REC
Active topics
  1. Hi, everyone, I am new to this board, I am very impressed with the live bootleg recordings still going on. This was a big deal in my metal days, when Metallica, would actually have a section for people to record, to include giving them power for their equipment.
    Now Metallica makes every show available to download, or buy on a pro CD. Was wondering if anyone would like to see this, I know I would...
  2. This has been debated to death, and of course we all would like to see this happening. Many other bands do it, more and more each time. Pearl Jam, Sting, Bruce Springsteen, Mark Knopfler to name a few. It's a way to earn more money from their already prettyfucking profitable shows, and at the same time give their fans high quality sounding recordings from the shows they attend.

    I will never happen with U2. They are extremely perfectionists and insecure; they might be ok with fans recording their shows and sharing them for free among limited circles, but they would NEVER release a recording themselves without fixing and post-producing it for weeks.
  3. Well, I see where you are coming from but metallica is the same way, they have a team that does theirs are they perfect no, but no live performance ever is. Perfection is an unobtainable illusion.
  4. Originally posted by tman5172:Well, I see where you are coming from but metallica is the same way, they have a team that does theirs are they perfect no, but no live performance ever is. Perfection is an unobtainable illusion.
    Of course, but I think U2 prefers the option to edit things to get closer to "perfect." Take the Sirius XM broadcast. They edited Every Breaking Wave, cutting out Bono's mistake. Like Sergio said, it's a security thing for them, which is why they'd rather slave over perfecting a few DVD releases than release all of their shows.
  5. I’d love every u2 show to be released but I’d be more than happy to ‘settle’ for every song they play on the tour released on a cd compilation of sorts. U22 combined with from the ground up was almost just that and I’m not suggesting it needs to be a fan club gift, why not make it digital release only even? Just some way of getting an official release of as many songs as possible live.
  6. They definitely discussed it for the 360 Tour then discounted it.
  7. Personally, I'm glad U2 don't do this and monetise their shows further which they could of course do at any point of shows past or present - though as others have said, think it's highly unlikely they'll go down this road.

    That said, it could happen in quite a few years time though when the band have called time and the dust has settled, there is a lot of archived material that could be monetised by either the band or another entity much later down the line - so I'd never say never.

    The good thing is it definitely makes collecting and listening to U2 bootlegs less expensive for starters, it's a very enjoyable hobby and personally I'd like it to remain an inexpensive one, U2 have had enough of my dosh down the years. So we have them to thank for doing that - though I think their reasoning for doing so is more akin with what Sergio says above.

    It also makes our little hobby of collecting and listening to shows more interesting in my opinion. Most of us love soundboards and of course IEM scans over the last 20+ years now - they're my go to listen for boots most of the time - but too much of a good thing and all that - if we had all shows in that kind of quality I think it would make some stand out less than they do if that makes any sense. Plus sometimes its just really nice to listen to an audience mic. capture pull instead and listen or relive a show in that way, they can sometimes have a bit more soul and ambience to them than a soundboard. But yeah admittedly 75% of my time listening, I will play a soundboard, broadcast or IEM.

    If U2 were to go down this avenue it could also potentially mean a crackdown on unofficial live recordings and possibly historic ones and possibly sites like this and U2Torrents. I doubt they'd ever want to go this route - for one it would piss off a large hardcore fan base who loves U2 for their live shows and has given them endless cash down the years in official material, merchandise and concert tickets, and two its almost impossible to police anyway. So I think the general consensus is its probably a no-go for them. Going down this avenue makes really good commercial sense for newer bands starting out though - I fully understand and appreciate that - especially considering how the industry has changed over the last 20 years.
  8. I actually dislike PJ more because of the amount of bootlegs available. It waters down the live experience IMHO.

    But one of the great moves of that decision was to nullify the bootleg market and also provide high quality audio.
  9. I would love if U2 did what Bruce Springsteen is currently doing. Releasing an archive show each month.
  10. Yeah something like that would be acceptable and could be quite good imho, make it part of the U2.com membership even, one a month pulled from the archives would be good - no over-saturation, and trading / sharing non-official releases would still be ok.

    I guess one other issue with all of this has also been Bono's heavy use of snippetry and it probably becomes a bit of a minefield there in terms of licensing / copyright / royalties, so again with all of that said and done I don't think it will ever happen. Just more trouble for them than it's worth.
  11. I'm going to disagree with you in a huge huge way.

    From a taper standpoint:
    Tapers spend lots of money, time, and sacrificed show enjoyment to acquire recordings of shows. Even then, the quality is dependant on a million different things--gear, nearby crowd, radio reception, location, etc. I think ANY taper would welcome the opportunity to purchase a soundboard, which would likely be better than a stealth recording, for a measly $20 and relax during the show. And if the person still wants to tape, well, you can still stealth tape like before.

    From a collector standpoint:
    Lots of shows don't get recorded, or get recorded in quality. Having the opportunity to acquire high quality recordings at a reasonable price (legitametely too!) would be a goldmine. If you don't want to buy them, then don't buy them. Stealth recordings will still exist, but likely a number of the tapers will ease off on taping. But quality should be standardized, and shows are easy to find.

    From a casual fan perspecive:
    Casual fans want a recording of the show they went to. Many settle for shitty youtube audio. Many don't want to get involved in torrents, FLAC, archiving, etc. For $9.99, they can buy a soundboard copy of "their" show for their ipod on the morning commute.

    For the cheap obessesive downloader:
    For the person that downloads everything free on DIME, U2Torrents, UStart, etc. Yes, you will have to change your habits. If you're really obsessive and smart, you'll square up something with other friends and do group purchase. Or find stuff on PirateBay, and still download the stealth recordings.

    Over-saturation is a moot point. It's a core demographic that would purchase these, and they're already buying all the albums. This way the band would tap into a niche market demand. As long as they're providing quality mixes, I think it's a win-win.
  12. Springsteen has a similar fanbase, bootlegs and tapers and the downloads have worked very well there. Bootlegs can still be found. Knowing that you'll be able to purchase a quality recording of your show, or the one you wish you attended is fantastic. The archive series is a plus.

    They'll always be a group who won't purchase the official release because they have the bootleg. But, as good as some of those are, they never compare to the official releases. I think it's been a success so far.