Imagine if Moment Of Surrender was...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
U2 hasn't had a new song this powerful in their live arsenal since Please.

Thats your opinion...and I respect it....but whole heartedly disagree.

Kite?

Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own?

Do you really think "Mercy" beats those????

Again...Mercy is Good, but not GREAT. And yeah, maybe you could make the case that "Wild Honey" and "A Man and A Woman" shouldn't even be "C-sides" (bad joke) But it doesn't make "Mercy" as good as some try to make it seem. I hear the comparison of this song to "BAD". Sorry, just don't see it. Mercy's got a loooong way to go before it even rivals "Lemon" let alone "BAD".

But as I said before...if its reworked it can be a really really great song.
 
Never use the word 'shortened' when talking about Mercy. It should stay at its current length unless they want to extend the intro.

Why?

Just because a song is 6 minutes long it doesn't make it great.

They easily could cut 45 seconds off of the song and noone would miss a thing.

I think people are really trying to make this song the next "BAD" and it just doesn't have the legs. I think "Moment of Surrender" or whatever the next 6-7 minute song mentioned on the new album has a better chance...and I haven't even heard it yet. :wink:
 
Thats your opinion...and I respect it....but whole heartedly disagree.

Kite?

Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own?

Do you really think "Mercy" beats those????

Again...Mercy is Good, but not GREAT. And yeah, maybe you could make the case that "Wild Honey" and "A Man and A Woman" shouldn't even be "C-sides" (bad joke) But it doesn't make "Mercy" as good as some try to make it seem. I hear the comparison of this song to "BAD". Sorry, just don't see it. Mercy's got a loooong way to go before it even rivals "Lemon" let alone "BAD".

But as I said before...if its reworked it can be a really really great song.

Yes, I do. Mercy is true elevation. It would have been the highlight of the last two tours.

Mercy as it is now is the best song released since Pop. All I'd change is add an extended intro, effects to add atmosphere and maybe different lyrics during the verses.
 
Why?

Just because a song is 6 minutes long it doesn't make it great.

They easily could cut 45 seconds off of the song and noone would miss a thing.

I think people are really trying to make this song the next "BAD" and it just doesn't have the legs. I think "Moment of Surrender" or whatever the next 6-7 minute song mentioned on the new album has a better chance...and I haven't even heard it yet. :wink:

If anything it would be like the next Please. A song like this should stay at 6-7 minutes. Let it breathe and don't destroy it in the studio.
 
If anything it would be like the next Please. A song like this should stay at 6-7 minutes. Let it breathe and don't destroy it in the studio.

Well...I'm giving it another listen RIGHT NOW.

First thought would be that it might be tough to play in concert the way its mixed with the vocals so far to the front of the song. They would have to mix the driving bass and drums louder than the version I'm hearing.

Another note...sounds like multiple guitars on the track. Wonder which they'd play live during some parts. I don't know man....just not a song that I'd care to hear live. It seems like it wouldn't be any better than what they have now. It might be worse...but I could be wrong.

I'm at the end of the song right now....I have to say that Adam drives this song. Very underrated bass player. The guitar at the end is cool, wish they'd use that tone more in other songs.

I just finished it....I'm still not any more impressed with it than in the first 100 listens. I stand by my original critique.

BTW, Please is a perfect example of a U2 song that was pretty good on the album but absolutely shined in concert. One of my favorite all time U2 songs ever.
 
Yes, I do. Mercy is true elevation. It would have been the highlight of the last two tours.

Mercy as it is now is the best song released since Pop. All I'd change is add an extended intro, effects to add atmosphere and maybe different lyrics during the verses.

I hate to sound like a fanatic, but I agree wholeheartedly. Though I don't think it needs much that wouldn't be solved in the mastering process. We haven't heard a "clean" version to judge properly.

And while there's no way to prove this, I know in my heart that had this appeared on Bomb, all the "it's not finished" zombies would be praising the song to the heavens. Somehow if the band rejects it, they think there must be something wrong with it.

Bob Dylan fans know that often the best songs don't make the album.

I will say, if this song never sees the public light of day in any form, the band members are complete fools.
 
And while there's no way to prove this, I know in my heart that had this appeared on Bomb, all the "it's not finished" zombies would be praising the song to the heavens. Somehow if the band rejects it, they think there must be something wrong with it.

Truth :up:
 
Just listened to Mercy again for the first time in maybe a year myself.

I’m certainly not one of the zombies, and I don’t think it’s sounds unfinished. I think it was probably spared being turned into something absolutely atrocious by not being put on the Bomb. Imagine this put through the Bomb Mix Machine…

I think:
- It’s better than 90% of the Bomb. But…
- I assume that at various earlier stages of recording, 90% of the Bomb sounded far better than it turned out to be.
- On the negative side, it is right on the edge of being too overblown, too eager to please, only just dancing on the other side of the line from being another cheesy 00’s U2 Anthem by Numbers.
- On the positive side, it does manage to just stay that other side of the line.
- Another positive is the vocal. Bono manages to keep his cool and not scream and honk his way all the way through it as per the majority of the Bomb, building it effortlessly in a way only he can.
- On a negative note, his lyrics are shite.
- I think it’s over-rated and overhyped around here. Good enough to be on Atomic Bomb? Definitely. Easily. If anything separates it from the rest of the Bomb it is that somewhere in there you can hear a bit of spirit/soul, and you can’t hear it anywhere else on the album. Sonically would have fit as well, assuming it had the same post treatment. Better than a lot of ATYCLB, but sonically wouldn’t really fit.
- How it measures against the new album is, obviously, yet to be seen. But If I were to use Mercy as a measure, I sincerely hope Mercy is what a b-side from this album sounds like, not a album track proper.
- Sorry, just doesn’t do it for me.
 
My arguments about Mercy were always about (FUCK the time duration, put the best songs on there!) and coupled with some of the other selections (most notably Xanax) I think it was just big clusterfuck when it came to song selection.

And to that end, I couldn't hear a serious argument that said Mercy wasn't among the best 11 tracks they had recorded during that period. I like it, still like it a lot but how much that is effected by disappointment with Miracle Drug or other songs? Hard to say.
 
Well, yes, sort of me too and you can probably ‘read’ that in what I’m saying. How I listen to Mercy post-Bomb and the judgement I give it, I happily acknowledge, would be quite different to having heard it somewhere between Pop and ATYCLB. As it stands, the post-Bomb cynic in me mostly hears another lifeless manufactured anthem, not some great creative spark. When I hear the Mercy chorus, I also hear him wailing Miracle Drug. When I hear him getting oh-so-emotive, I just hear the completely unconvincing Original of the Species. I know I have been beaten up somewhat, and I don’t really have the same trust anymore. I’m trying really hard not to hear these beach clips through Bomb-burst ears. Trying not to cynically chuckle to myself when I hear the band drop to a whisper, Bono start his heavy mumbling, then Edge kick in, then off they all soar…. again. Mercy is very solid. It’s better than most of the Bomb, absolutely one of the best 11 songs of those sessions and if presented (i.e. mixed) well, could have easily been it’s best.
 
Most everything that's said about how good a song Mercy is are things I could say about She's Gonna Blow Your House Down. And what album was that on?
 
The new album will see if U2 have lost their creaive spark in the studio.

"Bomb" bombed.

And although they are still a viable live act, they need a huge Album else they are really going to lose credibility in the industry and start being thought of like the geriatric Rolling Stones.

Lets hope this masterpiece isn't just an over produced attempt to decieve The Punter.
 
Sorry to disagree with you in your endless wisdom, but no, it didn't.

Sorry last eunuch, it did.

Bomb didn't mix it and U2 will have to try for something other than middle of the road elevator music if they are going to be contempory in today's modern era.

Else they will be an oldies band for geriatrics.
 
Well, yes, sort of me too and you can probably ‘read’ that in what I’m saying. How I listen to Mercy post-Bomb and the judgement I give it, I happily acknowledge, would be quite different to having heard it somewhere between Pop and ATYCLB. As it stands, the post-Bomb cynic in me mostly hears another lifeless manufactured anthem, not some great creative spark. When I hear the Mercy chorus, I also hear him wailing Miracle Drug. When I hear him getting oh-so-emotive, I just hear the completely unconvincing Original of the Species. I know I have been beaten up somewhat, and I don’t really have the same trust anymore. I’m trying really hard not to hear these beach clips through Bomb-burst ears. Trying not to cynically chuckle to myself when I hear the band drop to a whisper, Bono start his heavy mumbling, then Edge kick in, then off they all soar…. again. Mercy is very solid. It’s better than most of the Bomb, absolutely one of the best 11 songs of those sessions and if presented (i.e. mixed) well, could have easily been it’s best.

I understand where this cynicism comes from. But in terms of this being "another lifeless anthem", can't you feel the dissonance right from the beginning? That electric guitar part looped at the beginning isn't exactly welcoming; it's pulling you down into the whirlwind. It doesn't try to wow you quickly with big hooks, either. The thing takes its time. It's poppy in the way Wild Horses is poppy, before the Temple Bar castration mix. It's very dark sonically. And I'll argue that the solo/instrumental break pushes this thing up into the heavens. They haven't soared like this in a LONG time. And it ends obliquely, a far cry from the pat finishes of The Bomb, where what, only 1 song in 11 actually fades out instead of coming to a neat resolution?
 
Sorry last eunuch, it did.

Bomb didn't mix it and U2 will have to try for something other than middle of the road elevator music if they are going to be contempory in today's modern era.

Else they will be an oldies band for geriatrics.

First, learn how to read, my name is UNICORN.

Second, no need to insist that your personal opinion is the ultimate truth. Bomb won a lot of grammies and was a very successful album. There are fans here who love the album. Most of the songs worked great live. You are a very new member here on this forum, but the bashing of U2's recent work seems to have a tradition. As someone who loves their 00s work I take the freedom to disagree with you. Just because you write 1000 posts within 3 days doesn't mean you're right about everything.
 
Second, no need to insist that your personal opinion is the ultimate truth. Bomb won a lot of grammies and was a very successful album.

Grammy's and sales do not mean it was a great album. If it was a great album and was a success why would so many people be so vocal about how bad they think the album is? If the band sat down with those people and listened to what they had to say, do you really think the band would still call it a success?
 
last uniform,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U2_awards

There seems to be a tradition from Grammy to give U2 a lot of Grammys very easily in my opinion.


The reason is when they give their awards, Grammy doesn't want to offend anyone. And the Bland U2 style of the 00s coupled with Bonos charity work makes him a very easy choice.

NOT NECESSARILY BASED ON THE MUSIC.

The innovative music is often looked over because it is too out there. Madonna and Prince have been overlooked because they are too out there. Enemiem is hugely innovative but has no chance of winning per chance of offending middle America. Hip Hop can't win. Rap can't win not even bland Kayne West. That is saying something about how conservative midddle America is.

U2 have targetted that and blanded down their music accordingly.

Bland, Bland, Bland.

It's time to reach back to those days of Boy and War to extract the power of conviction that allows us to move from what is familiar and comfortable and step over that horizon line to see what awaits me next.

It's a journey we all take every now and again. To those on this path with me now, let's enjoy the journey.

But U2 better hit the bullseye this time.

Elevator musac just doesn't cut it any more.
 
Eminem and Kanye West have won a Grammy in their careers. :huh:

The reason Bomb gets flak is because of nostalgia and heavy, heavy bias on the internet U2 fandom. (although I will admit I fully expected Kanye to win over Bomb, which was the "sorry for AB and ATYCLB/a career celebration" award)
 
Grammy's and sales do not mean it was a great album. If it was a great album and was a success why would so many people be so vocal about how bad they think the album is? If the band sat down with those people and listened to what they had to say, do you really think the band would still call it a success?

Well, commercially it was a success, so it didn't "bomb", as BB has stated. That was the point of my argument. It got mostly great reviews from critics. Just because some fans don't like it (hardcore fans on this board, may I ask) doesn't say anything about the album being a success or not. "Success" is something rather objective. If the album fails in terms of your personal opinion, it's doesn't have to do with success. I don't even think the majority of fans think it's a bad album, just the ones who scream the loudest, that's why we hear so much from them and so little from the others.
 
Corny

Pseudo-philosophical abstracts?

I think you have smoked one too many gunga sticks.

"Success" is something rather objective.

An objective is a goal, a planned or intended outcome.

U2's objective was to make "Bomb" into an album of Bland Elavator Musac that wouldn't offend middle America or show any innovation what so ever.

U2 were successfull.:applaud:
 
I don't smoke, thank you.

And where I live, there isn't any U2 in elevators. However, I wish there was.

Did you work as a lift boy or what because you keep repeating this?
 
Corn Dog

Where you live?

Yes, the enchanted realm?!?!?!?!?

Certainly no gunga there?!?!?!? or anything harder:hyper:

Out with the piksies and the fairies.

Ahhhh, a place where U2 can do no wrong and there is peace sleeping in the magic mushrooms with the lepricorns.

And the elevators only go UP!
 
Back
Top Bottom