Does non-leak speak to U2's greed?

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
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

walkon274

The Fly
Joined
Aug 20, 2004
Messages
181
While I hope this doesn't get into the debate about artists producing art for money vs. production for the sake of art, this thought flew through my head today:

Is it really a surprise that of all the bands who have produced albums over the past two years, U2 seem to be the only one who have kept theirs from leaking? I was able to listen to Viva La Vida and Forth and some of Keane's song before any of those albums came out. I also was able to hear Oasis' shit (and for the record, The Shock of the Lightning destroys GOYB). Why is U2 so guarded with NLOTH? What happened to McGuinness saying U2 had a creative, new way to release the album?

Unfortunately, it seems all this tight-grip stuff is b/c they want people to be forced to buy the album - or at least have to wait until the album comes out to listen to it, which may entice them to buy it or download it legally on i-tunes or zune's network.

While I don't see anything wrong with making money, that's the world we live in, I just think it's quite fitting that it's Bono and the boys. I can see McGuinness now gripping the one master copy with his hands, locked up in some room with rounds of ammunition and tear gas and bloodshot eyes, repeating "must wait 'til February 27" over and over again.

Thoughts?
 
It's staggering to me that the manager of a band would want people to pay for that band's new album. I just wanted to get this post in before this gets locked on up.
 
gordon-gekko.jpg


Greed is good.
 
No spoken words said:
It's staggering to me that the manager of a band would want people to pay for that band's new album. I just wanted to get this post in before this gets locked on up.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha. I get your point. I'm only trying point out that U2 seems to be the only band so vigilant about it. Meanwhile, they're going to make millions of dollars no matter if this album leaked right now. Seriously, they get drunk, record themselves talking, and it would go platinum.

Whatever happened to having confidence in the album and saying, if it's good, people are going to buy it?
 
walkon274 said:
Hahahaha. I get your point. I'm only trying point out that U2 seems to be the only band so vigilant about it. Meanwhile, they're going to make millions of dollars no matter if this album leaked right now. Seriously, they get drunk, record themselves talking, and it would go platinum.

Whatever happened to having confidence in the album and saying, if it's good, people are going to buy it?
Click to expand...

You could argue that by not letting it leak, they're exhibiting that very confidence.
 
Let's see...

U2 are a business. That's right (gasp!) a business! They are, at the end of they day, trying to make money. (Say it aint' so!)

They have spent several months (years?) creating a product. Something that represents their best efforts (we hope). And they want (wait for it) other people to pay to enjoy their product.

They will promote this product as much as possible. They will offer several versions of this product, knowing that some will be willing to pay more for a few extras. They will promote heavily via television, radio, internet (where are we anyway?) and ultimately, through a lavish tour filled with expensive merchandise and high priced tickets.

Is this greed? Then I guess every band on earth is greedy. Until they start giving it away for free, right? Maybe you'd like to start offering to go into work and provide your best efforts and talents for free? I'm sure your customers (or your boss, whatever the case may be) would love that.

Sorry, the real world doesn't work that way. No matter how badly you want it to. Not even for U2.
 
walkon274 said:
Hahahaha. I get your point. I'm only trying point out that U2 seems to be the only band so vigilant about it. Meanwhile, they're going to make millions of dollars no matter if this album leaked right now. Seriously, they get drunk, record themselves talking, and it would go platinum.

Whatever happened to having confidence in the album and saying, if it's good, people are going to buy it?
Click to expand...

Maybe they just think it's an interesting challenge in 2009. I certainly think it's kind of amazing that they've managed to keep it unleaked for this long. If I were in their place, I'd want to do it too, just to prove I could.
 
Zoocoustic said:
Let's see...

U2 are a business. That's right (gasp!) a business! They are, at the end of they day, trying to make money. (Say it aint' so!)

They have spent several months (years?) creating a product. Something that represents their best efforts (we hope). And they want (wait for it) other people to pay to enjoy their product.

They will promote this product as much as possible. They will offer several versions of this product, knowing that some will be willing to pay more for a few extras. They will promote heavily via television, radio, internet (where are we anyway?) and ultimately, through a lavish tour filled with expensive merchandise and high priced tickets.

Is this greed? Then I guess every band on earth is greedy. Until they start giving it away for free, right? Maybe you'd like to start offering to go into work and provide your best efforts and talents for free? I'm sure your customers (or your boss, whatever the case may be) would love that.

Sorry, the real world doesn't work that way. No matter how badly you want it to. Not even for U2.
Click to expand...

Geez, did any of you stop to read my ENTIRE post. I understand capitalism. However, my two points are still valid:

1. Why is it U2 and not Oasis, Keane, The Verve, Pearl Jam, Radiohead, etc.?

2. Do you honestly think they are not going to make bank on this if the album leaked today? Look what they sold for HTDAAB (which was crap and leaked) and ATYCLB (entire album out before the sale). How much is enough for a band already worth collectively something insane like $400 million?
 
Heaven forbid bands try to stick to the release date they've announced.
 
walkon274 said:
While I hope this doesn't get into the debate about artists producing art for money vs. production for the sake of art, this thought flew through my head today:

Is it really a surprise that of all the bands who have produced albums over the past two years, U2 seem to be the only one who have kept theirs from leaking? I was able to listen to Viva La Vida and Forth and some of Keane's song before any of those albums came out. I also was able to hear Oasis' shit (and for the record, The Shock of the Lightning destroys GOYB). Why is U2 so guarded with NLOTH? What happened to McGuinness saying U2 had a creative, new way to release the album?

Unfortunately, it seems all this tight-grip stuff is b/c they want people to be forced to buy the album - or at least have to wait until the album comes out to listen to it, which may entice them to buy it or download it legally on i-tunes or zune's network.

While I don't see anything wrong with making money, that's the world we live in, I just think it's quite fitting that it's Bono and the boys. I can see McGuinness now gripping the one master copy with his hands, locked up in some room with rounds of ammunition and tear gas and bloodshot eyes, repeating "must wait 'til February 27" over and over again.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

no it does not, you knob.
 
Can we please refrain from personal attacks. Just dont respond to the thread if you dont like it/think it sucks/ think its :doh: , etc.
 
What's more greedy? That U2 have given a release date and have stuck to it (so far); or that some fans feel they deserve to have it in their hands before that release date - for free, I might add?
 
my apologies sicy.

walkon274 said:
While I hope this doesn't get into the debate about artists producing art for money vs. production for the sake of art, this thought flew through my head today:

Is it really a surprise that of all the bands who have produced albums over the past two years, U2 seem to be the only one who have kept theirs from leaking? I was able to listen to Viva La Vida and Forth and some of Keane's song before any of those albums came out. I also was able to hear Oasis' shit (and for the record, The Shock of the Lightning destroys GOYB). Why is U2 so guarded with NLOTH? What happened to McGuinness saying U2 had a creative, new way to release the album?

Unfortunately, it seems all this tight-grip stuff is b/c they want people to be forced to buy the album - or at least have to wait until the album comes out to listen to it, which may entice them to buy it or download it legally on i-tunes or zune's network.

While I don't see anything wrong with making money, that's the world we live in, I just think it's quite fitting that it's Bono and the boys. I can see McGuinness now gripping the one master copy with his hands, locked up in some room with rounds of ammunition and tear gas and bloodshot eyes, repeating "must wait 'til February 27" over and over again.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

no it does not, redacted.
 
I would imagine that they’ve gone to some extra lengths then some of the other bands you mentioned (and there are some differences: Radiohead snap released theirs, Oasis could have done with a bit of advanced word of mouth chatter, Keane are a fucking awful band etc) but probably nothing dramatic. There’s only so much you can do, and it’s not much. They’ve probably been extra careful and precious about only very small numbers of (watermarked) copies going to each regional office for the initial listening parties. They’ve probably pushed the delivery of masters and beginning of the replication and manufacturing phase in each territory back to the last possible moment before the logistics become too much. They’ve probably sent word of fairly serious legal threats to any UMG employees or journalists or whoever who should even think about even just playing it for a buddy. But really, the main difference so far is probably pure luck. It just hasn’t fallen into the right or wrong (depending on your point of view) hands yet. That’s all it is.
 
coolian2 said:
it clearly speaks to the greed of some fans who think they deserve everything now.
Click to expand...

And need to spend ~9,000 posts babbling over how unfortunate it is that it hasn't fallen in their laps yet.
 
walkon274 said:
Hahahaha. I get your point. I'm only trying point out that U2 seems to be the only band so vigilant about it. Meanwhile, they're going to make millions of dollars no matter if this album leaked right now. Seriously, they get drunk, record themselves talking, and it would go platinum.

Whatever happened to having confidence in the album and saying, if it's good, people are going to buy it?
Click to expand...


Maybe it's not just the money, but the principle. For an album to leak, somebody has to break laws and rules and the trust of others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

dan_smee
U2 Live From Sphere - Final Show SiriusXM stream
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
C
Will Larry Return to U2?
Replies
14
Views
361
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
D
Looking for the best storyteller of U2 - Garage to Stadius
Replies
0
Views
64
Dave A
D
dan_smee
I listened to No Line on the Horizon right through tonight for the first time in about 10 years…
2 3
Replies
83
Views
2K
lazarus
lazarus
W
A Boy Falls From the Sky is some U2's best work
Replies
3
Views
2K
zoocarolina
Z

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom