U2's Bono to become the world's richest musician tomorrow - NME.com

[Von Schloopen]

am I supposed to feel bad for Kim Dotcom?

 

[gvox]

am I supposed to feel bad for Kim Dotcom?

Unequivocally, no.

 

[BVS]

I recognize that artists have to do things now that they would not have done when radio and TV ruled. I understand why bands do stuff like that.

It just amazes me that you can't see a difference between taking money (not a full-on sponsor) from a TV channel that's part of the music industry and taking money from a phone company.

When MTV presents a show, the artists essentially takes money from an entity that promotes them and does nothing in return aside from tell people to watch their videos on MTV. When they take money from a phone company, they tell people to buy a phone. The phone might promote U2, but it is not analogous in any conceivable way to radio or MTV, which solely existed to play music (from artists with labels that paid to have music played...). It's apples and oranges.

But the 90's and the 00's are apples and oranges as well. It amazes me that you are playing semantics with the amount of money taken and mediums. The music industry is not the same that it used be. We are delivered music differently. And one of those new ways is the smart phone. The smart phone industry is now part of the music industry, like it or not. They promote music, they build phones around music, and they invest in technologies that deliver music.

 

[Von Schloopen]

Unequivocally, no.

But he was the victim of a conspiracy, by the US gubmint and Universal. And he was just about to start helping indie bands get paid. He's a pretty sympathetic guy with integrity.

 

[Hollow Island]

They didn't have to; his (and the advertising media's) subsequent ability to list U2 as a major production reference when advertising other productions added weight to his growing resume/credibility...at a time, I might add, when he really needed a credibility boost in that scene due to his own troubles/investigations...it was win-win for both sides, for a number of reasons.

It doesn't change that he's a corporate sponsor who financed a U2 tour, in exchange for considerations. Now you're just splitting hairs over what those considerations were.

He's a concert promoter! It's his job to promote people like U2! The Cohl example is absurd.

Do you seriously not see a difference between:

a) U2 partnering with a concert promoter or music channel
b) U2 selling phones and Mp3 players

I know that "no money changed hands" but U2 were still selling a product, which they had never done before. Blackberry was the second time they did that, and Blackberry agreed to pay for X amount of the tour. That's something that was never done before, and when people talk about sponsorship, that's what they mean. Being a pitchman. I never saw U2 in ads for a product lining the venue before. U2 had never been pitchmen before, unless you want to talk about an MTV logo on a ticket, and that's not selling a tangible product. It's telling people to watch and listen to music, not telling people to buy a product and privileging fans who do so. That last part is the only thing that really bothers me about the Apple/Blackberry deals.

 

[Hollow Island]

But the 90's and the 00's are apples and oranges as well. It amazes me that you are playing semantics with the amount of money taken and mediums. The music industry is not the same that it used be. We are delivered music differently. And one of those new ways is the smart phone. The smart phone industry is now part of the music industry, like it or not. They promote music, they build phones around music, and they invest in technologies that deliver music.

They never told anyone to buy a product before.

I'm not playing semantics. Advertising ipods and blackberries is the same as if they'd advertised walkmans or HMV, which they did not. Neither did they show up in the mid-inning commercial break telling me to watch MTV or Much Music, or listen to q107. You can call it "semantics" if you want, but the differences matter.

I know that the music industry isn't the same, that's why I'm not equating advertising phone companies to advertising music video channels and radio stations. They're completely different, and that's my point.

And if you want to talk about sponsorship, which is a nuanced concept (hence U2 not having a corporate sponsor on Zoo TV despite being presented by MTV), then you need to consider the different ways in which it occurs, the different responsibilities and obligations that are involved with advertising different products.

 

[BVS]

They never told anyone to buy a product before.

I'm not playing semantics. Advertising ipods and blackberries is the same as if they'd advertised walkmans or HMV, which they did not. Neither did they show up in the mid-inning commercial break telling me to watch MTV or Much Music, or listen to q107. You can call it "semantics" if you want, but the differences matter.

I know that the music industry isn't the same, that's why I'm not equating advertising phone companies to advertising music video channels and radio stations. They're completely different, and that's my point.

And if you want to talk about sponsorship, which is a nuanced concept (hence U2 not having a corporate sponsor on Zoo TV despite being presented by MTV), then you need to consider the different ways in which it occurs, the different responsibilities and obligations that are involved with advertising different products.

You had to buy cable in order to watch MTV. So yes they promoted a product.

Both had money that exchanged hands in order to have U2's name associated with their company, plain and simple.

 

[gvox]

Yah! Bono said "WATCH MORE TV" about a million times! It's burned into my retinas, even!

 

[gvox]

Advertising ipods and blackberries is the same as if they'd advertised walkmans or HMV, which they did not.

No, it's not. Nope.

 

[Hollow Island]

You had to buy cable in order to watch MTV. So yes they promoted a product.

Both had money that exchanged hands in order to have U2's name associated with their company, plain and simple.

This argument would work if they'd put AT&T on their ticket. They weren't promoting cable. They were promoting - and being promoted by, every 10 minutes - a television channel everyone got, regardless of cable provider.

I like this trick of calling things "plain and simple" as a means to ignore complexity.

 

[Hollow Island]

No, it's not. Nope.

Care to explain how advertising a walkman would have been different from advertising an mp3 player? They're the exact same thing, format aside.

HMV and Blackberry are different, but I used HMV as an example of a music delivery service because BVS commented that people buy music on phones. For the sake of the argument they are similar.

 

[BVS]

This argument would work if they'd put AT&T on their ticket. They weren't promoting cable. They were promoting - and being promoted by, every 10 minutes - a television channel everyone got, regardless of cable provider.

I like this trick of calling things "plain and simple" as a means to ignore complexity.

Hollow,

Was money exchanged?

 

[Von Schloopen]

Didn't they break even on Zoo TV? and Popmart? I see gross numbers all the time. What were the net numbers? I remember reading that if Zoo TV attendance was 5% lower they'd have been in the red.

I also don't really know what you guys are fighting about. MTV sponsored Zoo TV. U2 told people to watch music and videos on MTV. A company that makes money when people watch their programming. How much MTV paid, we'll never know. Probably not that much.

Blackberry sponsored 360. They got to put up posters and sell crap to the stadium audience in return for cash. We'll never know how much Blackberry paid to be the sponsor, but they most likely paid a lot more money than MTV did in '92, and they got more for their money.

 

[Hollow Island]

Hollow,

Was money exchanged?

Probably. Therefore they received sponsorship and it is the exact thing as selling phones. Show me a colour chart and I will only see squares of black and white. Also, an Iraqi had a rifle so they had weapons of mass destruction.

If you want to ignore nuance to make an argument that has no validity, feel free.

When U2 started selling mp3 players, everyone knew they'd never done anything like that before, hence U2's efforts to make it seem pure. And when they sold phones, everyone knew they'd never done THAT before, either. Prior to apple/blackberry, U2 had never sold products before, and anyone except you and gvox and some other fanboys and girls can see that. When people talk about sponsorship, that's what they mean: selling goods.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

I also don't really know what you guys are fighting about.

they don't even know at this point...

 

[BVS]

Probably. Therefore they received sponsorship and it is the exact thing as selling phones. Show me a colour chart and I will only see squares of black and white. Also, an Iraqi had a rifle so they had weapons of mass destruction.

If you want to ignore nuance to make an argument that has no validity, feel free.

I'm not ignoring nuance, in fact I've explicitly acknowledged it. The scope and the products were different, but money exchanged hands with corporations in order to get U2s name associated with their companies. And that's always been my point, nothing more and nothing less. Panthers argument completely ignored this fact, and he's not the only one, people often glaze over that fact due to the fact that they like that era more. I was just pointing out his hypocrisy.

 

[gvox]

they don't even know at this point...

I'm arguing about where Kim DotCom's right hand is in that pic..

 

[The Panther]

Panthers argument completely ignored this fact, and he's not the only one, people often glaze over that fact due to the fact that they like that era more. I was just pointing out his hypocrisy.

You mean I lack integrity?

As I've stated twice now (but which went over U2Girl's head, as usual), I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH U2 MAKING MONEY. I couldn't care less how much money they make, I'm not interested, and it's not my (or anyone's) business. They made heaps of money in the late 80s (The Joshua Tree was also referred to as "the money tree"), and it didn't bother me then (yes, I was around then) and it doesn't bother me now.

What does bother me -- and I'm only speaking for me, although again some of you can't seem to get your heads around that -- is how they attempt to make money now, and in recent years. I think this is very much fair-game for fans to comment on and even take issue with, because the way a big band markets itself directly impacts all consumers. It's how people learn about the group.

The Mary J. Blige thing is just one drop in the bucket -- we could erase it from history, and my current feelings would be unchanged. (By the way, someone tried to quote me as saying that U2 couldn't do "hip-hop" collaborations -- I didn't state or imply the word "hip-hop" anywhere in my posts, nor did I suggest that U2 can't do collaborations.)

I think a lot of people feel like I do. We approve of U2 doing a one-off casual record with a good artist (like Johnny Cash -- someone they'd known for years by 1993 -- wandering into the Dublin studio and laying down a vocal, which then -- to his surprise -- ends up the last track on an album), and we look with some suspicion on U2 doing a highly marketed single that rehashes an old song, collaborating with someone they'd probably never met and hadn't heard of, with Paul McGuinness's head spinning at the crossover marketing potential.

(For the record, I loved "The Saints Are Coming", but even I can see how that could turn some people off as well.)

I'm not sure the argument that I simply like that era better holds up, either. I actually prefer much of U2's 00's music to their 90s music, but I preferred their 1990s way of marketing themselves (well, pre-PopMart).

In the end, some of us probably feel that U2 are smart to sell themselves out as much as they possibly can, and some of us feel there is nuance to tastefully marketing yourself. Perhaps we can agree to disagree.

 

[corianderstem]

While I can't even begin to imagine that U2 had never met or heard of Mary J Blige, I have to admit I think I see what you're saying. I can't say I fully agree, but I get it.

Thanks for offering the further explanation.

(But I'm still laughing at the Bon Jovi comment. )

 

[gvox]

I think a lot of people feel like I do. We approve of U2 doing a one-off casual record with a good artist (like Johnny Cash -- someone they'd known for years by 1993 -- wandering into the Dublin studio and laying down a vocal, which then -- to his surprise -- ends up the last track on an album),

Does anyone know the real story of The Wanderer here?

Did U2 actually know Cash for any real period of time (years, even!) before he laid down the vocals for the song?

Did he actually, you know, casually wander into the studio to sing...The Wanderer?

Was he surprised that they included it on their album?

Or do you just make this stuff up, man?

Cause I read this, which follows:

and we look with some suspicion on U2 doing a highly marketed single that rehashes an old song, collaborating with someone they'd probably never met and hadn't heard of, with Paul McGuinness's head spinning at the crossover marketing potential.

And I have severe WTF moment realizing that the One w/MJB wasn't any more highly marketed than any other U2 song (actually, far less).

And I'm pretty damn sure they had not only heard of, but met her a few times previous,

And I'm also guessing that Paul McG didn't factor much into the decision at all.

And I realize just how far out your theories get.

And then I read this (and the Bon Jovi thing, of course):

(For the record, I loved "The Saints Are Coming")

And it all begins to make sense.

BTW, I love how Johnny Cash is a "good" artist, worthy of respect while MJB is not, and is someone to be regarded with suspicion.

 

[Von Schloopen]

I just can't imagine being that cynical. Hearing a tune and analyzing it for it's cash grab angle. It's one thing not to dig it, but to analyze it with such an eye?

And it's origins are so organic. U2 play show in NYC. Soul singer from the Bronx invited to play in front of hometown audience. Song goes off. Crowd goes bonkers. Standing ovation. Mary J to U2: "That was great, let's cut that." And there you have it. That's about as rock and roll as it gets. Bless that MSG audience for going with the music and letting it move them. Their reactions are why that recording exists today. Can you imagine if they were cynics? "Oh, U2 don't know HER! U2 only know rock people. She sings non-rock music. This is a marketing exploit for cross-over material. Booo! Booo! Get off the stage!"

 

[bonocomet]

Does anyone know the real story of The Wanderer here?

Did U2 actually know Cash for any real period of time (years, even!) before he laid down the vocals for the song?

I don't. But we do know they knew each other at least from what appears to be the late 80's or very early 90ish?.

 

[gvox]

I just can't imagine being that cynical. Hearing a tune and analyzing it for it's cash grab angle. It's one thing not to dig it, but to analyze it with such an eye?

And it's origins are so organic. U2 play show in NYC. Soul singer from the Bronx invited to play in front of hometown audience. Song goes off. Crowd goes bonkers. Standing ovation. Mary J to U2: "That was great, let's cut that." And there you have it. That's about as rock and roll as it gets. Bless that MSG audience for going with the music and letting it move them. Their reactions are why that recording exists today. Can you imagine if they were cynics? "Oh, U2 don't know HER! U2 only know rock people. She sings non-rock music. This is a marketing exploit for cross-over material. Booo! Booo! Get off the stage!"

I think it was the other way around ie Katrina Benefit first, in Sept 2005. This was also long before the decision to cut the track was made. It was a taped for TV performance with no audience, so it would have been hard for them to judge "crowd" reaction at the time. Less than a month later, they asked her back onstage at MSG at a show and fuck yeah, it went off! I was there, it was amazing, moving, the crowd ate it up, a real highlight of the tour. Then they did it a few times later whenever they were in the same city. Finally, they recorded it using some studio vocals of hers and some stage recordings of One from the Vertigo tour, with some mixing and editing. Lastly (I think?) they did the video for it.

But your point is completely valid, there was likely a point where they all looked at each other and went 'wow, that was truly special, that needs to be cut properly' - it was totally a spontaneous organic thing that grew out of two artists with mutual respect for one another trying to do a good thing and show a UNITED FRONT IE ONE (in a time where we had Kanye saying GB doesn't care about black people, tensions high etc) and the notion that it was some sort of cash grab or cross marketing attempt is about as absurd as it gets. From what I recall they both happened to be in Toronto when the Katrina benefit was announced (unless of course, Paul McG plotted the hurricaine too...along with what else, 9/11 to boost ATYCLB sales? )

It was arguably even more organic than The Wanderer, a song that Bono imagined Johnny Cash singing and went thru several iterations or at least working titles, finally to invite Cash to the studio specially to sing the song. That's about as contrived as it gets, no? But not even I would be so foolishly cynical to suggest that U2 teamed up with Cash to try to win over die hard country music fans or boost record sales off the back of Cash's popularity with his fans. Good grief!

 

[gvox]

I don't. But we do know they knew each other at least from what appears to be the late 80's or very early 90ish?.

Points taken! I had forgotten about that dinner. All the same, I think it's safe to say that the truth is somewhere closer to the middle - neither collaboration was for cross-marketing/cash grab reasons, really.

 

[BVS]

You mean I lack integrity?

As I've stated twice now (but which went over U2Girl's head, as usual), I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH U2 MAKING MONEY. I couldn't care less how much money they make, I'm not interested, and it's not my (or anyone's) business. They made heaps of money in the late 80s (The Joshua Tree was also referred to as "the money tree"), and it didn't bother me then (yes, I was around then) and it doesn't bother me now.

What does bother me -- and I'm only speaking for me, although again some of you can't seem to get your heads around that -- is how they attempt to make money now, and in recent years. I think this is very much fair-game for fans to comment on and even take issue with, because the way a big band markets itself directly impacts all consumers. It's how people learn about the group.

The Mary J. Blige thing is just one drop in the bucket -- we could erase it from history, and my current feelings would be unchanged. (By the way, someone tried to quote me as saying that U2 couldn't do "hip-hop" collaborations -- I didn't state or imply the word "hip-hop" anywhere in my posts, nor did I suggest that U2 can't do collaborations.)

I think a lot of people feel like I do. We approve of U2 doing a one-off casual record with a good artist (like Johnny Cash -- someone they'd known for years by 1993 -- wandering into the Dublin studio and laying down a vocal, which then -- to his surprise -- ends up the last track on an album), and we look with some suspicion on U2 doing a highly marketed single that rehashes an old song, collaborating with someone they'd probably never met and hadn't heard of, with Paul McGuinness's head spinning at the crossover marketing potential.

(For the record, I loved "The Saints Are Coming", but even I can see how that could turn some people off as well.)

I'm not sure the argument that I simply like that era better holds up, either. I actually prefer much of U2's 00's music to their 90s music, but I preferred their 1990s way of marketing themselves (well, pre-PopMart).

In the end, some of us probably feel that U2 are smart to sell themselves out as much as they possibly can, and some of us feel there is nuance to tastefully marketing yourself. Perhaps we can agree to disagree.

We'll have to agree to disagree because all you really have is opinion. You contradict yourself at times, your facts are often incorrect, and you often deliberately turn a blind eye.

 

[The Panther]

Again, the Mary J. Blige thing (I know very little about it -- Bono could be her god-parent for all I know) is just one of several random things that turn me off. It's not my main bone of contention.

How long they knew Johnny Cash and whether Bono smoked a joint with him or not is not really an issue either (though it's well-documented that Adam and Bono dinnered with him in 1987/88, and the recording of 'The Wanderer' is documented in U2 At The End of The World; Cash himself stated that he had no idea they were going to put that track on the album). (Incidentally, I also think that issuing the B.B. King song as a single was sort-of in bad taste, though at least it gave B.B. a chart hit.)

What I do have issues with is how U2 market themselves in the 2000s. I find it often to be overkill and in bad taste.

Examples:

- Appearing at the Super Bowl as flag-waving, reactionary American heroes, and the 2009 Grammies (for example, why did they appear at the 2009 Grammies? They didn't have a record out yet, and there was no great demand for them. They appeared in order to flog "Get On Your Boots" to a disinterested mainstream audience.)

- Corporate sponsorship/advertising/whatever with iPod

- Five nights hosting the Letterman Late Night show. I love the Letterman show, but U2 are not funny in American terms, and their appearance on here was just awful. Not to mention they appeared to be hogging the limelight and over-selling themselves.

- The over-issuing / over-marketing of catalogue material. They used to have quality control over official releases. It took 19 years of recording before they issued a single Greatest Hits. Now, they've released another hits collection; countless over-inflated, bloated reissues; countless DVDs, etc. I personally think it's better to go away for a while and then come back and feel fresh to your fans. Nowadays, it's 6 years between albums and I find I'm already sick of them when they come back (and I do think over-exposure hurt the response to NLOTH).


So, these are a few examples of a few things I dislike much more than I dislike the Mary J. Blige record, which was nevertheless a travesty.

 

[Von Schloopen]

Here ya go. REALLY crappy tunes, but both contain Bono and Mary J. 1998 and 2001. And here's a pic of them performing together at the 2001 RR Hof ceremony. Now, are we to believe Bono played live with, appeared on 2 records, and in 2 videos with Mary, but 8 years later had no idea who she was and viewed the 35 year old singer as his ticket to cross-over stardom?

All-Star Tribute - What's Going On? [OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO] + Lyrics - YouTube

Lean On Me - YouTube

 

[The Panther]

We'll have to agree to disagree because all you really have is opinion.

What exactly did you want me to have on a web forum -- a lollipop?

 

[gvox]

So, these are a few examples of a few things I dislike much more than I dislike the Mary J. Blige record, which was nevertheless a travesty.

Wait - wasn't it you that said that the MJB collab was the absolute most embarassing/low point of U2's career? Or was that Hollow Island? I forget..

But between the two of you, with all these gross transgressions and cringe-inducing moves on U2's part, it's pretty hard to imagine you even liking the band!

 

[Von Schloopen]

(Incidentally, I also think that issuing the B.B. King song as a single was sort-of in bad taste

Was it a cash grab? Was BB King ruler of the charts in 1989? U2 saw coat-tails and went for it? Cross-over marketing and all that.

How long do artists need to know each other before you can decide if you like the recording they make together?