What does everyone think about that U2 IPOD commercial now!

[Bono's shades]

A few years ago back when VH1 was still doing music-oriented programming they did a bunch of Behind the Music episodes on specific years rather than artists. I taped the one for 1987 because I knew U2 would be in it. I just watched it a few days ago for the first time in ages. They showed an interview with the band from that time period, and Bono talked about how sick he was of the modern music scene. He said music wasn't music anymore - it was advertising.

I wonder what that Bono would think of the iPod ad and the band's current tie-in with Apple.

 

[Liesje]

I don't have a problem with the ad. They aren't "selling out" b/c they're endorsing their own product, iPods, the U2 iPod, U2 music collection on the iPod, etc. I'd feel differently if they'd let Streets be played in that car ad, b/c that has nothing to do with U2. I see the U2 iPod commercial the same way I see those short commercials on MTV and VH1 advertising their new albums (saw them for the recent Best Of and HTDAAB).

 

[corianderstem]

He said music wasn't music anymore - it was advertising. ... I wonder what that Bono would think of the iPod ad and the band's current tie-in with Apple.

I'd just chalk that up to the idealism of youth, or the knowledge that comes with age and realizing how the world ... or the music industry ... works.

 

[Chizip]

Assuming i-Tunes is available in your country, you can download i-Tunes onto your PC and purchase most of them for $0.99 or €0.99 each, apart from a few of the very early demos like the Fool and Street Mission and the B-Sides of HTDAAB and the live stuff, which are only available to people who purchase the whole package.

But all the other stuff, you can pay for and download on a track-by-track basis without buying the whole package.

for all of the unreleased and rare tracks, including the b-sides for the current album they do not allow you to purcahse them individually, gotta spend the 150 bucks to get them

 

[financeguy]

for all of the unreleased and rare tracks, including the b-sides for the current album they do not allow you to purcahse them individually, gotta spend the 150 bucks to get them

It depends on how you define 'unreleased and rare'.

The specific category defined as 'unreleased and rare' - correct, you can't download those tracks on a track by track basis.

Nevertheless I downloaded a bunch of tracks I didn't have previously, stuff like Celebration, Another Day, various remixes of later stuff, etc. How many record stores have stuff like that lying around? And if they did it would be on vinyl for the earlier stuff which wouldn't be a lot of use to me.

Also as I don't buy many singles there were various B-Sides I didn't have so I downloaded those too.

 

[Chizip]

it's not how i define it, it's how itune defines it. they have a section called "unreleased and rare" that have all the good bomb b sides and alternate versions that youd normally be able to get on single releases. but now they release singles with either one or two live songs and/or a crappy remix, so if you want to get the good bsides you have to spend 150 bucks to get them on itunes.

 

[financeguy]

it's not how i define it, it's how itune defines it. they have a section called "unreleased and rare" that have all the good bomb b sides and alternate versions that youd normally be able to get on single releases. but now they release singles with either one or two live songs and/or a crappy remix, so if you want to get the good bsides you have to spend 150 bucks to get them on itunes.

Yeah I see your point now. Actually I had just edited my previous post before I saw your response

 

[TheQuiet1]

I'm sure these alienated fans still went to at least one show.

True enough. I don't think that the I-pod ad alone caused fans to become disillusioned with the band and nor do I personally think it should.

However, there have been many threads on here in the past from fans who have become disappointed with the band for whatever reason. Taking into account the culmination of these reasons perhaps the I-pod ad was the straw that broke the camel's back?

If however you mean that U2 don't care what the fans think of them so long as they can keep packing 'em into the stadiums and milking them for all they are worth, thus the ad wasn't anything like a gamble, ( and I'm not suggesting you are!) then you may have a very valid point but I don't particularly like thinking of the band as fat cats only interested in making more, more, more. Even if I'm being naive to do so. Which I guess I am.

*goes off into lala world where bands only write records to please fans*

I'm waffling, aren't I?

 

[martha]

If however you mean that U2 don't care what the fans think of them so long as they can keep packing 'em into the stadiums and milking them for all they are worth, thus the ad wasn't anything like a gamble, ( and I'm not suggesting you are!) then you may have a very valid point but I don't particularly like thinking of the band as fat cats only interested in making more, more, more. Even if I'm being naive to do so. Which I guess I am.

I was directing my criticism at the fans who bitch and moan about U2 selling out, claim to be over them due to their greed, yet still attend shows and buy albums. And continue to post here about how crappy the band is for selling out.

 

[xtihn]

here's my $0.02:

when the U2 ipod commercial came out, it never occurred to me that they sold out (even before i found out they didn't make any money from it). i think the ipod is a revolution in the way we listen to music today and i always thought that U2 was just trying to take advantage of that. i personally didn't think there was anything wrong with that. i applaud them for daring to make such a move; whether it was a smart or stupid decision affecting their legacy has yet to be determined, IMO.

i also think the u2 ipod looks better than the original white ipod.

but then again, after buying the U2 ipod and downloading their complete digital boxed set, i realized how much money i've spent and started to feel like a sucker that fell for clever marketing. oh well.

 

[Utoo]

Insight from "U2 At The End Of The World":

1. The idea of "selling out" is bull. There is no band in the world that doesn't want to become huge. If they tell you otherwise, they're fooling themselves. It used to be the dream of bands to try and be the biggest band in the world before it became cool to say you're not trying.

2. As far back as 1992, U2 recognized that the development of the internet & digital music was going to change the music industry. In the book, U2 clearly state that they believe the best way to protect their music and to have their music sound the best would be to own or hook up with the best hardware that would play their software--their music. This is a full decade before the iPod deal!

IMO, U2's legacy is far greater than this silly commercial. Whether you think it helped or hurt them, its effect is hardly a scratch in the armor. If you think it's more than that, I'd say you're missing out so much more of what is U2.

 

[Utoo]

For anyone who has the time to read it, this is an excellent interview with Bono, in which he discusses the iPod deal, U2's goals, and the absurdity of the idea of "selling out."

http://www.interference.com/u2128132/index.html

 

[Bono's shades]

I have a hard time seeing how the iPods is this magic potion that is going to save the music industry from the pitiful state it is in now. Yes, iPods nice if you are a music lover and can afford one, but in the end they are still products that are marketed for their "coolness" like the latest hip designer clothes.

The iPod ad in and off itself probably wasn't that bad by itself, but when you add on the insult of asking long-time fans to pony up $150 to get 10 previously unreleased tracks (in a sonically inferior format to a CD, no less) when they could have just as easily done the entire digital box set a la carte the whole Apple tie-in begins to look less and less like U2 endorsing something that is good for the music industry and fans and more like them looking to line their pockets. I hope that's more perception on my part than reality, because I don't like thinking the band I've loved for so many years are being greedy, but I also didn't just fall off the turnip truck so it's really hard sometimes to keep the blinders on.

And yes, I still plan to go to a concert this year - but my main reason for that is it never worked out for me to go in the past and four years ago I swore I would not miss the next tour come hell or high water.

 

[starvinmarvin]

I have a hard time seeing how the iPods is this magic potion that is going to save the music industry from the pitiful state it is in now. Yes, iPods nice if you are a music lover and can afford one, but in the end they are still products that are marketed for their "coolness" like the latest hip designer clothes.

You bet! I truly don't think less of the band because of the iPod advert, but I agree with what you're saying about iPods. The whole thing is just brilliant marketing - nothing more. I too resent the idea of forking out money for an inferior sounding recording. If I'm paying for a music file, I expect that it be CD quality. That's where the music industry really misses the whole point of file sharing, and what's at stake for them. Yes, people are getting music for free on ther internet, but 90% of the files being shared are shitty sounding 128 kb/s mp3's that your ears can only tolerate at a low volume. I can honestly say that I will still buy CDs that I truly love, in spite of the downloading, because I'm willing to pay for good sound quality, liner notes, etc....I have been downloading countless songs for years, and there is no doubt that I am not buying any fewer CD's than I did before Napster. I often download songs I've never heard before (and that never get any radio klay) in order to test them out, and if I like it, I buy it. If I don't, I never would've heard it anyways, so the record companies haven't lost any of my money. I firmly believe that the decline in CD sales is mainly due to two main factors; (1) Music is getting worse, more generic, and people just aren't interested anymore, and (2) Many CDs sold in the early days were the result of people upgrading their record collections from cassette/vinyl to CD. It's been over 20 years since we got a new format, so many people have already finished the process. For example, when I bought a CD player I upgraded many of my U2, Beatles, etc cassettes to CD. I finished doing this a long time ago, so I'm not buying any more of these Cd's ever.

 

[Utoo]

....and more like them looking to line their pockets.

I might think that way, too, if I though that they got money from the deal. But the thing is, here's what a lot of people don't know: U2 didn't make a dime off the iPod deal. All they got out of it, besides the advertising, was an agreement to let Edge work with the creative minds at Apple to experiment with electronics, computers, and music, etc. That was the whole point of the second half of The Boss' speech at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame---and I kind of think he put it in there to get that word out. Thinking about the iPod issue with this knowledge, I see the decision less as a business act and more as a creative one.

 

[financeguy]

I might think that way, too, if I though that they got money from the deal. But the thing is, here's what a lot of people don't know: U2 didn't make a dime off the iPod deal. All they got out of it, besides the advertising, was an agreement to let Edge work with the creative minds at Apple to experiment with electronics, computers, and music, etc. That was the whole point of the second half of The Boss' speech at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame---and I kind of think he put it in there to get that word out. Thinking about the iPod issue with this knowledge, I see the decision less as a business act and more as a creative one.

That is a fair point, but it still doesn't address the issue raised by Chizip and Bonoshades that to get certain tracks, you had to fork out the full 150 rather than download them on a track by track basis.

 

[starvinmarvin]

That is a fair point, but it still doesn't address the issue raised by Chizip and Bonoshades that to get certain tracks, you had to fork out the full 150 rather than download them on a track by track basis.

Yeah, I agree. The ad wasn't a problem, but the iTunes collection was a rip-off. And U2 certainly profitted from it.

I'm glad that I downloaded the rare and unreleased tunes, becasue truth be told they're not worth the 150 bucks. I don't even know if it was worth the time it took to find them for free.

 

[Bono's shades]

It just occurred to me that even though U2 undoubtedly is profiting monetarily from the digital box set, Apple and Interscope might be making a whole lot more. I have no idea how much Apple and the record labels get from tracks downloaded from iTunes compared to the artists. I do know that artists actually recoup very little from CD sales compared to what the label gets.

 

[financeguy]

I don't even know if it was worth the time it took to find them for free.

Thanks for saving me the hassle of going looking for them.

 

[starvinmarvin]

Thanks for saving me the hassle of going looking for them.

Well, maybe I shouldn't have said that...nothing on it is essential, but some of the stuff might be worth having if you're U2 completist.......all that you need to know about the rare & unreleased album is that both Levitate and Smile are worth downloading, and that the alternate versions of the HTDAAB are interesting but inferior to the finished versions. Jesus Christ is OK too if you like the country influenced rattle and Hum songs, but I know lots of people don't.

 

[Bono's shades]

Jesus Christ is OK too if you like the country influenced rattle and Hum songs, but I know lots of people don't.

The Woody Guthrie tribute album this song originally appeared on is available through iTunes so you can download Jesus Christ for 99 cents if you want. That's what I did! I seem to remember it being slightly longer or shorter than the version offered through the digital box set, but I believe it is essentially the same tune.

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

Ok but why are U2 doing this NOW? Why haven't they been allying their name with other products in the past? To me it indicates a desperation to find a marketing tool for them now.

This isn't new to U2. Larry Mullen did a print ad for Harley Davidson back in 87 or 88. I didn't see anything wrong with that, and I don't see anything wrong with the Ipod ad. For anyone with the Flanigan book, reread it. There's a part where they were talking about how in the future Music would be Downloaded straight to the enduser, that Music stores would be obsolete. They were excited about this and wanted to be part of it. They were one of the first acts to make sure that they secured separate royalty rates for downloads.

U2 have always been interested in the future, and they've professed excitement about things like the IPOD years before...When they said last year that they really did like the Ipod they weren't just blowing smoke, it's true. The proof is in that book. It's not like they're selling Coke, while privately hating the stuff and stocking crates of Pepsi(Like Michael Jackson-BTW ShaunVox, aren't you a big Michael Jackson fan?)

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

That is a fair point, but it still doesn't address the issue raised by Chizip and Bonoshades that to get certain tracks, you had to fork out the full 150 rather than download them on a track by track basis.

That is a fair point. But it's also fair to point out that I've downloaded all of those tracks and not paid a cent.

 

[catwoman]

This might be a stupid question but where on the net can I watch the commercial?
When they used to show it on tv,I never paid much attention....I wasn't really a fan then.

 

[starvinmarvin]

That is a fair point. But it's also fair to point out that I've downloaded all of those tracks and not paid a cent.

True, but maybe you would have bought them if you could have bought just those tracks, and not the whole box set. Another enticement to buy would have been if those tracks were CD quality sound., but they're not, so what are they really worth anyways? The answer is nothing, and that's why I downloaded them for free too. LOL!!

 

[Utoo]

starvin---- where'd you get them? I have a few of them, but wouldn't mind completing the set.

 

[starvinmarvin]

I downloaded them WinMX, but it took FOREVER. They're not that easy to find. Which ones do you need?

 

[Utoo]

drop me a line at utooguyATgmailDOTcom. I'll send you a list of what I've got---we can trade some, if you'd like.

 

[catwoman]

This might be a stupid question but where on the net can I watch the commercial?
When they used to show it on tv,I never paid much attention....I wasn't really a fan then.

HELLO!!!
I can't save or download anything from the apple/itunes website on the computer I use,which is a library computer,I tried a number of times already,I thought there would be another site where I could watch it.
If there is,you guys aren't telling me.
For some reason you are ignoring me.

 

[doctorwho]

Yeah, I agree. The ad wasn't a problem, but the iTunes collection was a rip-off. And U2 certainly profitted from it.

I'm glad that I downloaded the rare and unreleased tunes, becasue truth be told they're not worth the 150 bucks. I don't even know if it was worth the time it took to find them for free.

Oh c'mon!

iTunes charges $1/song. With the U2 package, you received almost 450 songs for $150 - or just $100 if you had the coupon code. That works out to 22 cents a song!

Sorry that you feel so ripped off for paying 22 cents a song...