J ([email protected])
Thu, 13 Aug 1998 04:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
example, a song like 'Bullet...Sky' was alot more >relevant in 1987, it
>meant more in '87, it said something pertaining to that era that
>affected people's interpreations of what was really going on.
That's where you get it totally wrong Rob. Song relevance is not
limited to a certain era but it is the "timelessness" of a song that
defines the song and the artist. If you think that Bullet The Blue
Sky is great only in 1987 then you are being stuck in the album
because songs are improvised and changed live. If youlisten to the
Pomart versions, there are some alternate lyrics and in myopinion,
they blow away the previous versions sonically. And if you thik it was
only relevant in 1987, you are hindering yourself to the literal
interpretation and not the artistic and personal interpretation that
is distinct to every listener.
Case in point, Mothers Of The Disappeared pertained to an incident way
before the Joshua Tree came out so the ideal "time" for it to apply
would be retroactively to that era. But somehow, U2 pulled it off out
of the bag and played in in Santiago, Chile, a very moving and
meaningful performance with the real mothers themselves making it a
performance that easily blows away any Joshua Tree Tour version of
that song in terms of relevance and meaning (I'd rather not argue in
terms of musical instruments and vocal tone because you would be
sticking back to your SF 87 as the best Motehrs performance).
Thus, age matters but it is not age alone that matters. Time is not
in a vacuum. Think about it Rob then maybe you'll understand...
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Thu Aug 13 1998 - 04:13:14 PDT