Bono at the Robin Hood Foundation gala

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Finally, some decent counterpoints worth addressing!

I'm not sure that the piece of work in and of itself has a character as you call it..I think the author attempts to convey a character or feeling which may mature, reshape or even shift in a new direction over time. MJBs version of One is definitely in line with the character that U2 took One into in the last decade, live.

With regards to cohesion, I haven't heard any single argument that leads me to believe that she stepped outside of this cohesion you speak of. Indeed, listening to the tune, even, I still don't see it. I think it's perfectly in line with what U2 envisioned and currently envisions the song to be.



I agree, but I raise you this: at what point do the others feel like they somehow have some sort of advanced rights or knowledge as to how the thing is supposed to sound? Far as I can see, MJBs One sounds exactly how U2 thinks its supposed to sound.

Well, I think I'd refine your last statement to say, U2 is fully able to support One sounding the way Mary sings it. "Exactly how U2 thinks it should sound" makes it sound as if there's only one way for the song to be, which I think we agree is not the case.

As a person who writes occasionally I can say that what the author tries to say and what the song ends up saying are not always the same thing. Sometimes a writer says stuff and he's not even sure exactly what it means. There's often a little bit of channeling about it. Other people will point out things that he had no idea were there, but they clearly are. At some point the song begins expressing itself through the writer, and exists independently from him.

I think it's pretty clear that Bono has accepted that about One, with all the different ways it's been used. The song has manifestations apart from the ones he gives it.

No one has advance notice about how the song is supposed to sound. The song itself tells you how to play it. That's what I mean about the song having character. What people mean when they say it's not the way its meant to be is, "this interpretation doesn't seem congruent with the character of the song as I've heard it- I don't think it fits well." You can play a song and love it without respecting its character (think 100 Years From This Day, as covered by Wilco)

That's one reason why sheet music and the ability to read it is such a precious thing- because you can approach the bare bones of the song without any interpretation. It's the opposite of the folk process (which is lovely and good and the way most people learn rock and roll songs, but relies heavily on previous interpretations). There's definitely a fine line between simply repeating interpretations, and really digging in to find the soul of a song.
 
I'm adamant that I don't care for it, that I think it's crappy.

What you don't hear me saying is that the way he plays it isn't how it's "supposed to be played" or that its "murdering" or "raping" the song or any of the other ridiculous adjectives people heap on MJB.

If you can't understand the difference.. :shrug:

Thanks for quoting me. Always fun to beat the same dead horse over and over again. :rolleyes:

The thing is. We know One. We've known it for so many years to be the version released in 1991. So that's how it's supposed to be played. It's the original release.

A cover can be a similar take, or a vastly different one. And if you go different, it's either hit or miss for people. Because they have an emotional connection to the song. If you somehow change that connection because a vital part of the song(in my case, the vocals) has changed, it can make a good song sound completely stripped of its original essence. So it's raped of its original qualities and sounds like absolute SHITE to me.

And don't start me bullshit on how the duet is not a cover. It's not the fucking point. It's a different version on the original, so for easiness sake I'm calling it a cover.
 
I didn't recall that it was you who said "raping" so I wasn't targeting you specifically.

As for what the rest of what wrote, you couldn't be more patently wrong. It's not a cover in the strictest of senses, it's clearly a duet and that's why a. U2 is playing, full band, in it, and b. is credited in the very title of the song as such. When she plays it solo live, it's a cover. When she performs it with Bono and/or U2, it's a duet.
 
One has been a very different song, to me, for a long time.

It went from being a fairly understated and incredibly powerful song to being overblown long before they decided to work with Mary J on it. Her version w/U2 was an extension of that (IMO) near-betrayal of the original. And again IMO, most fans being tired of the song - live - is not a result of being overplayed but as a result of how it has been overblown.

The crescendo of that song used to leave me begging for more. That's what you want. Emotional 'demand'. But since U2 have become so singles-heavy, they took it and made it a big big big song that is very far from its understated beginnings.

Listen to how the music in the original just floats along. Bono doesn't over-sing it.
It's basically perfect. And now...it's just a token 'big' song to be played live.

Fair enough, it's their song. But just don't try to sell me that Mary J did anything wrong. That they even asked her to sing it is indicative enough of the problem - with how U2 see that song these days. A huge stadium anthem. You can't listen to the version on Achtung and think that about that song. Even on ZooTv, it still held together fairly well as a pretty small version on that big ol' stage.

I don't know where it went off track. Doesn't matter anymore. It's still a great song - and occasionally even live - the Live 8 version was pretty damn great.
 
And don't start me bullshit on how the duet is not a cover. It's not the fucking point. It's a different version on the original, so for easiness sake I'm calling it a cover.

As for what the rest of what wrote, you couldn't be more patently wrong. It's not a cover in the strictest of senses, it's clearly a duet and that's why a. U2 is playing, full band, in it, and b. is credited in the very title of the song as such. When she plays it solo live, it's a cover. When she performs it with Bono and/or U2, it's a duet.

You see that flying past your head at rocket pace? That was the point of my post.


... sigh, never fucking mind. :rolleyes:
 
You see that flying past your head at rocket pace?

Oh no, I saw...it's just that my eyes glazed over at this part:


Always fun to beat the same dead horse over and over again. :rolleyes:
.

:wink:

I actually got a good chuckle out of the beating the same dead horse part...I mean, that's what you guys love to do with this. I just post a current video of them doing the tune together again and you guys pounce...I guess to remind me of how much you hate it? Surely not to beat the dead horse any further, amirite? :p
 
Listen to how the music in the original just floats along. Bono doesn't over-sing it.
It's basically perfect. And now...it's just a token 'big' song to be played live.

I don't get this oversung part though. Almost without exception, Bono 'ups the ante' on his songs live. Here's a couple of examples:

Beautiful Day - on the album version, his notes and the endings of the "day", for instance, are subdued - cut short, even - compared to the live version. It's pretty stark, the difference. So is he "oversinging" Beautiful Day also?

How about Gone? The chorus is sung night and day different live than on the album.

I mean, where do we draw the line with how we "expect" him to sing his own songs?

And what did we expect of One? It is one of the biggest U2 songs, in fact, songs period, of our century! It's huge! What else could it possibly become other than a huge single and huge concert staple.

I guess I just don't get how a huge song like One was "supposed" to remain this quietly subdued lament almost when in fact they knew from the day they recorded it that it would be a huge song. From the first time they did it live it was a big tune, a large moment, if you will, live.
 
Not only was One not the lead single, it was the THIRD single. And (IIRC) the...strange buffalo video was the one that introduced that song to America, at least. That's how I remember first seeing it on MTV. Does that scream "this is a big hit song, everyone get on board and sing la-la-la!"? Not exactly. Sure, it was supposed to be anthemic. But this was a new U2 and the anthemic U2 of 1992 was different than that of 1987. Guitars were buried all over Achtung Baby.

We're talking about a song that only hit #7 in the UK and #10 in the US. The Fly charted better in the UK and Mysterious Ways charted better in the US. And yet you're talking about it like it was some 'slam dunk' guaranteed all-timer even back then.

It was also placed into the ZooTV set as if it were just another hit song from that album. It wasn't used as an encore moment for some huge audience reaction as it is now. One's reputation grew with time. And as it did, it continued to be projected bigger and bigger by the band. And FTR, I never once used the word "supposed" w/r/t how it's "supposed" to be. I am talking about how I see the song...which is how I first heard the song, and fell in love with the song. It's not like I invented that version of the song. U2 did.
 
I can't agree with much of that at all. One was always a huge song, and chart placement or not it was received and reviewed as such. It was released as the first slow song after two faster tracks. The video was an epic statement as wasnt subdued or subtle in the least to me. As for where it was in the set list for Zoo TV, that's not any ammunition for your theory at all. It's the first slower song in the opening sequence of new songs they were promoting that tour. Once they moved on, the very next tour, it moved into prime time big climax moment type slots in the setlist.

If they had released/played live some other slower song from the album in advance or before One you might have a slight point but there is no way this wasnt a huge song for them from the outset, it absolutely was. And for that matter, it remains the single most radio- played track from that album to this day.

You also completely sidestepped my questions about other songs Bono (apparently) over sings live.
 
You're making it sound as if those who dislike MJB's version have no legitimate reason to do so.

^this!

It's fine for all that like MJB's interpretations / duets, but there is nothing wrong with not liking them. Why throw arguments at everyone who is not into her versions of the songs. I personally cringe when I hear her version of ONE (and this duet isn't much better IMO). I am not saying that MJB is a bad singer...far from it - U just thing her singing style is better suited for the type of music she normally sings. I feel no connection to either one of the U2's songs when she is singing them. Sorry.
 
It's fine for all that like MJB's interpretations / duets, but there is nothing wrong with not liking them.

Hold up a sec. It bears mentioning here that I absolutely do not expect everyone to love a. this version of One or b. even like MJB herself.

You have expressed an opinion of the song that is clearly based on your personal taste, and I respect that.

Why throw arguments at everyone who is not into her versions of the songs.

As mentioned in a previous post, let's actually look at what happens here: I post a new video of them singing together, I mean, in an album-less time this is certainly worthy of mention in EYKIW - and the pile-on begins. With the same tired arguments we've heard over and over again. I'm just posting a new U2-related video. Again, is it that inflammatory? Why is it that this cycle repeats itself? Can't the haters just hate it in peace? :)

I am not saying that MJB is a bad singer...far from it - U just thing her singing style is better suited for the type of music she normally sings. I feel no connection to either one of the U2's songs when she is singing them.

See this type of opinion? I can totally respect this. You're not making some outlandish claim that she's screaming, that she's Britney Spears, that she is changing the meaning of the song, or using hateful language to describe her or her singing. There's nothing really to argue with here. I could post the video a million times and you'd probably say the same thing, and I probably wouldn't even respond further than, well, thanks for your opinion.
 
I like what she adds to that tune. Especially her album version. She changes. Makes it defiant. She's got the answer and you better fucking listen.

It's better than U2's recording.
 
It's better than U2's recording.

Trololol_by_andressiller.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom