David Cook's version of ISHF was pretty good if I remember right.
I think opinions would be much better if stated the way you did in the last sentence, and I have no problem with one's own take on something. Having said that, that is the way you interpret the song and I'm imagining that if you covered it, it would be a hauntingly beautiful acoustic version maybe. The way Adam sung the song is the way he interprets the song. The way MJB sung the song is the way she interprets the song...see where I'm going here? There are as many ways that One is "supposed" to be sung as Bono and U2, the originators of the song, decide their should be. I think it's pretty clear that they're saying that they approve of more than one way of singing it. To be perfectly honest I doubt they even give even the slightest thought to how we think it "should" be sung.
I was just making a comment about my preference.
I think the song works better and is more powerful, the more subtle it is.
I am cool with anyone at all covering the song, changing it up etc. I just don't like this attitude that because the band is fine with cover versions that means somehow there is no original composition to pay mind to.
Also, I couldn't care less if Bono or U2 give the slightest thought to how we think it "should" be sung. I don't defer to them on matters of taste.
There is an established version of this song, by the original artist, that has been around for almost 20 years. In nearly the same precise way it was and is written and performed by the band that wrote it in the first place.
There is a difference between a movie based on a novel and the novel itself. And saying the movie is the same as the novel because the author sold the rights to the movie is not accurate.
The author can do and say whatever he/she wants but it doesn't change the fact that we're talking about different things here. Some prefer the novel, some prefer the movie, some like both and some stick their head in the sand and say "the author knows all" and defers to them at all times, no matter how inconsistent it makes them appear.
Maybe U2 always intended for "One" to be done in any which way possible.
And the version they keep performing over and over is a demonstration of insanity, because clearly that's not how it's "supposed" to be performed, right?
It's just the way they go through the motions. This band that has re-interpreted RTSS and Bullet for nearly every tour, somehow leaves this song alone, yet that's not the way it's 'supposed' to be interpreted.
Call me just as crazy as the guys performing the song for the last 17 years for thinking that's how it's
supposed to be performed. Or again, as I said, that's how I prefer it. But because U2 are cool with cover versions doesn't mean that there isn't a novel based on these movies.