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

    Thats becasue it isnt remastered.I also find it surprising,that a full track listing still isnt available.Thats beyond unusual.Why the hell would I order something that is so unclear ?? Talk about being vague.I hope the band will soon realize,and be aware of the fact that they totally dropped the ball with this release.Its unnecessary to buy.

    IMO, I feel it is a necessity,to at least remaster a rerelease.And certainly, one that is 20 years old.Thats a basic requirement.To improve on something that you already have.Like the sound maybe ?? Example,The Beatles.Would I have bought their entire collection on cd,AGAIN,if they werent at least remastered ?.Of course not.

    Im not going to buy this "version" of AB, just becasue its nicely repackaged.Thats of course what this release is.A repackage.The news is,it's nothing new.



    It IS the original recording remastered.

    They didn't answer that question because everyone should know by now that it is a remastered version.

    Instead of always jumping to conclusions and bashing the band at every occasion, people should get some bits of information.

    If you don't want to have it, don't buy it, no one forces you to.

  2. I have been signing in a lot less now... life is intense ! Anyway, I really want to get my hands in the new AB material. But I am worried about the band... Maybe revisiting their old stuff raised questions in them about where they are and where they should be?

    In my opinion, they should still want to be relevant. But relevant is not the same as popular. Popular music sucks these days. Relevant music is good, like Arcade Fire. From what they say, I get the idea that Bono mixes up these two ideas... very different ideas.

    I also want to say that I think U2 was relevant till ATYCLB. ATYCLB was very meaninful bringing old fans back and it relates a lot with the time of its release. Bomb had fine tunes and sold a lot - it was popular, but not relevant. NLOTH was just confused - the relevant stuff isn't pop enough and the pop stuff isn't as interesting. I think Zooropa and POP were very relevant sonically. I don't have to say anything about the days before those.

    These are my thoughts!
  3. Originally posted by NLOTH_VictorI have been signing in a lot less now... life is intense ! Anyway, I really want to get my hands in the new AB material. But I am worried about the band... Maybe revisiting their old stuff raised questions in them about where they are and where they should be?

    In my opinion, they should still want to be relevant. But relevant is not the same as popular. Popular music sucks these days. Relevant music is good, like Arcade Fire. From what they say, I get the idea that Bono mixes up these two ideas... very different ideas.

    I also want to say that I think U2 was relevant till ATYCLB. ATYCLB was very meaninful bringing old fans back and it relates a lot with the time of its release. Bomb had fine tunes and sold a lot - it was popular, but not relevant. NLOTH was just confused - the relevant stuff isn't pop enough and the pop stuff isn't as interesting. I think Zooropa and POP were very relevant sonically. I don't have to say anything about the days before those.

    These are my thoughts!


    I understand your worrying, but I don't Bono is mixing up popularity and relevance. If anything, popularity comes with relevance, because more people can get behind a more relevant idea.

    If they're looking back on the period between the JT era and Achtung Baby, and thinking "we need to get there again" I can only say go for it. They really ARE in the same boat, and they need something to catch that fire again. Like Bono said at the press conference, they've proved that they can sell out concerts and they'll always be able to play to a big audience, but now they need to prove that they can still be heard in terms of what's important musically. As you said, a lot of the mainstream popular music is really crap these days. If U2 can find a way to get back in there with some good music, it'd be the best of both worlds. They need to pave new ground in terms of getting revolutionary music popular again. If the music they make is good enough, they won't have to follow suit with what's hip these days.
  4. But who decides which music is good and which music is crap?

    That is the question.
  5. Originally posted by LikeASongBut who decides which music is good and which music is crap?

    That is the question.


    It is my ears and brain who decide that for me.
  6. Yes music is about opinion, but popularity and relevance and be used interchangably. I can understand them wanting to be relevant...who wants to be irrelvant?
  7. Originally posted by thefly202005It is my ears and brain who decide that for me.


    That's what I'm going to.
    It is US, WE, the audience, who decide which music is good and which music is bad. And that relates invariably to taste. And as long as the general taste is oriented to other styles than the common U2 style, their music will lose more and more relevance and popularity. It's very simple. So, they have basically two options:

    1) do not give a fucking damn of what the general audience think, and just make music that they like and the U2 fans appreciate, or
    2) change their style and become more pop-oriented, more alligned with nowaday's general taste, and try to be high on 2012's charts.


    I perfectly know which option I do want them to choose. But I'm afraid they don't have it that clear...
  8. I would love for the boys to re-release Even Better Than The Real Thing again. I thought that was quite interesting when they were asked which song would be released as a single in today's world.
  9. Originally posted by Cypress[..]


    It IS the original recording remastered.

    They didn't answer that question because everyone should know by now that it is a remastered version.

    Instead of always jumping to conclusions and bashing the band at every occasion, people should get some bits of information.

    If you don't want to have it, don't buy it, no one forces you to.




    As I said,Im not buying it again,unless it is remastered.I bought it 20 years ago,in 1991.Is it remastered ?.I havent seen it listed anywhere,as being remastered.

    Now that is the question...Is it ?..Or Isnt it.?....Dont assume it is.I hope you are right.I hope it is remastered.I hope they have the entire St Patty's gig from Boston (03.17.92) as well.

    Radioheads old label,confused alot of their fans,when their catalogue was re-released last year.They are NOT remastered.Most of us,assumed they were.Amnesiac is listed as a deluxe version on iTunes.As is AB on Amazon (US).OK Computer,Collectors Edition.It is not remastered.Most fans said they were.The word remastered is nowhere to be found with Radioheads re-released collection.Check itunes.JT is listed clearly as being remastered.As Is War ,Boy, October,UF.If AB is listed,on iTunes, as remastered next month,believe you me,I will buy it.

    I just feel,IMO,they could have done a better job with this release.Thank you very much.Thats my opinion.JT,was a fantastic remastered re-release.Most,if not all of the people in this forum,and everywhere else,say AB isnt remastered.Again,I hope it is remastered.The record company, should list it that way.That would clear up alot of the confusion.
  10. Originally posted by LikeASong[..]

    That's what I'm going to.
    It is US, WE, the audience, who decide which music is good and which music is bad. And that relates invariably to taste. And as long as the general taste is oriented to other styles than the common U2 style, their music will lose more and more relevance and popularity. It's very simple. So, they have basically two options:

    1) do not give a fucking damn of what the general audience think, and just make music that they like and the U2 fans appreciate, or
    2) change their style and become more pop-oriented, more alligned with nowaday's general taste, and try to be high on 2012's charts.


    I perfectly know which option I do want them to choose. But I'm afraid they don't have it that clear...


    Achtung Baby had its soul in industrial music, it's not like it wasn't following any trend. Pop had its foot in dance music, which was also big at the time (still is). Sure, both were very different from what they were attributed as being, but really what made them different is U2. Even if U2 make a pop record, garunteed it won't sound anything like the top 40 on the surface, because U2 just arent like that.
  11. Originally posted by NLOTH_Victor:

    I also want to say that I think U2 was relevant till ATYCLB. ATYCLB was very meaninful bringing old fans back and it relates a lot with the time of its release. Bomb had fine tunes and sold a lot - it was popular, but not relevant. NLOTH was just confused - the relevant stuff isn't pop enough and the pop stuff isn't as interesting. I think Zooropa and POP were very relevant sonically. I don't have to say anything about the days before those.

    These are my thoughts!


    Well put. As much as it gets bashed around here (not by all), I think ATYCLB was/is a VERY relevant album that really suited the times at the turn of the century. Admittedly, the emotion on the accompanying Elevation Tour (namely the third leg) has definitely added to the allure of this album but it in itself really was a big deal a decade ago and still sounds pretty solid now.

    Back on topic: Achtung Baby is, and always will be, "relevant" - even if they didn't get it quite right for the remaster.
  12. Well said!
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.