Yes or No only: Do U2 have less integrity now than in 1987 (JT era)?

[ADecentMelody]

Of course I don't care for U2 as people and I am not ashamed to admit that. From the day I loved U2's music, the pact was simple - U2 gives me good music and I give them my money.

I wouldn't care less if Clayton is having a bad hair day, or Bono has a cut in his finger, or if Edge was hurt by comments McGuinness said about him, or if Bono's daughter had a bad boyfriend. As long as these things don't affect the music production, then I don't care for them as people just as they don't care for me. I just want their music and the just want my money. It's as simple as that.

Cheers,

J

I'm not talking about the soap opera crap that you've mentioned above. I'm talking about your implications that they are money-hungry, cause-exploiting fan-deceptors who use human disasters to propagate their careers.

If that's your impression of them, then that's fine. I'm just here to present my views which run counter to yours.

 

[Pero]

Can't blame JICK, i disagree with him in few things but now he's wright. U2 is doing same thing for the last 10 years-rock opener, ballad, rock middle and ending.

Same thing, but different, POP-HTDAAB, you know what i mean.

 

[jick]

money-hungry, cause-exploiting fan-deceptors who use human disasters to propagate their careers.

Wow, that is a concise way to sum up U2's existence! But some parts I do disagree with though:

1. Money-hungry: U2 members are probably worth $100 million each, yet they still do little things to pinch the extra profit such as website membership, multiple versions of the same album, high ticket prices, high merchandise prices, iPod deal to get commissions from U2 iPod, Apple deal to have some bonus tracks exclusive only to iTunes and the Complete U2.

2. Cause-exploiting: from African aid (Live Aid), to Amnesty International (Conspiracy of Hope tour), to Greenpeace (Alternative NRG cd), to the Fight Against Poverty (Netaid), to the Tibet benefit (Tibetan Freedom concert), to 9/11 (A Tribute To Heroes), to other things I may have left out (AIDS, etc.) it seems U2 jump from one cause to the other. And all these causes are high-profile and nets them great publicity which means more exposure and will sell more records. There seems to be too many causes to actually have one real focus. Whether this is exploitation or not is up to the fans and critics to decide. But I think it is a safe assumption that their public appearance to all these varied causes helped them sell more records and did their image more good than harm.

3. Fan-deceptors: I'd refer this to the disgruntled members of U2.com because I luckily never fell for the bait.

4. who use human disasters to propogate their careers: I think it is not U2 who use the human disasters. It is the human disaster that needs U2, then U2 are there always ready to help. And an incidental result of their helping out these human disasters is that their careers are propogated. So both parties mutually benefit and no one is taking undue advantage of the other.

I really love your short and concise way of putting things - short and straight to the point. Nevertheless, all these traits attributed to U2 has not yet hindered or compromised the quality of their music. So that is why I still love them and listen to them.

Cheers,

J

 

[Muggsy]

cynicism.

thanks

i was leazy and i didn't read my spanish/ english dictionary

 

[sallycinnamon78]

Ok, boys and girls - we've had our commercial break.

Now back to the regular programming...

Do U2 have less integrity now than in 1987 (JT era)?

YES or NO?


Cheers,

J

Hahahaa! Jick you do make me laugh, even though you're a total wind-up merchant!

More power to this forum and all its moderators. I think you guys are better than U2.com!

That's not saying much really!

thanks

i was lazy and i didn't read my spanish/ english dictionary

Sorry. I have this terrible habit of correcting people's spelling, I really ought to stop it.

 

[doctorwho]

Yes or No only: Do U2 have less integrity now than in 1987 (JT era)?

By integrity, I mean everything - not just artistic integrity or personal integrity. The whole broad all-eoncompassing definition of integrity in general.

If the question is too complicated to answer, just don't reply in this post.

No long explanations, just a yes or no. If the question is not clear to you, then just refrain from answering it.

My answer: YES.

Cheers,

J

No.

I think a lot of people (i.e., you Jick) have rose-colored glasses and have convenienty forgot the past. It's easy to remember the preaching long-haired Bono screaming, "Where's the glory in that?" But the truth is, they are just as good now, if not better. DATA is proof enough.

 

[VertigoGal]

No.

(Truly depends on how they handle the next few weeks with the whole pre-sale fiasco, but I'm not deeming them money-grubbing bastards just yet.)

 

[doctorwho]

I really love your short and concise way of putting things - short and straight to the point. Nevertheless, all these traits attributed to U2 has not yet hindered or compromised the quality of their music. So that is why I still love them and listen to them.

Cheers,

J

Gee, if you really feel that U2 dedicate so much time to charity just to benefit their careers, then I can't see how you have enough respect for them to listen to their music.

There's no way Bono would've done what he does since 1999 just to benefit U2's career. In fact, I'm insulted on U2's behalf by your insinuations that all of their charity work is unfocused and merely an attempt to gain them exposure.

But if you really feel this way, then so be it. Fortunately, I disagree.

 

[alreadygone]

Wow, that is a concise way to sum up U2's existence! But some parts I do disagree with though:

1. Money-hungry: U2 members are probably worth $100 million each, yet they still do little things to pinch the extra profit such as website membership, multiple versions of the same album, high ticket prices, high merchandise prices, iPod deal to get commissions from U2 iPod, Apple deal to have some bonus tracks exclusive only to iTunes and the Complete U2.

It sounds like you're agreeing that they're money-hungry. Are you? (not arguing, just asking for a clarification of your point).

And to answer the original question: No. They are and always will be a rock band; they've changed tactics to meet the demands of a changing market, imho.

 

[Zoomerang96]

i do believe that with some people here, u2 could piss on their pants, slap their face and steal their money and STILL people wouldn't care.

of course they have less integrity than before. it's not even a question. think u2 in 87 or in 91-93 would have thrown some b-sides together for target?

 

[jick]

It sounds like you're agreeing that they're money-hungry. Are you? (not arguing, just asking for a clarification of your point).

And to answer the original question: No. They are and always will be a rock band; they've changed tactics to meet the demands of a changing market, imho.

I'm saying that their career is profit-driven. Music to U2 is not a hobby or an art. It's their only job and their livelihood. They are people who haven't finished their schooling and have no real jobs outside of the band. So it is natural to be in the job for the money. But at the end of it, they do deliver a great product which is their music. It is when they branch out (i.e. their website, etc.) that they sometimes screw up.

Cheers,

J

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Integrity? More or less...this forum, today, is a riot. Thank you Jick for playing to people's fears. You are truly a genius.

This thread has my vote for the dumbest thread ever, with the most responses.

 

[jick]

Re: Re: Yes or No only: Do U2 have less integrity now than in 1987 (JT era)?

No.

I think a lot of people (i.e., you Jick) have rose-colored glasses and have convenienty forgot the past. It's easy to remember the preaching long-haired Bono screaming, "Where's the glory in that?" But the truth is, they are just as good now, if not better. DATA is proof enough.

Just as someone here mentioned, `87 U2 would never sell their songs to Target or Best Buy or even sell their unreleased b-sides to Apple. Their integrity is still there but it is less than before. But at the end of it all, they still make great music and I still give them my money. Though I download advance copies of their albums on mp3, I always see to it that I buy the real thing too.

Cheers,

J

 

[jick]

Gee, if you really feel that U2 dedicate so much time to charity just to benefit their careers, then I can't see how you have enough respect for them to listen to their music.

There's no way Bono would've done what he does since 1999 just to benefit U2's career. In fact, I'm insulted on U2's behalf by your insinuations that all of their charity work is unfocused and merely an attempt to gain them exposure.

But if you really feel this way, then so be it. Fortunately, I disagree.

If you read my post clearly, you will stumble across these lines:

"I think it is not U2 who use the human disasters. It is the human disaster that needs U2, then U2 are there always ready to help. And an incidental result of their helping out these human disasters is that their careers are propogated."

When it comes to charity work, U2 are needed. It is the charity that needs U2 and asks for U2 - it is not U2 who begs to play in the charity for their own sake. U2 usually heeds the call. So there is no insult from me to U2 there. I'm just saying that when U2 does a high-profile public appearance - they are well aware that it will have effects on their career and on public opinion about U2. U2 aren't dumb and every move they make is well-calculated that is why they are a great band. So the initial thing is that the charity needs U2. And U2 usually help. But U2 are not blind to the implications that come with the charity work such as boosts in career and increase in record sales.

And when I say U2's charity work is unfocused, I mean that they have covered the entire gamut of charity stuff from Africa (Band Aid, Live Aid, Data) to children (Pavarotti and Friends) to the enviroment (Greenpeace) to I-don't-know-or-just-forgot-what (Tibetan Freedom concert, Perfect Day) to peace (YES concert) to AIDS (What's Going On) to the opressed (Amnesty International) --well just name the field of the charity and U2 have probably been there. Their charity work covers such a broad spectrum that it is unfocused and seems to be jumping from one charity to the other, but that is just my opinion.

Cheers,

J

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

yes

 

[Zoomerang96]

Integrity? More or less...this forum, today, is a riot. Thank you Jick for playing to people's fears. You are truly a genius.

This thread has my vote for the dumbest thread ever, with the most responses.

the author asked a fair question.

 

[jick]

I just did a one pass reading of this thread to count, so my numbers may be greatly off.

But it looks like the YES votes are leading with 15 versus 11 votes for the NO.

Cheers,

J

 

[Party Boy]

Answer to original question - No

As for jick, couldnt really give a toss. His posts to me anyway, always come across as being controversial for the sake of being controversial. After awhile, i read them with a rather large pince of salt. There are a lot better posters who get the same points across without sounding as bitter.

 

[yimou]

Jickie,, You sure did make a new avatar fast

 

[ElectricalVoice]

No

 

[jick]

Jickie,, You sure did make a new avatar fast

I'm also an imaging artist in my spare time. Check out U2literary.com --- this avatar is just five minutes work. I thought it was appropriate given the recent Interference threads about U2 and money and their integrity.

Cheers,

J

 

[yimou]

Looks good Jickie,, You only contribuate with the wallpapers ??

Nomatter what, then it looks like a good site

 

[jick]

Looks good Jickie,, You only contribuate with the wallpapers ??

Nomatter what, then it looks like a good site

Only the wallpapers. I am long overdue for making wallpapers of the new videos - Vertigo and All Because Of You. I'll try to see what I can do.

Cheers,

J

 

[jick]

So I guess that brings up the tally to 15-13! Come on NO voters, chime-in to level the match! I'm sure you don't want to accept that majority of the fans think U2 have less integrity!

Cheers,

J

 

[yertle-the-turtle]

Yes

 

[Neenie]

Yes

 

[alreadygone]

I'm saying that their career is profit-driven. Music to U2 is not a hobby or an art. It's their only job and their livelihood. They are people who haven't finished their schooling and have no real jobs outside of the band. So it is natural to be in the job for the money. But at the end of it, they do deliver a great product which is their music. It is when they branch out (i.e. their website, etc.) that they sometimes screw up.

Cheers,

J

I agree with you, but I don't think I'd use the phrase "money-hungry." Hell, I don't know the guys, so I can't say whether they're money-hungry or not. Sure they're *in it* for the money; I'm into *my* job for the money, else I'd be starving and homeless. But I don't do every little thing to get every extra penny. Hm, I guess I just argued your point.

 

[jick]

I agree with you, but I don't think I'd use the phrase "money-hungry." Hell, I don't know the guys, so I can't say whether they're money-hungry or not. Sure they're *in it* for the money; I'm into *my* job for the money, else I'd be starving and homeless. But I don't do every little thing to get every extra penny. Hm, I guess I just argued your point.

If you re-read this thread, it is the our fellow member with username ADecentMelody who started to use the phrase money-hungry, so I just took from it and tried to explain it. If it were me, I'd find more subtle terms to put it.

Cheers,

J

 

[Koufax]

Yes, it appears to be a bit of a sell out. Out of touch with their fan base or just don't care?

 

[alreadygone]

If it were me, I'd find more subtle terms to put it.

I think "profit-seeking" is a better fit.

Thanks for the link to U2literary.com. Nice site.