showing how it may be possible, so now my rant is done.

germcevoy

17 years

Originally posted by LikeASong[..]I honestly wish it was true, but I think it's a false rumor. There's no use in taping 1400 concerts. I can believe that they tape many shows (more than the ones which surface), but they cannot tape ALL their shows. Impossible.

And even if it was true, there are no possibilities of only 50, maybe 70 shows have surfaced so far...

how is it impossible to have audio recordings of their own shows? Or even video for that matter. I think every show this side of Popmart has been visually recorded. The have to have been recorded I think.

germcevoy

17 years

Informative stuff u2met

LikeASong

17 years

Originally posted by germcevoyhow is it impossible to have audio recordings of their own shows? Or even video for that matter. I think every show this side of Popmart has been visually recorded. The have to have been recorded I think.

I honestly don't think they have 1400 shows recorded. I'd love to see I'm wrong, but I don't think it's true. Nevertheless, I believe they have MANY shows from each tour (at least from War, when they began to realise of their own quality), and I hope many of them will surface someday.

But record virtually every concert is impossible (I think), in audio nor video. Maybe PoPMart is the "most" recorded tour, i don't know. But either in PoPMart I think they recorded every show...

Please, I'd love to be wrong...

Denver Vs Rattle & Hum?

what they said

did you know

you

forums

U2start