david
ONE love, blood, life
Eh, if they had enough material for 2 albums I'd hope they'd just take the best songs and make one great album.
hey! what if the edge was made out of barbeque spare ribs, would you eat him then? i know i sure would. then i'd polish him off with a tall, cool budweiser.
You've got to be kidding me.
Everlasting Love is okay, but there are dozens of Night and Day interpretations that shit on U2's.
I strongly disagree.
There have been dozens of performances of "Night and Day" - and ALL of them, barring U2's, have been performed in a very showtune, Broadway style. These include versions by Frank Sinatra and Billie Holiday (and I own these versions as well, so I have heard them). There's nothing wrong with that type of interpretation, but it's not unique and, to be candid, I don't feel it interprets the song well at all. The reason I like U2's cover of this song is that they converted it to the dark, stalking, obsessive song that it really is. Those lyrics are not "pop-friendly". The Police's "Every Breath You Take" is in the same vein - a very dark song about obsession, but the Police made it more "radio friendly". Sting has since made the song darker on his own.
U2 are not a great cover band, but they have done some great covers. "Night and Day", for the reasons I described above, is one. So is "Everlasting Love" (I like U2's version more than the original!) and "Dancing Barefoot".
However, U2 have also done some horrid covers, like "Fortunate Son" and "Unchained Melody" (Bono's screams here ripped the beauty and ecstasy out of the original).
U2, like most rock bands, are better at their own songs. Country artists, on the other hand, often do brilliant covers. This most likely stems from the fact that most country artists do not write their own music - they just interpret it.
I strongly disagree.
There have been dozens of performances of "Night and Day" - and ALL of them, barring U2's, have been performed in a very showtune, Broadway style. These include versions by Frank Sinatra and Billie Holiday (and I own these versions as well, so I have heard them). There's nothing wrong with that type of interpretation, but it's not unique and, to be candid, I don't feel it interprets the song well at all. The reason I like U2's cover of this song is that they converted it to the dark, stalking, obsessive song that it really is. Those lyrics are not "pop-friendly". The Police's "Every Breath You Take" is in the same vein - a very dark song about obsession, but the Police made it more "radio friendly". Sting has since made the song darker on his own.
U2 are not a great cover band, but they have done some great covers. "Night and Day", for the reasons I described above, is one. So is "Everlasting Love" (I like U2's version more than the original!) and "Dancing Barefoot".
However, U2 have also done some horrid covers, like "Fortunate Son" and "Unchained Melody" (Bono's screams here ripped the beauty and ecstasy out of the original).
U2, like most rock bands, are better at their own songs. Country artists, on the other hand, often do brilliant covers. This most likely stems from the fact that most country artists do not write their own music - they just interpret it.
The Police's "Every Breath You Take" is in the same vein - a very dark song about obsession, but the Police made it more "radio friendly". Sting has since made the song darker on his own.
I also like "Satellite Of Love" (studio version) cover better than the original.
So where's everyone who was calling U2 a bunch of money grabbing sell outs who care more about a release during the holiday season than actually putting out an artistically brilliant album and not trying to maximize sales during November/December months?
They'll be right back in Spring.
...When the album is delayed until November.
...When the album is delayed until November.
all signs point towards spring. i understand why you're being so cynical, since you were such a strong believer that the album was going to be out this November. i suggest stepping back for once, push your emotions to the side and look at this from a factual standpoint.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to base your predictions on the quotes of band members? I did the same thing three weeks ago, and you felt it wasn't enough. We have nothing more right now than "we want 2009 to be our year". If there were no facts to support a 2008 release, there certainly aren't any now.
but LM, I thought you said there were facts to support a 2008 release, making this that much more surprising........?
all signs point towards spring. i understand why you're being so cynical, since you were such a strong believer that the album was going to be out this November. i suggest stepping back for once, push your emotions to the side and look at this from a factual standpoint.
They're waiting to see whether it really is artistically brilliant or just a load of pop songs for the radio.
hey, don't worry man. we get to be 100% right again come February or March.
hey, don't worry man. we get to be 100% right again come February or March.
Atu2.com's off the record column puts it well:
They've hit a songwriting vein? Hmmmm. Here's what's odd about the explanation Bono gave for the delay of U2's next album:
Late June: U2 skip the Mandela tribute concert because they're putting the "final touches" on the album.
July 5: Daniel Lanois tells a Montreal newspaper that the album is done. (join our mailing list if you can't read that news piece)
July 6: The Irish Independent reports that U2 enjoyed a dinner together about a week ago to celebrate finishing work on the album.
So, if the album was done in June/July, why would U2 be in position to hit a songwriting vein in August/September? Why would they even be writing at all? Anything's possible, but it seems odd to me.
Add to that McGuiness's been saying October/November, Lillywhite, the usual mixer for Eno/Lanois produced U2 albums, was seen at the studio. Here's what their main sound guy said: U2 move album sessions to France | U2 news article from @U2 wonder if the "Spring 2009 tour" is still on, even with Bono's announcement.
So, if the album was done in June/July, why would U2 be in position to hit a songwriting vein in August/September? Why would they even be writing at all? Anything's possible, but it seems odd to me.