I agree with you. However, this is Interference -- refer to the "Why do people hate U2?" thread to see where U2387 thought my comment that U2 pander to the American audience logically implies that I hate American music.
Just scroll down to the highlights at the bottom if you do nothing else. Don't read all of this, but you have to see the highlights to know what you are dealing with here!
Now, I addressed that in my post and made a well reasoned argument for why I thought U2 were not pandering to America.
It centered on much more than the implication that you hated American music, which I never implied.
As I said when I first responded to it, I was not even responding to your words, I was responding to some misspelled crazy ass internet rant that you somehow thought was a good idea to post.
You are now being dishonest and accusing me of putting words into your mouth in a
completely different thread than the one we were discussing in
But if you want to be the obsessive little jerk that I've seen you be with BVS, then lets let everyone have a little look at what you wrote over in the U2 haters thread.
Allow me to ask the general reading public here who is off the deep end here.
65980 says:
Originally Posted by 65980
Quote: "Wannabe American, Irish narcissist, who reckons he has a God given right to preach at politicians about what's wrong with the world while hoarding his own obscene wealth where taxes can't touch him. Still peddles his bland, pompous, corporate music around the world, charging $100 a ticket so people can watch him disappear further up his own arse."
Meant to be humorous (I guess), but some of that is fair. U2, and Bono in particular, do pander to the American audience. That is beyond doubt. And Bono's business interests were partly moved abroad to avoid paying larger taxes. That's a fact. U2's music is corporate -- they're on a major label and refer to themselves as a "corporation". They do charge obscene prices for a inflated, all-frills live show -- the very opposite of what they spoke of valueing back in the 80s.
I do not know, however, if the recent back surgery allowed Bono to go up his own arse or not.
(the bold/underline text is the crap he found somewhere and legitimized)
U2387 responds:
This is ridiculous, sorry.
None of that is fair.
1.)U2 and Bono's job is to sell their music. America is a big music consuming country and has a lot of influence in the world, in case you missed that. Reaching out to them is a good business practice, not pandering. They say and mean good things about nearly every place they play in.
Plus, coming to a country before you are super famous and widely loved and being outspoken about their very popular President Reagan is hardly pandering to it.
They do have a special relationship with America, and there is nothing wrong with that. The ideals of America, though not always put into practice, are worth respecting and emulating. They have inspired many. But as I said above, they hardly view America through rose colored glasses, they've been outspoken about some of the harsher realities of the US.
The implication here is somehow, America is cheap and bland in terms of overall music taste. Rock and Roll and its influencing genres started entirely in America.
2.)So what? They did what any international business would do. Its not like a majority of their royalties come from Ireland anyway. Ireland had no royalties tax before the change they avoided, so people are effectively complaining that Bono went from paying 0 in taxes to 20 million instead of 30 million.(I made up a number, but you get the idea). There was nothing morally wrong or hypocritical about that tax move.
U2 pays very high income and sales taxes in Ireland. I highly doubt any 4 individuals contribute more to the Irish tax base.
3.)So what? Artists are businesspeople, they sell their work. Of course its true, but its not a valid thing to criticize U2 over. U2 are the least hypocritical artists out there on that front as they don't babble on about how high and mighty and communist and anti capitalist they are while living in the lap of luxury. They admit they are capitalists, and they show through their actions(how they pay their crew, how they give back, what they advocate) that capitalism does not need to be exploitative.
4.)I just saw Roger Waters last night, The Wall tour, it was a pompous anti capitalist rant. People paid $350, $450, $500 for tickets. And he has about 20 musicians on stage with him, no other original Floyd members and sings about 45% of the time!
And you are here saying U2 has an overblown, all frills live show????????
You are saying they charge obscene prices? Try and find a U2 ticket for the prices I mentioned at Waters. Try and find a Police, Stones, Madonna, list goes on ticket for $30 or $55. It wont happen.
The frills have always been an enhancement to and not a substitute for the music. U2 is a better live band musically than any other band out there, whether its simple Vertigo/Elevation arena set or elaborate 360 stadium set.
Its not like they're Britney Spears or N-Sync using frills to cover up for lack of talent.
I am truly sorry, but this is one of the worst posts I've ever read here
I've seen plenty of other posts you've written. You do realize that you are only about 500 times smarter than the internet urban dictionary moron who posted that drivel you just tried to legitimize, correct?
I mean, that was probably some fat loser sitting in his basement who listens to Nickelback!
65980's highlights
-He uses Bono's American Flag jacket worn as a tribute to 9.11 victims in the weeks following the tragedy as a way to criticize U2 for "pandering to America."
He obviously never saw the Super Bowl halftime show, or people moved to tears at 3rd leg Elevation concerts.
Anyone else here think the outpouring of good will and support offered to America after 9/11 was pandering or somehow calculated or disingenuous?
But I am the one who is off the deep end. It was obviously calculated pandering, silly me.
-He responds to this
The frills have always been an enhancement to and not a substitute for the music. U2 is a better live band musically than any other band out there, whether its simple Vertigo/Elevation arena set or elaborate 360 stadium set.
Its not like they're Britney Spears or N-Sync using frills to cover up for lack of talent.
With this:
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.
And asks if I am on drugs???????????
I thought I made pretty clear that no matter the setting, U2 is always about the music first and the visuals are an enhancement, not a substitute. Where does he get the video screen pixilation idea??????????
What U2 fan would agree that U2 puts on an "all frills" live show and that they are where they are because they've kissed the asses of the corporate media?
Which is exactly what he claimed, although he'll say otherwise.
If anyone wants to read the thread he is talking about, its pretty clear who is reasonably making points and who is making crazy assertions and not even addressing the rebuttals. He's had nothing to say about Madonna ticket prices or about U2 and MTV back in the day, for example.
______________________________________________________________
