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

[U2girl]

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?

Since you mentioned these years, I wonder what U2 of 1987 would say about elaborate and expensive tour, their own TV station and airplane, expensive clothes/shades, remixes and less B-sides, hanging out with supermodels and partying, spilling champagne on stage every night and handing out technology goodies to fans, a fan club organisation where you pay 20 USD?

 

[jick]

The score looks to be 18-13 in favor of the YES.

But I'd just like to clarify again, even though majority who replied to this thread think U2 have less integrity than 1987, it doesn't automatically mean they make crap music nowadays or are no longer the best band in the land.

Cheers,

J

 

[MrBrau1]

Presale people who complained to Ticketmaster US are getting calls from TM US and getting tickets. Please redo you're poll, as new information has come to light.

 

[jick]

Presale people who complained to Ticketmaster US are getting calls from TM US and getting tickets. Please redo you're poll, as new information has come to light.

My poll was about integrity in general, and that is much broader than the presale fiasco. And I don't want to do a repeat poll, I am not sure but might that not violate forum rules? Or perhaps it will end up being merged with this poll?

Cheers,

J

 

[MrBrau1]

My poll was about integrity in general, and that is much broader than the presale fiasco. And I don't want to do a repeat poll, I am not sure but might that not violate forum rules? Or perhaps it will end up being merged with this poll?

Cheers,

J

Considering the presale fiasco was probably responsible for a large # of "yes" votes you should redo the poll, Ya know, in the name of science.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

MrBrau's point was the point of my earlier statement. Whenever the chips seem to be down here, there are a few here who like to throw salt into the wide open wounds.

It's like a game or something.

 

[MrBrau1]

MrBrau's point was the point of my earlier statement. Whenever the chips seem to be down here, there are a few here who like to throw salt into the wide open wounds.

It's like a game or something.

Am I still a "blind" fan because I had faith and it was rewarded. What does that make all the extreme doubters?

 

[indra]

Considering the presale fiasco was probably responsible for a large # of "yes" votes you should redo the poll, Ya know, in the name of science.

My vote won't change. It's still a yes.


(A qualified yes, because I think U2 has always been a very commercial band and has always done whatever they feel they need to do to be "the biggest band in the world," so I don't think it's a horribly big change, but I do think it's becoming gradually worse.)

 

[MrBrau1]

My vote won't change. It's still a yes.


(A qualified yes, because I think U2 has always been a very commercial band and has always done whatever they feel they need to do to be "the biggest band in the world," so I don't think it's a horribly big change, but I do think it's becoming gradually worse.)

I belive you. But no doubt the number of "yes" votes was higher due to the current ticket problems.

"Guilty before you're given a chance."

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Blinded by anger and confusion.

You know MrBrau1 for the first time in 18 years I don't have floor seats to a U2 show, but I have seats, and that's what is most important to me. I want to be there.

Has U2 lost some integrity? Possible. Are they older, wiser and smarter businessmen compared to 1987? Yes. Do they have families with children, and other business ventures to support? Yes. Didn't U2 of 1988 drop the Rattle and Hum CD/Cassette; book of the movie; and movie for consumers to gobble up? Yes. Didn't U2 of 1992 go "Hollywood"? Supermodels, parties, sunglasses? Yes.

My point is, is that this thread is nothing more than another, annoying thread to perpetrate the myth that U2 is nothing more than a bunch of "old" money-grubbing, corporate whores. It's something that I will defend against until this whole situation blows over.

 

[jick]

I belive you. But no doubt the number of "yes" votes was higher due to the current ticket problems.

"Guilty before you're given a chance."

Your statements are downright insulting to U2 fans who have particpated in this thread. The presale fiasco is only a small component of integrity. You are hinting that U2 fans aren't level-headed and think just based on impulse if you say that the basis for their yes was motivated by the presale fiasco. U2 fans are perhaps the most intelligent fans in the pop biz, and you greatly underestimate them. I have made it clear from the start that I meant integrity in its broadest most all-encompassing meaning - not just in business, not just in artistry, not just in creative compromises -- but the whole package in general. It is clear that the U2 fans have thought hard to make their decision on what to reply to this thread and came up with their conclusions on reasons beyond just the ticketing blunder.

It is also ironic you use the Bono quote from the Zooropa Dublin concert in reference to Michael Jackson. Why don't you take the quote in full: "To Michaal Jackson, I don't believe you're bad - guilty before you're given a chance." Jacskson was never given his chance because he wisely payed settlement money to his accusers. So nothing ever went to court and a verdict was never reached. Nevertheless, Bono already passed judgement by saying "I don't believe you're bad." Why should be pass judgement even before the case had been tried? I think this also doesn't apply to the ticketing blunder because it has already happened. U2 are already at fault. Command responsibility is theirs, the buck stops with them. What do they do? Run away from the responsibility. No public apologies or at least official band statements. U2 had all the chances in the world to take care of business, yet they didn't. So they are guilty even though given a chance.

Cheers,

J

 

[sallycinnamon78]

same old, same old, round and round the roundabout.

 

[starsgoblue]

 

[matt76]

Your statements are downright insulting to U2 fans who have particpated in this thread. The presale fiasco is only a small component of integrity. You are hinting that U2 fans aren't level-headed and think just based on impulse if you say that the basis for their yes was motivated by the presale fiasco. U2 fans are perhaps the most intelligent fans in the pop biz, and you greatly underestimate them. I have made it clear from the start that I meant integrity in its broadest most all-encompassing meaning - not just in business, not just in artistry, not just in creative compromises -- but the whole package in general. It is clear that the U2 fans have thought hard to make their decision on what to reply to this thread and came up with their conclusions on reasons beyond just the ticketing blunder.

It is also ironic you use the Bono quote from the Zooropa Dublin concert in reference to Michael Jackson. Why don't you take the quote in full: "To Michaal Jackson, I don't believe you're bad - guilty before you're given a chance." Jacskson was never given his chance because he wisely payed settlement money to his accusers. So nothing ever went to court and a verdict was never reached. Nevertheless, Bono already passed judgement by saying "I don't believe you're bad." Why should be pass judgement even before the case had been tried? I think this also doesn't apply to the ticketing blunder because it has already happened. U2 are already at fault. Command responsibility is theirs, the buck stops with them. What do they do? Run away from the responsibility. No public apologies or at least official band statements. U2 had all the chances in the world to take care of business, yet they didn't. So they are guilty even though given a chance.

Cheers,

J

Jick I love the fac that you like U2 so much that the only way you can honour them is by having a go. keep it up!! very very amusing

 

[ZeroDude]

The thing is these threads which I like to call the seemingly eternal Arguement are far attractive to us all than threads praising U2's music, we all seem preoccupied with anything but the music any chance this will end soon?

 

[jick]

Jick I love the fac that you like U2 so much that the only way you can honour them is by having a go. keep it up!! very very amusing

Yes, blind faith isn't real honour for U2, it is an active and questioning faith in the band.

U2 love the Christian God and Jesus very much. But they are not afraid to question them, such as in Wake Up Dead Man.

In the Bible, particularly the Book of Psalms, Kind David threw questions and laments to God - and Bono said he was the first blues musician.

Even in the death of Jesus at the cross, his last words were: "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

If you are really passionate about something like I am passionate about U2 then you will look at everything about the band from all angles and not fear to question them in a public forum.

Cheers,

J

 

[paulrg]

No, in fact more.

Cheers,

P


...What happened to the beauty I had
Inside of me?

 

[jick]

The thing is these threads which I like to call the seemingly eternal Arguement are far attractive to us all than threads praising U2's music, we all seem preoccupied with anything but the music any chance this will end soon?

This thread is about U2's integrity IN GENERAL terms. So it is all-encompassing, covering also their musical integrity. If U2's integrity has changed, it will have a direct correlation on the quality of music. So this thread is actually preoccupied with the music too. In the end, it's really only the music that matters.

Cheers,

J

 

[jick]

No, in fact more.

Cheers

P

That brings the running tally to 18-14, still in favor of the YES votes.

Cheers,

J

 

[Party Boy]

The score looks to be 18-13 in favor of the YES.

But I'd just like to clarify again, even though majority who replied to this thread think U2 have less integrity than 1987, it doesn't automatically mean they make crap music nowadays or are no longer the best band in the land.

Cheers,

J

Wow.. thanks Jick for the clarification....... and here is me thinking your poll was the definitive indication on how commercial and crap U2 are these days....

 

[matt76]

No

 

[ramblin rose]

No, in fact more.

 

[beau2ifulday]

Yes.

 

[digsy]

yes

 

[Shaliz]

no

 

[TheFly84138]

No.

A band loses their 'intergrity' as soon as they sign a contract to a higher power. I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, just a true thing.

 

[z00ropean]

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

you're an asshole jick!

 

[doctorwho]

If you're asking if U2 is the same band that they were in 1987, no.

They haven't been the same since 1991.

I would contend they haven't been the same band since, oh, 1988. *snicker*

Seriously, the world changes - is it the same world as it was in 1987? Why, I recall seeing videos regularly on MTV back then. I recall radio actually playing a variety of music and taking chances on new artists. I recall singles being a big part of music.

However, while many things are the same, many more stay the same. The 80's also saw Michael Jackson and Madonna do Pepsi commercials (even though Madonna's was later yanked).

It just seems odd that when U2 do a commercial that essentually advertises how consumers can buy their song on a music site - people scream "sell out". Yet, when others let their music appear in car commercials or soda ads, it's more acceptable.

I think Iggy Pop once said that he doesn't care if one of his songs appears in a car commercial now - it wasn't written with that goal in mind. And that's the spirit I see in U2's music. But as U2 have a greater control over their songs than most artists, I'm proud that they haven't just sold their catalog to the highest bidders.

To me, that's integrity - it takes a lot to maintain it in today's world.

 

[jendzi]

Yes

 

[ramblin rose]

I want to be sure that people are understanding the question being asked here, as I'm a little surprised by some of the responses:

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

Yes: U2 has less integrity now than in 1987

No: U2 does not have less integrity now than in 1987