The real reason U2 isn't releasing any of this material

[Niceman]

Yes, especially when threads are open to discuss non-existent things such as bigfoot, the illuminati, or new U2 albums.

 

[Hollow Island]

U2 are too busy doing s-e-x to release new music.

 

[U2girl]

As a musician...

Crazy Tonight is a remix. Mysterious Ways is a reworking. There's a large difference.

Mysterious Ways has parts added to it, but once they start playing the first verse, everything is the same as the album version musically until the end, additional solo. Edge's guitar is the same, Adam's bass is the same, and pretty much all of Larry's beat is the same.

Mysterious Ways live is not a remix.

Stunning.

The point is they were both changed for the live performances.

 

[Hollow Island]

Stunning.

The point is they were both changed for the live performances.

The main difference is that they play Mysterious Ways, but they play along to Crazy Tonight.

 

[PhilsFan]

Stunning.

The point is they were both changed for the live performances.

That's not true. One was expanded. The other was completely changed. The difference between the two is stark.

I'm a musician. This is sort of my thing.

 

[edge-evans]

BVS is from the South? Finally, something we have in common. I like you more now dude.

 

[scottyT]

and neither have anything to do with why they are not releasing the supposed material.

 

[djerdap]

Crazy Tonight was completely changed, yes, but that particular arrangement was made by one Andy Holt, aka Redanka. Made in the studio, as a remix. Just as tons of other remixes of other U2 songs before it. So it wasn't reworked originally for the purposes of live performance, unlike U2's (and U2's only) reinventions of Mysterious Ways, Bullet the Blue Sky, Running To Stand Still (ZooTV), The Fly (Elevation) and so on. Which, again, may be one aspect of U2 that I admire the most and which I do believe is sorely missing on this tour.

That's the one difference I'm trying to make.

 

[BVS]

Holy shite this has to be one of the most tired arguments of interference 2011.

 

[U2girl]

Crazy Tonight was completely changed, yes, but that particular arrangement was made by one Andy Holt, aka Redanka. Made in the studio, as a remix. Just as tons of other remixes of other U2 songs before it. So it wasn't reworked originally for the purposes of live performance, unlike U2's (and U2's only) reinventions of Mysterious Ways, Bullet the Blue Sky, Running To Stand Still (ZooTV), The Fly (Elevation) and so on. Which, again, may be one aspect of U2 that I admire the most and which I do believe is sorely missing on this tour.

That's the one difference I'm trying to make.

I seem to remember reading this particular mix was commisioned by the band especially for the live shows, and has elements of two separate remixes. But anyway.

They're not DJ so obviously someone else has to remix it, and they still play live on top of that, and what they play is noticeably different to the album version. It is not any less *live than any of the above examples.

U2 is no stranger to using additional elements to their own sound, studio or live.

 

[PhilsFan]

I never questioned the legitimacy of U2 playing a remix live. I don't think it's any less of a U2 song than any other one. I don't know why you think I ever implied that.

I was simply stating the differences between the changes they made live to Mysterious Ways and the changes they made live to Crazy Tonight. Crazy Tonight is a complete reworking. Mysterious Ways just had an extension. Lots of U2 songs get extensions. Until the End of the World has a longer solo at the end, for example. That's not a remix, though.

 

[dan_smee]

I never questioned the legitimacy of U2 playing a remix live. I don't think it's any less of a U2 song than any other one. I don't know why you think I ever implied that.

I was simply stating the differences between the changes they made live to Mysterious Ways and the changes they made live to Crazy Tonight. Crazy Tonight is a complete reworking. Mysterious Ways just had an extension. Lots of U2 songs get extensions. Until the End of the World has a longer solo at the end, for example. That's not a remix, though.

I’m just waiting for the Ron Swanson “dammit woman!”

 

[dazzledbylight]

You've hit the nail on the head. For the last ten years, Bono's lyrics have been largely vacuous. A combination of being old, rich, fat and happy and unwilling to tread on anybody's toes.

vacuous: having or showing lack of thought or intelligence; mindless.

Bono's lyric's may not be politically direct anymore for the most part, but to call them vacuous is untrue.
He's continued to write many thoughtful, beautiful, angsty lyrics. Some are dealing with other non-overtly political issues/matters.

You say that like no one finds him politically inspirational now.

Which is more politically inspirational - angry lyrics and speeches, or actual activism?

I think HE is more hands on now, but I suspect his speeches were more likely to inspire hands on action from others in days gone by.

Hmm, I don't know that I agree. But I don't know how either of us could prove it either way.

I don't know as cori says whether it could be proven but I do know that....

When he brings up people on stag in the different countries this past tour..... singers, poets, activists etc those have a political and/or cultural aspect. That can in or re-inspire people.

And remember "the personal is the political".

Also when he's at various lectures/panels across the USA and around the world.... that also keeps issues in a bigger light.

What about the video for The Saints Are comming? That was a risk I thought.

The Saints... video was/is sooo moving. It made me angry /upset all over again. I haven't totally forgotten about Katrina either.

Now the only other pointed song that I can think of was Silver and Gold, but it's about as vague as Crumbs.

Oh, I've been a fan since 88 btw

I love Crumbs.
As for S&G ...i dunno...it was put out around the time Anti-apartheid movement was happening. And South Africa was/is a country with a lot of precious metals and mineral assets.

In fact when I was a kid- (60's) I remember this Time & Life Books Science, and Nature Series. I think in the one on Rocks and Minerals or Geology had a photo of a black South African gold miner-- so So Africa was already a bit in my consciousness as well as Robert F Kennedy making this awesome speech there....

So I think S&G was quite related to South Africa.

I grew up and now have returned to live in the South, and yes racism still very much exists. BUT KKK kind of racism is very small, Pride is not going to step on anyone's toes because most of the racism that does exist is in people who don't believe they are racist.

You should be careful about such offensive blanket statements...

I'm sorry if you think my comment was offensive. Please don't pretend I said more than I did. There's A LOT of racism in the south.

But in order for Pride to be "stepping on toes" it would have to be institutional type of racism, KKK, neo-nazi, etc and that type of racism is very small.

I dunno BVS- I think it's in-between re: racism in the south issue. And don't get me wrong, there was, and still is a lot of racism up here in Yankeeland. Including The Klan and Aryan Nation and other bigots like landlords and in corporate hiring.

I did visit Atlanta in the 70's and had a friend down there. I have a friend from Texas as well....Texas being a Western and Southern State.

I listen a lot to liberal (and a bit of right-wing) talk radio, and read a lot on the net. I hear a lot of stories from both white and black Southerners calling in for years and current. It seems to me that in the Southern big cities there is less racism, though far from gone. Both of the personal and some institutional.

But what I've ALSO heard that in smaller towns and rural areas it's more prevalent. I heard a story not more than 3 years or so back that in some small southern town there were still... still!..... separate water fountains.

ANd there was that noose on a tree on a college or HS campus story last year.

Yes, especially when threads are open to discuss non-existent things such as bigfoot, the illuminati, or new U2 albums.

Looks out window.............

oh..... could that be Big Foot on Broadway !!!???!!!!
He might be ignored in NYC!

*cranes neck* Wait no...it's not Big Foot..... it's Chewbabca!!!

Hey...Chewie..... wait!!!!

 

[shart1780]

Hey guys I made up a joke.

Why was the butt hair hyper?

Because he was on crack.

 

[PhilsFan]

I’m just waiting for the Ron Swanson “dammit woman!”

Even telemarketers avoid her.

 

[dan_smee]

Even telemarketers avoid her.

“Every time she laughs, an angel dies. Even telemarketers avoid her. Her birth was payback for the sins of man. But you know the worst thing about her? She works for the library.”

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I never questioned the legitimacy of U2 playing a remix live. I don't think it's any less of a U2 song than any other one. I don't know why you think I ever implied that.

I was simply stating the differences between the changes they made live to Mysterious Ways and the changes they made live to Crazy Tonight. Crazy Tonight is a complete reworking. Mysterious Ways just had an extension. Lots of U2 songs get extensions. Until the End of the World has a longer solo at the end, for example. That's not a remix, though.

i think we can settle this argument quite easily... Crazy Tonight can be considered a remix because, well, they really just play, um, the remix, and sorta just strum along to the studio recording.

whereas what they've done with other songs are really just live interpretations of a song, which artists do all the damn time. when springsteen played born in the u.s.a. acoustically on the e street reunion tour, nobody considered it a "remix."

now if r.kelly gets involved, then we can call it a remix.

 

[gvox]

See this is exactly where your argument crumbles.

Please tackles head on more than Peace on Earth? How? POE list the names of a very specific event. Please with the exception of Catholic Blues and Nothern Star is pretty damn vague.

I don't give a shit about his argument, but you're completely wrong there. Please is probably one of U2's MOST pointed songs. It's exactly on par with BTBS and MOTD. Gaining an understanding of the lyrics, all of them, will likely help here.

 

[gvox]

All I have to say this morning is: HA! FUCKING HA!!!!!!

YouTube - Pride ( In the name of love) U2 360 Mexico

Take that, for POINTED STATEMENTS!

 

[BVS]

Good for you Bono

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

hey, boner decided to take his balls out of storage.

 

[Irvine511]

why look, it's preachy 80s Bono. he's back.

guess the 90's are truly dead and buried.

no more Pop tracks EVER.

 

[Cactus Annie]

What's this argument about pointed songs? What is a pointed song?

 

[Niceman]

Wow! he sounds like BONO!

 

[Hollow Island]

Now let's see him say that on the other side of the border.

If the US legalized drugs the problem would be solved, there and in the USA.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

And if U2 campaigned for that (legalising drugs) that would no doubt also solve the "Bono is a wanker" issue.

 

[iota]

Whoa! Where's THAT Bono been???

 

[topplehatU2]

He's still there...

And in Pride, of all songs. One of the "safest" songs.

 

[Niceman]

And if U2 campaigned for that (legalising drugs) that would no doubt also solve the "Bono is a wanker" issue.

Interesting.

 

[corianderstem]

Shit, now I want to listen to that. But it violates my avoid-spoilers-where-possible-but-don't-listen-to-or-watch-anything-until-Seattle rule.

Did he get all pissed off and junk? Did he rant? Did he rail? Did he use the f word in regards to a revolution of some sort?