New Article on U2's 2002 Super Bowl Appearance
- Thread starter Reggie Thee Dog
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
gvox
Ghost of Love
Is your first sentence supposed to be lending some sort of validity to your second sentence, or are they just 2 different ideas altogether?
Blue Room
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
One is an opinion, the other is a question.
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
If listening to Vampire Weekend and Animal Collective are required to be a member, I think I need to find an even more exclusive/better club.
Nobody has played it twice in the age of the single act half time show...
A few acts have played it twice in the mass pop group clusterfuck era, including Gloria Estefan, Nelly, and Justin Timberlake, who will obviously never be invited back again.
The irony, and yes, idiocy, of this entire US flag jacket hatred is that the original flashing of the US flag lining on the first leg of the Elevation Tour was during Bullet The Blue Sky, which is as close to an anti-american song as U2 have ever done, and during that tour had become a scathing criticism of US gun culture, with the Charlton Heston intro and the John Lennon rant.
Obviously after 9/11 that changed.
Obviously after 9/11 that changed.
The Panther
Refugee
U2 were young and purposeful in 1987 (if occasionally simplistic), but they understood the power of irony in imagery and songwriting. Hence the image of the American flag, used sardonically (akin to Hendrix's 'Star-Spangled Banner', which they also broadcast onstage).
Contrast that with something like The Superbowl, where U2 throw all irony out the window in favor of grandstanding flag-waving. In 2002, they obviously still had the intellectual capacity to operate on a higher level, but they consciously chose to operate at the lowest-common-denominator level in order to reach the largest mass audience they could -- which is either a good career move, or is crass opportunism hardly befitting musicians with any artistic integrity, depending on your viewpoint (you can probably guess what mine is).
Anyway, I suppose everyone's crassness radar beeps at different points. These days, mine is more sensitive than it used to be.
gvox
Ghost of Love
I think you've got your decades mixed up, again. Try a few years later.
If anything, they were as earnest in 87 as they were in 02. It was a pointed message both times, and there wasn't a heck of alot of irony involved.
Oh, and:
Firstly... The Bullet The Blue Sky use of the US flag i referenced, which you seem to be just fine with, occurred in spring/summer 2001... a whopping 5/6 months before the Super Bowl of 2002.
The 2002 Super Bowl was a mere 4 months after 9/11. The fall 2001 leg of the Elevation tour helped a grieving nation. The Super Bowl performance was merely a culmination of that leg.
It's not as if Bono was out waving the US flag at some random, generic time. The wound was still fresh.
And that young, purposeful U2 from the 80s? Is that the same U2 with the giant white flag waving, the self-righteous black and white feature length movie, the we cant even call our singer and guitar player by their real names band, the jumping off the stage to hug someone on a world wide broadcast U2?
The band, Bono in particular, has always been about big moments of grandeur. Always. This is not a recent thing. It's an always thing.
popacrobat
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
also, it's still Super Bowl.
The Panther
Refugee
No way. U2 played "Bullet The Blue Sky" all around the US in 1987, and they successfully found a way to engage political-critique in song while also winning over a very large audience. They broadcast parts of Hendrix's "Star-Spangled Banner" before "Bullet The Blue Sky", making clear their position on the subject-matter of the song, but still delivered the goods to a mass audience. They were confident in their ability to do that in 1987, and they succeeded wildly, without dumbing down their material or stage presentation.
There is an irony -- which U2 understood -- in playing politically-conscious music to an increasingly mass audience which increasingly cares less and less about the political content. The easy thing to do in 1987 would have been to drop "Bullet The Blue Sky" from the setlist, or to make it into a flag-waving anthem. They didn't stoop to that, trusting their audience to go with them.
Contrast this with 2002...
The Panther
Refugee
Sorry, I thought it happened at the Super Bowl.
Blue Room
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Where they played Bullet the Blue Sky to promote gun control on the tour the year prior, a very touchy subject in the U.S. The Heston intro made a lot of people uncomfortable. I remember a review that pointed that out. Same song, different message, same result to the crowd.
I would suggest that it is not the band that has changed. It is your personal view and preference for the band that has changed. Nothing wrong with that, but U2 have basically done similiar or the same type of things (sometimes in different ways or settings) throughout their entire history as a band as others have pointed out. Sounds like you do not care for some of the different ways they has chosen to do it. But they really haven't changed much if at all in that regard. If U2 had continued to do JT type of tours and never pushed the envelope on things, they might not even still be a band. It sounds like you would like for them to be capsulized in JT days/mode and never have moved on? No thank you. Loved Joshua Tree, my first U2 show. But U2 would have become boring and probably would not have survived as a band personally and commercially if they had stayed and done exactly the same type of tour and music beyond that.
The Panther
Refugee
Actually, it's a fair point about the NRA-baiting they did at that time. That is uncomfortable for some Americans.
So, perhaps you're right about their beliefs being consistent. I think it's more the way the band choose to market themselves that I don't like in the past dozen years.
(Obviously, I'm not talking about their music itself. I am of course glad they moved on from where they were musically in 1987.)
So, perhaps you're right about their beliefs being consistent. I think it's more the way the band choose to market themselves that I don't like in the past dozen years.
(Obviously, I'm not talking about their music itself. I am of course glad they moved on from where they were musically in 1987.)
All of this exactly
Anyone who suggests otherwise either doesn't know the history of U2 or is just in denial and letting their personal preferences of eras/images/marketing strategies cloud the facts.
The Super Bowl was genuine and heartfelt, just as the last leg of the Elevation Tour was, like you pointed out. As I remember it, the NFL asked U2 to do this after seeing one of those NY shows in the fall of 2001. Not the other way around.
There is no contrast to be drawn between U2's historical views of America and Americans and that Super Bowl performance. In fact, it's pretty consistent with what they've always said about their admiration for and respect of America.
Was the furthest thing from a sell out or cheesy attempt at mass appeal. That is just absolutely absurd to suggest. U2 had plenty of mass appeal starting w/ Red Rocks, they didn't need more. They had plenty of American appeal- having just come off 2 massive Elevation tour legs the year before all across the country.
Also, you touched on Bullet earlier being the closest thing to an "anti-American" song they've done. While that is true technically- compared to most songs which are neutral on the subject and a handful that are very positive- it's really not anti American leaning at all. The band said as much at the time- and always made clear it was a condemnation of Reagan's policies in El Salvador and indeed a contrast with the high, noble ideals of America. It seems they intended it as a visceral examination of how America's policies can often contrast with the greatness of its ideals, institutions and people.
The Panther
Refugee
Thanks for clarifying.
Here's a fact for you -- Prior to Zoo TV, U2 never accepted corporate sponsorship of their tours or enterprises, and it resulted in their being the world's biggest rock band. Starting with PopMart, they accepted large-scale corporate sponsorship.
So, explain how large-scale corporate sponsorship is ALWAYS the way they've done it.
How the hell is the flag at the Super Bowl dumbing down?
Where is the political statement to be made at that point?
It may have been an unwise and yes, un American policy that Reagan was pursuing(maybe with good intentions, probably not, who knows but him and those close to him) and it probably was a good idea for U2 to join the many calling attention to that.
So there is a political statement to be made there in 1987.
So let's take your argument that not making the statement is "dumbing things down."
1.) As I said above, where is the political statement to be made in recognizing and paying tribute to 3000 people killed in cold blood? There is no controversy or middle ground whatsoever on that. No statement at all is even present to dumb down.
U2 were acknowledging and paying tribute. Not saying how politicians should respond. Not saying what caused the attacks. Not attacking anyone's religion or politics, not saying anything controversial at all. In order to disagree with what they were saying that night, you'd have to be Osama Bin Laden or an individual equally as sick and twisted.
How is it playing to the lowest common denominator to pay tribute to such a great human tragedy? That makes no sense at all, I'm sorry.
2.) Your argument that Bullet could've been turned into a flag waving anthem in 1987 in order to "take the easy way out" has no valid comparison with the flag jacket in 2002. There is nothing inherent in BD, MLK or Streets (or the running theme of the show through those 3 songs) that suggests anything politically controversial to start out with. Obviously not the case with Bullet.
So there is nothing to dumb down.
It was simply a tribute, genuine and heartfelt and done so incredibly well that it's widely regarded as the best halftime show in history.
Acknowledging and paying such an amazing and respectful tribute to 3000 people murdered just because they happened to be Americans (or associated with Americans) is exactly what it is. It contains no message that is controversial or capable of being "dumbed down."
American flags and tributes were everywhere in 2002, and everyone had the right to acknowledge what had happened and how deeply felt the human tragedy of it was.
U2 had more of a right than any 4 well known people on this planet to lead such a prominent tribute due to their history in America and their fall 2001 tributes that helped heal the nation. You can't read a review of ATYCLB or the Elevation Tour that doesn't mention the increased relevance this album/tour took on after 9/11.
They changed the set list and theme of their entire show to acknowledge 9/11 and help the American people recover and find hope. (notice I say help, I'm well aware U2 do not walk on water and that they're merely 4 human beings that were hardly alone in helping, don't get me wrong here.)
Any suggestion that this represented a dumbing down, an appeal to the lowest common denominator or a cop out of some sorts is false on every level.
I don't have to.....
Not what I said.
We were discussing the 2002 Super Bowl, remember???
At no point did I or the post of Headache's that I quoted make any mention of corporate sponsorship. It was entirely about big moments/statements and their place throughout U2's history.
Don't take out of context and bring in irrelevant things like that, please.
I said that you were letting your personal preferences regarding image/marketing/eras cloud the obvious- that U2 were always about the grandiose statements and big moments.
As Headache said, obvious to anyone who's followed them over the years.
Corporate sponsorship is another issue entirely. So what, they started on Popmart.....not the reason that tour didn't do as well as others. All 3 tours since have been massively successful and as far as touring goes, they're still the biggest draw in rock and roll.
That has changed very little since the mid 1980s.
So what? They do things a bit more corporate these days......U2 have made clear from the beginning their philosophy on this- they're businessmen. As soon as they sign on the dotted line, their job is to trade their music for money. Doesn't matter whether you or I agree with or like their choices of sponsors or the decision to have sponsors in the first place. They always have explanations for why they think a particular company is worth associating with, like Apple in 2004. Bono liked that I Tunes was allowing the cutting edge downloading of music while compensating the artists. I thought the Vertigo I Tunes ads were cheesy and certainly not their finest moment, but I can understand and respect U2's reasoning in making them.
The Panther
Refugee
Of course, I'm not talking about the validity of mourning the victims of 9/11. That in itself is fine (although I'm not sure grand-standing at the Superbowl is the place to do it).
What I'm talking about is U2's way of marketing themselves and presenting themselves.
As you say, "They do things a bit more corporate these days". And that's exactly what I don't like.
Your "they're businessmen" comment, I think, speaks for itself.
Again, this kind of thing is irrelevant to some fans, and it turns others off. It turns me off. That is all.
What I'm talking about is U2's way of marketing themselves and presenting themselves.
As you say, "They do things a bit more corporate these days". And that's exactly what I don't like.
Your "they're businessmen" comment, I think, speaks for itself.
Again, this kind of thing is irrelevant to some fans, and it turns others off. It turns me off. That is all.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Was the 2002 Super Bowl -- with giant screens showing the names of people who had been mass murdered -- really the time for irony? Was this a corporate moment? Was this them saying, "buy our 18-month old album?" Or was this actually an opportunity, knowing that the Super Bowl is almost a national holiday and a huge portion of 300m people are watching the TV, perhaps a veey good time to publicly mourn?
Finally, if we want to get nick-picky, bono didn't wave a flag. He revealed a flag in his jacket, and to me, it felt like he was saying, "we're not Americans, but we've got your back, we're friends."
marry me.
PhilsFan
Blue Crack Addict
Exactly. The gesture was, "We're all with America on this."
Blue Room
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Ok, I think this discussion is going in circles and is useless. You do not like how U2 are going "corporate" (which as someone else pointed doesn't even really fit the reasoning for the Super Bowl, but I digress). You pointed to the Joshua Tree tour Bullet The Blue Sky as your example. Hmm, isn't that the same tour the made a movie of and sold the movie rights to Paramount?????
U2 is in the music industry and always have been. They are a business as a results and have been since they signed a record contract.
The Panther
Refugee
To me, U2 are a musical group -- i.e., they're artists. They're not businessmen.
It's actually kind of disturbing to me how many U2 fans (I'm tempted to say 3rd generation fans, but I can't blame it all on the kids) are so quick and eager to paint them as "businessmen" and "a corporation". I find that very depressing.
I'm not an idiot, so yes I'm aware of the fact that music with a price tag is commercial enterprise regardless of how one goes about selling it. But there are various ways -- not only one -- to go about selling it. There are shades of grey here. I'm certainly not as strict in my mores as some people. I actually have an ex-girlfriend who had tickets to a PopMart gig and then gave them away when she found out U2 was now accepting corporate sponsorship. She's never returned to them.
It's actually kind of disturbing to me how many U2 fans (I'm tempted to say 3rd generation fans, but I can't blame it all on the kids) are so quick and eager to paint them as "businessmen" and "a corporation". I find that very depressing.
I'm not an idiot, so yes I'm aware of the fact that music with a price tag is commercial enterprise regardless of how one goes about selling it. But there are various ways -- not only one -- to go about selling it. There are shades of grey here. I'm certainly not as strict in my mores as some people. I actually have an ex-girlfriend who had tickets to a PopMart gig and then gave them away when she found out U2 was now accepting corporate sponsorship. She's never returned to them.
They're both. As is anyone at superstardom level. Super Bowl was tastefully done. Ipod ad was a brilliant marketing idea. And as long as the prices are reasonable, who cares about tour sponsors ?
Imagine the rumoured S. American tour leg of JT tour - before they focused on Rattle and Hum instead - back in 1987. Surely, they would have to accept some sort of sponsorship to bring the tour way over there.
Imagine the rumoured S. American tour leg of JT tour - before they focused on Rattle and Hum instead - back in 1987. Surely, they would have to accept some sort of sponsorship to bring the tour way over there.
Blue Room
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Thanks for the condescending response. Considering my first U2 show was on the Joshua Tree I do not consider myself a "third generation" fan. Which also very condescending. So if someone wasn't born yet or just born in 87 or prior, their opinion does not matter because they are a "third generation" fan. Or it is mainly because of those fans they do not meet your criteria for an artist any longer. What a bunch of BS. I thought it was a semi logical discussion until you directed that comment at me. Joshua Tree U2 was a corporate machine even then. They are in this to make a living and make the most of it and ALWAYS have been. If you cannot see that then you are just blind or extremely naive.
Blue Room
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
