sad but true
- Thread starter Zoots
- 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.
U2 ALWAYS promoted their music heavily and it's very naive to think the rules of the music game haven't changed since late 80's or early 90's. Iovine said it all, really.Yup, U2 didn't play Top of the pops with One in 1992 or New Year's Day in 1983,
they weren't at the Grammys with JT and Zooropa,
and they most definitely didn't do award shows like MTV awards in the 90's with Even better..., Numb and Please.
They were totally not on MTV during JT and AB years, and the radio despised them all these years.
They didn't do several TV specials in their past either.
Superbowl halfshow wasn't about hyping the album, but uplifting the States after 9/11 - they played two older songs and the first single of that album, a year and 3 months after the release of ATYCLB.
Playing on a truck is not OK, but playing on a roof of a liquor store is?
The Ipod deal was explained by the band and I think most fans understood.
I suppose elitists and music snobs will never be happy.
Last edited:
Pero
Refugee
U2 are changing. They are older. Before it was cool and fun for them to work hard or make fun of taxi company, pizza delivery... but now, when they are a little bit older, it's not that fun.
You say that 10 years isn't a big change, i'm 15, i can't remember what have i done when i was 5, so it is a big change.
I agree with the article, but still i understand u2 reasons. It' true that they didn't show them that much on tv before, it's because they didn't need to.
SOMEBODY SAID: MTV's DEAD!!
Yes it is.
You say that 10 years isn't a big change, i'm 15, i can't remember what have i done when i was 5, so it is a big change.
I agree with the article, but still i understand u2 reasons. It' true that they didn't show them that much on tv before, it's because they didn't need to.
SOMEBODY SAID: MTV's DEAD!!
Yes it is.
Miggy D
War Child
In regards to the argument that U2 played these kinds of shows pre 1983 and now they play them again:
This is significant because before 1983 U2 was still an up-and-coming band that not a lot of people knew about. They played all of those lame shows because they wanted as much exposure as possible. After UF they got their first hit in the US with 'Pride' and they were already established in the UK and Ireland by that point. So they stopped doing those kinds of shows ASAP, because they probably thought they were dumb (or they would have kept doing them, right?). When you need the exposure, you'll probably play whatever you can get, because well, you need it. But 1984 and on, U2 was pretty dang big and didn't feel the need to 'stoop' and play those shows.
Now that U2 are in their 40s, and trying to succeed in a youth obsessed culture, they are playing these kinds of shows again because they're in a similar position to where they were in 1983 - they need as much exposure as they can get. Their songs are not going to be played on TRL. Their songs are not going to get much radio play. So they play where they can.
Is this good? is this bad? I personally have mixed feelings - on one hand, I say they should be able to promote their album however they want, whatever. On the other hand, personally, I cringe when I see it because it's a little sad to watch such a big band like U2 forced to play these stupid venues just to remain in the spotlight. But I guess when you're competing against kids half your age, you gotta do what you gotta do.
-Miggy
This is significant because before 1983 U2 was still an up-and-coming band that not a lot of people knew about. They played all of those lame shows because they wanted as much exposure as possible. After UF they got their first hit in the US with 'Pride' and they were already established in the UK and Ireland by that point. So they stopped doing those kinds of shows ASAP, because they probably thought they were dumb (or they would have kept doing them, right?). When you need the exposure, you'll probably play whatever you can get, because well, you need it. But 1984 and on, U2 was pretty dang big and didn't feel the need to 'stoop' and play those shows.
Now that U2 are in their 40s, and trying to succeed in a youth obsessed culture, they are playing these kinds of shows again because they're in a similar position to where they were in 1983 - they need as much exposure as they can get. Their songs are not going to be played on TRL. Their songs are not going to get much radio play. So they play where they can.
Is this good? is this bad? I personally have mixed feelings - on one hand, I say they should be able to promote their album however they want, whatever. On the other hand, personally, I cringe when I see it because it's a little sad to watch such a big band like U2 forced to play these stupid venues just to remain in the spotlight. But I guess when you're competing against kids half your age, you gotta do what you gotta do.
-Miggy
blueyedpoet
Refugee
Ok, Aerosmith sells one of their biggest songs (Dream On) to a car commercial - no one complains.
REM puts their album on myspace.com - a teenage/young adult site - no one complains.
Moby sells his songs nearly 100 times - no one complains.
Countless artists get their songs played on WB shows - no one complains.
U2 does anything closely to these acts and, "SELL OUT!"
REM puts their album on myspace.com - a teenage/young adult site - no one complains.
Moby sells his songs nearly 100 times - no one complains.
Countless artists get their songs played on WB shows - no one complains.
U2 does anything closely to these acts and, "SELL OUT!"
blueyedpoet said:
I agree, but... look at REM or Aerosmith critics reviews of their latest albums: Critics are just killing those bands
... look at U2 critics reviews done by the same people: they´re supporting every new U2 release with an almost childish adoration. A World of diference 
and it´s clear HTDAAB is not 'their third masterpiece', 'quintessential U2', etcIt seems to be something like "SHOW ME THE MONEY !!"
Peace
jick
Refugee
U2 are just adapting to the times, nothing is wrong with that.
Sometimes it is worth the sacrifice to be labelled as corporate sellouts and ridiculed by old-school fans as long as they can get their music on the radio and spread it to a new generation that has been bombarded with garbage music.
There is a greater good to be served by populating the radio and video playlists with quality material in an era when quality is so watered-down.
Cheers,
J
Sometimes it is worth the sacrifice to be labelled as corporate sellouts and ridiculed by old-school fans as long as they can get their music on the radio and spread it to a new generation that has been bombarded with garbage music.
There is a greater good to be served by populating the radio and video playlists with quality material in an era when quality is so watered-down.
Cheers,
J
Flying FuManchu
New Yorker
blueyedpoet said:
Actually... I'm sure people have complained... but people on this board probably could care less what Aerosmith does with their music for instance. The same with Moby.
I miss the Ipod commercial.
OP
OP
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
ramblin rose said:I miss the Ipod commercial.
lmfao at that box you're in.
Anyway... I agree with Ponkine in that the guys from REM aren't critics' darlings and cannot be compared with U2. Those guys are doing what they like best and happy with a select fan following. I can understand that U2 has to do certain things to get more exposure, reach the teen demographic and whatever. I just wish they wouldn't try to be the biggest band in the world. We know that they're the best just by looking at the variety of styles they've played with. They don't have to try so hard.
Flying FuManchu
New Yorker
REM aren't critics' darlings? 
One album and they're not "critics' darlings?" I think this last album was probably their worst reviewed but who knows. I believe music critics are generally ageist and probably hold it against REM for still putting out work without Bill Berry or REM's going back on their whole, we will retire by the year 2000 (I know the band said it was a joke but some critics are ill-informed nonethless).
One album and they're not "critics' darlings?" I think this last album was probably their worst reviewed but who knows. I believe music critics are generally ageist and probably hold it against REM for still putting out work without Bill Berry or REM's going back on their whole, we will retire by the year 2000 (I know the band said it was a joke but some critics are ill-informed nonethless).
Zoomerang96
ONE love, blood, life
great article.
no doubt the mindless will write it off as being evil drivel of their holy rockers, but to the rest it should bring up good points that we've all been thinking about for the last four/five years.
no doubt the mindless will write it off as being evil drivel of their holy rockers, but to the rest it should bring up good points that we've all been thinking about for the last four/five years.
Sleep Over Jack
Refugee
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,089
Oh dear.
Coincidently I happened to finally getting around to watching the interview done recently by Muchmusic (U2,Dismantled). It was interesting to watch after reading this thread yesterday and today.
Bono & Larry directly address most of the issues raised in this thread. It's was interesting to hear their point of view.
Bono & Larry directly address most of the issues raised in this thread. It's was interesting to hear their point of view.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Ok for everyone yelling 'sell out', show me exactly what U2 has sacrificed.
Also show me a band that hasn't, show me the model you'd like U2 to be. I'm interested.
Also show me a band that hasn't, show me the model you'd like U2 to be. I'm interested.
Shaliz
War Child
BonoVoxSupastar said:
OP
OP
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I don't know... Pearl Jam maybe... not as disconnected as they are with the world but close.
1980's:
U2 finishes the decade with a full-length movie about...themselves. Not a commercial or performance on SNL, but a MOVIE. Critics bash them into the ground for being so "self-absorbed, too pious - "Three Chords & the Truth", over-exposed with Time Magazine, the movie, MTV, Streets video on rooftop in a major U.S. City, taking themselves way to serious, etc. U2 accepts their first grammy for "Album of the Year" for Joshua Tree.
1990's
U2 turns the critics on their heads by changing directions musically and breaking new ground with the ZooTV tour. They released a video called Achtung Baby, which later aired on TV, with a few videos and A LOT of self-promotion of the new album. U2 accepts Grammy for AB "Rock Album of Year", then for Zooropa for "Alternative Album of the Year", Edge performs Numb at awards show, U2 embrace Irony and nothing is sacred. POP comes out off-schedule, a terrible one-hour promo show is on ABC, the irony goes even further, but sales falter at a measley "7 million." Critics bash U2 into the ground for forgetting about the music and making concerts into visual spectacles, disrespecting everyone & everything, cussing on live TV, forgetting their spiritual roots, grabbing for money with the release of their first "Best Of" album, etc.
2000's
U2 releases ATYCLB and promotes it with SNL, Irving Plaza, & other appearances. They openly declare "war" on bubblegum Pop, which ruled the airwaves entirely. BD cracks into the radio and wins 3 grammy awards. The album ultimately wins 7 grammy awards. Critics hail all this as a "comeback" (ummm, where did they ever go?). The 2nd of three contracted "Best Of's" comes out. U2 releases HTDAAB 4 years after ATYCLB to even more critical acclaim. Again, to crack the crap music airwaves, Vertigo is released and a free I-pod add promotes the song, along with SNL again. U2 has another grammy sweep with Vertigo but performs Sometimes live. Big picture...U2 may be remembered for saving the music industry by helping to set up an acceptable download format. Small picture...critics again bash U2 for putting music "2nd" to profits, putting style over substance, grubbing for more money for fulfilling their contract commitment with a 2nd "Best Of", selling out for having a free but catchy, promotional commercial, doing a live performance in a major U.S. City for a video and then a free concert for 40K+ fans which actually airs on MTV one night instead of the real world, not promoting ABOY enough & disappearing for about a month due to a serious family illness, putting a tour and millions of dollars on hold, etc.
Moral of the Story: Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Critics have a right to free speech, and they need to keep themselves in business. They can say what they want.
I love the music, the concert DVD's, the concert performances...all of it. I've grown up to with U2. I laughed when they were on the Simpson's, when Bono actually told Bill O'reilly to "shut-up"; I admire Bono for what he's done with DATA, Amnesty Int'l, etc. I cringed during the ABC POPMART special, but I cried during the SNL Sometimes performance. Nobody is perfect, but musically, U2 is as close to it as they come.
U2 finishes the decade with a full-length movie about...themselves. Not a commercial or performance on SNL, but a MOVIE. Critics bash them into the ground for being so "self-absorbed, too pious - "Three Chords & the Truth", over-exposed with Time Magazine, the movie, MTV, Streets video on rooftop in a major U.S. City, taking themselves way to serious, etc. U2 accepts their first grammy for "Album of the Year" for Joshua Tree.
1990's
U2 turns the critics on their heads by changing directions musically and breaking new ground with the ZooTV tour. They released a video called Achtung Baby, which later aired on TV, with a few videos and A LOT of self-promotion of the new album. U2 accepts Grammy for AB "Rock Album of Year", then for Zooropa for "Alternative Album of the Year", Edge performs Numb at awards show, U2 embrace Irony and nothing is sacred. POP comes out off-schedule, a terrible one-hour promo show is on ABC, the irony goes even further, but sales falter at a measley "7 million." Critics bash U2 into the ground for forgetting about the music and making concerts into visual spectacles, disrespecting everyone & everything, cussing on live TV, forgetting their spiritual roots, grabbing for money with the release of their first "Best Of" album, etc.
2000's
U2 releases ATYCLB and promotes it with SNL, Irving Plaza, & other appearances. They openly declare "war" on bubblegum Pop, which ruled the airwaves entirely. BD cracks into the radio and wins 3 grammy awards. The album ultimately wins 7 grammy awards. Critics hail all this as a "comeback" (ummm, where did they ever go?). The 2nd of three contracted "Best Of's" comes out. U2 releases HTDAAB 4 years after ATYCLB to even more critical acclaim. Again, to crack the crap music airwaves, Vertigo is released and a free I-pod add promotes the song, along with SNL again. U2 has another grammy sweep with Vertigo but performs Sometimes live. Big picture...U2 may be remembered for saving the music industry by helping to set up an acceptable download format. Small picture...critics again bash U2 for putting music "2nd" to profits, putting style over substance, grubbing for more money for fulfilling their contract commitment with a 2nd "Best Of", selling out for having a free but catchy, promotional commercial, doing a live performance in a major U.S. City for a video and then a free concert for 40K+ fans which actually airs on MTV one night instead of the real world, not promoting ABOY enough & disappearing for about a month due to a serious family illness, putting a tour and millions of dollars on hold, etc.
Moral of the Story: Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Critics have a right to free speech, and they need to keep themselves in business. They can say what they want.
I love the music, the concert DVD's, the concert performances...all of it. I've grown up to with U2. I laughed when they were on the Simpson's, when Bono actually told Bill O'reilly to "shut-up"; I admire Bono for what he's done with DATA, Amnesty Int'l, etc. I cringed during the ABC POPMART special, but I cried during the SNL Sometimes performance. Nobody is perfect, but musically, U2 is as close to it as they come.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
unnamed_streets said:
I love Pearl Jam but they do the same things.
Selling every live show, yes it's brilliant business, but many saw it as greedy.
They've played SNL, Letterman, etc.
They don't have the appeal to play Super Bowl.
They got a little bad press so they stopped playing Bushleaguer, and caved in to the preasure.
So they do all the same things.
Everyone needs to get a grip and really understand what 'selling out' really is.
Marr
The Fly
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Sex Pistols, Nirvana, Mike Patton, Jane's Addiction, The Clash, The Smiths....
MrBrau1
ONE love, blood, life
Marr said:
The Sex Pistols reformed in the mid 1990's and Johnny Lydon made it very clear they did it for the $. Then he recorded a song for a Mountain Dew commercial.
The Clash have had several songs appear in car commercials.
The Foo Fighters (Nirvana relative) had their song "Next Year, used as the theme son for NBC sitcom "Ed." I've also seen numerous TV spots promoting the "Nirvana Boxset." Call now and Order!
Pero
Refugee
beLIEve said:
finally a normal statement about u2.They have changed, nothing else, i think that it's worse than 1990's.
"Nobody is perfect, but musically, U2 is as close to it as they come."
I had to read 8 pages to find a sentence
CPTLCTYGOOFBALL
War Child
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 537
Originally posted by ramblin rose
"Coincidently I happened to finally getting around to watching the interview done recently by Muchmusic (U2,Dismantled). It was interesting to watch after reading this thread yesterday and today.
Bono & Larry directly address most of the issues raised in this thread. It's was interesting to hear their point of view"
If anyone has this on MPEG it'd be good to put this portion up-They do address the whole "selling out" notion quite well
"Coincidently I happened to finally getting around to watching the interview done recently by Muchmusic (U2,Dismantled). It was interesting to watch after reading this thread yesterday and today.
Bono & Larry directly address most of the issues raised in this thread. It's was interesting to hear their point of view"
If anyone has this on MPEG it'd be good to put this portion up-They do address the whole "selling out" notion quite well
Last edited:
Flying FuManchu
New Yorker
LOL at the examples listed... I cannot believe the Sex Pistols were even listed... that has to be blatant trolling....
Flying FuManchu
New Yorker
Fugazi? But then the problem is, no one really knows or cares who Fugazi is except people with the indie mindset of having "their" band all to themselves...
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Marr said:
Mike Patton??? The majority of the people in this forum don't even know who Mike Patton is. Yes he's talented but he hasn't brought shit to music in like 10 years.
The rest of your list is a joke. Commercials, TV spots, reunions, reality shows...
Someone's gotta do better than this.
CPTLCTYGOOFBALL
War Child
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 537
Nirvana? Theres a section in U2: at the end of the world where Dave Grohl comes backstage during the first leg of the Zoo TV tour to visit with the pixies and Bono raises the possiblity of Nirvana opening some arena shows for U2 - Dave Grohl responds by telling him Nirvana are a punk Band and would never "sell out" their punk roots by playing arenas. Bono tells him "never say never, it's something you might need to consider'. A few weeks after the meeting grohl was trashtalking Bono in NME about how U2 were sellouts and were trying to corrupt Nirvana.
Of course Nirvana went on to play arenas......SELLOUTS!
Of course Nirvana went on to play arenas......SELLOUTS!
Last edited:
Similar threads
