Just a rant

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Friends...You are all acting like you are "entitled" to a leaked version of the album, or, at the very least, a version of the album not distributed by Universal.

Personally, I really don't give a shit about the record company, I just want the music. My $10 will go to the retailer, the manufacturer, the label and - finally - the band. So be it! I would love a pre-release version of the album, but just for my own selfish enjoyment. I had ATYCLB three weeks before it came out, but I still bought the CD at 7 a.m. the day it was released. Record companies still serve a purpose - they promote, manufacture and deliver the CD to retail. This is NOT an easy thing to do, and they know how to do it. You crucify Universal for being greedy and applaud Trent Reznor and Radiohead for taking things into their own hands and leaving the evil record company out of it. Well, the reason they do that is because of the MONEY! They don't want to give money for their work to someone else...who is being greedy there? Trent Reznor may use "I'm doing this for my fans" as his public line, but I think that's bullshit. He has a job, and he wants to get paid as much as possible for the work he does. He didn't sell out, he is trying to make a living. That's the whole point people. They all say they hate the music industry, but if you hate the music industry, don't make music! Play for free in a bar somewhere...see how long the "joy of performing for the fans" lasts with no huge pay day.

We talk about outdated delivery models and pre-internet magic and all that, but what it really comes down to is most of you sound like you just want new music for free...and that you feel entitled to it. What does U2 owe you? Nothing...they love to make music, and they love to SELL you music. A shirt, a ticket, a CD, a download, it's all bought and paid for. I will gladly do it for this band. If you are feeling slighted by the parting of your cheap asses and your money, don't buy it. I, for one, will buy it...and if I have to wait FOURTEEN MORE FUCKING DAYS to do it, that's just fine.

Thanks gang...still luv ya!
 
rjhbonovox said:
U2 never appeared in the top of the pops studio from 1983 (new years day) to 2000 (beautiful day). Of course it was different back then. How old are you? Was you even born when AB was first released? When AB was first released all top of the pops played were the promotional videos for The Fly and Mysterious Ways. I was a fan back then. Probably the majority on this forum weren't around then I don't know. But no one is gonna tell me that the U2 of today did the same promotional crap they do now. Its just bullshit! They have definetly lost their coolness from how they were back then. They lost that with the release and subsequent saturational promotion of ATYCLB in 2000 when they were desperate to be loved again even appearing on kiddies tv Pop music shows such as The Chart Show in UK which was embarrasing. Of course you'll have me believe that they did this for AB back in 1991. Yeah right!:doh:
Click to expand...

I was a junior in high school when it came out, it was the first midnight sale I ever went to... Believe me I know what I'm talking about...

I watched the TV specials, I still have them on VHS. They had one that had pieces ended up on the Interference release which I think aired on MTV, they did one on Fox, and then once the tour started they did several on MTV. And they did several radio appearances.

These may have seemed like "cooler" appearances to you because most of them were MTV, but it doesn't mean there was less promotion. You look ridiculous trying to argue so...

Didn't you yourself just say how they did One on TOTP?:huh:
 
I should also point out that U2 did just release a free song. They recorded their cover of "I Believe in Father Christmas" released through the charity RED(WIRE). AND they specifically say that the song has no DRM and we should feel free sharing it with anyone we want.
 
rjhbonovox said:
U2 never appeared in the top of the pops studio from 1983 (new years day) to 2000 (beautiful day). Of course it was different back then. How old are you? Was you even born when AB was first released? When AB was first released all top of the pops played were the promotional videos for The Fly and Mysterious Ways. I was a fan back then. Probably the majority on this forum weren't around then I don't know. But no one is gonna tell me that the U2 of today did the same promotional crap they do now. Its just bullshit! They have definetly lost their coolness from how they were back then. They lost that with the release and subsequent saturational promotion of ATYCLB in 2000 when they were desperate to be loved again even appearing on kiddies tv Pop music shows such as The Chart Show in UK which was embarrasing. Of course you'll have me believe that they did this for AB back in 1991. Yeah right!:doh:
Click to expand...

Live performances by U2 are embarrassing?

What a stereotypical old timer "I liked U2 when they were cool" post. Not cool.
 
rjhbonovox said:
when they were desperate to be loved again even appearing on kiddies tv Pop music shows such as The Chart Show in UK which was embarrasing.
Click to expand...

WHY was it embarrasing? :shrug:

It was billed as a kiddies tv show for sure, but in the end it ended up with a HUGE Adult following! That is what they were tapping into, plus the fact that the UK in them days had a very distinct lack of terrestial music progs to "Sell their wares" on. Sadly now all completely non existant here :sad:

On the subject of a leak, I'd be equally thrilled to hear a leak as I will be the day I go into HMV and pick up my copy!

Trouble is expectation is SO high, people are all more than wired for this LP and the leak threads are just a way for people to let of steam and yes, talk complete crap! with the odd excitement that the leak has finally been found! :hyper:

If it drives people insane, keep away from them, and let the rabid dogs vent, guilty myself m'lud :flirt:
 
I believe U2 have referred to this as eating the monster before the monster eats you.
 
I remember back in 87 all the promo for Rattle & Hum plus when they made TV specials for the ZooTV tour and the regrettable Pop release show. U2 has always been trying to be huge. They have had great success and some failures. I would never think that they were ever less than ambitious. I just believe that it is not so much about money as being the biggest.
 
rjhbonovox said:
They have definetly lost their coolness from how they were back then.
Click to expand...

Yeah but mostly "coolness" is just posturing of a different stripe.
Is Reznor any more or less "cool" than he was when he charged people $15 for a remix album full of shit remixes done by other people? What about Radiohead when they appeared on Arsenio fucking Hall back in 93?

Now people want to hold these artists up as bastions of independent thinking when they are still charging people up the ass for merchandising and concert tickets. What this whole issue is, is between the fans and the images they associate themselves with. They know Brand X has one image and they know Brand Y has another. So it hardly matters what constitutes that image to you, it's only that it's a reflection on you. What I mean is, there is a dishonesty about it, intentional or not.

U2 have always been on a major label, always had large ambitions (people conveniently forget they released a fucking worldwide Film in 1988) and they always wanted to be successful and heard. The only difference between 21st century U2 and 1980's U2 is that the music largely isn't seen as challenging.

So when self-important Bono is plastered everywhere in cinemas in 1989, it's more forgivable because they were still making a certain kind of music, with a certain image that was digestible to the "cool kids". How is that different from U2 at the Super Bowl? All in the images.

The only thing that really changed was the more current music defied the old image. SO all of those people who assigned this social significance to that image have felt betrayed.

People are bitching about business matters, promotion, when the problem they have, I can almost assure you, is just with the music.
 
bcrt2000 said:
I have a rant too. Not totally related but somewhat related.

The idea that music has to be commercially unsuccessful or not promoted to be artistically good or embraced by critics is bollocks and its this idea that has killed rock music. The bands that make good accessible music get crucified by critics for making stadium ready rock. The bands that make songs that no one gives a shit for get praise and then people wonder why rock is dying.
Click to expand...

I think the reason this is (and by to some extent is not the band's fault) is that as more and more fans (hardcore, middle of the road or just passers-by) buy the music, show up to the shows, etc...the music moves further and further away from being 'yours' so to speak...it gets watered down...the experience gets watered down...

On some level its like working for a huge corporation where you are nothing but a number....whereas if you are at a smaller company you are a recognizable figure...

and as far as bands making songs that no one give a shit about...a lot of that has to do with marketing...
 
U2 has always done promotional stuff, especially on TV. I have a tape showing them playing on a Japanese TV show in 83, or how about the Tomorrow Show with Tom Snyder interview/performance in 81, or how about them lip syncing Fire on TOTP? They did all that and more, and how many hundreds of magazine, radio interviews? Tons. In 1992, I bought a stack of a magazine called "U2". I was in full collector mode from the late 80's to the mid 90's, so I have boxes and boxes of stuff from that period. They always have done promotion, it's just that today, with the Internet and hundreds of channels, many more of us can access it all.
 
mwheelonh said:
See, that's kind of my point: this isn't the good old days. Pre-internet, the "magic" of waiting for a new album wasn't the reason that you had to wait for the album--it's not like a benevolent record company exec realized "Hey, if we make them wait 2 months, it'll sound so much better to them, so let's make sure they wait 2 months, so they get the best experience possible"--it was a by-product of the infrastructure taking so damn long to go from master tapes to physical media.
Click to expand...

I basically agree that U2... using this old model is certainly out-dated and they'd probably be better served to try something different.

Although, I've griped about this issue myself, I don't know that it really matters that much in the big picture.

The fucking recording process itself is the problem. 4+ years.
What is a few more months on top of that?
 
U2DMfan said:
Yeah but mostly "coolness" is just posturing of a different stripe.
Is Reznor any more or less "cool" than he was when he charged people $15 for a remix album full of shit remixes done by other people? What about Radiohead when they appeared on Arsenio fucking Hall back in 93?

Now people want to hold these artists up as bastions of independent thinking when they are still charging people up the ass for merchandising and concert tickets. What this whole issue is, is between the fans and the images they associate themselves with. They know Brand X has one image and they know Brand Y has another. So it hardly matters what constitutes that image to you, it's only that it's a reflection on you. What I mean is, there is a dishonesty about it, intentional or not.

U2 have always been on a major label, always had large ambitions (people conveniently forget they released a fucking worldwide Film in 1988) and they always wanted to be successful and heard. The only difference between 21st century U2 and 1980's U2 is that the music largely isn't seen as challenging.

So when self-important Bono is plastered everywhere in cinemas in 1989, it's more forgivable because they were still making a certain kind of music, with a certain image that was digestible to the "cool kids". How is that different from U2 at the Super Bowl? All in the images.

The only thing that really changed was the more current music defied the old image. SO all of those people who assigned this social significance to that image have felt betrayed.

People are bitching about business matters, promotion, when the problem they have, I can almost assure you, is just with the music.
Click to expand...

Excellent post, I agree with everything but the last two lines.

I think the perception of cool also shapes our perception of the music(at least for many)...

In other words you could place the same song in different packaging and it will get a different response. I bet if you put Playboy Mansion or Miami on one of the last two albums many who like it now wouldn't. You put Kite on Achtung Baby and many who don't like it now, would love it...

I see far too much of this in here. They will attack U2 or a certain era and be completely oblivious to the fact that the other era or some other indie darling they love are guilty of the same exact thing. rjhbonovox's post is a perfect example of that.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Excellent post, I agree with everything but the last two lines.

I think the perception of cool also shapes our perception of the music(at least for many)...

In other words you could place the same song in different packaging and it will get a different response. I bet if you put Playboy Mansion or Miami on one of the last two albums many who like it now wouldn't. You put Kite on Achtung Baby and many who don't like it now, would love it...
Click to expand...

Well you know what they say in Ireland:

"if your aunty had balls she'd be your uncle".
 
to the OP , there is something wrong when you can write something like that on an expensive computer, but have some sort of problem with paying 9.99 at best buy for a C.D.
 
zoo99 said:
to the OP , there is something wrong when you can write something like that on an expensive computer, but have some sort of problem with paying 9.99 at best buy for a C.D.
Click to expand...

or they could be writing in an internet cafe...question mark.
 
sometimes I wish U2 stayed out of the spotlight a little bit more... I didnt really like the vertigo ipod commercial nor the commercials for NLOTH i see on tv. I think it sends a message that all U2 cares about is money... which is obviously not true. I also dont think U2 makes music because they feel "obligated" to, but rather because they enjoy music. Radiohead is my second favorite band, I love everything that they do (aside from their first album), and the song "creep" is a misrepresentation of the band itself- in fact, most radiohead songs sound absolutely nothing like creep. I think many teenagers who hear the same single play over, and over, and over, and over, again (like Vertigo and Beautiful Day) associate all their thoughts on the band based on that song. Many teenagers think "U2 sucks", but all they have heard are those 2 songs just as someone might say "radiohead sucks" after only hearing Creep. If U2 releases many popular singles for this album, their might be more of a variety that people will hear instead of simply associating U2's entire sound off of one song (GOYB). There are many facets to U2's sound and I feel bad that younger kids only hear the simple catchy rock tunes instead of some of the magnificently layered songs in the catalog.
 
Guys, U2 hasn't changed, we have.

In 1991 you couldn't just log onto a discussion forum and blabber away endlessly in the days leading up to a release. Even if you were able to get onto one of the more obscure ways of communicating online back then, it took so long and was so painful and there were so few other souls out there doing the same (and, that liked U2) that it rather discouraged this type of exchange. Therefore we all sat back, took what we could get from MTV and radio and whatnot, and waited. It just felt less imposing than now, because of the immediacy of media availability these days.

Ask yourself: did you watch your last music video online, or on TV? If U2 does an instore appearance or a television show, I'm more likely to see it online first. Teh Internetz has changed the way we see things and expect to get things, forever.
 
rjhbonovox said:
U2 never appeared in the top of the pops studio from 1983 (new years day) to 2000 (beautiful day). Of course it was different back then. How old are you? Was you even born when AB was first released? When AB was first released all top of the pops played were the promotional videos for The Fly and Mysterious Ways. I was a fan back then. Probably the majority on this forum weren't around then I don't know. But no one is gonna tell me that the U2 of today did the same promotional crap they do now. Its just bullshit! They have definetly lost their coolness from how they were back then. They lost that with the release and subsequent saturational promotion of ATYCLB in 2000 when they were desperate to be loved again even appearing on kiddies tv Pop music shows such as The Chart Show in UK which was embarrasing. Of course you'll have me believe that they did this for AB back in 1991. Yeah right!:doh:
Click to expand...

it was "cool" in your eyes because it was so different from what they had been, and what else was out there. while everyone else was going grunge, u2 went glam.

but don't fool yourself into thinking that it wasn't any more calculated and any more about tyring to stay relevant in the changing music culture then what they do today.

if you do, well, you're simply kidding yourself.

YouTube - U2 Zoo Station live from New York(Zoo TV Tour 1992)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh5v9rzy94A

no promotion? no lame TV things?

please...
 
For those that don't understand the whole concept of promotion, you promote something up until you finally release it, this "promotion" is used to increase sales so you and your hundreds of employees make more money. What kind of a loser would want to work on a project for years and then not promote it and see it fall flat. You know some of you have a really hard time understanding the real world where buisness is what creates wealth which creates a higher standard of living.
I'm really not trying to dumb this down to insult anyone but think of a big hollywood blockbuster that took a couple of years from just an idea in someones head to the finished product and cost millions to make. Do you really think it would make sense to just have it show up at Blockbuster on some random Wednesday afternoon or do promote the shit out of it and release it on July fourth weekend cause you worked damm hard on it and are proud of it.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
it was "cool" in your eyes because it was so different from what they had been, and what else was out there. while everyone else was going grunge, u2 went glam.

but don't fool yourself into thinking that it wasn't any more calculated and any more about tyring to stay relevant in the changing music culture then what they do today.

if you do, well, you're simply kidding yourself.

YouTube - U2 Zoo Station live from New York(Zoo TV Tour 1992)

YouTube - ZOO TV - OUTSIDE BROADCAST [06/10]

no promotion? no lame TV things?

please...
Click to expand...


definitely some points of not here. well done.
 
I think U2DMfan is bang on.

And as for being with a major record label vs DIY vs online etc, U2 aren’t ahead or behind the curve in anything in that regard. For now they are still hovering above and beyond it. Remember that that’s where they’re operating from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Headache in a Suitcase
The Little Things That Give You A Mercy Rip Off
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
lazarus
lazarus
H
Filming ?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
rosephile
R
dan_smee
U2 Live From Sphere - Final Show SiriusXM stream
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
dan_smee
dan_smee
C
Will Larry Return to U2?
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
MrsSpringsteen
Atomic City
Replies
11
Views
1K
HeartlandGirl
HeartlandGirl

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom