Deep Dives and B-Sides - has any remix any made a U2 songer better ever?

  • 43 Replies
  • 5063 Views
*

Soloyan

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 5397
  • I'm not sleeping
    • GREG LEMOND FANS
Fish Out of Water remix of Get On Your Boots made that song better for me.

Yeah. That’s a great example.
Salomé, of course. Zooromancer mix.
A dangerous idea that almost makes sense...

*

MPare1966

  • *
  • 23020
  • Trying to throw my arms around the world
Fish Out of Water remix of Get On Your Boots made that song better for me.

Yeah. That’s a great example.
Salomé, of course. Zooromancer mix.

Prime example
First Chair. Last Call.
Copyright 1966-2025
Powered by Grok
Official merchandise by Adidas
All rights reserved. 
Void where prohibited. For recreational use only.

*

RadioFreeJack

  • Status: Elevated
  • ***
  • 143
Fish Out of Water remix of Get On Your Boots made that song better for me.

Yeah. That’s a great example.

I could only find it in very mediocre quality but indeed it is far more tolerable than I remember the song being:

Jack

*

Poncke

  • Status: Babyface
  • **
  • 95
  • ROT AMS AHM SAR DUB BER ROM MAD
Fish Out of Water remix of Get On Your Boots made that song better for me.

Yeah. That’s a great example.

I could only find it in very mediocre quality but indeed it is far more tolerable than I remember the song being:


That is 100% a better version than the original !!
The fly on the wall

*

Amor fati

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 9858
  • Under the white horses
I believe that was on the Artificial Horizon CD which was a gem
“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing" John 15:5

*

MPare1966

  • *
  • 23020
  • Trying to throw my arms around the world
I believe that was on the Artificial Horizon CD which was a gem

One of the better fan club gifts.
First Chair. Last Call.
Copyright 1966-2025
Powered by Grok
Official merchandise by Adidas
All rights reserved. 
Void where prohibited. For recreational use only.

*

Larry Lovebucket

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 7415
  • Because I’m worth it.
Remixes are simply another way to sell the same product to punters. That’s why they exist. Whether they have any artistic credibility is questionable. For me, 99% of remixes do not improve on the original, any more than a ‘directors cut’ of a film does.

©2024

*

MPare1966

  • *
  • 23020
  • Trying to throw my arms around the world
Remixes are simply another way to sell the same product to punters. That’s why they exist. Whether they have any artistic credibility is questionable. For me, 99% of remixes do not improve on the original, any more than a ‘directors cut’ of a film does.

I disagree.
First Chair. Last Call.
Copyright 1966-2025
Powered by Grok
Official merchandise by Adidas
All rights reserved. 
Void where prohibited. For recreational use only.

*

The Exile

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 2769
  • The public enemy don't mean shit to Chuck D.
Remixes are simply another way to sell the same product to punters. That’s why they exist. Whether they have any artistic credibility is questionable. For me, 99% of remixes do not improve on the original, any more than a ‘directors cut’ of a film does.

I mostly agree, which is why when it comes to U2 the only remixes I care about are the ones for songs that suck.
Listen as Hope and Peace try to rhyme,
Listen over marching bands playing out their time.

*

Amor fati

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 9858
  • Under the white horses
I believe that was on the Artificial Horizon CD which was a gem

One of the better fan club gifts.

Hasta La Vista Baby was probably my favorite.  I dont recall when it came out but i believe it was late 90s near the end of POPMART and i still have it to this day and even play it on occasion.  Also have a poster from Sarajevo POPMART framed in my tv room.  On the poster there is a "lemon" sticker which came from a Lemon Meringue pie,  and oddly enough there is a BONO sticker - no idea where in the hell that came from.   8)
“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing" John 15:5

*

Soloyan

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 5397
  • I'm not sleeping
    • GREG LEMOND FANS
Remixes are simply another way to sell the same product to punters. That’s why they exist. Whether they have any artistic credibility is questionable. For me, 99% of remixes do not improve on the original, any more than a ‘directors cut’ of a film does.

I mostly agree, which is why when it comes to U2 the only remixes I care about are the ones for songs that suck.
While I mostly agree too, I don’t think remixes are made to improve on the original.

U2 remixes exist first and foremost for commercial purpose. U2 released most of them in the 90’s and early 00’s so that they could sell more CD singles.

Back in the 80’s, you had singles with a b-side. B-sides require work (which is why most of them for most artists are low par tunes or demos).

With the emergence of techno and dance music came the opportunity to 1/produce more tunes with little to no involvement from the artist (which is something U2 really love) to sell more CD’s and 2/bring a broader, younger audience (which is probably the exception rather than the norm) by being played in clubs.

In the 80’s you had a single and a maxi single and that was it.

In the 90’s, U2 released 2 or 3 singles with each release. That kind of stuff became mad for a decade, up to the early 00’s when streaming and downloading became a thing. At the time, it was not unusual for a fan to spend more money on an artist than just buying the album… before the album was even released ! You were buying 2 cd singles, each containing 3 tunes and a DVD single with the video.

…and record companies wondered why people hated them so much and were so happy to jump ship and go downloading as soon as they could.

Anyway… remix can be an art form in the sense that it brings an alternate version of a tune. But let’s not forget it’s more the DJ’s version than the artist’s version. For instance, the David Holmes remix of Beautiful Day is in fact a cover with another drummer, another guitar player and another bass player than U2 members.

I like when remixes bring to life elements that weren’t used in the original mix or buried in it. For instance the perfecto mix of Mysterious Ways has great guitar parts that weren’t used by U2. Kervorkian’s NYD remix has this amazing piano only intro.

I also like when a remix goes a very different way that sounds right :
Salomé Zooromancer mix
Even Better than the real thing Fish out of water
Lemon Jeep mix.
Etc…

But I really don’t think anyone starts a remix thinking « oh I’m gonna try and make this sound better Â».
A dangerous idea that almost makes sense...

*

MPare1966

  • *
  • 23020
  • Trying to throw my arms around the world
Remixes are simply another way to sell the same product to punters. That’s why they exist. Whether they have any artistic credibility is questionable. For me, 99% of remixes do not improve on the original, any more than a ‘directors cut’ of a film does.

I mostly agree, which is why when it comes to U2 the only remixes I care about are the ones for songs that suck.
While I mostly agree too, I don’t think remixes are made to improve on the original.

U2 remixes exist first and foremost for commercial purpose. U2 released most of them in the 90’s and early 00’s so that they could sell more CD singles.

Back in the 80’s, you had singles with a b-side. B-sides require work (which is why most of them for most artists are low par tunes or demos).

With the emergence of techno and dance music came the opportunity to 1/produce more tunes with little to no involvement from the artist (which is something U2 really love) to sell more CD’s and 2/bring a broader, younger audience (which is probably the exception rather than the norm) by being played in clubs.

In the 80’s you had a single and a maxi single and that was it.

In the 90’s, U2 released 2 or 3 singles with each release. That kind of stuff became mad for a decade, up to the early 00’s when streaming and downloading became a thing. At the time, it was not unusual for a fan to spend more money on an artist than just buying the album… before the album was even released ! You were buying 2 cd singles, each containing 3 tunes and a DVD single with the video.

…and record companies wondered why people hated them so much and were so happy to jump ship and go downloading as soon as they could.

Anyway… remix can be an art form in the sense that it brings an alternate version of a tune. But let’s not forget it’s more the DJ’s version than the artist’s version. For instance, the David Holmes remix of Beautiful Day is in fact a cover with another drummer, another guitar player and another bass player than U2 members.

I like when remixes bring to life elements that weren’t used in the original mix or buried in it. For instance the perfecto mix of Mysterious Ways has great guitar parts that weren’t used by U2. Kervorkian’s NYD remix has this amazing piano only intro.

I also like when a remix goes a very different way that sounds right :
Salomé Zooromancer mix
Even Better than the real thing Fish out of water
Lemon Jeep mix.
Etc…

But I really don’t think anyone starts a remix thinking « oh I’m gonna try and make this sound better ».

Spot on. Very well put, Soloyan.
First Chair. Last Call.
Copyright 1966-2025
Powered by Grok
Official merchandise by Adidas
All rights reserved. 
Void where prohibited. For recreational use only.

*

THRILLHO

  • Status: Experienced Mofo
  • *****
  • 2802
Remixes are simply another way to sell the same product to punters. That’s why they exist. Whether they have any artistic credibility is questionable. For me, 99% of remixes do not improve on the original, any more than a ‘directors cut’ of a film does.

I mostly agree, which is why when it comes to U2 the only remixes I care about are the ones for songs that suck.

Dirty Day <Junk Day> remix is better than the album version.

i tend to enjoy the Desire <Hollywood Remix> more than the album version but im sure im alone in that.

for recent stuff? jesus....
Elevation <Tomb Raider Mix>
Vertigo <Jacknife Lee10" Mix>
Fast Cars <Jacknife Lee Mix>
OOTS <Killahurtz Casa De Angeles Mix>
GOYB <Fish Out of Water Remix>
The Crystal Ballroom <12" Mix>
Lights of Home <St. Peters String Version>
YTBTAM <Sci-Fi Soul Mix>
Summer of Love <HP HOeger and Rusty Egan Driftaway mix>
LIBTAIIW <Beck Remix>


*

RadioFreeJack

  • Status: Elevated
  • ***
  • 143
Remixes are simply another way to sell the same product to punters. That’s why they exist. Whether they have any artistic credibility is questionable. For me, 99% of remixes do not improve on the original, any more than a ‘directors cut’ of a film does.

I mostly agree, which is why when it comes to U2 the only remixes I care about are the ones for songs that suck.
While I mostly agree too, I don’t think remixes are made to improve on the original.

U2 remixes exist first and foremost for commercial purpose. U2 released most of them in the 90’s and early 00’s so that they could sell more CD singles.

Back in the 80’s, you had singles with a b-side. B-sides require work (which is why most of them for most artists are low par tunes or demos).

With the emergence of techno and dance music came the opportunity to 1/produce more tunes with little to no involvement from the artist (which is something U2 really love) to sell more CD’s and 2/bring a broader, younger audience (which is probably the exception rather than the norm) by being played in clubs.

In the 80’s you had a single and a maxi single and that was it.

In the 90’s, U2 released 2 or 3 singles with each release. That kind of stuff became mad for a decade, up to the early 00’s when streaming and downloading became a thing. At the time, it was not unusual for a fan to spend more money on an artist than just buying the album… before the album was even released ! You were buying 2 cd singles, each containing 3 tunes and a DVD single with the video.

…and record companies wondered why people hated them so much and were so happy to jump ship and go downloading as soon as they could.

Anyway… remix can be an art form in the sense that it brings an alternate version of a tune. But let’s not forget it’s more the DJ’s version than the artist’s version. For instance, the David Holmes remix of Beautiful Day is in fact a cover with another drummer, another guitar player and another bass player than U2 members.

I like when remixes bring to life elements that weren’t used in the original mix or buried in it. For instance the perfecto mix of Mysterious Ways has great guitar parts that weren’t used by U2. Kervorkian’s NYD remix has this amazing piano only intro.

I also like when a remix goes a very different way that sounds right :
Salomé Zooromancer mix
Even Better than the real thing Fish out of water
Lemon Jeep mix.
Etc…

But I really don’t think anyone starts a remix thinking « oh I’m gonna try and make this sound better ».

Great write-up, wasn't aware of the history behind it.
Jack

*

RadioFreeJack

  • Status: Elevated
  • ***
  • 143
Another great one:


I'm not sure it beats the original, but the added vocals bring about an excellent vibe that I think a better version of Mysterious Ways would've benefitted from.

But this was U2's chance to take more chances with Zooropa, so I get it.

Edge's delivery really elevate the remix for me. I think I like it more than the original track.
Jack