andrewducker

The Clayton/Mullen version is an absolute travesty. The whole point of the Mission Impossible theme is that it's in 5/4; that U2's rhythm section are unable to play in a slightly tricky time signature is something to be mocked at great length, not celebrated.

Thanks for typing in my comment for me :-)

As someone who can't tell a time signature from an impending zombie apocalypse, I beg to differ.

You can surely at least tell the difference between the slightly off-balance, syncopated rhythm in the original theme tune (and this piano/cello/violin version), and in the beginning few seconds of the Clayton/Mullen version, and the straightforward regular rhythm the Clayton/Mullen turns into afterwards?

Here's some typical 5/4 songs: Take Five, Seven Days, Gustav Holst's Mars.

Now compare that to your basic straightforward 4/4 from pretty much all pop music ever.

It's harder to write in 5/4, but if you pull it off it's much more interesting than plain old 4/4. And that's why it's a travesty that Clayton and Mullen threw it all away: they took an interesting song and stripped out a good deal of what made it interesting in the first place.

I will listen to those when I have some quiet time, and space not around other people.

But I doubt very much that it will stop me loving the Clayton/Mullen version to pieces :->

If it helps you spot the difference, the Clayton/Mullen version changes from 5/4 to 4/4 at roughly 0:19.5.

Just listened to it. You're right: the time sig shift is very noticable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI9KhPJ-utE

I have to agree... despite the lower recording fidelity of the day, I still prefer the original. (And this is the *original* original, before Peter Graves was on.)

-- Steve hopes this isn't latent snobbery on his part.

Nothing wrong with having a preference!

I like "The Piano Guys" version -- it was strangely moving.

Here's the Sly & Robbie version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA1rOVCX0cw

Who'd want to be a cellist on the run?