Much More New Music Rumors and Such...

[corianderstem]

Someone please enlighten me with regards to the positive reaction to this new Mercy, because I reaaallly don't get it.

Why is it such a baffling concept that some people like the song? Or maybe like both versions of the song? Or just really don't feel that strongly about the changes that were made?

I swear, you'd think some people thought the original version was some sort of holy decree, like Bono's Dead Sea Scrolls or something.

 

[The John Tree]

I don't think it's baffling. I just don't understand. When I slam the new version, I say why. I'm honestly just curious.

It's not so much curious how someone could like the song, because I suppose it still has enough in it to be likable, I'm just curious why some prefer it over the old version. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'd like to hear an actual reason why.

 

[corianderstem]

I don't know which version I prefer yet, I'm waiting to see if they're done tinkering, or what it will sound like on a new studio version.

But I still like it. It's still a good song with the changes - changing the lyrics and shortening it didn't completely change the song. Do I like all the changes? No, but I still like it.

I guess people who like it really don't feel the need to explain why - maybe they liked it before, they still like it, so what's to explain? Maybe some people think the changes improve it - it was too long before, perhaps. Not everyone was so over the moon about the original version.

 

[bonocomet]

I swear, you'd think some people thought the original version was some sort of holy decree, like Bono's Dead Sea Scrolls or something.

 

[medley]

I have already said why I think this version is much better so I'm not going to repeat myself and the more I hear it the more I prefer it to the original. Basically it is because it is more focused and catchy, which are two aspects the original version was lacking of. I have also nothing against lengthy songs mind you, MOS is one of my top 10 favorites and I also really like Bad but Mercy was imo way too long for its own good.

Also speaking of lazy lyrics, I usually don't really care so much about them but one of my biggest complaints about the original mercy is related to lyrics with the overuse of the word "love". THIS is cringeworthy and corny for me and I'm really glad that they have fixed that.

 

[mama cass]

I don't think it's baffling. I just don't understand. When I slam the new version, I say why. I'm honestly just curious.

It's not so much curious how someone could like the song, because I suppose it still has enough in it to be likable, I'm just curious why some prefer it over the old version. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'd like to hear an actual reason why.

have to say, having just got back from Paris, youtube just doesn't do this song justice - it is absolutely IMMENSE live!

i also loved the previous version, and loved some of the lyrics that have now been cut, but i think this new version is just perfect... i think the old version was floundering a little, rambling, too much going on, but now it feels complete and concise, they've trimmed it back a little but preserved its essence and energy, and none of its vibrancy gets lost or diluted in the extra flim flam... perfection in a nutshell... in my opinion obviously... you can dislike it if you want to...

 

[ascender_RS]

I think what I like about the original Mercy is exactly the opposite, that its the first time in a while U2 haven't tried to whittle a song down to the expected run-time and traditional structure of a single (Moment of Surrender apart).

I genuinely got goose-bumps when I heard the opening bars being played, but don't like the changes. I understand its difficult to be objective about it after being used to hearing the original for 5 years or so, but even with repeated listenings, I'm not digging the new one at all. Some of the lyric changes seem quite lazy and uninspiring to me.

But hey, if we all liked the same things it would be a boring place indeed.

 

[last unicorn]

I have already said why I think this version is much better so I'm not going to repeat myself and the more I hear it the more I prefer it to the original. Basically it is because it is more focused and catchy, which are two aspects the original version was lacking of. I have also nothing against lengthy songs mind you, MOS is one of my top 10 favorites and I also really like Bad but Mercy was imo way too long for its own good.

Also speaking of lazy lyrics, I usually don't really care so much about them but one of my biggest complaints about the original mercy is related to lyrics with the overuse of the word "love". THIS is cringeworthy and corny for me and I'm really glad that they have fixed that.

I agree with most of this

 

[kabigon]

But hey, if we all liked the same things it would be a boring place indeed.

Interference must be the most interesting place in the universe

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Not being focused and catchy can be great too. Plenty of U2's best songs are neither, and songs of that nature from U2 are a very rare thing these days. And somewhat similarly, I'm willing to be that for most people here, a lot of their favourite U2 songs were at one point somewhat rambling, or confusing, or whatever. The immediate ones tend to fall away, it's the ones that are a bit 'difficult', that build over time, that more often then not end up having a longer life span.

I'm sure I would like this version of Mercy if it were all I had ever heard of Mercy. The lyrics are still too hit and miss - some of them are still massive, massive clunkers - but that would probably be my main or only overall gripe. Don't think I'd find it exciting, but certainly not bad, in any way. It's more that they did take something that could have been potentially interesting or somewhat unique, and have hammered into something quite ordinary, for them, these days.

I think I've pretty much settled on something in between being best. I thought the original was too overblown, the new version, is just not satisfying in it's simplicity, in comparison. You could easily shave a good minute off the old version and still keep it's twists and turns. The song now doesn't really shift from start to end - it did seem like a great candidate, to me, for a real shifting/building song. Really turn through a few different gears, and even moods. But now, it's pretty much just... standard. Sure, maybe a high quality of standard, but still... standard. It's a shame. That's all.

 

[Registered Dude]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLRxjC_9ffE&feature=related

sounds amazing. with headphones you can hear the bass, which is essential to the song's weight.

also, nice to watch Larry during this clip. I like the work he does in this song.

 

[Aygo]

Someone please enlighten me with regards to the positive reaction to this new Mercy, because I reaaallly don't get it.

Also, as if my problems with the arrangement weren't enough, I'm starting to have a big problem with the lyrics to the chorus. I made a statement before that I didn't care if the lyrics were simple so long as they were heartfelt, but I think this is a little different. These lyrics are incredibly cheesy.

"We're meant for eachother", "We're a perfect match", "It's just us" are all incredibly corny. Lyrically, it's like Bono wrote some Ross-and-Rachel anthem which is SO not the same thing as writing about a failed relationship. In theme, this song seems to be similar to With or Without You, but in terms of style, it's closer to something that a professional songwriter would write for Britney Spears or something.

The "because we can we must" ending, while working for me in terms of the way it sounds musically, is awful lyrically. Just incredibly lazy, especially when coupled with another lazy line, "it's just us."

Please, bury Mercy. Let it live on as a beloved unreleased track or b-side or something. But don't try to doctor this song into a hit, because they're going to butcher this song into a shell of its former self.

This too.

 

[powerhour24]

I swear, you'd think some people thought the original version was some sort of holy decree, like Bono's Dead Sea Scrolls or something.

Yeah, are you saying it isn't??

 

[Swan269]

you know, I always thought the song was kind of "miracle drugish"-not a bad thing...maybe a mix of 'bad' and 'md'

 

[The_Edge89]

you know, I always thought the song was kind of "miracle drugish"-not a bad thing...maybe a mix of 'bad' and 'md'

Indeed. There is a little riff in the original version that sounds like the opening guitar notes from Miracle Drug among other things.
Here's an interesting fanmade mix I stumbled upon a while back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL_ElTpCeTw

 

[powerhour24]

Yeah, I love that mash-up!

 

[God Part III]

"We're meant for eachother", "We're a perfect match", "It's just us" are all incredibly corny. Lyrically, it's like Bono wrote some Ross-and-Rachel anthem which is SO not the same thing as writing about a failed relationship. In theme, this song seems to be similar to With or Without You, but in terms of style, it's closer to something that a professional songwriter would write for Britney Spears or something.

"Love is the end of history, the enemy of misery" is supposed to be better?

I actually like the new lyrics, unlike the old ones, they're not trying too hard, they're honest. "It's just us" is my favourite new addition actually.

 

[powerhour24]

Wow, I think the exact opposite is true.

 

[zoocarolina]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLRxjC_9ffE&feature=related

sounds amazing. with headphones you can hear the bass, which is essential to the song's weight.

also, nice to watch Larry during this clip. I like the work he does in this song.

Thanks for sharing, very nice and agree about the BASS!

 

[roy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLRxjC_9ffE&feature=related

sounds amazing. with headphones you can hear the bass, which is essential to the song's weight.

also, nice to watch Larry during this clip. I like the work he does in this song.

That version sounds absolutely awesome.

 

[popacrobat]

Not sure if this has been posted yet but this went up on Twitter from some fan who was at HMV in Edinburgh apparently:

AAAHHHH HOLY FUCK SO HYPER!! Hope its true!! | Plixi

Twitter / chelle mcbride: From an HMV store in edinb ...

So perhaps a new album this year after all.

 

[BEAL]

I wonder what that could be? You would think if they have a new album out, a single would be released to radio now.

 

[corianderstem]

 

[Purplereign]

^ what she said . . . plus a little of this thrown in for good measure

 

[powerhour24]

x infinity


+????

 

[super fly guy]

Hmm they even have a release date!!?? Sounds to good to be true.

 

[powerhour24]

Of course we have seen hmv.com have place holders on their site for releases that never materialized, but in store with an exact date? Why would they pick a random date if they were just bullshitting??

 

[Inner El Guapo]

That sign looks like it could have been printed up that way.
You know what I mean? It's not something that screams 'speculation'.

What we need to see is a Universal/Interscope copyright somewhere on it.

 

[Swan269]

although the sign is interesting...I need more proof.

 

[popacrobat]

That sign looks like it could have been printed up that way.
You know what I mean? It's not something that screams 'speculation'.

What we need to see is a Universal/Interscope copyright somewhere on it.

what it tells me is that somebody at some point recently was told to expect a U2 release at this particular store. by who and when is obviously the key thing here and we might not find out that information but there are at least some gears turning somewhere.