'Ahk-toong Bay-bi' Covered: Q magazine CD

[gvox]

well ok not angry but how about stubborn and aloof when talking about something that all boils down to a question of personal taste and opinion?

Um..am I supposed to change my opinion that I wouldn't trust someone's judgement about other songs if they held what I consider to be such a ridiculous opinion on LIB? I'm not sure what you're saying here/why you're being so 'stubborn and aloof' in not letting me just make that statement. I mean, I didn't/don't have much more to say about it, really, except that you asked me to expand on it.....and I'm hardly the first person to ever make a bombastic statement about another poster's taste/judgement in music. They happen daily, if not on the hour, around here

 

[leamspaceman]

I'll ask one more time...see if anyone can offer a reason.

Why can't U2 perform 'Acrobat' live, saying it's too difficult to do live...when the Glasvegas version was recorded live and is musically similar to the U2 version.

Any thoughts?

 

[gvox]

Good question, and I don't know the answer any better than the next guy!

I would love for them to do it, though. Absolutely.

 

[gareth brown]

Um..am I supposed to change my opinion that I wouldn't trust someone's judgement about other songs if they held what I consider to be such a ridiculous opinion on LIB?

no of course not, you know i'm not saying "hey, change your opinion now."
but saying "these people have no credibility/they're making ridiculous statements."
then going "....better than the original. It's just not. Period." as if your final word will settle the matter just looks like you're sticking your fingers in your ears going "I'm right, la la la la i'm not listening!!!! la la la"

 

[gareth brown]

Good question, and I don't know the answer any better than the next guy!

I would love for them to do it, though. Absolutely.

same. massive waste, not playing it!
it would have been amazing on ZOO TV as an encore opener or something. KIND of glad they didn't play it though because for all we know they could have played it over and over again and we'd all be sat here putting a fist through our laptop screens when it pops up during a setlist party.

having said that, they could have at least played Achtung Baby in full during this hype hurricane

 

[gvox]

no of course not, you know i'm not saying "hey, change your opinion now."
but saying "these people have no credibility/they're making ridiculous statements."
then going "....better than the original. It's just not. Period." as if your final word will settle the matter just looks like you're sticking your fingers in your ears going "I'm right, la la la la i'm not listening!!!! la la la"

Where does that leave you then? Are you arguing for the position of it actually being better than the original, or are you arguing with me for having the opinion that I wouldn't trust the opinion of anyone who says such a ridiculous thing? So far there is only 1 person saying this, it's not like there's a groundswell of U2 fans claiming that it's better..

Lookit..Many many people said they loved it, thought it was great, the bees knees, brilliance in music personified, etc etc...I didn't question or address their statement one little bit. I stated, of course, that I hated it. I'm addressing the statement "it's better than the original" and saying that this kind of statement from someone causes me to view the rest of their review (ie, their thoughts on TTYAATW) in fairly low regard.

 

[alanah]

I'll ask one more time...see if anyone can offer a reason.

Why can't U2 perform 'Acrobat' live, saying it's too difficult to do live...when the Glasvegas version was recorded live and is musically similar to the U2 version.

Any thoughts?

I have no idea why..maybe they just don't want to play it live..and oh, I still prefer Kane's cover of Acrobat to be honest.

 

[gvox]

I still prefer Kane's cover of Acrobat to be honest.

Your frontal lobotomy is scheduled for next Tuesday at 11:15 am. Please arrive at least 20 minutes early.

 

[alanah]

Your frontal lobotomy is scheduled for next Tuesday at 11:15 am. Please arrive at least 20 minutes early.

...lol

 

[gvox]

don't tell anyone but I like their version quite alot, also.

 

[cobl04]

I'm addressing the statement "it's better than the original" and saying that this kind of statement from someone causes me to view the rest of their review (ie, their thoughts on TTYAATW) in fairly low regard.

Fair enough but you saying you fucking hate Jack White's LIB makes me view the rest of your review in fairly low regard. All a matter of personal opinion, as gareth said.

 

[gareth brown]

Where does that leave you then? Are you arguing for the position of it actually being better than the original, or are you arguing with me for having the opinion that I wouldn't trust the opinion of anyone who says such a ridiculous thing? So far there is only 1 person saying this, it's not like there's a groundswell of U2 fans claiming that it's better..

I just thought your original statement was a bit drastic and asked why, that's all. I don't prefer the cover I was just curious.

 

[gvox]

Fair enough but you saying you fucking hate Jack White's LIB makes me view the rest of your review in fairly low regard. All a matter of personal opinion, as gareth said.

It's a little bizarre that you can't see the difference between

"I fucking hate his version"

and

"Better than the original studio recording"

They are two very very different statements.

 

[gvox]

I just thought your original statement was a bit drastic and asked why, that's all. I don't prefer the cover I was just curious.

Cool. I was actually directly responding (in a cheeky manner) to digitize's musing about how two people had raved about TTYAATW and something to the effect of "what is happening with the world?"

So I was basically saying I wouldn't put too much stock in at least one of those 2 people, given they had said that about LIB.

I guess I shoulda quoted him properly - was posting on blue crack mobile my bad!

 

[ryancoke71]

 

[gvox]

 

[BGD75]

I'd go a step further and say that no cover of any U2 song beats it's original. It seems almost logically impossible: U2 wrote and recorded the song a certain way, and that's the way it was intended to sound (barring songs they themselves were displeased with, in which category no AB song falls into).

Saying a cover is better than the original is like saying imitation crab is better than real crab. It's just not, period.

agreed!

Even the ones that are qualified as good, don't even come close (IMO) to bringing out the emotion that Bono manages to bring out when performing.

 

[ryancoke71]

So if I said I preferred Bono's version of Hallejuah to Cohen's, I would lose all credibility?

 

[Popmartijn]

Worth quoting.

"I love this! Better than the original." -every fan of a band that covers another band's song

"I hate this! Original is so much better." -every fan of a band whose song has been covered

 

[ryancoke71]

 

[gvox]

So if I said I preferred Bono's version of Hallejuah to Cohen's, I would lose all credibility?

Is there a full length Bono version out there? Not being facetious..just forgot if there was one..if so link me!

 

[ryancoke71]

There is, but I don't really like it. I do love the snippet he did in concert though.

Hallelujah - YouTube

 

[dudeman]

I'll ask one more time...see if anyone can offer a reason.

Why can't U2 perform 'Acrobat' live, saying it's too difficult to do live...when the Glasvegas version was recorded live and is musically similar to the U2 version.

Any thoughts?

i wonder if it has something to do with the guitar part just not sounding right - that hellstorm hurricane of a guitar tone that the Edge conjures in the intro, with all it's reverb and delay - it's just so vital to the feel of the song. Glasvegas didn't really go after that, and all the AB demos i've heard omit that tone/part, too, with the Edge banging out the main, dirty chords (that being said, those versions sound pretty badass, and played like that live it would still melt faces). makes me think that a heavy bit of studio processing went into it or something, and i'd imagine it's hard to recreate. just a 2 penny thought.

 

[Hallucination]

The overall theme of this album is BORING.

Nine Inch Nails - Zoo Station = boring
Jaques Lu Cont Remix - EBTTRT = boring & pointless. Fish outta water version is 10X better
Damien Rice - One = boring
Patti Smith - UTEOTW = Pretty good
Garbage - WGRYWH = Really good
Gavin Friday - The Fly = boring
Depeche Mode - So Cruel = boring
Snow Patrol - Mysterious Ways = boring
The Fray - TTTYAATW = boring
The Killers - Ultarviolet = boring
Glasvegas - Acrobat = boring
Jack White - Love is BLindness = AWESOME!

 

[corianderstem]

So you're saying they should have just called it

Achtung: Boring!

 

[alanah]

 

[Super Yo]

So you're saying they should have just called it

Achtung: Boring!

Boring baby?

 

[Hallucination]

I'd go a step further and say that no cover of any U2 song beats it's original. It seems almost logically impossible: U2 wrote and recorded the song a certain way, and that's the way it was intended to sound (barring songs they themselves were displeased with, in which category no AB song falls into).

Saying a cover is better than the original is like saying imitation crab is better than real crab. It's just not, period.

You're entiteld to your opinion but don't state it as though it's a fact. In my opinion covers can be better and have been better than original songs.

-U2's Unchained Melody is better than the original in my opinion.
-Faster Pussycat's Your'e So Vain is better than the original in my opinion.
-Johnny Cash's Hurt is better than the original in my opinion
- Jimmy Hendrix's All Along the Watchtower is better than the original in my opinion

Those are just a few off the top of my head. You may disgaree but for me the covers ARE better than the originals and it makes no difference who wrote and recorded the song originally if a person prefers the cover version. Again you're entiteld to your opinion but your opinion is not a fact. Whether a cover is or isn't better is subjective to the individual listener.

 

[Hallucination]

So you're saying they should have just called it

Achtung: Boring!

I suppose so. I just found the overwhelming majority of the covers extremely boring.

 

[Galeongirl]

You're entiteld to your opinion but don't state it as though it's a fact. In my opinion covers can be better and have been better than original songs.

-U2's Unchained Melody is better than the original in my opinion.
-Faster Pussycat's Your'e So Vain is better than the original in my opinion.
-Johnny Cash's Hurt is better than the original in my opinion
- Jimmy Hendrix's All Along the Watchtower is better than the original in my opinion

Those are just a few off the top of my head. You may disgaree but for me the covers ARE better than the originals and it makes no difference who wrote and recorded the song originally if a person prefers the cover version. Again you're entiteld to your opinion but your opinion is not a fact. Whether a cover is or isn't better is subjective to the individual listener.

Are any of these songs U2 originals?


Because that's all Gvox was stating, read his post again. He just states that other people can't cover U2 and make a better cover than the original U2 song. He doesn't mention other artists' songs. And I believe he's right with that assumption, as I've never heard a U2 cover before that sounds better than its original.