Just a rant

[Headache in a Suitcase]

and you've all just proven my point... radiohead fans tend to think radiohead is much bigger than they really are.

maybe it's different over in europe... but in america the average 14 year old kid can't name one radiohead song. and the only radiohead song that gets any sort of play on terrestrial radio is Creep.

i'm not saying that's a good thing... just sayin' it is what it is.

radiohead, like pearl jam before them, seemed destined for the biggest band in the world mantle... but also like pearl jam before them, they really didn't want it, so they fell short... only some of their fans can't come to grips with that and think they got their anyways.

 

[MooMoo!]

But The 2 don't have to bake the pie.

I suppose there is still a market for delux editions which The 2's wealthy (older) fan base can afford. Delux editions are hardly punk rock Bono!

Im not old or wealthy, I just saved and sold some stuff to buy my delux NLOTH.

And stop calling them "The 2" FFS.

 

[phillyfan26]

Radiohead is big among music fans, but among the general public? They're not. My mother had never heard of them as of ... this week. Most kids don't know them, unless they're big music fans. Or if they'd played Rock Band and thus know Creep.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Radiohead is big among music fans, but among the general public? They're not. My mother had never heard of them as of ... this week. Most kids don't know them, unless they're big music fans. Or if they'd played Rock Band and thus know Creep.

bingo.

and again i'm not saying this is a good thing... i'd much rather acts like radiohead be on the radio then the shit that's on.

just saying... they're not nearly as big as their own fans tend to think they are.

 

[fishlips]

It must be a generational thing, this 'instant gratification' expectation by some.

I do understand that times have changed, and that the technology exists to make the album available to all as soon as the final edits are made. What I don't understand is why it angers some that the record label has chosen to release it on a specific date and is sticking to that promise.

Universal owns the rights to this music.. not the fans. Whatever their reason for keeping it locked up until the release date is their business. Getting angry with them over this issue is just a waste of energy.

And getting mad at U2 over this is even more ridiculous. Yes, they are the engine that has much control over all things U2. But if I'm not mistaken, once the album is finished, isn't it out of their hands and in full control of the record label? If it were up to Bono, we'd probably have all heard the entire album by now.

 

[hanksta13]

and you've all just proven my point... radiohead fans tend to think radiohead is much bigger than they really are.

maybe it's different over in europe... but in america the average 14 year old kid can't name one radiohead song. and the only radiohead song that gets any sort of play on terrestrial radio is Creep.

i'm not saying that's a good thing... just sayin' it is what it is.

radiohead, like pearl jam before them, seemed destined for the biggest band in the world mantle... but also like pearl jam before them, they really didn't want it, so they fell short... only some of their fans can't come to grips with that and think they got their anyways.

I'm not a Radiohead "fan", I like a lot of their work, but I don't own an album. I own all of U2's albums. I think the average 14 year old would be able to name a Radiohead song before a U2 song though. Especially since Guitar Hero and Rockband.

 

[last unicorn]

I hope the album leaks tomorrow so that people, who never post hear, will be kept from further posts about how much U2 suck. Seriously, I'm tired of reading all these complaints. U2 have passion for music, they could have quit a long time ago if it were different, and stopped releasing new albums and touring. I sometimes wonder if some fans spend most of their time looking for things to complain about instead of just being happy that they are still around and release new music in a couple of days. All this leak hysteria is not really funny any more. In the good old days without the internet we all had to wait for the day an album was released, there was something magic about it, nowadays it's just: Leak, leak, leak. It's obvious they try hard to prevent a leak and it's good that way. People really can wait a couple more days and then enjoy the surprise that comes with hearing the new album for the first time.

And please stop comparing Radiohead to U2. I love Radiohead, but they are a whole different league. U2 is a leak of their own. They are the most universal band out there and I hate this elitist thinking of some fans who say they should only play for the fans.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I'm not a Radiohead "fan", I like a lot of their work, but I don't own an album. I own all of U2's albums. I think the average 14 year old would be able to name a Radiohead song before a U2 song though. Especially since Guitar Hero and Rockband.

disagree.

most kids know who bono is and know vertigo and beautiful day and so on.

i think you'll find more kids who think bono is "gay" then you will find kids who even know who thom yorke is.

i work with teenagers. i think i've got a pretty good grasp on this.

 

[BVS]

However, with all this waiting for a leak, I feel something is just not right with U2 in 2009. I can't for the life of me understand why they are still tied up to a record label. This is a band that's been around for 33 years, won more Grammys than any other rock band, have done the greatest tour ever by a rock band (ZooTV), and is STILL somehow extremely relevant when it's band members are in their very late forties, and yet, with all this greatness, and trying to stay ahead of the mainstream and all, why would they resort to having a record label release their album?

I love Radiohead and Trent Reznor, and became an even bigger admirer when last year they had the balls to release their albums the way they did. Radiohead has been around half the time as U2 and don't have nearly the fortune U2 has, and yet there was no fanfare, no anticipation, no changing release dates, one day their new album was there, and you paid whatever you wanted for it. Trent Reznor did almost the same thing but went one step ahead, again, no fanfare, no big promotion, no huge anticipation, released Ghosts for $5 and then one day just gave away The Slip for FREE.

.

A record label works for U2, for other bands it may not... I'm sure in a way U2 are glad that they don't have to do ALL the business side of it, can you imagine a band their size trying to do it all themselves? Get real.

I'm honestly suprised by how people fall into this line of thinking hook, line, and sinker... Where did this thinking evolve from that if you make money you are less cool? Judge the art, not the money or how they make the money. That's just weak.

I said this last night but I'll post it again. Radiohead are very smart and they know they are a hardcore fanbase type of band. They announce they are "giving away" a new album and they get free publicity from everywhere, CNN, online news outlets, even Fox News reported on it. So they get new fans to check out their music because it's free, and the hardcore fans all buy the $80 box set. It was smart and geared towards making money as well. Don't fool yourself into thinking they didn't want to make money.

 

[bram]

I'm not a Radiohead "fan", I like a lot of their work, but I don't own an album. I own all of U2's albums. I think the average 14 year old would be able to name a Radiohead song before a U2 song though. Especially since Guitar Hero and Rockband.

Wow, that's just false. Beautiful Day? With or Without You? Those songs are about as ingrained in popular culture as they come.

 

[BVS]

It's pretty obvious that artists like Trent Reznor are much more passionate about their music than their money. Heck, he released a free album as a thank you to the fans. Sometimes I feel like U2 wouldn't be making music if they couldn't be huge stars.

I still love their music, but I feel like that either way.

This is such bullshit, but it doesn't suprise me that you believe this...

Trent has even admitted that it's a business and that that an important aspect to what he does.

The free album wasn't really anything he was going to make any money on anyways, it was just a bunch of left over instrumentals that he didn't know what to do with...

 

[bigdaddy0944]

If there is one aspect of U2 that I think is an annoying holdover from when they came up is their releasing of albums. They still are in 1987 mode. 6 weeks per single, wait this long before a video, this long before promotional appearances ...and so on. I think this is the reason for the frustration. I remember waiting in line at midnight for the release of albums. But now we have song descriptions, possible leaks, reviews, first hand listening party accounts and a community of fans to stoke our interests. I don't think U2 is any more greedy as they were in 84,87,91,97 but the landscape has changed.

 

[rjhbonovox]

I don't post often, however I'm as diehard as they come. Have been to every tour since ZooTV, first heard them in 1980 and been a fan ever since, own every album (notice own, not downloaded ilegally), have all their DVDs, have even met them (talked to Bono for about 10 minutes, small talk, but hey I shook the guy's hand!), have had very single girlfriend become diehard fans, etc.

However, with all this waiting for a leak, I feel something is just not right with U2 in 2009. I can't for the life of me understand why they are still tied up to a record label. This is a band that's been around for 33 years, won more Grammys than any other rock band, have done the greatest tour ever by a rock band (ZooTV), and is STILL somehow extremely relevant when it's band members are in their very late forties, and yet, with all this greatness, and trying to stay ahead of the mainstream and all, why would they resort to having a record label release their album?

I love Radiohead and Trent Reznor, and became an even bigger admirer when last year they had the balls to release their albums the way they did. Radiohead has been around half the time as U2 and don't have nearly the fortune U2 has, and yet there was no fanfare, no anticipation, no changing release dates, one day their new album was there, and you paid whatever you wanted for it. Trent Reznor did almost the same thing but went one step ahead, again, no fanfare, no big promotion, no huge anticipation, released Ghosts for $5 and then one day just gave away The Slip for FREE.

Both acts went on tour and did extremely well, knowing full well that if you want the money, you need to tour (and this is pretty much how it's been for years; the record companies are the ones who benefit the most financially on album/single sales), and for people to come to your shows, you need to get the music out there, because like it or not, many will illegally get hold of your work.

So I'm guessing and hoping that U2 sticking to a record label to handle the release of their work is not an act of wanting more money. I'm guessing it's more an ego thing. Getting the title of "saving" the music industry in 2009, might mean a lot to Bono (God knows he has a savior complex), and the only way to do that is by selling a lot of albums, hence the tie up to Universal.

This pisses me off for some reason...I mean I will of course buy the album, and by the reviews I've seen, probably love it, and go and catch a few shows, but shouldn't we expect a band of this stature to actually try and find new and innovative ways of dealing with the changes in the record industry?

I really don't care if the album leaks or not..time goes by very quickly, and pretty soon I'll be able to buy it and listen to it for as long as I live. I just feel that this band that has gone through so many fases, and has consistently stayed relevant musically, and has given us so much artistically,
that they would welcome with open arms another way of delivering their material to the fans in this rapidly changing era of media delivery.

Hate me, flame me, but this is how I feel...maybe a smarter mind can give me a better insight.

Thanks for the read.

Great post. U2 have become too commercially obsessed no question. Whether its McGuiness or what who knows but there is no question that they are obsessed with hype, promotion and everything else. Now if you wanna compare this U2 to the 1991 release of Achtung Baby then its just a completly different mindset. If anybody on here remembers how they went about promoting Achtung Baby in the UK they will remember that they didn't appear on any TV or radio shows to promote it. In fact they went on Radio 1 in February 1992 on the Mark Goodier show, I still got it on tape, this was 3 months after the album was out. They just didn't do the things they do now. They then appeared on top of the pops for "One" in the same month, which was a great live rehearsal recording from Lakeland, FL 1992. Compare that to now, they appear on every tv show, awards and even in yer garden if you want them to whenever there albums coming out. Talk about overkill.

 

[BVS]

Things that do bug me:

- The album is done. Like, right now. It's finished. And the distribution system exists that, if U2/Universal wanted to, we could all be listening to the album within 1 hour from this very second. Millions of people could be listening to the finished product right freaking now if the label (and, by their silence and unwillingness to push for a change in the process, U2) weren't tied to a model of distribution that's over half a century old. The current model of promotion and distribution was created when "Duck and cover" was a leading meme.

I don't want the album to "leak" because I don't want to pay for it; it's already pre-ordered ($80US), I'll buy all the singles ($40-ish US), and see them multiple times on tour ($waytoofuckingmuchbutworthit-ish).
I don't want the album to "leak" because I'm a kid who likes free stuff and sticking it to the man/RIAA/etc.
I don't actually want the album to "leak" at all, really...I just want to listen to it. I want my favorite--supposedly progressive/technologically-minded--band to pay at least a little attention to how the world works now, how it will be working in the next 5-10 years, and try to get a bit ahead of the curve.
I don't want my favorite band to act like they have the same level of technological understanding as my freaking grandmother.

I wouldn't expect this sort of thinking from a label...I just was expecting U2 to be pushing a bit more, and not acting like just another 4-piece ho in the label's pimphouse, willing to go along with whatever the boss says.

Though, Sebastian's been in charge of u2.com since the beginning, on their call, so it's not like I don't know that all their "new media" talk has been 90% hot air from the start, but it's never been so front and center for me like it is now.

I think you need some perspective. U2 isn't making you wait because they are tied to some old understanding or model, the wait is by designed so they can put the promotion in line, plan the tour, rehearse, etc... They want the time between finishing and release.

This whole instant gratification thing bugs me...

 

[Niceman]

Great post. U2 have become too commercially obsessed no question. Whether its McGuiness or what who knows but there is no question that they are obsessed with hype, promotion and everything else. Now if you wanna compare this U2 to the 1991 release of Achtung Baby then its just a completly different mindset. If anybody on here remembers how they went about promoting Achtung Baby in the UK they will remember that they didn't appear on any TV or radio shows to promote it. In fact they went on Radio 1 in February 1992 on the Mark Goodier show, I still got it on tape, this was 3 months after the album was out. They just didn't do the things they do now. They then appeared on top of the pops for "One" in the same month, which was a great live rehearsal recording from Lakeland, FL 1992. Compare that to now, they appear on every tv show, awards and even in yer garden if you want them to whenever there albums coming out. Talk about overkill.

In 1991 there was still MTV. Radio was bigger. They do the appearances because the old passive promotion system is dead.

 

[Niceman]

I've been chomping at the bit.... but you know? Today, for the first time I'm starting to wonder if it would be better if it didn't leak.... It's only 2 weeks until release day...

 

[bcrt2000]

Great post. U2 have become too commercially obsessed no question. Whether its McGuiness or what who knows but there is no question that they are obsessed with hype, promotion and everything else. Now if you wanna compare this U2 to the 1991 release of Achtung Baby then its just a completly different mindset. If anybody on here remembers how they went about promoting Achtung Baby in the UK they will remember that they didn't appear on any TV or radio shows to promote it. In fact they went on Radio 1 in February 1992 on the Mark Goodier show, I still got it on tape, this was 3 months after the album was out. They just didn't do the things they do now. They then appeared on top of the pops for "One" in the same month, which was a great live rehearsal recording from Lakeland, FL 1992. Compare that to now, they appear on every tv show, awards and even in yer garden if you want them to whenever there albums coming out. Talk about overkill.

how many channels were there back then? how many channels are there now?

how many radio stations were there back then? how many radio stations are there now?

viewership/listenership is way more divided now than it was back then.

 

[bram]

This is such bullshit, but it doesn't suprise me that you believe this...

Trent has even admitted that it's a business and that that an important aspect to what he does.

The free album wasn't really anything he was going to make any money on anyways, it was just a bunch of left over instrumentals that he didn't know what to do with...

Yeah, the fact that free releases have very positive outcomes (drum up press and increase fan/critic devotion) make them equally calculated--just in a different way. In a genre (indie) where "cred" counts as much as anything, there aren't too many better moves for your long-term fanbase, ticket sales, and longevity. Cred among the musical elite listeners ultimately leads to more $. What Radiohead did was a gamble, but it was extraordinarily calculated. People are still talking about it, and it likely led them to achieve broader recognition than at any previous time in their career (releasing their safest album in years didn't hurt either).

 

[BVS]

Great post. U2 have become too commercially obsessed no question. Whether its McGuiness or what who knows but there is no question that they are obsessed with hype, promotion and everything else. Now if you wanna compare this U2 to the 1991 release of Achtung Baby then its just a completly different mindset. If anybody on here remembers how they went about promoting Achtung Baby in the UK they will remember that they didn't appear on any TV or radio shows to promote it. In fact they went on Radio 1 in February 1992 on the Mark Goodier show, I still got it on tape, this was 3 months after the album was out. They just didn't do the things they do now. They then appeared on top of the pops for "One" in the same month, which was a great live rehearsal recording from Lakeland, FL 1992. Compare that to now, they appear on every tv show, awards and even in yer garden if you want them to whenever there albums coming out. Talk about overkill.

Talk about revisionist history... what a joke

AB was one of the biggest promoted albums in U2's history. They had 5 music videos in heavy rotation, they had at least two TV specials(that I can remember), they did Top of the Pops, and they were on MTV all the time.

When MTV stops paying attention to music you have to do other things, but don't fool yourself into thinking it was any different, it just makes you look silly...

 

[bram]

I've been chomping at the bit.... but you know? Today, for the first time I'm starting to wonder if it would be better if it didn't leak.... It's only 2 weeks until release day...

Yeah, I actually have had similar feelings, which seems crazy considering how rabid I've been at times over the last few days. I don't even think I'm going to listen to anything unless it's a full, decently high quality leak at this point--and the maximum wait time for this is only 7 days.

 

[Niceman]

Yeah, I actually have had similar feelings, which seems crazy considering how rabid I've been at times over the last few days. I don't even think I'm going to listen to anything unless it's a full, decently high quality leak at this point--and the maximum wait time for this is only 7 days.

I think part of it is suddenly looking around at the frothing demand for a leak and feeling like I want to take a step back, not be a part of that.

Also, I remember how awesome it was to buy all of those albums and put the CDs/ or even cassettes in to play and NOT knowing what was going to come out...

It is only 2 weeks....

 

[VintagePunk]

I think part of it is suddenly looking around at the frothing demand for a leak and feeling like I want to take a step back, not be a part of that.

It's very off-putting, isn't it?

 

[mwheelonh]

In the good old days without the internet we all had to wait for the day an album was released, there was something magic about it, nowadays it's just: Leak, leak, leak. It's obvious they try hard to prevent a leak and it's good that way. People really can wait a couple more days and then enjoy the surprise that comes with hearing the new album for the first time.

See, that's kind of my point: this isn't the good old days. Pre-internet, the "magic" of waiting for a new album wasn't the reason that you had to wait for the album--it's not like a benevolent record company exec realized "Hey, if we make them wait 2 months, it'll sound so much better to them, so let's make sure they wait 2 months, so they get the best experience possible"--it was a by-product of the infrastructure taking so damn long to go from master tapes to physical media.

It's "golden age" thinking, when time and distance makes everything seem so much better then than it is now. I love the surprise of hearing the new album for the first time (probably won't d/l any individual track leaks because I want to hear the whole thing all the way through, not piecemeal). I'm just saying: the whole reason we're waiting 2 more weeks for that surprise, and not enjoying the surprise today, is that 50 years ago it took a week for a truck carrying vinyl LP's to drive from the east coast to the west coast, and nobody involved in the process seems to have noticed in the decades since that there might be a better way to do things.

We are no longer pre-internet. It no longer takes 2 months to create and distribute the final product...the CD's that will arrive eventually have digital files on them, and if Universal/U2 wanted to, they could release those exact same digital files at this very second, and if independent reporting (non-RIAA studies) is to be believed, not lose a penny. Hell, it would be a bigger event because they were doing it differently, and not relying on an outdated model.

I'm not a kid--I'm a grown adult with 2 children, who remembers typing high school essays on a typewriter, pre PC. I remember what life was like when there was no internet...but I don't live there anymore. I live now. U2's music--the reason it inspires me, and each album serves as such a clear marker in my life--is that it's always been either ahead of its time or timeless. My need to rant/vent/blow-off-steam is that I just wish their comprehension of everything non-music would keep up a bit.

 

[bram]

I think part of it is suddenly looking around at the frothing demand for a leak and feeling like I want to take a step back, not be a part of that.

Also, I remember how awesome it was to buy all of those albums and put the CDs/ or even cassettes in to play and NOT knowing what was going to come out...

It is only 2 weeks....

It's only 2 weeks, but this place will be going crazy in 1. So unless I completely avoid Interference, I think I'm going to have to get a high quality download.

 

[BVS]

I just wish their comprehension of everything non-music would keep up a bit.

And I think your comprehension of what really goes on behind the scenes should probably be brought up a bit...

 

[Marko]

I kind of agree with the member who started this thread...
In AB era I had a feeling that U2 were still alternative, indie...big, biggest but in a way not really mainstream. They were at the cutting edge of technology, and in front of everyone who was mainstream an popular...
And they never talked about being the biggest band in the world. And in last decade I got the feeling that they made music only so they can be the biggest band in the world. And all that in the time when mainstream airwaves are full of buble-pop....so what kind of music should they write to become the biggest in that kind of world? Safe, bland and unexciting...
And one other thing is that I got a feeling that they are lacking in self esteem in a way. They are never letting go, they are taking control of every detail...so than we get a concert DVD with performances from two or three different nights...for me it ruins the spontaneity. And what about the promises in 90's that one day we will be able do download every gig soon after it was finished....Pear Jam is doing that for a long time, but for U2 we still have to be satisfied with often crappy bootlegs. And I would pay 10$ for many many gigs over the year. Why do they have to have such great control like they are afraid of something. Afraid that they will fall flat or be embarrassed or whatever... I love when they make a mistake...they are human, and they never let us see that side of them as a band...not since POP defiantly...

rant off....I have no idea what I wanted to say

 

[mwheelonh]

And I think your comprehension of what really goes on behind the scenes should probably be brought up a bit...

Like how?

 

[Reead]

U2 is a leak of their own.

Someone's been reading too many leak threads!

 

[BVS]

Like how?

Like getting promotion in gear, getting tour lined up, rehearsal, a break so they can spend with their families before they go into promotion and tour mode. A lot of time they use that time between finishing in the studio and release date to work on artwork... There's hundreds of things they have to do and having that known timeline of when this is coming out is needed.

 

[rjhbonovox]

Talk about revisionist history... what a joke

AB was one of the biggest promoted albums in U2's history. They had 5 music videos in heavy rotation, they had at least two TV specials(that I can remember), they did Top of the Pops, and they were on MTV all the time.

When MTV stops paying attention to music you have to do other things, but don't fool yourself into thinking it was any different, it just makes you look silly...

U2 never appeared in the top of the pops studio from 1983 (new years day) to 2000 (beautiful day). Of course it was different back then. How old are you? Was you even born when AB was first released? When AB was first released all top of the pops played were the promotional videos for The Fly and Mysterious Ways. I was a fan back then. Probably the majority on this forum weren't around then I don't know. But no one is gonna tell me that the U2 of today did the same promotional crap they do now. Its just bullshit! They have definetly lost their coolness from how they were back then. They lost that with the release and subsequent saturational promotion of ATYCLB in 2000 when they were desperate to be loved again even appearing on kiddies tv Pop music shows such as The Chart Show in UK which was embarrasing. Of course you'll have me believe that they did this for AB back in 1991. Yeah right!