Something I found about So Cruel

[follower]

So Cruel is my 2nd alltime fave U2 song. I tend to collect anything I can find about this marvellous song. One of the things I stored was this piece written by Bill Graham. I think it?s really good and, although I would love to see it played live, I must agree with him. They won?t play it because of the reasons he pointed out.

You have to know the deep pain and hurt that is 'So Cruel' to know why U2 may never play this song live. It is a song that has it's beauty in being captured in studio, and leaving it at that may just be one of the high point of Achtung Baby, but at the price of exposing a love that was once so pure turned painfully wrong. It also may be that it is a song so personal that it doesn't do for U2 what others songs may do in reaching their audience with the hope and inspiration that is in so much of U2's music.
There is no hope in 'So Cruel', but of a relationship that is at the point of no return. U2 takes a lot of their music, and have transformed it live. But the pain is in not being able to transform this relationship gone bad. I may be the only one who feels this way about this song, and I'm in no way discarding this song, because it has always been, and always will be one of my favorites on Achtung Baby. I'm able to appreciate it lyrically and sonically for what it represents, but I also realize that the story being told was lived by someone, and at a cost that was very great in the emotional and spiritual sense that I have never known, but still appreciate it for what it simply is: deceit, selfishness, and the cruelty we sometimes find in bad love that many experience, and in the case of this song, someone very close to Bono.
This appreciation is more so the opposite we find in say 'All I Want Is You' where the lover that Bono speaks of chooses to want their story to remain untold. In the case of 'So Cruel' the story is allowed to be told of one's lover past, and the pain of rejection experienced is almost unbearable to listen to, and yet told so poetically that it sweeps us off our feet. 'So Cruel' is the epitomy of what 'All I Want Is You' is not, so opposite in their desires, and yet stand next to each other as two defining moments in U2's musical journey in showing us the beauty and the awfulness that love sometimes becomes.

What do you think? Do you agree with his ideas?

BTw, for those who love the song as much as I do, there?s an mp3 file available, full band, from the Hershey rehearsals...not that good quality, but better than nothing:

http://www.u2eastlink.com/audio/semana.php

So cruel...what a song...so beautiful in it?s entirety, lyrics and music and arrangement. Perfect song IMO.

Cheers
MT

 

[Blue Room]

One of my favorite songs from Achtung Baby. But he is wrong about the live part. Bono sang the whole song at the 9-9-92 Detroit show. I was fortunate to see it in person, unfortunately no recording of it has surfaced.

 

[Swan269]

I never thought of his point of maybe it was too personal to perform. Whenever the band doesn't play a song EVER...i just chalk it up to....."Well, this song doesn't work.........we will shelf it and maybe try again sometime (aka Red Hill Mining town)" It was a good point.

 

[mofo82]

i never thought of the song as being to painful to play live because u2 seems to be a band that would love to play an emotionally heavy song...the greatest example i can come up with is how bad a shape bono was in on the popmart video, where he practically loses it when they play 'one'. that had to be one of the most difficult performances for bono, yet he strived and got through it. maybe 'so cruel' is a little too relevant to themselves to play it out on a tour, but something tells me that if it was really that much of a bother to them that they wouldnt have even included it on AB. All in all, the song is great and does stand to be one of their 'happier' songs

 

[what a bomb!]

So Cruel is so cool! one of my faves from AB too!

 

[babyman]

they performed the song more than a time during the zoo tv tour, they did an acoustic version in milan and in other european cities

 

[follower]

they performed the song more than a time during the zoo tv tour, they did an acoustic version in milan and in other european cities

I know. I have that Milan performance and Blue Room mentioned another one. But the thing is, it ended up not being part of their setlist, neither on ZOO TV Tour nor on the ones that followed it. My point is...Bill Graham was close enough to the band to be able to truly evaluate the impact of the song over them. I agree that they can play emotional songs like no one else on Earth, but maybe So Cruel was unbearable to them, emotionally speaking rather than technically.

Cheers
MT

 

[jick]

It wasn't an emotional thing. I have the Hershey tapes which is U2's soundchecks during the Zoo TV era. They played the full band version of So Cruel. It honestly sucked. They did attempt a few acoustic renditions of the song to no avail - fan reaction was nothing great.

The tempo of the song is too slow, only two chords, the vocal quite monotone, and the drum loopey effect of the kick-bass could not be replicated live successfully. The Hershey tapes reveal all the shortcomings of that song live. If they played the song live, the audience would be put to sleep.

It's bollocks to think U2 didn't play it because of emotional issues. It was more of technical issues and not getting the song to fit into the theme of Zoo TV more than anything else.

Bill Graham is just stating his assumptions and that is not fact. He wrote a book from cryin' out loud, so of course he has to make it sound flowery and embellish some facts to make the band look better than they really are.

Cheers,

J

 

[follower]

I have the Hershey Tapes performances as well, and I couldn't disagree more with you, actually. For me it just shows how beautiful the song is and what a great live song it could have been. Maybe I just don't care for all the technicalities (is there this word? lol) you usually do jick, so it's like we're talking different idioms here. And maybe we are indeed, lol. Sorry.
I still agree with Bill Graham's point of view.

Cheers
MT

 

[BVS]

Bill Graham is just stating his assumptions and that is not fact. He wrote a book from cryin' out loud, so of course he has to make it sound flowery and embellish some facts to make the band look better than they really are.



J

Isn't this what you do here on a daily basis? But you sell your opinion as fact to try and make them look worse than they really are.

 

[U2Soar]

Hi Follower! So Cruel is a great song! Intense / emotional / and heartbreaking. I agree with Bill Graham?s reflection: it may be have been too excruciating for The Edge to perform live on regular basis. I?d rather see it address the character?s wife rather than his lover in Nighttown. So I would group it with these songs when he stumbles home (with Tryin? To Throw Your Arms Around The Around) to face his wife and a relationship that is shattered:

1. Where Did It All Go Wrong?
2. Acrobat
3. Heaven And Hell (Salome Outtakes) (Hey Swan 269 I love your video for it! I hope U2 appreciate the copy you sent them)
4. Woman or Sick For Love (aka Back Mask l & ll from the Salome Outtakes) (Hey Swan 269 I?d love it if you made a video for this one [or least an edited audio version combining the two] !?)
5. So Cruel
6. One
7. Ultraviolet
8. Love Is Blindness

Imagine a bottle of wine / ?crawling? into these songs / and experiencing the pain of a broken marriage.

 

[gareth brown]

It wasn't an emotional thing. I have the Hershey tapes which is U2's soundchecks during the Zoo TV era. They played the full band version of So Cruel. It honestly sucked. They did attempt a few acoustic renditions of the song to no avail - fan reaction was nothing great.

The tempo of the song is too slow, only two chords, the vocal quite monotone, and the drum loopey effect of the kick-bass could not be replicated live successfully. The Hershey tapes reveal all the shortcomings of that song live. If they played the song live, the audience would be put to sleep.

It's bollocks to think U2 didn't play it because of emotional issues. It was more of technical issues and not getting the song to fit into the theme of Zoo TV more than anything else.

Bill Graham is just stating his assumptions and that is not fact. He wrote a book from cryin' out loud, so of course he has to make it sound flowery and embellish some facts to make the band look better than they really are.

Cheers,

J

I'm sorry if I've mentioned it too much...but I am REALLY starting to 'dig' the way you approach things...it's honestly the best way, I've learned recently...complaining is the BEST thing to do as there's no way that anything can be THAT perfect...so keep at it...

But onto So Cruel, do you want to know what I would like U2 to have done during the ZOO TV Tour on top of all the lavish, extravagent things they did? I would have loved them to have got a full orchestra to play behind them halfway through alongside/in place of the accoustic 'set'!

Great tracks that could have benefited from such a set-

One
So Cruel

Just those two would have knocked anyone's socks off...

 

[babyman]

so cruel is probably u2's most sad song...but everytime when i'm listening to it i'm just captured by a very intense atmosphere

 

[Salome]

I must say I have never heard the Hershey tapes but my first thought would be that Jick (I would express it in another way though) is correct in his assumption that the band thought it just didn't work live

we're talking about a band here who played One Tree Hill in New Zeeland
you are just not able to play that song anywhere, let alone in New Zeeland when you're not able to detach yourself from a song after recording it

this is the band who had the mothers on stage during Mothers of the Disappeared
a performance that almost tears my heart out of my chest when I hear it without even seeing it

I honestly believe that if they thought the live performance of So Cruel was up to their standard they'd play it


I think the same about Acrobat and the full band version of Stay (I was there when they tried that one over here, honestly crowd reaction was zero and don't try to tell me there were only fairweather fans there) though so perhaps I'm just dumb

 

[biff]

Perhaps the reason the band had such a difficult time coming to grips with how to play this song well live is the very reason given by Bill Graham. This is a man who knew the band since they were teenagers, so obviously he would have had some insight into their mental and emotional states. It's not hard to imagine how emotional turmoil of the sort he describes could affect their approach to the song, and their ability to play it well.

 

[jick]

U2 has played many emotional songs live and it is the perfomance of these live songs that make U2 popular.

U2 doing Bad for Bono's best friend who died of heroin overdose.

Bono dedicating One to Michael Hutchence and being nearly in tears in the Popmart shows just after his death.

Bono performing Kite for his Dad.

Everytime U2 does One Tree Hill, the memory and tragedy of Greg Caroll who was so dear to all of them - especially Bono - flashes back.

It is U2's trademark to appeal to emotion on the live shows, to connect with the fans on an emotional level. This is what makes U2 a great live band.

Face it, U2 chose not to perform So Cruel - not because of its extremely emotional or painful content, but because it just wouldn't work in a live setting in their own opinion. And I totally agree with them after hearing the Hershey tapes - the full band live version of So Cruel was a bore and dead as a duck.

Let's not live in a dreamworld and think U2 refuses to perform a song due to graphic emotional content.

Following that strained argument, I can therefore say U2 never performed Grace because they felt unworthy of the grace our Lord through his only begotten son, Jesus Christ (Bono's major role model), has given to all of us. But of course I would never say that. I don't stretch things to jump into conclusions.

By the way, let me just add that So Cruel is one of my favorite u2 songs lyrically.

Cheers,

J

 

[follower]

Good that you appreciate the lyrics jick, now that?s something positive.

Btw, I just checked both performances of So Cruel, from the Hershey Tapes. I agree that the acoustic version doesn?t shine, but the full band one is great IMO. It?s like Velvet Dress, I mean, a slow tempo song that proved to be outstanding live, and so would be So Cruel...to be used in a specific part of the concert, maybe. I still think they might have had other reasons not to play it, but we?ll never know probably.

Cheers
MT

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

Gee, thanks, jick, you totally killed the feeling that the post initiator conveyed by bringing it up.

I would have much preferred to think U2 doesn't perform this song because of emotional reasons than because of some trivial technical issue.

 

[U2girl]

Probably my fave U2 song

IMO the truth is somewhere in between: So cruel, to me, is a studio song that could not translate live well (to U2's standards, at least) or they'd play it more often. On the other hand, it is also possible the Edge would have a problem with it if he had to play it several times on the tour.

 

[jick]

Probably my fave U2 song

IMO the truth is somewhere in between: So cruel, to me, is a studio song that could not translate live well (to U2's standards, at least) or they'd play it more often. On the other hand, it is also possible the Edge would have a problem with it if he had to play it several times on the tour.

If Edge can get through the painful expressive guitars of Love Is Blindness, with more reason he can go through So Cruel which will be a breeze for him with the simple repetetive piano part (if Edge chooses to play the piano). But in the Hershey Tapes, Edge did not play the piano and tried to add a guitar filler which just totally killed the emotion conveyed by the studio version.

Bono has said that the solo guitar in Love Is Blindness is the Edge taking us to a journey through the pain he was experiencing at the time of the recording of Achtung Baby. I would believe Love Is Blindness would have been emotionally tougher for U2 to play.

But U2 are not cowards. They have a history of having the balls to play any song, no matter how emotional it is to them. So I am sure they could have played So Cruel in a breeze if they thought it was good enough. That's always been U2's selling point and their cash cow --- their live performances of songs that appeal to emotion. If given the opportunity to tickle the audience's emotions, U2 will surely grab it. That's their style anyway. So Cruel just didn't quite cut it technically.


Cheers,

J

 

[U2girl]

I didn't mean musically but if I remember correctly, So cruel in particular (and much of the album) is said to be inspired by Edge's divorce.
That's why it might not have been easy on him to play it very often, with the memories and all.
(having said that, I don't mind the Hershey version)
AND it must have been hard to re-create the piano, strings and keyboard sounds live.

For example, I don't think U2 played SBS during Lovetown tour, and it wasn't played a lot on Zoo TV tour (or as much as on previous tours) - because of the bombing that took place on the night of that R&H version and continued N. Ireland troubles. As Bono put it in an interview "we can play that song in a different way now because we're proud of the compromises that have been made."
Yes, they played One tree hill on JT tour and Lovetown but not after that (at least not in full).

 

[Blue Room]

I would have to agree (unfortunately that includes Jick LOL). U2 didnt perform this song more because they didnt feel it worked on Zoo. Its not a single and they didnt like performing it on Zoo so they probeby havent even considered playing it again. I would say it has absolutely nothing to do with what the song is about.

I did witness the full acoustic version of this song in Detroit as I mentioned previously and I did see an almost complete acoustic version a few days later in Chicago. Honestly, I thought it worked as well if not better than All I Want Is You acoustic which is what Bono was typically doing instead of So Cruel at the time. So Cruel was suppose to be done in Madison also but Bono changed his mind on stage and did All I Want Is You instead. So I think it just shows that they (in particular Bono) didnt feel it was working all that well. I disagree and some other fans probebly would as well but it is not up to us obviously. But I dont think it had anything to do with the content of the song.

 

[follower]

Good point Blue Room, from an eye witness point of view I?ve been led to think that way, I mean, some difficulties on an emotional level rather than technical as the reason for dropping it from the setlist, because of what Bill Graham said. But maybe you and jick might be right in the end. Or maybe U2girl got it all right and both reasons would be possible.

Cheers
MT

 

[TheBrazilianFly]

So Cruel is a very good song, great lyrics and good singing but I don't see it as being as good as many here think it is, in fact I wish they had worked more on Heaven And Hell so they could have putted that song instead of So Cruel. It would be more of a musical achievement for Achtung Baby. I agree that So Cruel is more of a studio kind of song (which is fine cause I like that too). I also agree with whoever said that it is a little too slow to be played live, people would be a bit bored and I don't think they haven't played it because it's an emotional song or whatever. I mean if that was the case they would have stopped playing Kite once the connection with Bono's father was made. It's just another good song that gets all hyped because they haven't played before like Red Hill Mining Town.

 

[forbonou2]

I agree with what he says about this song-it's way too personal, and I for one have an idea about who it is talking about. The good thing about this song, is the fact THEY were able to do what they do best-in song-and leave the pain of it all right there on the record! See-U2 music works for them also? I love this song-it helped Me put something painful into words-and leave it out of me! thank God for U2's AB!

 

[follower]

I agree with what he says about this song-it's way too personal, and I for one have an idea about who it is talking about. The good thing about this song, is the fact THEY were able to do what they do best-in song-and leave the pain of it all right there on the record! See-U2 music works for them also? I love this song-it helped Me put something painful into words-and leave it out of me! thank God for U2's AB!

I know what you mean and I feel the same. Maybe that?s the problem with certain U2 songs and me. I cannot be objective enough, because I have developted a sort of personal connection to them. It happens with Bad, So Cruel, Walk to the Water, Last Night on Earth, Wake Up Dead Man and a few others...well, not exactly a few, lol, in fact they are many. In the end it?s not just good music, a very good song like TheBrazilianFly said, it?s much more than that. I wouldn?t say that So Cruel is all hyped because they haven?t played it before, it?s not the way I feel. I would love to be able to see it live because it would be a very special, intimate experience for me, I think.

Cheers
MT

 

[Swan269]

not every song can work all the time....but U2 can translate 95% of their songs from the studio setting to the live area very very well.....that's why they kick ass!

 

[Blue Room]

So Cruel is a very good song, great lyrics and good singing but I don't see it as being as good as many here think it is, in fact I wish they had worked more on Heaven And Hell so they could have putted that song instead of So Cruel. It would be more of a musical achievement for Achtung Baby. I agree that So Cruel is more of a studio kind of song (which is fine cause I like that too). I also agree with whoever said that it is a little too slow to be played live, people would be a bit bored and I don't think they haven't played it because it's an emotional song or whatever. I mean if that was the case they would have stopped playing Kite once the connection with Bono's father was made. It's just another good song that gets all hyped because they haven't played before like Red Hill Mining Town.

But they did play it (At least Bono did). So its no Red Hill Mining Town which has never been done in any form in concert. The pacing of the song was part of it in that it didnt fit anywhere in the Zoo setlist. Ultimately that is why it was dropped. Instead Bono would do AIWIY which most people knew, WGRYWH which was the new single at the time, or a cover song (ie Redemption Song, Dear Prudence) instead. If the tempo of a song was a reason for a song to never be played they would have never played 40, Mothers, Velvet Dress, WOWY, RTSS, etc..... Its simple, it didnt fit in the setlist on Zoo, thats it.