Hmm
I cannot fathom why they thought it was a good idea tossing live material in amongst studio tracks, especially not the live material they chose.
Agree with your points, and I think I have an answer to this question: Adam (I think) states in
U2 By U2 that it was originally going to be a live album (which would have been the more logical first step) as a soundtrack with the film, and they were going to throw in a few studio tracks. But either after the Dublin sessions or after they got to L.A., they had such a glut of good new material that they ended up wanting to use it and compiling a double set. Adam says with some surprise in the book something about the 9 new songs pretty much adding up to a whole new studio album.
However, this still begs the question of why they didn't just release two separate LPs (one live, one studio). And I think I know the answer. The band as a whole -- or perhaps just Bono, who was the driving force behind the Americana/pseudo-blues thing -- wanted to lighten the burden of the "follow-up to
The Joshua Tree" thing by releasing a bootleg-like album that would be all over the place in its diversity and thus hard to pin down. (This is somewhat akin to what Bob Dylan did with
Self Portrait in 1970, except U2's release is actually good music.) I really think they intentionally wanted to put out as "slapdash" (in appearance) an album as they could in order to ward off expectations and serious critical analysis. (Of course, being U2, they couldn't really pull that off by including speeches about Apartheid and guest appearances by the rock hall of fame.)
From a lot of the interviews I've read from the era, particularly from Bono, it seems he was getting a little bit obsessed with how big they were and how they were commanding all this attention from these big names in music. A lot of name-dropping. Seemed as if he wanted at one stage to turn the album into an album featuring all these big names, like Dylan and Orbison etc.
Yeah, that's what I meant by the contradiction described above. For example, although I am a huge fan of "Love Rescue Me" (it's one of my favorites on this record -- can't fathom why y'all hate it), I do believe that they could have recorded a much better version -- and probably wanted to -- but because of the surprise, off-the-cuff appearance of Dylan in the studio to supply the odd lyric, some keyboards, and some (very rough) backing vocals, I'm sure they felt duty-bound to include that version of the track. I mean, they couldn't
not have a guest-appearance on their album... but at the same time, they were trying to present the package like it was all for a bit of fun. The message was confusing.
God Part 2 especially, this attitude in the lyrics that just comes across as false in my opinion. They've done the whole "love will overcome" thing much better. Doubt Lennon would've liked it.
I love 'God Part II' and I do think Lennon would have been tickled (being Lennon, though, he would have loved U2 one day and hated them the next). However, it was quite incredibly pretentious -- no matter their intention to appear as 'fans' -- to write a clearly-intended sequel to
Plastic One Band's epic "God", and then not expect to be roasted over the coals for it.
I dunno, it seemed very orientated towards a particular American audience. One that I am not really in touch with, so I was never gonna like it as much.
Fair enough. I love Americana/blues-derived stuff, and I think U2 pulled it off incredibly well musically -- mainly due to Bono's heroic vocals in this period -- but I can see how it would turn some people off. The irony of
Rattle & Hum is that the it had its biggest success and its biggest failure in the USA. I think, today, it remains the single biggest inspiration of the U2-haters of the world.
That IMO is the best version of Bad ever. I don't hate R&H but it does seem a bit strange going from live tracks to studio tracks. I do love When Love Comes To Town. Good song and fun to sing along to even if you're like me and stink at singing!
