U2start.com | Boy, October, War and Blood Red Sky Remasters

Originally posted by germcevoy[..]

judging by the fact that the originals are lots older on JT and the difference was awesome i'd say that even the single disc editions would be worth the purchase on their own. I want the vinyls

I found a vinyl version of the Joshua Tree remaster at the record store today! Went for $30, I might get it. I bought the How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb (Collector's Edition) thought. I also saw the A Quick One (the Who) vinyl from 1966. I almost fainted when I saw it. Not sure if its the real deal though. I can't believe vinyls go for $30, at the least.

germcevoy

16 years

Originally posted by stj0691[..]

I found a vinyl version of the Joshua Tree remaster at the record store today! Went for $30, I might get it. I bought the How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb (Collector's Edition) thought. I also saw the A Quick One (the Who) vinyl from 1966. I almost fainted when I saw it. Not sure if its the real deal though. I can't believe vinyls go for $30, at the least.

vinyl is a delicacy these days. The 180gm JT remaster is very very nice though.

stj0691

16 years

Originally posted by germcevoy[..]

vinyl is a delicacy these days. The 180gm JT remaster is very very nice though.

Very true. I'm thinking of asking of I can have my parents' record player. Turns out they had a vinyl copy of Honky Château from whenever it came out. That and a bunch of Stones records. To think I bought Exile for $18 when they had the original!

This is a bit off topic though.

aussiemofo

16 years

No DVDs.......

drewhiggins

16 years

The three remastered album covers. Imageshack is a tad slow tonight, so be patient.

MWSAH

16 years

Originally posted by drewhigginsThe three remastered album covers. Imageshack is a tad slow tonight, so be patient.

[image]

[image]

[image]

They didn't remaster these covers..

anstratdubh1979

16 years

Originally posted by RattleandHum1988Honestly guys, here's my opinion. I know a lot of the people here hate it when people call U2 sell outs, and these new cds may not be their decision, it might be the producers or something, but they would still have to approve of it. And to be honest, re-releasing all of their albums, even their first 3, would seem a little desperate to me. I just remember watching an interview from the UF era, and the edge says something like "If one of us ever gets too media crazy, they'll get a good kick in the arse from the rest of the band" Now, it's too bad, because it seems like they're all getting there with these stupid re-releases. Sure, I really enjoyed the new Paris dvd and the b-sides, but the cd wasn't a big change for me. Sure I can hear a difference all right, but the cd I had before was perfectly fine. Boy, October, and War are already perfectly fine. It seems like their either desperate for fans or desperate for money, and it's kind of sad to say, because I love U2 and they're my favourite band, it's like my religion, but still. I'd love to have a red rocks dvd, that would make sense because that would just be like moving the old video to the new generation (dvd) of movies. But all these cds are a little much.
Don't flame me too badly, but thats my two cents.

Sorry to flame you badly and it's nothing personal but I do think that you are wrong here. It seems you are being short-sighted and a bit cynical.

If they didn't remaster them many would complain that U2 had inferior CDs on the market compared to this band or that band that. And all of the pre-R&H Cd's were inferior. It was widely known that when CD's became THE format, not all back catalogs were transferred to CD properly. This is why Jimmy Page re-did the Led Zeppelin catalog. Neil Young has long complained how his older material was transferred from thrid rate copies just to get it on the market vs. checking the EQing and such to see that it sounded "as intended".

"As intended" being the key bit.

The early U2 albums were mixed and EQed for vinyl. In that, the transfers for CD were not so great. The MFSL copies prove this, as they are superiour to the regular editions. But the MFSL stuff is out of print and hence warrants the 'remasters' editions that are coming out.

If they didn't remaster them and make deluxe packages then the complaints would be as they've been on tons of forums over the years "Why don't they make it all available? Why aren't the early singles and b-sides available?

Yet when they do, someone bitches and cries sell out? Silly.

Desperate for money? No. To insist as such shows you haven't a clue about who U2 are as a band and as people. It's rude for you to say and pretty silly to be so cynical as such.

What they are doing is being sure that the best possible product is out there in the best way.

Those that want the extras can buy the deluxe versions.
Those that want just a better remaster version of the album can buy the single CD version.
Those that insist it's unnecessary or a sell out and buy nothing. \

No one is holding a gun to anyone's head.

In this case, U2 are in the right. You don't have to agree but you'd be wrong. All they are doing is making the material available for those that want it. In that, they are being sure that the catalog is available with the best possible sound.

You think it's too much? You think it's a sell out? Don't fu*&ing buy it then. It's as simple as that.

anstratdubh1979

16 years

Originally posted by drewhigginsThe three remastered album covers. Imageshack is a tad slow tonight, so be patient.

[image]

[image]

[image]

The images look cool. Looks like the October picture got cleaned up a bit. All the images look pretty sharp. Be nice once all of these are out in in our hot little hands.

kisho8

16 years

Originally posted by anstratdubh1979[..]

The images look cool. Looks like the October picture got cleaned up a bit. All the images look pretty sharp. Be nice once all of these are out in in our hot little hands.

nice work thew done on october album