u2songs.com: Running to Stand Still
Site Related => Discography & Releases => Topic started by: George on March 10, 2017, 10:22:44 AM
-
The discussion already started a bit in the thread about the 2014(!) U2.com gift. It's quite clear that we seem to have a desire of not wanting to start new topics?!
Anyhow, I was initially excited about this, as I am with any new release. It looks beautiful. But as I got thinking properly, I became pretty disappointed with this new set. I am very glad that the deluxe vinyl and CD versions have identical audio content. And the photo book and photos, while they will probably only be looked at a couple of times, do seem quite nice. But here are my criticisms. Some of these criticisms may overlap with each other.
1. The concert is missing four tracks - The Unforgettable Fire, Help!, Bad, and Spanish Eyes. This is presumably done in order to fit everything onto one CD. That's a shame.
2. The decision to include new remixes instead of demo versions, as was done with the Kindergarten versions on the Achtung Baby set. From the list here, it looks like we're only getting one alternative mix from 1987, the other seven are new:
- One Tree Hill 2017 Remix (St Francis Hotel)
- Bullet the Blue Sky 2017 Remix (Jacknife Lee)
- Running To Stand Still 2017 Remix (Daniel Lanois)
- Red Hill Mining Town 2017 Mix (Steve Lillywhite)
- With or Without You 2017 Remix (Daniel Lanois)
- Where The Streets Have No Name 2017 Remix (Flood)
- I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For (Lillywhite Alternative Mix ’87)
- One Tree Hill Reprise (Brian Eno 2017 Mix)
3. The single edit of Streets is missing. I don't really care, but as far as a complete set goes, it's not here, yet it made the 20th anniversary re-release.
4. Where are the tracks from the same era that appeared on compilations only? I'm thinking about:
- Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)
- Jesus Christ
- Maggie's Farm
- Springhill Mining Disaster
5. No Blu-Ray or high-definition audio? Achtung Baby had a downloadable 24-96 version available for its re-release.
6. No 5.1 surround sound mix? Many "top" artists are creating these for their re-releases.
7. No video content? The 20th anniversary set included a concert, promo videos, a documentary, and other unreleased videos.
8. The price is pretty excessive. Only the eight aforementioned tracks are new releases (the concert has been available on Wolfgang's Vault for download for several years). In comparison to the Achtung Baby release, it's a bit outrageous. That release (the "super" version) gave far more new material for only a little bit more money than is being asked for this release.
9. I'm restating it, but a Kindergarten-like CD would have been a very nice addition to this package.
-
I think we just have to accept that albums are living and breathing documents. TJT started this by having multiple sleeve covers for CD, cassette and vinyl. So the precedent is there. U2 tend not to be too completist in their thinking and tend to value artistry a little more. Here is an interesting JT website:
https://public.tableau.com/views/2017-JoshuaTree-2/Dashboard6?%3Aembed=y&%3Adisplay_count=yes&%3AshowVizHome=no#1
-
I think U2 is pretty protective of their demos, except in rare cases. They got burned when the Axtung Beibi outtakes were leaked and said on numerous occasions that the music was never intended to be heard by the public. And in the article on the Joshua Tree demos this week on U2Songs there's that quote from the Edge about how "Womanfish" "never should have seen the light of day." I think in U2's mind, if something isn't worth developing past demo form, it's not for public consumption. Of course their fans don't feel that way.
I'm optimistic about the new remixes because they are largely done by the original production team: Eno, Lanois, Lillywhite, and Flood. I'm guessing these will sound more like "alternate" versions than actual remixes, and that's a good thing. We know that the Red Hill Mining Town remix brings the original brass more into the mix, and of course the re-recorded vocals so that Bono can sing it live. My guess is that these "remixes" actually will be similar to the "baby" versions from the AB set. I hope so.
Agree on the price, though. That's crazy. I will hope that the price for the 4CD set drops well below $100 on amazon. I'm still fuming that we can't use the U2.com 25 percent off coupon on these. >:(
I did notice that even the CD set comes with a digital download card. I wonder if they will offer FLAC or some other high-res format? I'm sure no 5.1 though.
-
Here is some amazon listings and an article:
http://www.superdeluxeedition.com/news/u2-to-release-30th-anniversary-super-deluxe-box-sets-of-the-joshua-tree/
-
Currently I can get the 4CD set for $82 including shipping to the US from amazon Germany. Cheapest I've found so far. Amazon US is currently $110. The problem is I'll have to wait almost two weeks past release date to get it from Germany.
-
Here is an interview with Lanois from Sunday night where he discusses each song on the album. Fourth stream down on the showreel.
http://mixlr.com/bono_girl/showreel/
-
IIRC, there was no announcement about the 24-bit release of Achtung Baby. it just showed up on HDtracks.
The press release did say that Joshua Tree is being released in "digital formats," so I am still hopeful that we will see a 24-bit release, at least for the main album.
-
Not to be unnecessarily contradictory, here, but the HD release of AB is only 24/44.1, and not 24/96, which 24/96 is actually a much more common HD release format, and to those who argue for such things it would be "better" (sounding/quality).
I recently read that all new submissions to Apple for the iTunes Store must be in 24-but, as apparently they are future-proofing their store content for if/when they decide to compete in the HD music space.
If that's true, makes you wonder what is actually out there from the U2 camp that has never seen the light of day.
-
Actually, I see quite a few new albums released in 24/44.1 these days on 7digital, HDtracks, Qobuz and the like. That said, I beleive Joshua Tree was originally recorded to analog tape, so if they were going to do a high-resolution transfer, there would be no reason not to go with 24/96 or 24/192.
And I believe that Apple story is a bit of a myth. They prefer to receive 24-bit masters, but I don't think they would refuse to sell an album if it wasn't available in that format. In fact, plenty of albums in the 80's and 90's were recorded in 16-bit digital.
-
Actually, I see quite a few new albums released in 24/44.1 these days on 7digital, HDtracks, Qobuz and the like. That said, I beleive Joshua Tree was originally recorded to analog tape, so if they were going to do a high-resolution transfer, there would be no reason not to go with 24/96 or 24/192.
And I believe that Apple story is a bit of a myth. They prefer to receive 24-bit masters, but I don't think they would refuse to sell an album if it wasn't available in that format. In fact, plenty of albums in the 80's and 90's were recorded in 16-bit digital.
Got it. Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like you're ahead of the curve on this HD music thing 8)
-
Pledge Music has a page as well.
http://www.pledgemusic.com/projects/u2-joshua-tree/exclusives
-
Here is an A/B of the RHMT versions.
https://youtu.be/CbvwBeIhJvw
-
One week to go until release day. Has anyone seen any unique promos or other stuff pop up for this? I thought it was interesting that Jimmy Kimmel had the box set on his desk when U2 was on the show earlier this week. It could have been just a mock-up, of course, but he commented on how heavy it was, so it was probably the real thing.
-
https://twitter.com/AtomicCollector/status/862389692079247360
-
https://twitter.com/AtomicCollector/status/862389692079247360
Thanks! I've been meaning to ask about that here... does anyone know why that Croke Park cassette (we mentioned it on Twitter and Facebook recently) puts RHMT at the end of Side A and starts Side B with In God's Country? That has to be intentional... right?!?
-
https://twitter.com/AtomicCollector/status/862389692079247360
I saw the cassette previously. What is the black box on the right?
-
A question! So I downloaded this off of iTunes and I am making a CDR of the 8 new tracks. Should I keep them in 87 sequence or in 2017 sequence. BTW, the 87 sequence of JT is the best running order ever. Thoughts, opinions?
-
A question! So I downloaded this off of iTunes and I am making a CDR of the 8 new tracks. Should I keep them in 87 sequence or in 2017 sequence. BTW, the 87 sequence of JT is the best running order ever. Thoughts, opinions?
I'd keep the new tracks in 2017 sequence!
Speaking of which, what are everyone's thoughts on the remixes? Here are my impressions after a couple listens:
One Tree Hill (St. Francis Hotel)-I like this one. It sounds "churchy."
Bullet the Blue Sky (Jacknife Lee)-It's ok. I think some of the raw power of the original is lost here.
Running to Stand Still (Lanois)-I hope this one will grow on me. At this point I think it sounds like an outtake from the MDH soundtrack. Rather than tragic it just sounds kind of sleepy.
RHMT (Lillywhite)-We're all familiar with this one by now. And when all is said and done, I think it's far and away the best of the new mixes.
WOWY (Lanois)-I expected Lanois' mixes to have lots of swampy guitar, but they are surprisingly heavy on electronics. To me this sounds like a Bono solo track over a bed of synths. I don't really feel like you hear much from Adam, Larry, and Edge, aside from the signature bass line buried far in the back.
Streets (Flood)-This is the biggest letdown for me. I love the fact that there are so many alternate vocal takes. And the last two minutes are gorgeous. But as I said on FB, it sounds like there are maybe three or four alternate versions of Streets here, and Flood couldn't decide which one he liked, so rather than exploring one version to the fullest he just mashed them all together in snippets. Plus the references to Bullet and WOWY seem really gimmicky to me.
ISHFWILF (Lillywhite alt. mix)--LOVE this one! Probably because it's not a modern attempt to reinvent anything. It's just an earlier mix from the original sessions, like the alt mix of I Will Follow. This song always had a great groove but it's really amped up here.
One Tree Hill (Eno)-Love this one as well. Kind of surprised it's not the actual "Oh great ocean" coda, but rather the first part of the song. I wish it went on longer.
Overall, I think Lillywhite is the winner here, with both his new mix of RHMT and the vintage ISHFWILF mix. Good stuff.
-
Yup, 87 Lillywhite is a revelation. OTH is really emotional when I listened to it. I think I might bookend OTH on my CDR sequence.
-
There is speculation online that BTBS is actually from Denver.
-
There is speculation online that BTBS is actually from Denver.
Nice to know. Doesn't surprise me. Shades of the Rosebowl DVD. If you don't remember, they edited in a part from a different show there as well. This has become a running joke among fans of their live shows.
I found out the other night while doing the lyrics. At first I thought, hmm, just put the parts WV called 'banter' with the correct song and that's it. I should have know better with U2's own live releases.
-
The new pride and joy, the centerpiece, the flagship of my entire music library has arrived at last! An outstanding package for what, as far as I'm concerned, is the very best album of all time!
-
There is speculation online that BTBS is actually from Denver.
It's definitely not the same performance as the 9/28/87 MSG show available from Wolfgang's Vault.
-
Not the same show*
-
Just as happened last year when I pre-ordered the Innocence and Experience video from Amazon Canada, again I received yesterday an email saying that I can expect delivery sometime between June 21 and July 2!!! A 3-week to 1-month delay for a preorder it's beyond ridiculous.
I wouldn't mind as much if Autorip was available in this country.
I have Prince's Purple Rain 3CD+DVD on preorder for June 21. I wonder it it'll arrive first. ...And about that set - $33.50 CAD. That's how to price a 4-disc set of an ultra-classic album from the 80s. Just saying.
-
A question! So I downloaded this off of iTunes and I am making a CDR of the 8 new tracks. Should I keep them in 87 sequence or in 2017 sequence. BTW, the 87 sequence of JT is the best running order ever. Thoughts, opinions?
I'd keep the new tracks in 2017 sequence!
Speaking of which, what are everyone's thoughts on the remixes? Here are my impressions after a couple listens:
One Tree Hill (St. Francis Hotel)-I like this one. It sounds "churchy."
Bullet the Blue Sky (Jacknife Lee)-It's ok. I think some of the raw power of the original is lost here.
Running to Stand Still (Lanois)-I hope this one will grow on me. At this point I think it sounds like an outtake from the MDH soundtrack. Rather than tragic it just sounds kind of sleepy.
RHMT (Lillywhite)-We're all familiar with this one by now. And when all is said and done, I think it's far and away the best of the new mixes.
WOWY (Lanois)-I expected Lanois' mixes to have lots of swampy guitar, but they are surprisingly heavy on electronics. To me this sounds like a Bono solo track over a bed of synths. I don't really feel like you hear much from Adam, Larry, and Edge, aside from the signature bass line buried far in the back.
Streets (Flood)-This is the biggest letdown for me. I love the fact that there are so many alternate vocal takes. And the last two minutes are gorgeous. But as I said on FB, it sounds like there are maybe three or four alternate versions of Streets here, and Flood couldn't decide which one he liked, so rather than exploring one version to the fullest he just mashed them all together in snippets. Plus the references to Bullet and WOWY seem really gimmicky to me.
ISHFWILF (Lillywhite alt. mix)--LOVE this one! Probably because it's not a modern attempt to reinvent anything. It's just an earlier mix from the original sessions, like the alt mix of I Will Follow. This song always had a great groove but it's really amped up here.
One Tree Hill (Eno)-Love this one as well. Kind of surprised it's not the actual "Oh great ocean" coda, but rather the first part of the song. I wish it went on longer.
Overall, I think Lillywhite is the winner here, with both his new mix of RHMT and the vintage ISHFWILF mix. Good stuff.
I'm glad that the law of the land ("each to his own") reigns king :P
I'm not a Lillywhite fan. Never have been. I find his contributions to be flat, uninteresting and uninspired. I am, hands-down, an unabashed Eno/Lanois proponent, such that any one of the Eno/Lanois' albums (TUF, TJT, AB, ATYCLB and NLOTH), if it were the only U2 album to have ever seen the light of day, I would be a fan. Conversely, if every album outside those 5 existed, and none of the 5 above were extant, I would not be a U2 fan. Oh, but for Passengers, Original Soundtracks 1, and even the MDH Soundtrack - I would be a fan if only those ever existed ;)
On that note, regarding the new remixes, I'm finding great satisfaction in the Lanois mixes. Admittedly, Lanois is eccentric (dare I say, an "eclectic genius") and he can, perhaps, overcommit to a particular flavor, at times. In both of his remixes here, they are unambiguously "dated." Dated to the current era of Lanois, that is. That ambient, slightly halting pedal steel guitar, infused with his "using the studio as an instrument" utilization of synth to accompany... But, since in my book Daniel Lanois can do no wrong, I wholeheartedly submit to his remixes! :o Eno hardly got a fair shot, but I do at least like his "honorable mention" that is the "reprise." I am actually enjoying Flood's "Streets." It is a bit avant-garde, but I think that's the only thing you would dare do with "Streets."
As for Lillywhite? Meh... Most importantly, perhaps, is that he messed with the wrong song (ISHFWILF) - Greatest. Song. Ever. Recorded! Well, that is..., in it's original album format - not the post TJT "gospelization" of the track that stripped it of it's production gold and turned it into some offbeat chanting, field-hollering session ::) So, for Lillywhite to alter the original studio version, in the slightest iota, is blasphemy to this crotchety old b@$|@^! >:(
Lillywhite's impact on U2:
- Too safe
- Lacks complexity
- Lacks character
- Lacks depth
- Lacks innovation
- Lacks mystery
- Lacks adding anything to the music
Okay. I'm sorry for the rant. Sorry, Steve (if you're reading this [and, I'm sure you're are]) :P
Oh, and Don... you know I love you, which is the only reason I feel as free and so compelled to vent my true feelings ;D
...okay, perhaps I've mildly embellished them :P
-
A question! So I downloaded this off of iTunes and I am making a CDR of the 8 new tracks. Should I keep them in 87 sequence or in 2017 sequence. BTW, the 87 sequence of JT is the best running order ever. Thoughts, opinions?
I'd keep the new tracks in 2017 sequence!
Speaking of which, what are everyone's thoughts on the remixes? Here are my impressions after a couple listens:
One Tree Hill (St. Francis Hotel)-I like this one. It sounds "churchy."
Bullet the Blue Sky (Jacknife Lee)-It's ok. I think some of the raw power of the original is lost here.
Running to Stand Still (Lanois)-I hope this one will grow on me. At this point I think it sounds like an outtake from the MDH soundtrack. Rather than tragic it just sounds kind of sleepy.
RHMT (Lillywhite)-We're all familiar with this one by now. And when all is said and done, I think it's far and away the best of the new mixes.
WOWY (Lanois)-I expected Lanois' mixes to have lots of swampy guitar, but they are surprisingly heavy on electronics. To me this sounds like a Bono solo track over a bed of synths. I don't really feel like you hear much from Adam, Larry, and Edge, aside from the signature bass line buried far in the back.
Streets (Flood)-This is the biggest letdown for me. I love the fact that there are so many alternate vocal takes. And the last two minutes are gorgeous. But as I said on FB, it sounds like there are maybe three or four alternate versions of Streets here, and Flood couldn't decide which one he liked, so rather than exploring one version to the fullest he just mashed them all together in snippets. Plus the references to Bullet and WOWY seem really gimmicky to me.
ISHFWILF (Lillywhite alt. mix)--LOVE this one! Probably because it's not a modern attempt to reinvent anything. It's just an earlier mix from the original sessions, like the alt mix of I Will Follow. This song always had a great groove but it's really amped up here.
One Tree Hill (Eno)-Love this one as well. Kind of surprised it's not the actual "Oh great ocean" coda, but rather the first part of the song. I wish it went on longer.
Overall, I think Lillywhite is the winner here, with both his new mix of RHMT and the vintage ISHFWILF mix. Good stuff.
I'm glad that the law of the land ("each to his own") reigns king :P
I'm not a Lillywhite fan. Never have been. I find his contributions to be flat, uninteresting and uninspired. I am, hands-down, an unabashed Eno/Lanois proponent, such that any one of the Eno/Lanois' albums (TUF, TJT, AB, ATYCLB and NLOTH), if it were the only U2 album to have ever seen the light of day, I would be a fan. Conversely, if every album outside those 5 existed, and none of the 5 above were extant, I would not be a U2 fan. Oh, but for Passengers, Original Soundtracks 1, and even the MDH Soundtrack - I would be a fan if only those ever existed ;)
On that note, regarding the new remixes, I'm finding great satisfaction in the Lanois mixes. Admittedly, Lanois is eccentric (dare I say, an "eclectic genius") and he can, perhaps, overcommit to a particular flavor, at times. In both of his remixes here, they are unambiguously "dated." Dated to the current era of Lanois, that is. That ambient, slightly halting pedal steel guitar, infused with his "using the studio as an instrument" utilization of synth to accompany... But, since in my book Daniel Lanois can do no wrong, I wholeheartedly submit to his remixes! :o Eno hardly got a fair shot, but I do at least like his "honorable mention" that is the "reprise." I am actually enjoying Flood's "Streets." It is a bit avant-garde, but I think that's the only thing you would dare do with "Streets."
As for Lillywhite? Meh... Most importantly, perhaps, is that he messed with the wrong song (ISHFWILF) - Greatest. Song. Ever. Recorded! Well, that is..., in it's original album format - not the post TJT "gospelization" of the track that stripped it of it's production gold and turned it into some offbeat chanting, field-hollering session ::) So, for Lillywhite to alter the original studio version, in the slightest iota, is blasphemy to this crotchety old b@$|@^! >:(
Lillywhite's impact on U2:
- Too safe
- Lacks complexity
- Lacks character
- Lacks depth
- Lacks innovation
- Lacks mystery
- Lacks adding anything to the music
Okay. I'm sorry for the rant. Sorry, Steve (if you're reading this [and, I'm sure you're are]) :P
Oh, and Don... you know I love you, which is the only reason I feel as free and so compelled to vent my true feelings ;D
...okay, perhaps I've mildly embellished them :P
LOL! No worries Josh. Believe it or not, I share your producer preferences, I love Eno/Lanois--and Flood for that matter--which is why I find myself surprised liking the Lillywhite material better on the new set. I had high hopes for the Flood remix and those were dashed, undoubtedly because he probably felt intimidated trying to mess with perfection. And I'm not a fan of Lanois' mixes for the very same reason you like them... they are "dated to the current Lanois era."
But I'm sure the mixes will grow on me. They always do. I've actually listened to an original 87 pressing of the Joshua Tree on CD no less than five times this week while working on an article for U2Songs. I've got to agree with God Part II, it is the very best album of all time. When all is said and done the bonus material will always pale to that. :)
Love ya man...
-
For The Joshua Tree 30th Anniversary release, on CD #2 - Live at Madison Square Garden 1987, I used several websites to try to find the answer to my question, but I failed. So here is my question:
Are all the live tracks from the same concert?
Or . . . . . are some from September 28, 1987 . . . . . . and the others from September 29, 1987
Duh! I forgot to check u2songs.com I feel like an idiot now. OK . . . so now I know the live tracks were from September 28, 1987.
-
For The Joshua Tree 30th Anniversary release, on CD #2 - Live at Madison Square Garden 1987, I used several websites to try to find the answer to my question, but I failed. So here is my question:
Are all the live tracks from the same concert?
Or . . . . . are some from September 28, 1987 . . . . . . and the others from September 29, 1987
Duh! I forgot to check u2songs.com I feel like an idiot now. OK . . . so now I know the live tracks were from September 28, 1987.
BUt they weren't actual. Despite the packaging we've been able to sleuth that some tracks were recorded in Denver. BTBS to be specific.
-
BUt they weren't actual. Despite the packaging we've been able to sleuth that some tracks were recorded in Denver. BTBS to be specific.
Hhm . . . . that's interesting. Thank you for the info.
-
I thought I had heard BTBS was from 11/11?
-
That was the date of the SF concert in which they didn't play that track.
If you listen to this video boot (which many not be correct you can hear Bono speak Spanish which isn't on JT30)
https://youtu.be/5oiaV7bQ8aY?t=295
-
Here is the official download link:
http://redeem.thejoshuatree.com/
-
Eureka! I’ve discovered the guiding principle for U2’s editing of live shows.
It was right in front of my eyes, like those spinning red dots after a 6-pack of Guinness...
(http://i68.tinypic.com/2ntlemp.jpg)
Some quick math yields a simple solution. This is child’s play for any grade school mind like mine.
It could also answer other age old questions such as: Is there really a Santa Claus? What is a MFiT, really, and can I save a .jpg of one to my desktop? Will it be chilly on Mars? Should I take a sweater? When will the next album be released and will global warming have expanded the oceans so far by then that I’ll need a canoe to make it to 7-11 for some Fritos?
-
🤣
-
Eureka! I’ve discovered the guiding principle for U2’s editing of live shows.
It was right in front of my eyes, like those spinning red dots after a 6-pack of Guinness...
(http://i68.tinypic.com/2ntlemp.jpg)
Some quick math yields a simple solution. This is child’s play for any grade school mind like mine.
It could also answer other age old questions such as: Is there really a Santa Claus? What is a MFiT, really, and can I save a .jpg of one to my desktop? Will it be chilly on Mars? Should I take a sweater? When will the next album be released and will global warming have expanded the oceans so far by then that I’ll need a canoe to make it to 7-11 for some Fritos?
Still makes more sense than the lyrics to "Elvis Presley and America".
-
Okay, legitimate question: apologies in advance if discussed elsewhere, already, and I missed it.
Why did they jack with the b-sides/bonuses disc, as compared to its release in 2007? As I see it, they deleted "Streets (Edit)" and replaced with two remixes that could have just as easily been added to the Remixes CD.
I suppose I see that with Lillywhite's alternative 87' mix it is seen as distinct from the other remixes, in that the other remixes are all contemporary. That being said, why did Eno's OTH Reprise not make the remixes disc?
Did they just want to make it "different" than the 2007 release?
-
The Eno mix definitely should have gone on the remixes disc. It's a 2017 creation and makes no sense with the archival material. The Lillywhite makes sense where it is as it's really an early mix, almost a demo, rather than a reinterpretation. I have no idea why they took off the Streets single version... that one should be there.
As for "why"? Good question. I'm convinced there is some sort of legal/business reason why they tweak these things the way they do. Put it in the same category as moving "Mysterious Ways" out of the running order and making it a bonus track on U2: Go Home, or making the "acoustic sessions" a single track on SOI deluxe. I'm guessing these decisions go down to fine print and $$$ somewhere, because they make no sense from a purely aesthetic or marketing perspective.