[ ]      [ ]   [ ]
U2 — Please (Live From Rotterdam)
Log in above to post your comment
unclehud
(now 50 feet above the planet in Boston)
Posted: May 27, 2013 - 12:53
 
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.

Ag3nt0rang3
(Canada)
Posted: May 27, 2013 - 12:43
 
 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.



Webfoot
(Eugene, Oregon)
Posted: Mar 25, 2013 - 16:30
 
 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...

somli
(Orlando)
Posted: Nov 20, 2012 - 05:03
 
I've always liked this live version much more than the album version.

johnjconn
(chicago land)
Posted: Sep 18, 2012 - 07:56
 
Sounds nice
The Edge is an edge most bands don't have

coloradojohn
(A Mile High and then some, Cherry Creek, Denver)
Posted: Aug 17, 2012 - 20:21
 
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!

lemmoth
(NYC)
Posted: Jul 17, 2012 - 09:55
 
 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.

stickvaughn
Posted: Jun 15, 2012 - 19:41
 
Cool how Larry uses the drum beat from Sunday Bloody Sunday in the bridge.

TerryS
(Another SW)
Posted: Jun 15, 2012 - 19:34
 
Take that, Stunix.

Piigs.......Oh, you mean we have to pay some of it back?

That_SOB
(In at least 2 places at once)
Posted: May 15, 2012 - 01:57
 
 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.

stunix
(Narrowboat nr Caen Locks)
Posted: Apr 13, 2012 - 07:34
 
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.  :)

ckcotton
(Adding snarky comments since 2007)
Posted: Apr 13, 2012 - 07:33
 
This is the best version of an AWESOME song.... 

Proclivities
(Carrboro, NC)
Posted: Dec 08, 2011 - 06:57
 
 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.



tgrier
(Austin, Texas)
Posted: Nov 06, 2011 - 14:44
 
This is an awesome Song.  love that bass line.  

Flab
Posted: Sep 04, 2011 - 15:24
 
goooooosebumps

pinnyrat
Posted: Sep 04, 2011 - 15:21
 
SUCH an underappreciated song....

camden_hampden
(Baltimore, MD)
Posted: Aug 23, 2011 - 13:21
 
 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).



StoneyG
(Just east of The Rockies; north of the 49th)
Posted: Jul 03, 2011 - 20:23
 
Woah, interesting how you chose to play this one next.  Very similar tempo and drum beat to Get Together.

aquadonia
(Green Bay, WI)
Posted: Jul 03, 2011 - 20:22
 
<3 <3 <3



mfcrowe
(Chicago,, IL)
Posted: May 01, 2011 - 15:46
 
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.

 



fusionmuze
Posted: May 01, 2011 - 15:45
 
It works.  Not their best, but doesn't suck.  Guitar (like usual) makes the tune.

mfcrowe
(Chicago,, IL)
Posted: May 01, 2011 - 15:42
 
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

glassbuteo
(transition)
Posted: Mar 31, 2011 - 00:21
 
Please No, No please

Galateea
(Lynchburg, VA)
Posted: Feb 27, 2011 - 12:49
 
Yeah, it's not perfect but, it is so colorful, creative and "the real thing'. Just love it 'cause it motivates and feels good.

stalfnzo
(Somewhere... out there)
Posted: Feb 27, 2011 - 12:41
 
Mediocre band, lousy vocals. What's the big deal about U2?

ScottishWillie
(The Scottish Lowlands)
Posted: Jan 27, 2011 - 06:31
 

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



Poacher
(Brighton, UK)
Posted: Jan 27, 2011 - 06:29
 
 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. 


cixelsyd
(Winterpeg)
Posted: Aug 21, 2010 - 20:49
 
 helgigermany wrote:

Very well said!

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


helgigermany
(Germany)
Posted: Jun 19, 2010 - 01:11
 
 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!


pianocomposer
(Springfield)
Posted: May 18, 2010 - 06:13
 
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. 


fredriley
(Nottingham, UK)
Posted: May 18, 2010 - 06:07
 
 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.


cosmiclint
(Vancouver BC)
Posted: May 04, 2010 - 12:16
 
 h8rhater wrote:

Nerd alert.

 
You must be new here.


h8rhater
Posted: Apr 16, 2010 - 11:56
 
 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.


cosmiclint
(Vancouver BC)
Posted: Apr 06, 2010 - 12:59
 
 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.



handyrae
(Zero Point Field)
Posted: Feb 12, 2010 - 07:30
 
 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.


h8rhater
Posted: Feb 12, 2010 - 07:29
 
 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.


camden_hampden
(Baltimore, MD)
Posted: Feb 12, 2010 - 07:28
 
 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.


luty
(BS, Germany)
Posted: Feb 12, 2010 - 07:24
 

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



plaice3
Posted: Jan 11, 2010 - 20:52
 
Whoa, never heard this version.  Intense ...

(confession:  I loved POP)


peter_james_bond
(The Burg)
Posted: Dec 11, 2009 - 12:15
 
 FrankMc wrote:
Just bumped it from an 8 to a 9. That's pretty epic.
 
Me too. The band is smoking on this one.


cosmiclint
(Vancouver BC)
Posted: Dec 11, 2009 - 12:07
 
 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.


lemmoth
(NYC)
Posted: Oct 09, 2009 - 14:11
 
 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.

Octavius
(Brabrand Denmark)
Posted: Oct 09, 2009 - 14:03
 
Im not a big fan really.
But this is great.
Reminded me of Porcupine tree.
Am i only hearing visions?


lemmoth
(NYC)
Posted: Oct 09, 2009 - 14:01
 
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.

lunar1963
(Netherlands)
Posted: Oct 09, 2009 - 14:01
 
 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"

Felix_The_Cat
(Buenos Aires, Argentina)
Posted: Oct 09, 2009 - 13:59
 
Great song, and I still dont like latest things these guys did

lemmoth
(NYC)
Posted: Oct 09, 2009 - 13:57
 
Now this is a great song from a not so great record. POP

Mugro
(Lane Village, Red Sox Nation)
Posted: Oct 09, 2009 - 13:56
 
hey, didn't bono just win the nobel prize? {#Mrgreen}

FrankMc
Posted: Aug 07, 2009 - 12:48
 
Just bumped it from an 8 to a 9. That's pretty epic.

BigTimber
(SW Oregon)
Posted: May 04, 2009 - 09:15
 
check out the south park episode w/ bono.