U2’s songs of innocence: a battle long lost because it’s not about the music

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Frenchie44

The Fly
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
46
In all the years that I have been on this forum I never have been an active poster. I enjoyed reading the anticipation before a new record and people’s thoughts about songs and lyrics. People on this forum were so nice to send me when requested files of music by mail over the years. When I was younger I spend a fortune on bootlegs of live recordings so thank you for all the music you shared with me over the years.

For the first time in my life I really feel the need to write something down about how I feel about U2 these days. After reading the backlash in the media about the launch of the new record, U2 as a band and the actual record, I feel the need to say something. Not because I think the world should care about what I think, but simply because I want to. That is a good enough reason for me.

In my mind I have a long personal relationship with U2. I don’t want to bore anyone or myself with the details, but from being a kid at the beginning of the eighties up till now well in my forties I have been a huge fan. Never stopped listening to the music. Even when the music started to show some serious wear and tear. Even when the music started to be overshadowed by Bono’s ridiculous ambition to be bigger than big. Even when people started to call U2 Bono’ band in interviews because he never shuts up. And even when U2 toured the world in some contraption called the claw that was so huge and so freakishly ugly it honestly looked like a giant turt instead of a music stage. Indeed bigger then big. But I never really cared. Because I loved and still love the music. Moment of Surrender and Breath, Fast Cars and Love and Peace or else. Maybe the last albums showed some serious wear and tear but many songs still had (some of) the magic.

Then we had to wait a very long time for a new record because U2 wanted to make music that is still relevant. Relevant to whom or what I asked myself, but relevancy apparently means an album that is constantly being delayed because of whatever reasons. And when after five years it finally lands …… it is a free gift from Apple. As the new manager describes it: if you like it great, if you don’t delete it. What?!

Let me first say something about Songs of Innocence. I think it is as a whole their best work since Achtung Baby. The album takes a song or four to really start to shine but especially the second half shines bright. As a longtime U2 fan I am thrilled with this music. Bold and inspirational are the keywords here. No wear and tear on this collection of songs if you don’t count the occasional glitch like the obvious With or Without You rehash in the intro of EBW. I am exceptionally pleased with the album.

But not with the marketing strategy, the bigger then big attitude of especially Bono and that obnoxious new manager that talks about music from U2 like it is a second hand car on sale. The music lost today. It’s so obvious were all the hate comes from. It’s not about the music. It’s about U2 as an entity. Do you really think that if the Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby would be released today they would be hailed as great albums. Those records would get the same treatment as SOI. It’s not about the music. Today is about the tool that Apple made available to remove the album from your phone and the 100 million U2 got for their music. I stopped caring about U2 and their commercial activities. More Apple promotions? Have fun with your deal. I'll be listening to Iris (hold me close). It’s a wonderful song. It’s a shame that because of U2’s antics not more people are enjoying it for what it is. No amount of U2 albums in the ITunes charts will ever be enough to repair the damage done. Bigger is not always better.

Sorry about the melodrama, but I had to get it of my chest. Enjoy the music you all!!
 
"U2's antics"? Huh?

THESE are antics -- someone named Heather Kelly authored a CNN.com article which contains this one-line paragraph after reporting the "remove" option Apple added:

"Somewhere, a single tear is rolling down Bono's cheek."

That is not news reporting. That is not journalism. That is not a music review.

That is immature and silly. That is what I think of when I think of "antics."
 
Which ever way you look at it,it's got the whole world talking about U2 again


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
 
How many threads is this now? What kind of privileged, entitled, fucked up priorities world do we live in that people are complaining about this?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
My take on the U2 album being given away for free "fiasco." Because sadly U2 have released one of their best albums since quite sometime but no one cares because people are hung up on it showing up in their iTunes.

Apple software such as iTunes is free proprietary software. If Apple wants to give people a free album, well, they can. It's their software - we're just the users. No one reads "terms and conditions", it's just that annoying text we all have to scroll through to get to the "download now/install" button.

It's funny that in this day and age when surfing habits are monitored for advertising purposes, applications need "permissions" and "access" when installing and auto updating, when every device we buy now comes pre-loaded with software we don't want anyway, we live with it or just don't care but when an online music store gives you an album for free through their software, then that is going "too far."
 
Every time a Yellow Pages appears on my porch I go to a lot more trouble to get rid of that than anyone wanting to get rid of this album does.

Maybe I should take to twatter.
 
On one side, well said Frenchie. It kinda describes the feeling I had during the apple event, not having an iTunes account. I thought, so this is what U2 has become. A marketing machine for Apple, or vice versa.

It changed once I read Bono's letter. The world - and with that, the music industry - is changing. U2 tries something new, something "unheard". They're willing to try something new, together with Apple this time.

Somehow, U2 already lost all its coolness along the way. It wouldn't matter how they presented their new album, it would always get negative reviews. I read an article about how this would have been received if it weren't U2 but some other band that is considered to be cool. Would it have been a problem then? You get music for free and you complain about it? It was my first reaction also, not having an apple account. But after a few days, I didn't care so much anymore. I get the idea and all the negativity in the media I just ignore.

Here in the Netherlands, some guy who openly hates U2, got to write a review for one of the biggest newspapers. He gives 2 stars and that was one too many, considering his story. The same guy gets to say something about the album in a news item on a major radio station. Apparently even respected news sources rather say something negative about U2 than really pay attention to the songs and put out an honest review.

Luckily, the music is better than ever :) and I'm surprised that for every negative review I see, there's also a praising one. Heck, since long I actually enjoy reading posts on this forum, because most of them are positive iso sarcastic. It's something... ;-)
 
Apple software such as iTunes is free proprietary software. If Apple wants to give people a free album, well, they can. It's their software - we're just the users. No one reads "terms and conditions", it's just that annoying text we all have to scroll through to get to the "download now/install" button.

QFT...thank you!
 
The industry has indeed changed. While some of us as record collectors are reveling in the revival of vinyl over the past few years and the subtle return of record stores it really isn't want it was when LPs and even CDs were the main formats of how music was listened to on and sold from (stores).

I believe this is an experiment and that U2 decided to take the bullet for the idea of being paid a lump sum and having your music given away for free until the physical product comes out.
 
We all should brace ourselves for SoE, which probably WON'T be free, which will probably cause a massive backlash on Twitter by people who feel cheated by having to pay for the companion to SoI. LOL
 
Somehow, U2 already lost all its coolness along the way.

U2 is a 30+ year old band, the members are in their 50's...they have been HUGE at various times and degrees in their career, and their most prominent member is outspoken and a bit preachy at times. In their 20's they were edgy and topical, today they're just rich and annoying.

Being a rock star 30 years on is tough work...
 
My take on the U2 album being given away for free "fiasco." Because sadly U2 have released one of their best albums since quite sometime but no one cares because people are hung up on it showing up in their iTunes.

Apple software such as iTunes is free proprietary software. If Apple wants to give people a free album, well, they can. It's their software - we're just the users. No one reads "terms and conditions", it's just that annoying text we all have to scroll through to get to the "download now/install" button.

It's funny that in this day and age when surfing habits are monitored for advertising purposes, applications need "permissions" and "access" when installing and auto updating, when every device we buy now comes pre-loaded with software we don't want anyway, we live with it or just don't care but when an online music store gives you an album for free through their software, then that is going "too far."
This, this and this.
 
I am glad you like the album :) And while I understand where you're coming from and I'm critical of the whole Apple deal, too, I don't think it will do that much damage, not in the long run. People tend to forget shit like that quickly, as soon as they can turn to the next thing they can complain about. These things come and go, people just need something to whine and cry about and it's so easy these days to let it all out on Bono and U2. I think the band have anticipated this, they are not dumb, and in the end the positive effects will outweigh the negative ones which are blown out of proportion by the media anyway.

But I agree about the unease seeing such a great album being given away like that. I think it deserves much better and in the end I hope people will start appreciating and enjoying it.
 
U2 is a 30+ year old band, the members are in their 50's...they have been HUGE at various times and degrees in their career, and their most prominent member is outspoken and a bit preachy at times. In their 20's they were edgy and topical, today they're just rich and annoying.

Being a rock star 30 years on is tough work...
Too easy. There are more artists that have a similar long lasting career but are not perceived as annoying by everyone.

Anyhow, your statement underlines my theory that it wouldn't matter how they launched their album. It would be "just another shitty album by that annoying band".
 
I would rather they had just released the album in the 'normal' way. However I see it as they were trying to move with the times and how music is released today etc. People can rage against the corporate nature of it - but most of these same people own an I Phone or something similar. And the crime? Giving them a free album! If you don't like it don't listen or delete! Pathetic getting so riled about something like that. Save it for the issues that really matter in this world.
 
19 years ago did anyone freak out when they upgraded to Windows 95 and were given a video for Weezer's Buddy Holly? (I know it's not exactly the same thing)
 
19 years ago did anyone freak out when they upgraded to Windows 95 and were given a video for Weezer's Buddy Holly? (I know it's not exactly the same thing)

Nope. But since then, you know the UN High Commission on Human Rights has classified free music giveaways as an international human rights violation.
 
I think we're all overlooking the obvious thing that would make U2, if not cool, then at least somewhat tolerable again:A MAKEOVER!

Bono needs to show his eyes again, and wear contacts if he has trouble seeing. It's hard to sell sincerity through a pair of goggles. In the 90's it worked because, well, you know why. And please grow the hair again. Doesn't have to be as long as the late 80's, but come on, at least grow the sides out.

Edge needs a new fucking hat. Like pronto. I think his headwear annoys me more than the goggles, honestly. And maybe he should shave off the facial hair.

Larry will not and should never change.

Adam needs to stop aging. Just kidding. No really, what do you all think should be done with Adam?

They also need a new wardrobe. Bono looks like metrosexual Fly these days.

This had nothing to do with music, but appearances are very important. Come on, who isn't sick of Edge's tired look? Is there anyone out there who actually likes Bono with short hair?
 
^ Surely there has to be an alternative to those huge red sunglasses!

Bono seriously needs to lose those fucking sunglasses and start looking more like my avatar again. Rock star sunglasses don't suit 50+ people, for fuck sake!
 
I think we're all overlooking the obvious thing that would make U2, if not cool, then at least somewhat tolerable again:A MAKEOVER!

Bono needs to show his eyes again, and wear contacts if he has trouble seeing. It's hard to sell sincerity through a pair of goggles. In the 90's it worked because, well, you know why. And please grow the hair again. Doesn't have to be as long as the late 80's, but come on, at least grow the sides out.

Edge needs a new fucking hat. Like pronto. I think his headwear annoys me more than the goggles, honestly. And maybe he should shave off the facial hair.

Larry will not and should never change.

Adam needs to stop aging. Just kidding. No really, what do you all think should be done with Adam?

They also need a new wardrobe. Bono looks like metrosexual Fly these days.

This had nothing to do with music, but appearances are very important. Come on, who isn't sick of Edge's tired look? Is there anyone out there who actually likes Bono with short hair?

So you'd prefer THIS kinda look?! LOL

51pbVxKom4L.jpg
 
Bono not only looks better without sunglasses, he looks more sincere and less like an egotistical arrogant prick. See Sweetest Thing video.
 
True that. People need to stop whining about the glasses. They have become part of who he is. The shades aren't important, he can wear whatever he wants. Same for Edge.

It's an easy fix that could possibly solve a lot of problems. I say it's worth trying.
 
Back
Top Bottom