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

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
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.
His last sentence was very broad, general and all encompasing. Regardless whether he just ment U2 covers or not his opinion is just that. An opinion. It's quite possible for someone to enjoy a cover better than the original regardless of what band it is. Saying a cover can't be better because they just aren't "period", is stating an opinion as though it were fact so....
 
Oh for fucks sake. Can you please name ONE just one U2 song that has been covered by anyone and that cover actually sounds better than the original song done by U2? No? Cant?

Thats what I thought. End of discussion.
 
Oh for fucks sake. Can you please name ONE just one U2 song that has been covered by anyone and that cover actually sounds better than the original song done by U2? No? Cant?

Thats what I thought. End of discussion.

my son actually decided U2 weren't that bad after hearing Slipknot(?) cover a U2 song after years of thinking they were just boring parents' music... he now claims he's into U2 (he listens to a massive range of stuff though) and i actually caught him listening to Sweetest Thing the other day, i was so shocked :ohmy:
 
also, in favour of U2, i don't think people always realise how much many of the songs rely on B-man's smack-you-in-the-face-hurricane-force energy, and with other performers the songs just don't communicate in the same way and can just fall flat...
 
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?

Probably because it's in 3/4 time and Larry and Adam just aren't good enough to play it well enough w/o rehearsing the absolute shit out of it (see: the Streets intro and how it almost forced Eno to toss it during recording, after they couldn't play it right). That (= their quite-average rhythm section) along with Mr. Often Forgets His Own Lyrics, is a big reason they don't play setlists from a huge selection of songs.

It's not a tough song to play, at all.
Basic 4-chord progression, only two minor changes.

But Edge doesn't play a basic chord version of Acrobat, he plays something...a little odd. And another reason is that Edge probably couldn't remember how to play it. Of course, if he wanted to, he could re-learn it quite easily because it's not that difficult to figure out.

A last note on Adam and Larry...3/4 is the 2nd easiest to play for Western musicians, especially if the bass is all the same note (8th or 16th) and that is basically what Acrobat is (if you don't follow, think: timing of the notes played, all fast - all at the same pace, so you play 3/4 counting in your head -for instance, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 easy. It's tougher when you are playing a mix of different notes of different durations because it becomes tougher to count and hold the note, rather than play it as you count. Did that make sense?) :wink:

Window in the Skies is all in 3/4, I believe and hasn't been performed either. Has it?

Trip Through might be as well...? In any event, it's a plausible reason.
 
They played Window In the Skies at least once, at one of the Japan shows at the end of the Vertigo tour. It might have been in a couple of shows in that last leg of the tour.
 
Probably because it's in 3/4 time and Larry and Adam just aren't good enough to play it well enough w/o rehearsing the absolute shit out of it (see: the Streets intro and how it almost forced Eno to toss it during recording, after they couldn't play it right). That (= their quite-average rhythm section)

Ok sorry but this is not a plausible reason at all, and it needs to be put to rest once and for all.

As I recall it (and feel free to prove me wrong), LARRY was the one who figured out the transition from 3/4 to 4/4 in Streets, and they've played it how many hundreds of times since (ie every show) and have never faltered in terms of the rhythm section. And that song has changes from 3/4 to 4/4 and back to 3/4 again.

WITS and Breathe, both songs that they've played without issue live, are in 3/4 time. What with Bono jetting all around the world, I'd say they had a hell of alot less time to rehearse those two than they did back in the 90s for Acrobat.

And let's not forget that they actually did play Acrobat to get it on the album.

I think of anyone in the band, Larry's recall of old songs is probably the best. Just a hunch. He dialed up One Tree Hill without much issue (which is in 4/4, yes, but he hadn't played it in ages) and recalled little fills and nuances in that live performance with ease. I doubt he got a chance to rehearse the shit out of it.

Here's far more likely and logical reasons why they don't play it (logical to them, I don't necessarily agree):

- They feel they already play too much material off of Acthung Baby anyways and don't want to overload a 2000s set with it

- The subject matter is too personal, too intense, and it's not something one or more band members want to go thru night in night out. See: One Tree Hill..much as it's a fan favorite and a brilliant track and much as I'm sure they know this, they are only playing this on rare occasion in memory of Carroll.

- They just don't particularly like the song. (hey, even that holds more water than 'Larry and Adam aren't talented enough to play 3/4 time songs very well')
 
corianderstem said:
They played Window In the Skies at least once, at one of the Japan shows at the end of the Vertigo tour. It might have been in a couple of shows in that last leg of the tour.

WITS was played at all three of the Tokyo shows, as well as the Honolulu show. I don't think it sounded amazing live, but that's definitely not because of Larry or Adam.
 
Galeongirl said:
If it's the first, then they could by all means drop One in favour of Acrobat. :wink: I don't think many people would mind.

I think 67,000 out of 70,000 in a stadium would mind.
 
I think 67,000 out of 70,000 in a stadium would mind.

Works for me. After all it's only one night. Then again, perhaps Mysterious Ways is a better pick. As much fun as it is live, I"d gladly trade it for Acrobat, and it wouldn't be missed as much as One.
 
I agree with gvox: swap UTEOTW for Acrobat.

I love Mysterious Ways too much. And One has really grown on me after seeing it live so much on 360.

Although, I've always thought a cool final encore for U2 would be to play Tryin' To Throw Your Arms Around The World > Ultraviolet > Acrobat > Love Is Blindness.
 
Please no. That's, like, their best live song, except for Streets.

Agreed, I fuckin' love UTEOTW live. It's 2nd next to Streets for me as well. Then again, if they'd replace it with Acrobat, guess I wouldn't complain. As long as they do it at a show I'm at! :wink:
 
Please no. That's, like, their best live song, except for Streets.
This. UTEOTW is :drool: live.

1. Streets
2. UTEOTW
3. Mysterious Ways (with the end solo)

Honorable mention goes to Electric Co. and Sunday Bloody Sunday.

But I agree with gvox. Why pick, play it all!
 
Did anyone in the US who ordered this from U2.com get it yet? My account still says "pre-order" and I have no idea when it's supposed to ship.
 
Back
Top Bottom