Arcade Fire criticise U2 ( and some others...)

[indra]

[B Young bands these days have never had it so easy to make it than right now [/B]

You have to be kidding.

 

[An Cat Gav]

if you look at the charts and see what the best selling shit is, yes, music fans are idiots

My Humps won a Grammy for fucks sake

Did it really? Fuck sake, that's ridiculous, even by black eyed peas standards that song was shit, but to be honest, I'm not surprised.

 

[silvrlvr]

Seems like poor Arcade Fire has two choices here.

They can link arms with the sellouts, i.e. U2, and sadly suffer the curse of worldwide fame, album sales, cover stories in Mojo and Q, and concerts in Central Park. Oh, what a sad fate, suffered in the seats of private jets quaffing champagne.

Or they can remain pure to their art and play small bars in the Maritimes and be a band only heard on Vinyl Cafe or perhaps an occasional soundtrack of an Atom Egoyen movie. Obscure, but damned proud of it, and pass me another Labatt's Blue before I get on Via Rail.

If they felt uncomfortabe about U2's marketing, they could have just told Paul McGuinness and he could have found another song to play for those 3 million people who went to U2 shows over the past couple of years. I'm sure another band would suffer the indignity of having their work become familiar to new fans with $$$ and enthusiasm.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

quick question, when arcade fire opend for U2, didnt they use WTSHNN before they came on stage?

 

[U2girl]

You have to be kidding.

Clap your hands and say yeah!, from what I read on the Amazon.com, don't even have a label and they made it. Word of mouth/download hype did all the work.

Arctic Monkeys started out via download hype, once the magazines found them they got big.


Contrast this with U2, where it took eons of live shows, and certainly a lot more than 1 album. Even if a young U2 came out with Boy today, they'd still be getting way more hype than back then.

 

[gmc]

They've got an album to sell,so to mention U2 etc in any article will get people reading.

Win Butler "Hey,Bono,sorry man it was taken out of context.Still ok to open the next tour?"

Bono "....kiss my Royal Irish Arse!".

 

[thrillme]

Win Butler vs. the Gallagher brothers.

U2 and the Stones probably just ignore this stuff, but Noel and Liam...nah, don't imagine they'll be so quiet.

U2 are grown men, they don't need me to even dignify a defense about them but...

Is Win going to refuse the royalty checks they got from U2 shoving "Wake Up" down the throats of U2 concert goers? Every U2 concert I went to, that same song.

If he feels this way, why didn't he ask to U2 to stop playing their song on their Vertigo tours?
"There's nothing less interesting to me than the idea of marketing the f--k out of something so people are forced to like it."

Marketing is about manipulation.

You can't force people into liking something by hitting them over the head with it. If people don't like the music, it's just going to annoy them because they're so sick of it.

I can't stand it when radio stations play the same 10-15 songs over and over again, and I don't like half the songs that get played. That just makes me turn the radio station.

Over-marketing doesn't work on some people.

U2's Vertigo/Ipod commercial played a lot, but it's not like U2 release an album every other year. Ditto on the Stones.

And ye know believe it or not, some people can change the radio station, the TV station or ignore the marketing.

I don't know about the rest of you but I'm not manipulated into buying anyone's album because it's overhyped or over-marketed.

Does the marketing of music have that much to do with whether people will buy it?

If I really like a song, it won't matter if I hear it every 20 minutes. If I don't like a song, then I'll get annoyed if I hear it every 20 minutes.

I saw the U2 Ipod commercial many times over, I still don't have an ipod. I've never bought a product from Apple. I've seen hardly any publicity for an Oasis album where I live.

Trendy is what sells. Ipods are trendy, U2 have one. That's clever marketing because it works more than over-saturation. If a band, artist, whatever, is marketed as "hip and cool" and enough people buy into that, then they might sell a lot due to mob mentality more than overmarketing. That is manipulation, but not everyone will go with it.

That's what commercials are, the companies behind them hope you are manipulated into believing you need what they're selling. Now some things you might actually need, but not everything that is aired on a commercial.

 

[thrillme]

Clap your hands and say yeah!, from what I read on the Amazon.com, don't even have a label and they made it. Word of mouth/download hype did all the work.

Arctic Monkeys started out via download hype, once the magazines found them they got big.


Contrast this with U2, where it took eons of live shows, and certainly a lot more than 1 album. Even if a young U2 came out with Boy today, they'd still be getting way more hype than back then.

I get what you're saying. There was no internet in 1980 when U2 released 'Boy.' MTV was barely on the air when October was released but only a few areas got MTV then.

 

[U2Man]

i'm gonna rephrase what i said earlier on: u2 didnt get 20% of the hype that arcade fire is currently getting when they released their first two albums. regardless of what win butler is saying, he is hugely benefitting from the very same thing that he is attacking at the moment. and i dont think he has a problem with that.

and yes, im a huge radiohead fan, but no one is gonna convince me that they're not marketing themselves either.

 

[oceane]

Or they can remain pure to their art and play small bars in the Maritimes and be a band only heard on Vinyl Cafe or perhaps an occasional soundtrack of an Atom Egoyen movie. Obscure, but damned proud of it, and pass me another Labatt's Blue before I get on Via Rail.

If they felt uncomfortabe about U2's marketing, they could have just told Paul McGuinness and he could have found another song to play for those 3 million people who went to U2 shows over the past couple of years. I'm sure another band would suffer the indignity of having their work become familiar to new fans with $$$ and enthusiasm.

Oh please. Firstly, Arcade Fire has actually being going the small clubs, little marketing and media route since the beginning, and they got TONS of hype way before U2 used their song, strickly because people were blown away by their music and their live performances. They are a clear example that you do NOT need to go the traditional, over-the-top marketing road in order to be recognised and gain new fans (being greatly helped by the internet obviously).

Secondly, Arcade Fire never said they suffered indignity while being played at U2 show, what on Earth are you on about? Things are not black and white, it's not 'marketing' vs 'no marketing'. Of course Arcade Fire have to market themselves to a certain extent to have people listening to their music, just like U2 or any other band. The question is what KIND of marketing, and how far are you willing to go to sell your music. In Win's opinion, and in mine and many people for that matter, once you make it possible for people to hear your music (on the net, via concerts, or by having your song played at someone else's concert), the music should speak for itself. There is such a thing as too much, and there is such a thing as people ending up listening to some music mainly before it's been somehow shoved down their throat, by way of being over-played on the radio or MTV for example. I don't personally think that's the case for U2, but I do think that in the past few years they have put a lot of energy on pushing the whole 'U2 is big' thing, and that maybe the quality of the music is not really up to par with what they have done in the past (but that's a whole other argument altogether...).

Also I think Win was trying to say that it's not a competition of who's the 'biggest band', that if your ultimate goal is not necessarily to sell more records than anyone else, it doesn't mean you are not ambitious. Ambition comes in many different shapes and forms.

And once again, Arcade Fire didn't bash U2, they used them as an example of specific agressive marketing ways that they personally don't want to copy. No big fucking deal.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

People here are either too young or so old their memories are going, that they don't remember the Rattle and Hum marketing. U2 were using the sort of carpet bombing that the US Army then copied going into Baghdad. It got so that EVERYTHING in the media had that that lousy poster of Edge in the spotlight. And I liked the movie! And read the Flanagan book, even U2 admit they went OOT.

I reckon U2 and Principle just don't know how, or don't remember, or don't believe, how to sell their music anymore without their mega-media blitz.

 

[guill]

thrillme

Over-marketing can work in cinema, a lot of movies have a strong first weekend then quicly collapse (Big Mama House 2, Norbit, etc.). The word of mouth can kill the biggest marketing plan in a few days, it's the same thing in music and perhaps it's even harder : there is a 1st single to promote the album then you can always find 3 or 4 songs on the internet before the release of the album, if you don't like them, you're not going to buy the album even if it is strongly marketed, people are not retarded.

But it's true that U2's marketing was a bit too aggressive in 2004, ATYCLB was a big success, they were not coming from nowhere this time, they didn't have to feel so insecure.

edit
U2 was pushed by Hot Press in 1979/1980, we should not forget it.
As well as we should not forgot that U2 was on the cover of Rolling Stones with the title "Our choice, the biggest band of the 80's" and U2 hadn't released JT yet when it happened.
So we can't blame Arcade Fire if they are pushed by the press too.

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

if you look at the charts and see what the best selling shit is, yes, music fans are idiots

My Humps won a Grammy for fucks sake

Ok I give you the fact that many music fans have bad taste-but whats that have to do with marketing?. Noone was forced to buy that song.

They're guilty of that crime themselves

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

...He's on fire so much, you'd think he'd have learned "stop, drop and roll" somewhere along the line.

Canadiens, I think I have another idea for a song title...

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

if you look at the charts and see what the best selling shit is, yes, music fans are idiots

My Humps won a Grammy for fucks sake

Homer: Here kid
Bell hop: Oh gee, thanks mister I.... Ohhh, it's a Grammy *Throws it off the balcony*
Voice From Below: Don't throw your junk down here!

 

[corianderstem]

You can't blame idiotic music fans for that stupid song winning a Grammy. Members of the whosits academy vote for those awards ... and you could argue that they're not even music fans.

 

[Allanah]

"I don't know if U2 started it, or The Stones or Oasis but a lot of bands think in terms of: 'I'm going to be the biggest band in the world.'"

That, I think, is a perfectly valid thing to say. But then he adds this:

"'Fuck all those bands who've got no ambition.' I think that's a total crock of shit."

It strikes me as really juvenile and slightly paranoid. "I want to be big" and "Fuck the rest of these bands!" is not the same thing, and it seems pretty ridiculous to apply the second half of that statement to a band that gave them so much publicity. Win can criticize mass marketing of music all he wants and I'll probably agree with him, but this is where he lost me.

 

[mikal]

and yes, im a huge radiohead fan, but no one is gonna convince me that they're not marketing themselves either.

agreed

 

[kingofsorrow]

quick! somebody cry WOLF!

 

[Mogi]

"I don't know if U2 started it, or The Stones or Oasis but a lot of bands think in terms of: 'I'm going to be the biggest band in the world.'"

That, I think, is a perfectly valid thing to say. But then he adds this:

"'Fuck all those bands who've got no ambition.' I think that's a total crock of shit."

It strikes me as really juvenile and slightly paranoid. "I want to be big" and "Fuck the rest of these bands!" is not the same thing, and it seems pretty ridiculous to apply the second half of that statement to a band that gave them so much publicity. Win can criticize mass marketing of music all he wants and I'll probably agree with him, but this is where he lost me.

I totally agree.
Win Butler has a valid point. But at the same point, each band has their own way of doing their own business. U2 has always wanted to be big, that has never been a secret.
Where I can agree with Win´s point of view is if the quality of the music is being compromised for the ambition of being mega.
Win never mentioned that specificially and maybe he didn´t want to go there. Then it would have started becoming more personal, especially with U2.
Honestly, I do feel that U2 has become more wrapped up in size than quality. I really hate to say that, but I feel it´s true.
It goes back to Pop where they already had their head out of the game and focussed on doing the biggest show ever seen.
I love Pop and the message of the medium then (and the irony of it all), but I do think the quality of Pop suffered partially due to this.
In this decade, it seems like they feel like they have to "play the game" to be considered relevant for some reason. Yes, I understand, the stakes have changed and the business is dramatically different now. But it doesn´t take a brain surgeon to realize that U2 isn´t musically nailing it as they did in the past.

BUT I think Win could have said these things without naming names. U2 blasted grunge in 1992 without naming names. So U2 is not innocent by any means. Maybe it´s because NME has "Arcade Fire, the best band in the world" written across it. So maybe he felt the right to throw U2 into this. Regardless whether he was talking about the business, it could have been interpreted as a personal attack.

 

[Rachel D.]

Lately? I think it's some sort of course you have to take if you want to get into the music business...

"Dissing 101: Chapter 1 - Take a shot at Bono and/or U2..."

Yeah, they would be in the first chapter.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Canadiens, I think I have another idea for a song title...

I was beaten out by The Bravery for that one :\

 

[Chizip]

the Arcade Fire would be NOTHING without U2.....NOTHING

 

[GibsonGirl]

I was beaten out by The Bravery for that one :\

 

[kingofsorrow]

U2's next album:
H.T.B.D.T.M.I.
how to bring down the music industry.

 

[LMP]

I was beaten out by The Bravery for that one :\

"you put the broke in brokenhearteddd"
"you put the R in RETARDED!"

:specialsmiley:

 

[zoo99]

I really like the Arcade Fire alot but this guy is way off base, I will tell you right now the arcade fire will have their own i-pod preloaded with all their music including their most current album (at the time) for sale within the next five years, more likely in the next three. I am 100% sure of this. So you can judge for self if he was out of line or not for ragging on u2 for the way they market their music.

 

[MrBrau1]

They never bitch about Bowie though. That guy has sold his music six way to Sunday.

Yet the indie artists never mention him in their little "music is precious" bitchfests.

 

[andberlin]

The only thing I care about from that link is that Graham Coxon might get back together with Blur for a final album.

 

[Allegra]

Watch this now!

Arcade Fire will be defeated! LOL!!!

http://arcade.fire.willbedefeated.com/


And The Edge is Mighty!

http://the.edge.youaremighty.com/