“It turns out that great song is kind of indestructible.” – The Edge.
We’ll see about that. U2 round out their Songs Of… trilogy by traipsing through their own works and shovelling as much of it onto their upcoming album as possible. Reworking it comes at an interesting point in the careers of Bono, The Edge and friends. Bono has apologised for an iPod controversy that now seems like the distant past. It was. It was 2014. Move on. The next bout of controversy from the Irish rockers is almost here, and it is flagged by Pride (In the Name of Love), a cover of their own track from The Unforgettable Fire. Starting with a track that has definitely stood the test of time, U2 appear to be challenging themselves into pulling new meaning out of tracks that already have it.
No matter, because the real challenge is swallowing this interesting momentum. Regardless of how it sounds, Pride (In the Name of Love) was never going to be better than the original recording. It asks the question of what the point of it all is? U2 become a U2 cover band. Harry Enfield and Paul Whitehouse joked about the asinine developments of the band over a decade ago, but nobody could have seen it coming as true as it has here. An acoustic cover of Pride (In the Name of Love) takes the power out of The Edge’s guitar work. At best, this re-recording can only offer up the magic of what came before it and remind audiences that the original is available. There is no new meaning to Pride (In the Name of Love) that is discovered through an acoustic recording. To think that would happen is foolish.
To be clear, though, U2 have not lost their technical impressions. The guitar work is good, and Bono’s voice is intact, it is the pointlessness of it. Pride (In the Name of Love) fails to put across a real reason or process for re-recording these tracks. Fundamentally flawed as a concept, it can do no more than remind listeners of a better recording elsewhere. It is like when Yonaka covered The Zombies’ She’s Not There. What is the purpose of cover other than tribute? Does an intimate track have to feature an acoustic guitar? Of course not. Pride (In the Name of Love) was just fine without this vain trip down memory lane. Great song is indestructible… in the right hands. Richard Hawley mastered Bob Dylan’s The Ballad of a Thin Man, for instance. But U2 cannot master their own work the second time around, because they already did that on their first go.
Just because Taylor Swift is reclaiming her tracks does not mean other artists need to do the same. U2 have taken a leaf from the book of Red, but has decided that re-recording was not enough. How does one of the best, most broadly accepted bands on earth improve on one of their best tracks? Simple, really, they do not. A “new” U2 song. There is absolutely no reason to listen to this when a perfectly serviceable, brilliant original is out there with the artistic flourishes and meaning of the time. Had there been a real, sound reason to recreate the track, then surely it would have made more sense to expand it, the wording, or better yet, create something new. At least that original is still out there, to contend with this at-best novelty piece.
I disagree, I found the new version intimate and Bono’s new vocal. arrangement at end was great. One for rocking, one for restaurant background music.
Better than the original