What does everyone think about that U2 IPOD commercial now!

[shaun vox]

did it hurt u2's image or their legacy (for not selling out)

i could not stand that commercial! i would always change the channel, it was just disgusting what my fave band had become and what they were doing!!

even bruce springsteen made a joke about u2 selling out with the ipod commercial!(ya they did not take any $$)
lol

lets talk!!

 

[financeguy]

Let's talk? Very well.

I'll tell you what annoys me way more than that I-Pod thing, and that's the crap sound quality I was subjected to at Croke Park 24th June 2005.

Frankly, U2 owe more to their fans that paid good money to see them than the crap sound quality we were subjected to.

Considering some people forked out 1,000's between flights, accomodation, tickets, etc.

And yes Bono, it's your fault, along with the other members of the band. And McGuinness. And Principle Management.

You should have had the sound sorted, and you didn't, and that's not cool.

 

[martha]

The sound was sucky at Anaheim 1 as well.

But I still like the ipod ad. Bono looked sexy in it.

 

[anitram]

The iPod ad was groovy. Didn't convince me to pay $50 more for an uglier iPod, but overall, it was groovy.

 

[shaun vox]

The sound was sucky at Anaheim 1 as well.

But I still like the ipod ad. Bono looked sexy in it.

WHAT i was at that show and the sound was fine!! i was on the floor!!

 

[amerrydeath]

Bono's voice sounded really strange (because of the sound system) at Boston 2 & 3 and Paris 2. But I think I got used to it after a while. Then I listened to the bootlegs and I could actually understand half of what he was singing.

And the iPod ad... cringe.

 

[MsMofoGone]

I still enjoy occasionally watching it on tape along with MTV's 'The Making Of Vertigo'.
Bono was incredibly sexy !!

 

[XHendrix24]

Now, I'm a straight male and all. But Bono was extremely sexy in that ipod ad.



















Straight male.

 

[TheBrazilianFly]

I still think the iPod comercial is one of the best U2 videos and I still like it alot.

The sound was perfect in Paris when I saw them!

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Can't comment on how they sound live....

So my only comment is on the commercial. I thought it was cool then and still think it's cool now. I've said before that the term "sell-out" bugs me to begin with, and I just don't understand the big issue with it, personally .

Angela

 

[discothequeLP]

The sound was sucky at Anaheim 1 as well.

i had nosebleeds, way in the back, but dead center stage, and the sound was great. Edge's guitars were really LOUD, and on some parts (like the Zoo Station main riff) you'd get high, thin, tinny sound, but as a gutiarist i loved it. the piano sounded awesome too, real sharp and bright, awesome!

 

[Jack In The Box]

U2 sounded good at Madrid, and I enjoy the iPod ad

 

[namkcuR]

It didn't hurt their legacy at all.

One commerical cannot undo a near-three-decade career that has outputted

I Will Follow
Gloria
SBS
NYD
Pride
TUF
Bad
Streets
Still Haven't Found
WOWY
Bullet
RTSS
Desire
Angel Of Harlem
AIWY
EBTTRT
One
Until
Wild Horses
The Fly
Mysterious Ways
Lemon
Stay
Discotheque
Mofo
If God
Staring
LNOE
Gone
Please
Sweetest Thing
BD
Stuck
Walk On
Kite

just to name a few.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

U2 legacy...in 2004/05...can't be touched. The only people who bitch about it are those who are fanatics like us. I think it was just another medium that U2 conquered.

 

[AtomicBono]

U2 and iPods are two of my favourite things. That's why I have a U2-edition iPod and love the U2 iPod ad with sexy B-man.

 

[U2girl]

Same as I did then - a good way to touch a new medium and get exposure to a new audience, embracing rather than rejecting the digital era.

 

[Exit thru Wire]

I didnt have a problem with it then or now

 

[Infinity]

U2 legacy...in 2004/05...can't be touched. The only people who bitch about it are those who are fanatics like us. I think it was just another medium that U2 conquered.

Not exactly true, because i know a lot of kids from school who were non-U2 fans who became U2 haters because they couldn't stand Vertigo because it was "everywhere," especially in that commercial.

But you're right that U2's legacy can't be touched, that I-Pod commercial caused them to slip a little, but overall their legacy is great.

I've said it before and i'll say it again: the overpromotion of Vertigo has caused so many people to hate U2/Bono. Of course these people are idiots cause they haven't even heard any of U2's other songs and they don't know anything about Bono (God among men), but nevertheless it has not helped U2. And it's such a shame that Vertigo is the only song that'll be popular from this album when there are classics on the album such as COBL, Miracle Drug, Original, just to name a few. In the ATYCLB era 4 U2 songs became popular, not just 1: Beautiful Day, Elevation, Walk On, Stuck. None was too overpromoted, and they each got their time in the limelight. Frankly, I don't see that happening for HTDAAB.

I wandered off-topic.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

As a long time fan of U2, I was frankly pissed off when I saw the ipod commercial. During the 80s and 90s when concert sponsorship was more common, like Stones etc being sponsored by Pepsi etc, U2 mentioned often in interviews how uncomfortable they were with the practice and said they would not do that themselves.

What concerns me about the ipod ad, whether they got paid or not, is it was a purely commercial opportunity to get their music on the telly, as a lead in to their album release. It was a quite cynical move to tie themselves in with the latest fad, a kind of "hey what are the kids into? ipods? Sure why not"

If they had paid for their own commercials ie "here is our album, buy it" there would not be a problem.

 

[Layton]

What concerns me about the ipod ad, whether they got paid or not, is it was a purely commercial opportunity to get their music on the telly, as a lead in to their album release. It was a quite cynical move to tie themselves in with the latest fad, a kind of "hey what are the kids into? ipods? Sure why not"

They've been making music videos forever. That's a "purely commercial opportunity to get their music on the telly", as you put it. Interscope/Island has paid for those videos to put money in their pocket generated from U2 sales. In this case, Apple paid for the video to put money in their pocket generated from U2 sales. Apple has bigger bucks which allowed U2 to circumvent MTV, this time around and get the song greater exposure. If Interscope had the money for this kind of video budget they would've done it themselves. In the end, whoever funds a video is doing it in part to drum up business for themselves. Sure, Apple was trying to drum up business for it's Ipod, but Interscope/Island has been using U2 to drum up business for it's company, also. How many times have we seen something along the lines of 'the home of Bob Marley and U2, Island Records presents the debut album of' whatevever new band they're trying to promote. Bottom line is that Apple became U2's mp3 record company for that time. I don't see that as being a big difference from Interscope being their more traditional record company.

 

[VertigoGal]

i had nosebleeds, way in the back, but dead center stage, and the sound was great. Edge's guitars were really LOUD, and on some parts (like the Zoo Station main riff) you'd get high, thin, tinny sound, but as a gutiarist i loved it. the piano sounded awesome too, real sharp and bright, awesome!

that's good. that's about where my seats are for my show in November, so hopefully I'll have the same experience. (I know it can vary with arena but hopefully it'll be about the same.)

 

[MrBrau1]

They've been making music videos forever. That's a "purely commercial opportunity to get their music on the telly", as you put it. Interscope/Island has paid for those videos to put money in their pocket generated from U2 sales. In this case, Apple paid for the video to put money in their pocket generated from U2 sales. Apple has bigger bucks which allowed U2 to circumvent MTV, this time around and get the song greater exposure. If Interscope had the money for this kind of video budget they would've done it themselves. In the end, whoever funds a video is doing it in part to drum up business for themselves. Sure, Apple was trying to drum up business for it's Ipod, but Interscope/Island has been using U2 to drum up business for it's company, also. How many times have we seen something along the lines of 'the home of Bob Marley and U2, Island Records presents the debut album of' whatevever new band they're trying to promote. Bottom line is that Apple became U2's mp3 record company for that time. I don't see that as being a big difference from Interscope being their more traditional record company.

I feel the same way. I think is shows how smart they are. Bruce said it perfectly:

"Smart, wily Irish guys. Anybody "anybody" can do an ad and take the money. But to do
the ad and not take the money... that's smart. That's wily."

U2 got as much out of Apple, as Apple got out of U2. Turning the tables as they say.

 

[Bonochick]

I loved the iPod ad. I always got excited whenever it came on.

 

[corianderstem]

Loved the ad then, still dig it now. And agree with everything MrBrau1 said above.

 

[martha]

Maybe the sound was sucky at Anaheim because I was way the hell up on Adam's side. Or maybe I was just tired.

 

[Infinity]

"Smart, wily Irish guys. Anybody "anybody" can do an ad and take the money. But to do
the ad and not take the money... that's smart. That's wily."

Bruce even added a pun, he put a "Think" in front of the "Smart." It was awesome how he just slipped it in. It took me a few seconds to realize it was a pun.

"Think Smart, wily Irish guys. Anybody "anybody" can do an ad and take the money. But to do
the ad and not take the money... that's smart. That's wily."

 

[blueeyedgirl]

They've been making music videos forever. That's a "purely commercial opportunity to get their music on the telly", as you put it. Interscope/Island has paid for those videos to put money in their pocket generated from U2 sales. In this case, Apple paid for the video to put money in their pocket generated from U2 sales. Apple has bigger bucks which allowed U2 to circumvent MTV, this time around and get the song greater exposure. If Interscope had the money for this kind of video budget they would've done it themselves. In the end, whoever funds a video is doing it in part to drum up business for themselves. Sure, Apple was trying to drum up business for it's Ipod, but Interscope/Island has been using U2 to drum up business for it's company, also. How many times have we seen something along the lines of 'the home of Bob Marley and U2, Island Records presents the debut album of' whatevever new band they're trying to promote. Bottom line is that Apple became U2's mp3 record company for that time. I don't see that as being a big difference from Interscope being their more traditional record company.

I think you miss my point. U2 have been making commercials for their albums forever, as do every other artist. I don't have a problem with them publicising their music via commercials, music videos and so forth.

I have an issue with them allying themselves to ipod. That is was a cynical move to tie themselves with in the "youth market", the market that would probably ignore their videos and their commercials ("ugh, those old guys again")

Doing an ipod ad is no different to doing a Pepsi ad, wearing Nikes and doing a Nike ad. They were using ipod to broaden their buyer group into the youth market. To make themselves cool by proxy.

 

[shaun vox]

dont forget that TARGET only u2 cd(it was during atyclb)!! talk about giving up!!

 

[Layton]

I think you miss my point. U2 have been making commercials for their albums forever, as do every other artist. I don't have a problem with them publicising their music via commercials, music videos and so forth.

I have an issue with them allying themselves to ipod. That is was a cynical move to tie themselves with in the "youth market", the market that would probably ignore their videos and their commercials ("ugh, those old guys again")

Doing an ipod ad is no different to doing a Pepsi ad, wearing Nikes and doing a Nike ad. They were using ipod to broaden their buyer group into the youth market. To make themselves cool by proxy.

I'm not missing your point at all. If you think of Apple as U2's record company it all makes more sense. What's the difference between Apple using a U2 video to cross promote one of its products (Ipod) and Interscope/Island using U2's name and reputation to cross promote one of its products (another band)? This stuff has been happening forever. Back in the day, Sony used to use it's artists to cross promote its Walkman. You don't think Interscope would like to market U2 to the "youth market"? They just don't have the resources that Apple has to be as effective at it. Like it or not, bands are business entities. That automatically happens when they sign a record contract. At that point they're in business with that company. Which means that they will now be affiliated with other aspects of that company's business, for good and for ill. Apple is a cutting edge record company, at the moment. Traditional record companies are still dealing with CD processing plants, etc. (Remember U2 represents Interscope's versions of those, too). Apple deals with the burgeoning mp3 side of things and has created an innovative music delivery system to facillitate their side of the business. As usual, U2 has positioned themselves at the forward edge of the industry. More impressively, they are still in complete control of their dealings with their 2 record companies.

 

[smurf_sista]

I loved the iPod ad. I always got excited whenever it came on.

i have a theory... it must be on a hell of a lot more times over in the USA or the UK or where everyone here lives coz, i've seen it maybe once or twice here in Aus.

as for the iPod being ugly... it's not! but it would look better if it was an old one... the one with the buttons! that would look cool, in black and red!