david
ONE love, blood, life
I think the person who started this thread would be a great "writer" for pitchforkmedia.com
I wrote a rant about U2.
- Thread starter Un Lapin
- 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.
- Status
ree5669
Acrobat
Well, as you were so quick to change my spelling, I was editing my post to do so as well. As I recall there is some rule somewhere on this board about not criticizing or pointing out errors in spelling and grammar. Shame, shame....
And apparently you are so into all of our responses that you can correct me and get that posted before I can even edit my own JUST posted post...a total of about three minutes.
THANKS FOR THE CORRECTION, LapUn.
And apparently you are so into all of our responses that you can correct me and get that posted before I can even edit my own JUST posted post...a total of about three minutes.
THANKS FOR THE CORRECTION, LapUn.
Re: Re: I wrote a rant about U2.
some of you people act as if you've never written an essay, expressed an opinion or read an editorial in a newspaper. you come of like 8th graders in your reactionary "that's just your opinion!!!!!!!!!!!!"'s
of course it's my opinion. as i look around, i see that this entire forum is , for the most part, built on people's opinions.
it seems that the problem is that my own opinion is a voice of dissention in a harem of U2 "yes-people."
U2DMfan said:
some of you people act as if you've never written an essay, expressed an opinion or read an editorial in a newspaper. you come of like 8th graders in your reactionary "that's just your opinion!!!!!!!!!!!!"'s
of course it's my opinion. as i look around, i see that this entire forum is , for the most part, built on people's opinions.
it seems that the problem is that my own opinion is a voice of dissention in a harem of U2 "yes-people."
ree5669
Acrobat
I honestly respected your opinion before you declared that you tried to get tickets. Are you just bitter? All bantering aside, this IS a board to discuss u2. You are truly doing that. But it seemed hippocritical to me that you wanted to go to a concert full of castrated dinosaurs! That was my interest in this thread, not your feelings toward them. Just sort of a contridiction.
BTW: I just noticed I left the first O out of Toronto in my first post here.....I type too fast when I feel I have a point to share.
BTW: I just noticed I left the first O out of Toronto in my first post here.....I type too fast when I feel I have a point to share.
starsgoblue
Blue Crack Addict
ree5669 said:
Can threads be euthanized....this one needs to be put out of its misery.
ree5669
Acrobat
My point exactly...You are one of those people.
It is ironic you wanted tickets and seem to dislike them so. You are EXACTLY right, some people have no sense of irony.
.
You are so right...I am pulling the plug (as far as I am concerned).
ree5669 said:
My point exactly...You are one of those people.
It is ironic you wanted tickets and seem to dislike them so. You are EXACTLY right, some people have no sense of irony.
.
You are so right...I am pulling the plug (as far as I am concerned).
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
It's a well written article, most of which I disagree with. Of all places, a fan board is the worst place you can post something like that. You should've sent it to a newspaper or magazine or something.
MrBrau1
ONE love, blood, life
Attention seeking troll. Let it starve.
U2Girl1978
Blue Crack Addict
Un Lapin said:
Because you are. Case closed. Don't come on here bashing U2 just because you didn't get tickets. Boo hoo cry me a river.
I swear to god. If I didn't like this board so much I'd so go off on you right now and probably get booted off. But I won't.
Per usual, I am wasting my time on something so trivial. It's obviously your opinion but surely not everyone will agree with you. They still rock. Go, like, listen to Britney Spears, dude.
Have a nice night!
U2Girl1978 said:
Because you are. Case closed. Don't come on here bashing U2 just because you didn't get tickets. Boo hoo cry me a river.
I swear to god. If I didn't like this board so much I'd so go off on you right now and probably get booted off. But I won't.
Per usual, I am wasting my time on something so trivial. It's obviously your opinion but surely not everyone will agree with you. They still rock. Go, like, listen to Britney Spears, dude.
Have a nice night!
there are so many jumps in logic here...do i dare engage them one by one?
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I don't completely discount your critique, agree with at least some of it, but the problem is with statements like this:
"Ethical backflips not withstanding, how exactly does Bono reconcile his campaign to forgive the Third World debt with iPod endorsements and $100 cheap-seats? "
I don't care that you think U2 needs to give it up, you are most certainly not alone, but when you use arguments like these, they deserve a laugh and not much of a dignified response.
Did you know that there were cheaper seats than $100 and did you know that the Ipod ad was not a paid advertisement, and if you did know why would Bono need to reconcile this to you?
On top of that, do you know that the ticket pricing for U2 is consistent with any other entertainer, much less musical act of their stature. Do you think Bono sets that number? Do you think that when Bono sits at the desk with President Bush he doesnt understand that some people can't figure out that, while he is a rich rock star that some people will see this as a contracdition in terms? Was there a reason they didnt take any money from Apple. Of course you probably know all this, right?
It's not that hard to figure out. If you were bitching about the music alone, I say have at it, but you don't and that makes it the "typical" response.
Meaning, you use that as if it justifies your distaste with the musical direction, when really, you are more concerning with the whole general "image" problem.
"Ethical backflips not withstanding, how exactly does Bono reconcile his campaign to forgive the Third World debt with iPod endorsements and $100 cheap-seats? "
I don't care that you think U2 needs to give it up, you are most certainly not alone, but when you use arguments like these, they deserve a laugh and not much of a dignified response.
Did you know that there were cheaper seats than $100 and did you know that the Ipod ad was not a paid advertisement, and if you did know why would Bono need to reconcile this to you?
On top of that, do you know that the ticket pricing for U2 is consistent with any other entertainer, much less musical act of their stature. Do you think Bono sets that number? Do you think that when Bono sits at the desk with President Bush he doesnt understand that some people can't figure out that, while he is a rich rock star that some people will see this as a contracdition in terms? Was there a reason they didnt take any money from Apple. Of course you probably know all this, right?
It's not that hard to figure out. If you were bitching about the music alone, I say have at it, but you don't and that makes it the "typical" response.
Meaning, you use that as if it justifies your distaste with the musical direction, when really, you are more concerning with the whole general "image" problem.
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
You know, the quote "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" does come to mind here.
This thread would have sunk out of sight if all those who posted just to
would just have ignored it. And ignoring it would have very clearly telegraphed your disdain for the initial poster, so it's not as if there would have been no message sent. It just seems so weird to me that people complain of negative posts getting the most attention, but then they (the ones complaining of that) post in the "offending" threads.
I, on the other hand, enjoy contentious threads. Some parts of the initial post I agree with, some parts I don't. But I do enjoy reading what everyone has to say about the whole U2 trip, both positive and negative.
This thread would have sunk out of sight if all those who posted just to
would just have ignored it. And ignoring it would have very clearly telegraphed your disdain for the initial poster, so it's not as if there would have been no message sent. It just seems so weird to me that people complain of negative posts getting the most attention, but then they (the ones complaining of that) post in the "offending" threads.I, on the other hand, enjoy contentious threads.
Some parts of the initial post I agree with, some parts I don't. But I do enjoy reading what everyone has to say about the whole U2 trip, both positive and negative.
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
Un Lapin said:
That first paragraph above doesn't sound like a passionate U2 fan, I'm sorry. Seems like you were never a great fan. Which makes it even more puzzling why you would post this on a fan board without the intention of getting a rise out of people.
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
indra said:
Exactly! That's why I never complain about this. Negative threads are always going to get attention and subsequent posts.
U2DMfan said:
Nowhere did I say that U2 took any money from the iPod deal. (Ultimately, of course they are, they sure aren't giving away their entire catalogue to Apple for free).
My issue is with U2, a band that has always prided itself on its integrity ("the rock band with a conscience"), serving up themselves and their (non)music as marketing tools. I will concede a personal distaste for mass-marketing, as nothing ruins a song for me faster than hearing it in a commercial, but, (and this is the point that so many of the apologists here seem to be missing) I am completely aware that my rant is one person's expression of dissent (HEAVEN FORBID! PLURALITY ON A U2 BOARD!!!!).
As for ticket prices, I simply cannot believe that a band that a) has the industry clout that U2 has (really, how many bands have as much clout as them right now?) and b) has always made an effort to keep ticket prices down, did not at least turn a blind eye to $95 and $175 ticket prices. The whole thing smacks of pre-retirement opportunism.
Last edited:
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
Re: Re: Re: I wrote a rant about U2.
I'm sorry. I know I don't have the authority nor the criteria to question your passion for the band. I just formed my OPINION on what I read... and what I read was "insufferably self-important band".
Un Lapin said:
I'm sorry. I know I don't have the authority nor the criteria to question your passion for the band. I just formed my OPINION on what I read... and what I read was "insufferably self-important band".
MrBrau1
ONE love, blood, life
Ignore the attention seeking troll. Don't post, and it goes away.
Last edited:
MrBrau1
ONE love, blood, life
Ignore the troll. Spent your time looking at these pictures of kittens:
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
MrBrau1 said:
Yeah, you say that now!
But you, my dear, are one of the prime offenders. ~~~~~~~~~~~~
actually that was one of the parts I agreed with from the initial post. It's kinda funny, but it can also get old very quick. But they always have been "insufferably self-important," and I've always known that, even when they were my very, very, very favorite band. I find it both irritating and part of their charm...of course, I think it was much more charming when they were young.
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
On the tickets, understood. But if they were playing a tiddly-winks show, I could see a larger argument. They are trying to make it a spectacle.
We've got to remember that this has to be "worth it" for U2. They have said this time and time again. So for them to up-root and leave families, young children etc. to go on tour for a year, and over, they want to make a big rock spectacle, that's okay with me, I could probably only afford one show anyways.
Does it bother me that I could logistically afford to go to 3, 4, shows in the days of yore, as opposed to now only being able to afford to go to one? No. To me, it's asking something quite selfish, it's almost bitching "why don't you play my hometown?" It's just the nature of the beast. I have just accepted it, at the very least, it could be an amazong spectacle.
On the integrity issue: I see music as the source of integrity, if it comes from within the heart and soul, no matter good or bad, it has as much as integrity as the next. If it's disposable pop, it's often presented as just that, not much thinking required.
I see what you are saying, and what I am saying is that it is purely image-based. It's like the pure axiom of punk rock, is "fuck the image" (more or less). yet there are herds of bands with dyed hair and chain wallets calling themselves punk based on an image. There are indie-folks and punks who wouldnt listen to U2 based entirely on the image and not on the music.
I am sayign the whole notion of the image is a fraud, and that integrity is in the music, AND the message. U2 haven't changed their message, ever. But because it's on a tv ad, and they play more awards shows, and are marketing themselves, it changes the message? It never did.
Which brings me back full circle, to the notion that this "image" of integrity is based in the minds of those pretentious ideals that are assigned to certain musical acts. It has no basis on anything BUT image. The music is the music, which is why i personally think the music is always fair game. Punk rock is about the music, not about nose rings, Indie rock is about elitist ideals, that are often hypocritcal. Can they be true and real? Sure. WHy is Modest Mouse "indie" when they make money for Sony records? But there are those who stick with indie labels and dont make videos not many of course.
Pearl Jam is a band I love, same with radiohead, they have more integrity because they dont appear on MTV award shows? No, they make money for the giant corporate monster too.
All in all, I say make it about the music, fuck the image. And if the image is pissing you off, it just means you put too much stock in it. U2 are still writing about faith, love, loss of faith, doubt, poltics, etc. But the only thing that changed was that U2 said to themselves "what is the most punk rock thing we could do?" Which was to fucking rake that false image over the coals. They started this in 1991 and havent stopped. They have just lost the irony, on purpose.
I don't agree with everything they do, and wish they wouldnt do certain things (yes, the Ipod thing) but it doesnt really change who they are and what they are about, but it does appear that way sometimes.
What is the balance? For me, I put no stock in any image (anymore), ultimately they are all doing the same thing. I may listen to a band who's been playing Indie lables for 20 years, and say "those guys have the integrity that others talk about, or pretend to" or maybe they might get an offer from Columbia records and take it. Did they sell out, or get sick of making shit money for their kids school clothes? I say, don't put them on the pedestal in the first place and they won't let you down. And ultimately the music is the music if it's done with one image or the other.
Images can be art, sure, I just don't buy into the notion of so called integrity in a world of millionaires and elitist fans, this makes none of them better than the next. At least U2 tries to make a difference with their music and causes. Maybe it's seen as contradictory by some, but I don't care. I used to, I guess I saw the bands I loved all fall at the same altar. I guess maybe I feel the way I do because I have been let down my many artists, to the point now, where all i care about is the music. I don't know, I guess maybe I try to share this idea with others, and hope to help, or maybe I think I know something that I don't, or maybe I am reconciling it myself, as I go along.
Either it's good or not, it will break your heart to invest much more than that. At least U2 are one of the few who fucked up their own image many times and still thrive.
Just seems to be a very delicate balance between upholding that image of "integrity" and be seen as "cashing" in. When it seems to me, they are cashing in from the start, really. How many bands with so called integrity donate their money to charity? Not many.
We've got to remember that this has to be "worth it" for U2. They have said this time and time again. So for them to up-root and leave families, young children etc. to go on tour for a year, and over, they want to make a big rock spectacle, that's okay with me, I could probably only afford one show anyways.
Does it bother me that I could logistically afford to go to 3, 4, shows in the days of yore, as opposed to now only being able to afford to go to one? No. To me, it's asking something quite selfish, it's almost bitching "why don't you play my hometown?" It's just the nature of the beast. I have just accepted it, at the very least, it could be an amazong spectacle.
On the integrity issue: I see music as the source of integrity, if it comes from within the heart and soul, no matter good or bad, it has as much as integrity as the next. If it's disposable pop, it's often presented as just that, not much thinking required.
I see what you are saying, and what I am saying is that it is purely image-based. It's like the pure axiom of punk rock, is "fuck the image" (more or less). yet there are herds of bands with dyed hair and chain wallets calling themselves punk based on an image. There are indie-folks and punks who wouldnt listen to U2 based entirely on the image and not on the music.
I am sayign the whole notion of the image is a fraud, and that integrity is in the music, AND the message. U2 haven't changed their message, ever. But because it's on a tv ad, and they play more awards shows, and are marketing themselves, it changes the message? It never did.
Which brings me back full circle, to the notion that this "image" of integrity is based in the minds of those pretentious ideals that are assigned to certain musical acts. It has no basis on anything BUT image. The music is the music, which is why i personally think the music is always fair game. Punk rock is about the music, not about nose rings, Indie rock is about elitist ideals, that are often hypocritcal. Can they be true and real? Sure. WHy is Modest Mouse "indie" when they make money for Sony records? But there are those who stick with indie labels and dont make videos not many of course.
Pearl Jam is a band I love, same with radiohead, they have more integrity because they dont appear on MTV award shows? No, they make money for the giant corporate monster too.
All in all, I say make it about the music, fuck the image. And if the image is pissing you off, it just means you put too much stock in it. U2 are still writing about faith, love, loss of faith, doubt, poltics, etc. But the only thing that changed was that U2 said to themselves "what is the most punk rock thing we could do?" Which was to fucking rake that false image over the coals. They started this in 1991 and havent stopped. They have just lost the irony, on purpose.
I don't agree with everything they do, and wish they wouldnt do certain things (yes, the Ipod thing) but it doesnt really change who they are and what they are about, but it does appear that way sometimes.
What is the balance? For me, I put no stock in any image (anymore), ultimately they are all doing the same thing. I may listen to a band who's been playing Indie lables for 20 years, and say "those guys have the integrity that others talk about, or pretend to" or maybe they might get an offer from Columbia records and take it. Did they sell out, or get sick of making shit money for their kids school clothes? I say, don't put them on the pedestal in the first place and they won't let you down. And ultimately the music is the music if it's done with one image or the other.
Images can be art, sure, I just don't buy into the notion of so called integrity in a world of millionaires and elitist fans, this makes none of them better than the next. At least U2 tries to make a difference with their music and causes. Maybe it's seen as contradictory by some, but I don't care. I used to, I guess I saw the bands I loved all fall at the same altar. I guess maybe I feel the way I do because I have been let down my many artists, to the point now, where all i care about is the music. I don't know, I guess maybe I try to share this idea with others, and hope to help, or maybe I think I know something that I don't, or maybe I am reconciling it myself, as I go along.
Either it's good or not, it will break your heart to invest much more than that. At least U2 are one of the few who fucked up their own image many times and still thrive.
Just seems to be a very delicate balance between upholding that image of "integrity" and be seen as "cashing" in. When it seems to me, they are cashing in from the start, really. How many bands with so called integrity donate their money to charity? Not many.
- Status
Similar threads
