Who writes the news items for U2.com

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
rccj said:
Honestly I think it is more important for them to list all the celebrities at the show than an accurate setlist.

yeah, really. why is the first half of every show report talking about the 20 famous people who saw the show instead of 20 additional fans..?
 
Okay so U2.com has posted their story for last night's show :|

http://www.u2.com/news/index.php?mode=full&news_id=1723

Please tell me they're doing this on purpose. First, are they aware this was the first time Crumbs from your Table was played on the tour?

And then this:

"The show at the Target Centre in Minneapolis was looking good from the off, the band now settling into not being settled - a mixed-up set-list mixed up again with Fast Cars back, along with Wild Horses and Crumbs from your Table."

They didn't play Fast Cars last night. WTF, is their problem, why can't they just get it right for once.
:censored: :scream: :banghead:
 
Last edited:
Wow, now I'm wondering if the writer for u2.com reads this forum.

They have now changed the whole story, title and all.:|
 
hysterical! it's hard to believe how incompetent they are...
 
"What bothers me is that U2 is probably THE most particular (i.e. anal) band out there and you have these people working for them always making all sorts of mistakes."


This is probably one of the most perceptive, potentially damaging comments ever made about U2.

And I am going to venture a moment into this territory. (I hope I know what I'm doing....) :ohmy:

I have been a follower of U2 for twenty five years and I love and respect them on the highest level possible....

but they are human and can and DO MAKE MISTAKES. (sometimes big mistakes)

One of the traits that U2 are famous for is their deep sense of loyalty. Maybe this comes from the social culture(s) that they were raised in or maybe it just comes from their family upbringing.

But we all have marveled at their sense of loyalty to each other which has kept U2 together through some very difficult times.

And to be successful in the music industry, you have to surround yourself with with individuals who you feel will be loyal back to you. Unfortunately, there have been times when U2 have invited someone into thir "family" (as Bono put it the other day) only to see those individuals turn around and not be worthy of that trust. :(

But U2 continues to maintain that close-knit family structure, even when (at times) it would be to their benefit to let in some "fresh blood".

This unquestioning loyalty that U2 exhibits toward those in their inner circle can actually come back to "harm" them in some way down the road - and undoubtedly has. (Look at our comments here about the shoddy writing at U2.com.)

This unquestioning loyalty and unfortunate repercussions has also been present in some of Bono's humanitarian efforts that we all know about. (I will not comment about this any further....I know when to plead the Fifth Amendment. :wink: )

I would hope that this will change down the road and that good writers for U2.com will be hired even if they come from a U2 fansite (we're in back of you, helloangel :up: )

and that the best people for Bono's humanitarian organizations will be hired (although some of the best are there right now).

But that means that U2 will need to put their rational thinking skills in front of their hearts (which is sometimes hard for them to do) and make BUSINESS decisions- in music as well in humanitarian efforts - with clear thinking and less emotional connections. :yes:

I know I make sense here and I speak from some general knowledge of things.

Now I'll go hide and see if the sky falls on me.:reject:
(I never used that smilie before)

I will always love and respect U2 - enough to disagree with them sometimes! :hug:
 
:giggle:
the article on last night changed!

I was wondering why the first one ended with a verse from Yahweh that the band doesn't even sing in the live version when Crumbs was played for the first time last night

I need to start saving the first articles to compare
 
It's OK if the lyrics in the booklet don't match the most commonly sung lyrics... this happens all the time. Bands stray from the original lyrics, this can't be considered a mistake.

The rest of the stuff can though.
 
And I see that the "Have" in WTSHNN from yesterday's setlist has its "H" capitalized... Why this time and not for Chicago?

Who knows? Perhaps it was a remix or something.
 
ZooMacPhisto800 said:
It's OK if the lyrics in the booklet don't match the most commonly sung lyrics... this happens all the time. Bands stray from the original lyrics, this can't be considered a mistake.

The rest of the stuff can though.

It's a problem when the lyrics booklet differs from what's sung on the actual album, though.

I can't think of examples right now, but I know there's a couple of absolutely glaring, stupid errors.
 
Axver said:


It's a problem when the lyrics booklet differs from what's sung on the actual album, though.

I can't think of examples right now, but I know there's a couple of absolutely glaring, stupid errors.

Call me crazy, but I still don't think those are a problem. NIN does this too. It's sort-of a bonus when you figure out that was is sung differs from what is recorded in the notes. I attribute it to the band having an original version of the lyrics, then while recording, they continue to evolve them. I don't think this can be put in the same category as the U2.com errors. I can hear Bono saying "those are intentional you wankers".
 
ramblin rose said:
Wow, now I'm wondering if the writer for u2.com reads this forum.

They have now changed the whole story, title and all.:|

:banghead:

This miserable article is making me cringe too.
 
Saf-Baboon.jpg


You know what? It really brings our mood down going over here and having to read all your harassing comments each and every day. Can't you people just appreciate the work our staff at U2.com are doing instead of bashing us all the time? Why don't you just celebrate that Akrobat was played for the second night in a row yesterday?
 
ZooMacPhisto800 said:


Call me crazy, but I still don't think those are a problem. NIN does this too. It's sort-of a bonus when you figure out that was is sung differs from what is recorded in the notes. I attribute it to the band having an original version of the lyrics, then while recording, they continue to evolve them. I don't think this can be put in the same category as the U2.com errors. I can hear Bono saying "those are intentional you wankers".
I agree. :yes: I also like that, it's cool to see other possibilities of lyrics that didn't make it into the album. I also think its done on purpose.
 
U2Man said:

Why don't you just celebrate that Akrobat was played for the second night in a row yesterday?

:lol:

I think it's funny that they changed the article, too.

Come on. I could do better than those morons and I'm only 17. Why don't they just make Interference the official U2 site and get it over with?
 
U2Man said:


You know what? It really brings our mood down going over here and having to read all your harassing comments each and every day. Can't you people just appreciate the work our staff at U2.com are doing instead of bashing us all the time? Why don't you just celebrate that Akrobat was played for the second night in a row yesterday?

:lmao:
 
U2Man said:

You know what? It really brings our mood down going over here and having to read all your harassing comments each and every day. Can't you people just appreciate the work our staff at U2.com are doing instead of bashing us all the time? Why don't you just celebrate that Akrobat was played for the second night in a row yesterday?

:lol:

I think I :heart: you
 
Back
Top Bottom