Originally posted by LikeASong:We had a similar discussion some time ago regarding other very different thing, but the underlying issue was basically the same. Something (whatever it is, a painting, a song, anything) is not automatically good just because it is innovative. There are innovative things which are good, there are innovative things which are crap. The innovation and/or improvisation factors don't turn a mediocre thing into anything better. It's still a mediocre thing.
U2 wanted to innovate by adding some trumpet playing over I Still Haven't Found's "Exodus" part. Maybe it was a good idea -debatable, but to each their own-, but it turned out as something strange -the adjective is debatable as well-. Surely the band enjoyed playing with a legend, and those in the audience who knew Masakela loved having him on stage. But the proper musical aspect of it is still somehow mediocre, the trumpet playing is a bit off at times and the song didn't benefit much from it besides the purely innovation it brought - and that's more of an impartial statement than a like/dislike thing. I give high amounts of KUDOS to them for trying to innovate and keep some things fresh. But then impartiality comes in and tells me "Hey, thanks for trying, but it didn't work".
Thank you for summarizing what I was previously trying to say.
I did leave out, although thinking it when typing, that in my restaurant analogy, that I wouldn't have a problem if my parents picked something else for me, provided it was better. In this case, they thought this was better, it was special for them and for those in the stadium who like Mr Masakela, but it seems a fair number of people have expressed, that while innovative, it didn't work.
How many times do concerts have an act performing and there's another high profile musician in the audience. The special guest comes up and does a song with the main group. No practice/rehearsal before hand and sometimes it works great other times it's awkward and just doesn't work. But a lot of people hype it because the "special" guest played on stage regardless whether they did a good job. Also, the main act enjoyed doing the performance and it was special to them regardless if it was a good joint venture.
So....my point is, I agree with LikeASong's analysis. If the use of the trumpet sounded good, I'd be on board with using it for U22.....maybe if they had rehearsed it more it would have sounded better.
Again, yes it is only one song, but are there more surprises?