Ultraviolet = NLOTH?

[gvox]

sounds like an Ace Of Base spin off...

Baseheads

YouTube - Public Enemy - Night Of The Living Baseheads: Dope Version

 

[Bonochick]

BVS and ZooMacPhisto800...if you want to debate a difference of opinion, that's fine, but you don't have to be insulting towards each other.

 

[ZooMacPhisto800]

And that's the point that the OP contested right away... and I agreed. The parallel you are trying to make is not given. It could be debated, but it's not given. I termed the two (rhythm and count/tempo) as superficially similar in that they are both song properties... but, as I initially said, you have to look deeper than superficial similarities...

You thought you were being smart, but you actually misunderstood my use of "superficial similarity" when you wrote...

But rhythm is a superficial similarity. Thank you for proving my point once again.

I didn't prove your point, you misunderstood... I've been clarifying the misunderstanding surrounding the term because of your arrogant post (see above).


So how about your point on its own merits:

I said nothing about rhythm and tempo being the same. [...] So when you learn to read you'll understand what I was trying to say...

Which is that having the same rhythm is just as superficial of a similarity that having the same tempo is when it comes to this type of thread...

OK, but see the objection you encountered from both the OP and I right away... there's a also a summary in the first paragraph of this reply.

 

[Galeongirl]

Listen to the verse of NLOTH...then listen to Lady With the Spinning Head. Very similar. And LWTSH of course is The Fly's hot sister

Ah yes, THAT I do hear. Strange how I totally don't link LWTSH with The Fly.

 

[ahittle]

Pretty sure they're in different keys (I'm not sure off the top of my head what key UV is in), but the main progression and verse both go from a major I chord to the III chord. NLOTH returns to the I for a two chord sequence, but UV goes up to the IV chord for three total chords. That might be what the poster is sensing. I don't think it's outrageous to make a comparison.

 

[gvox]

Ah yes, THAT I do hear. Strange how I totally don't link LWTSH with The Fly.

What??! The Fly comes from LWTSH..I think the solo especially...I think UV does and a third song I can't remember also, does it not? I'm too lazy to check lol

 

[gvox]

Pretty sure they're in different keys (I'm not sure off the top of my head what key UV is in), but the main progression and verse both go from a major I chord to the III chord.

I'm could be wrong, but don't both song's verses start on the same note/chord, right? Also, with that 'high bass' sound or whatever that both the verses possess, it really makes them sound similar..

Another huge similarity is the beat from MOS is So Cruel basically, with a little added roll/fill/whatever. Same sortof slowed down hip hop (trip hop?) beat.

I think there are way more parallels, especially in the flavor and experimentation in the songs, between NLOTH & AB than NLOTH and TUF

 

[ZooMacPhisto800]

What??! The Fly comes from LWTSH..I think the solo especially...

I think LWTSH descended from the same pre-song as The Fly... the solo is very Fly-ish. Probably couldn't release LWTSH on AB, among other reasons, because it was too similar...

Same thing with Salomé and Zoo Station... bass line.

 

[gvox]

I think LWTSH descended from the same pre-song as The Fly... the solo is very Fly-ish. Probably couldn't release LWTSH on AB, among other reasons, because it was too similar...

Depending on my mood, I'd take LWTSH over The Fly. Put The Fly on it's b side.

 

[ZooMacPhisto800]

Depending on my mood, I'd take LWTSH over The Fly. Put The Fly on it's b side.

I agree. I love LWTSH, especially the mix from the EBTTRT single (with the trance-y middle-part)...

Good times...

 

[MarcusOneTree]

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to this thread... Busy busy...

But thank you, ZooMacPhisto800 for filling in for me while I was away.

You're assuming the link the OP (Original Poster) is trying to make (regarding rhythm) extends automatically to count/tempo. That's the superficial similarity... as the OP has pointed out, the two cannot be equated automatically... they're two different things.

And that's the point that the OP contested right away... and I agreed. The parallel you are trying to make is not given. It could be debated, but it's not given. I termed the two (rhythm and count/tempo) as superficially similar in that they are both song properties... but, as I initially said, you have to look deeper than superficial similarities...

Now I don't want to get into a whole thing here, especially since it appears there may be a rift between ZooMacPhisto800 and BVS that predates this thread, however I would like to confirm that:

1) I was making a point about the rhythm specifically (as ZooMacPhisto800 pointed out... see above), and that
2) bringing tempo (or "count") into this has no bearing and is in fact another topic altogether.

If you will, I was talking apples and you (BVS) tried to halt or stop the discussion by talking about oranges.

So in this context, BVS' replies to ZooMacPhisto800 were incorrect, especially:

Massive FAIL.

I said nothing about rhythm and tempo being the same.

Though you didn't say that both were the same, you did state that if we're comparing rhythm we might as well compare tempo ("count"):

With that same logic we'll see Acrobat because Breathe and Acrobat are the same count...

Again, rhythm and tempo (just like apples and oranges) are two different things. From your choice of words, BVS, and the tone of your replies, it came across as unsubstantiated and unnecessary nitpicking. At least that's how I and ZooMacPhisto800 interpreted it (I won't speak for anyone else who may have been lurking).

Finally, from the way we (ZooMacPhisto800 and I) both posted in this thread, I don't see anything wrong or lacking with our reading comprehension skills.


Now let the discussion continue, should anyone still be interested in actually discussing the point I was trying to make/topic I was raising, which is:

Do you think "Ultraviolet" was resurrected because it has a musical connection (in terms of rhythm, and rhythm alone) to "No Line on the Horizon" (the song)?


I can picture Edge being the one who pointed it out to the band, possibly suggesting that they bring it back for that reason:

EDGE: You know, I was re-listening to Achtung Baby, and it dawned on me that the rhythm in "No Line" is reminiscent of "Ultraviolet". Could be a neat musical theme. What do you guys think?
BONO: Ultra-what? Sorry, I don't re-listen to our albums once they're recorded. Which one was that again?
ADAM: You know, "Baby, baby, baby... Light my way"? (slightly off-key, as he sheepishly resumes playing bass)
LARRY: Cripes... Not another "Baby, baby" tune. (throws sticks up in the air, then matter-of-factly) I'm so tired and angry all the time.




So it's really just a theory as to why they might have brought it back. I was curious to see if others felt the same way, and to find out if anyone knew the actual reason why they brought back "Ultraviolet".

That's all.

 

[BVS]

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to this thread... Busy busy...

But thank you, ZooMacPhisto800 for filling in for me while I was away.








Now I don't want to get into a whole thing here, especially since it appears there may be a rift between ZooMacPhisto800 and BVS that predates this thread, however I would like to confirm tbat:

1) I was making a point about the rhythm specifically (as ZooMacPhisto800 pointed out... see above), and that
2) bringing tempo (or "count") into this has no bearing and is in fact another topic altogether.

If you will, I was talking apples and you (BVS) tried to halt or stop the discussion by talking about oranges.

So in this context, BVS' replies to ZooMacPhisto800 were incorrect, especially:



Though you didn't say that both were the same, you did state that if we're comparing rhythm we might as well compare tempo ("count"):



Again, rhythm and tempo (just like apples and oranges) are two different things. From your choice of words, BVS, and the tone of your replies, it came across as unsubstantiated and unnecessary nitpicking.

At least that's how I and ZooMacPhisto800 interpreted it (I won't speak for anyone else who may have been lurking).

Finally, from the way we (ZooMacPhisto800 and I) both posted in this thread, I don't see anything wrong or lacking with our reading comprehension skills. :rollseyes:

Now let the discussion continue, should anyone be interested in actually discussing the point I was trying to make/topic I was raising.

I didn't want to post anymore in this thread because ZooMac is just a troll that likes to get into little debates over semantics and he'll change his meaning, etc, he's been doing this since day one and been busted for it in the past as well, so I wouldn't get too excited about him agreeing with you... I wasn't saying anything about your comprehension skills.

I disagree with you that they are apples and oranges in this paticular debate. My whole point was that bringing a song back into the setlist based on having a similar rhythm would be just as trivial as U2 bringing a song back based on having the same tempo(since U2 have very few songs that are 6/8). I think U2 are a band that like to bring older songs into the setlist based on themes or moods and I doubt very seriously that rhythms, tempos, song structures, etc play any part in that... ZooMac would have seen this if he wasn't so caught up in his games.

 

[doctorwho]

I FUCKING HATE ALL OF YOU!11!!1!!!!!1!!eleven!

NLOTH has been compared to every song known to man or God at this point.

I agree. NLOTH most reminds me of "Wannabe" by the Spice Girls. The two are nearly identical.

Then, naturally, there's a lot of the "Close Encounters" theme, written by John Williams, in there. It's as if U2 ripped that song off directly without changing a note.

Wankers.

 

[MarcusOneTree]

I didn't want to post anymore in this thread because ZooMac is just a troll that likes to get into little debates over semantics and he'll change his meaning, etc, he's been doing this since day one and been busted for it in the past as well, so I wouldn't get too excited about him agreeing with you... I wasn't saying anything about your comprehension skills.

I disagree with you that they are apples and oranges in this paticular debate. My whole point was that bringing a song back into the setlist based on having a similar rhythm would be just as trivial as U2 bringing a song back based on having the same tempo(since U2 have very few songs that are 6/8). I think U2 are a band that like to bring older songs into the setlist based on themes or moods and I doubt very seriously that rhythms, tempos, song structures, etc play any part in that... ZooMac would have seen this if he wasn't so caught up in his games.

Fair enough. I can appreciate your line of reasoning then. And I agree with you for the most part, except I do think that rhythm could be something that Edge would be looking at. Of course I have no proof of this, which is why it's just a theory, and why I could be wrong. But being in a band myself, that's something that I would look at. So I'm not willing to discount it completely.

Now while I don't know ZooMacPhisto800 outside of this thread, he/she understood the point I was trying to make more than most in this thread, and was "defending" it during my absence, so I'm still appreciative for that.

And of course you're entitled to your opinion, I guess I just don't understand why some people feel the need to outright dismiss a theory in a somewhat rude (or seemingly-rude) manner, instead of engaging in a respectful debate without going too off-topic.

At least your point is more valid than some other posts in this thread!

I FUCKING HATE ALL OF YOU!11!!1!!!!!1!!eleven!

NLOTH has been compared to every song known to man or God at this point.

I agree. NLOTH most reminds me of "Wannabe" by the Spice Girls. The two are nearly identical.

Then, naturally, there's a lot of the "Close Encounters" theme, written by John Williams, in there. It's as if U2 ripped that song off directly without changing a note.

Wankers.

If you ask me, wankers are people who completely miss the point (or read what they want to read) and then feel compelled to defend a band that is not even being attacked and that, dare I say, need not defend itself.

For the record, I'm a HUGE U2 fan and find connections in their musical catalogue (be it musically, lyrically, etc.) to be INTERESTING and worthy of discussion. Nowhere in this thread (or any other on this whole forum) do I ever accuse U2 of ripping themselves or others off.

If only people took the time to read and understand what was actually intended, instead of jumping to their own self-gratifying conclusions. But I guess that's too much too hope for.

 

[Jim]

the original post makes a fair point, UV and NLOTH have a similar guitar pattern, but I don't think there's any strategy behind they both being played on this tour.

My 2c rant though is that without songs like UTEOTW, 'The Fly', 'Mofo'., 'Bullet', 'Bad'.. even IWF there seems to be some bollocks lacking mid-set. 'Electic Co' did that so well early in the set on the last tour... I can't wait to see them in Dublin, but I'm hoping for some more guts..

 

[Edge_Orchestra]

So does anyone else think that they're playing "Ultraviolet" because the rhythm of the guitar is a bit similar to that of "No Line On The Horizon" (the song)?

Also, if this is true, might we also expect "The Fly" to surface for the very same reason?

If that were the case, that would put "Lady With The Spinning Head" out there too...

... But I don't think the UV/NLOTH is the reason they are revisiting UV.