Mary J Blige / U2 Version of One

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
He probably thought of ways to shut Bono up... and I"m sure one of those ways would've involved one of Larry's drumsticks :wink:
 
:shame:

:wink:

Meh, I'm a really emotional person musically..and when an artist throws themselves into a song as passionately as she did, it moves me incredibly. Then seeing it live at MSG, I mean people - U2 fans - were literally cheering thru the entire song, it was so awesome.

I do think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that their decision to do this song, done numerous times with her on numerous different venues and TV events, and the rights given her to include it on her album, wasn't fully supported by all 4 members. This was decidedly not Bono's sole decision, afaik if Larry doesn't approve of something (or for that matter any of the rest of them), the shit don't happen. :up:
 
This plays frequently at work.
My GM said to me ''is this U2 singing?'' and I said it was, with MJB.

He then says ''who sang the original?''
:doh:
 
Can't stand this version. I've got no beef with Mary J, there's some of that faux soul genre that I don't mind, and I think the collaboration wasn't a bad idea, i.e. U2 and her, but they just absolutely murdered One.
 
So believe it or not I heard this version on the radio for the first time. I have been avoiding listening to it because I can't stand when singers do all those gospel style 'runs' and I knew she'd do them. She did. I thought this version was terrible and gratuitous. The production was muddy and the vocals were so in your face it hurt my ears. I never got much out of this song to begin with but this just killed any chance it did have with me. I didn't like anything about it.

Ok, let me have it...
The only thing I'll let you have is my full agreement. U2 is really going about finding a legacy the wrong way to allow covers like this and selling their music to ESPN. There's no subtlety in this and it hurts the memory of the song.

I don't care for The Beatles and many '60s songs. You know why? Because many of those artists have sold their music to be used on commercials and for cheesy moments in TV and movies. "My Girl" may have been a good song, but all I think about when I hear it is soap opera cliche. I just can't take so much music of the '60s seriously. Too many bad associations.

If U2 doesn't want to be remembered for a commercial product, it had better think more carefully in future, including who does covers. At least The Petshop Boys did something completely different with "Where The Streets Have No Name", and yet Bono complained at the time, saying, "What have I done to deserve this?", which is a Petshop Boys song title.
 
I like the version as long as Mary doesn't exaggerate it vocally, the end is just terrible, all these screaming totally destroys the song, its message and atmosphere. Interestingly enough, it went straight to number 1 in our charts, while the original of One never made it to number 1 back in the day.

That's because the charts reward cheesiness and crappy talent more often than true artistry. It's important that U2 remembers that. Do they want to be Britney Spears/Beyonce/Fall Out Boy/Coldplay or Radiohead/The Smiths/Achtung Baby U2?

When Thom gets a number one, he's smart enough to know it's good for sales and nice, but not to let it go to his head. It doesn't mean the charts are therefore something to self-consciously chase after because that would dilute the art.
 
Honestly, I don't think you have the faintest clue what you're talking about. Most of that was utterly ridiculous, I'm sorry. One w/MJB is not a cover, U2 invited MJB to sing with them. For a charity. Repeatedly. Nothing of what you wrote speaks sensibly to any of that fact.

My Girl? I get nothing but good feelings when I hear a song like that, it brightens my day. Who cares who uses it in a commercial? :huh:


Edit: Just read that second comment. Didn't you watch the interview on Much? Bono and Larry ripped sentiments like 'selling out' and 'diluting the art' to shreds. Something to the effect of 'Fuck That', if I recall Larry's words properly.
 
The version is fine, but what irks me is when I'm in a store and the original One plays on the speakers and some kid nearby says "Oh, someone covered Mary J..." :banghead:

That's what happens, though. I remember when I was a teen and I heard some guy with a bass play "Under Pressure" by Queen and I thought, "Ew. Vanilla Ice!"
 
Honestly, I don't think you have the faintest clue what you're talking about. Most of that was utterly ridiculous, I'm sorry. One w/MJB is not a cover, U2 invited MJB to sing with them. For a charity. Repeatedly. Nothing of what you wrote speaks sensibly to any of that fact.

My Girl? I get nothing but good feelings when I hear a song like that, it brightens my day. Who cares who uses it in a commercial? :huh:

It's not a controllable reaction. My exposure to that song is totally tainted by how it's been used in commercials. I can't take that Bob Seger song "Like a Rock" seriously at all because I knew it for years as a Ford Pickup truck selling device.

You trade something when you opt for that kind of exposure. U2 doesn't need to do this. It's not Moby or Mogwai that can't get their stuff played on the radio. U2 is getting greedy and the band should stop this because when Mary J. Blige does that kind of obvious performance (her stuff pretty much sucks because she's just not that bright or talented, no offense to whatever her tough life was) or when anyone other than Bono sings it for commercial purposes, it hurts the memory of the song. It will be known to people as something else. Also, are you sure a portion of her album sales will go to charity if the song is on her album or is she pulling a U2? Remember they didn't provide any donations from their Hits album that contained "The Saints Go Marching" -- another unnecessary cynical collaboration intended to increase their appeal to younger audiences.
 
Soooo..that would be Queen's fault for selling the rights to Vanilla Ice, or your fault for not being better educated about classic rock?

It would be Queen's fault because I can't be expected to know anything about classic rock, as I'm from another generation and my parents never listened to rock. You can't sell your melodies and not expect some kind of result. I'll always think Vanilla Ice when I hear that and if Queen wanted to prevent being identified with a terrible rapper, they should have tried to stop him. (I'm not sure they gave him the rights, though, in which case it's just too bad.)
 
Wow. It just gets better. So far, we've established:

1. My Girl and Like a Rock suck because they've been used in a commercial.

2. U2 invited MJB to do One with them because they mistakenly believed they needed to do this.

3. As long as only Bono sings the song for commercial purposes, the memory of the song is left intact.

4. When artists do charity songs, the only thing they should worry about is $ from sales. Raising awareness and getting people involved means nothing.

5. It's Queen's fault you and your parents have no clue about rock.

Riiiiight. I've got it :rolleyes:
 
Soooo..that would be Queen's fault for selling the rights to Vanilla Ice, or your fault for not being better educated about classic rock?

Queen DID NOT sell the rights to Under Pressure to Vanilla Ice. In fact, they sued him for sampling it and not giving them credit. The case was settled out of court for an "undisclosed sum."
 
Queen DID NOT sell the rights to Under Pressure to Vanilla Ice. In fact, they sued him for sampling it and not giving them credit. The case was settled out of court for an "undisclosed sum."

So by logical extension, they sold out. :up:


Note I'm being sarcastic. I really don't give a damn, I'm just responding to a seriously flawed argument in the context it was presented. To wit, my 13 year old knew Under Pressure when he was about 10 or so, and I raised him on Public Enemy and NWA. :shrug:
 
or is she pulling a U2? Remember they didn't provide any donations from their Hits album that contained "The Saints Go Marching" -- another unnecessary cynical collaboration intended to increase their appeal to younger audiences.

Why must you CONSTANTLY get your facts wrong? You never read the liner notes do you? It says right on the back of the CD that proceeds went to MusicRising.
 
Mary J. Blige does that kind of obvious performance (her stuff pretty much sucks because she's just not that bright or talented, no offense to whatever her tough life was)

Also, are you sure a portion of her album sales will go to charity if the song is on her album or is she pulling a U2?
The first thing, :huh: how can you even say this shit? it's YOUR opinion that you don't like her music, and it has NOTHING to do with her brightness or talent.
That said, I DO NOT like her music, but I do realise that this woman is quite obviously talented and that other people will like her songs. What I do not like is the clashing of the relaxing song atmosphere with her straining voice. This is MY opinion, and should not be stated as a fact like you state yours.

I don't even want to know what you mean with the tough life stuff.

It would be Queen's fault because I can't be expected to know anything about classic rock, as I'm from another generation and my parents never listened to rock. You can't sell your melodies and not expect some kind of result. I'll always think Vanilla Ice when I hear that and if Queen wanted to prevent being identified with a terrible rapper, they should have tried to stop him. (I'm not sure they gave him the rights, though, in which case it's just too bad.)

:lmao: that's the most brilliant thing I"ve EVER heard. It's Queen's fault that someone samples their music and gets a hit with it? They did NOT sell it, they got money after the lawsuit. IT WAS NOT THEIR CHOICE TO LET VANILLA ICE USE IT.
Got that?

That YOU think of Vanilla Ice when you hear Under Pressure, is now Queen's fault? I say it's nobody's fault, and if you want to blame someone so badly, look in the mirror.
I'm from a younger generation than you most likely and my parents listen to the blues and french chansons, yet I know rock music. I know most 'golden' oldies, because I WANT to. Why should I care what my parents listen to? I have my own music.
Still I don't see where there's anything WRONG with the fact that you think of Vanilla Ice when you hear Queen. It's your problem, nobody cares about that. How about, just start thinking about nothing when you hear a song, and consider what song it is later? It's called an open mind. Perhaps you could use one.
 
Ooh, a thread about the worst version of "One" in existence. Bono could out-sing Blige any day of the week. Why you would want to put anyone else besides Bono on lead vocals for that song is beyond me.

Also, on a side note, when I think of "Under Pressure" I think crap. That song was bad to begin with. Vanilla Ice just said "How can I take a bad song and make a bad song out of it?".
 
You know, even though I disagree with Galeongirl's assessment of this version, she's balanced enough to realize that it is her opinion. I can definitely handle someone saying they think her voice is shreeky, or whatever, because to some it probably is. Lots of people hate Geddy Lee's voice too, I tend to like it. Whatever. I can also agree wholeheartedly (and would likely go off on someone too) if they said something like what cydewyze expressed ie "oh, U2 did MJB's song?" because that is simply dumb for anyone not to know whose song it is in this day and age. So kudos to you guys for a balanced opinion, it's all good.

What still floors me is people like Mudfeld and Shaunvox who that we think we are some authorities to dictate to U2 who they can invite to sing on what is probably the most inclusionary (is that a word? well you know what I mean) song in the history of pop music (save, maybe Imagine). Yet we feel we should exclude certain artists from singing it and question U2's motives for inviting said person to participate. Seems we suuuure got the message, huh? :rolleyes:
 
The Mary J Blige version of One?

Terrible, awful, terrible, shite, shit, crap....just bad. A butchering and a bastardization. A travesty. The pits.

Erase it from my memory please. Thankyou.
 
You know, even though I disagree with Galeongirl's assessment of this version, she's balanced enough to realize that it is her opinion. I can definitely handle someone saying they think her voice is shreeky, or whatever, because to some it probably is. Lots of people hate Geddy Lee's voice too, I tend to like it. Whatever. I can also agree wholeheartedly (and would likely go off on someone too) if they said something like what cydewyze expressed ie "oh, U2 did MJB's song?" because that is simply dumb for anyone not to know whose song it is in this day and age. So kudos to you guys for a balanced opinion, it's all good.

What still floors me is people like Mudfeld and Shaunvox who that we think we are some authorities to dictate to U2 who they can invite to sing on what is probably the most inclusionary (is that a word? well you know what I mean) song in the history of pop music (save, maybe Imagine). Yet we feel we should exclude certain artists from singing it and question U2's motives for inviting said person to participate. Seems we suuuure got the message, huh? :rolleyes:

Thanks, and likewise.

I agree, the only reason this board keeps getting threads with countless arguments and bitching is because people KEEP claiming their opinion = fact.
The world, and EYKIW would be a better place if people would start realising their opinion might differ from others, yet it doesn't make them a worse person.
 
The video is crap. She's swinging her arms and trying to act sexy and passionate but it just makes for cringeworthy viewing.
 
Oh, come on, there's no right answer to this kind of questions, just opinions.
Mine is here: I do like this version and I do like Mary's voice, but I prefer the original U2's much better and while I wouldn't say Bono can out-sing (what's that? btw) her, I find he can convey much more feeling in his voice than Mary trying so hard.
 
I cannot stand this version of One. It is insulting to the beauty and depth of that song... ugh. I can't even listen to it all the way through.
 
I actually like this version...Edges guitar is alot louder than the album version, the drums are alot heavier...and they got rid of that funky "buzzing sound" (Edge sliding on the strings?) during the verses. Oh and that clip of Bono raising his guitar in the video (Love is a temple...) is great!
 
"One" is not a song that was meant to be belted out. There's no belting out in the studio version, and live, the only time there's any belting out is in the 'knockin' at your door' coda. It is a song that is best served by vocal subtlety and the ability to express emotion with voice without going into vocal acrobatics and screaming. It is supposed to be a soundscape-y alternative pop/rock ballad, not the kind of over-the-top power ballad MJB tried to make it.
 
I actually like this version...Edges guitar is alot louder than the album version, the drums are alot heavier...and they got rid of that funky "buzzing sound" (Edge sliding on the strings?) during the verses. Oh and that clip of Bono raising his guitar in the video (Love is a temple...) is great!

:yes: There is alot that is really cool about this version, it's "U2 live" sound in particular. I think his positioning in the mix live is far better than most of their studio releases.
 
Back
Top Bottom