New U2 Album For Free?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Earnie Shavers said:
But even within hip-hop the cream rarely rises to the top and most of the better artists in that genre suffer from the same quandary that a band like Radiohead would find themselves in over in the rock genre. If you are looking at most of the hip-hop that charts through the roof, whether it's JayZ or 50 Cent or even the Black Eyed Peas - they're the very, very pop end of hip-hop. Their cross genre peer is Avril Lavigne, not PJ Harvey. Maroon 5, not Radiohead. The hip-hop artists that are at the Radiohead end of the spectrum do have large, dedicated fan bases, do more than okay in sales, are critically lauded etc - but you'll never hear them on the radio and you'll never see them at the Grammy's and you'll never see them on MTV. They don't make video clips loaded with Cadillacs and scantily clad women. They don't write songs about fucking strippers while stoned on a private jet because life is so tough for a billionaire gangster, they don't have clothing labels and they don't guest on Timberlake and Stefani albums. They do push and sell themselves, but not using the formula you absolutely need to sit up there at the very top of the pile, to be the high rotation commercial FM/MTV artist - mostly because the music doesn't allow it.

I do understand Bono's point (this is the article it comes from: http://www.u2achtung.com/01/articles/article.php?id=109 ), but I don't quite get how/what he expects a change to come about whereby someone like Radiohead actually gets their songs on the radio alongside Fergilicious or whatever, if it's not by significantly shifting their music along with the 'heavy push'. Radiohead obviously know that. They push themselves very hard and very well, they just know the limitations their music creates for them and don't bother with anything outside those - it would be pretty fruitless. By the way, what was probably the biggest music news story of the past week? And how often did you hear about it, from how many different places? Radiohead dumping their new album out there for free was something I heard/read about on the radio, in the newspaper, on the music news website, on the general news website, from several friends and work colleagues etc etc etc. There are other things they could do - a video clip so brilliant or controversial it demands some airtime, performing more on the kind of tv shows that would have them - but in the end their music limits them, so they either have to shift the music, bring on David La Chappelle for the video clip and have Will.I.Am pop for a verse during the Grammy performance.... or let it be.

Pop and personality dominate, regardless of genre. Catchy throw away songs and an extra curricular lifestyle that is a fixture in celebrity reporting. The quickest way Thom Yorke could get Radiohead back on MTV would be to bed Britney Spears. Failing that, they'd need to overhaul everything to the core. I don't know if that's what Bono wants (perhaps, judging by U2's shift to the middle) or if he's just wishing for a brighter day for the popular music scene, but it's a pretty distinct black and white choice that you'd be making at the moment, and right at this second there are no names popping into my mind of artists who are succesfully stradling both worlds. I do wish someone would though, and I do think U2 are in a last grasp position to be a part of it, perhaps, but they can't go too far.

I think I wandered way off the point there.
Click to expand...

Agreed. You can't make people like what they don't like, no matter how good it is. And the bands which make good, but not particularly accessible to the masses music, aren't going to be embraced by the masses no matter how much they push their music out there.
 
indra said:


I don't get why you think other bands wouldn't be applauded if they released albums this way. I certainly would love to see the bands, instead of their record companies, get the bulk of the profits from their albums and if this is an efficient way to do that, it's all good to me.
Click to expand...
What would have been Bob Marley and U2 without Island ? What would have been Island without Bob and U2 ? How many great artists and albums did they directly or indirectly produce together ?
Record companies are not all controlled by evil greedy moneymakers who exploit innocent artists.
 
guill said:

What would have been Bob Marley and U2 without Island ? What would have been Island without Bob and U2 ? How many great artists and albums did they directly or indirectly produce together ?
Record companies are not all controlled by evil greedy moneymakers who exploit innocent artists.
Click to expand...

Bob Marley and U2 are the exceptions though. Most people signed to major labels made very little money, even with modest success. You do know that U2 would never get the development they got if they were a raw brand new band now, don't you? The model you tout might have worked for some 25-30 years ago, but it doesn't happen now. And there are people who are still paying off debt from even fairly successful albums made 20 years ago. You do know that professional musician is one of the lowest paid professions, don't you? Even when you include the mega millionaires.
 
Bono's shades said:


But isn't the main reason Thom Yorke's voice isn't on the radio or TV is because they aren't considered mainstream enough?
Click to expand...

I thought the main reason they're not on the radio or TV is because they don't want it. They were in that position after OK Computer but turned it down. I think Bono is saying things could be like early 1990s when grunge came out from the outside into the mainstream popularity. Similarly, see how all the young rock "the" bands came out in the early 00's. Like someone on this forum - or was it some other U2 site ? - said: you can either compete, or roll over and play dead.
And if we have all the "woe is me against the mainstream" talk by some of the rock bands, why don't they actually do something about it ? You don't need a mega label (see how Arctic Monkeys or Clap your hands and say yeah rose to fame). It will surely not require guest starring a hip hopper or getting in bed with the starlets, or any major shifts/overhaul.

FitzChilvarly: yes, the name "Radiohead" did help, and the hype after their biggest album. Still pretty interesting they did it, without a single video or anything remotely accessible on the album.
 
Last edited:
I'd d/l for free, but I'd buy the hardcopy CD when it came out. And if they didn't release it as a free d/l I'd still d/l for free (as with Bomb) and buy the CD when it came out.

I'm not not not, EVER, paying for some crappy mp3 that I download. If the day ever comes when CD's are completely gone and all there is is iTunes, Rhapsody, and whatever - well I don't listen to the nu-punk and sugar-rap anyway so oh well. I'll keep listening to the CD's I've got until I grow old and head off to my eternal tarpit with the other dinosaurs. But I'll be damned if I'll pay for lossy crap.

I do think it's cool that they (Radiohead) did it though.
 
indra said:

The model you tout might have worked for some 25-30 years ago, but it doesn't happen now.
Click to expand...

Being bought out by major corporations and having to answer to share price is probably the change that had the largest single effect. Record Companies from bottom to top are still completely loaded with people who love music to the core and would far prefer to put "whats best for the music/artist" well before profit, but at the very peak of the company, those guys have to answer to something else.
 
"Lisa needs braces"
"Dental plan!"
"Lisa needs braces"
"Dental plan!"
"Lisa needs braces"
"Dental plan!"
"Lisa needs braces"
"Dental plan!"


:wink:
 
We have a saying here:
What costs nothing, is worth nothing.
And I agree.
I am a writer, I would never give away my books for free. It's hard work I want to be recognized for.
And I'm willing to pay for something if I like it.
If not, I don't need to have it.
 
last unicorn said:
What costs nothing, is worth nothing.
And I agree.
Click to expand...

So a nice sunny day with a refreshing breeze is worthless?

I am a writer, I would never give away my books for free. It's hard work I want to be recognized for.
Click to expand...

I'm a writer too. I just want people to read what I write (which is kind of difficult when you have my interests). I don't give a shit if they pay. I don't see how being paid constitutes recognition. I agree with Headache: I don't need to pay to appreciate something. Paying doesn't constitute appreciation or recognition. It's simply a transaction for goods.
 
Axver said:

I'm a writer too. I just want people to read what I write (which is kind of difficult when you have my interests). I don't give a shit if they pay.
Click to expand...

Is writing a hobby or a job for you?

If it's a hobby, financial recompense is one thing.

If it's a living, that's quite another.
 
Axver said:
I'm a writer too. I just want people to read what I write (which is kind of difficult when you have my interests). I don't give a shit if they pay. I don't see how being paid constitutes recognition. I agree with Headache: I don't need to pay to appreciate something. Paying doesn't constitute appreciation or recognition. It's simply a transaction for goods.
Click to expand...

I don't have any problem with you giving your work away for free. That is entirely up to you as that work's creator (unless you have signed a contract with someone else giving that person certain rights -- but I'm assuming you haven't). I do have a problem however, if you then say "I don't care if people pay me for my work or not, so I won't pay someone else for his/her work either" when the other artist does want to be paid. (Granted, you didn't say that in your post, but soooo many people who use the "I don't care if I get paid, I just want my art out there" do use that argument.) You have the right not to buy the other artist's work if you think the price is too high. But if you aren't willing to pay what the other artist wants for his/her work, you do not have the right to own it.

And like it or not, money does constitute worth. Does anyone really believe they would be happy getting paid half of what all their co-workers (doing the same job) got if they got an "atta-boy!! good job!" everyday?

And just remember, for someone who makes his/her living from his/her art recognition is great, but it alone doesn't pay the rent or put food on the table.
 
Last edited:
Headache in a Suitcase said:
i don't need to pay for something to appreciate it.
Click to expand...

Paying for something is part of recognizing the work AND the artist who made it. If everyone thought like you, there would be no art at all around, no books, no music, no paintings, nothing, because no artist would be able to survive. I find it's a degrading approach. If I really appreciate something, I'm willing to pay for it, and money, like it or not, IS an important thing if you want to show appreciation. Also, for me as a writer (and I know a lot of artists, painters, everything, who think the same) it's a way of appreciating my own work and think of it as valuable by saying: I want to sell if for a fair amount of money instead of giving it away free to anyone and everyone after all the hard work I put into it. Doesn't mean I don't like to give stuff as a present to people I love. But I, for my part, would be very pissed if people said: I like what you're doing and I want to have it, but I don't want to pay for it. Believe me, I experienced a lot of situations like this.
 
If U2 put out an album for free, I would still buy it. I shelled out the full price for the new Radiohead album, anyways; they're one of my favorite bands, and I'm confident that the new album will be good.

Somehow, I doubt that U2 would venture into something like that, though. They're too interested in the commercial aspect, and releasing an album for free would diverge from that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
277
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
Janet H
  • Sticky
Forum Update - We're back! Ask your questions here.
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Popmartijn
Popmartijn
L
Play Do You Feel Loved, Babyface, Some Days Are Better Than Others, Playboy Petition
Replies
8
Views
733
rosephile
R
Scorpionac
Songs that would fit better on SOI vs. SOE?
Replies
1
Views
408
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
K
U2 Show Logistics Question/Theories
Replies
7
Views
735
lazarus
lazarus

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom