[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]
U2 — Please (Live From Rotterdam)
Album: Please Single
Avg rating:
7

Your rating:
Total ratings: 1056









Released: 1997
Length: 6:35
Plays (last 30 days): 1
So you never knew love
Until you crossed the line of grace
And you never felt wanted
'Til you'd someone slap your face
So you never felt alive
Until you'd almost wasted away

You had to win, you couldn't just pass
The smartest ass at the top of the class
Your flying colours, your family tree
And all your lessons in history

Please, please, please
Get up off your knees
Please, please, please
Please, yeah

And you never knew how low you'd stoop
To make that call
And you never knew what was on the ground
'Til they made you crawl
So you never knew that the heaven
You keep you stole

Your Catholic blues, your convent shoes
Your stick-on tattoos, now, they're making the news
Your holy war, your northern star
Your sermon on the mount from the boot of your car

Please, please, please
Get up off your knees
Please, please, please
Leave me out of this, please

So love is hard
And love is tough
But love is not
What you're thinking of

September, streets capsizing
Spilling over, down the drains
Shard of glass, splinters like rain
But you could only feel your own pain

October, talk getting nowhere
November, December
Remember, we just started again

Please, please, please
Get up off your knees, yeah
Please, please, please
Please, ah

So love is big
Is bigger than us
But love is not
What you're thinking of
It's what lovers deal
It's what lovers steal
You know I've found it
Hard to receive
'Cause you, my love
I could never believe
Comments (211)add comment
Greetings from Rotterdam again 😎
That is one edgy Edge!
 ppopp wrote:
Beautiful tune, and the best version of this I have heard.
 

Playing the main drum beat from "Sunday Bloody Sunday" at the end is a great touch.
Another U2 song! RP = RU2 {#Cheesygrin}
SO good! Miss this era of U2
never heard this song before... nice. 
  
 I see some irony in U2 following Bob Dylan "It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)"

And giving this a bump 

Michael_Dean wrote:
 stunix wrote:
I dont believe politics has much of a place in music
 

That_SOB wrote:


Politics has been an integral part of music for as long as we have recorded our music in one from or another. 
Music has been used as propaganda to emotionally charge those who were going into battle and those supporting
either side.The Native American's song and dance preformed prior to their war parties is alive today, as is the music 
and dance of African nations where drums, dance, musical instruments, and song implored the warrior to superhuman feats.
Because this music has been passed down for thousands of years we know that music has been integral to activities such as 
warding off evil spirits,victory over ones enemies. Humans are political animals and politics seems to bring out the music
in the human.Perhaps the most famous voices of protest at the time of the Civil War, at least in America, were the Hutchinson Family Singers. From 1839, the Hutchinson Family Singers became well known for their songs supporting abolition .A topical parlor song that is arguably a precursor of environmental movement is an 1837 musical setting of "Woodman, Spare That Tree!"

    For some of us the music of the 60's during the war in Vet Nam will never be forgotten and the artists like Dylan,Hendrix, CS&N Young, the Eagles, CCR, The Fish (What's that spell ?)  and the list goes on and on. Politics have always given people a reason to sing out in support, protest, sadness and joy, and I believe this will always be the case.

  
Very nicely put, thanks.


 rtrt wrote:

A non partisan take, would be to describe them as Northern Irish politicians of the time.

2 on the republican side and 2 on the unionist.

Without being too contentious, you could also probably segment them into mainstream and extreme viewpoints - 1 of each, on each side.

Using careful language here, to avoid taking sides...

 
And their names are Gerry AdamsDavid Trimble, Ian Paisley, and John Hume (clockwise from top left)
 
 stunix wrote:
I dont believe politics has much of a place in music
 

That_SOB wrote:


Politics has been an integral part of music for as long as we have recorded our music in one from or another.
Music has been used as propaganda to emotionally charge those who were going into battle and those supporting
either side.The Native American's song and dance preformed prior to their war parties is alive today, as is the music 
and dance of African nations where drums, dance, musical instruments, and song implored the warrior to superhuman feats.
Because this music has been passed down for thousands of years we know that music has been integral to activities such as 
warding off evil spirits,victory over ones enemies. Humans are political animals and politics seems to bring out the music
in the human.Perhaps the most famous voices of protest at the time of the Civil War, at least in America, were the Hutchinson Family Singers. From 1839, the Hutchinson Family Singers became well known for their songs supporting abolition .A topical parlor song that is arguably a precursor of environmental movement is an 1837 musical setting of "Woodman, Spare That Tree!"

    For some of us the music of the 60's during the war in Vet Nam will never be forgotten and the artists like Dylan,Hendrix, CS&N Young, the Eagles, CCR, The Fish (What's that spell ?)  and the list goes on and on. Politics have always given people a reason to sing out in support, protest, sadness and joy, and I believe this will always be the case.

 
Very nicely put, thanks.
 CHuLoYo wrote:
Who are the cover people?

 
A non partisan take, would be to describe them as Northern Irish politicians of the time.

2 on the republican side and 2 on the unionist.

Without being too contentious, you could also probably segment them into mainstream and extreme viewpoints - 1 of each, on each side.

Using careful language here, to avoid taking sides...
I've just got to admire these guys, how they've kept the original line-up, all of them, together and rocking all this time. They were on TV with Jimmy Fallon a couple nights ago, and they're still having fun jamming out while being as thoughtfully topical as ever! They performed a killer new lyrically-updated "Bullet The Blue Sky" and a new upbeat and rocking love song from their upcoming album...
 stunix wrote:
generally I dont subscribe to U2. 

I dont believe politics has much of a place in music,
but more than that,
Musicians shouldn't have a place in politics.
above that,
Anyone who thinks that they can change the world should be committed.
furthermore,
He ... ney, They.... just seem like a bunch of self appriciating knobs.
Put Porcupine Tree back on.  :)

 
Yes, it's better a fucking idiot with orange skin and a racoon on the hair, whos max benefit was for had a great inheritance.
Who are the cover people?
Usually I just mute Bono, but for some reason I let this play.  Mistake.
 S-curvy wrote:

Staying topical, I positively love this song, in both versions.  It strikes a deep, emotional chord within me.  Thank you U2 & RP.

Fred's point and now yours are quite good, important thoughts.  Particularly, being a child of the 60's, I've observed, I've had many engaged conversations with my parents and their peers who were "those people" who participated in and created that change, and they are pretty nonplussed about it for the most part.  Most of them seem to feel like they did what they could before the wave passed, and then it was gone.

My reflections are along the lines of observing who we "Americans" are after that time, and so often I see, I hear, and I sense a nation of people who desperately want to count, who seek to be part of the "next big thing," the next big movement, who want to be the first to the top of some hill, who want to leave their mark on their world ... but it had better happen NOW dammit!  To whit:  The selfie, GoPro vids, "extreme" anything and everything.

That's all they have, the desire for greatness, but then that ever important ideal and the even more important commitment aren't to be found.  What happened to being really good at something?  Practice, patience, diligence in the face of defeat?  Those take far too long to bring to fruition.  In reality, studies have found that expertise in anything takes something like 10,000 - 15,000 hours of practice to achieve.  Time to choose our endeavors wisely; I hope I count before I die.

 
Just noticed your reply to my post—wish I'd seen it sooner...

Your last two paragraphs really interest me. I think that desire for greatness/fame/power exists in every generation but the examples of leaving a mark that you list at the end of your second paragraph point to a problem the US has: people want to have fame without actually having to do anything hard or extraordinary to justify being famous. And yes, things like Internet memes, Facebook and YouTube let them have fame without doing all that much! Part of our culture now rewards people for chasing their 15 minutes of fame. (Andy Warhol would love selfies, texting, all the reinvention/recycling of pop culture).

But now I'm writing this in February 2017, and holy crap Donald Trump has been in office a little over 2 weeks. He is a freaking disaster and even more narcissistic than he was on the campaign trail. The good thing is that Americans are beginning to rally around "the next big movement" that you mentioned, and while not yet fully focused that movement is resisting Trump and his cabal of kleptocrats. There are strong signs (like the Women's Marches around the world taking place the day after Trump's inauguration) that people now want to actively assert and defend their rights, and take more control over their governments. 

Your parents and their peers are right: moments that promote collective demonstrations and demands for change occur in waves, and those waves generally don't last long. I hope we're in the first stages of the next wave and that people use new social networks to focus and sustain that energy towards areas of concrete, positive change for our societies and governments.  
Beautiful tune, and the best version of this I have heard.
 squibby wrote:
Wow, I wasn't sure if this was U2 at first, and thought it was a great tune for any band. Even as an old time U2 fan, I am surprised hearing such an original and atypical song from them.  I have to check out more of their music from the last 20 years, I've probably missed some other great songs.

 
+1
Wow, I wasn't sure if this was U2 at first, and thought it was a great tune for any band. Even as an old time U2 fan, I am surprised hearing such an original and atypical song from them.  I have to check out more of their music from the last 20 years, I've probably missed some other great songs.
Love them or hate them, they can be intense in the lyric department.
U2 on RP: for me it always goes "oh, another one? Come on, give us a break! ...Wait... I don't know this one... It's actually great!"

Thanks for giving us something else than Bloody Sunday or With or without you :)
 kcar wrote:

Point taken about Bono and others providing free good press for government leaders. I don't follow the issue very closely, so I can't say whether Bono has pressed those leaders for better and/or faster progress after Gleneagles.

But this whole matter points up the gap between the temporary power of loose, ad hoc protest movements and the entrenched, enduring power of national governments and multinational businesses. It's only natural that leaders at Gleneagles would try to turn a potential PR nightmare into a PR opportunity by co-opting debt-relief protests with soft promises. I'm not sure what more Bono could have done to push his cause along. What lasting power did he have at any time to, say, force those leaders to set up international debt relief bodies and commit to hard quantitative targets? People like Bono can only put the spotlight on their cause for a brief time and for the most part they only have the power of moral persuasion. It's a shame that the spotlight didn't put the political leaders at Gleneagles under a hotter, harsher glare and force lasting change. 

I'm reminded of a talk I had with a very bright and interesting guy who'd lived large during the 60s. He regretted that his generation hadn't harnessed its idealism and energy to do more, to change the status quo. I reminded him that the 60s had done a lot and that it's hard to translate grass-roots efforts with multiple, fuzzy and often divergent goals into law or real social change. I wish I'd asked the guy, "What would 'success' have looked like to you?"
 

 
Staying topical, I positively love this song, in both versions.  It strikes a deep, emotional chord within me.  Thank you U2 & RP.

Fred's point and now yours are quite good, important thoughts.  Particularly, being a child of the 60's, I've observed, I've had many engaged conversations with my parents and their peers who were "those people" who participated in and created that change, and they are pretty nonplussed about it for the most part.  Most of them seem to feel like they did what they could before the wave passed, and then it was gone.

My reflections are along the lines of observing who we "Americans" are after that time, and so often I see, I hear, and I sense a nation of people who desperately want to count, who seek to be part of the "next big thing," the next big movement, who want to be the first to the top of some hill, who want to leave their mark on their world ... but it had better happen NOW dammit!  To whit:  The selfie, GoPro vids, "extreme" anything and everything.

That's all they have, the desire for greatness, but then that ever important ideal and the even more important commitment aren't to be found.  What happened to being really good at something?  Practice, patience, diligence in the face of defeat?  Those take far too long to bring to fruition.  In reality, studies have found that expertise in anything takes something like 10,000 - 15,000 hours of practice to achieve.  Time to choose our endeavors wisely; I hope I count before I die.
Wow, what a powerful song; the searing lyrics, the driving bass, the wicked trippy guitar, the fantastic intensity and timing; bravo!
no matter how many great tunes have been played, we're never far enough from u2 {#Silenced}
Music to dance to, music to love and obvious music to discuss politics. The power of the tune.
 fredriley wrote:

What I criticise St Bonio for is that he objectively damaged the cause he so professes, of debt reduction and provision of help to developing countries, by hobnobbing with presidents and politicos at Gleneagles. They are of course to blame for not following up on their pledges, but by lending 'cool' and kudos to these corrupt warmongers and thieves St Bonio effectively legitimated their actions and allowed them to bask in a public light of righteousness whilst behind the scenes it was business as usual. He was used by the politicos, and if I'm being charitable I'd call that naive at best. He had naff-all impact on them and their policies. They needed him a feck of a lot more than he needed them.

Geldof is another matter. I'm not speaking of popsters and politics and campaigns in general, just about St Bonio in particular, and in my view Bonio has a lot to answer for.

On another tack, that's an awful rogues gallery on the CD cover. With the exception of David Hume, all have considerable blood on their hands, for all that they took part in the 'peace process'.

 
Point taken about Bono and others providing free good press for government leaders. I don't follow the issue very closely, so I can't say whether Bono has pressed those leaders for better and/or faster progress after Gleneagles.

But this whole matter points up the gap between the temporary power of loose, ad hoc protest movements and the entrenched, enduring power of national governments and multinational businesses. It's only natural that leaders at Gleneagles would try to turn a potential PR nightmare into a PR opportunity by co-opting debt-relief protests with soft promises. I'm not sure what more Bono could have done to push his cause along. What lasting power did he have at any time to, say, force those leaders to set up international debt relief bodies and commit to hard quantitative targets? People like Bono can only put the spotlight on their cause for a brief time and for the most part they only have the power of moral persuasion. It's a shame that the spotlight didn't put the political leaders at Gleneagles under a hotter, harsher glare and force lasting change. 

I'm reminded of a talk I had with a very bright and interesting guy who'd lived large during the 60s. He regretted that his generation hadn't harnessed its idealism and energy to do more, to change the status quo. I reminded him that the 60s had done a lot and that it's hard to translate grass-roots efforts with multiple, fuzzy and often divergent goals into law or real social change. I wish I'd asked the guy, "What would 'success' have looked like to you?"
 
I love this song and this is the best version. That bass line is very cool reminds me a little of House of Cards bass line
Frankly, the more people trying to do good in the world the better.  They're musicians after all.  There will always be some pundit out there to piss on somebody who is trying to make a difference in a pretty messed up world. 
 kcar wrote:

So do you blame U2, Geldof, McCartney et al just for trying to get national governments to forgive some World Bank debt at Gleneagles in 2005?
 
What I criticise St Bonio for is that he objectively damaged the cause he so professes, of debt reduction and provision of help to developing countries, by hobnobbing with presidents and politicos at Gleneagles. They are of course to blame for not following up on their pledges, but by lending 'cool' and kudos to these corrupt warmongers and thieves St Bonio effectively legitimated their actions and allowed them to bask in a public light of righteousness whilst behind the scenes it was business as usual. He was used by the politicos, and if I'm being charitable I'd call that naive at best. He had naff-all impact on them and their policies. They needed him a feck of a lot more than he needed them.

Geldof is another matter. I'm not speaking of popsters and politics and campaigns in general, just about St Bonio in particular, and in my view Bonio has a lot to answer for.

On another tack, that's an awful rogues gallery on the CD cover. With the exception of David Hume, all have considerable blood on their hands, for all that they took part in the 'peace process'.
.... as it finished yet
 fredriley wrote:

None of the things he 'secured' at Gleneagles and elsewhere, together with fellow hobnobbers like Bob "give us yer fockin' money" Geldof, have come to pass. The politicians basked in the 'cool' presence of St Bonio et al, made some vague promises, then went back on them. St Bonio's impact on world politics has pretty much been to add 'cool cred' to statesmen in suits.  U2 can be a half-decent band, but I do wish they'd stuck to music, as St  Bonio's grander ambitions have done little other  than stroke his own ego. Oh, and I certainly haven't forgiven the band for its tax evasion/avoidance (a distinction for m'learned friends to make) in its native Ireland. They earn 00s of millions of Euros yet do their damnedest to keep a cent from going into the Republic's tax coffers, money which could be of direct benefit to the people of their country.


 
So do you blame U2, Geldof, McCartney et al just for trying to get national governments to forgive some World Bank debt at Gleneagles in 2005? Or do you blame the musicians for the failure of politicians to follow through, in part because of a global financial crisis and depressed economies since 2008? As this Guardian article points out, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and Save the Children CEO Justin Forsyth note that Gleneagles had lasting positive benefit:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/02/world-poverty-g8-promise-gleneagles

Musicians aren't policy analysts or policy makers. They're often naive about politics and don't always persist in their championing of causes. But why snark about them if they're trying to do some good? Would you rather they just shut up, be silent on issues that trouble them, and get richer? Your St. Bono remark points up a side-effect of being a front-man for charity: fans get tired of you or stop thinking you first as a musician. Bono, Geldof and others may be stroking their egos in part, but they pay a price. 

Bono isn't going to end third-world debt on his own any more than Geldof singlehandedly ended third-world famines and its unreasonable to expect any level of sustained success in those deep-rooted, multifaceted issues when the force for change is
driven by celebrities outside of politics. Give them some points at least for getting average people to pay attention to these issues. 

As for the U2 tax issue, Bono speaks for himself here: 

https://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/u2-respond-to-critics-of-their-deal-with-the-taxman/

This Guardian article has quotes from both sides of the argument. It does note that U2 moved its center of business to the Netherlands in 2006 after the Irish government dropped tax exemptions for artists down to 250,000 euros. 

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/feb/27/u2-irish-aid-group-coalition




 unclehud wrote:
Hey stunix!  Don't know where you're from, but I'm from the USA.  I spent 6 years on a submarine defending EVERYONE'S right to speak about politics: musicians, politicians, preachers, prostitutes, and idiots like you.

When freedoms start being limited, watch out, because you might be in the next category that loses theirs.

 
Hell YES....and thank you for serving.
A great version of this song.
 fredriley wrote:

None of the things he 'secured' at Gleneagles and elsewhere, together with fellow hobnobbers like Bob "give us yer fockin' money" Geldof, have come to pass. The politicians basked in the 'cool' presence of St Bonio et al, made some vague promises, then went back on them. St Bonio's impact on world politics has pretty much been to add 'cool cred' to statesmen in suits.  U2 can be a half-decent band, but I do wish they'd stuck to music, as St  Bonio's grander ambitions have done little other  than stroke his own ego. Oh, and I certainly haven't forgiven the band for its tax evasion/avoidance (a distinction for m'learned friends to make) in its native Ireland. They earn 00s of millions of Euros yet do their damnedest to keep a cent from going into the Republic's tax coffers, money which could be of direct benefit to the people of their country.


 
... agreed. Have mostly boycotted this band for those exact reasons!
This is so deep! 1.
Recorded close to home. Cool. Doesn't sound live though. Anyway, always nice to hear unknown tracks. Unknown to me, that is. Quite some Sunday, bloody Sunday resemblances in the drums.   
 fredriley wrote:

None of the things he 'secured' at Gleneagles and elsewhere, together with fellow hobnobbers like Bob "give us yer fockin' money" Geldof, have come to pass. The politicians basked in the 'cool' presence of St Bonio et al, made some vague promises, then went back on them. St Bonio's impact on world politics has pretty much been to add 'cool cred' to statesmen in suits.  U2 can be a half-decent band, but I do wish they'd stuck to music, as St  Bonio's grander ambitions have done little other  than stroke his own ego. Oh, and I certainly haven't forgiven the band for its tax evasion/avoidance (a distinction for m'learned friends to make) in its native Ireland. They earn 00s of millions of Euros yet do their damnedest to keep a cent from going into the Republic's tax coffers, money which could be of direct benefit to the people of their country.


 
fredriley speaking good sense as usual!

Love this track though - great atmosphere.
Pop is U2 most underrated work.....it gets better with age
 unclehud wrote:
Hey stunix!  Don't know where you're from, but I'm from the USA.  I spent 6 years on a submarine defending EVERYONE'S right to speak about politics: musicians, politicians, preachers, prostitutes, and idiots like you.

When freedoms start being limited, watch out, because you might be in the next category that loses theirs.

 
Darn tootin'.  God bless you and yours....
Hey stunix!  Don't know where you're from, but I'm from the USA.  I spent 6 years on a submarine defending EVERYONE'S right to speak about politics: musicians, politicians, preachers, prostitutes, and idiots like you.

When freedoms start being limited, watch out, because you might be in the next category that loses theirs.
 coloradojohn wrote:
I remember at the time I'd already keened into this, how the ex-wife was saying how she figured they were DONE, how all the impossible magic was used up, and I said, Wait a minute, LISTEN...and even she, the Negative Representative For All Time, agreed: THEY WERE NOT DONE!   This kicked all kinds of butt, and so has plenty of stuff after.  U2 ROCKS!

 
I knew they weren't done when my wife and I saw them last time they were in Toronto. It was after Bono's back surgery, and I was wondering to myself before the concert whether Bono would have the old swagger and energy. The show started with video of the band coming out from the green room or whereever. When Bono passed the camera, he flashed the peace sign (or maybe it was for victory) and grinned his grin, and I knew that everything was going to be just fine.  And it was.

Except for the fact that my wife was pregnant, and we had to leave during the encores to avoid the crush. That sucked.


 stunix wrote:
generally I dont subscribe to U2. 

I dont believe politics has much of a place in music,
but more than that,
Musicians shouldn't have a place in politics.
above that,
Anyone who thinks that they can change the world should be committed.
furthermore,
He ... ney, They.... just seem like a bunch of self appriciating knobs.
Put Porcupine Tree back on.  :)
 
Except, of course, the politics of religion. Then, you had better turn off Porcupine Tree too. Sorry, but I'm just saying...
I've always liked this live version much more than the album version.
I remember at the time I'd already keened into this, how the ex-wife was saying how she figured they were DONE, how all the impossible magic was used up, and I said, Wait a minute, LISTEN...and even she, the Negative Representative For All Time, agreed: THEY WERE NOT DONE!   This kicked all kinds of butt, and so has plenty of stuff after.  U2 ROCKS!
 That_SOB wrote:


Politics has been an integral part of music for as long as we have recorded our music in one from or another.
Music has been used as propaganda to emotionally charge those who were going into battle and those supporting
either side.The Native American's song and dance preformed prior to their war parties is alive today, as is the music 
and dance of African nations where drums, dance, musical instruments, and song implored the warrior to superhuman feats.
Because this music has been passed down for thousands of years we know that music has been integral to activities such as 
warding off evil spirits,victory over ones enemies. Humans are political animals and politics seems to bring out the music
in the human.Perhaps the most famous voices of protest at the time of the Civil War, at least in America, were the Hutchinson Family Singers. From 1839, the Hutchinson Family Singers became well known for their songs supporting abolition .A topical parlor song that is arguably a precursor of environmental movement is an 1837 musical setting of "Woodman, Spare That Tree!"

    For some of us the music of the 60's during the war in Vet Nam will never be forgotten and the artists like Dylan,Hendrix, CS&N Young, the Eagles, CCR, The Fish (What's that spell ?)  and the list goes on and on. Politics have always given people a reason to sing out in support, protest, sadness and joy, and I believe this will always be the case.
 

Amen brother.. Couldn't agree more.
Cool how Larry uses the drum beat from Sunday Bloody Sunday in the bridge.
Take that, Stunix.

Piigs.......Oh, you mean we have to pay some of it back?
 stunix wrote:
I dont believe politics has much of a place in music
 

Politics has been an integral part of music for as long as we have recorded our music in one from or another.
Music has been used as propaganda to emotionally charge those who were going into battle and those supporting
either side.The Native American's song and dance preformed prior to their war parties is alive today, as is the music 
and dance of African nations where drums, dance, musical instruments, and song implored the warrior to superhuman feats.
Because this music has been passed down for thousands of years we know that music has been integral to activities such as 
warding off evil spirits,victory over ones enemies. Humans are political animals and politics seems to bring out the music
in the human.Perhaps the most famous voices of protest at the time of the Civil War, at least in America, were the Hutchinson Family Singers. From 1839, the Hutchinson Family Singers became well known for their songs supporting abolition .A topical parlor song that is arguably a precursor of environmental movement is an 1837 musical setting of "Woodman, Spare That Tree!"

    For some of us the music of the 60's during the war in Vet Nam will never be forgotten and the artists like Dylan,Hendrix, CS&N Young, the Eagles, CCR, The Fish (What's that spell ?)  and the list goes on and on. Politics have always given people a reason to sing out in support, protest, sadness and joy, and I believe this will always be the case.
generally I dont subscribe to U2. 

I dont believe politics has much of a place in music,
but more than that,
Musicians shouldn't have a place in politics.
above that,
Anyone who thinks that they can change the world should be committed.
furthermore,
He ... ney, They.... just seem like a bunch of self appriciating knobs.
Put Porcupine Tree back on.  :)
This is the best version of an AWESOME song.... 
 camden_hampden wrote:
...U2 didn't seem to figure out how to write comparatively atrocious material until much later in their career.

 
That's an amusing observation, but I find it to be quite accurate.  This is a good tune, though.


This is an awesome Song.  love that bass line.  
goooooosebumps
SUCH an underappreciated song....
 cosmiclint wrote:

You grossly exaggerate the number of covers the Beatles recorded on their first six albums. Of the 14 songs on Please Please Me, six were covers. The same ratio holds for With the Beatles and Beatles for Sale. All songs on Hard Days Night were credited to the Beatles, as were all but two of the tracks on Help.

So, in fact, of the 69 songs on their first six albums, one of the Beatles wrote 49, or 70%.

I think the band's early years of touring in Hamburg contributed a lot to their prolific output in the early part of their career. They arrived at EMI studios tight, rehearsed and ready to record.

This is from the Wikipedia article on Please Please Me:
Therefore, at 10:00 am on Monday, 11 February 1963 at EMI Studios (whose name was later changed to Abbey Road Studios), The Beatles and George Martin started recording what was essentially their live act in 1963, and finished 585 minutes later (9 hours and 45 minutes).<3> In three sessions that day (each lasting approximately three hours) they produced an authentic representation of the band's Cavern Club-era sound, as there were very few overdubs and edits.


Keep in mind, also, that recording was much more like a live performance in those days. It wasn't until multi-track recorders came in to use that "records" became artistic ventures in their own right, rather than documents of the artists' live performances. The Beatles (and the Beach Boys, and Hendrix etc ...) pioneered many of the studio techniques that later expanded the artistic horizons of artists like U2, while at the same time limiting their output.
Yes, I inverted the numbers (not "grossly exaggerated"), but it does not invalidate my central point. Given all your stats and references one would think that I am efforting to discredit the Beatles—that is not the thrust of my comment at all (on the whole, I much prefer the Beatles to U2). I was simply responding to a comment that minimized U2's accomplishments.
Their output in that time was still remarkable, if primarily due to ridiculous contractual obligations and Brian Epstien's fear of irrelevance. But the fact remains that the Beatles did not write 30% of their early output (largely due to the fact that those were the songs they knew how to play) and many of the songs that they did write during that period were not very good (U2 didn't seem to figure out how to write comparatively atrocious material until much later in their career).


Woah, interesting how you chose to play this one next.  Very similar tempo and drum beat to Get Together.
<3 <3 <3


yeah, agreeed,but his wife is still hot particularly in those capitalistic full page ads for their clothing company in the WSJ 

 fredriley wrote:

None of the things he 'secured' at Gleneagles and elsewhere, together with fellow hobnobbers like Bob "give us yer fockin' money" Geldof, have come to pass. The politicians basked in the 'cool' presence of St Bonio et al, made some vague promises, then went back on them. St Bonio's impact on world politics has pretty much been to add 'cool cred' to statesmen in suits.  U2 can be a half-decent band, but I do wish they'd stuck to music, as St  Bonio's grander ambitions have done little other  than stroke his own ego. Oh, and I certainly haven't forgiven the band for its tax evasion/avoidance (a distinction for m'learned friends to make) in its native Ireland. They earn 00s of millions of Euros yet do their damnedest to keep a cent from going into the Republic's tax coffers, money which could be of direct benefit to the people of their country.

 


It works.  Not their best, but doesn't suck.  Guitar (like usual) makes the tune.
Does anyone hear Allman Brother;s guitar in this song, particularly in the beginning of the song. As it started I thought maybe it was a cover version of Statesboro Blues. I like U-2 but this tune...not so much
Please No, No please
Yeah, it's not perfect but, it is so colorful, creative and "the real thing'. Just love it 'cause it motivates and feels good.
Mediocre band, lousy vocals. What's the big deal about U2?

When I first heard this on low volume I thought it was a cover of ‘When doves cry'.


 fredriley wrote:
Oh, and I certainly haven't forgiven the band for its tax evasion/avoidance (a distinction for m'learned friends to make) in its native Ireland.  They earn 00s of millions of Euros yet do their damnedest to keep a cent from going into the Republic's tax coffers, money which could be of direct benefit to the people of their country.
 
Especially now with the country on its knees financially. 

 helgigermany wrote:

Very well said!

 
Enough of the bonehead sideshow.
Some decent musicians suffering by association ....

 fredriley wrote:

None of the things he 'secured' at Gleneagles and elsewhere, together with fellow hobnobbers like Bob "give us yer fockin' money" Geldof, have come to pass. The politicians basked in the 'cool' presence of St Bonio et al, made some vague promises, then went back on them. St Bonio's impact on world politics has pretty much been to add 'cool cred' to statesmen in suits.  U2 can be a half-decent band, but I do wish they'd stuck to music, as St  Bonio's grander ambitions have done little other  than stroke his own ego. Oh, and I certainly haven't forgiven the band for its tax evasion/avoidance (a distinction for m'learned friends to make) in its native Ireland. They earn 00s of millions of Euros yet do their damnedest to keep a cent from going into the Republic's tax coffers, money which could be of direct benefit to the people of their country.

 
Very well said!

From Wikipedia regarding U2s Formation and Early Years (1975-1979): "Most of the group's material initially consisted of cover versions, which the band said was not their forté." The Beatles had a nice mix of covers and originals at first, although John Lennon has admitted that all their touring caused a creative problem: "Material's becoming a hell of a problem."

The biggest overall difference between the Beatles and other supergroups that came after was degree of impact. There are few musician in the western world unaffected by the Beatles. Groups like U2 from Europe are indebted to them. I think maybe Elvis Presley had, perhaps, a similar impact on popular music. Other lesser names are would haves and should haves and sort of's. 

 redstorm wrote:


Let's see, he meets with president's and prime ministers, and get's countries to forgive billions in debt, he secures promises to have developing countries focus on their poor, hopefully keeping them from our doorstep, and ohhhhhhh yeah he sells about 70-100 million records/cd's/dload's a year, and he has a hot wife......yeah the guy is pretty limited!!  {#Devil_pimp}
 
None of the things he 'secured' at Gleneagles and elsewhere, together with fellow hobnobbers like Bob "give us yer fockin' money" Geldof, have come to pass. The politicians basked in the 'cool' presence of St Bonio et al, made some vague promises, then went back on them. St Bonio's impact on world politics has pretty much been to add 'cool cred' to statesmen in suits.  U2 can be a half-decent band, but I do wish they'd stuck to music, as St  Bonio's grander ambitions have done little other  than stroke his own ego. Oh, and I certainly haven't forgiven the band for its tax evasion/avoidance (a distinction for m'learned friends to make) in its native Ireland. They earn 00s of millions of Euros yet do their damnedest to keep a cent from going into the Republic's tax coffers, money which could be of direct benefit to the people of their country.

 h8rhater wrote:

Nerd alert.

 
You must be new here.

 cosmiclint wrote:

You grossly exaggerate the number of covers the Beatles recorded on their first six albums. Of the 14 songs on Please Please Me, six were covers. The same ratio holds for With the Beatles and Beatles for Sale. All songs on Hard Days Night were credited to the Beatles, as were all but two of the tracks on Help.

So, in fact, of the 69 songs on their first six albums, one of the Beatles wrote 49, or 70%.

I think the band's early years of touring in Hamburg contributed a lot to their prolific output in the early part of their career. They arrived at EMI studios tight, rehearsed and ready to record.

This is from the Wikipedia article on Please Please Me:
Therefore, at 10:00 am on Monday, 11 February 1963 at EMI Studios (whose name was later changed to Abbey Road Studios), The Beatles and George Martin started recording what was essentially their live act in 1963, and finished 585 minutes later (9 hours and 45 minutes).<3> In three sessions that day (each lasting approximately three hours) they produced an authentic representation of the band's Cavern Club-era sound, as there were very few overdubs and edits.


Keep in mind, also, that recording was much more like a live performance in those days. It wasn't until multi-track recorders came in to use that "records" became artistic ventures in their own right, rather than documents of the artists' live performances. The Beatles (and the Beach Boys, and Hendrix etc ...) pioneered many of the studio techniques that later expanded the artistic horizons of artists like U2, while at the same time limiting their output.
 
Nerd alert.

 camden_hampden wrote:

The Beatles were only responsible for writing about 30% of their recorded material up until 1966. Those first few albums were a cake-walk by comparison to everything from Rubber Soul on. U2, for all their failings (in my opinion, anyway) has always written the vast majority of their own material, which is far more labor intensive and admirable. that could account for the disparity in output more than anything else.

 
You grossly exaggerate the number of covers the Beatles recorded on their first six albums. Of the 14 songs on Please Please Me, six were covers. The same ratio holds for With the Beatles and Beatles for Sale. All songs on Hard Days Night were credited to the Beatles, as were all but two of the tracks on Help.

So, in fact, of the 69 songs on their first six albums, one of the Beatles wrote 49, or 70%.

I think the band's early years of touring in Hamburg contributed a lot to their prolific output in the early part of their career. They arrived at EMI studios tight, rehearsed and ready to record.

This is from the Wikipedia article on Please Please Me:
Therefore, at 10:00 am on Monday, 11 February 1963 at EMI Studios (whose name was later changed to Abbey Road Studios), The Beatles and George Martin started recording what was essentially their live act in 1963, and finished 585 minutes later (9 hours and 45 minutes).<3> In three sessions that day (each lasting approximately three hours) they produced an authentic representation of the band's Cavern Club-era sound, as there were very few overdubs and edits.


Keep in mind, also, that recording was much more like a live performance in those days. It wasn't until multi-track recorders came in to use that "records" became artistic ventures in their own right, rather than documents of the artists' live performances. The Beatles (and the Beach Boys, and Hendrix etc ...) pioneered many of the studio techniques that later expanded the artistic horizons of artists like U2, while at the same time limiting their output.


 cosmiclint wrote:

You make a valid point, but remember the Beatles also stopped touring in 1966 so they could focus on producing albums. Still, 12 albums (plus all of the singles they recorded that were not released on an album, special Christmas recordings for fans etc.) in eight years is pretty impressive. Especially given how ground breaking many of them were.

 
Good points. But I'm sure the pace of recording and constant creativity is a large part of what broke the Beatles up as a band. So there is a negative side to consider.

 lemmoth wrote:

I'm going to start a collection to see if we can buy you a clue.
 
No amount of money will do it for the truly clueless... give it up.

 cosmiclint wrote:

You make a valid point, but remember the Beatles also stopped touring in 1966 so they could focus on producing albums. Still, 12 albums (plus all of the singles they recorded that were not released on an album, special Christmas recordings for fans etc.) in eight years is pretty impressive. Especially given how ground breaking many of them were.

 
The Beatles were only responsible for writing about 30% of their recorded material up until 1966. Those first few albums were a cake-walk by comparison to everything from Rubber Soul on. U2, for all their failings (in my opinion, anyway) has always written the vast majority of their own material, which is far more labor intensive and admirable. that could account for the disparity in output more than anything else.

great version ... never heard beforeeee ... {#Good-vibes}


Whoa, never heard this version.  Intense ...

(confession:  I loved POP)

 FrankMc wrote:
Just bumped it from an 8 to a 9. That's pretty epic.
 
Me too. The band is smoking on this one.

 lemmoth wrote:
This is more a comment on the record industry, but with this album, their 12th,  U2 - in 29 years, has just equalled the studio album output  of the Beatles - who did it in 8.
 
You make a valid point, but remember the Beatles also stopped touring in 1966 so they could focus on producing albums. Still, 12 albums (plus all of the singles they recorded that were not released on an album, special Christmas recordings for fans etc.) in eight years is pretty impressive. Especially given how ground breaking many of them were.

 Runetheman wrote:


Ditto - selfabsorbed wanna-safe-the-poor-while-moving-their-own-enterprise-to-avoid-paying-taxes musicians (won't even give them the credit, of calling them 'rockers' 'cause they are easy-listening muzak performers ">

 
I'm going to start a collection to see if we can buy you a clue.
Im not a big fan really.
But this is great.
Reminded me of Porcupine tree.
Am i only hearing visions?

This is more a comment on the record industry, but with this album, their 12th,  U2 - in 29 years, has just equalled the studio album output  of the Beatles - who did it in 8.
 jhorton wrote:
Can someone please tell me where I can buy this Live from Rotterdam?
 

It seems the be from the "please" single... So, a "B-side"
Great song, and I still dont like latest things these guys did
Now this is a great song from a not so great record. POP
hey, didn't bono just win the nobel prize? {#Mrgreen}
Just bumped it from an 8 to a 9. That's pretty epic.
check out the south park episode w/ bono. 
Can someone please tell me where I can buy this Live from Rotterdam?
 redstorm wrote:


Let's see, he meets with president's and prime ministers, and get's countries to forgive billions in debt, he secures promises to have developing countries focus on their poor, hopefully keeping them from our doorstep, and ohhhhhhh yeah he sells about 70-100 million records/cd's/dload's a year, and he has a hot wife......yeah the guy is pretty limited!!  {#Devil_pimp}
 

limitations as a vocalist genius, and oh by the way there's plenty of crap out there that makes tons of money (pussycat dolls anyone?). When are self-righteous "anything that Bono does is perfect, he must shit gold bricks" U2 fans (and don't get me wrong, I am a U2 fan fromway back, I just don't automatically think every single piece by them is stellar just because it has their name on it, same as with anyone else), going to start thinking for themselves and judge each piece of music (whether by them or any other artist) on its own individual merits?{#Stop}{#Eek}{#Ask}
I just love the feel of this track.

Everything just comes together nicely:

The room sounds great.

The crowd sounds great.

And best of all, there's a little less of that pushy "sell factor" that U2 usually exhibits (and which often distracts me from the beauty of what they do).

I always knew they could sound like this if they'd just let the song drive the performance, instead of the other way 'round.

 orpheus wrote:


agree about the "pseudo-chanting" of St. B, (he really needs to recognize his limitations), otherwise the music is ok on this one, I guess, but they've done much better
 

Let's see, he meets with president's and prime ministers, and get's countries to forgive billions in debt, he secures promises to have developing countries focus on their poor, hopefully keeping them from our doorstep, and ohhhhhhh yeah he sells about 70-100 million records/cd's/dload's a year, and he has a hot wife......yeah the guy is pretty limited!!  {#Devil_pimp}
 joanie wrote:
I can't understand the dissing of Bono or U2...nearly every song of their's contains at least a line or two of perfect and powerful poetry. Not to mention cool guitar.
 

Amen, sister!
The guitar work on this is incredible.
They have said they need to go back and finish this album properly...


 joanie wrote:
I can't understand the dissing of Bono or U2...nearly every song of their's contains at least a line or two of perfect and powerful poetry. Not to mention cool guitar.
 

Absolutely.  Count me in as a U2 lover.

I can't understand the dissing of Bono or U2...nearly every song of their's contains at least a line or two of perfect and powerful poetry. Not to mention cool guitar.
fredriley wrote:
Yep, pretty dire. Not that I'm a fan of St Bono & Co. but they have done some half-decent numbers over the years, and this sure isn't one of them. Tedious and preachy, and the bad imitation of Native American chanting is an embarrassment.
agree about the "pseudo-chanting" of St. B, (he really needs to recognize his limitations), otherwise the music is ok on this one, I guess, but they've done much better :think:
Delboy77 wrote:
100% agree, dont really care much about u2 since the pop-days...
exactly - things were just starting to get interesting on 'Pop' and I don't really understand why it is so often seen as a low ebb in the discography - after that we returned to mainstream chart-rock and U2 were hailed as having found form again when to me it semed they were just being lazy... Having said that, I'm not into the non-stop U2-bashing so beloved of many listeners. I'm still a fan. Just not quite such an impressed one.
I kinda like this, especially the guitar. I can only listen to so much U2 though, but this is good!!!
Bass intro made me think hmmmm john mayall "goin back to california"
prickelpit96 wrote:
Most boring U2-song ever... :naughty:
Yep, pretty dire. Not that I'm a fan of St Bono & Co. but they have done some half-decent numbers over the years, and this sure isn't one of them. Tedious and preachy, and the bad imitation of Native American chanting is an embarrassment.
Please...make it stop!
Most boring U2-song ever... :naughty:
pigglywiggly wrote:
There were only 6 live tracks (out of 17) on Rattle and Hum.
One thing they have been very good about is releasing videos & DVDs of their various tours. There haven't been a lot of official "live" albums, but there have been alternatives offered. I have a couple in my collection.
To melodramatic for my tastes.
ndanger666 wrote:
Probably the over-rated band currently working today. Crappy vocals, banal lyrics, the same, tired old arrangements, tepid musicianship. Frankly, I I'd rather get poked by a sharp stick than listen to this dreck!
Ditto - selfabsorbed wanna-safe-the-poor-while-moving-their-own-enterprise-to-avoid-paying-taxes musicians (won't even give them the credit, of calling them 'rockers' 'cause they are easy-listening muzak performers ">
stevehill wrote:
me too! "Pop" is definitely one of their best and certainly most under rated efforts. Would love to hear "Gone", "Last Night On Earth", or "Mofo" on RP. I'm with you...can't be bothered with "All That You Can't Leave Behind" or "How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb". Seems they lost the thread a bit after "Pop"
100% agree, dont really care much about u2 since the pop-days...
greenpubes wrote:
i'm not a u2 fan but boy did that song hit home right now. i think any woman especially can relate. outstanding.
yes
my first listening of this. i really, really like this one.
optimusprime10 wrote:
what about rattle & hum? hmmmmmmmm?
There were only 6 live tracks (out of 17) on Rattle and Hum. Personally, I'll take U2 live or in studio. :bananajam: :clap:
ndanger666 wrote:
Probably the over-rated band currently working today. Crappy vocals, banal lyrics, the same, tired old arrangements, tepid musicianship. Frankly, I I'd rather get poked by a sharp stick than listen to this dreck!
That's your opinion, and I don't place much credence in it.
Normally I love U2. But this almost makes me want to listen to U2-wannabes Keane instead.
Probably the over-rated band currently working today. Crappy vocals, banal lyrics, the same, tired old arrangements, tepid musicianship. Frankly, I I'd rather get poked by a sharp stick than listen to this dreck!
yawn! they don't sound very interested in what they're doing. also, it sounds like it was recorded on a cellphone -
damn, this sounds generic. At this point, The D.C. band The Walkmen do a better job of sounding like U2. Even Better Than The Real Thing, as they say...
Dull and plodding. Screamingly average
i'm not a u2 fan but boy did that song hit home right now. i think any woman especially can relate. outstanding.
savoyard wrote:
They released Under a Blood Red Sky in 1984 and that's about it. This was on a B-Side and any other live stuff had been on DVDs and b-sides. So they have one official live album in 30 years.....
what about rattle & hum? hmmmmmmmm? i guess it just seems like they have a lot more live recordings because i hear them all on RP.
optimusprime10 wrote:
i swear these dudez release more live tracks than anyone. have they ever recorded an entire album in the studio? ha!
They released Under a Blood Red Sky in 1984 and that's about it. This was on a B-Side and any other live stuff had been on DVDs and b-sides. So they have one official live album in 30 years.....
"Live from Rotterdam". So, every time Bill wants to play this song on RP, U2 has to fly to Rotterdam and perform this song live? :cheesygrin:
Wow. I've never heard this song! Goes to show how much of a "living in a box" experience commercial radio is... :bananajam: