U2 releases all-covers album and you cringe?

[Dorian Gray]

Springsteen's done one, Lennon did one, Dylan's done one, would U2 ever release a covers record?
Or, rather, would you be at all interested in what they'd come up with?

 

[vaz02]

they have done some great covers but they are generally for acts who are edging closer to the end of the road.

i said generally , not all.

 

[Utoo]

it'd be interesting. i've liked most of the covers they've done in the past. i don't think i'd be too keen on an ALL-covers album...i could see throwing one in on an album. of course, i'd buy whatever the hell they did anyway.

much like vaz, i kind of see all-cover albums as what a band/artist does when they're on the way out...when the creative juices have pretty much stopped flowing. i'd much prefer to see U2 keep going with new stuff.

 

[Aygo]

Well, we've got some live covers in R&H, but that's not the same. It could be a good idea of a covers album, but, hew... hum... I don't know... U2 is a band of albums with them original songs, and I'm not a fan of including covers in the 'originals' albums...
However, they have great studio/live covers!

 

[Canadiens1131]

HELL NO I wouldn't be interested.

 

[MrBrau1]

Bowie did it in 73.

At the height of his popularity, right after Ziggy Stardust and Alladin Sane.

 

[Axver]

I would cringe. A lot. Especially considering what U2's choices would likely be.

I wouldn't even download it unless I see rave reviews about how much it rocks.

 

[pgv]

I like listening to u2's covers because whenever they cover a crap song they seem to make it better, and whenever they cover an already great song (like helter skelter) they make it different. I would be disappointed if they did that though. U2 are all about new and innovative stuff. I couldnt see them bringing out a whole album of covers and I wouldnt buy it if they did.

 

[AtomicBono]

I seriously doubt U2 would ever do this since they've said themselves they aren't the world's greatest covers band.

Would I be interested? Sure, I'm sure they could come up with some good and different stuff. But I would much rather them make new material. I doubt a covers album would go over very well anyway. They sort of tried that (a little) with Rattle and Hum and that didn't fare too well, critically at least (I'm pretty sure it sold plenty).

 

[U2DMfan]

I would cringe. A lot. Especially considering what U2's choices would likely be.

Haha best answer yet.

Actually the artists might be good, but the execution.....shittastic?

Think "Don't Take Your Guns To Town"
anyone saying that version is good has drank the koolaid.

Not to mention their atrocious cover of the brilliant Beatles song "Happiness is a Warm Gun"

that said, they have a few covers that are cool but mostly it was back when Bono could sing.

 

[U2girl]

I don't think they would ever do it, Rattle and Hum was probably the closest we'll ever get to a U2-doing-covers album.

That said, if they would do it, I'd be interested.

 

[babyman]

Absolutely not!!!!!!!

 

[Total U2 Nut]

I'm praying they won't... but if they did, I'd buy it anyway, just out of curiousity I suppose.

 

[An Cat Gav]

definately not, U2 are about innovation and pushing themselves and music forward so i think it would go against everything they stand for.
they used to do great covers like night and day, but recent ones such as happiness is a warm gun have been pretty bad...

 

[cobl04]

I would prefer them to do snippets or covers LIVE only.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

if they feel the need to do so, sure... why not.

i'd buy it. and so would you, even if you say you wouldn't. you might not like it, but you'd buy it.. or at the very least illegaly download it from YSI links found on interference... but you'd get it.

 

[pgv]

if they feel the need to do so, sure... why not.

i'd buy it. and so would you, even if you say you wouldn't. you might not like it, but you'd buy it.. or at the very least illegaly download it from YSI links found on interference... but you'd get it.

...

 

[vaz02]

ok new subject

if u2 were to do a covers album what would you call it and what would you like on it?

bob dylan - Like a rolling stone
The Eagles - hotel califonia
David Bowie - we could be hero's
queen - These are the days of our life
Pink Floyd - eclipse
frank sinatra - new york new york
david Gray - babylon

some of my thoughts.

 

[pgv]

coldplay - yellow (could be interesting..)
rem - everybody hurts (i hate their version)
bob marley - no woman no cry
the clash - rock the casbah (i loved the snippets they did on the veritgo tour)
tainted love - softcell
walk on the wild side - lou reed.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

henry the 8th

 

[the tourist]

U2 should have done one in 1989 or 1990.

Helter Skelter (studio)
Dancing Barefoot
Paint It Black
Fortunate Son
All Along The Watchtower (studio)
Everlasting Love
Unchained Melody
Night And Day
Satellite Of Love
Can't Help Falling In Love

 

[WhiteWolf]

I would be interested because, let's face it, most of us are interested in everything they do. But I'm not sure I would rather have a cover album than anything else. A double live album or a brand-new studio album should be the priority. But if they release a cover album, Hell yes I'll get it.

Then again, have they done any good studio covers ever? FORTUNATE SON and PAINT IT BLACK were interesting, but not very good. I've never been a fan of NIGHT AND DAY. I just really doubt that this would ever be something they'd be interested in.

 

[t8thgr8]

What kind of title is that for a thread?

It sounds like a foreigner.

 

[AtomicBono]

Pale Blue Eyes by The Velvet Underground

a Radiohead cover would be interesting. Karma Police maybe? Just? You and Whose Army? something.

I think if U2 were going to do a covers album, they should pick songs that are maybe different from what they'd normally do, and do different takes on the songs. I mean, there's no point in releasing a cover, imo, if you basically do it the same way the original artist did, because then the original artist's version is probably going to be considered better. So I could see U2 doing something crazy, like a Tool song, and maybe turning it acoustic and making it all pretty or giving it the classic U2 buildup. Or I can see them taking some softer pop song and making it into a more interesting, harder rock song.

Or maybe I'm crazy. But I think U2 could do a good covers album, if they really wanted to. I'd rather they stick to covers as b-sides and live material, personally.

 

[ntalwar]

I think after the initial sales burst, it would turn into a relative commercial failure and be basically an excuse to tour (which I wouldn't mind). Rush did one recently, and it plummeted in sales relative to their older albums.

What kind of title is that for a thread?

It sounds like a foreigner.

I thought we are on a global forum here. interference.us is down the hall.

 

[IanIinTheSky]

I would want to hear U2's version of Wake Up.

 

[JCOSTER]

I wouldn' t cringe at all of them considering Unchained Melody gives me the shakes!!!!

 

[Dorian Gray]

What kind of title is that for a thread?

It sounds like a foreigner.

English is my first language.

incidently, how can a title sound like a foreigner?

 

[Salome]

I think U2 are about the worst cover band album
so I wouldn't exactly be dancing around the house if they'd release an album like that

maybe they could do an interesting cover of Love is only a feeling by The Darkness and Massive Attack's Unfinished Sympathy

 

[the tourist]

Then again, have they done any good studio covers ever? FORTUNATE SON and PAINT IT BLACK were interesting, but not very good. I've never been a fan of NIGHT AND DAY. I just really doubt that this would ever be something they'd be interested in.

What about Everlasting Love, Dancing Barefoot, and Unchained Melody?