GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by drewhiggins:[..]

    A reason not to bother with the second disc on Best of 1990-2000. North and South of The River and Your Blue Room make it worthwhile to have it, though. I'm not a huge fan of Thriller. Overrated album, but some real great tunes on it. Anyway, have U2 ever released something truly terrible (album-wise)?



    [..]

    I hope it hasn't been the mixing that's taken this long, and trying to get a perfect sound. They may have recorded 50-60 songs (that we know of) but how many of those are any good, potentially, and live? 45 of those could be complete crap, or even just simple riffs or drum loops. They left Pop as it was - not overly mixed, rough as sandpaper, but look at how immensely popular that record is. But the problem is, to appeal to the young crowd, you have to overproduce your music and fine-tune it to a point where it is no longer fine.

    Do U2 need a massive chart-topper? They've had enough of them and people know that their work is going to be decent, no matter if they make a critically-panned record - you don't spend three years in a studio, and have it be a complete piece of crap. It's no longer sufficient enough to spend a few months in a studio. How would an album like Boy stand up today? Granted, pretty well, but how would it sell (which is the whole point of recording and the music industry)?


    I don't think U2 has released anything truly terrible


    Who knows what it is taking longer, I'm sure that 45 of the songs are not crap and we are still gonna get their best, if not some of their best, work. I honestly think Pop could have been so much more had they spent more time on it, the songs that grew during Popmart like Please and Last Night, Gone etc sound more complete..I know that Pop gets its merits for being raw and whatnot, which is fine and that's why I love it, but I think had it been finished, the response would have been totally different and wouldn't be known as the "worst" album.

    But I agree, I hope this record is not over produced, and I don't think U2 needs another chart topper but I think they are going to get one, they always will. I of course would love them to get another one and have a sweep at the grammy's again.

    I think Boy today would be regarded as a nice indie record from a promising young band, but probably wouldn't sell a whole lot....but when the guys grow up....different story
  2. Originally posted by thefly07:[..]

    I don't think U2 has released anything truly terrible


    Who knows what it is taking longer, I'm sure that 45 of the songs are not crap and we are still gonna get their best, if not some of their best, work. I honestly think Pop could have been so much more had they spent more time on it, the songs that grew during Popmart like Please and Last Night, Gone etc sound more complete..I know that Pop gets its merits for being raw and whatnot, which is fine and that's why I love it, but I think had it been finished, the response would have been totally different and wouldn't be known as the "worst" album.

    But I agree, I hope this record is not over produced, and I don't think U2 needs another chart topper but I think they are going to get one, they always will. I of course would love them to get another one and have a sweep at the grammy's again.

    I think Boy today would be regarded as a nice indie record from a promising young band, but probably wouldn't sell a whole lot....but when the guys grow up....different story


    You've hit the nail on the head, Jake.


    The delay could be taking longer for any number of reasons:

    - playing the songs to see what they'll sound like in a live environment
    - doing photo shoots for the cover or the booklet / pre-press releases
    - coming up with revised names or final titles of songs
    - coming up with ideas for videos, promotions, distribution
    - mixing the record, if it's gonna be their best, it has to be mixed to the nth degree

    I'd like to see U2 take another few Grammy awards or even get a World Music Award, be up there with the best. Apparently you have to sell 100 million albums in 25 years or something. The kind of stuff U2 has achieved, even before they've reached 50 themselves, is beyond unbelievable.

    Would you have bothered with Pop if it hadn't had U2's name on it? I wouldn't have. That's an innovative album, and so were the seven albums before it. U2 doesn't need to innovate anymore - the sad thing with music, is there anywhere to go, anywhere new to break ground in? Streets will be remembered for decades to come. A song you hear on the radio by some new artist won't be, and for all the right reasons.

    And it is true what Bono said at the Hall of Fame "because there would be no U2, the way things are right now". That's come through because of determination, and hanging on, and making music relevant to today. Pride is still relevant; so is Bullet The Blue Sky, Sunday Bloody Sunday, Zooropa, When I Look At The World, Tomorrow...they all have themes, and artists today are still singing about that sort of stuff; some of it almost 30 years later. To be told your drummer is crap and to get rid of him, yet still be the original line-up it was in 1980 is awesome, and selling records and remasters, and people still loving them...there's no word for it.
  3. Originally posted by drewhiggins:[..]

    You've hit the nail on the head, Jake.


    The delay could be taking longer for any number of reasons:

    - playing the songs to see what they'll sound like in a live environment
    - doing photo shoots for the cover or the booklet / pre-press releases
    - coming up with revised names or final titles of songs
    - coming up with ideas for videos, promotions, distribution
    - mixing the record, if it's gonna be their best, it has to be mixed to the nth degree

    I'd like to see U2 take another few Grammy awards or even get a World Music Award, be up there with the best. Apparently you have to sell 100 million albums in 25 years or something. The kind of stuff U2 has achieved, even before they've reached 50 themselves, is beyond unbelievable.

    Would you have bothered with Pop if it hadn't had U2's name on it? I wouldn't have. That's an innovative album, and so were the seven albums before it. U2 doesn't need to innovate anymore - the sad thing with music, is there anywhere to go, anywhere new to break ground in? Streets will be remembered for decades to come. A song you hear on the radio by some new artist won't be, and for all the right reasons.

    And it is true what Bono said at the Hall of Fame "because there would be no U2, the way things are right now". That's come through because of determination, and hanging on, and making music relevant to today. Pride is still relevant; so is Bullet The Blue Sky, Sunday Bloody Sunday, Zooropa, When I Look At The World, Tomorrow...they all have themes, and artists today are still singing about that sort of stuff; some of it almost 30 years later. To be told your drummer is crap and to get rid of him, yet still be the original line-up it was in 1980 is awesome, and selling records and remasters, and people still loving them...there's no word for it.


    Agreed...nice way to start a day's work


  4. This is simply not true Yes, there is no innovation or originality left in pop/rock music. The Edge can be credited with creating his own distinct guitar sound but at this stage, in rock music, its all getting very monotous. But when you consider music as a whole, I think that credit is owed to some fantastic and groundbreaking composers of Jazz and Comptempary music who continue to innovate.
  5. Sure, there's some artists who continue to innovate and excite. But the majority of rock, pop, R 'n B music sounds the same now; I'm getting bored with ''music''. It's time to come up with a new term for it.

    Music to young people nowadays is made up of two things:

    1) being louder than the competition, in the mastering process, also known as the loudness war
    2) maybe having the music with beats that drown out the vocals
  6. Originally posted by drewhiggins:

    1) being louder than the competition, in the mastering process, also known as the loudness war
    2) maybe having the music with beats that drown out the vocals


    that's exactly what I hate and that's exactly why other kids at school think I'm crazy
  7. I spew at current music. Everybody listens to onedayfly music and Hiphop, R&B and who the fuck it's called. Only on classic rock stations they play decent and great stuff, but on the 'trendy' stations they play tunes, no music in my opinion.


  8. People think I'm mad, and then I mention the Red Hot Chili Pepper's Californication. It is, one of the loudest and most distorted albums in music history due to crap mastering. Even the fans, who couldn't care less, complained and are asking for the album to be reissued.


    Here's something interesting:

    Oasis' What's The Story Morning Glory from 1995 achieves -8 dBFS. That may not be rare now, but it was back in 1995. That means it's a god damned loud album, due to mastering yet again. Iggy Pop and The Stooges remixed and remastered Raw Power from 1973. It is the loudest rock album ever recorded, achieving -4 dBFS in some places. Why artists and the labels have to do this, is beyond me.

    This is all due to iPods, and the MP3 age (damn Napster). They have an algorithm built in called a finaliser. Not an equaliser, but finaliser. It finalises the sound level, or you might know it better as a sound check. That's designed to lower the volume but keep the sound levels consistent. However, with people ripping their CDs (hopefully none of the following above or below) at 128Kbps through iTunes, Windows Media Player etc, which use terribly outdated MP3 encoding software - iTunes is up to five years old, I don't even know what WMP is using - it still sounds crap.

    An MP3 might be 80% smaller than a FLAC (anywhere upwards of 350Kbps) or 85% smaller than a WAV file (1411Kbps), but all the goodness of the sound is thrown away! I've bought albums, quite recently and the songs are mastered so badly, I cannot listen to it. This is an album from 1982, remastered for 2006.



    And that's not all. Loud albums recorded include:

    Christina Aguliera - Back To Basics
    Lily Allen - Alright, Still
    The Arctic Monkeys - Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not
    Paul McCartney - Memory Almost Full
    Red Hot Chili Peppers - Californication
    Red Hot Chili Peppers - Stadium Arcadium
    Led Zepellin - Mothership
    Fall Out Boy - Infinity on High




    Where does U2 fit in all of this? Presenting The Joshua Tree sound levels. Look!



    Above: Original recording, 1987 - With or Without You (excellent)

    Below: Remastered recording, 2007 - With or Without You (very good)







    But wait...there's more.


    Nirvana - Smells Like Teen Spirit (good) (1991








    The Arctic Monkeys - I Bet You Look Good On The Dance Floor (very bad) (2006)




    So looking at this one above, in particular, it never comes down from heavy distortion.
  9. Funny you mention RHCP: Californication It's one of the worst sounding albums ever for sure. The music is good, but the recording process had some big flaws. Assurance for a good headache.
  10. Erm...I almost understood what you said, Drew
  11. Originally posted by drewhiggins:[..]

    People think I'm mad, and then I mention the Red Hot Chili Pepper's Californication. It is, one of the loudest and most distorted albums in music history due to crap mastering. Even the fans, who couldn't care less, complained and are asking for the album to be reissued.


    Here's something interesting:

    Oasis' What's The Story Morning Glory from 1995 achieves -8 dBFS. That may not be rare now, but it was back in 1995. That means it's a god damned loud album, due to mastering yet again. Iggy Pop and The Stooges remixed and remastered Raw Power from 1973. It is the loudest rock album ever recorded, achieving -4 dBFS in some places. Why artists and the labels have to do this, is beyond me.

    This is all due to iPods, and the MP3 age (damn Napster). They have an algorithm built in called a finaliser. Not an equaliser, but finaliser. It finalises the sound level, or you might know it better as a sound check. That's designed to lower the volume but keep the sound levels consistent. However, with people ripping their CDs (hopefully none of the following above or below) at 128Kbps through iTunes, Windows Media Player etc, which use terribly outdated MP3 encoding software - iTunes is up to five years old, I don't even know what WMP is using - it still sounds crap.

    An MP3 might be 80% smaller than a FLAC (anywhere upwards of 350Kbps) or 85% smaller than a WAV file (1411Kbps), but all the goodness of the sound is thrown away! I've bought albums, quite recently and the songs are mastered so badly, I cannot listen to it. This is an album from 1982, remastered for 2006.



    And that's not all. Loud albums recorded include:

    Christina Aguliera - Back To Basics
    Lily Allen - Alright, Still
    The Arctic Monkeys - Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not
    Paul McCartney - Memory Almost Full
    Red Hot Chili Peppers - Californication
    Red Hot Chili Peppers - Stadium Arcadium
    Led Zepellin - Mothership
    Fall Out Boy - Infinity on High




    Where does U2 fit in all of this? Presenting The Joshua Tree sound levels. Look!

    [image]

    Above: Original recording, 1987 - With or Without You (excellent)

    Below: Remastered recording, 2007 - With or Without You (very good)

    [image]





    But wait...there's more.


    Nirvana - Smells Like Teen Spirit (good) (1991

    [image]






    The Arctic Monkeys - I Bet You Look Good On The Dance Floor (very bad) (2006)

    [image]


    So looking at this one above, in particular, it never comes down from heavy distortion.


    didn't i post something similar before?
  12. I also think that The Killers albums (especially Sam's Town) are also way too loud, because when listening to it trough earphones my ears get tired very fast and sometimes headache comes in.

    That makes me sad because they're one of my favorite bands. Luckily U2 and The National aren't to loud. : ))
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.