Discussion of U2's future: new singles, new tour, etc.

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.

Originally posted by drewhiggins:[..]

the sad thing with music, is there anywhere to go, anywhere new to break ground in?

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

Originally posted by yuri31:[..]

that's exactly what I hate and that's exactly why other kids at school think I'm crazy

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.

Originally posted by Yogi: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. : ))

Originally posted by Yogi: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. : ))