HTDAAB Has no staying power
- Thread starter nickypiemcg
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
U2Man
ONE love, blood, life
KUEFC09U2 said:
Sorry, just curious. It is good to know that you don't just write your opinion here without stating so. Everything should be backed up by some thorough and valid research
nickypiemcg
The Fly
Layton said:
.
Vertigo- Liked it at first but has somewhat suffered from being overplayed. The chorus is unimaginative and does not match the brilliant guitar riff.
Miracle Drug-The main thing I would fault on this track is the guitar work. It sounds like Edge is running out of ideas.
SYCMIOYO- OK it has a great bridge but once again the guitar work just sounds recycled and quite similar to Miracle Drug.
LAPOE-Very generic.
COBL-good live but can't even listen to it on record. The new "streets"? YEAH RIGHT!!
ABOY-Sounds like something they would give Kelly Clarkson or Ashlee Simpson to show they "rock" and they're not just manufactured (also the riff sounds like AC/DC)
AMAAW-Just not a great song. In fact that is what I think about most of the songs. It is sometimes hard to put your finger on what you like or don't like about a song but sometimes all you can say is that you don't think its a good song.
Crumbs-The best on the album.
OSC-Nice idea but I just think the melody is nothing special.
OOTS-I really can't stand this song. Although it is a new sound for U2 I just feel like I have heard iteh melody somewhere before.
Yahweh-Good in concert but only an OK song
Fast Cars-Quite different. I do like this track but I never have a desire to go back and listen to it.
All of these thoughts are on music and not the lyrics. It isn't that HTDAAB is a bad album. I listened to it for a while but I would never go back and listen to it like I do most other U2 albums. My main complaint is I get the feeling of deja vous about the music.
nickypiemcg
The Fly
KUEFC09U2 said:
I think it is pretty clear that when anyone is making a statement about the quality of certain music then it is in their opinion. There is really no point in us having this conversation. You know what I said was IMO and so do I. So if you have anything to add why not write that you disagree about HTDAAB having no staying power rather than picking me up on something just so you can sound smart.
U2Man
ONE love, blood, life
nickypiemcg said:
I disagreed with a lot in your previous post, but this one made me
LOL
U2Man
ONE love, blood, life
nickypiemcg said:
Word.
You should have titled the thread: "I, nickypiemcg of Interference, thinks HTDAAB has no staying power", though. And made a poll before you opened your mouth - because if the majority in here doesn't agree with you, noone wants to listen to your opinion
Last edited:
nickypiemcg
The Fly
U2Man said:
Word.
You should have titled the thread: "I, nickypiemcg of Interference, thinks HTDAAB has no staying power", though. And made a poll before you opened your mouth - because if the majority in here doesn't agree with you, noone wants to listen to your opinion
MacPhistoPT
Rock n' Roll Doggie
nickypiemcg said:
Agreed. Especially with ABOY U2DMfan said:
Ok, I'll take a crack at that. 'I Am' is the theme. Matter of fact, they should've called the album 'I Am'. Opening yourself up and just being is another angle, I'd take. 'Stand as you are' is another one.
Words like 'am', 'be', and 'are' have strong philosophical connotations in their purest form. HTDAAB is playing in that philosophical territory, I think. Albeit, through the prism of this album's evolution of their career long quest to figure 'love' out. Those words I mentioned above are a new angle on their life's art.
nickypiemcg said:
By saying that the "chorus in unimaginative" I'm not sure what specifically you don't like about it. It's cool that you don't like it, but I'm just curious if you could elaborate a little more.
I think we would both agree that the chorus is very pop-oriented. The question is why is it so pop-oriented? Alot are going to say it's just because pop sells and U2 are commercial. To a degree, I think that's true, but the larger question that nobody ever asks is; Does that pop-oriented chorus fit the content and vision of the song to a tee? You know what I'm gonna argue.
"Vertigo" is really a song about an urge or a temptation. A good analogy might be to think about a moment when you've become so angry (like when you talk to me) that you become psychologically frantic and feel the urge to succumb to a 'quick fix' of some sort. What's a good way to musically represent a 'quick fix'? Well if a 'quick fix' takes advantage of your weakened state then you need the musical equivalent of that situation.
Catchy choruses are long known to do such a thing. They are music's greatest sugar rushes. A sugar rush is a quick fix. Thus, the pop-oriented chorus is a strong aspect of the song's vision of its content. It's the right structure with the right feel for the right effect. What's right is the most important aspect of what's art. In other words, U2 stayed true to the art of "Vertigo" and went where the song took them.
Now, none of this is meant to say that you're wrong not liking "Vertigo" so much. We havn't even talked about the delivery/execution of all that vision and content. All I'm trying to get across with these posts is that there's alot more to a pop chorus than a band grovelling at the feet of commercial acceptance. In fairness, I can't remember if you're one of the ones who likes to throw around labels like 'safe' and 'sales-minded' or not.
It's really that mentality that I like to challenge with these posts. Those terms are more objective than subjective. Which means a whole different ballgame in terms of scrutiny. I will say though, that subjective is fair game too in terms of debate. The world biggest debates are subjectively inspired (i.e. was Iraq a threat?). Ultimately though, subjectivity is a reflection of a person's unique 'wiring'. There should always be respect for that.
All of this of course is IMO.
nickypiemcg
The Fly
You know when I say unimaginative I mean that the chorus (of vertigo) is almost what I expected it to be. It isn't bad but then it isn't good either. It is almost like it was the first thing they came up with (not always a bad thing e.g One) and didn't bother putting any more thought into it. I don't know what a better chorus would be as I didn't write the song (and I am not a patch on U2). All I can equate it to is when you hear a song and you know what the next note or chord is going to be because the artist is using a typical formula.
nickypiemcg
The Fly
Layton said:
To be honest I think you are suffering from your own intelligence ((a compliment by the way!) In my opinion you are reading far too much into the song.
nickypiemcg said:
That's cool. For the most part, I agree with you regarding formulaic stuff. I also agree that they probably didn't put alot of thought into it, but U2 are great artists and they fall into what's right alot of the time. One of their greatest gifts is recognizing those "right" moments. I just feel strongly that "Vertigo" is one of those times when a catchy chorus was the artistically "right" thing to fall into.
nickypiemcg said:
LOL----You're not the first who's said that to me in here. Maybe I shouldn't get so annoyed at the 'safe' and 'sales-minded' comments, but I just think a solid case can be made that "Vertigo" and HTDAAB were created in the name of art, not commercialality. So I just try to make the case.
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
If your aim is to get the critical and popular masses to tune in and "buy" what you are doing, then is it riskier to put out a song without an obvious hook or a song with an overtly obvious hook?
If you were to compare Native Son with Vertigo, since this is the tune being discussed, which one has more element of risk in terms of public and critical acceptance?
Aside from subjective opinions about which is the better song, which one was the safe bet?
I think in the context of what U2 have done in the past, what they seemingly wanted to do, and what they ended up doing, they took the safest route. It might very well have been the route they wanted to take, but if this were true why was their such investment in tracks that were left off the album? Answer below:
My opinion comes directly from what Bono and the band, and the producers and Paul McG have said, they didn't have the hits, or the hooks, they didn't have a "safe bet", a scorching 45 to lead off the album as Bono described, so they rehashed it until they had such a thing. For good or bad, this is exactly what they did.
So Vertigo may be the greatest thing since sliced bread to your ears, but is absolutely designed to be as digestable as possible, to promote the album, to sell the album and tour and to make sure U2 is in the conscience of the record buying public.
So in this context, they did the safe bet, IMO. It may very well be the best strategy they could have done. I don't quarrel with their reasoning, I quarrel with the song selction for the album.
As far as the rest of the album being "safe", I may have used that term to describe it in past posts, I think from where I stand now I think it was markedly less risky than just about anything they've ever done. Maybe "safe" is not appropriate to say, but almost without element of risk seems to fit what I hear.
OOTS is a sweet sounding song, which probably needed IMO to breathe a bit more. As it is on the album, you hear the whole song in the first 45 seconds, there is no build-up or suspense, the strings are right there, you hear the verse/pre-chorus/chorus all right there in the front. This to me is begging to get on the radio, screaming for attention from the get-go. I like the song, I just think another of many examples of where U2 said "we can't trust the average listener to allow this song to grow, so we will browbeat them with the melody and chorus over and over". COBL suffers a similar fate.
I don't wish to tear the album to pieces, but there is a method to their madness and part of that is alleviating the risk that the album would flop and send U2 to their death commercially. So in that sense, it is a safer bet than maybe the album they were recording with Chris Thomas. ATYCLB was probably a bit riskier in that it was totally new to U2, and it was a follow up to a critical flop. HTDAAB is derivative of a lot of that. I think it's a good album that seems constrained by alleviating risk, and that is about the best way I could put it right now.
AS for your theme of "I am", perhaps we could discuss that more because I am a little lost on that. I'm not sure I could remember in my 17 or 18 years as a fan the band ever being less confident.
They seem to be comfortable in their shoes at times but weary of trusting their listeners with more than 47 minutes of music and tracks that aren't designed for mass consumption.
So you could be right, maybe in their personal lives they are completely secure with who they are and what they have become, but creatively I still seeing them as being unsure what the public wants, and they AIM to please. It would be easier for them to say "here is what it is, take it or leave it". Contrary to what others would say on this forum, they are doing the exact opposite, they are begging people to like it. How secure is the band who needs chart hits to feel validated?
Again, I can see Bono as man, an individual, coming to terms with his grief and his faith on the album. I can see him in COBL looking back on a picture of him when he was 20, and asking what happened to the fantastic naivety he once had? In that sense, yes maybe he is annoucing "I am", maybe Edge is using his trademark guitar with restraint saying this is who "I am", Adam and Larry much the same, playing their roles this is who "I am".
As far as creatively taking leaps and bounds, if we talk about the music I see the band disconnected with themselves, why? Because they want to be loved and don't know how to force people to love them, even with the safe bet. To me, the opposite of bravery is scrapping material for fear that the public will not find it good enough. To me the epitome of bravery in music is just letting it fly, and if you make a flop, you make a flop. To say "I am" to me, is to say it with no reservation for how it will be accepted.
anyways, hopefully that can start some kind of further discussion
If you were to compare Native Son with Vertigo, since this is the tune being discussed, which one has more element of risk in terms of public and critical acceptance?
Aside from subjective opinions about which is the better song, which one was the safe bet?
I think in the context of what U2 have done in the past, what they seemingly wanted to do, and what they ended up doing, they took the safest route. It might very well have been the route they wanted to take, but if this were true why was their such investment in tracks that were left off the album? Answer below:
My opinion comes directly from what Bono and the band, and the producers and Paul McG have said, they didn't have the hits, or the hooks, they didn't have a "safe bet", a scorching 45 to lead off the album as Bono described, so they rehashed it until they had such a thing. For good or bad, this is exactly what they did.
So Vertigo may be the greatest thing since sliced bread to your ears, but is absolutely designed to be as digestable as possible, to promote the album, to sell the album and tour and to make sure U2 is in the conscience of the record buying public.
So in this context, they did the safe bet, IMO. It may very well be the best strategy they could have done. I don't quarrel with their reasoning, I quarrel with the song selction for the album.
As far as the rest of the album being "safe", I may have used that term to describe it in past posts, I think from where I stand now I think it was markedly less risky than just about anything they've ever done. Maybe "safe" is not appropriate to say, but almost without element of risk seems to fit what I hear.
OOTS is a sweet sounding song, which probably needed IMO to breathe a bit more. As it is on the album, you hear the whole song in the first 45 seconds, there is no build-up or suspense, the strings are right there, you hear the verse/pre-chorus/chorus all right there in the front. This to me is begging to get on the radio, screaming for attention from the get-go. I like the song, I just think another of many examples of where U2 said "we can't trust the average listener to allow this song to grow, so we will browbeat them with the melody and chorus over and over". COBL suffers a similar fate.
I don't wish to tear the album to pieces, but there is a method to their madness and part of that is alleviating the risk that the album would flop and send U2 to their death commercially. So in that sense, it is a safer bet than maybe the album they were recording with Chris Thomas. ATYCLB was probably a bit riskier in that it was totally new to U2, and it was a follow up to a critical flop. HTDAAB is derivative of a lot of that. I think it's a good album that seems constrained by alleviating risk, and that is about the best way I could put it right now.
AS for your theme of "I am", perhaps we could discuss that more because I am a little lost on that. I'm not sure I could remember in my 17 or 18 years as a fan the band ever being less confident.
They seem to be comfortable in their shoes at times but weary of trusting their listeners with more than 47 minutes of music and tracks that aren't designed for mass consumption.
So you could be right, maybe in their personal lives they are completely secure with who they are and what they have become, but creatively I still seeing them as being unsure what the public wants, and they AIM to please. It would be easier for them to say "here is what it is, take it or leave it". Contrary to what others would say on this forum, they are doing the exact opposite, they are begging people to like it. How secure is the band who needs chart hits to feel validated?
Again, I can see Bono as man, an individual, coming to terms with his grief and his faith on the album. I can see him in COBL looking back on a picture of him when he was 20, and asking what happened to the fantastic naivety he once had? In that sense, yes maybe he is annoucing "I am", maybe Edge is using his trademark guitar with restraint saying this is who "I am", Adam and Larry much the same, playing their roles this is who "I am".
As far as creatively taking leaps and bounds, if we talk about the music I see the band disconnected with themselves, why? Because they want to be loved and don't know how to force people to love them, even with the safe bet. To me, the opposite of bravery is scrapping material for fear that the public will not find it good enough. To me the epitome of bravery in music is just letting it fly, and if you make a flop, you make a flop. To say "I am" to me, is to say it with no reservation for how it will be accepted.
anyways, hopefully that can start some kind of further discussion
U2DMfan said:
Do you think U2 sacrifices their art for these other aims? I think "Vertigo" has the RIGHT structure, with the RIGHT feel for the RIGHT effect for all the reasons, I stated before. As long as their music is artistically correct I think they are staying true to themselves. Sometimes "overtly obvious hooks" are the RIGHT way to go with a song, feeling or idea. They are songwriting 'tools', like any other to be used when needed.
Also, I think an argument can be made that Vertigo's anabashed pop-ness was more of a risk to their reputation than the more politically minded "Native Son". A really dopey pop song could've generated mass negativity on a level that you're speaking to. That was a bigger risk to take than going the more historically predictable politically minded route.
nickypiemcg
The Fly
I would love to contribute but I have never heard Native Son. Can anyone email it to me please? nmcgavigan@hotmail.com
Thanks
Thanks
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Layton said:
Obviously I do. This is one case where you can stack up song A and song B side by side. I think the political song is 900 times better. So yes, IMO they sacrificed a great song for a lesser song that goes down easier. So yes, they are sacrificing their art for these aims and they will be the first ones to admit to it.
Look, it's just rock and roll I don't expect them to re-write the rule book but if you give me an interesting rock song with some very cool bits and you give me the same song watered down with hooks, I am always going to go with the former. Just a matter of preference, I suppose.
I don't know how you can be "artistically correct" to everyone.
If you have 100 people listen to the album you'll have probably 100 different ways the album could be "artisically correct."
But I think Vertigo does what it was meant to do.
It's just, I'd rather U2 trust the rock masses with a song a little less obvious than trying to suck up to the entire masses with the the same song filled with cliched hooks. It's begging, it's almost sad that U2 feels the need to do this.
When U2 talks about success, they mean sales.
When they talk about relevance, they mean sales.
So when I talk about risk for U2, I mean a commercial risk, more or less. So putting out something on the poppier side, full of cliche is not a risk, it is the opposite as I said before.
Reputations are for snobby fans to hang their hats on.
I don't give a shit about U2's reputation and if they did a commercial for McDonalds with a cool song and/or idea then I couldnt possibly care less. What bothers me is when the music suffers for any reason. In 20 years when most of us are older and sitting back to reflect about U2, we won't give a shit about their reputation when Vertigo was released we will only remember the song. So IMO, 98% of the fans out there don't even know there is an alternative to Vertigo when A LOT of those people think the song is annoying as hell in the first place.
And Vertigo did generate negativity but you have to venture outside of a U2 board to find it. People around here don't want to hear it.
It's not a bad song, it's just the difference between two songs from the same creative arc, one being distinctly rock and roll, one being pretty pop masquerading as rock and roll. I'm not adverse to pop music either. I love some of U2's more poppier moments, hate others. In this particular case the rock tune was desgined for someone like me. It has a little more meat on the bone.
so when we are talking about cliche hooks, you could throw, ebttrt, discoteque, elevation, beautiful day, etc into the hat then?
also vertigo created so much negativity, that it was a number 1 HIT in so so many countrys, a number 1 hit on the internet, radio stations still playing it,
but yes obviously people hate it, even though it was at the top of the download charts for quite some time
also vertigo created so much negativity, that it was a number 1 HIT in so so many countrys, a number 1 hit on the internet, radio stations still playing it,
but yes obviously people hate it, even though it was at the top of the download charts for quite some time
U2DMfan said:
Ok, it's fair to think one is better than another, but they're different songs with different content. That means each demands a unique artistic route to be artistically RIGHT. I havn't really looked hard at "Native Son", but maybe it's content and vision doesn't lend itself to a pop feel the same way. Some songs call for overt obvious hooks. My attitude is that if a song feels like it called for those hooks, then I like it. If it feels like it doesn't call for them, then I don't. I've made a detailed case on why I think "Vertigo" called for those hooks.
U2DMfan said:
I agree with that, but I like it better when those 100 people make their case. I just feel like a bunch of people have latched onto a label like 'safe' without looking at the artistic part, only the commercial part.
U2DMfan said:
No doubt, sales are important to U2. This is a band that's always wanted to make an impact in the world. You do that by generating a buzz, but you also do that by genuinely earning your status as the best band around. U2 does not shy away from that challenge. Remember, they've always wanted to compete with the Beatles and the Stones. Those 2 bands never shied away from taking their 'great' music to the masses. If a pop hook was the best way to go with a particular song, they weren't afraid to use it. If it was good enough for what are generally considered the 2 best bands ever, then why should anyone else be afraid to go there if it's artistically called for?
U2DMfan said:
"Vertigo" did create negativity. U2 weren't afraid to take that risk, though. Because the song called for it's pop-ness, it made that risk worthwhile. That alone shows that "Vertigo" shouldn't be labeled as 'safe'.
Look, all I'm saying is that labels suck. They never fully represent the quality of a song. "Vertigo" just doesn't appease your songwriting preferences (which I completely respect), but if they would've appeased your preferences somebody else would've claimed they were pandering to your kind of fan. Adventurous fans are no better or worse than pop fans, so it all cancels out. Safe?, Risk? They both accompany the release of any kind of album. Therefore, they make very bad analytical tools when evaluating the art of an album or song. They are the tools of wounded fans and wounded fans are notoriously biased.
Last edited:
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
KUEFC09U2 said:
Absolutely, all 4 songs you mentioned do have the cliches.
As well as a ton of other U2 songs. Like I said, I am not adverse to it, poppy rock tunes and even some cliches really work well.
Beautiful Day is essentially the same type song, but I think it works better on several levels. It's not miles better than Vertigo, but overall I prefer it. I don't however prefer Always to Beautiful Day. If you played me an early version of Elevation I might very well like it better. Discotheque is exactly the same type of song, I just prefer it also, and EBTTRT I think is one of U2's best pop rock songs.
Anyways, I was trying to point out a tangable reason I like Native Son over Vertigo rather than just saying "It sounds better" that's what the discussion was about.
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Layton said:
I don't diagree with you that Vertigo called for those hooks, I guess I am just saying the rock version was better, IMO.
We'll obviously disagree on that all day long.
As for the second part, yes I basically agree. But never has it been more apparent that part of U2's artistic ambition is to get commerical success not because of cash, but because they think it validates their work as relevant. This is something I really really disagree with the band about.
I agree with your next paragraph, but in this case I'd say I think Native Son, as is, is a pretty killer song that should have been left alone. Again, we will disagree on this all day long. For what U2 wanted to do, they did the right thing. So obviously I disagree with them too, at least Larry.
Next part-I get what you are saying and in your context, I can't disagree with you. But if I say the biggest difference between those two songs was a commercial risk, then I am saying they went the safer route. It's really semantics. I think they wanted to do a rock song with a bit of edge and decided they couldnt push their album out to the forefront with that song.
So basically I am on both sides of that fence, I see the band's reasoning and yours and would say if it could honestly be shown that this was a creative risk, I would agree. But I don't and I think the proof is in Native Son itself. I don't buy for a minute Edge let go of that song easily, I'd bet he fought for it. That is speculation, but I don't think the band spends that much time on something and tosses it for only artistic motivation. Artistic motivation would have killed the vein of that song long ago. It lived and they changed it to get on the radio, artistic motivation?
Labels do suck. And I think your last paragraph is excellent.
But in the case of this particular song, I think the proof is in the product. There isn't a better analytical tool to look at the evolution of a song that two incarnations of the same song, both finished and prepared for an album release.
The first version distinctly different than the second, and part of a slew of songs that were either shelved or reworked. If this was soley an artistic ambition that led to this, then yes you and I are on the same page 100%. I make the point, and from what the band has said they needed the hits, the hooks whatever you want to call them to get on the radio, to push the product. That to me is not artistic motivation. The band's own words tell you why they did what they did. They did it for fear of commercial failure.
And this is essentially where we disagree the most. I say they alleviated the risk and went a 'safer' route. You can say they made better songs and took the hit from the assholes like myself who expected more. If i was pining for mythological songs that never existed you could call me a hopeless, overzealous fan who's bar of expectations is too high. But they MADE the songs.
I have heard them. I have evidence of a turning point in creative direction. These songs were good, if not some of them great.
They only changed them to satisfy their own democracy and have a big seller. U2 haven't shied from these ambitions in the past, it's just they never scrapped an album and gave away the goods to the fans. They showed the songs only changed in delivery.
The artistic direction of Yahweh is there, they changed it for what reason? I say they changed it to go down a little smoother. Sometimes YCMIOYO, same reason, All Because of You went from raw to refined, Xanax was so raw it got the boot, and so on.
The artistic direction was there, they changed the delivery.
They made it cleaner, nicer and easier to take. This to me is not a creative change but a strategic change to alleviate risk.
Anyways, thanks for the discussion I fear we won't agree on this, maybe ever. And sorry for the long post.
thrillme
Refugee
Layton said:
Adam did once say it starts off in a place of fear with Vertigo, then to a place of safety? in Yahweh. Something like that, so the "I Am" theme would make sense, but only to those who would know about Yahweh=I AM That I AM, another name for God.
*Getting into "Goal is Soul" territory there*
I'm still not convinced it's as commercial as people claim, you don't put out an album with a song titled "Yahweh" if your sole intent was to sell as many albums as possible.
shaun vox
New Yorker
jacobus said:alright spot on! the last two albums in U2 standards are just mediocre...sorry but thats how i see it.
best song of U2 in the 2000s is LAPOE.
i'm glad to see some smart people here!
who wont just sit on their arss and take everything u2 throws at them even if its garbage!!i personally cant stand atyclb and htdaab(note both albums sound the same from edge's simple guitar sound to bono's not so good lyrics)!!
maby some songs are listenable but the albums are just soo yuck!!!
here is to hoping for U2 to change their sound completely for the next album!!
i hope they keep the same sound just to piss you off, hows axl doing these days?shaun vox said:
i'm glad to see some smart people here!
i personally cant stand atyclb and htdaab(note both albums sound the same from edge's simple guitar sound to bono's not so good lyrics)!!
maby some songs are listenable but the albums are just soo yuck!!!
here is to hoping for U2 to change their sound completely for the next album!!
sorry yes i am a blind follower, i actually dont like the music but because its U2 i will sit and listen, hmm
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
thrillme said:
I don't think this album has any more themes of spirituality than any of their other records, they all have songs about God and faith, and doubt and the whole thing. But as you said, probably a discussion for another forum.
Yeah, concerning Yahweh, that's one song out of 11. And even in that case there is a market for mainstream Christian listners who think contemporary Christian music sucks. Now, I don't think they made that song with this in mind, at all. I am just saying it's not a totally inacessible track for a lot of people.
There are a lot of Christians out there, many of them listen to mainstream rock music. Creed had a big hit with a song that exclaimed "we all live under the reign of one king". Switchfoot and other mainstream Christian artists have seen commercial success. Again, I don't think it was any kind of ploy by U2 to capitalize on anyting, I am just saying, the theme of that song does not discount it's potential mass appeal.
Plus they re-recorded that song too. Why? I think they truly cared about the delivery of that song as a song itself, not just a religous theme. One more time, I am not accusing U2 of trying to capitalize on this market, I think they wrote that song from their heart, I am just trying to point out that the market is certainly there for it.
U2DMfan said:
They actually use the original version of Yahweh on the album (Produced by Chris Thomas). As they mention in the Complete U2 Digital booklet, the alternative version was a remix by Nellee Hooper that they almost used instead but ultimately decided against it.
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
bsp77 said:
Really? wow, that I didn't know. I knew Thomas had the production credit but thought they re-did the tracks. Thanks for the info.
Similar threads
