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

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
 
If Bono was penniless and living in a cardboard box with only a guitar, three chords, and the truth, then he'd have some integrity. And BO. And fleas. But everyone would love him and think he was a saint, right? :wink:
 
His trials in Africa would win him a Nobel peace prize of course.

But Bono already has fleas. It was nurse Betty's influence to write and create The Fly.
 
Rachel D. said:
If Bono was penniless and living in a cardboard box with only a guitar, three chords, and the truth, then he'd have some integrity. And BO. And fleas. But everyone would love him and think he was a saint, right? :wink:
Click to expand...
As already stated, my feelings have absolutely nothing to do with how much money U2 has.

I'm fairly sure they could have not played the Superbowl, not taken iPod corporate sponsorship, not duetted with Mary J. Blige, and still Bono wouldn't have had to live in a cardboard box.
 
The Panther said:
As already stated, my feelings have absolutely nothing to do with how much money U2 has.

I'm fairly sure they could have not played the Superbowl, not taken iPod corporate sponsorship, not duetted with Mary J. Blige, and still Bono wouldn't have had to live in a cardboard box.
Click to expand...

Super Bowl is two words.
 
The SuperBowel is arguably the biggest spotlight of them all in the mainstream eye. I think it's one of U2's greatest moments.
 
U2 can only collaborate with artists that I like.

Big gigs steal your soul.

And doing a free commercial for a groundbreaking innovation of music is the definition of flushing your integrity away.

Guys there's really only way for them to gain their integrity back...




















Show more nipples. It's the only way.
 
If B-man doesn't make it to the Forbes list by next year, I am pretty sure Donald Trump will start arguing for his position in the list that he has always done.
 
BVS said:
U2 can only collaborate with artists that I like.
Click to expand...
False. For example, I don't like Bon Iver or Bon Jovi, but if U2 collaborates with them, I don't think they've lost any integrity.

What I dislike is collaborations with artists that U2 have nothing in common with musically or socially, which are blatantly done as a crossover-marketing attempt (not to mention intentionally hawking an already done-to-death song). Case in point: duetting with Mary J. Blige.

If the U2 of today went back to 1987, instead of collaborating with the 'New Voices of Freedom' amateur choir in Harlem, they likely would have collaborated with Lisa Lisa & Cult Jam or C&C Music Factory. Why, just imagine the dollars!
BVS said:
Big gigs steal your soul.
Click to expand...
False. I have nothing against big gigs per se, although I would prefer them to be saved for special occasions or a few select giant markets, as I personally don't think stadium rock is a force for good in the world. But in any case, U2 played mega-gigs in the 80s and 90s and it didn't bother me. However, the Superbowl strikes me as indicative of a lack of integrity. For one thing, do U2 even know what American football is, or what teams were playing? It's sort of akin to Larry King interviewing Johnny Rotten or something -- it's just invalid. But that's a minor point. What's more awful is that the Superbowl is obviously associated with (a) the highest-possible ratings to the lowest common denominator audience, (b) the worst mainstream artists for safe consumption for middle-class housewives, and (c) corporate sponsorship of the most gargantuan type.

BVS said:
And doing a free commercial for a groundbreaking innovation of music is the definition of flushing your integrity away.
Click to expand...
I generally think so, yeah. (And it's not exactly a "free commercial" -- maybe they weren't paid in cash, but their music was heavily marketed thereafter by iPod and they got endless airtime of their single not by its own merit, but by iPod's corporate power.)


I realize that some people are not bothered by bands going to the Nth-degree to get exposure. But I am. U2 worked hard to be a big group from 1980 to 1993, but they didn't stoop to sacrificing integrity to do it.
 
The Panther said:
However, the Superbowl strikes me as indicative of a lack of integrity. For one thing, do U2 even know what American football is, or what teams were playing? It's sort of akin to Larry King interviewing Johnny Rotten or something -- it's just invalid. But that's a minor point.
Click to expand...

I remember either Bono or Larry saying that they weren't too familiar with the sport in general. Actually, I think Larry said something like that during the filming of the American version of the Stuck video. I'm pretty sure Bono said something along those lines at the press conference for the Super Bowl performance though.

Like you said though, it's a minor point.
 
The Panther said:
not duetted with Mary J. Blige,
Click to expand...

Right, because duetting (sp?) with Mary J Blige hurt their integrity oh, SO much...I mean, confessed drug abuser, sings loudly, of course! Do something with someone like that and integrity = compromised!







:rolleyes:

ETA: A duet with Bon Jovi doesn't compromise U2's integrity, but a duet with MJB does? Are you high? :lmao:
 
The Panther said:
False. For example, I don't like Bon Iver or Bon Jovi, but if U2 collaborates with them, I don't think they've lost any integrity.

What I dislike is collaborations with artists that U2 have nothing in common with musically or socially, which are blatantly done as a crossover-marketing attempt (not to mention intentionally hawking an already done-to-death song). Case in point: duetting with Mary J. Blige.

If the U2 of today went back to 1987, instead of collaborating with the 'New Voices of Freedom' amateur choir in Harlem, they likely would have collaborated with Lisa Lisa & Cult Jam or C&C Music Factory. Why, just imagine the dollars!
Click to expand...

So now Mary J Blige is to the RnB scene in the 00s what Lisa Lisa was to the pop scene in the 80s? What the fuck are you on about, anyways?

Hey, I get it if you don't like her (not really, actually I think it's an ill-founded hatred for something you don't understand, probably) but guess what? U2 and Mary J Blige happened to mutually care deeply about a social concern and that just happened to be human beings dying/being displaced as a result of a natural disaster. So they shelved whatever fucking ridiculously stupid constructs fans like you make up, and joined together to re-do a song for a benefit.

Funny part is, I said "they" when in fact the constructs seem to come from the U2-fan side only - to be honest, I know many MJB fans who never recoiled with disgust that their rnb goddess did a song with a rock band. There were no cries of her selling out her soul (pun intended), everyone saw it as a good thing. When she did it at her shows in encore it brought down the house. The only place I've heard a negative word about the thing was from a very small but vocal subset of U2 fans. It's a bit disappointing, to say the least.
 
I happen to thing that the One collaboration with MJB is absolutely dreadful, but that's a personal taste thing. I honestly think it's pretty cool that they did it. I certainly have no moral issues with it.
 
gvox said:
ETA: A duet with Bon Jovi doesn't compromise U2's integrity, but a duet with MJB does? Are you high? :lmao:
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, no one on earth hates Bon Jovi more than I do -- if U2 duetted with them, I would have to garbage all my U2 records. However, at least I could rest easy feeling that it was less a marketing scheme than genuine mutual interest between the groups.

(Thanks for the polite and respectful tone in which you framed your four-letter words of rage, by the way.)

The Mary J. Blige thing is just one of several random examples I could mention, but the overall issue I have with U2's post-90s career management is the lack of integrity that results from a mismatch between their stated-in-song ideals (which seems, to me, to be unchanged) and their very loud and obvious intent to make as much money as possible at the expense of their music (which seems, to me, to be very much at odds with, say, their late 80s mentality).

I respect the fact that some people disagree with me. I'm not attempting to change your mind, so no need to get defensive. I really have nothing more to say about this anyway.
 
The Panther said:
What I dislike is collaborations with artists that U2 have nothing in common with musically or socially, which are blatantly done as a crossover-marketing attempt (not to mention intentionally hawking an already done-to-death song). Case in point: duetting with Mary J. Blige.
Click to expand...
What did U2 have in common with Johnny Cash sonically? I mean you must have hated the 90's when bands like Pearl Jam were collaborating with rap artists just blantantly trying for that crossover market. THIS point is probably one of the most ridiculous I've heard.

The Panther said:
False. I have nothing against big gigs per se, although I would prefer them to be saved for special occasions or a few select giant markets, as I personally don't think stadium rock is a force for good in the world. But in any case, U2 played mega-gigs in the 80s and 90s and it didn't bother me. However, the Superbowl strikes me as indicative of a lack of integrity. For one thing, do U2 even know what American football is, or what teams were playing? It's sort of akin to Larry King interviewing Johnny Rotten or something -- it's just invalid. But that's a minor point. What's more awful is that the Superbowl is obviously associated with (a) the highest-possible ratings to the lowest common denominator audience, (b) the worst mainstream artists for safe consumption for middle-class housewives, and (c) corporate sponsorship of the most gargantuan type.
Click to expand...
Middle-class housewives? Do you even know anything about American Football?

Their Super Bowl performance was exactly what that "lowest common denominator" audience needed at that point in our history.

The Panther said:
I generally think so, yeah. (And it's not exactly a "free commercial" -- maybe they weren't paid in cash, but their music was heavily marketed thereafter by iPod and they got endless airtime of their single not by its own merit, but by iPod's corporate power.)
Click to expand...
So now you lose integrity points by being smart? In the mid 2000s the music video is a dying artform, how was this any different than MTV picking and choosing what songs get heavy rotation? There have been plenty of artist that have done iPod commercials, some successful some not, so apparently the song's merit does matter some, Apple can't force all "lowest common denominator" audiences to like a song.

The Panther said:
I realize that some people are not bothered by bands going to the Nth-degree to get exposure. But I am. U2 worked hard to be a big group from 1980 to 1993, but they didn't stoop to sacrificing integrity to do it.
Click to expand...
Spoken from someone who obviously wasn't around then. U2 got all kind of flack from 1980 to 1993. There were the "integrity crowd" complaining how they did music videos, complaining how they did an NBA tie-in in 1988, how they embraced electronic music and backing tracks during live shows. The list goes on and on, and looks very similiar to yours, just different mediums different times.
 
The Panther said:
Don't get me wrong, no one on earth hates Bon Jovi more than I do -- if U2 duetted with them, I would have to garbage all my U2 records. However, at least I could rest easy feeling that it was less a marketing scheme than genuine mutual interest between the groups.

(Thanks for the polite and respectful tone in which you framed your four-letter words of rage, by the way.)
Click to expand...

Four letter words of rage? :lol: Look, your theory is fucking absurd. To think that a duet with Bon Jovi would be anything BUT a cash grab or marketing scheme, or that U2 in the 80s with still a bit to prove was somehow more credible (in the context of RnH, no less) waltzing into a black church in Harlem to remind us that yes Dear Public, I Still Havent Found What I'm Looking For Is Indeed A Gospel Song (which it clearly is) than U2 20 years later with little to nothing to prove in the midst of a successful album and tour teaming up with a fellow superstar for charity...it's outright fucking absurd, sorry.

You hate the song? The vocals? U2 playing their instruments a bit different (not really, but anyways)? Fine. But there's zero basis for a suggestion that they did the song with MJB as a marketing scheme cash grab or that they sacrifice whatever notion of "credibility" you have dreamed up. It didn't hurt their credibility one little bit.

Oops, I said fucking again. Shoot me.
 
The Panther said:
False. For example, I don't like Bon Iver or Bon Jovi, but if U2 collaborates with them, I don't think they've lost any integrity.

What I dislike is collaborations with artists that U2 have nothing in common with musically or socially, which are blatantly done as a crossover-marketing attempt (not to mention intentionally hawking an already done-to-death song). Case in point: duetting with Mary J. Blige.

If the U2 of today went back to 1987, instead of collaborating with the 'New Voices of Freedom' amateur choir in Harlem, they likely would have collaborated with Lisa Lisa & Cult Jam or C&C Music Factory. Why, just imagine the dollars!
Click to expand...

so wait... let me try to wrap my small, simple mind around this.

dueting with mary j. blige, because she's a "hip hop" artist (even though she isn't), is without integrity... but a duet with the former co-star of ally mcbeal would be just oozing of integrity?

and mary j. blige, one of the most successful female artists of all time, is akin to lisa lisa or C&C music factory?

okay... let me just make a mental note of all of that...






k done.


False. I have nothing against big gigs per se, although I would prefer them to be saved for special occasions or a few select giant markets, as I personally don't think stadium rock is a force for good in the world. But in any case, U2 played mega-gigs in the 80s and 90s and it didn't bother me. However, the Superbowl strikes me as indicative of a lack of integrity. For one thing, do U2 even know what American football is, or what teams were playing? It's sort of akin to Larry King interviewing Johnny Rotten or something -- it's just invalid. But that's a minor point. What's more awful is that the Superbowl is obviously associated with (a) the highest-possible ratings to the lowest common denominator audience, (b) the worst mainstream artists for safe consumption for middle-class housewives, and (c) corporate sponsorship of the most gargantuan type.
Click to expand...

firstly, super bowl is two words.

second... "the highest-possible ratings to the lowest common denominator audience?"

why thank you. i'm honored that you think so highly of me.

a massive world-wide sporting event is marketed towards the lowest common denominator audience? really? so is your snobbery based simply on american football, or sports in general? if u2 had played the Olympics, or the UEFA Champions League final, would that have been different for you? or are all sports verboten to your delicate sensibilities?

yes, the super bowl is one of the most corporate events in the world. if that is your lone beef, then yes, you have a point there. if u2 were to avoid all things that have become corporate shills, then they'd have to avoid the grammys, the oscars, any and all television shows, live nation and most major stadiums and arenas.

I generally think so, yeah. (And it's not exactly a "free commercial" -- maybe they weren't paid in cash, but their music was heavily marketed thereafter by iPod and they got endless airtime of their single not by its own merit, but by iPod's corporate power.)
Click to expand...

difference of opinion... if you have an issue with taking any sort of commercialization, then fine. i hope you save the same criticism for bob dylan over his bra commercials, that he did get paid for.

that integrity-less old hack.

I realize that some people are not bothered by bands going to the Nth-degree to get exposure. But I am. U2 worked hard to be a big group from 1980 to 1993, but they didn't stoop to sacrificing integrity to do it.
Click to expand...

351-67456-size2.jpg


next.
 
The Panther said:
What I dislike is collaborations with artists that U2 have nothing in common with musically or socially, which are blatantly done as a crossover-marketing attempt (not to mention intentionally hawking an already done-to-death song). Case in point: duetting with Mary J. Blige.

If the U2 of today went back to 1987, instead of collaborating with the 'New Voices of Freedom' amateur choir in Harlem, they likely would have collaborated with Lisa Lisa & Cult Jam or C&C Music Factory. Why, just imagine the dollars!
Click to expand...

So what was the sonic common ground between New Voices of Freedom and U2 in 1988? Or Eno and U2 in 84? Or BB King?

I think it's great when artists collaborate with people of different styles. Some really interesting things can happen.

I do think that the Mary J Blige collab was awful and possibly the most embarrassing moment in U2's career. I don't like Mary J Blige, but if they'd written a new song and she had sung it alone it could have been quite good.
 
U2 & MJB's version of One is better than the original, and just behind Cash's reading.
She just takes that tune and makes it defiant, she owns it. Brilliant tune. 3 recording with completely different tones.
 
Von Schloopen said:
U2 & MJB's version of One is better than the original, and just behind Cash's reading.
She just takes that tune and makes it defiant, she owns it. Brilliant tune. 3 recording with completely different tones.
Click to expand...

I completely respect your opinion of it. Personally, I think it's one of the worst pieces of flaming dog turd that has ever been inflicted upon the auditory canals of a homo sapien.
 
Von Schloopen said:
U2 & MJB's version of One is better than the original, and just behind Cash's reading.
She just takes that tune and makes it defiant, she owns it. Brilliant tune. 3 recording with completely different tones.
Click to expand...

Her soulful whinnying at the end of the first verse communicates profound emotions that I've never felt before. I also particularly enjoy the
mounting bombast and screeching. It makes me picture Oprah hugging herself and weeping. Over-singing wins every time. Now if only Xtina and Celine would do a duet arranged by Mutt Lange and David Foster. Then finally the song would be conveyed properly.
 
Oprah Winfrey lost all fucking credibility when she did the collaboration with Tom Cruise. :tsk:

How Bono could ever lower himself to subsequently be on her show is sickening to me as a Real U2 Fan. I mean, its not like they have anything in common in music or social causes. Blatant cross culture marketing grab, clearly.






(PS that was BS)
 
The Panther said:
There's quite a difference between making heaps of money from (non-corporate, lest we forget, prior to 1997) concerts
Click to expand...

I thought MTV sponsored Popmart.

And U2 really hasn't been the same band ever since 1987 if your issue with them is making money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

prbiker15
U2:UV Boxscore Discussion
Replies
20
Views
1K
DeVaul
DeVaul
W
A Boy Falls From the Sky is some U2's best work
Replies
3
Views
2K
zoocarolina
Z
cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
P
Surrender Memoir Love the Audio Book But Same Old Stories
Replies
13
Views
2K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
MrsSpringsteen
Billie Eilish Thought U2 Was From Scranton
Replies
1
Views
720
lazarus
lazarus

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom