For all those spanners who reckon U2 are sellouts...

[lazyboy]

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I was reading the Sunday World today and I came across an interview with Bono. He mentioned that the band had been offered $23 million, yep, TWENTY THREE MILLION DOLLARS!from a car compnay that wanted to use Where The Streets Have No Namein one of its ads. Bono commented on how much the band dwelled on it, seeing as they coulda helped so many charities with all that money. But in the end they decided that the song meant so much to them and their fans that it was invaluable, and that using it in a commercial would ruin it. He also commented that if other similiar offers came in for other songs then the band would definitely consider them.

Now I never agreed with the idiots who freaked at U2 "selling out" with Elevation, cos it was on the bloody soundtrack! To me it was the same as UTEOTW being used in the Wim Wenders film of the same name. But this clearly shows how much U2 care about the reputation and image of their songs. If anything, I'd criticise them for NOT selling out, $23million!!!

I mean, as they said, they coulda put that money to good use!! But it's U2, they've done so much for charity that these actions in defense of one of their classics should be overlooked.

[This message has been edited by lazyboy (edited 04-28-2002).]

 

[Mrs.Clayton]

WOW!!!
Good for them!

 

[elevatedmole]

Wow.. I am so glad they didn't cave in and let them use it.

------------------
"You must not look down on someone just 'cos they are 14 years old. When I was that age I listened to the music of John Lennon and it changed my way of seeing things, so I'm just glad that 14 year olds are coming to see U2 rather than group X." - Bono, 1988

Popheart.org

 

[cass]

I can picture it.... unfortunately. No wonder the car people went after that song.
**cass kisses Bono, Edge, Larry Adam, Paul,Ali, Aunty Jean, the roadies, absolutely everyone who helped them make that particular decision**

I can hear "Your Blue Room" being used by Dulux Paints. oh no!!!

"spanners"?...101? j/k

 

[V Nura]

Well BD was used in coke ads, and Bad, and UTEOW were used in NFL ads


I'm not against u2 music in commericals...the music scene is different now. Commerciclas are part of it. Everyone thinks that if you are talented and you want to make money...that's selling out

Selling out is making music to cater to suits...not sellign it to suits.

 

[elevatedmole]

Originally posted by Arun V:
Well BD was used in coke ads, and Bad, and UTEOW were used in NFL ads


I'm not against u2 music in commericals...the music scene is different now. Commerciclas are part of it. Everyone thinks that if you are talented and you want to make money...that's selling out

Selling out is making music to cater to suits...not sellign it to suits.

That's true, Arun. If you want to make music to get money to spend on beer, girls, and all the excess you can handle.. that is selling out. If you want to make music for the sake of music and maybe get some money along the way to spend it on the family who you love, your friends who you love, and donate some to charity.. that's not selling out, IMO.

------------------
"You must not look down on someone just 'cos they are 14 years old. When I was that age I listened to the music of John Lennon and it changed my way of seeing things, so I'm just glad that 14 year olds are coming to see U2 rather than group X." - Bono, 1988

Popheart.org

 

[typhoon]

We all know they like attention more than money anyway.

 

[Basstrap]

glad to see your are thrilled at the prospect of millions of people missing out on the benefits of 23 million.

------------------
I'm not living
I'm just killing time

 

[Zoomerang96]

oh shut up basstrap. selling out is just wrong. for u2 this shouldnt even be something to consider.

they have enough money themselves, and im sure they donate plenty of it away anyway.

------------------
-deathbear

 

[z edge]

Originally posted by Arun V:
Well BD was used in coke ads, and Bad, and UTEOW were used in NFL ads

Thats not the same thing, I mean the NFL used them only because they played the SB so U2 music was like a theme.

And I never saw them using BD for Coke ads, you sure about that? I remember them refusing to let EBTTRT go out for a coke ad a couple of years back.

 

[SkeeK]

I don't see the problem of them selling their music to a commercial if they give the money to a charity... that's really awesome. I wou;dn't want them all over all sorts of commercials selling their *image* over their music.. if they weren't popular and the companies were actually paying for the specific music rather than the specific huely popular band I wouldn't mind though.


Oh well, looks like me and basstrap are a minority.

[This message has been edited by SkeeK (edited 04-28-2002).]

 

[Guy With The Stuff]

I don't personally see a problem with it either. It's their art. They don't have to feel ashamed about using it to help people.

Just a side question though, which car was it to advertise?

 

[kariatari]

Me too! But I'm also glad to hear that the money that they would have made off it it (or any other song used in a commecial) would have been given to charities.

 

[MBH]

This is good news and I think that U2 is doing the right thing. Yes the $ could help people, but U2 could help many people by donating money and time w/out shilling for big corporations.

While on the subject: why didn't Moby receive much flack for selling out all of his songs to commercials?(dont get me wrong, I like Moby).

Also, I heard Kid Rock say recently that he is called a sellout for taking $ from Coors to sponsor his current tour, but Kid Rock said that by him taking the $, it keeps ticket prices down. What does everyone here think?

 

[V Nura]

Originally posted by Spyplane:
Thats not the same thing, I mean the NFL used them only because they played the SB so U2 music was like a theme.

And I never saw them using BD for Coke ads, you sure about that? I remember them refusing to let EBTTRT go out for a coke ad a couple of years back.

Uhh..so the nfl..took u2's music..and used it for promo purposes ..it's not the same becaaaaaauuuuseeee??? u2 s=could have just said...no you can't use it in the ads we'll play halftime and that's it. BD was used in coke ads....just because you haven't seen it...doesn't mean it doesn't exists

cheers,

Arun

 

[MBH]

Originally posted by Arun V:

Uhh..so the nfl..took u2's music..and used it for promo purposes ..it's not the same becaaaaaauuuuseeee??? u2 s=could have just said...no you can't use it in the ads we'll play halftime and that's it. BD was used in coke ads....just because you haven't seen it...doesn't mean it doesn't exists

cheers,

Arun

Where was BD used in a coke ad? What country and what ad? Just curious.

The difference between U2's music being used by the NFL for the SBowl and U2's music being used to sell a product is significant:

U2 DID NOT GET PAID BY THE NFL for the use of their music AND U2 were promoting/selling themselves for the SB, not a product. Big Difference

 

[elevatedmole]

Originally posted by MBH:
While on the subject: why didn't Moby receive much flack for selling out all of his songs to commercials?(dont get me wrong, I like Moby).
B]

Moby DID receive flak for letting companies use his songs in commercials. Moby has addressed this issue in his weblog on moby.com -- I believe he said he didn't care, he liked his music, and if companies wanted to use it because they liked it, fine -- it was okay by him.

------------------
"You must not look down on someone just 'cos they are 14 years old. When I was that age I listened to the music of John Lennon and it changed my way of seeing things, so I'm just glad that 14 year olds are coming to see U2 rather than group X." - Bono, 1988

Popheart.org

 

[lazyboy]

The reason U2 gave for not allowing Streets to be used was because it is a cornerstone of each gig, Bono said "it's like when we have a bad night, that song is where God usually shows up". For this reason he felt that it would be degrading to the song, and the attention it would get due to the ad would take away its effect in the show. I dunno but they seemed like they could be persuaded on some other less notable songs.

They didn't say which car company it was, to whoever asked that.

And Arun, from this side of the pond I dunno bout the cases you mentioned, but I would also say the NFL thing ain't selling out, they also let a soccer highlights show here use BD as the theme tune. And have you seen the coke ad you refer to? Cos I think I heard a similar story to this one about that.

And I personally wouldn't really be bothered if U2 "sold" some of their songs to advertising, I mean it would be nice to take some big notes from some corporation and give them to charity. And like someone already pointed out, Moby practically used selling all his songs to ads to promote his own album, not a bad idea! But with Streets, and many others, I think they should be left alone.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

I seem to remember that 'Beatiful Day' was actually used for a charity affiliated with the Olyimpics. Coke just happened to be the other sponser, and the two entities -- 'Beautiful Day' and a small add for Coke -- appeared simulteously. That's all. It wasn't U2 doing an add for Coke at all.

------------------
The Tempest

 

[Saracene]

I agree that some songs should be left alone, but it wouldn't bother me if U2 gave one of their less "serious" songs to be used in the ads... now what were these un-serious songs anyway?

 

[Tech]

U2 are U2 and for whatever reasons they choose, they are going to either say yes or no to letting commercials use there songs!

Personally I don't know that I would like to hear a U2 songs connected to a commercial (ie Stings song DESERT ROSE for Jaguar) , but it's up to them to decide how they want there legacy of songs to be heard!

 

[doctorwho]

Originally posted by rafmed:


Doing a striped down show is selling out.

You are SO right! It's much better to have a super-huge stage design yet AGAIN - which screams of a lack of originality - and charge fans even more $$ for all the special effects needed, than to tour with a far more intimate and emotional show. Heck, why bother playing instruments? Why not just dance around on stage, have backing tapes and use pyro-effects? Oh wait - that's already been done by N'Sync.

Releasing a best of is selling out.

Hallelujah brother! It's much better to have the new generation of fans shell out $18/CD to get the back catalog than to have all the singles featured on one CD. Why let these fans spend a mere $18 when they could spend $180 on all the CDs? Now that's selling music!

Releasing an album which sounds reminds of old albums, that is selling out.

Well, "Under a Blood Red Sky" did feature songs from the first 3 albums, "Wide Awake in America" did feature 2 tracks from another album and R&H was like a "JT-Part 2" but those were all live or part-live albums, so it's forgiveable. Otherwise, I haven't heard U2 repeat themselves once. You must be listening to Aerosmith too much. That explains a lot, actually.

Spending a whole tour overplaying in the U$A and underplaying europe and ignoring Oz and latinamerica fans, that is selling out.

Keep in coming, man! It's far better to charge hundreds of $$ to the Australian fans just so U2 don't run the risk of actually losing money on this tour (as they did with the past two tours) than to wait for a turn in the economy and visit Australia later. And it's far better to keep touring Europe over and over than record new songs in the studio. After all, isn't that what we want? Non-stop touring? Who needs new music? Blah!

Hey! Great post Raffie. Thanks for enlightening us with your brilliance!

 

[oliveu2cm]

Originally posted by elevatedmole:
Moby DID receive flak for letting companies use his songs in commercials. Moby has addressed this issue in his weblog on moby.com -- I believe he said he didn't care, he liked his music, and if companies wanted to use it because they liked it, fine -- it was okay by him.

yeah i heard a radio interview w/ him and he said that he was a blatant sellout (he used that word) but he didn't care.

I'm glad U2 aren't selling their song; 99% of the population wouldn't know it was for charity anyway (just as people thought Target sponsored Elevation b/c of the u2-7 thing)

Originally posted by lazyboy:
The reason U2 gave for not allowing Streets to be used was because it is a cornerstone of each gig, Bono said "it's like when we have a bad night, that song is where God usually shows up".

ooooooooh i really love this quote- do you have the direct source by any chance?

------------------
And if the night runs over And if the day won`t last

*U2TakeMeHigher*

 

[rafmed]

who say that using a song in a movie is selling out?

Doing a striped down show is selling out.

Releasing a best of is selling out.

Releasing an album which sounds reminds of old albums, that is selling out.

Spending a whole tour overplaying in the U$A and underplaying europe and ignoring Oz and latinamerica fans, that is selling out.

------------------
Please...don't make me say please, champagne and ice cream, it's not what I want, it's what I need.

 

[wertsie]

I hadn't heard anybody saying that U2 had "sold out" with Elevation. I always hear Pop and "sold out" in the same sentence (which irks me to no end, but anyway...). Good for them!

------------------
"We're one, but we're not the same..."

http://U2Baby.com

 

[Saracene]

Whenever U2 do something I don't like, it's a sure sign of a sellout. Cause I'm a troo fan and I know a sellout when I see one... like when I wrote and asked them to come and play at my friend's wedding; now would they refuse me if they really cared about their fans???

 

[brettig]

Originally posted by doctorwho:
Keep in coming, man! It's far better to charge hundreds of $$ to the Australian fans just so U2 don't run the risk of actually losing money on this tour (as they did with the past two tours) than to wait for a turn in the economy and visit Australia later. And it's far better to keep touring Europe over and over than record new songs in the studio. After all, isn't that what we want? Non-stop touring? Who needs new music? Blah!

Your reasons didnt stop Creed, Live or any number of other acts from coming here. Its oh so easy to word it as though U2 were doing Australia a favour by not charging them too much. In reality, its all about dollars and cents, and touring the states is far more lucrative than touring oz ever was or ever will be. But heck, it didnt stop them from touring ZooTV or POPmart down here...so excuse us if we antipodeans smell a rat, or more pointedly, a greenback!

 

[Saracene]

Wasn't Aussie dollar much stronger during ZooTV and POPMart? And why do people take it for granted that because U2 were ready to come down here and not make money the last two times they'd be willing to do so over and over again? Yes, we do get some bands and artists coming over but you also get a lot of people like Madonna who didn't tour Australia for the financial reasons.

 

[Salome]

Originally posted by doctorwho:
And it's far better to keep touring Europe over and over than record new songs in the studio.

yeah, 1 leg every 5 years



------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[V Nura]

Originally posted by Michael Griffiths:
I seem to remember that 'Beatiful Day' was actually used for a charity affiliated with the Olyimpics. Coke just happened to be the other sponser, and the two entities -- 'Beautiful Day' and a small add for Coke -- appeared simulteously. That's all. It wasn't U2 doing an add for Coke at all.

No, it was used ina coke ad, that was used to promote the olympics ( if that makes sense). In the United states it was an ad that had clips from events and a coke glass being poured with the chorus from BD being played at the end. in short...a coke ad..I even have it on tape actually. I will check it again though


[This message has been edited by Arun V (edited 04-30-2002).]