Thank you, and yours as well!
No, I understand that since 1985 they've been a "big" group (an enormous one since 1987) with millions of fans and a major-label record contract, with obligations to fulfill. And I think that's great -- U2 is one of the few groups that can handle smoothly the pressures that go with being enormous. I do think, however, that there's a difference between, say, letting your record company handle most of the promotion, turning up and touring, doing the odd interview, etc.,etc, and being on David Letterman for an entire week while preparing to tour with the most expensive and environmentally destructive tour apparatus ever made.
At the risk of sounding like U2's publicity department, they did purchase Carbon offsets for the tour, and as for expensive, they are paying for it, not taxpayers!
What is wrong with Letterman? I see nothing? It may have not been enough to promote the album(they needed an innovative method in there too) but going on a show, doing interviews and playing your music straight like you have always been doing does not strike me as particularly offensive to my taste buds.
We just are developing a disagreement when it comes to taster here, 65980, and that is quite fine, and exactly what discussion here is all about.
I am not saying you are suggesting this, but the whole idea that our goals with respect to the environment have to be in conflict with our dreams to think bigger, build our dream, etc is not a very sound one. If we all stopped driving cars and using computers, global warming would be cut down, but at what expense to our standard of living/innovation?
Okay, be fair to me -- I never used the term "selling out". I agree that any band with a contract is obligated to try to sell, so it's an absurd term. But since you brought it up... what if Larry dressed up in a chicken suit to advertise their latest single on a cable TV commerical in St. Louis? Maybe it's not selling out, but would it be (a) in good taste, and (b) in the spirit of rock'n'roll and artist pursuits in general? Likewise, to use a very real example, what if tomorrow you heard "With or Without You" in a Wal-Mart commercial on TV, just as the band release a new 80s' hits compilation? You're saying you'd be okay with that?
I was responding to the suggestion that DeRogatis made that Larry replied to. I thought I made that clear, and if not, I do apologize. I try and be nothing if not fair!
Would Larry the Chicken meet your good taste or spirit of rock and roll artists criteria? NO, not in my book. However, Larry is still right and Derogatis still wrong.
Would I be ok with WOWY in the Wal Mart Commerical? No, I probably would not like it, but again, not selling out like Deroag claimed!
I think there are some lines that have to be drawn.
Lines to be drawn in terms of we the fans taking them seriously and thinking it is a good idea? If that, then ABSOLUTELY DAMN RIGHT.
I just think U2 is pretty damn good at drawing these lines themselves!
They have used their music for the World Cup(good, inspirational, keep moving up, bring people together in the spirit of fellowship and competition).
Blackberry and I-Pods: Good by me, ways to advance U2 and especially Bono's strong belief that there can exist new mediums of releasing and communicating music to the portable 21st century masses while still compensating the artists.
Point being, though I can't read minds, I highly doubt chicken Larry or Wal Mart WOWY would be in line with U2's own tastes!
(Okay, this is a big unfair since they're all Irish... but still, you didn't see Menudo in the "All I Want is You" video.)
Ok, I saw All I Want Is You video many times. I realize the comparison you are making! However, I was talking about U2 compromising their actual work to meet the tastes of this market.
I guess I see the video as part of the actual work and not as straight marketing in the Wal Mart sense. If U2 wants to have whoever they want or whatever theme they want in their videos, fine by me, so long as the Jonas Brothers are not singing and pretending to play instruments in them!
Videos are supposed to have an element of cheese or mass appeal or what have you in them.
My criticisms were solely about their approach to marketing themselves, not to the music (which is obviously the more important thing). I have no issue with their new music, all of which I think is great. Indeed, I consider Atomic Bomb to be their 4th best LP ever. (Despite what certain persons on this thread are ignorantly implying -- and I'm not referring to U2387 -- I do not revere everything old-U2 at the expense of new-U2.)
Let me refine my comments to say that I have nothing against ambition. I do think, however, that there is fine line between tasteful ambition and tasteless... and I think Bono's comments in that 5-year-old interview are bordering on the latter.
No problems at all! I understand, and I could tell you were talking about marketing as opposed to the material itself.
I just addressed Derogoatis and the claims of some others that U2's marketing compromises the artistic integrity of their work, and maybe should not have done it with your posts quoted!