why dont you like Rattle and Hum?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I
The image of these lads from the Joshua Tree as 4 serious fellows with a god complex was getting tired and they were trying to stretch their wings and fly


:)

I do agree with this, R&H was good in the sense it kinda confounded the seriousness that had become associated with U2. That was a cool thing.

Just for me, the quality of songs on R&H ain't too crash hot, and especially when I think of what was to come next, Achtung Baby - the most exhillarating album in U2 history, R&H just seems kind of weak. That factor overwhelms all others for me personally.

And the reimagining of U2 from JT to R&H is certainly not as strong as from R&H to AB, so in considering how people imagined the band, the jump between JT to R&H doesn't seem all that significant. But when you think of it as an aside from AB, it was quite a significant shift, and a valuable one too.
 
Id just like to add my tuppence worth. On reflection, the whole R&H period, was the most enjoyable time to be a u2 fan, personally speaking. I adore the album and the movie and have many fond memories of that period
 
To much American obsesion for me, I didn't like the general style and wished them get back to The Unforgettable Fire, they didn't, but I don't complain about their next change!
 
Id just like to add my tuppence worth. On reflection, the whole R&H period, was the most enjoyable time to be a u2 fan, personally speaking. I adore the album and the movie and have many fond memories of that period

same here, with LoveTown being the icing on the cake.

I was starting to discover artists like Hendrix, the Doors and Led Zep in '86 and '87 so U2's "musical journey" fit in quite nicely with that. I was already very familiar with Elvis, Dylan, the Stones, etc. through my parents, but it was good to see U2 explore those avenues as well.

The fact is that their status allowed them to work with their heroes, not just admire from afar or pay tribute in covers. Why would they deny themselves that opportunity?
 
for me, it's not that R&H is bad, it's just that the R&H sound is my least favorite U2 sound. i prefer their 90's, UF, and NLOTH sound over the very stripped down, American influenced sound.

with that said, Heartland, Hawkmoon, and God Part 2 are some of my favorites.
 
To much American obsesion for me, I didn't like the general style and wished them get back to The Unforgettable Fire, they didn't, but I don't complain about their next change!

Too much American obsession? Yes and no.

Yes, in that was the music that was 'turning them on' at the time... the music of Johnny Cash, Elvis, and old blues records.

No in that it wasn't an American obsession more than that type of music that happens to be very American (Blues, country and early rock and roll). And if it were an "American Obsession" wouldn't they have tour Rattle And Hum / Lovetown in the U.S.? But they did not. Lovetown never saw one U.S. date.
 
The only "bad" thing is indeed the mix of live and studio.
The studio songs are great : god part II, heartland, desire, hawkmoon (not the ending)
Try to add all the besides and remove the live song. There is a great album there :)
 
Try to add all the b-sides and remove the live songs.

funny that you would say that with a screen name like that :huh:

I would've liked more live tracks on there, TUF, Exit and OTH for example.
But the interview and street artist could've been left off.

As for the B-sides, only A Room Heartbreak Hotel would make the cut, the others are mostly "lesser" covers and not live.
I like "Alex descends into Hell for a Bottle of Milk" but's it's not related to R&H much.

I love Hendrix, but I don't think it was wise to use his woodstock version of the Star Spangled Banner, if even it is semi appropriate before BTBS:

1) it detracts from Edge's own guitar qualities
2) it gets you thinking about Jimi's version of All Along the Watchtower or Like A Rolling Stone, as well as him covering the Beatles (Sgt Pepper) and Hendrix is simply untouchable when he does covers, whereas U2 are not a cover band.
3) the Stones used the same Hendrix sample on Still Life (1981)
4) Jimi's studio version of TSSB is much better (multitrack guitar orchestration)

YouTube - Spinning Vinyl - Jimi Hendrix - Star Spangled Banner
 
* Took their obession with America a little too far. Seems kind of self-indulgent with the whole Dylan, Billie and BB King thing happening.
.


Never bought into this sentiment one little bit, I think the critics made it up and everyone said 'yeah, that's it!'. I loved it then, I love it now. It contains some of their best live versions. Or maybe I'm thinking of the movie. Either way, songs like Heartland, AIWIY etc etc more than make up for any shortcomings.
 
Too much American obsession? Yes and no.

Yes, in that was the music that was 'turning them on' at the time... the music of Johnny Cash, Elvis, and old blues records.

No in that it wasn't an American obsession more than that type of music that happens to be very American (Blues, country and early rock and roll). And if it were an "American Obsession" wouldn't they have tour Rattle And Hum / Lovetown in the U.S.? But they did not. Lovetown never saw one U.S. date.

Well, I said too much American obsession FOR ME. I'm European and blues, country, rythm&blues, early rock'n roll are not my immediate musical references, I like a bit of it, but I usually get tired after a while, that's why I have never really got into Rattle and Hum, I'm not saying anything negative about U2 or America, I can even understand them as I love jazz, especially be bop, but I honestly find difficult to listen to this album from beginning to end and at the time I wanted them to return to their origins.
Of course, I was only talking about musical style and I don't intend any other meaning, I think US is a great country.
 
I prefered the church rehearsal version of the song that made it into the movie over the version that's on the album and in the above outtake.
 
Yeah but this one has a little something we like to call MELODY.

The church rehearsal is bland, tasteless and can't be seriously regarded as REAL gospel according to anyone who knows Gospel Music. :tsk:


:uhoh:


:wink:
 
funny that you would say that with a screen name like that :huh:

I would've liked more live tracks on there, TUF, Exit and OTH for example.
But the interview and street artist could've been left off.

As for the B-sides, only A Room Heartbreak Hotel would make the cut, the others are mostly "lesser" covers and not live.
I like "Alex descends into Hell for a Bottle of Milk" but's it's not related to R&H much.

I love Hendrix, but I don't think it was wise to use his woodstock version of the Star Spangled Banner, if even it is semi appropriate before BTBS:

1) it detracts from Edge's own guitar qualities
2) it gets you thinking about Jimi's version of All Along the Watchtower or Like A Rolling Stone, as well as him covering the Beatles (Sgt Pepper) and Hendrix is simply untouchable when he does covers, whereas U2 are not a cover band.
3) the Stones used the same Hendrix sample on Still Life (1981)
4) Jimi's studio version of TSSB is much better (multitrack guitar orchestration)

QUOTE]

Yes I can see your point. Ehm my name doesn't mean I adore R&H. I like the studio songs. And yes I adore this Silver and Gold live version ... that bass line is pumping. But the other live songs most of the time are skipped by me. Helter Skelter, Freedom for my people, pride, bullet, all along (veryyy bad version imo) and still haven't found. Maybe iI typed it a little in a rush yesterday.
 
i like R&H: God Part 2, Hawkmoon, Desire, WLCTT, AOH, AIWIY etc.
its not perfect but its in my top 7 of U2!
 
Back
Top Bottom