Author Topic: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?  (Read 1013 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline laoghaire

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 687
  • IT MEEEEEEEANS SOMETHING!!!!!!
Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
« Reply #45 on: July 11, 2018, 07:37:20 PM »
People titling threads with hot takes is fun. I dunno, some posts are just too "these opinions are facts, you're not a true fan / a mindless, slavish fanboy/girl" for me. One can come out with a hot take in a fun way - "October was their best album!! Who's with me??"

Ah, I do think EBW was lyrically genius - I mean it, genius. Also love Little Things lyrics, those hit me right between the eyes.

Offline Luzita

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 315
Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
« Reply #46 on: July 11, 2018, 09:17:17 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

All of the sudden this week, there are a lot of new threads, from a couple different new posters, that have titles akin to something like "Everything U2 Did after 1985 is Total Garbage..."  Opinions are good.  Differences are what makes the world go around.  But it's hard to have a good back-and-forth when that's where the starting line is set.  And then to act all wounded when people feel they have to stand up to a finite blanket statement like that.  What really makes it funny is that, in theory, I agree with the feelings behind a lot of these posts.  It's just that they're said in such a sh**ty, confrontational way that it makes them seep with a certain toxicity... Perhaps it's just a language barrier thing...

Funny how it seems so prevalent all of the sudden this week, though...

All of this is completely on target. I, too, am bewildered as to why this forum is suffering an epidemic of unreasonable topic titles that seem chosen to provoke conflict rather than invite discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Tortuga

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 102
Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
« Reply #47 on: July 12, 2018, 05:36:49 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

All of the sudden this week, there are a lot of new threads, from a couple different new posters, that have titles akin to something like "Everything U2 Did after 1985 is Total Garbage..."  Opinions are good.  Differences are what makes the world go around.  But it's hard to have a good back-and-forth when that's where the starting line is set.  And then to act all wounded when people feel they have to stand up to a finite blanket statement like that.  What really makes it funny is that, in theory, I agree with the feelings behind a lot of these posts.  It's just that they're said in such a sh**ty, confrontational way that it makes them seep with a certain toxicity... Perhaps it's just a language barrier thing...

Funny how it seems so prevalent all of the sudden this week, though...

All of this is completely on target. I, too, am bewildered as to why this forum is suffering an epidemic of unreasonable topic titles that seem chosen to provoke conflict rather than invite discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Am I just completely insensitive?  Looking through the posts I donít see any recent ones that look inciteful.  Maybe the one about JT being over-rated?  But I donít find that offensive at all.  I am really curious what titles you see as being this way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline laoghaire

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 687
  • IT MEEEEEEEANS SOMETHING!!!!!!
Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
« Reply #48 on: July 12, 2018, 06:06:31 AM »
Yeah I took that one as a hot take rather than an actual statement of stubborn fact.

The posts that bug me aren't topic starters. And there are just a few.

Offline Vox

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,093
  • Time is irrelevant, it's not linear.
Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
« Reply #49 on: July 12, 2018, 07:23:34 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But just to clarify, do you see the title of this thread as something that should set people off?  To me there is nothing wrong with it.  I donít think its possible for a band to be TOO dependent on a producer, which was my reply.  (Producers are just part of the team.) But I donít think its a trolling or intentional insult title.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The title of this one is fine.  I just mentioned other posts in this one because I liked laoghaire's comment.   

And I would answer yes, U2 have always been pretty dependent on producers.  I was all for U2 taking a break from Eno/Lanois and seeing what happens (I was excited to hear they were working with Rubin and especially Danger Mouse).  But U2 have always been notoriously tough on producers.  Lately I've been wondering what one more Eno/Lanois collaboration would sound like...  I also find it interesting that it seems we used to get detailed accounts of the recording process for every album up to and including No Line on the Horizon.  The last two albums?  Not as much.  I'm sure there's all sorts of disclosure agreements everyone signs who works with them to not talk about it.  But it's my belief that they really burned out Danger Mouse.   

Offline Luzita

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 315
Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
« Reply #50 on: July 12, 2018, 08:59:19 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

All of the sudden this week, there are a lot of new threads, from a couple different new posters, that have titles akin to something like "Everything U2 Did after 1985 is Total Garbage..."  Opinions are good.  Differences are what makes the world go around.  But it's hard to have a good back-and-forth when that's where the starting line is set.  And then to act all wounded when people feel they have to stand up to a finite blanket statement like that.  What really makes it funny is that, in theory, I agree with the feelings behind a lot of these posts.  It's just that they're said in such a sh**ty, confrontational way that it makes them seep with a certain toxicity... Perhaps it's just a language barrier thing...

Funny how it seems so prevalent all of the sudden this week, though...

All of this is completely on target. I, too, am bewildered as to why this forum is suffering an epidemic of unreasonable topic titles that seem chosen to provoke conflict rather than invite discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Am I just completely insensitive?  Looking through the posts I donít see any recent ones that look inciteful.  Maybe the one about JT being over-rated?  But I donít find that offensive at all.  I am really curious what titles you see as being this way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People's perceptions can differ, of course.

Offline Dali

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,706
Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
« Reply #51 on: July 14, 2018, 11:51:05 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think the last few albums have been over produced and perhaps they should just get in a room with Steve Lillywhite and play some damn rock and roll. That said, my kids are grooving to the popish remix of Love Is Better...
I agree. Why don't they just travel to Indonesia and jam with Steve there where he now lives? That sounds like fun.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Steve Lillywhite always complained that the band should tour before the album, because the live versions they created were often superior to anything they did in the studio. Think about what U2 does with their songs in a live setting. No producers involved there.

Touring before recording the songs in the studio would probably work in the current climate of the music industry in which tours are more important for the bottom line anyway than the album. Getting to listen to new songs that are not recorded yet would certainly increase the draw of the concert tickets. I feel they should try it. They might even create a new industry trend with it and put rock music back on the map through it sounding as fresh as it only can in a live setting.

Offline laoghaire

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 687
  • IT MEEEEEEEANS SOMETHING!!!!!!
Re: Is the band a bit dependent on producers?
« Reply #52 on: July 14, 2018, 01:59:23 PM »
People wouldn't be enthusiastic hearing unknown music. It takes me several listens to get into a song.

In the old days, there would be no reasonable way around that. But today, they can drop an album the usual way, tour it, and then release digital tracks of any song they felt like they improved - like they do with the different mixes. I guess they did that with EBW - the "radio edit" was what they figured out live, better than the bonus acoustic version on the deluxe album.

What I really want, though, is live from the mixing desk recordings. Dublin 1993 sounds soooo good. Of course it was a completely flawless performance but even less perfect performances, if the audio quality is tops, I want that. Why can't I have this? I will buy these albums. With money. Take my goddamn money!