GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by zooTV4all:According to the swedish site www.u2.se, Dallas Schoo has said that Edge and Bono will fly to London this Wednesday to record more material for the new album.

    Hmm.. more delays then? Or b-sides maybe?


    hopefully does not mean more delay, but then again it's strange they are still recording stuff so close to the end of the year
  2. The 'U2 Tower' sky scraper has been scrapped apparently. . .
  3. Quote from that U2.se site by Dallas Schoo:

    They have made a great, not just good, but GREAT record."



    A suggestion made by Matt McGee on atu2.com in OTR also was this:

    In my previous OTR column from early October, I mentioned in passing a rumor we'd heard about U2 working on a double album, and suggested it may explain the Daniel Lanois comment about mixing "half the U2 record." I was lazy in my word choice. The rumor we heard wasn't of a double album, it was that U2 would be releasing two albums. I apologize for not being more clear.

    Furthering that idea, we recently heard a new rumor with more details on what may be to come: One album will be the traditional CD release, while a second album will be released only online (i.e., via iTunes and other stores). I have no idea if it's true or not, but it does fit in fairly nicely with what Paul McGuinness said earlier this year about the new album release: "We will obviously work with whatever technology is available to make the release of the new record as interesting as possible."



    AmazonMP3 (hopefully), Napster or iTunes distribution for another album - possibly like Unreleased and Rare? That would make me think the cover, he's been speaking about, is going to be a digital one of some kind. So if that is the case, then it's nothing new or exciting.

    Greenday's Bullet In A Bible, a few years back, had a holographic cover. Michael Jackson's Invincible, about eight years ago, came in five different colours and Prince's Black album, a good few years ago, was coloured black. No label, song titles or whatever on it. Maybe one of those ideas will be the amazing cover we've been hearing so much about. Or you have to put in a password to unlock the album, and you get a free making-of video with it.

    But it has to be a technological idea.

    I hope that the second album isn't released purely digitally. But with Brian Eno also on board, who knows what this album could turn out like.
  4. Using the (RED) platform would make sense then.
    If they decide to do a digital only release, they better use a lossless format...
  5. Originally posted by yeah:Using the (RED) platform would make sense then.
    If they decide to do a digital only release, they better use a lossless format...


    That's why I said AmazonMP3. It's not exactly lossless (256Kbps MP3), but better than the 128Kbps iTunes gives you. Lossless (FLAC, rather than WAV or ALAC) would be the way to go, and U2 would be stupid to not go lossless, but so many people are buying digital now, they don't care for files that size, as long as they hear the 80% audio loss. It's great to have an album you can download in 10 minutes, but you get terrible sound as a result.

    I wonder if Live Nation will distribute the CD through the official website....working with new technology partners. Apparently U2 are going DRM (digital-rights-management) free, what that means is the files have no copy protection but you get them at a higher bit-rate - a first for Universal and Island.

    Still not the point, I want to spend the money to get me a top-sounding CD when I see it on the shelves. None of U2's albums so far have bad sound quality, because they're mastered. Many artists releasing albums nowadays have terrible sound quality. The songs aren't bad, but the sound on it is. Rather than doing it fully digitally, put both albums out, but give the digital release 2-3 extra songs in decent sound quality.
  6. It would indeed be great if they released the on line album in a lossless format, but I think that it's just not commercially appealing enough. A lot of people don't know what a lossless format is and why the quality is better than mp3's. Or they don't care. They just want to play the songs on their iPod or mp3 player, and they don't want such large files for that.
  7. Originally posted by RDB92:It would indeed be great if they released the on line album in a lossless format, but I think that it's just not commercially appealing enough. A lot of people don't know what a lossless format is and why the quality is better than mp3's. Or they don't care. They just want to play the songs on their iPod or mp3 player, and they don't want such large files for that.


    kind of like me, i'm still not that clear on lossless. I am one for just let me put it on my ipod, I of course don't like bad sounding stuff, but mp3 seems to be ok for me, or whatever itunes converts files to
  8. If you listen to music on average headphones while travelling, jogging, whatever, an average lossy file is good enough, I agree. But I hardly do that. I use my Hi-Fi System and speakers that allow you to hear the difference between lossy and lossless recordings, especially when it's studio recordings.
    So a lossy only release would release piss me off.
    But for now, that's just another rumour...
  9. But an MP3 or AAC of 4MB compared to 38MB, wouldn't you think something's up there?
  10. God id be pissed with no lossless release.


  11. That's what pissed me off about Unreleased and Rare (and the whole Complete U2). First up, there were nine or so songs never-before released in any fornat, released in 128Kbps AAC, some of which were absolutely brilliant. They might have been demos and outtakes, but that's absolutely no excuse to put them out there in crap formats because they'd never been released. You can't tell me they were recorded in lossy format.

    No way I'm paying for a poor lossy release. This is why the digital age of online distribution should never take off, unless the record labels, the artists and associated parties agree on doing it right and getting it right. How much does actually releasing an album, on CD cost nowadays? It doesn't even have to have a booklet, just a simple silver CD face and that's it.

    Why not do what Radiohead did? Release the album a few months before the physical release. If the songs are good, people will buy them. Surely U2 know this.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.