Taking the Vinegar out of Vertigo? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong > Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-26-2004, 08:14 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,374
Local Time: 10:41 AM
Quote:
It's on the street
It's under your feet
It's everywhere
This is EXTREMELY similar to a lyric in the last verse of 'Surrender' from 'War'.
__________________

namkcuR is offline  
Old 11-26-2004, 09:32 PM   #17
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 99
Local Time: 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bcrt2000
i agree with u2's direction though, they are trying to tread the middle path now, and build bridges, for the post 9/11 world



Oh give me a break.

Your opinion is completely invalidated by saying "post 9/11 world". In a post 9/11 world we should replace currency with teddy bears and discussion with banality.

We need a love as hard as hate.

I think it's a travesty what they've done to this song. I took Vertigo to be pretty much Elevation II. Herein U2 compare the feeling of spiritual eligtenment to a feeling of Vertigo instead of a feeling of Elevation. The fact that they've said it's about the way the world is right now show's they've complete overthunk the song.

It's an amazing song in its beginning stage and they had to go gut it lyrically and musically and package it on an iPod ad.

Bland music did not get Bono into Jesse Helm's office.
__________________

LiveFire is offline  
Old 11-26-2004, 11:37 PM   #18
Acrobat
 
RobVox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Where Larry Sings!
Posts: 429
Local Time: 07:41 AM
This is tough!..I prefer Native Son to Vertigo, but I like both (obviously because they are both the same in nature).

I too prefer the original lyric, and I too wondered if Bono had watered it down for the masses...I also heard what was said on the DVD about Steve taking it apart and putting it back together as Larry said, but in the end if Bono had wanted it one way lyrically it would have been that way.

Bono is much wiser now than in his youth and that has to bring some weight into the issue...that said...I don't know what to think I guess.

In the end if I had to choose, my vote goes to Native Son, but I am NOT a member of U2 so they can do what they want I am just glad that they released Native Son.
RobVox is offline  
Old 11-27-2004, 04:59 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by adam3000
so what does everone think of the loss of the "i don't mean ta' bug ya'" U2 to make way for a kindler gentler U2. Does their music suffer?
Not for me, I like it a lot better. I love personal lyrics much better than political lyrics. Bono's lyrics lately evoke such emotion, they "give me something I can feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel". "...Bomb" is a master at that. Not since October has a U2 album made me "feel" so much. I love it.

I've been a fan since 84, and U2's political posturing always did kinda bug me, especially at times when it was so obviously partisan. I was so happy this election when Bono refused to become partisan.

And I'm not alone in this. During the election, I saw some polls taht pointed to the fact that an overwhelming majority of people are turned off by overly partisan celebrities, people like Bruce Springsteen and Linda Rondstadt:

I love what Alice Cooper said about musicians and politics:

"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 11-27-2004, 05:08 AM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,991
Local Time: 04:41 PM
I disagree with Cooper.

Musicians, as anyone else, have a right to express political views - it's been a long history, starting in the 60's with Vietnam war inspired songs, punk in the 70's, early hip hop/rap in the 80's, generally rock artists.
Even more so with a, shall we say, controversial president and in an atmosphere where no critisism is allowed. (a shame what happened to Rondstadt or Dixie Chicks)
U2girl is offline  
Old 11-27-2004, 05:46 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
I disagree with Cooper.

Musicians, as anyone else, have a right to express political views - it's been a long history, starting in the 60's with Vietnam war inspired songs, punk in the 70's, early hip hop/rap in the 80's, generally rock artists.
Even more so with a, shall we say, controversial president and in an atmosphere where no critisism is allowed. (a shame what happened to Rondstadt or Dixie Chicks)
Alice wasn't saying musicians don't have a right to have political views. He's saying that people should think for themselves rather than look to a musician for answers.

What really irks me is when musicians start spouting their partisan views at a concert that has not been billed as a political event. Look, people pay good money to go see these bands; they pay to hear the music - they don't pay to hear the band trash a political candidate. That's one of the reasons the backlash came against Dixie Chicks and Linda Rondstadt - because people are sick of that crap.

It's hard for me to feel sorry for Linda Rondstadt when she spews venom such as this:

"It's a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is a Republican or fundamental Christian. It can cloud my enjoyment. I'd rather not know."

and

“People don’t realize that by voting Republican, they voted against themselves,” she says. Of Iraq in particular, she adds, “I worry that some people are entertained by the idea of this war. They don’t know anything about the Iraqis, but they’re angry and frustrated in their own lives. It’s like Germany, before Hitler took over. The economy was bad and people felt kicked around. They looked for a scapegoat. Now we’ve got a new bunch of Hitlers.”

By the way, you may not like Bush, but to say that no criticism is allowed is way off theark. If that were the case, 90% of the memmbers of these U2 forums would be in jail, as would millions of people in the media. Heck, Michael Moore would be on Death Row right now.
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 11-27-2004, 05:57 AM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,991
Local Time: 04:41 PM
I'm sure people are very capable of thinking for themself, no matter what musicians say.

I remeber reading something about Vedder throwing a mask of Bush's face on stage. Well, Pearl Jam (or Springsteen) have been vocal liberals and anti-Bush so if you go to their shows, expect statements accordingly. Their show, their music and certainly their choice what to say or do.
Don't like that? Don't go to their shows, then.

(Bono himself critisized Reagan from what I read on this forum, and we all know about the prank calls to Bush in 92 - so should U2 lose all US fans because of that?)

Wasn't Linda Ronstadt booed off stage when she dedicated a song against Bush?
Weren't Dixie Chicks' songs banned on the radio after they made the comment on Bush and people trashed their CDs?
Hollywood actors and musicians get severly bashed for expressing dislike for Bush. Didn't that happen, too? (funny you should mention Moore, he's getting attacked alot too right?)

Doesn't look like allowing for a freedom of speech. In democracy, things like that shouldn't happen.
U2girl is offline  
Old 11-27-2004, 06:14 AM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
I'm sure people are very capable of thinking for themself, no matter what musicians say.

I remeber reading something about Vedder throwing a mask of Bush's face on stage. Well, Pearl Jam (or Springsteen) have been vocal liberals and anti-Bush so if you go to their shows, expect statements accordingly. Their show, their music and certainly their choice what to say or do.
Don't like that? Don't go to their shows, then. Don't buy their music.

>>I don't care for their music, so I don't.

_______________________________________

(Bono himself critisized Reagan from what I read on this forum, and we all know about the prank calls to Bush in 92 - so should U2 lose all US fans because of that?)

>>He did criticize Reagan in concert. And I didn't like it. But Bono has now realized that a concert is not the place to shove this partisan stuff down people's throats.

____________________________________

Wasn't Linda Ronstadt booed off stage when she dedicated a song against Bush?

>>That shows you right there that many people in her audience don't want to hear partisan crap when they go to a concert.

____________________________________________________

Weren't Dixie Chicks' songs banned on the radio after they made the comment on Bush and people trashed their CDs?

>>You want freedom of speech but not a free market? Should privately-owned radios stations not be allowed to set their own song lists? The Dixie Chicks are big girls - they know what they say might have consequences.

____________________________________

Hollywood actors and musicians get severly bashed for expressing dislike for Bush. Didn't that happen, too? (funny you should mention Moore, he's getting attacked alot too right?)
Doesn't look like allowing for a freedom of speech. In democracy, things like that shouldn't happen.

>>It seems to me that you're saying that people shouldn't be allowed to bash Moore and Ronstadt and the Chicks for what they say. If that's the case, you are actually the one "not allowing for freedom of speech". Freedom of speech goes both ways. If Springsteen has the freedom to bash the pres., others have the freedom to bash old Brucey Boy. Notice that I never said they shouldn't be allowed to criticize the pres. I just said that they should have more respect for the fans who pay good money for tickets, and not use the concert setting as a political soap box.

80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 11-27-2004, 06:24 AM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 09:41 AM
U2Girl, I have a sincere question for you. As you may or may not know, Bono supported the war against Afghanistan. What if he also supported the war against Iraq? If you went to a U2 concert, wouldn't it tick you off if Bono was saying things like "Bush is a great pres. and the war on Iraq was absolutely necessary. How can all those people who don't agree with Bush be so blind?"
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 11-27-2004, 06:25 AM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,991
Local Time: 04:41 PM
-- Does not liking their music have anything to do with their dislike of Bush?
I hope not.

-- Then when do you suggest Bono say that? Would it be any different if he said it in interviews? He can use the stage as a platform to express ideas.
Some argue he's showing AIDS/Data work down people's throats with those long speeches among songs.

-- Um, the problem is that the "song list" was obviusly influenced by their comments, and had nothing to do with musical choices. Censorship if you ask me: critisize Bush but ooops, we won't play your music for it.

-- There is a big difference between saying I disagree with Moore/Dixie chicks/whoever and going on a rampage with not playing their music/not showing the movie. You can not block their work - whatever you think of their views. It's censorship, I say again.

-- Fans can show that same respect to Springseen or Dixie Chicks or Ronstadt or whoever. Ignore their comments, leave the show if it bothers you that much, but don't start yelling and booing and ruining the show for those who a) would like to hear the music and b) don't agree with you.

I know Bono supported the war in Afghanistan.
I don't know what I would think, but I do know it wouldn't mean I would start hating U2 or destroy their CDs or start booing or yelling names.
U2girl is offline  
Old 11-27-2004, 07:17 AM   #26
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Colorado
Posts: 416
Local Time: 08:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
Weren't Dixie Chicks' songs banned on the radio after they made the comment on Bush and people trashed their CDs? Doesn't look like allowing for a freedom of speech.
As one comedian said "What a suprise. The Dixie Chicks comments didn't play to well to the Nascar crowd." Freedom of speech was allowed. Dixie Chicks were allowed the freedom to say what they wanted. Then the thousands of Dixie Chicks fans expressed their freedom of speech by throwing their CD's away and calling up radio stations to stop playing their songs. That is a democratic process. Country music fans voted against the Dixie Chicks anti-Bush statements! Dixie Chicks CD's can still be bought in all Wal-Marts. They haven't been forced out of the country or put in jail or banned from any entertainment magazines. They are still free.

But this thread isn't about free speech and whether you or not you agree it exists in this country (no one posting on this thread is going to be hunted down by a secret police - so I'm going to say freedom does exist here). This thread is about transition of U2 from the outward critisizing to the inward pesonal examination. As Bono keeps saying in recent interviews "the hypocrisy of your own heart".

Is this a braver direction or are U2 getting soft? Does this perspective suit rock'n'roll or do U2 need to return to the time of more politial strife? Is U2 reaching more for pop-music angles than the wide casams of epic rock?
adam3000 is offline  
Old 11-27-2004, 09:49 AM   #27
War Child
 
iota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: the rugged southwest
Posts: 769
Local Time: 02:41 PM
How is "Native Son" a political statement?

It seems like a story of a man trying to survive in impossible circumstances...but how is it an anti-Bush statement? Sounds more like a personal song with warlike imagery.

With that said, I think it is superior to vertigo in every way. Imagine a U2 album so unpolished and delightfully sloppy ever seeing the light of day!
iota is offline  
Old 11-27-2004, 09:53 AM   #28
War Child
 
iota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: the rugged southwest
Posts: 769
Local Time: 02:41 PM
I'll just start a new thread on what I just wrote here.
iota is offline  
Old 11-27-2004, 09:59 AM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,991
Local Time: 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by adam3000

Country music fans voted against the Dixie Chicks anti-Bush statements!
Exactly. What do their statements have to do with their music?

I see no point in destroying the CDs of a band that think different politically than someone that is a fan. Or calling up radio stations to put them off the air.
Questioning/doubting/poking fun at leaders in democracy is an often occurance, as it should be. Should we retire political satire, then?

They weren't banned? They were not played on the radio = banned from the radio IMO.
U2girl is offline  
Old 11-27-2004, 10:37 AM   #30
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Colorado
Posts: 416
Local Time: 08:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl
They weren't banned? They were not played on the radio = banned from the radio IMO.
There is a difference in a crowd growing displeased with an artists music because it reminds them of opinions they find insulting and totalitarian censorship. The Dixie Chicks getting banned from radio is equivilant to them speaking up in a bar during a set and having a bunch of beer cans thown at them to get off the stage.

I understand the ability to separate what an artist says politically and what they do as art. I don't stop enjoying The Hunt for Red October because Alec Baldwin is a big liberal. Hey I'm a conservative (GASP!), I wouldn't be able to enjoy 90% of pop-culture if that were the case.

On the other hand, can people appreciate the perspective that if your neighbor called your mother a whore, but brought over a cake for you to eat, you might not want to eat the cake. The cake has nothing to do with the statements about your mother, but you could be so offended that you throw the cake at his garage door. Hopefully you find this example a little humorous, but illustrative to people's reactions to the Dixie Chicks. Understand? I hope you can appreciate that perspective. Not that it's right to go throwing cakes at garage doors.

In any case, this thread is just a question of not whether Native Son is better than Vertigo or if artists should be allowed to speak freely .... but what is happening to the political U2? Are they abandoning their stronger opinions about war in favor of trying to make some progress in other arenas? Are they trying to use some wisdom in playing the diplomat between disagreeing parties? Does this suit their music?
__________________

adam3000 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com