"Window in the Sky", a U2 montage of 137 video clips

January 29, 2007 2:20 PM

"Window in the Sky" is a YouTube style video synch mash-up done on a professional budget with the magic of copyright clearances. "It's a triumph of postmodern reconstruction" says the Washington Post.
posted by stbalbach (160 comments total)

How can I be smiling & have a frog in my throat at the same time? Teary eyed I am.
posted by dash_slot- at 2:28 PM on January 29, 2007

Wot, no Robbie?
posted by dash_slot- at 2:29 PM on January 29, 2007

Heh

It's a pity the song is so bad.
posted by jouke at 2:31 PM on January 29, 2007

Hmm...I actually find the use of 'lip-synching' distracting. Had they just used some great footage without trying to match up performances, I probably would've liked it more. After all, it's not about the technical 'wowee' factor, right? Ultimately, U2 is sending a different message...
posted by NationalKato at 2:32 PM on January 29, 2007

Whose feet are tapping - one in a Zoot suit, one wearing Adidas?
posted by dash_slot- at 2:35 PM on January 29, 2007

OK, where is Whitesnake?

I liked the synching.

Still the greatest band that has never sold out.
posted by wfc123 at 2:37 PM on January 29, 2007

I hated that, really.

U2 are such a bunch of fucking hypocrites it makes me sick. They allow Island Records to sue the shit out of artists and labels who do work they don't like and then go and make shit like this. "Copyright clearances"? What about the artists who do not like U2 and their music who have no say in whether their images and spirit can be used to shill music for these shit heels?
posted by dobbs at 2:44 PM on January 29, 2007 [3 favorites]

"It's a triumph of postmodern reconstruction"

hyperbole much? I can't help but thinking that more than a few of the artists shown wouldn't want to be seen in this video.
posted by doctor_negative at 2:44 PM on January 29, 2007

What dobbs said. That was probably the grossest thing I've ever seen.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 2:46 PM on January 29, 2007

I agree with jouke -- that could have been monumental if the song had been a barnburner. As it was, i mostly just wanted to listen to the people in the video instead.
posted by Bookhouse at 2:46 PM on January 29, 2007

Your favorite 141 artists suck.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:51 PM on January 29, 2007

It's hilarious what a group of haters this place is on any given day.
posted by jonson at 2:52 PM on January 29, 2007 [5 favorites]

Meh...getting your samples cleared is so 90s.
posted by mullingitover at 2:53 PM on January 29, 2007

There's something massively distasteful about it, especially when you see all the dead folk in it promoting U2 from beyind the grave.

The clips of Keith Moon and John Bonham were exhilirating though.
posted by fire&wings at 2:54 PM on January 29, 2007

U2, Brute?
posted by cortex at 2:54 PM on January 29, 2007 [13 favorites]

"if you are or have read this comment then you are cursed for life. You will have a terrible life and never get married (if you are already married you will get divorced). Only way to undo this curse is if you comment 5 videos with this exact message"
posted by xod at 2:54 PM on January 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'm with doctor_negative... clearing copyrights through the artists' record companies only highlights what pawns they have become in order to get fame. With or without their consent, they're singing along.
posted by anthill at 2:55 PM on January 29, 2007

It's a loving kind of hate, really.
posted by Skorgu at 2:55 PM on January 29, 2007

jonson writes "It's hilarious what a group of haters this place is on any given day."

Metafilter gives us an opportunity to hate on a diverse array of mark-ass marks, trick-ass marks, punk bitches and skip skap skanks and skallywags, hoes, heifers, hee-has and hooly-hoos.
posted by mullingitover at 2:58 PM on January 29, 2007 [10 favorites]

If this had been put together by some annonymous music fan, it would have been a true labour of love and I would have enjoyed it. Released as a U2 video, though, it come across as an attempt by a fading band to leech off the vitality of other artists. The fact that a fair number of them are dead makes it even worse. No-one enjoyed this sort of thing, or thought it was cool or poignant, when Diet Coke put Humphrey Bogart, Louis Armstrong and James Cagney in a commercial with Elton John. What's the difference here?

/ not a U2-hata, actually enjoys a fair bit of their music
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:58 PM on January 29, 2007

Whoa, is this the same U2???
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 2:59 PM on January 29, 2007

The fact that a fair number of them are dead makes it even worse. No-one enjoyed this sort of thing, or thought it was cool or poignant, when Diet Coke put Humphrey Bogart, Louis Armstrong and James Cagney in a commercial with Elton John.

Well, I've always enjoyed, at least on a technical level, that sort of thing. It's a neat trick. Cool or poignant, not so much, but there is a certain ghastly wonder to it.
posted by cortex at 3:02 PM on January 29, 2007

What? They left out Animatronic Orville? He's dead too, you know.
posted by ninjew at 3:02 PM on January 29, 2007

what pawns they have become in order to get fame.
Most of 'em are dead. And dead famous too. I guess I'm in the minority here. I suspect the sentiment in the lyric would be well supporteb Jimi, Keith, George and Louis.

And Mick, Elton and Macca no doubt expressed themselves in favour too.

O can't you see what love has done?

None so blind...
posted by dash_slot- at 3:02 PM on January 29, 2007

Postmodern?
posted by delmoi at 3:03 PM on January 29, 2007

teh lame.
posted by papakwanz at 3:05 PM on January 29, 2007

i saw this a week ago on Vh1 at around 2am and I loved it. Makes me wish MTV and VH1 actually played videos again. I rarely see new videos ever that capture my attention.
posted by PreteFunkEra at 3:08 PM on January 29, 2007

Why do I feel like 90 percent of the clips used, had we heard the original soundtrack, would have been vastly more exciting than this tepid outing from U2?
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:09 PM on January 29, 2007

So, yeah, it's weird... U2, arguably the most popular band on the planet, has now decided that the only way to get even more popular is to make a video and highlight pretty much every other hugely popular musician (EVAR) and make like they're singing along to a mediocre U2 song. Is U2 paying tribute to them or has Bono's ego finally gotten so huge that he goes out and gets Meg White and Jay-Z (who actually don't like U2 at all I would guess) to pay tribute to him without their involvement and then cuts them a cheque for their "troubles"?

This video indicates that some musicians love some other musicians, but I'm not really clear on who loves whom, except that Bono definitely loves himself and, on occasion, poor African children.

Also, they played a clip of an atomic bomb exploding BACKWARDZ! OMG! Woah - my mind of even more melted than the face of a Hiroshima baby! (Am I supposed to watch this while not stoned? Because my mind wasn't actually melted at all.)
posted by GuyZero at 3:11 PM on January 29, 2007

I liked the song, and I liked, er, enjoyed the video. Of course, it's cheesy, schmaltzy and so on. And Bono's ongoing confusion between spirituality and marketing is very irritating.

Still, a good song and an decent, interesting video. I bet it probably took about ten times as much effort to secure the rights as it did to cut the video, unless they did rights first then editing.
posted by delmoi at 3:12 PM on January 29, 2007

ah, Sublime. Enjoyed that blissfully, every visual mosaic piece of it. The music reminded me a bit of All You Need Is Love, perhaps that was intentional? Lyrics. A little more about Gary Koepke, the video's director.
posted by nickyskye at 3:13 PM on January 29, 2007

Ambrosia Voyeur:
"An embarrassed Edge reported that U2 were bothered by the sledgehammer legal approach Island Records took in their lawsuit, and furthermore that much of the legal wrangling took place without U2's knowledge: "by the time we (U2) realized what was going on it was kinda too late, and we actually did approach the record company on your (Negativland's) behalf and said, 'Look, c'mon, this is just, this is very heavy...'""

So, hypocrisy, not so much.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:13 PM on January 29, 2007 [2 favorites]

Also, they played a clip of an atomic bomb exploding BACKWARDZ! OMG! Woah - my mind of even more melted than the face of a Hiroshima baby! (Am I supposed to watch this while not stoned? Because my mind wasn't actually melted at all.)
posted by GuyZero at 11:11 PM

Er, right.

No, wait. What?
posted by dash_slot- at 3:16 PM on January 29, 2007

Lukewarm dishwater "this must be U2" type song that sounds like all their other sappy sentimental weak-ass stuff they've put out in the last few years. But hey, they threw a bunch of money at their lack of creativity and bought a cool-ass video!


Better: Window in the Sky
posted by rxrfrx at 3:18 PM on January 29, 2007

Thanks!! I caught the last part of this on vh1 the other night but didn't get any info on it. Was actually gonna post a question to askmefi to figure out what it was.
posted by vronsky at 3:19 PM on January 29, 2007

Oh man... this is a nice post and everything, but I was really hoping it was a different Window in the Sky video.

Damn!
posted by squidfartz at 3:20 PM on January 29, 2007

window in the sky keeps on turning...
posted by macmac at 3:20 PM on January 29, 2007

dash_slot, that's a load of bull. Check out Sonic Outlaws or Fair Use for Negativland's further troubles with U2's legal team after that phone call.

Hypocrisy? Well it's not a 1:1 use of found works, but it's a wee bit embarrassing in it's insensible postmodernity. Especially the use of the atomic explosion, a fraught image in the lexicon of found footage (see A Movie, Atomic Cafe Or Michael Jackson's video for Man in the Mirror if you can find it.)
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 3:21 PM on January 29, 2007 [2 favorites]

U2b
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:22 PM on January 29, 2007

ugh, wish I could go into more depth and control my apostropher...
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 3:23 PM on January 29, 2007

U2, arguably the most popular band on the planet, has now decided that the only way to get even more popular is to make a video and highlight pretty much every other hugely popular musician (EVAR) and make like they're singing along to a mediocre U2 song

Uh, yeah. I'm sure that's why they did it. Good eye.

Metafilter doesn't do politics, Windows or U2 very well.
posted by eyeballkid at 3:24 PM on January 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

Where have I seen this better done before? Oh Yeah...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq7GMJH9qFc
posted by Fupped Duck at 3:28 PM on January 29, 2007

Metafilter doesn't do politics, Windows or U2 parrot my personal tastes very well.
posted by eyeballkid
posted by papakwanz at 3:29 PM on January 29, 2007

So, hypocrisy, not so much.

Except that anyone who followed the case while it was happening or read the book/magazine about it knows that what the Edge cops to when put on the spot during an interview he himself set up is bullshit.

U2 WAS Island records at the time. Barely anyone else on the label sold any records (exception: Tom Waits who himself sued the label when they fucked him over). Simply put: had U2 told Island to drop the lawsuit they would have. The band was the label's bread and butter, literally: the label would have gone out of business in the mid- to late-80s had the band not leant it a shitload of money.

So, hypocrites, yeah.
posted by dobbs at 3:29 PM on January 29, 2007

It would be really cool if someone did something like this but with George W. Bush.
posted by Partial Law at 3:35 PM on January 29, 2007

"No-one enjoyed this sort of thing, or thought it was cool or poignant, when Diet Coke put Humphrey Bogart, Louis Armstrong and James Cagney in a commercial with Elton John."

I enjoyed it when Fred Astaire danced with the vacuum. Why couldn't U2 do that?

Oh, right. Too much suck together in one place.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:36 PM on January 29, 2007 [3 favorites]

dobbs: but their adherence to copyright law and deep pockets make them good guys, don't you see?
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 3:38 PM on January 29, 2007

BLU2?

Sorry to snark. I kinda liked it. Art, y'know?
posted by mmahaffie at 3:41 PM on January 29, 2007

OK: who owns the right to exploit U2 recordings - Island Records, or U2?

"E: The deal that we have is that we sell or we rent the use of the copyrights to somebody else. That's the whole idea of having publishing and record deals. They have the right to exploit our work.

D: But you sign a contract to do that. What if in the next contract it said you're going to allow sampling?

E: OK, maybe in the next contract...

M: But right now what that means, Don, is it means that they not only have the right to exploit it, but that gives them the right to protect it...

E: They would see it in very simple terms as they're just protecting their own property.

D: Yes, I know"

- from the Negativland website.

BTW - not a big fan of U2, didn't like the song before I saw the video. Now - I kinda like it a lot.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:43 PM on January 29, 2007

Uh, yeah. I'm sure that's why they did it. Good eye.

Hay, I like U2 fine, but this video doesn't say that U2 themselves thinks that the music-video-consuming-public wants more U2. To me this video says "Yeah, we're tired of us too. Here's some other musicians. Imagine of they were covering us instead of the other way around. And we would fucking love to have Meg White on drums. No offense Larry. Plus, if we make the edits really, really quick, it looks like they're really singing our song. Fuck. That would be great. That would be really fucking great."

"What?"

"We're out of toilet paper?"

"Just look under the sink - there should be some packs of twenties there. Yeah, they're clean - we always get the uncirculated bills. Seriously. Howie Mandel told us about getting them. I seriously haven't gotten a cold in years since I started using only virgin bills. Have you ever thought what money goes through? It's disgusting."

And yes, my basic thesis is that you can't be rich and have artistic credibility at the same time. Plus I like to ramble incoherently.
posted by GuyZero at 3:48 PM on January 29, 2007

No-one enjoyed this sort of thing, or thought it was cool or poignant, when Diet Coke put Humphrey Bogart, Louis Armstrong and James Cagney in a commercial with Elton John. What's the difference here?

My feelings exactly.
posted by brundlefly at 3:48 PM on January 29, 2007

The recent video for Bob Dylan's "Thunder On The Mountain" did something similar, only with archive footage of Bob throughout. It left me with the same feeling this did: kind of cold. It's an interesting idea, I guess, and if it'd been stitched together by a fan at home using Windows Crappy Movie Maker and uploaded to YouTube, it'd have been neat. As it is, it seems kind of lazy. Plus there's watching all these dead singers lip-synching to a (not that good) U2 song. It's a little like Fred Astaire dancing with a vacuum cleaner.
posted by EarBucket at 3:48 PM on January 29, 2007

the interesting thing about U2 nowadays is that there are a lot of bands that are just limp imitations of their sound. And yet all of the imitations somehow end up sounding better than the original.

People make fun of Coldplay a lot, but they are far more listenable than Modern U2. I like Marjorie fair, too.
posted by drjimmy11 at 3:48 PM on January 29, 2007

I'm with The Card Cheat's first sentence above. A fan managing to pull this off as a tribute to a band he loves would be insanely impressive.

This is outstanding technical wizardry: some of it looked so synched to my lay eyes that they surely either wrote the song to fit existing clips or went back in time to make Elvis sing along.

However, it's utter vanity and arrogance for a band to pretend that the likes of Johnny Cash or Morrissey or Elvis or Jimi would ever sing something of theirs that's so bland and empty.
posted by imperium at 3:48 PM on January 29, 2007

*lonely voice speaks up*

When you get old, you're supposed to stop being cool. Nobody taught U2 that, clearly.

Despite the hate, this was still done pretty damn well.
posted by elvolio at 3:49 PM on January 29, 2007

And we would fucking love to have Meg White on drums.

How is Meg White even remotely intresting as a drummer?
posted by delmoi at 3:51 PM on January 29, 2007

ninjew: "What? They left out Animatronic Orville? He's dead too, you know."

Who's that fake-ass Orville? Here's the *real* Orville -- whose music is extremely reminiscent of that of U2, IMO.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:53 PM on January 29, 2007

How is Meg White even remotely interesting as a drummer?

She just seems like the absolute antithesis of Larry Mullen, perhaps including the fact that he may talented where she isn't. My quest to be taken seriously has apparently worked too well and at the wrong time. You should be at least chucking here. Sheesh.
posted by GuyZero at 3:55 PM on January 29, 2007

delmoi: seriously. I'd rather have Meg Griffin on drums.
posted by papakwanz at 3:55 PM on January 29, 2007

"How is Meg White even remotely intresting as a drummer?"

Tits?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:56 PM on January 29, 2007

She's not even the best drummer in the White Stripes...
/Lennon, paraphrased
posted by dash_slot- at 3:57 PM on January 29, 2007

we would fucking love to have Meg White on drums

Somewhere, every drummer ever is laughing.
posted by drjimmy11 at 4:00 PM on January 29, 2007

(sorry, I didnt refresh and didnt realize 9 people had made similar comments already)
posted by drjimmy11 at 4:01 PM on January 29, 2007

I guess they're not "indie" - so they must "suck".
posted by wfc123 at 4:05 PM on January 29, 2007

Where have I seen this better done before? Oh Yeah...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq7GMJH9qFc
posted by Fupped Duck

Much more watchable than the vid linked in the post. I never noticed Mr. Ginsberg's stare before.
posted by Burhanistan at 4:08 PM on January 29, 2007

What a nothing of a song. Gad.
posted by wemayfreeze at 4:16 PM on January 29, 2007

As a clip on mute of clips of past singers, I think it is neat. And I can appreciate the concept of cutting them so they are singing something different then what they did.

Unfortunately, U2's song was bunk. Plus, they did the typical habit of putting all this other crap in the video other than the old artist images. Swirling lights and atom bombs blowing up and random poor African kids. What is all that about? It didn't make any sense. (Maybe it fit into the theme of the song, but I couldn't tell because it was mind-numbingly repetitive and bad that I didn't grasp a theme).

So yeah. A+ for concept. D for execution.
posted by dios at 4:16 PM on January 29, 2007

Really wish someone woulda posted that video in my Ask thread a few weeks ago!! Glad I caught it here!
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 4:17 PM on January 29, 2007

I liked a few songs from the last album, although none of them "stuck" like the older stuff. Thus far neither this video nor the song are too interesting to me.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 4:19 PM on January 29, 2007

I don't get it, there wasn't an iPod in that Apple commercial.
posted by fidgets at 4:19 PM on January 29, 2007

I'm glad that rock god Bono has lent some of his wealth and media-persona-recognizability-factor to the humanitarian issues of the day (hunger in Africa, etc.). This is a good thing, and I think in that sense he's made a good showing of his superstardom. But good GOD, what sort of grotesquely bloated ego would have his own words and his own singing voice being lip-synched by Louis Armstrong, Johnny Cash and so many other GIANTS and GENIUSES of music and not see the appalling tastelessness of it?

I guess we have to take him at his word when he sings, in this very song : "I have no shame".
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:29 PM on January 29, 2007 [2 favorites]

Bono wept.
posted by hal9k at 4:30 PM on January 29, 2007 [2 favorites]

Sing, Forrest, sing!
posted by googly at 4:33 PM on January 29, 2007

Check out Sonic Outlaws or Fair Use for Negativland's further troubles with U2's legal team after that phone call.

Seconded. Check out Sonic Outlaws to learn about how EBN had to cope with U2 cribbing their work without attribution, which is ironic given U2's lawsuits against Negativland.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:36 PM on January 29, 2007

Excellent. Really excellent.

Talk about a band with staying power. I think the best of U2 is yet to come. Who'd of thought that in 1982?
posted by tkchrist at 4:36 PM on January 29, 2007

"People make fun of Coldplay a lot, but they are far more listenable than Modern U2."

Hilarious.

Coldplay have just hired Brian Eno to produce their new album. I guess they really do want to be U2.
posted by prolific at 4:37 PM on January 29, 2007

HEY GUYS MEG WHITE IS BAD AT DRUMMING
posted by cortex at 4:38 PM on January 29, 2007

"and random poor African kids"


that clip was from When We Were Kings, documentary about Ali vs. Foreman.

The kids were accompanying Ali on his morning run.
posted by vronsky at 4:41 PM on January 29, 2007

Pop culture recycle yourself!
posted by homodigitalis at 4:41 PM on January 29, 2007

This was directed by a marketing exec. End of story. I have yet to meet a marketing exec who has a message beyond "buy this shit". I'm pretty sure the band probably saw the video, said "meh, alright, where's our check" and that's about it as far as they are concerned. What's sad is that some people are going to think this style of video work is "new".

It's nice and all, and the thought behind getting all the clips licensed is "good, ethical, business sense" for, you know, the creative types with tons of money. But, you know, us poor people have been doing this for a while and doing it much better. For reals, yo.

This was rather bad, and the "lipsyncing" was fucking annoying and interupted the flow way too much. First off, it would have been fine had it been all chop stutter editting, but the few times where they had to force the movement just sucked. Then there were the "not quite" lip movements, where you know they were saying a compltetly different phrase/word/lyric/cough and they were 'sort of' enough like when they form the actual lyric that they ended up with an inconsistent half-word blip (one person 'singing' the middle part of a word, which, really, just kind of hurts, especially when they aren't even actually singing anything, but moving their mouths to form a new word in their original video).

And the 'reverse nuclear explosion turning into a sunrise' thing? Please feel free to FUCK OFF AND DIE BOOMER SCUM!
posted by daq at 4:41 PM on January 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

I have no opinion on the video, as I haven't seen it yet. Don't much care for the song. But ya'll are cracking me up with your over-analysis about how this reflects on the band creatively, and what it says about them, their egos, etc. It doesn't. U2 did not come up with this idea, nor did they make the video. The only thing this says about them is that they have powerful industry contacts, enough money to produce any video they want, and enough business-savvy to recognize a buzz-worthy project when it's pitched to them. About which they were obviously correct, 'cause here we are buzzing. Huzzah. Also, while I'm at it: John Hodgman is not actually a PC.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:47 PM on January 29, 2007

I respect U2... but flippant use of powerful images with no meaning whatsoever. I mean a nuke becomes a happy sun? Not exactly bloody sunday.
posted by uni verse at 4:54 PM on January 29, 2007

"over-analysis about how this reflects on the band creatively"
"and enough business-savvy to recognize a buzz-worthy project when it's pitched to them."
So much for changing the world, huh?
posted by uni verse at 4:56 PM on January 29, 2007

Also, while I'm at it: John Hodgman is not actually a PC.

You take that back. You fucking take that back right now.
posted by cortex at 4:58 PM on January 29, 2007 [2 favorites]

Yeah - no one changes the world faster than a pure, obscure indie band that no one's ever heard of.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:59 PM on January 29, 2007

Or to respond less flippantly: I spend a lot of time with musicians and other artists, several of them better than any national act I've ever heard. I wish they could trade half of their talent for one tenth of U2's business savvy. Maybe a lot of things would change.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:03 PM on January 29, 2007

Will some adult please buckle daq into his seat or escort him off the plane. I won't take this thing off while he is disturbing the other passengers. Where is eusticsrubb when you need him?
posted by tkchrist at 5:13 PM on January 29, 2007

flippant use of powerful images with no meaning whatsoever

Um. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of music frigg'n video.
posted by tkchrist at 5:15 PM on January 29, 2007

U2 are such a bunch of fucking hypocrites it makes me sick. They allow Island Records to sue the shit out of artists and labels who do work they don't like and then go and make shit like this. "Copyright clearances"? What about the artists who do not like U2 and their music who have no say in whether their images and spirit can be used to shill music for these shit heels?

Heh. I don't feel nearly that strongly about it, but I do love a good eloquent hate-fueled rant. (I never liked U2 and this song is particularly lame, but I long ago gave up feeling outraged about this sort of shilling. It's the 21st century and I'm feeling fine. Well, except for all the fascism.) I also thoroughly enjoyed flapjax's salvo. Any band that can inspire that kind of outrage can't be all bad!

Please feel free to FUCK OFF AND DIE BOOMER SCUM!

Hey, leave us boomers out of it! WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR U2! We are responsible for the Archies and James Taylor, I'll give you that.
posted by languagehat at 5:17 PM on January 29, 2007

U2 SUCKS AM I RITE?!?!?!
posted by aerotive at 5:17 PM on January 29, 2007

Pop will eat itself, part twenty-seven.
posted by jokeefe at 5:20 PM on January 29, 2007

U2.0
posted by blag at 5:20 PM on January 29, 2007

Dammit. It's not the boomers. I admit it. It's me, and people like me. The original Generation X. We're responsible for U2. Yes, it's true. And I refuse to apologize. At least they're not the Rolling Stones animatronic corpse review.
posted by jokeefe at 5:21 PM on January 29, 2007

"Coldplay have just hired Brian Eno to produce their new album. I guess they really do want to be U2."

Nah. Coldplay wants to be Radiohead.

*spies a split second of Thom Yorke in the video*

NooooOOOOOoooo!
posted by Windigo at 5:42 PM on January 29, 2007

Uwho?
posted by furtive at 5:46 PM on January 29, 2007

Needs more Cowsills.
posted by SPrintF at 5:56 PM on January 29, 2007 [2 favorites]

1. I dig the video, and the song. I remember when U2 covered/collaborated with a lot of American musicians for Rattle and Hum, and the critical reaction was similar -- How dare they? Do they thin they're as good as Hendrix and Dylan? Etc. But anyone who was paying attention could see that it was the move of people who had, up to that point, ignored rock and roll history and were falling in love with it. U2 were becoming fans of rock and roll and paying homage to their betters.

2. The video seems to me to be similar -- the song is about the redemptive power of love, and the video seems to be about the power of music and the community of musicians that have influenced U2. It strikes me as a love letter, or as a eucharist -- the communion of musical saints. U2 appear in the video only as audience members suggesting, again, that this is not about how great they are, but about what fans of music they are. The fact that so many famous people are singing their song says to me that they're grateful to the source of their music, that they understand it is greater than they are, and that they're blessed to be connected to such a rish history.

3. I don't quite follow how U2's suit against Negativeland counts as "hipocrisy." To my knowledge, U2 have never said that they were champions of all indie bands or that they were opposed to enforcement of copyright laws.
It doesn't help that Negativeland knew exactly what they were doing to being with, and expected to be sued. They just didn't expect ot be sued so thoroughly. A standard part of any artist's record contract is a clause granting the label exclsive rights to use the band's name and image to promoted the band's recordings. Negativeland would have had such a clause in their contract, and unless they slept though looking it over, they'd have to have expected any conscientious label to sue to protect that. The song they released is half-baked and not very listenable, and so it's not hard to imagine that they cooked the whole thing up to generate publicity, only it ended up backfiring on them.

4.If you don't enjoy U2, I reccomend that you don't listen to them.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:03 PM on January 29, 2007 [3 favorites]

Also: I find it interesting that many people have decided that so-and-so (Jay-Z or Meg White) dont' like U2, without any evidence for these claims.

It startles me that people get so worked up over a rock band. I think theey're good and find their music inspiring and thought-provoking. I know people who don't like them. I fail to comprehend why it has to be any more complixcated than that, except that the media enjoys parading the "Bono thinks he's a saint" canard every time the man makes a move, even though the barest familiarity with Bono reveals that not only does he not think he's a saint, he knows he can be ridiculous, and doesn't understand why people have bestowed sainthood on him.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:12 PM on January 29, 2007

Allow me to self-link a spec video I made that does something very similar with old sex education videos, but it will never see the light of day:

youtube (sfw)
quicktime (nsfw)

They liked it at antville, and those guys hate everything. So maybe you will too.
posted by fungible at 6:21 PM on January 29, 2007 [3 favorites]

I liked the video a lot (hey, I get lumps in my throat easily, what can I say), but it really is hypocritical of U2 to make this kind of turnaround after what they did to Negativland et al. There's really no denying that.
posted by mediareport at 6:38 PM on January 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

At least they're not the Rolling Stones animatronic corpse review.

Yet.
posted by Bookhouse at 7:12 PM on January 29, 2007

so, to extend the discussion to a more general question: at what point does someone's personality and/or background influence your view of their music?

(otherwise know as the "what-if-hitler-was-really-good-at-singing" dilemma)
posted by concreteforest at 7:26 PM on January 29, 2007

Also: I find it interesting that many people have decided that so-and-so (Jay-Z or Meg White) dont' like U2, without any evidence for these claims.

You can hardly say this is without any evidence. I mean, we do have an audio and video catalogue of nearly 30 years of U2 sucking. That'll be exhibit A.
posted by hutta at 7:26 PM on January 29, 2007

Also: I find it interesting that many people have decided that so-and-so (Jay-Z or Meg White) dont' like U2, without any evidence for these claims.

I checked - it was just me who said that. And I made it up.
posted by GuyZero at 7:35 PM on January 29, 2007

The recent video for Bob Dylan's "Thunder On The Mountain" did something similar, only with archive footage of Bob throughout.

Never saw that before - and just when I thought they weren't going to, they included a clip from Tight Connection To My Heart (Best Dylan Video Evar!!!!), which totally made my day.

As for the U2 video... it wasn't bad as far as music videos go. Fun, inspiring, and the lovely/bouncy Meg on the skins. Could've used some ghost ridin' the whip, but one can only ask so much...

Certainly not as nauseating as the video for Johnny Cash's cover of God's Gonna Cut You Down, wherein a pack of hacks and fakes fuck the man's corpse for every ounce of soul they can wring out of it.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:40 PM on January 29, 2007

fungible - that was a ton of work - awesome, and thank you.
posted by Peter H at 7:41 PM on January 29, 2007

so, to extend the discussion to a more general question: at what point does someone's personality and/or background influence your view of their music?

my ears like what they like. it might not be quite that simple, but it's close enough. i like a lot of music that comes from people that i do not like.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 7:44 PM on January 29, 2007

Yes, it is truly amazing what you can accomplish when you have hundreds of thousands of dollars to throw at the problem. The guys in their basements impress me more.
posted by localroger at 7:54 PM on January 29, 2007

Oh jeez. Fuck Negativland. 90% of the people who bring that shit up would've never HEARD of Negativland if it weren't for U2 suit.

Anyway form the infamous Mondo 2000 interview/ambush on Edge by Negativlanders Joyce and Hosler (posing as writers for Mondo with Mondo's R.U. Sirius):

"...An embarrassed Edge reported that U2 were bothered by the sledgehammer legal approach Island Records took in their lawsuit, and furthermore that much of the legal wrangling took place without U2's knowledge: "by the time we (U2) realized what was going on it was kinda too late, and we actually did approach the record company on your (Negativland's) behalf and said, 'Look, c'mon, this is just, this is very heavy...'" Island Records reported to Negativland that U2 never authorised samples of their material; Evans response was, "that's complete bollocks, there's like, there's at least six records out there that are direct samples from our stuff."

C'mon. Negativland's other claim to fame? Chumbawumba and the ABC's of Anarchy. Besides THEY ARE OLDER THAN U2! Jesus. Enough already.
posted by tkchrist at 7:57 PM on January 29, 2007

Getting back to the video:

I just about puked full, throat to ass, once Bono started singing with Louis Armstrong as his mouthpiece. That's about as far as I got - aaaand I think I got all I needed.
posted by Peter H at 8:01 PM on January 29, 2007

Meaning Bono's a dipshit and full love to Satch, natch.
posted by Peter H at 8:03 PM on January 29, 2007

FUCK YOU TOO.
posted by loquacious at 8:08 PM on January 29, 2007

Hmm, this really does pave the way for an avalanche of recycled (re)media. Won't be long before some mash-up remixer maps Ol' Blue Eyes selling mocha vente lattes in a Starbucks commercial, or Elvis having sex with Jackie O in the back seat of JFK's final Dallas ride.
posted by angrycandy at 8:10 PM on January 29, 2007

Your favorite opinion sucks.
posted by bob sarabia at 8:24 PM on January 29, 2007

Negativland rules. U2 droolz.

Seriously, I watched the video up to the point where Louis Armstrong comes in. No thanks. And I even enjoyed that Fred Astaire commercial.

I like U2. I like Bono. One of the first songs I ever covered was "I Will Follow." I admit I stopped cared or listening much after Joshua Tree. There were a few good pop songs on that album, but nothing much interesting after that. I sorta hated Rattle & Hum, too, which I think is by far their worst album.

Some saw Rattle & Hum as an appreciation of and tribute to "classic" artists. I thought it was a carefully crafted marketing scheme that sounded like wankery. This also seems like the latter.
posted by mrgrimm at 8:29 PM on January 29, 2007

90% of the people who bring that shit up would've never HEARD of Negativland if it weren't for U2 suit.

Well, I'm pretty sure that's bullshit in this thread, anyway. And read the thread; we've already talked about that Edge quote, oh great avenger.
posted by mediareport at 8:30 PM on January 29, 2007

oh great avenger

Don't make me come over there!
posted by tkchrist at 8:32 PM on January 29, 2007

90% of the people who bring that shit up would've never HEARD of Negativland if it weren't for U2 suit.

Meaning you hadn't. ;)
posted by dobbs at 8:38 PM on January 29, 2007

Damn, the mash-up sold out.
posted by dhartung at 8:43 PM on January 29, 2007

Don't make me come over there!

*thumbs nose, runs away*
posted by mediareport at 8:44 PM on January 29, 2007

Meaning you hadn't.

Yes. That's right. I hadn't. At least I'm honest about it.

As of 1993 I had little idea who Negativland was. As college radio DJ in the 1980's I heard the name bandied about. But when I actually HEARD them I thought "So what."

And most people here didn't either and you know it. Am I making a bold assumption? Yes I am. So sue me. We'll never know because nobody in these taste debates will be honest about it at this point.

The whole controversy of the law suit is a dumb reason not to like this video. Ok. It's old news.

You don't need a reason to not like U2 or this video. Not liking Bonos haircut is as good reason as any.

But essentially saying: "Man what U2 did to Negativland in 1993 informs all my judgments on their music and art." is pretty hard to defend in perpetuity.
posted by tkchrist at 8:48 PM on January 29, 2007

If you watch until the end of the video, you see a series of shots of wild audiences. U2 appear in these shots as fans. I'm fairly certain that this is what they were going for.
posted by ColdChef at 9:00 PM on January 29, 2007

90% of the people who bring that shit up would've never HEARD of Negativland if it weren't for U2 suit.

That's such sheer and utter bullshit. "Bah, you would have never gotten laid if I hadn't raped you!". *vomits*

A lot of people might have heard about it earlier because of the suit but I like Negativland because I actually like their music, and would enjoy it regardless of the "U2 incident", and would have discovered it as a path of natural progression.

Negativland was very astute in self-promotion, too, between the mashups and the fake publicity stunts, we would have heard of them.

But essentially saying: "Man what U2 did to Negativland in 1993 informs all my judgments on their music and art." is pretty hard to defend in perpetuity.

No, it's a lot more than that. A lot more.

It's not just the U2/negativland lawsuit - which would be bad enough in itself. It's that U2/Edge/Bono talk a bunch of big talk about being innovators and originators, when they rip off every fucking thing they do.

Every big idea they've had is fucking stolen.

That, in itself, would be ok. It's what art does.

But not when they so arrogantly and hubristically claim to be such amazing innovators and originators, such squeeky clean monuments to rock perfection all while engaging in such blatant cultural thievery and buggery.

It's that they have the sheer, unbridled, egoistic motherfucking hubris to record a video like this inutterably hideous piece of offensive shit.

Goddamnit, how many bodies are spinning like fucking tops in their graves!?

It's also that their music sucks. Bland, tasteless Big Arena Rock for the safe consumption of the masses. So edgy, so alternative, so fucking boring and done and gone and these guys are from England and who gives a shit!?

Fuck U2. I think I'm gonna be fucking sick all over the floor.
posted by loquacious at 9:19 PM on January 29, 2007 [1 favorite]

Bono kissed me once. He was very short and wore a big hat.

Too bad the little midget sold out, he was such a good Christian boy...
posted by miss lynnster at 9:44 PM on January 29, 2007

The part with Vladimir Horowitz's "Horowitz in Moscow" video made me smile. Great pianist, great man, great smile.
posted by aliasless at 9:49 PM on January 29, 2007

This was directed by a marketing exec. End of story. I have yet to meet a marketing exec who has a message beyond "buy this shit". I'm pretty sure the band probably saw the video, said "meh, alright, where's our check" and that's about it as far as they are concerned.

I suspect you're right. Bummer, that.

I used to really like U2, which, by the time Joshua Tree took over the world (but which I still enjoy, for nostalgia's sake if nothing else), had some very negative impact on my so-important-to-a-young-man street cred. I never gave a shit, though: I always liked what I liked, and some of it was all locust abortion technician and some of it made your ears bleed and some of it my non-rocking mom liked, too.

That said, they haven't made any music that I cared for much in the last several years. It's too bad, really, because I always felt that since they were a couple of years older than me, and since Bono, once upon a long time ago, actually wrote lyrics that weren't doggerel that a self-respecting high-school girl would be embarrassed about, that by the time an album came out, at least some of it was chronicalling the things I was going through in my life at the time. I liked that, and I liked their easily-mockable sincerity. I still remember sitting drenched in sunlight on a rock on an isolated promontory on one of the Greek islands with my Walkman, bike beside me, looking out over the sea and listening to Boy. Flow happening.

Nothing they've done has made me feel remotely like that for probably a decade. Since then I've found literally hundreds of new bands to invest myself in emotionally, of course, but I still resent U2 a little for going off in directions that I thought were trivial and a little lame, and where I didn't care to follow.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:07 PM on January 29, 2007

Normally I 99% agree with whatever tkchrist says, but i'm sorry, many of us had heard of Negativland LONG before the U2 scandal.
That said, here's another holla out to the tremendous sanctimonious hypocrisy of this video, and a huge thumbs up to Negativland.
posted by eparchos at 10:17 PM on January 29, 2007

I feel like someone took a shit on my open eyeballs and then pissed in my ears.
posted by Falconetti at 10:37 PM on January 29, 2007

Save your emotional investment for your own situation. Leave the pop alone.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:58 PM on January 29, 2007

Bland, tasteless Big Arena Rock for the safe consumption of the masses. So edgy, so alternative, so fucking boring and done and gone and these guys are from England and who gives a shit!?

I think they are from Ireland. But let's not quibble.

Locuacious. You got some rape and vomit in your hyperbole. Here take a little of this Pretentious-B-Gone. It'll wash that stuff right out. Make sure to use a sheet of Over-The-Top-Out in the dryer. OR I WILL RAPE YOUR VOMIT!

U2. I think they are the best band in the world. No. IN THE UNIVERSE! IN THE GIGAVERSE!!!! Thier superiority is PAN-DIMENSIONAL!

If there was a contest between whatever favorite indie Non-Sellout-Because-They-Are-So-Original-Rape-And-Vomit-Band loquacious could pit against them?

U2 would wear their skin and have breakfast out of their skulls! BONOOOOO! WOOOOOO!

Normally I 99% agree with whatever tkchrist says

eparchos. Don't think I haven't noticed that 1%, Mister! I'm seriously considering asking for the TKCHRIST Fan Beanie back. I will give you one more chance. Just say "Negativland is for art-fag suckers". SAY IT.

That's better. You're back in.

I feel like someone took a shit on my open eyeballs and then pissed in my ears.

Ok. Now THAT is how to hate on a band! I salute you sir.
posted by tkchrist at 10:58 PM on January 29, 2007

Really? Over that? Christ, what a bunch of goddamned sissies y'all are. And yeah, disclosure: I thought the song was OK. Will I ever seek it out? Not likely. But it'll be in the ether enough for me to hear it all I want to.
Shitting in your eyes and pissing in your ears? It's not Merzbow.

As for the article? Yeah, that was crap. "It's a triumph of postmodern reconstruction"? Nah, more like a triumph of Baudrillard's hyperreal similacrum. The idea was breifly neat and editingly (it's a word!) impressive, but there was no real reason. It was cred-mongering emptiness.

However, if that was the best or worst thing ever for you, you really need to get out more.
posted by klangklangston at 11:02 PM on January 29, 2007

Nothing they've done has made me feel remotely like that for probably a decade.

Well. Duh, You're a decade older.

Personally I like them more than I did in 1982. But it is a different kind of like. Nothing will make me feel like I did in 1982. Other than a night with a topless Kaysha Acston, some Deca-Durabolin, shrooms and a mullet.

I used to hate U2 because I guess they sued some indie band or something and they got successful... that's wasn't cool in 1993. But then so did I. Get successful I mean. So now I like them.
posted by tkchrist at 11:04 PM on January 29, 2007

Negativland is for art-fag suckers

Well.... I'd ACTUALLY say something more along the lines of "Thoughtfully rebellious, yet remarkably complacent suckers." but whatever gets me the fanny-pack!
posted by eparchos at 11:14 PM on January 29, 2007

Well.... I'd ACTUALLY say something more along the lines of "Thoughtfully rebellious, yet remarkably complacent suckers." but whatever gets me the fanny-pack!

The fanny-pack AND... wait for it... the TKCHRIST silk-screened (with the picture of me in my Thai Boxing shorts) thermos that plays Back-In-Black when you pour tomato soup into the cup!

Who do you love?
Me. It's me you love, isn't it?

Aw. I couldn't stay mad at you guys. Now c'mere and let TK give you a love noogie.
posted by tkchrist at 11:22 PM on January 29, 2007

*squick*

Awesome. I might have offended someone with my little raving. I win teh internets.
posted by daq at 11:37 PM on January 29, 2007

i cant wait for the negativeland remix
posted by atom128 at 1:08 AM on January 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

and these guys are from England and who gives a shit!?

tkchrist responds: I think they are from Ireland. But let's not quibble.

The "England" quote is from DJ Casey Kasem (or however you spell it) who was recorded saying exactly that, off the air, in a hilarious pirate recording widely circulated for years now. He was talking about U2, when they were a brand new band, and he was slated to play one of their songs on the air. Now you know.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 1:42 AM on January 30, 2007

Bono, Who Preaches Charity, Profits From Buyouts, Tax Breaks.
posted by Ljubljana at 3:31 AM on January 30, 2007

And the Casey Kasem clip was the central theme of the Negativland Song that got their pants sued off by Island.
posted by blasdelf at 3:52 AM on January 30, 2007

I hated U2 way before it was cool to hate U2. I hated their first album.
posted by Cookiebastard at 5:10 AM on January 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Negativland sued me for being more negative than they are.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:09 AM on January 30, 2007

Negativland raped my rock.
posted by cortex at 9:13 AM on January 30, 2007

Negativland is for art-fag suckers

Well.... I'd ACTUALLY say something more along the lines of "Thoughtfully rebellious, yet remarkably complacent suckers." but whatever gets me the fanny-pack!

I'm getting Negativland's culture jamming gospel disseminated at the university level (though not today), which is more than U2 can say, Gap happy commercialistas they are.

So, for the record, I'm an art-faghag sucker, or an art-bitch sucker perhaps, but sucker must be used herein in a literal, sex-positive sense, and I'm not complacent. And I heard of Negativland though a friend. Who was well rewarded. And also pfffffft!

I really liked reading a proper U2/Negativland flamewar, guys, thanks. *puts DisPepsi on for the brajillionth time*
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 10:23 AM on January 30, 2007

Elvis having sex with Jackie O in the back seat of JFK's final Dallas ride

I, for one, would pay good, albeit Canadian, money to see that.

But you know it is kind of amusing to see people getting all wound up about how a band doesn't do it for them the way they used to. You know, it's not the band: it's the listener. (No disrespect to Stavros implied; I've been thinking about this a lot lately. It's one of those things that happens when youth changes into something else.)

Nothing will make me feel like I did in 1982. Other than a night with a topless Kaysha Acston, some Deca-Durabolin, shrooms and a mullet.

Exactly.

And hate on U2 all you like, but I can think of worse bands. At least they've had some content in what they've been doing, unlike the dusty dregs of their past glories (see: the Stones), or endless iterations of their One Big Idea that they've been hauling around stadiums for long past their time (see Red Hot Chili Peppers, Coldplay). And I saw three shows on the ZooTV tour in 1992, and still to this day feel it was a brilliant production. I would challenge anyone here to have been in the Pacific Coliseum on that night in Vancouver in May of '92 and not been moved by the utter rapture in the air. The crowd was singing over the PA, you know?
posted by jokeefe at 10:40 AM on January 30, 2007

Bono, Who Preaches Charity, Profits From Buyouts, Tax Breaks

So... taxes = charity? Look, I think the band moving their business over to another country to avoid an increase in taxes is not cool, but uncoolness != hypocrisy.
posted by eustacescrubb at 1:09 PM on January 30, 2007

"Coldplay have just hired Brian Eno to produce their new album. I guess they really do want to be U2."

Nah. Coldplay wants to be Radiohead.

*spies a split second of Thom Yorke in the video*

NooooOOOOOoooo!

The clips of Bjork, Radiohead, and the Arcade Fire are all taken from performances at Coachella, even, I'm pretty sure, directly from the recent movie documentary. So perhaps the ownership of the clips didn't primarily reside with the artist?
posted by jokeefe at 2:16 PM on January 30, 2007

Did I mention that Bono kissed me? And that he was short? And had a stupid hat?
posted by miss lynnster at 2:27 PM on January 30, 2007

"And had a stupid hat?" And big ass superfly glasses no doubt.
posted by vronsky at 4:00 PM on January 30, 2007

Did I mention that Bono kissed me?

Alright, I'll bite. Was it a peck on the cheek or a full-on grope? Was it during a passing autograph session on the street or in a hotel elevator after a drunken afterparty? Was there a transvestite midget present? All these things are important. Also, please link photos. Fangirls around the world thank you.
posted by jokeefe at 4:36 PM on January 30, 2007

And was Cher around?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:42 PM on January 30, 2007

I hated U2 way before it was cool to hate U2. I hated their first album

Pfft, amateur! I hated U2 before they were even born. Still, oh man, that Bloomberg article ljiubljana posted, it just cracks me up, the idea of Bloomberg tut-tutting U2 for being capitalists...

And yeah, who'd have thought they made a lot of money? and oh they have expensive hotels and business investments all over Dublin (on which presumably it's impossible to avoid paying local taxes), you don't say? you mean they actually want to profit from their earnings instead of giving it all away to the poor children of the world like Bloomberg does, not knowing what else to do with it? I'm crushed.

I'd hate U2 just for being so rich, if I didn't already hate them since they were poor.

(Don't like the video, the attempted lip-synching is very annoying, but the song is not really that bad is it? I like it. yeah ok usual U2 sentimental grandeur, but it's one of those songs you can't help sing along to when they play it on the radio. It's a nice tune, for their style, much better than anything they put out in recent years anyway. Except Beautiful Day. That was a decent tune too. Gosh I'm so out of practice with my U2 hating skills, haven't felt the need to use them since 1996...)
posted by pleeker at 1:42 AM on January 31, 2007

Bono kissed me once. He was very short and wore a big hat.

How tall is Bono?

He's not.

In previous versions of the FAQS, their heights were listed as: Bono 5'-8, Edge 5'-10, Adam 5'-10, and Larry 5'-7. These were supplied years ago by someone associated with the U2 World Service, making them the closest thing to "official" we have. But each height listed is generally considered to be a couple inches too tall by fans who have stood next to a band member. Bono's friend Gavin Friday has let it slip that Bono is 5'-6-and-a-half. [MJS, M2, CB]

Just don't let Bono hear you say that.

STYLIST Lola Cashman has admitted she faces financial ruin if she loses her High Court case against U2. [...]

If it is not about money for Lola Cashman, it certainly is about money for U2 - money, power and control, an admission made by Bono. For him, the whole point of the case was Lola's book on her time with U2 - entitled, Inside the Zoo with U2, a book that contained unofficial band photos and details of how Bono was conscious of his height and weight.

"The book was reprehensible - that is why I am here," he said. "She took advantage of the band for remuneration. I am very annoyed about the book."

posted by pracowity at 5:26 AM on January 31, 2007

Surely the threat of a lawsuit and financial ruin is not going to stop miss lynnster from telling us all about the time Bono kissed her and he was short and he had a big hat? Or is it?

Seriously, miss, don't just tease, go on and tell us all the sordid details...
posted by pleeker at 6:32 AM on January 31, 2007

Seriously, miss, don't just tease, go on and tell us all the sordid details...

pleeker, come on. Miss Lynnster is a lady. She's got class. She ain't gonna kiss and tell.

Wait a minute. She did kiss and tell.

Well, anyway, i don't reckon she's gonna tell any more.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:48 AM on January 31, 2007

well, flapjax, ladylike class is something that does not even enter my universe when it comes to gossip. But I'm sure we're talking innocent gossip here anyway. I bet Bono kissed miss lynnster like he kissed the Pope. Except she probably doesn't have a papal ring to kiss, of course.

But I mean, it must all have been very appropriate and classy indeed. Else she wouldn't have mentioned it, would she?
posted by pleeker at 9:19 AM on January 31, 2007

I bet Bono kissed miss lynnster like he kissed the Pope.

What, in the basement of St. John's, during a Black Mass at a secret convocation of the Illuminati?
posted by cortex at 9:50 AM on January 31, 2007

Bono 5'-8, Edge 5'-10, Adam 5'-10, and Larry 5'-7

Heh. So Bono is all, You might be the good looking one, Larry, but dammit I'm an inch taller than you! At least, in the press releases! Suck that!

Bono's 5'8", at most, when he's in heels. He's just one of many Short Rock Stars, and just as predictably sensitive about it, I suppose.
posted by jokeefe at 10:00 AM on January 31, 2007

It's tragic, really. What he's looking for was always right there next to him, but he could never quite see over the tall guy in front.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:28 AM on January 31, 2007 [1 favorite]

You're a baaaad man, Flo.
posted by cortex at 10:32 AM on January 31, 2007

I bet Bono kissed miss lynnster like he kissed the Pope.

What, in the basement of St. John's, during a Black Mass at a secret convocation of the Illuminati?

Shh, cortex, that's supposed to be in the new sequel to the Da Vinci code, now I'll report this with a callout to Metatalk for LACK OF SPOILER WARNING!

And guess what, in the film that will be made from that still top-secret sequel, of which I found a copy just last week in the toilets of the Clarence Hotel in Dublin, the usual understated Bono will play both himself and the Pope, so he'll be kissing himself, blessing himself and absolving himself of all sins before indulging in the ritual you hinted at...
posted by pleeker at 10:48 AM on January 31, 2007