ONE on American Idol?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
What I mean is, it's not supposed to be (to me) an overwrought piece of wank.

The original is simple and powerful and that's all it needed to be.
It's not supposed to be a song for vocal gymnastics.
Or at the least, I don't want it to be.

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.
 
Debate without name calling please.
People need to relax. Such anger over a singing competition. Besides, Bono has never been shy to interpret other peoples'songs and has recorded several poorly received cover versions to go along with some pretty good ones.
 
NO. Randy said it was pitchy. So lets talk about how to lose your marbles and your respect. You don't have to jump down people's throats all the time.

But I remember that version of BD that Sicy posted a little further back of 2003 Norwegan Idol winner Kirk Nielson when he performed it on World Idol in 2004. He won it thus beating Kelly Clarkson and Will Young. At the time I did not think it was as good as the original but everyone else seemed to love it. My mum didn't think too much of it. So I just watched to the video of what Sicy just posted. I still don't like his voice. His voice is very croaky, but I think that's just its natural character. This is how Bono's voice sounded in the 80's and into the mid 90's. I much prefer Bono's voice now then the way it sounded during the 80's and ZooTv era. I prefer it now to how his voice sounded in the Modena 95 clip of what someone posted, even though it still was much less croaky than Kirk Nielson's.

Anyway, what was wrong with David Cook's version of ISHFWILF last year? Why are people saying he murdered it?
 
I don't even remember Cook singing that song last year ... and I liked the guy a lot! Just don't remember a thing about it.
 
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.
 
David Cook's version of ISHF was pretty good if I remember right.




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.

Wow, well that was certainly a novel based on the movie! (couldn't resist, you used the analogy lol)

Look, "supposed to" is not a statement of preference, or taste, it's a statement that implies fact or a set way of doing things that will result in error or disaster if not followed. If U2 only wanted One interpreted One way for all eternity, they wouldn't allow another artist to come in on it with them. They performed it a particular way for over 10 years (not even close to 20, sorry), in 2005 they went to a slightly different style, notably, performing on the song with her, and now they've allowed another artist to reinterpret. That's what happens when you make one of the most beautiful pieces of music ever written, it appeals to so many people in so many different ways that it almost demands interpretation.

As for the rest of what you said, I think you're overthinking this way too much. I certainly am not saying 'pay no mind to the original folks, this one is way too good'

Honestly, for a song about tolerance and inclusion, there is a definite air of exclusivity and elitism about your view. And that is what 'misses the point of the song', imo.
 
Back
Top Bottom