Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
✨ STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE WORLD TOUR ✨

So why not the acoustic


nvdmm
 Share

Recommended Posts

so Rihanna isn't the most likable character out of all the other mainstream female artists (shes not as bad as nicki minaj or lady gross, but obviously still not up there with Florence Welch and Adele in terms of class and voice), but anyway i don't mind her voice.

But still the band's collaboration with her was totally wrong yet it happened anyway so my question is this: the acoustic is a much better song overall in every aspect so why not have that on the album instead of the trash that ended up on MX?!! better chart performance? more appealing to the youth? flows better in the album?

what do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so Rihanna isn't the most likable character out of all the other mainstream female artists (shes not as bad as nicki minaj or lady gross, but obviously still not up there with Florence Welch and Adele in terms of class and voice), but anyway i don't mind her voice.

But still the band's collaboration with her was totally wrong yet it happened anyway so my question is this: the acoustic is a much better song overall in every aspect so why not have that on the album instead of the trash that ended up on MX?!! better chart performance? more appealing to the youth? flows better in the album?

what do you think?

I do kinda prefer the acoustic version, although I enjoy the album version very much, but my guess is that they didn't want many slow or acoustic songs on MX, the fewer the better (not that I think the fewer the better, but my guess is that it was their approach). UATW, UFO and the first part of UWTB were probably enough for them. Also, as they were going to release it as a single, it was going to be performed live, and they really aimed for an energetic, bombastic, dynamic show, so, there again, the fewer slow or acoustic songs, the better. The album version would "strike" more in a big arena than the acoustic version. That's my guess anyway.

Also, it's only your opinion that the acoustic definitely is a much better song overall in every aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do kinda prefer the acoustic version, although I enjoy the album version very much, but my guess is that they didn't want many slow or acoustic songs on MX, the fewer the better (not that I think the fewer the better, but my guess is that it was their approach). UATW, UFO and the first part of UWTB were probably enough for them. Also, as they were going to release it as a single, it was going to be performed live, and they really aimed for an energetic, bombastic, dynamic show, so, there again, the fewer slow or acoustic songs, the better. The album version would "strike" more in a big arena than the acoustic version. That's my guess anyway.

Also, it's only your opinion that the acoustic definitely is a much better song overall in every aspect.

you're right about wanting fewer acoustics on the album. that could be one of the reasons.

but as for playing it live, theres barely any live instruments on PoC album version. even will's drums are electronic. then again im not so easily impressed by "energetic, bombastic, dynamic shows"!

I don't agree that acoustic PoC is superior. It still sounds bit over-produced. The intro makes me shudder so I rarely listen past it. Though the way the song sounded at the Grammys was great, in my opinion.

you're right maybe the acoustic isn't that good either. didn't answer my question though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's just that the band preferred (as in liked better, so, subjectively speaking, really) the version that ended up on the album.

yeah very plausible. for a lot of people neither version is vastly superior to the other and maybe thats also how the band felt but they were less excited about the acoustic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the impression (surely, I can be wrong) that the acoustic version was something that came up after the album version was already done. It seems to me that they had the album version first, separated it into pieces and created something new from it. It's like when someone makes a remix of an already existing song, except that the result was called 'acoustic'. This'd be the 'cronological' reason, so to speak. (Again, it's just a bet, just a comment.)

 

Other than that, I think, as already mentioned, that what we see in the album is really what the band was aiming for, something more electric and dance-y. I'm thinking of DLIBYH. It was mentioned that they had one version with a lot fewer elements, but, in the last minute, they added layers and layers of sound (resulting in Brian Eno saying that it was too full). Maybe the same general and abstract idea was behind PoC as well. (So, it wouldn't matter if that the acoustic version actually was born after the album version - the album version was always what they intended it to be.)

 

On a side note, I also prefer the acoustic version because, in comparison to the 'original' version, it's more to my liking. However, I still find it it artificial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the impression (surely, I can be wrong) that the acoustic version was something that came up after the album version was already done. It seems to me that they had the album version first, separated it into pieces and created something new from it. It's like when someone makes a remix of an already existing song, except that the result was called 'acoustic'. This'd be the 'cronological' reason, so to speak. (Again, it's just a bet, just a comment.)

 

Other than that, I think, as already mentioned, that what we see in the album is really what the band was aiming for, something more electric and dance-y. I'm thinking of DLIBYH. It was mentioned that they had one version with a lot fewer elements, but, in the last minute, they added layers and layers of sound (resulting in Brian Eno saying that it was too full). Maybe the same general and abstract idea was behind PoC as well. (So, it wouldn't matter if that the acoustic version actually was born after the album version - the album version was always what they intended it to be.)

 

On a side note, I also prefer the acoustic version because, in comparison to the 'original' version, it's more to my liking. However, I still find it it artificial.

summed it up perfectly! i agree with you 110%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Album flow ASKS for Princess of China like a baby asks for milk. The entire album is built up to crash and fall on PoC. IMO.

You see, I AM NOT comparing the songs, but their function trough the album. PoC IS for MX what Viva La Vida is for VLVODAAHF, what Warning Sign is for AROBTTH. It's the peak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so Rihanna isn't the most likable character out of all the other mainstream female artists (shes not as bad as nicki minaj or lady gross, but obviously still not up there with Florence Welch and Adele in terms of class and voice), but anyway i don't mind her voice.

But still the band's collaboration with her was totally wrong yet it happened anyway so my question is this: the acoustic is a much better song overall in every aspect so why not have that on the album instead of the trash that ended up on MX?!! better chart performance? more appealing to the youth? flows better in the album?

what do you think?

 

I don't know if I would call it "trash" (or if it's even possible to make any kind of objective statement about the quality of any given piece of music), but my take on this is that the band (and especially Chris) all seem to have a genuine interest in pop music and just wanted to do a song in that style, and with a vocalist who's accomplished in that style. While I personally prefer Florence Welch and Adele over Rihanna, neither of them would've really been right for what's essentially an electro-pop/dance-pop type song which PoC essentially is. I think the simplest answer is probably that the members of the band like the song best they way they chose to record/release it.

 

Personally, I don't get why people always insist on ascribing some ulterior motive to a band when they make a piece of music they don't like. Sometimes bands just do what they want to do, and the answer is that simple. (or not ;)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're right about wanting fewer acoustics on the album. that could be one of the reasons.

but as for playing it live, theres barely any live instruments on PoC album version. even will's drums are electronic. then again im not so easily impressed by "energetic, bombastic, dynamic shows"!

 

 

Will's drums may be electronic, but he's still playing them, just on the drum pad. Guy plays bass live through each verse, but not in the chorus, and Jonny does have a guitar part, albeit a somewhat sparse one. I'm not sure what you mean when you say there's "barely any live instruments". Yes, there's synth layers and backing tracks (and the piped in guest vocals), but it has the full band's live instrumentation as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...