Arcade Fire disses U2?? (old news?)

[GibsonGirl]

I like how you underlined Wrong in the background.

I was hoping someone would notice that.

It's a curious Interference phenomenon, really. Whenever any artist says something even remotely negative about U2 (how dare they!), the dedicated legions flock in to flog said artist to death. I can't quite understand it. What's the point in saying "Neon Bible was a disappointment"? How is that AT ALL related to what Win Butler said about U2? Then in that Eric Clapton thread... Instead of addressing what Eric said, you have people responding with "Not a fan of the man nor his music". I mean, why? It doesn't make any sense to me. These guys say something you don't agree with, and all you do is bash their music without commenting on what it is they're actually saying?

How odd.

 

[catlhere]

People defending U2 on a U2 fansite?

NO WAI!1!

 

[vaz02]

I was hoping someone would notice that.

It's a curious Interference phenomenon, really. Whenever any artist says something even remotely negative about U2 (how dare they!), the dedicated legions flock in to flog said artist to death. I can't quite understand it. What's the point in saying "Neon Bible was a disappointment"? How is that AT ALL related to what Win Butler said about U2? Then in that Eric Clapton thread... Instead of addressing what Eric said, you have people responding with "Not a fan of the man nor his music". I mean, why? It doesn't make any sense to me. These guys say something you don't agree with, and all you do is bash their music without commenting on what it is they're actually saying?

How odd.

I hardly bashed his music, i just said i dont like the man or his music.

 

[GibsonGirl]

People defending U2 on a U2 fansite?

NO WAI!1!

It's possible to defend U2 without insulting the other artist's music...

 

[Dusty Bottoms]

It's possible to defend U2 without insulting the other artist's music...

NO WAI!1!

 

[catlhere]

It's possible to defend U2 without insulting the other artist's music...

Of course it is. I'm not going to excuse someone saying Arcade Fire is crap and such because I don't agree with that. But really on a U2 fansite, should we be that sarcastically shocked and appalled when some posters get offended? Out of all the people signed up here there are going to be diehard fans that get angry over this stuff more than someone else one. Most people don't care though. What's more, is it then ok for some to make snotty comments about other users who might have taken offense to the criticism? Insinuating that they are sheep or blindly praise the band or anything like that? Basically giving the idea that even if it's not done in an insulting way, any defense of U2 is looked down upon? I don't think that's any better or more justified than the rudeness towards artists seen in these type of topics. It makes the people throwing jabs at other posters no better than the posters throwing jabs at the artists.

 

[Canadiens1131]

What's more, is it then ok for some to make snotty comments about other users who might have taken offense to the criticism? Insinuating that they are sheep or blindly praise the band or anything like that?

Awww hell naw don't even.

 

[LMP]

Naw, Gibby, don't be ruuuuuude.

 

[Canadiens1131]

oh my god

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

These guys say something you don't agree with, and all you do is bash their music without commenting on what it is they're actually saying?

and the people who defend the band get mocked and made fun of instead of commenting on what they said.

 

[coolian2]

brilliant response to win's comments.
bullet/water proof.
i guess he's been proven wrong afterall.

good job.

No point complaining....i own the album and i've grown sick of it.

I wasn't responding to his comments, i was just bitching about the Arcade Fire.

Clapton on the other hand............

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

Ya know, U2 aren't a perfect band and Bono leaves himself open to alot of criticism, alot of it justified, but the fact is alot of the negative press from other artists towards U2 is crap and there's nothing wrong with people defending the band. If someone said Bono repeats himself in interviews and pimps whatever they happen to be doing I'd say it's a valid point. If someone said U2 have always liked to control their image I'd agree, no complaints. But even though I think the Beatles are still leagues above U2, I've always thought Harrisons comments were pretty much full of crap. Even putting the Spicegirls in the same novel, let alone sentence as U2 is pretty stupid. Still the guy wrote "Here comes the sun" as a 25 year old , so he ain't that bad.

Arcade fire are a great band but I thought Wims comments were pretty hypocritical. They're a hugely hyped band and once they sign "THE CONTRACT" they won't be against a bit of marketing themselves.
As for Claptons comments I pretty much put it in the Harrison category-I'm sure it ain't fun being a 50 or 60 year old in a business thats marketed for the teens.

 

[gareth brown]

hahaha brilliant!

 

[GibsonGirl]

and the people who defend the band get mocked and made fun of instead of commenting on what they said.

I didn't mock anyone who defended U2 without resorting to pointless potshots at Eric Clapton and The Arcade Fire. Some people actually made some good points in both of the recent "Person X bashes U2" threads. If people want to discuss how much they dislike the music of Eric Clapton and The Arcade Fire, surely Bang & Clatter would be a more suitable place for that?

I can't really understand how insulting another artist can be classed as "defending" U2 anyway. More like sour grapes to me. Would U2 want any of us to defend them by hurling animosity at their contemporaries?

 

[coolian2]

Would U2 want any of us to defend them by hurling animosity at their contemporaries?

If i was Bono....

 

[GibsonGirl]

Of course it is. I'm not going to excuse someone saying Arcade Fire is crap and such because I don't agree with that. But really on a U2 fansite, should we be that sarcastically shocked and appalled when some posters get offended? Out of all the people signed up here there are going to be diehard fans that get angry over this stuff more than someone else one. Most people don't care though. What's more, is it then ok for some to make snotty comments about other users who might have taken offense to the criticism? Insinuating that they are sheep or blindly praise the band or anything like that? Basically giving the idea that even if it's not done in an insulting way, any defense of U2 is looked down upon? I don't think that's any better or more justified than the rudeness towards artists seen in these type of topics. It makes the people throwing jabs at other posters no better than the posters throwing jabs at the artists.

It's not that I don't think people should defend U2. I did register with this site because I'm a fan, you know. I'm all for defending U2 when they're being unfairly criticised for something. I just take issue with the lengths that people will go to in order to defend them. What is the point in telling us how much you think an artist sucks, just because they've said something negative about U2? There is no point. And unless people make it clear to them that there is no point, they will continue to go on bashing bands whenever any artist says something uncomplimentary of U2. They will continue to make irrelevant comments about the music, instead of tackling the real issue - what the artists are saying about U2. I apologise if I was rude, but sometimes it's the only way to get through to people.

 

[Zoots]

Gibby, I see what you're saying. But doesn't everyone respond differently in these situations? And all opinion is subjective and cannot be judged, right? Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I've seen you're not as much of a U2 fan anymore. You like other bands/artists equally or more. Whereas I'm sure there are fans here who are still crazy about U2 and so get passionate in defending them.. sometimes a bit to the extreme by dissing the other artist's whole discography! I may not agree with it fully but I'm not at all surprised by this behavior, seeing how this forum was made FOR the band getting defended.

 

[Miro]

I met Arcade Fire after their second Chicago show and talked with about half the band for a good twenty or so minutes. One question I asked, seeing as them and U2 are my favourite two bands, was "Do you guys want to be the next U2?" And they said no they don't, because they never want to be considered celebrities and never want to see iPods and churches dedicated to them, whether there's money involved or not. They respected U2 but are firm on doing things different from more "popular" bands. I saw humility and a total lack of ego, almost as if they're surprised that people keep coming. Win also offered me a piece of pizza and stood up to eBay Nazis, so he's good in my book.

I don't think it's wrong for Arcade Fire to criticize U2 because it's not a "OMG THE MUSIC IS BORING AND BONO JUST WANTS TO SELL ALBUMZ NOW THAT HE'S OLD" but instead a different opinion on what a musician's duty is. I'm okay with U2's style and I'm even more okay with Arcade Fire's...and I guess I'll take a side and say I like Arcade Fire's music and live show more simply 'cause there are more instruments to hear and the lyrics ('specially in Funeral) are more unique.

Also, the show rocked and, unlike U2, it was possible to meet them afterwards at a reasonable hour.

 

[LPU2]

I love Arcade Fire. They're one of my favorite bands right now. But to criticize the band for marketing their music like toasters?

U2 makes honest, provocative music. Their record company releases the music and markets it. Could U2 refuse to tour the album? Sure. Could they refuse to appear on talk shows to market the album? Of course. Could they convince the record company to avoid marketing the music? Probably.

But wouldn't that be incredibly dishonest and precious to do so?

I love Indie music, but the attitude behind it is so often utter bullshit.

 

[GibsonGirl]

Gibby, I see what you're saying. But doesn't everyone respond differently in these situations? And all opinion is subjective and cannot be judged, right? Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I've seen you're not as much of a U2 fan anymore. You like other bands/artists equally or more. Whereas I'm sure there are fans here who are still crazy about U2 and so get passionate in defending them.. sometimes a bit to the extreme by dissing the other artist's whole discography! I may not agree with it fully but I'm not at all surprised by this behavior, seeing how this forum was made FOR the band getting defended.

Zoots, I still love U2's back catalogue. I don't care at all for their recent output, but I'll always give their first four albums and their 90s stuff a spin when I'm in the mood. I'm not surprised by the reactions in these threads either (in fact, I can usually predict what people will be saying in them before I open them), just disappointed by them. It's utterly stupid to defend any aspect of a band by bashing the music of another one. It doesn't prove anything. When Win Butler says he doesn't like the way that U2 push their singles and products up everyone's noses, he isn't saying that he dislikes the music itself. He's just taking issue with the way that they oversaturate themselves in the media, and his point is a valid one, just as the counterpoints are. It has nothing to do with his opinion on the quality of their music. People have to understand that. Saying that you don't like The Arcade Fire's music means stuffall in the context of his comments. Surely people realise this?

 

[Zoots]

Saying that you don't like The Arcade Fire's music means stuffall in the context of his comments.

True. I agree. But somebody saying "The Arcade Fire would be nothing without U2" perhaps truly believes that playing Wake Up at vertigo tour shows was what gave Arcade Fire a career. I don't know if that's true but at least it's better than pointlessly dismissing their music instead of addressing what Win actually said.

 

[GibsonGirl]

True. I agree. But somebody saying "The Arcade Fire would be nothing without U2" perhaps truly believes that playing Wake Up at vertigo tour shows was what gave Arcade Fire a career. I don't know if that's true but at least it's better than pointlessly dismissing their music instead of addressing what Win actually said.

Yeah, it is a bit better than saying they outright suck, but it's not completely true. I remember that long before the Vertigo tour started, The Arcade Fire were receiving a lot of airplay on Canada's MuchMusic and MuchMoreMusic channels with Rebellion (Lies). U2 may have helped them a little bit in the States, I don't know, but they were going very strong here in Canada without them. The average Arcade Fire fan doesn't listen to U2 anyway. A lot of the people I knew at school loved them when Funeral first came out, but despised U2. So I hardly think U2 are the sole reason for their success.

 

[Canadiens1131]

U2 makes honest, provocative music.

Woah, woah, woah what year is this, again?

 

[gvox]

Well GibsonGirl at least now you are speaking to the topic at hand, instead of (ironically) doing the same thing you accuse others of (ie statements that have little relevancy to the subject), and cross-posting the same tune in different threads at that.

Honestly, the cartoon was ok for a snicker but the whining about "why can't we say something negative about U2 look all these blind sheep U2 fans jump down our throats" thing is a bit tired now. There seems to be more posts about that crap than the topic at hand.

The arguments posited by the people in question (ie Win and Eric) will either stand on their own merits or they will not. I'd like to think there are a few amongst us who can navigate their way thru the crap and the mindless comments of the minority to debate whether or not the arguments have any grounding in reality, fairness, or objectivity.

And, I might add, they don't. They fail miserably.

 

[GibsonGirl]

Well GibsonGirl at least now you are speaking to the topic at hand, instead of (ironically) doing the same thing you accuse others of (ie statements that have little relevancy to the subject), and cross-posting the same tune in different threads at that.

Actually, there is no irony. I was not berating anyone for being off topic. I was berating people for the extremely pointless methods they sometimes use to "defend" U2. There is a difference.

Honestly, the cartoon was ok for a snicker but the whining about "why can't we say something negative about U2 look all these blind sheep U2 fans jump down our throats" thing is a bit tired now.

That's funny, I can't recall referring to anyone as a sheep. This has absolutely nothing to do with being a "blind fan" or not. Blind fans are just as capable as anyone else of responding to another artist's criticism of U2 without attacking said artist's music.

Anyway, that's the last I have to say about this. I merely felt I'd point out an extremely annoying Interference trend, in the hope that people might think twice before they bash a band in a thread like this. Sadly, I don't think it'll make a difference. I'll be willing to bet that sometime in the near future, Paul McCartney or someone will say something mildly inflammatory about Bono's sunglasses, and Interferencers will declare that The Beatles weren't all that good anyway. And I'll just seeth here in silence.

 

[Tiger Edge]

Paul McCartney is old.

 

[mystery girl]

I think Win has a very valid point. All he's saying is that music has become a product, that is marketed and "pushed" at people, and that's true. That they opened for U2 doesn't make them hypocrites - opening for a band isn't marketing a product in the sense they were referring to, though of course they would have received exposure from doing it.

I was always annoyed by all the "we're re-applying for the job of the best band in the world" stuff that Bono started saying around the time ATYCLB came out. You can be an ambitious band that aims to make the best music you are capable of without wanting to beat all the other bands and take over the world. I personally think that when you start wanting not just to make great music, but to be the best band in the world etc, you lose something, and although I still love U2, I do think that lately, they have lost something.

 

[BVS]

That they opened for U2 doesn't make them hypocrites - opening for a band isn't marketing a product in the sense they were referring to, though of course they would have received exposure from doing it.

How is the marketing different?

I personally think that when you start wanting to be the biggest band etc, you lose something, and although I still love U2, I do think that lately, they have lost something.

Why? If the product is the same(not saying it is exactly) how does marketing the product, change the product?

Beatles were reaching out the same exact way U2 are, yet they are granted God status...

 

[mystery girl]

How is the marketing different?




Why? If the product is the same(not saying it is exactly) how does marketing the product, change the product?

Beatles were reaching out the same exact way U2 are, yet they are granted God status...

Playing shows is completely about the music. Although a band might receive exposure and "marketing" from doing it, this is incidental. I am sure all bands want to bring their music to as wide an audience as possible, but doing this by playing shows and opening for other bands is different from doing it by using your music to sell ipods.

I don't think the marketing changes the "product" it just can make people tired of it, if they have no choice but to be exposed to it - if it's "shoved down their throats".

I don't think the Beatles were reaching out quite so explictly. I don't think they ever said they wanted to be the "best" or "biggest" band in the world. In fact, I can't imagine Paul or especially John saying anything like that, and they were the most vocal. They *happened* to be the biggest band in the world, and in my opinion are still one of the best, but that's different. As far as I know, their music was not used in any ads till other people gained control of their catalogue. The Beatles stayed true to the music.

 

[BVS]

I don't think the marketing changes the "product" it just can make people tired of it, if they have no choice but to be exposed to it - if it's "shoved down their throats".

So the amount makes a difference? So the person that makes a popular video that gets played a lot is wrong because it gets "shoved down their throats"?

I don't think the Beatles were reaching out quite so explictly. I don't think they ever said they wanted to be the "best" or "biggest" band in the world. In fact, I can't imagine Paul or especially John saying anything like that, and they were the most vocal. They *happened* to be the biggest band in the world, and in my opinion are still one of the best, but that's different. As far as I know, their music was not used in any ads till other people gained control of their catalogue. The Beatles stayed true to the music.

Please!!! They said they were bigger than Jesus. They wanted, needed, and seeked out the interest more than anyone!!!