Thanks!
it's always going to be a fine line between how we perceive "saying good things" to people and "pandering". Obviously, from my perspective, I think U2 has gone too far from the "selling" to the "pandering". They do spend an inordinate amount of time (in my opinion) throwing themselves at the US market and doing everything possible to endear themselves. This made some sense in 1987, but today it sort of reeks of aging rockers trying to cling to their most lucrative and uncritical fanbase.
This makes no sense at all.
They promote and tour as much or more in the rest of the world as they do America.
Remember Pop and Popmart?
America was hardly their most lucrative/uncritical fan base then.
I don't care if you want to put an opinion out there based on your perception, so feel free to not answer, but exactly what do you base this opinion off of?
It makes sense to reach out to an audience that is receptive to your work no matter the decade. That's how you stay relevant.
Heavy metal acts do better in Eastern Europe than America and Western Europe, do they call that pandering when they cater to them?
And the aging rockers argument. You and everyone else who makes it. I work security at concerts and as I type this, I am at the venue getting ready to be subjected to night 3 of 3 of The Wall from Roger Waters. Touring all of these American cities, with pictures of American Troops who have fallen, charging $400, $500 per ticket, and playing a 2 hour set with a 20 minute intermission consisting entirely of a performance of
The Wall with the exact same visuals as 1980. That is an aging rock act. Not U2 continuing to release relevant albums and playing them onstage along with unreleased material.
U2 ARE NOT AGING DINOSAURS JUST SUCKING UP TO AMERICAN AUDIENCES.
That was in 1987. In the 2000s, Bono posed with George Bush and Jesse Helms, and he and Edge performed at the Obama inauguration. Bono is pictured on the cover of Time magazine performing with an American flag sown into his jacket.
Keep digging your "I'm uninformed" hole deeper.
Bono is not an unprincipled ass kisser, he does things on his own terms and still makes his opinions known. You must have missed the criticism he's had of George Bush and Tony Blair for the Iraq War. Been very outspoken about that.
He actually gets work done by convincing the people who hold the purse strings to support his causes. Jesse Helms was one of them. Bono also made clear his disagreements with him. This has led to tangible results for people Bono is trying to help-he realizes the approach now does a lot more than War or JT tour style fist pumping anger.
He is still critical from the stage when the situation warrants it. He was last year with Berlusconi in Italy, who reneged on promises he made.
Every person who has ever disagreed with Jesse Helms in public life worked with him at some time or another. Its how things get done.
Its immature and naive to think otherwise. Bono has grown up and matured, sorry you haven't.
Also, something was inherently wrong with the American flag jacket? It was after 9/11, every person in every country was wearing the American flag. It was mostly for the 9/11 tributes they were doing as showcased at the Super Bowl. Something wrong with that?
Give me a break. You're grasping at straws.
I agree they have a special relationship with the American audience. You seem to have interpreted my post as an anti-American swipe. It wasn't. As Bono once said, "I don't partake of the spanking of the Yank.
"
You'd never know with your implications that Bono's flag jacket was somehow wrong or "pandering."
But I take your word for it.
I'm baffled as to where you got that implication from...? Certainly not from my post.
Well, the "bland" descriptions of their music seems to suggest the dumbed down Britney Spears/Miley crap we hear on American radio today.
Remember, I was responding to a stupid, moronic, misspelled post on the internet that you decided to legitimize. Not your own words, but you post it, you own it.
So, "U2" to you should function as an "international business"? Pretty lofty ideals there...
How naive are you?
Its not a little or a moderate amount, its between extremely and off the charts.
What else should they function as?
They sell their music to a worldwide audience.
That is the reality of it and every other artist out there. Even the ones who claim to hate capitalism.
Because we all know anti-capitalists like Rage Against The Machine and Roger Waters, etc just give their music away for free and don't deal with labels at all. Again, give me a break.
Again, it's our differing perspectives. I personally think that tax move was a really bad move, esp. with regards to their special situation in Ireland. (Not to mention it just makes Bono's humanitarian work look bad.) U2 is, of course, within all rights to do whatever the hell they want with their money. But in my opinion, that was an act in bad faith. It tainted them a bit for me.
How does it make Bono's humanitarian work look bad? He's not suggesting that everyone give up all their wealth or pay 90% in taxes to fund 3rd world development. He is asking for people to support a small commitment from the tax dollars they already spend. Ending one subsidy or closing one loophole takes care of most of these small commitments from countries. He is asking no one to take a tax increase over this. Everything the One Campaign asks me to support winds up being peanuts that are easily found and non controversially approved by the US Congress and signed by the President, be it Bush or Obama.
The Netherlands gives a higher percentage of their income in aid than Ireland does, and U2 still pays plenty of taxes, more than most individuals, to Ireland.
Not to mention all the money he gives himself. Far more than anyone criticizing him for it.
The question that needs to be answered by YOU is why should U2 have to base their royalties in Ireland when they earn them all over? Why not go to the best tax climate? Many, many artists have done the exact same thing.
Notice how you didn't address the fact that Ireland never lost any revenue from U2 as they did not levy a royalties tax before the move.
It was not bad faith in anyway. It made a good sound byte for critics who never liked Bono in the first place.
Again, I find your vision of the possibilites rather limiting. Yes, we all know (yawn) that U2 are signed to major labels and have obligations to market their music. In my opinion, however, they've recently crossed the line from hard-working band with a deserved international following to hard-working bad with a media profile obtained from corporate pandering.
Yawn? Well, you accept it, so why are we having a debate?
Name one artist, regardless of what they espouse regarding capitalism, who is known outside of their basement who is not signed to a major record label. My possibilities are limited? Tell me what else is out there?
Recently?
Reading your posts, you'd think U2 were Enron or Wal Mart or BP for crying out loud. They have very progressive minded business practices. There are non heartless profitable corporations out there in the real world.
Where is the line for you? What year?
They gain their profile from corporate pandering?
This is just stupid.
They gain their profile from their music.
You are suggesting they need corporate sponsorships to elevate their profile?
You know when U2 shows made the news most? Joshua Tree and Lovetown. Back when they were still icons of virtue to you.
When were they in the media the most? Sunday Bloody Sunday, NYD, Live Aid, constant runs on MTV.
There is no recent change in U2's philosophy.
Yes, I am. In 1987, even accounting for inflation, their live ticket was probably 25% what it is today, the show was just as big or bigger, and there were no frills on stage and no corporate sponsorship.
Surely you know that money is made on touring these days, so prices in general for concerts have gone way up. So all that matters is for the climate they are in, where the market for live shows simply demands higher rates than it did 23 years ago, they are reasonable.
Don't use your personal dislike for stadium spectacles to hit U2 with an unfair accusation of gouging on ticket prices.
You do realize that corporate sponsorship helps to hold down ticket costs, right? No corporate sponsorship and charging $500 is better? Just so we can "stick it to the man?"
Don't beat 'em!
What part about my pointing out that U2 is the most reasonably priced big name act to see live don't you understand?
Who else in their league do you see using the higher end tickets($250, not $450 or $500 like for everyone else) to plow the money back into making GA reasonable and selling $30 tickets at the lower end?
They could easily sell GA for $100 and the $30 for $60 and walk away with much, much more money.
Let me get this straight -- you're equating the "arena/stadium set" with "musically"? Musically, as I understand it, is based on the music that the musicians play, not based on the pixilation of the video screen.
What?
This might as well have been in Zwahili. What the hell are you talking about?
I never said music is based on the pixilation of video screens.
I said no matter where they play, stadiums or arenas, and no matter the production(frills or no frills), the music always comes first with U2.
I have yet to see a Stadium set overshadow the live performance from U2 like it does with Britney Spears. They are not covering up lack of talent or lack of a musically brilliant show.
I thought that point was made crystal clear, but you come back by accusing me of judging quality based on a video screen. Wow.
I think my post was rather good, so your judgment has not offended me. I'll try to be a big boy and get over the hurt you've caused me...
I wasn't trying to offend you, just set some wildly stupid crap you legitimized and are still defending straight.
Your response is to put words in my mouth and be a wiseass, good for you.
Yes.
The posts I've recently responded to stood out to me because I feel you made statements that do not reflect your intelligence level.
Bottom line, its cool that you have your viewpoint on corporations, but don't project this naive viewpoint onto U2 and use your very wide definition of sell out that U2 never agreed with even in 1980 to claim that they are soul less sell outs.