Will we hear the "1st" version of NLOTH?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
no... that's why I rarely post in here...

It just boggles my mind how you guys can have in depth conversions based on conjecture and hearsay and without actually hearing any of the finished material of which you claim to either love or hate...

Well, we couldn't exactly have conversations of conjecture and hearsay if we had actually heard the clips now, could we?

Plus, if we are boggling your mind, that's quite a bit better than boring you to tears I'd say.
 
Seriously guys, has anyone heard either version of this song or are we just going by descriptions of songs now?

We're just already forming our opinions of the album based on one person's description of an early version of some songs...

That makes sense right? :shrug:

I already know I'm going to like the shelved versions of 'Sexy Boots' and 'Walk Out on the Streets and Breathe' more than the album versions. But the album version of NLOTH is far superior to the previous version of 'No Line in the Sky'...
 
i prefer both. :)

Ah, you beat me to it!


I happen to think it's more fun to speculate based on the information we have than to discuss other things on Interference. Hence, my nearly 24-hour exclusive inhabiting of this forum.
 
I thought the band were undecided on which version to put on the album. We still may get the slower layed version.

That was the way they made it sound on the Q mini-site. But the subsequent magazine implied that they ended up going with the punk version.
 
haha! yeah, my F5 key is worn out.

Haha, exactly. I would never have figured out what F5 did, either, if it wasn't for hanging around this forum. I probably would have been better off not knowing. I've got to the point that seeing a bolded topic stimulates a Pavlovian response.
 
sheep.gif
 
I think as soon as U2 drops a song or verison off an album playlist, it seems that many fans are ready to judge it with a friendlier eye. Mercy would be an example of that, as well as Smile and Levitate and the alternate Bomb versions. I think that no matter which one they choose for the album, the other one was always going to be the fan favorite.

QFT. I like Mercy, but I think that half of that was due to trying to find out the mystery of its real origins. Same thing with the RHMT video. Even looking at those pictures would make peoples' mouths drool and wonder about what the video might've been. Now that it's released, a lot of people laugh at it. :shrug:

Alternate and unreleased versions always get a notch up on the coolness factor, whether they are really deserving of it musically or not.

Personally, I hope we get both versions----simply because I like to hear where songs came from. And I like to get as much U2 music as possible. :wink:
 
We're just already forming our opinions of the album based on one person's description of an early version of some songs...

That makes sense right? :shrug:

I already know I'm going to like the shelved versions of 'Sexy Boots' and 'Walk Out on the Streets and Breathe' more than the album versions. But the album version of NLOTH is far superior to the previous version of 'No Line in the Sky'...
It could be worse. There are even people forming opinions on people who are already forming their opinions of the album based on one person's description of an early version of some songs...
 
I find it somewhat amusing that some people are already tired of so called "Vertigo" type songs, when the reality is that the majority of U2's songs are nothing like Vertigo. How can one be tired of something that isn't very prevalent on their albums???? :shrug:

What I like most about U2's catalog of music is that their is a wide array of sounds and types of songs on each album....from rocking songs to ambient songs to everything in between. I don't think one type of song dominates any of their major albums.

What I wish they'd do....though I doubt they will is put BOTH versions of NLOTH on the album. That would be great. I could swear its been done before, but not sure by whom.
 
It could be worse. There are even people forming opinions on people who are already forming their opinions of the album based on one person's description of an early version of some songs...

I don't know... to me it's pretty difficult to know which version is the first or not, since the article never really said, they just gave their interpretation of where they think the band was leading.

On the other hand, it's pretty easy for to assess that a person is get worried over nothing but bad speculation. :shrug:
 
I find it somewhat amusing that some people are already tired of so called "Vertigo" type songs, when the reality is that the majority of U2's songs are nothing like Vertigo. How can one be tired of something that isn't very prevalent on their albums???? :shrug:

What I like most about U2's catalog of music is that their is a wide array of sounds and types of songs on each album....from rocking songs to ambient songs to everything in between. I don't think one type of song dominates any of their major albums.

What I wish they'd do....though I doubt they will is put BOTH versions of NLOTH on the album. That would be great. I could swear its been done before, but not sure by whom.

It was Coldplay. :lol: Didn't they put 3 versions of Lost on Viva La Vida?
 
Well, the Beatles have done a couple versions of Revolution and Sgt. Peppers. I think that multiple versions on a single album have a pretty strong history--usually under the "reprise" moniker.
 
They could do a reprise if this is a longer album, and it works. But who knows, I just don't expect that much of a formula change. As much as I want a rocking album, I love their emotional music and this song seemed like something really mysterious and evocative, which seems to fit better with slow and layered than with 'punk', I hope they go with the original, but then again we haven't heard either one.
 
At the end of the day, U2 is a rock and roll band. Rock bands must continue to write great rock songs to remain relevant. Doesn't mean they can't experiment with ambient things or even write sugary ballads, but the rock song is just necessary. Because when they can no longer write a song that gets the kids jumping and the fists pumping it's over for them. Vertigo was a freak of nature. We can only hope they have another gem like that in their bag of trix. A band 30 years on should not be able to write a song that great.
 
At the end of the day, U2 is a rock and roll band. Rock bands must continue to write great rock songs to remain relevant. Doesn't mean they can't experiment with ambient things or even write sugary ballads, but the rock song is just necessary. Because when they can no longer write a song that gets the kids jumping and the fists pumping it's over for them. Vertigo was a freak of nature. We can only hope they have another gem like that in their bag of trix. A band 30 years on should not be able to write a song that great.

agreed. U2 are one of a kind. Take Bruce Springsteen for example - He is a god of rock and tours like there is no tomorrow (and my god I wish he would get that hot ass to Australia some time), but hasn't written a song that could hit the charts and the crowds like Vertigo in decades. The Stones are another one - they're still touring, and rokcing out crowds of 80 000 but they don't have the song writting oopmh anymore. U2 stand out in that respect, so its easier to have faith that they'll keep hitting the mark again and again until they know that they no longer have it.
 
At the end of the day, U2 is a rock and roll band. Rock bands must continue to write great rock songs to remain relevant. Doesn't mean they can't experiment with ambient things or even write sugary ballads, but the rock song is just necessary. Because when they can no longer write a song that gets the kids jumping and the fists pumping it's over for them. Vertigo was a freak of nature. We can only hope they have another gem like that in their bag of trix. A band 30 years on should not be able to write a song that great.

U2 have never been all about rocking riffs though, their music is about instilling real meaning and emotion in a package that sounds gorgeous, I don't mean I want them to make slow elevator music, but definitely some of their best work is slower paced and layered (WOWY??), that's not to say I don't love when they rock out like the Fly, but NLOTH sounds to be poetic lyrically the way they haven't been in a long time and that seems to fit sonic atmosphere and slow tempo more than rocking out, from the descriptions we've heard.
 
This is all I know for sure:

1) U2 will put one version of NLOTH on the album
2) the other version will surface later, either as a leaked track, B-side, iTunes extra, etc
3) 90% of us here on interference will be upset that U2 put the "wrong" version on the album

:wink:
 
I find it somewhat amusing that some people are already tired of so called "Vertigo" type songs, when the reality is that the majority of U2's songs are nothing like Vertigo. How can one be tired of something that isn't very prevalent on their albums???? :shrug:

What I like most about U2's catalog of music is that their is a wide array of sounds and types of songs on each album....from rocking songs to ambient songs to everything in between. I don't think one type of song dominates any of their major albums.

What I wish they'd do....though I doubt they will is put BOTH versions of NLOTH on the album. That would be great. I could swear its been done before, but not sure by whom.

Seconded, exactly what I like about U2 summed up in one post. :up:

NLOTH will probably be much different from Vertigo, I reckon the other version definitely should be a b-side. :up:
 
Back
Top Bottom