(02-13-2005) U2's midlife crisis - Chicago Tribune*

[verte76]

Re: Interesting

Now, this Patty Culliton, I'm not at all surprised to see her turn on the band. I remember her from the early 90's on Prodigy. She would send birthday gifts to Bono's KIDS!!! She would visit Principle Management offices in New York. She would send letters to Bono at his home. I repeat, she would send *personal* letters to Bono, *at his home*! Among other weird stuff. That was an obsessed fan if I ever saw one. They probably stopped responding to her letters and phone calls so she feels slighted... not surprised to see her quoted there, AT ALL. I'm just surprised it wasn't sooner.

I remember this stuff also, I was actually in on a chat with Patty one night. It was shocking; yes, I never saw a more obsessed fan. That's asking for trouble right there.

 

[ihavefollowed]

My other all time favorite band is the Police. Unless Bono goes solo, does seven or eight bad jazz rock albums, sells his music to anyone or anything that will pay for it, and then lectures me endlessly about the rain forest, I still have TONS of faith in the integrity of this band. The Apple thing doesn't bug me because it is not some cheap cash in to keep the house of cards up. While it bugs me that elements of U2 (read Bono) are coming dangerously close to the level of Rattle and Hum-era self deification, I think the quality of the music and the respect that this band has for its fans speaks for itself. I mean this isn't the Stones who last made a classic album in '72, and last made a great album in '78. This is a band who is contuning - at 25 years into its existence - to make music as exciting and great as any that it ever has.

(And, for the record, I am still going to see Sting's Broken Music tour in the hopes that he is genuinely serious about playing rock music again. And all of Sting's solo albums aren't THAT bad.)

 

[bollox]

im no big fan of greg kot, but this article nailed many good points. while i don't really care for using music in ads, i don't automatically equate it as a "sell out." for some obscure/underexposed artists, it can be a good way of getting their music heard. however, i don't think anybody would ever use the adjectives obscure or underexposed to describe u2. they seem intent on oversaturating the market with their music and image. whether it qualifies them as sellouts is up to debate, but it does make them media whores, which isn't exactly enviable. can anyone say they weren't even slightly offended when "sunday bloody sunday" was used as background music for a highlight reel on last week's superbowl broadcast? why was it important that the album have 3 or 4 "hit singles"? a band in u2's position could release anything they wanted without being scrutinized by their record label (as opposed to artists like fiona apple and wilco, whose labels refused to release their albums for not being radio-friendly). i don't think anyone here really came to like u2 for how huge and popular they were, and if album sales affects how much you like a group, than i pity you. also, do you honestly care if u2 still appeals to the "younger generation"? i really could not care less. for them "vertigo" is just the song that comes after avril lavigne and before maroon 5 on their ipod playlist.

as far as the ticketing debacle, im not sure how propaganda worked, but it seemed to be a pretty good system. popular artists like dave matthews, pearl jam, and prince all have fan club systems that seem to reward the fans with priority concert seating. why did u2 turn over those duties to clear channel? it smacks of laziness and a disregard for the fans.

defending u2 comes off as funny, considering how many longtime fans were shut out of getting tickets. is the fact that u2 is popular enough to quickly sell out multiple arena shows really a consolation to me when im watching them in my nosebleed seats that i paid $165 for? wouldn't it be nice to be able to acquire good u2 tickets without having a lightning fast internet connection or having to shell out money to scalpers? and im sure longtime fans will be ecstatic about u2 courting the younger demographic when they are surrounded at shows by 13 year olds who don't know any material pre-"beautiful day."

the rem comparisons are appropos, as both bands came up from a punk background to huge success in the late 80s/early 90s. rem has clearly fallen off in popularity, and while i don't think u2's last albums have been quite as crappy as rem's last 2, i get the feeling that rem's last efforts have been more authentic, and not pandering for radio play. i saw rem on their last tour in a midsize theatre, and was probably 20 feet away from the band. who can say they had seen rem play so small a venue since the mid 80s? u2 is always going to have dedicated fans and probably won't ever be relegated to playing county fairs with styx and whitesnake. given the choice of seeing u2 in an enormodome with teenyboppers and and other people who know nothing about them (but had enough money to afford ticket prices or scalper fees) and seeing them in a smaller more intimate venue with dedicated fans, i know which i'll choose. i don't care about u2's popularity; it's their quickly declining credibility that concerns me.

 

[bollox]

During that time, we saw bubblegum pop (Debbie Gibson) and hair bands (Poison and G'n'R)).

guns n' roses was not a hair band.

 

[david]

When during anytime in U2's career were they ever really mysterious and hard to actually find out anything about?

I mean their personal lives maybe, were very gaurded back then, but through out most of their career they've always been in our faces and trying to be big.

They've done countless interviews, always released singles, toured relentlessly, made use of the video age, released commercial tapes, appeared at Live Aid, released a FLIPPING MOVIE FOR PETES SAKE. Appeared on magazine covers, dueted with iconic 60's rock legends... Had a biography written about them by 1987..

U2 through out their entire career made use of whatever medium they could.

Sure, back in the 80's they didn't need Superbowls, SNL or TV commercials. But that's only because MTV played videos and played U2 videos in heavy rotation, and they toured for months on end and they were just young.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

while i don't really care for using music in ads, i don't automatically equate it as a "sell out." for some obscure/underexposed artists, it can be a good way of getting their music heard.

Indeed-matter of fact, to prove your point, there's that new ITunes-type commercial with the girl dancing around against a green background and those arrows crossing each other to a song, and I kinda like that song, but have no clue who's doing it...if anybody does know, do tell, 'cause it's not too bad a song, and this commercial is the only place I've heard the song .

Angela

 

[Saracene]

I can't see what waning popularity has to do with "authenticity". I personally thought that "Imitation of Life" was a sort of melodic, catchy, classic-REM song that would have been a huge hit for them some years ago; it's just that their time in the limelight seem to have passed. A song can be radio-friendly and still not actually do well on the radio.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

A song can be radio-friendly and still not actually do well on the radio.

So true. There's bands I like that have songs that I definitely think would've been perfect for radio, but yet they did not do well. 'Tis a shame, too, 'cause some of those songs are freakin' awesome, and it'd be great if more people heard them. But eh, oh, well .

Angela

 

[Kiwi]

As long it doesnt influence their music, i dont care what they do in their career. I dont understand that people are worrying about such things. Just listen to the music!!

 

[verte76]

Uh, doesn't this article have a credibility problem? He claims that they weren't doing awards shows when they were. For goodness' sakes they were on the Grammies as early as 1988, when they won their first one, beating Michael Jackson for Album of the Year. This article is so sloppy it wouldn't get a passing grade in a freshman college course. It's a fg mess. And what's the problem with marketing, per se? I'm not defending the ticket fiasco, and God knows, neither are they, Larry apologized *again* last night. We all screw up. The strength of a person's character is, in my view, defined as the ability to admit one's shortcomings and work through them. This is exactly what U2 is doing. What more can we ask? This guy doesn't seem to think they should do any marketing of their products. Excuse me, this is a business. It would have been stupid and arrogant for them to assume they could sell CD's based simply on name recognition as they hadn't put out an album in four years. They didn't take any money for the Apple ads, they simply got necessary exposure. Iovine points out that they've turned down some hugeass $$ offers. Saying it's "money and not love" at this point makes no sense to me. It's all about the music. Maybe it's partially Bono's fault that he's sort of on a pedestal. He shouldn't be any more than I should. I'm an artist, too, just not rich or famous. I also don't have the press snooping into my personal affairs or have to deal with constant criticism from the press. Life, for all of us, is a big trade-off. Great artists screw up. Shakespeare wrote lousy plays (can you say "Titus Andronicus"?), the Impressionist group in nineteenth century Paris got torn apart with sheer silliness and pettiness, van Gogh was an absolute nightmare to live with..............why can't we accept the humanity in these people?

 

[MalahideChick]

Uh, doesn't this article have a credibility problem? He claims that they weren't doing awards shows when they were. For goodness' sakes they were on the Grammies as early as 1988, when they won their first one, beating Michael Jackson for Album of the Year. This article is so sloppy it wouldn't get a passing grade in a freshman college course.

Lots of people are picking up on this but I think Kot means *performing* rather than *appearing*.

The first time U2 *performed* at the Grammys was in 2000 wasn't it? And they didn't do an MTV awards *performance* (as opposed to the satellite feed on ZooTV) until 1997 when they did Please. So I think his hypothesis that U2 are more willing to do these performances these days is right. After all can you imagine U2 from the 1992-era going on TRL (as they did in 2000)???

 

[MrBrau1]

Lots of people are picking up on this but I think Kot means *performing* rather than *appearing*.

The first time U2 *performed* at the Grammys was in 2000 wasn't it? And they didn't do an MTV awards *performance* (as opposed to the satellite feed on ZooTV) until 1997 when they did Please. So I think his hypothesis that U2 are more willing to do these performances these days is right. After all can you imagine U2 from the 1992-era going on TRL (as they did in 2000)???

Edge performed "Numb" on the 1993 MTV VMA. In 1992 Adam and Edge hosted 120 Minutes, a popular alternative video show on MTV. Also in 1992, Fox Network aired a special U2 concert. U2 playing award shows and promoting themselves is very old news.

 

[jedi Larry]

U2 playing award shows and promoting themselves is very old news.

God, did you see the other day when U2 performed an impromptu show atop an LA liquor store to record a video for their new single?

Man, I even hear they're going to make a feature length film that will appear across the globe detailing their trek across America. What has happened to this band?!

Oh wait.........

ihavefollowed, lol. I'm right with you about The Police. I still love that music, but Sting's expeditions into the equatorial jungles just meant less music, and I grew tired of it.

It's almost the same with Bono, but the other members apparently have found out how to coax him into the studio long enough to record his vocal in between his hobknobbing with world leaders and art collectors.

 

[clipper699]

I am so sick of these Chicago writers thinking they know it all when it comes to U2.

Yeah, what's with the Chicago press? Afflicted with Henry Rollins disease, I suppose.

The only reason Kot lashed out is to get some buzz. What better way to get publicity than by criticizing one of the biggest and most popular bands in the world. Most of us have never heard of this benighted fool before, yet, here we are talking about him.

 

[verte76]

For the record, Bono is hanging out with his friends who happen to be *visual artists*, not art collectors. As a visual artist myself, I know the difference. I'm a visual artist. My avatar is one of my paintings. An art collector is someone you hope like hell is going to buy your work. Bono's presence at the displays of their works really gives them exposure, and that's exactly what any artist needs. Plus, the guy is a collector himself, and that's exactly *who* we want at our shows. The whole thing makes perfect sense. This just shows that Bono gives a damn about someone besides himself, which isn't true of all celebrities.
*is going to have dream that Bono shows up at our show*

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

*is going to have dream that Bono shows up at our show*

Oh, that'd be uber cool if that happened. And I bet you anything if it did, he'd love your work, would want to talk to you about it, perhaps even buy a painting or something .

Nice post earlier, by the way . Same with the first part of your post in particular, jedi Larry. And MrBrau1 brought up some great examples-don't forget that U2 also performed via satellite in 1992 for the VMAs, and had Dana Carvey drumming for them.

Angela

 

[verte76]

I'm going to be pissed off if the bad press doesn't subside, at least for now. These guys might be rock stars and all that jazz, but that isn't keeping them from having an absolutely hellish time in their lives right now, Edge and his family in particular. I have no idea how they are putting up with the stress of trying to plan a tour around this serious illness, I think other bands with less of a sense of duty to their fans would completely give up and cancel the tour. In fact, we now know they almost did have to cancel the thing. The ticket fiasco was a result of this family illness, yeah, you're going to be very distracted when this sort of thing is going on in your family. It really pisses me off that now is the time that these so-called fans are saying all of these nasty things about them to the press. This is *incredibly* cruel. They can get fd for all I care. While I'm all for freedom of the press and all that jazz, I hope the media starts treating this situation with a little sensitivity and less sensationalism and trashing. This whole situation with the press has me very pissed off right now.

 

[verte76]

I'm going to be pissed off if the bad press doesn't subside, at least for now. These guys might be rock stars and all that jazz, but that isn't keeping them from having an absolutely hellish time in their lives right now, Edge and his family in particular. I have no idea how they are putting up with the stress of trying to plan a tour around this serious illness, I think other bands with less of a sense of duty to their fans would completely give up and cancel the tour. In fact, we now know they almost did have to cancel the thing. The ticket fiasco was a result of this family illness, yeah, you're going to be very distracted when this sort of thing is going on in your family. It really pisses me off that now is the time that these so-called fans are saying all of these nasty things about them to the press. This is *incredibly* cruel. They can get fd for all I care. While I'm all for freedom of the press and all that jazz, I hope the media starts treating this situation with a little sensitivity and less sensationalism and trashing. This whole situation with the press has me very pissed off right now.

 

[verte76]

I'm going to be pissed off if the bad press doesn't subside, at least for now. These guys might be rock stars and all that jazz, but that isn't keeping them from having an absolutely hellish time in their lives right now, Edge and his family in particular. I have no idea how they are putting up with the stress of trying to plan a tour around this serious illness, I think other bands with less of a sense of duty to their fans would completely give up and cancel the tour. In fact, we now know they almost did have to cancel the thing. The ticket fiasco was a result of this family illness, yeah, you're going to be very distracted when this sort of thing is going on in your family. It really pisses me off that now is the time that these so-called fans are saying all of these nasty things about them to the press. This is *incredibly* cruel. They can get fd for all I care. While I'm all for freedom of the press and all that jazz, I hope the media starts treating this situation with a little sensitivity and less sensationalism and trashing. This whole situation with the press has me very pissed off right now.

 

[verte76]

Oh, my God I can't believe I did a fg triple post! The reply page was so slow when it was loading I didn't know the note had been posted! Mods, could you please spare me further embarrassment by deleting these? Thanks in advance.

 

[biff]

Well said!! (Don't be embarrassed. The site's been really slow and frustrating today.)

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

It's cool, verte, we've all had similar problems . For what it's worth, I agree 110% with what you've said .

Angela

 

[foofey-foofey]

Whats so wrong with making a little extra money? Its the twenty-first century, everyone cares about money--its our lifeblood. But just because U2might be creating a slightly more mainstream image doesn't in the slightest change the significance of the music. Look at SYCMIOYO, how can it get more heartfelt! If U2 wants to continue making a difference in peoples lives as it has for years, then they have to keep their face where people can see them. But I would argue that unlike most other bands or celebrities for that matter they actually use that image to then do productive things. They aren't just pocketing all this money. How much have they given for AIDS in Africa? U2 may be extraordinary, but they are human--how can people expect them not to havethe same desires, needs, wants as all other people in a glutted capitalistic society. As I see it, they're doing the young ones a favor--this way they can make a difference among a whole new generation who would otherwise be listening to Britney Spears.

 

[verte76]

Exactly, foofey-foofey. I have no problem with U2 making money. They work damn hard for it. They have always worked their asses off, giving us great music and great memories for a lifetime. I will never forget my first Elevation in particular, it was one of the most powerful experiences of my life. It's not like they are making money the easy way, anyway--this is a very high-stress business. I honestly don't know why they didn't burn out after the Rattle & Hum period, which I will agree was not exactly their finest hour. Instead, they just about killed themselves making their best album, Achtung Baby. If they didn't give a damn about artistic integrity and quality, I'd have a problem with the money thing, but the fact of the matter is that they do give a damn about the quality of the music. Big time. I don't know what these people are talking about, HTDAAB being a conservative album? Excuse me? They might not be screaming left-wing political claptrap, but after the 2004 election is that what we need? No. I say this as a liberal who voted for Kerry. After Bono went through the pain of losing his father, he needed to come to grips with his emotions over this, and the result was this wonderful album, not their best, that's AB, but an awfully good one. And you're right, kids are listening to them when they could fall for Britney Spears.

 

[cydewaze]

I got to work today to find a copy of this printed out and left on my desk. The first thing that caught my eye was the error at the end of the first paragraph. I dunno what that guy was watching, but U2 didn't play "Vertigo" on the Grammy show I saw.

I guess it erks me that whenever I mention that I'm a U2 fan, someone either pastes me the url to that stupid "worstpageintheuniverse" web page, or some other hatchet job like this.

Wasn't this Greg Kot guy recently bragging about what a phenomenal talent Ashlee Simpson was?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I have no problem with U2 making money. They work damn hard for it.

Mmhm. I don't care if you're a firefighter, or if you're a musician, or if you're a lawyer, or whatever-if you're working your butt off at your job, and you make a nice chunk of money as a result, I'd say you deserved every last penny.

Originally posted by verte76
It's not like they are making money the easy way, anyway--this is a very high-stress business. I honestly don't know why they didn't burn out after the Rattle & Hum period, which I will agree was not exactly their finest hour. Instead, they just about killed themselves making their best album, Achtung Baby. If they didn't give a damn about artistic integrity and quality, I'd have a problem with the money thing, but the fact of the matter is that they do give a damn about the quality of the music. Big time.

...so true. These guys are indeed perfectionists...they want to make sure they get everything right, they want to make sure everything that should be done, needs to be done, is done. They don't like putting out second-rate material, because they know full well they're capable of much better than that.

So after all is said and done, and considering the fact that, as has been stated before, they're more generous with their money than some other people in this world who have around the same amount they do, if they want to do a little splurging with what's left over ('cause I'd say their great-great-great grandchildren are probably financially secure ) and things like that, well, I think they've earned that right. Especially considering that I honestly couldn't say I wouldn't do the same thing if I were in their shoes-money isn't the most important thing in the world to me, no, but it is nice to have some around, and it is nice to splurge every once in a while.

Angela

 

[verte76]

So after all is said and done, and considering the fact that, as has been stated before, they're more generous with their money than some other people in this world who have around the same amount they do, if they want to do a little splurging with what's left over ('cause I'd say their great-great-great grandchildren are probably financially secure ) and things like that, well, I think they've earned that right. Especially considering that I honestly couldn't say I wouldn't do the same thing if I were in their shoes-money isn't the most important thing in the world to me, no, but it is nice to have some around, and it is nice to splurge every once in a while.

Angela

If I were in their shoes........honestly, I'd definitely have a place in Istanbul as well as the U.S, and a choice European country as well, probably France. If I could give as much as I wanted to to charity in private, and I do think the guys were a bit annoyed when it got into the press that they'd given Oxfam millions for some campaign awhile back, I could afford trips to Africa to help raise awareness of the very dangerous situation there, I'd want to splurge a bit as well. I don't know why some people think you've got to be a Franciscan monk and give everything away (no offense to the Franciscans, I love them to pieces and frequently go to their shrines) just to do good. Like I said in another post elsewhere, that's too Zoroastrian in the sense that you're claiming someone's either got to be God or the Devil. That's pretty damned extreme.
Honestly, I don't know how many times I've asked St. Jude, my patron saint, the patron saint of desperate or impossible situations, to pray for me so I'll survive this controversy. I recently got over a stress-induced viral malaise which I could get a relapse of if I'm not careful. This whole thing is really bumming me out.

 

[MrBrau1]

Who is this Patty chick who's quoted as posting from Interference?