Thanks!
it's always going to be a fine line between how we perceive "saying good things" to people and "pandering". Obviously, from my perspective, I think U2 has gone too far from the "selling" to the "pandering". They do spend an inordinate amount of time (in my opinion) throwing themselves at the US market and doing everything possible to endear themselves. This made some sense in 1987, but today it sort of reeks of aging rockers trying to cling to their most lucrative and uncritical fanbase.
This makes no sense at all.
They promote and tour as much or more in the rest of the world as they do America.
Remember Pop and Popmart?
America was hardly their most lucrative/uncritical fan base then.
I don't care if you want to put an opinion out there based on your perception, so feel free to not answer, but exactly what do you base this opinion off of?
It makes sense to reach out to an audience that is receptive to your work no matter the decade. That's how you stay relevant.
Heavy metal acts do better in Eastern Europe than America and Western Europe, do they call that pandering when they cater to them?
And the aging rockers argument. You and everyone else who makes it. I work security at concerts and as I type this, I am at the venue getting ready to be subjected to night 3 of 3 of The Wall from Roger Waters. Touring all of these American cities, with pictures of American Troops who have fallen, charging $400, $500 per ticket, and playing a 2 hour set with a 20 minute intermission consisting entirely of a performance of The Wall with the exact same visuals as 1980. That is an aging rock act. Not U2 continuing to release relevant albums and playing them onstage along with unreleased material.
U2 ARE NOT AGING DINOSAURS JUST SUCKING UP TO AMERICAN AUDIENCES.
That was in 1987. In the 2000s, Bono posed with George Bush and Jesse Helms, and he and Edge performed at the Obama inauguration. Bono is pictured on the cover of Time magazine performing with an American flag sown into his jacket.
Keep digging your "I'm uninformed" hole deeper.
Bono is not an unprincipled ass kisser, he does things on his own terms and still makes his opinions known. You must have missed the criticism he's had of George Bush and Tony Blair for the Iraq War. Been very outspoken about that.
He actually gets work done by convincing the people who hold the purse strings to support his causes. Jesse Helms was one of them. Bono also made clear his disagreements with him. This has led to tangible results for people Bono is trying to help-he realizes the approach now does a lot more than War or JT tour style fist pumping anger.
He is still critical from the stage when the situation warrants it. He was last year with Berlusconi in Italy, who reneged on promises he made.
Every person who has ever disagreed with Jesse Helms in public life worked with him at some time or another. Its how things get done.
Its immature and naive to think otherwise. Bono has grown up and matured, sorry you haven't.
Also, something was inherently wrong with the American flag jacket? It was after 9/11, every person in every country was wearing the American flag. It was mostly for the 9/11 tributes they were doing as showcased at the Super Bowl. Something wrong with that?
Give me a break. You're grasping at straws.
"I agree they have a special relationship with the American audience. You seem to have interpreted my post as an anti-American swipe. It wasn't. As Bono once said, "I don't partake of the spanking of the Yank.
You'd never know with your implications that Bono's flag jacket was somehow wrong or "pandering."
But I take your word for it.
I'm baffled as to where you got that implication from...? Certainly not from my post.
Well, the "bland" descriptions of their music seems to suggest the dumbed down Britney Spears/Miley crap we hear on American radio today.
Remember, I was responding to a stupid, moronic, misspelled post on the internet that you decided to legitimize. Not your own words, but you post it, you own it.
So, "U2" to you should function as an "international business"? Pretty lofty ideals there...
How naive are you?
Its not a little or a moderate amount, its between extremely and off the charts.
What else should they function as?
They sell their music to a worldwide audience.
That is the reality of it and every other artist out there. Even the ones who claim to hate capitalism.
Because we all know anti-capitalists like Rage Against The Machine and Roger Waters, etc just give their music away for free and don't deal with labels at all. Again, give me a break.
Again, it's our differing perspectives. I personally think that tax move was a really bad move, esp. with regards to their special situation in Ireland. (Not to mention it just makes Bono's humanitarian work look bad.) U2 is, of course, within all rights to do whatever the hell they want with their money. But in my opinion, that was an act in bad faith. It tainted them a bit for me.
How does it make Bono's humanitarian work look bad? He's not suggesting that everyone give up all their wealth or pay 90% in taxes to fund 3rd world development. He is asking for people to support a small commitment from the tax dollars they already spend. Ending one subsidy or closing one loophole takes care of most of these small commitments from countries. He is asking no one to take a tax increase over this. Everything the One Campaign asks me to support winds up being peanuts that are easily found and non controversially approved by the US Congress and signed by the President, be it Bush or Obama.
The Netherlands gives a higher percentage of their income in aid than Ireland does, and U2 still pays plenty of taxes, more than most individuals, to Ireland.
Not to mention all the money he gives himself. Far more than anyone criticizing him for it.
The question that needs to be answered by YOU is why should U2 have to base their royalties in Ireland when they earn them all over? Why not go to the best tax climate? Many, many artists have done the exact same thing.
Notice how you didn't address the fact that Ireland never lost any revenue from U2 as they did not levy a royalties tax before the move.
It was not bad faith in anyway. It made a good sound byte for critics who never liked Bono in the first place.
Again, I find your vision of the possibilites rather limiting. Yes, we all know (yawn) that U2 are signed to major labels and have obligations to market their music. In my opinion, however, they've recently crossed the line from hard-working band with a deserved international following to hard-working bad with a media profile obtained from corporate pandering.
Yawn? Well, you accept it, so why are we having a debate?
Name one artist, regardless of what they espouse regarding capitalism, who is known outside of their basement who is not signed to a major record label. My possibilities are limited? Tell me what else is out there?
Recently?
Reading your posts, you'd think U2 were Enron or Wal Mart or BP for crying out loud. They have very progressive minded business practices. There are non heartless profitable corporations out there in the real world.
Where is the line for you? What year?
They gain their profile from corporate pandering?
This is just stupid.
They gain their profile from their music.
You are suggesting they need corporate sponsorships to elevate their profile?
You know when U2 shows made the news most? Joshua Tree and Lovetown. Back when they were still icons of virtue to you.
When were they in the media the most? Sunday Bloody Sunday, NYD, Live Aid, constant runs on MTV.
There is no recent change in U2's philosophy.
Yes, I am. In 1987, even accounting for inflation, their live ticket was probably 25% what it is today, the show was just as big or bigger, and there were no frills on stage and no corporate sponsorship.
Surely you know that money is made on touring these days, so prices in general for concerts have gone way up. So all that matters is for the climate they are in, where the market for live shows simply demands higher rates than it did 23 years ago, they are reasonable.
Don't use your personal dislike for stadium spectacles to hit U2 with an unfair accusation of gouging on ticket prices.
You do realize that corporate sponsorship helps to hold down ticket costs, right? No corporate sponsorship and charging $500 is better? Just so we can "stick it to the man?"
If you can't beat 'em...
Don't beat 'em!
What part about my pointing out that U2 is the most reasonably priced big name act to see live don't you understand?
Who else in their league do you see using the higher end tickets($250, not $450 or $500 like for everyone else) to plow the money back into making GA reasonable and selling $30 tickets at the lower end?
They could easily sell GA for $100 and the $30 for $60 and walk away with much, much more money.
Let me get this straight -- you're equating the "arena/stadium set" with "musically"? Musically, as I understand it, is based on the music that the musicians play, not based on the pixilation of the video screen.
What?
This might as well have been in Zwahili. What the hell are you talking about?
I never said music is based on the pixilation of video screens.
I said no matter where they play, stadiums or arenas, and no matter the production(frills or no frills), the music always comes first with U2.
I have yet to see a Stadium set overshadow the live performance from U2 like it does with Britney Spears. They are not covering up lack of talent or lack of a musically brilliant show.
I thought that point was made crystal clear, but you come back by accusing me of judging quality based on a video screen. Wow.
I think my post was rather good, so your judgment has not offended me. I'll try to be a big boy and get over the hurt you've caused me...
I wasn't trying to offend you, just set some wildly stupid crap you legitimized and are still defending straight.
Your response is to put words in my mouth and be a wiseass, good for you.
Is it a compliment...?
Yes.
The posts I've recently responded to stood out to me because I feel you made statements that do not reflect your intelligence level.
Bottom line, its cool that you have your viewpoint on corporations, but don't project this naive viewpoint onto U2 and use your very wide definition of sell out that U2 never agreed with even in 1980 to claim that they are soul less sell outs.
Typical U2 Hater List (feel free to add)
- Thread starter CosmoKramer
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
U2387, I don't know exactly which sensitive-spot of yours I hit on, but you've gone completely off the deep-end here. In the past, I've enjoyed your posts and as I recall we've agreed more often than not, so I'm a bit baffled as to what's happened to you. Did you inhale some bad dope at all those Roger Waters' concerts? Or, is it one of those things where my touching on U2's right-wing flirtations has set you off in a mad defence of market capitalism...? I really have no idea.
What I do know is that your two posts attacking me ("worst", "stupid", "ridiculous", etc.) are completely off-base, are inventing things for me to have said that I didn't, and are responding to issues that I didn't even raise in my posts. I'm not going to fall to your level and call you names, because I've legitimately enjoyed your posts on this forum. I am a little disappointed that you aren't capable of having a name-calling-free discussion about an interesting issue of the way large-scale commercial artists market themselves. You've made your position clear and I have no interest in discussing this with you further.
What I do know is that your two posts attacking me ("worst", "stupid", "ridiculous", etc.) are completely off-base, are inventing things for me to have said that I didn't, and are responding to issues that I didn't even raise in my posts. I'm not going to fall to your level and call you names, because I've legitimately enjoyed your posts on this forum. I am a little disappointed that you aren't capable of having a name-calling-free discussion about an interesting issue of the way large-scale commercial artists market themselves. You've made your position clear and I have no interest in discussing this with you further.
DondeEsta
The Fly
^^If you hate U2 so much what are you doing here?
11o´clock
Refugee
I don´t know if it has already posted but....:
"U2 should have got separated after Achtung Baby"
"Bono pretend to be an activist"
"Bono sings the worst/very badly"
"Edge is not a very good guitarist"
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH ¬¬
"U2 should have got separated after Achtung Baby"
"Bono pretend to be an activist"
"Bono sings the worst/very badly"
"Edge is not a very good guitarist"
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH ¬¬
11o´clock
Refugee
I DO agree with you.
And well...the arguments against U2 and Bono...I´m only used to them if just my friends say it....
11o´clock
Refugee
And if they were....I don´t care about that. When Bono does something really wrong, I will hate him. But for now, I love him (and U2 also) no matter what he and/or they do.
DondeEsta
The Fly
I just hate the fact that EVERYONE complains about their late-period material. I constantly find posts on these forums from ex-fans who can't stop moaning about ATYCLB HTDAAB and NLOTH.
Ex-fans who are just going to complain about their new stuffed should be BANNED.
Ex-fans who are just going to complain about their new stuffed should be BANNED.
Vlad n U 2
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 28,386
DondeEsta
The Fly
He wants to show everyone his nipples.
EdgeFest
Refugee
The Edge is just SO uncool
Oh, shucks... that's NO ONE'S argument!
LOL though, love the thread - so true! Gotta love the haters!
Oh, shucks... that's NO ONE'S argument!
LOL though, love the thread - so true! Gotta love the haters!
Based on this comment and many of the comments in this thread, I'm forced to conclude that the intelligence level of the average U2 fan is fairly low. I would suggest that people not respond to posts that that they incapable of comprehending -- which results in misquotes, misinterpretations, false assumptions, and reactionary accusations. Sycophantic defense of your general enthusiasm for all things 'U2' is also not worthy of being posted, or of my responding to.
So you accuse me of name calling and then ask if contact highs explain my posts
Frankly, a lot of your post, especially the part where you talked about me judging shows on the video screen or whatever that was, baffled me.
I did not call you any names, I was referring to the points being made.
I did not put words into your mouth, I simply explained my views on the issues you brought up.
You hit no sensitive spot with me.
I just feel you legitimized way out of bounds criticisms of U2 and Bono.
I disagree with pretty much everything Jesse Helms and GW Bush stand for, but I will always defend Bono getting things done by working with them when they are in power.
I support the market, but I am hardly a zealot who thinks laissez-faire will solve everything.
We are having a debate on how artists market themselves, thats what we have been doing. I don't see any workable alternative to the capitalist infrastructure out there, and U2 has used it in one of the most progressive, non exploitative ways imaginable. So that is where I start and end my analysis.
I guess in the end, we will have to agree to disagree on who's view is off the deep end.
I still stick by every point I made, especially with regards to ticket sales.
You will not find an act as big/well known/acclaimed, etc that is more reasonable than U2 to see live. And since we are both mega fans, I think we would agree that the show you get is unsurpassed for the money!
DondeEsta
The Fly
U2387 and 65980 you both need to refrain from personally attacking each other or anyone else. If you cant get along then use your ignore lists.
BluRmGrl
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Firstly, "I'm forced to conclude..." is just an intellectually snobbish way of saying 'I assume' - and surely you know the idiom concerning what happens when one assumes? If you find the debating and conversational skills here are so far below your expectation and standards, then maybe a MENSA forum is better suited to your needs.
Secondly, whether you have a stratospheric intelligence or are just very adept at using a thesaurus, you're in no position to tell anyone else what is or is not worthy of posting. You are, however, welcomed (encouraged, actually) to ignore our Neanderthal mumblings.
As for haters, they don't bother me. Ninety percent of anyone who makes disparaging comments about the band to me are just trying to see if I'll take the bait and argue with them. I couldn't care less what someone who hates U2 thinks. I'm not going to try & convert them and I'd expect the same in return.
DondeEsta
The Fly
the nastiest U2 insult I've heard was on some internet page and someone said they were "the biggest c
nts ever walked the earth"
Vlad n U 2
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 28,386
Guess they didn't look in the mirror before they posted that! OH YEAH! Gimme some skin, brothers!
Cactus Annie
Refugee
If that guy from the U2 sucks website loves the Beatles but calls them overrated then I shall call him dysfunctional. If you like a band, you like them. You may think they are underrated (ie: I've always thought that at his peak little Dario Simic was an underrated soccer player) but if you really like a band and they are respected within the music industry, like U2 are, then you'd just consider them rated.
At least I admit I'm dysfunctional.
At least I admit I'm dysfunctional.
LuckyNumber7
Blue Crack Addict
Now hold on just a second...
I think Queen is overrated... but that doesnt mean they're bad? I mean, you draw the line with what you mean by it. I think Queen's an okay band, but I personally feel that they got a little bit more than they deserved.
I can respect someone's viewpoint like that, even of U2.
ElectricalVoice
Refugee
I hate this one:
"I have been a fan since [put anything that proves you're old here], and [something about how everything was so much better before here]".
Argument from authority proves everything.
"I have been a fan since [put anything that proves you're old here], and [something about how everything was so much better before here]".
Argument from authority proves everything.
dazzledbylight
Blue Crack Supplier
yes that claim annoys me too....because "lemon" and "sunday bloody sunday" sound oh so simmilar
I just started reading thread and
CosmoK for a great first kick-off post!and BTW I love WAR, and I also love the EP -WAIA, Zooropa, POP, JT, AB & NLOTH ( these first 4 listed as shading between excellent to superb, the last 3 as absolute masterpieces).
I'd think they're a good range of styles & sounds there etc
(and I love certain songs on all the rest of the albums)But right now I can't add any new permutations of the haters
ETA
EV- I'm thrilled when people in their teens and early 20's are impressed with u2!
Saracene
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I haven't really encountered much U2 hate in my daily life, but it inevitably centred around Bono. "He's a dickhead", "he preaches too much" etc. etc.
ElectricalVoice
Refugee
Yeah, I absolutely agree...
I am not young myself, but it's fun to meet people from all ages at a U2 concert. And their opinions and feelings about the band are just as valid as my own.
cathou_u2
Refugee
Yeah, I absolutely agree...
Well, let me return the compliment
, I'm 20 years old and been a fan for 8 years now. I definitively have a lot of respect for the fans who've followed the band since their beginning & been through all the 80s, 90s with U2. You lucky people, you've seen some amazing shows! Everyone has a different perspective on things, and time does matter, but at the very least we agree U2 is the best!
Cactus Annie
Refugee
In my opinion, if you like a band, you like them. How can you find them overated? I think the same thing for all musicians, TV Shows, films, books, etc. It's just my personal opinion, that's all.
And on a slightly different note I find it bloody annoying that just because someone doesn't like something therefore it must be crap or anyone else isn't allowed to like it. I also find the attitude of "well I don't like it so it must be crap" as arrogant. There are loads of stuff I don't like, but I don't set up webpages declaring that just because I dislike The Hoosiers then no one else is allowed to like them. It reminds me of Henry Ford declaring that people can buy any car as long as it's black leading to Ford only producing black cars during its early days. This kind of attitude seems like anti capitalism to me because if you remember Marxist values that no one is an individual and that anything that distinguishes us from each other works against Marxist collective ideology. In capitalism we get choices whilst in communism we are infantized because the powers that be can't trust to make our own decisions.
In fact, a lot of U2 haters appear to hold quite left wing ideology imo. I cannot understand why many journalists seem to be be down on the band. I reckon that the reason why a lot of them are is because the band are leading the life which a lot of musical journalists would love. Fame, Fortune, recognition, world travel etc. Journalists on the otherhand work in an office all day and just because they dislike U2's music, and yet they can see what a great life U2 are leading, are envious. I reckon the same can be said about Niel McCormick as well.
If you just like but don't love U2 then it's normal that you think they're overrated cos they're about the most popular band on this planet.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
What are you basing this opinion on?
Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
I like Queen. I think they're overrated and still popular only because their lead singer died. Same with Nirvana. 
So sue me.
So sue me.
domo-kun
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 12,580
I love the those model T Fords 
Don't give Henry the stick right!
Don't give Henry the stick right!
Cactus Annie
Refugee
Sorry I just find that bizzare because music is subjective. Popular music isn't about who's the best musician. I do think a lot of the singers you see on X Factor/ American Idol tend to be ok yet the judges tend to salivate over them as though they are the best singers in the world. But what I like in music is based on its melody. So if I like the songs I hear from a particular artist, why would I find them over rated?I like Queen. I think they're overrated and still popular only because their lead singer died. Same with Nirvana.
Actually I agree with your post. Someone dies young and it seems to propel the artist to God-like status. I prefer McCartney to Lennon, but then it was Lennon who was murdered aged 40.
Well why do so many people seem mystified by the fact that a wealthy person would be one of the spokesmen for a charity? You need a few thousand £'s to set up a charity, no one who earns the minimum wage would be able to do it. It's usually liberals who are the depressive types and like to think they are the most downtrodden people on the planet. It's this cynical "We hate the world so we are looking forward to its destruction" lefty types that you hear do most of the moaning.
I'm sure that they aren't all buying into the conspiracy theory that what's happening in Africa is a cover up for corrupt governments and it's not really happening. However, when the earthquake in Haiti occurred there were many phone calls to a talk radio station that I listened to questioning why people don't give donations to those who were affected by floods in a town in Britain instead.
"Why don't you give to a British charity" Do you think British people are the most important people in the world?
"You care more for people thousands of miles away than for your next door neighbours" Is it matter of proximity? I don't even know my neighbours. They are bastards.
Please tell me how I can stop my fury at these baffons.
Similar threads
