More New Music Rumors and Such...

[dan_smee]

I think the lyrics are (after only one listen) "Because, because, because we can, we should."

The whole meaning of the song has totally changed. Most of it has totally changed, actually. At least we still have the original.
I think I like it better; it was so much more complex and unique.

Yes it has changed: and now it feels like a song that is called "Mercy"

The You want to kill me, I want to die" bit now makes the song fit the theme

 

[dan_smee]

There’s only one line I can’t work out:

You’re gonna kill me and I want to die
We were meant for each other you and I (or We’re a perfect match)
(inaudible)
And there’s no one left to trust

I’m not sorry, you’re not gonna cry
You put the blue back in my eye
It’s just us
Because, because, because we can, we must

 

[Aygo]

I'll preface this by saying Mercy is one of my favorite songs of the last decade and I'm so happy they're playing it live.

What I think it needs is to have that build up in the beginning of the song that the 2004 version had. I really liked the slow build up especially the first 2 verses. With Larry's drumming building up that would make it perfect before it explodes into the first chorus. Oh and put 'rippin the stitches' before the first chorus. Other then that I like how the song has evolved especially with the new solo, some of the lyrical changes and the way the song ends.

For me this could be one of their best songs and stand along side Bad and Streets, but that's my opinion and my taste is subjective. Can't wait to see how the finished version sounds if/when they release it on an album.

I always had a feeling that this song would never be forgotten and that it'd be picked up again and, somehow, reworked.
But I wasn't expecting to be reworked this way. In my fantasies, "Mercy" had a one minute (yes, making it even longer) intro with the guitar loop, strings and some piano riff. I wasn't expecting as well major lyrical changes, except in the bridge and maybe in the outro.
I feel sad that a song that still had potential to become still a classic rock song but different from the rest, transformed in just another song. This is not definitely what I'd wish for SOA (or whatever the next album will become), precisely an album which concept would give them reasons to transform "Mercy" in the opposite way.

 

[Rachel D.]

Because, because, because we can, we must

That's what I meant.

I'm not going to be too disappointed about the song yet; the studio version could still be really good, and just because it sounds like this live doesn't mean it's set in stone.

 

[intedomine]

Sigh, it's just not the same, but I suppose we've gotta give it time. Some of us will be so blinded by our love of the Mercy we have known for 5 years or so, that it might take a while for the new Mercy to really click with us.

I'm still struggling to enjoy the new Winter anywhere near as much as the old Winter.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I'm sorry, but I don't like this new version. The song had a (little) less typical structure which made it different from the other songs

Yes. That's because it wasn't finished and was never meant for release

 

[powerhour24]

I think it still needs to be longer to fully work, put back the full original verse and bridge, I actually do really like the new chorus and outro despite my love of the original version.

However I look forward to when we have another take of this to listen to, the Bono flub is one of his more embarrassing in that it was so glaring, even to the 99% of the audience that didn't know the song. Usually when he messes up he'll just switch a word and run with it or mumble through the mistake, but not so much this time.

 

[yenlard]

god.......what happened to mercy? the song has no buildup now. why cant they just leave a song alone. the chorus was better before. and the purpose of these changes is what? to have a hit single. cant see a hit single in that. just leave it alone..or make some minor changes to it and make it the album closer.

 

[Inner El Guapo]

Somebody already said it earlier in the thread but...Mercy was finished in 2004.
It wasn't a demo. It almost made the album.

I have the magazine stashed away in a box somewhere, but a quick search of atU2's archives does the trick.

linky dink...
U2 Walk on Water!

"We're not fully agreed on what to do here," Bono explains, "so maybe you should vote, too."

The problem, if it can be called that, lies in the album's running order. After numerous attempts, U2 have yet to find a satisfactory flow, leading them to believe that there may be too many songs. So, right now, they must decide which tunes should be sacrificed.

As it stands, the album is three seconds shy of an hour and, as Bono says, "too much of a good thing is a bad thing," so drastic measures need to be taken.

"I have a theory," Mullen begins, and a reverential silence descends as the drummer -- traditionally the first band member to be shouted down in these situations -- states his case. After just five minutes, it has been unanimously decided that the track "Mercy," a six-and-a-half-minute outpouring of U2 at its most uninhibitedly U2-ish, must go.

Hence a song that any self-respecting band would be proud to call a single becomes what Bono immediately anoints "the best B-side you've ever heard."

Later, another more experimental candidate entitled "Fast Cars" ("an Irish/Mexican vibe") gets evicted, and the album becomes a lean and lithe 11 tracks.

It was only cut for time considerations.

 

[dan_smee]

I actually love the changes. Because we have the original, we always will. The changes they have made aren't their regular errors with over-thinking and over processing. This seems like a step-brother of a song, but I love it.

Yes I miss bits, but the other version is lacking for not have some of the things that make this version great (solo, pianon, chorus lyrics, choprus ending)

The lyric is much more suitable and intricate now. It is now a complete lyric, and I think, his best lyic since Pop

 

[Aygo]

Yes. That's because it wasn't finished and was never meant for release

So, when a song doesn't have the typical pop/rock radiofriendly structure like most U2 songs, it means that it's not finished. Okay... lol

 

[dan_smee]

This makes me very excited for SOA

I don't understand why people include Spiderman songs in it, they have been explicit about it being a totally different project, and they wouldnt fit the theme anyway. So far we have:

Stingray Guitar
Glastonbury
Winter
Every Breaking Wave
North Star
Soon
Mercy

That is the makings of solid album, and if the supporting songs are as good as these, it could be truely great.

 

[Aygo]

Sigh, it's just not the same, but I suppose we've gotta give it time. Some of us will be so blinded by our love of the Mercy we have known for 5 years or so, that it might take a while for the new Mercy to really click with us.

I'm still struggling to enjoy the new Winter anywhere near as much as the old Winter.

That's U2's fault. We're not in 1988 anymore where internet didn't exist and outtakes could be endlessly in the obscurity and be recoreved 10 years later and presented as new songs.

 

[BEAL]

i haven't even heard the song yet but now i know i have to hate it cause everyone else does

 

[alanah]

This makes me very excited for SOA

I don't understand why people include Spiderman songs in it, they have been explicit about it being a totally different project, and they wouldnt fit the theme anyway. So far we have:

Stingray Guitar
Glastonbury
Winter
Every Breaking Wave
North Star
Soon
Mercy

That is the makings of solid album, and if the supporting songs are as good as these, it could be truely great.

 

[powerhour24]

This makes me very excited for SOA

I don't understand why people include Spiderman songs in it, they have been explicit about it being a totally different project, and they wouldnt fit the theme anyway. So far we have:

Stingray Guitar
Glastonbury
Winter
Every Breaking Wave
North Star
Soon
Mercy

That is the makings of solid album, and if the supporting songs are as good as these, it could be truely great.

Stingray guitar clearly doesn't fit in with the premise at least in the 2009 sense, and to me, while it makes an adequate intro, it seems just like a little riffy ditty the made up before the tour, not something destined for release as of yet.

 

[dan_smee]

Stingray guitar clearly doesn't fit in with the premise at least in the 2009 sense, and to me, while it makes an adequate intro, it seems just like a little riffy ditty the made up before the tour, not something destined for release as of yet.

It was written for the Unforgettable Fire session (reference needed... guys?)

here was an article somewhere. There also may be more to it than we've heard. I see it as a piece of music that pops up occasionally throught the album (much like Swamp song on Oasis' Morning Glory). The riff indicates rolling, determined movement, which could easily parralel pilgrimage.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

With Mercy I prefer the new guitar solo over the old. Very nice, Edge.

 

[The_Edge89]

It was written for the Unforgettable Fire session (reference needed... guys?)

Check post #11 in this sweet thread:
http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f288/musical-tally-from-behind-sessions-96182.html

 

[powerhour24]

They pull old material old of their butts all the time, does that really make Stingray Guitar (the title is clearly put-on for lack of context like NLOTH's early 'track titles' like Chromium Chords) meditative or abstract?

 

[lazarus]

If the changes to this song don't bother you, I can only feel pity. That bridge was crucial, as was the long guitar part at the end. I don't know what kind of artist cuts a section like this thinking it's an improvement, but my only conclusion is that this band have become rich and lazy fools with no real sense of what constitutes good music. I tried to deny this for a while, but the occasional strokes of brilliance appear to be the exception.

This is the worst thing the band has done in a decade. It's flat-out disgusting. And if you think that they're going to record it closer to the original version you're even more pathetic for being in such denial.

 

[collapse]

If the changes to this song don't bother you, I can only feel pity. That bridge was crucial, as was the long guitar part at the end. .

Long guitar part? you mean the short little outro? who's to say that won't be on the recorded version anyway? it's just an outro. not really necessary to do live.

I'm halfway with you concerning the bridge. I think they should have kept the first part ("I...I can't escape myself..."), but once it gets to "I fear/feel nothing," it turns into somewhat meandering Bonoglese, and Edge isn't playing anything particularly interesting. I think the bridge in the new one could be a little longer but I like Edge's solo (which is lifted from the prechorus they took out, actually).

This is the worst thing the band has done in a decade. It's flat-out disgusting.

ummmmmm k

 

[last unicorn]

If the changes to this song don't bother you, I can only feel pity.

Let people like what they like, God damn it. You comment is simply rude.

Were you there at the show? No? Then MAYBE you shouldn't even comment on how the song sounded.

It's U2's song. The band can do with their music whatever they want.

I heard from A LOT of people who were there at the show, who had an amazing experience and who are absolutely extatic about hearing Mercy played live for the very first time. A song no one really expected U2 to ever play, let alone perform live on stage. No one is analyzing lyrical changes. It's a phenomenon that people who sit at home and stare at their computer screen always feel the need to comment on stuff they have not heard and seen in person while abaout 98% of people at that show haven't even heard of Mercy before, I'm sure they don't mind at all.

 

[powerhour24]

If the changes to this song don't bother you, I can only feel pity. That bridge was crucial, as was the long guitar part at the end. I don't know what kind of artist cuts a section like this thinking it's an improvement, but my only conclusion is that this band have become rich and lazy fools with no real sense of what constitutes good music. I tried to deny this for a while, but the occasional strokes of brilliance appear to be the exception.

This is the worst thing the band has done in a decade. It's flat-out disgusting. And if you think that they're going to record it closer to the original version you're even more pathetic for being in such denial.

Laz, as much as I too prefer the original I think you are greatly over-reacting, it is their song, and I think it is clear from their comments over the years that while it may have initially been cut from the Bomb for length, they weren't fully comfortable enough with it to call it finished. They still write great songs, I'll agree with you that they tamper too much, but it is ridiculous to suggest that the good material forom the past decade or so has only been borne out of lightning-in-a-bottle experiences and that they no longer know anything about making music.

 

[medley]

If the changes to this song don't bother you, I can only feel pity. That bridge was crucial, as was the long guitar part at the end. I don't know what kind of artist cuts a section like this thinking it's an improvement, but my only conclusion is that this band have become rich and lazy fools with no real sense of what constitutes good music.

What is certainly much more pitiful is to consider how someone that has never proved anything in music can be so full of himself . And that's not like that the first time you make such disrespectful comments about the band. You aren't even able to make the difference between your little subjective personnal tastes and objective quality and you would like to teach a band like U2 how to make good music? Learn from them that's the best you should try to do instead of jumping to easy and oversimplistic conclusions.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Honestly, the only thumbs up I can give this version is for the better lyrics in the chorus. Otherwise, this isn't 1/10th of that version. If I were one of the mega-Mercy fans in here, who has been hyping this song as the greatest thing in 20 years, I'd be absolutely gutted with what they've done. I can't imagine that what you loved about that song is in evidence at all in this version?

Such terrible judgement. I don't get it. They've stripped the song, but not for it's best parts. They've hammered it down in length to a pretty extreme level, editing out the parts that gave the song life, and even to the point of merging a chorus with the guitar solo, but they surely can't think this is a potential big radio/single song?

I don't get it.

 

[Rob33]

I do understand why people like Mercy, but I really don't understand why people think it's the second coming. I will say this though: the structure of the song is it's only redeeming feature, for me. That it clocks in at that length, and those several great 'turn on a dime' shifts in the song are really all I find to be good/interesting about it. Take those away and it's just another seriously overblown, bombastic mid-00s U2 anthem where Edge is putting in the minimum, Bono is just shouting something about love, and we all feel like we've vaguely heard it before, only better. Cut the length, cut the twists and turns and you've done what little it had in.

After listening to this a little bit more, I would be quite surprised if U2 doesn't mess around with this song live....I'm hoping the pre-chorus shows up at some point, or maybe Bono uses a lyric/melody from the original...or the outro changes, I don't know...I just can't imagine the band continuing to perform this with the current arrangement.

For me, the arrangement now feels so basic...and much less interesting than the original...surely, if this song is still on their minds, they'll have the original demo tape listen to before putting it on an official release. I would find it absolutely mind-blowing and a real shame if this version/arrangement ended up on the next album.


Having said that...I do wonder what we'd be thinking if we never heard the original...I'm pretty sure I'd be ecstatic about how incredible this song sounds, and how much potential it has.

 

[bonocomet]

From U2.com, part of the comments about the show and Mercy. Just thought the first part about the hardcore fans was funny.

Second show in Zurich tonight, and the live debut for 'Mercy' a near-mythical track with legendary status amongst hardcore U2 afficionados.

Just one reason among many why the seriously moist conditions were not going to dampen anyone's spirits.

'First time we've played this live outside of soundcheck' explained Bono in introducing Mercy, which was written and recorded during the 'How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb' sessions and, while widely referenced, never subsequently released.

The track won a great reception and proved another signal that the band are ringing the changes in the set list: tonight we also had Mothers of the Disappeared back after its surprise appearance in Istanbul, as well as the fourth of the all-new tracks North Star.

 

[medley]

Honestly, the only thumbs up I can give this version is for the better lyrics in the chorus. Otherwise, this isn't 1/10th of that version. If I were one of the mega-Mercy fans in here, who has been hyping this song as the greatest thing in 20 years, I'd be absolutely gutted with what they've done. I can't imagine that what you loved about that song is in evidence at all in this version?

Such terrible judgement. I don't get it. They've stripped the song, but not for it's best parts. They've hammered it down in length to a pretty extreme level, editing out the parts that gave the song life, and even to the point of merging a chorus with the guitar solo, but they surely can't think this is a potential big radio/single song?

I don't get it.

First it could be good to consider that we've got on one hand a very polished studio version and on the other a very rough and even awkward live version before trying to really compare them.

And again guys that's not because you "don't get it" that the band is wrong and you are right. They have thought about this song for years and are much more talented and of course understand music much much much better than anyone here. So if it is for sure difficult for us to understand what the band choose to do from time to time that's just because they have a much better understanding of music that what we have and there are obviously no simple answers to explain this kind of decision because art is extremely complex.

For example discarding the bridge even if it was really good for most of us is not a bad decision if it helps the song as a whole. You might think that's not the case but saying "OMG! the part I loved so much is not here anymore, they obviously don't understand anything about music" is amazingly stupid and simplistic.

I have tried to explain few pages ago why imho I think they have made those changes and why I think that could be a very good move but really, who knows? That's certainly not a simple question that can be answered easily so it's natural to have difficulties to "get it".

 

[AEKU2]

If the changes to this song don't bother you, I can only feel pity. That bridge was crucial, as was the long guitar part at the end. I don't know what kind of artist cuts a section like this thinking it's an improvement, but my only conclusion is that this band have become rich and lazy fools with no real sense of what constitutes good music. I tried to deny this for a while, but the occasional strokes of brilliance appear to be the exception.

This is the worst thing the band has done in a decade. It's flat-out disgusting. And if you think that they're going to record it closer to the original version you're even more pathetic for being in such denial.

I agree that they have turned a piece of art into a mere single. However, this was merely a live version, therefore no need to act like a princess and leave your dummy spit until after we hear the studio version.