blue screen
The Fly
I don't post often, however I'm as diehard as they come. Have been to every tour since ZooTV, first heard them in 1980 and been a fan ever since, own every album (notice own, not downloaded ilegally), have all their DVDs, have even met them (talked to Bono for about 10 minutes, small talk, but hey I shook the guy's hand!), have had very single girlfriend become diehard fans, etc.
However, with all this waiting for a leak, I feel something is just not right with U2 in 2009. I can't for the life of me understand why they are still tied up to a record label. This is a band that's been around for 33 years, won more Grammys than any other rock band, have done the greatest tour ever by a rock band (ZooTV), and is STILL somehow extremely relevant when it's band members are in their very late forties, and yet, with all this greatness, and trying to stay ahead of the mainstream and all, why would they resort to having a record label release their album?
I love Radiohead and Trent Reznor, and became an even bigger admirer when last year they had the balls to release their albums the way they did. Radiohead has been around half the time as U2 and don't have nearly the fortune U2 has, and yet there was no fanfare, no anticipation, no changing release dates, one day their new album was there, and you paid whatever you wanted for it. Trent Reznor did almost the same thing but went one step ahead, again, no fanfare, no big promotion, no huge anticipation, released Ghosts for $5 and then one day just gave away The Slip for FREE.
Both acts went on tour and did extremely well, knowing full well that if you want the money, you need to tour (and this is pretty much how it's been for years; the record companies are the ones who benefit the most financially on album/single sales), and for people to come to your shows, you need to get the music out there, because like it or not, many will illegally get hold of your work.
So I'm guessing and hoping that U2 sticking to a record label to handle the release of their work is not an act of wanting more money. I'm guessing it's more an ego thing. Getting the title of "saving" the music industry in 2009, might mean a lot to Bono (God knows he has a savior complex), and the only way to do that is by selling a lot of albums, hence the tie up to Universal.
This pisses me off for some reason...I mean I will of course buy the album, and by the reviews I've seen, probably love it, and go and catch a few shows, but shouldn't we expect a band of this stature to actually try and find new and innovative ways of dealing with the changes in the record industry?
I really don't care if the album leaks or not..time goes by very quickly, and pretty soon I'll be able to buy it and listen to it for as long as I live. I just feel that this band that has gone through so many fases, and has consistently stayed relevant musically, and has given us so much artistically,
that they would welcome with open arms another way of delivering their material to the fans in this rapidly changing era of media delivery.
Hate me, flame me, but this is how I feel...maybe a smarter mind can give me a better insight.
Thanks for the read.
However, with all this waiting for a leak, I feel something is just not right with U2 in 2009. I can't for the life of me understand why they are still tied up to a record label. This is a band that's been around for 33 years, won more Grammys than any other rock band, have done the greatest tour ever by a rock band (ZooTV), and is STILL somehow extremely relevant when it's band members are in their very late forties, and yet, with all this greatness, and trying to stay ahead of the mainstream and all, why would they resort to having a record label release their album?
I love Radiohead and Trent Reznor, and became an even bigger admirer when last year they had the balls to release their albums the way they did. Radiohead has been around half the time as U2 and don't have nearly the fortune U2 has, and yet there was no fanfare, no anticipation, no changing release dates, one day their new album was there, and you paid whatever you wanted for it. Trent Reznor did almost the same thing but went one step ahead, again, no fanfare, no big promotion, no huge anticipation, released Ghosts for $5 and then one day just gave away The Slip for FREE.
Both acts went on tour and did extremely well, knowing full well that if you want the money, you need to tour (and this is pretty much how it's been for years; the record companies are the ones who benefit the most financially on album/single sales), and for people to come to your shows, you need to get the music out there, because like it or not, many will illegally get hold of your work.
So I'm guessing and hoping that U2 sticking to a record label to handle the release of their work is not an act of wanting more money. I'm guessing it's more an ego thing. Getting the title of "saving" the music industry in 2009, might mean a lot to Bono (God knows he has a savior complex), and the only way to do that is by selling a lot of albums, hence the tie up to Universal.
This pisses me off for some reason...I mean I will of course buy the album, and by the reviews I've seen, probably love it, and go and catch a few shows, but shouldn't we expect a band of this stature to actually try and find new and innovative ways of dealing with the changes in the record industry?
I really don't care if the album leaks or not..time goes by very quickly, and pretty soon I'll be able to buy it and listen to it for as long as I live. I just feel that this band that has gone through so many fases, and has consistently stayed relevant musically, and has given us so much artistically,
that they would welcome with open arms another way of delivering their material to the fans in this rapidly changing era of media delivery.
Hate me, flame me, but this is how I feel...maybe a smarter mind can give me a better insight.
Thanks for the read.
