I feel that U2 has peaked musically...

[saltwaterkiss26]

yeah but if your kids are gonna be cursed, isnt it cool that they're cursed by The Edge and not some weird old cat lady who talks to herself and hides behind the curtains in a rundown delapedated house at the bottom of the road that no one walks but always runs past?

 

[namkcuR]

Let me get this straight. The starter of this thread is claiming that U2 are only in it for the money anymore? Um...you do realize that each member of the band has at least like a hundred million bucks apiece, right?

Anyway, U2 have never sold out. If, after JT, they kept making albums with WOWY clones or Streets clones, that would have been selling out. But they went down a completely different path.

I think a lot of people are missing the point about what happened after Popmart...it wasn't just that the album didn't do as well as they wanted and so they went back to making a commercial sound...it was like, they felt like they were loosing grip, they were never really happy with the way 'Pop' came out(even though I LOVE it). They felt that if they kept going in that direction that the music would suffer, that the soul of their music would be stretched out too far, so that it would become diluted, diluted beyond recognition. They felt like they needed to regain control of their music and their songwriting. And the result is the more recent music.

 

[Bono's shades]

About a year ago a car company offered U2 millions and millions of dollars to use Where the Streets Have No Name in a commercial, but they said no - even though the Who, Led Zeppelin, hell, even Boy Dylan and The Clash, have let their songs to be used to hawk products. If they really were greedy, wouldn't they have taken the money and run?

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

About a year ago a car company offered U2 millions and millions of dollars to use Where the Streets Have No Name in a commercial, but they said no - even though the Who, Led Zeppelin, hell, even Boy Dylan and The Clash, have let their songs to be used to hawk products. If they really were greedy, wouldn't they have taken the money and run?

Good example

 

[Zoovation]

Forget this thread please! Make it disappear by not replying anymore!

 

[NoControl]

You can't really compare a tour attendance of Elevation and previous two tours because those were longer and had bigger venues and went to other countries (surely all signs of greed right?) and not even Joshua Tree because their tours got more elaborate since.

I've already went over that in my previous post and added the addtional attendances to reflect that.

Originally posted by U2girl But if we're talking past tours, if I recall right, Popmart had attendance problems, something which no other tour had.
(since all shows were sold out - apart from 6 - you can't really say Elevation tickets were too expensive - they sold every seat that was on sale, 45 dollars or more. if people want to pay 130 dollars, that is not U2's problem) U2 had such a high demand on the last tour that even the biggest concerts at Slane sold out in minutes.

Ok, you obviously don't understand.

PopMart tour: 30-80,000 seat Stadiums
Elevation tour: 15-20,000 seat Arenas

See the difference? The only reason why U2 sold out more shows in 2001 than 1997-98 was because they were playing SMALLER VENUES.

And the with Slane Castle shows: Europe's a completely different beast. U2 is more popular concert draw there.

Originally posted by U2girl EXACTLY. What's the point of charging redicioulus prices if you play to half empty venues?

Nice selective replying, BTW. [/B]

To make a shitload of money. And there's been no selective posting..on my part anyways.

 

[NoControl]

Let me get this straight. The starter of this thread is claiming that U2 are only in it for the money anymore? Um...you do realize that each member of the band has at least like a hundred million bucks apiece, right?

Yes

Originally posted by namkcuR Anyway, U2 have never sold out. If, after JT, they kept making albums with WOWY clones or Streets clones, that would have been selling out. But they went down a completely different path.

That's already begun.

Originally posted by namkcuR I think a lot of people are missing the point about what happened after Popmart...it wasn't just that the album didn't do as well as they wanted and so they went back to making a commercial sound...it was like, they felt like they were loosing grip, they were never really happy with the way 'Pop' came out(even though I LOVE it). They felt that if they kept going in that direction that the music would suffer, that the soul of their music would be stretched out too far, so that it would become diluted, diluted beyond recognition. They felt like they needed to regain control of their music and their songwriting. And the result is the more recent music.

Not exactly but you're on the right track. You see U2 were quite proud of Pop. And I have dozens of interviews were they stated that they were happy with it. It's only around the time of AYCLB that they were agreeing with most people and crictics alike that it wasn't a good record. Hmm. Can anyone say hypocrtie?

 

[NoControl]

About a year ago a car company offered U2 millions and millions of dollars to use Where the Streets Have No Name in a commercial, but they said no - even though the Who, Led Zeppelin, hell, even Boy Dylan and The Clash, have let their songs to be used to hawk products. If they really were greedy, wouldn't they have taken the money and run?

No they wouldn't have. You see, U2 have a squeeky clean image to keep up. If they did that, they'd lose a shitload of fans and money.

 

[starsgoblue]

(not really interested in what No Control has to say about this topic)

 

[indigo tree]

No they wouldn't have. You see, U2 have a squeeky clean image to keep up. If they did that, they'd lose a shitload of fans and money.

You sure sound absolutley positive that U2 doesn't give a crap about their music. Why do you think that everything U2 does must have some sort of greedy alterior motive behind it?

 

[namkcuR]

Not exactly but you're on the right track. You see U2 were quite proud of Pop. And I have dozens of interviews were they stated that they were happy with it. It's only around the time of AYCLB that they were agreeing with most people and crictics alike that it wasn't a good record. Hmm. Can anyone say hypocrtie?

No, I can't say hypocrite. When I say they were never happy with the record, I don't mean to say they didn't like it, they did like it regardless of what people thought, but they felt that it was unfinished, that the production could have been better, etc etc.

 

[NoControl]

...about the 7-11 comments. I like that, it was hilarious. But you know what? I'm not rich and have to spend money on plenty of other things, mostly that are necessities. Food, I like. Food, I need. If you don't have it, you die. So I'm glad it tastes good. It's much more important than a U2 concert. And if one day U2 becomes like they once were and not greedy, I'll be actually to afford to see them and I'll have more respect for them.

As for the union BS. That's crap. And it still doesn't justify charging what they do. Also, Clear Channel and U2 decide what the prices are going to be, not anyone else.

Let me tell ya, Bowie can't charge what U2 charges for the same reasons why U2 can't charge what Madonna charges...he's not as popular as U2 and U2 is not as popular as Madonna is.

U2 is now no different from Britney, Kiss, Madonna or anyone else in the music industry that's strictly in it for money.

 

[Salome]

It's only around the time of AYCLB that they were agreeing with most people and crictics alike that it wasn't a good record. Hmm. Can anyone say hypocrtie?

well, I could try to say it
but I have never heard of an artist releasing an album and then starting to claim in interviews that it's not 100% finished and that they could have done a better job if they would have had some more time

when this realisation settles in a couple of years later doesn't mean that you're a hypocrite
it means that you're not stupid and are able to recognise flaws in your own past

 

[NoControl]

You sure sound absolutley positive that U2 doesn't give a crap about their music. Why do you think that everything U2 does must have some sort of greedy alterior motive behind it?

Well, if you've been reading what I've been saying, you'd see that. And I'm not cynical, I'm disillusioned.

 

[NoControl]

well, I could try to say it
but I have never heard of an artist releasing an album and then starting to claim in interviews that it's not 100% finished and that they could have done a better job if they would have had some more time

when this realisation settles in a couple of years later doesn't mean that you're a hypocrite
it means that you're not stupid and are able to recognise flaws in your own past

Bono said in 2001, "We won't make two crap albums in a row." He's referring to Pop. And hence agreeing with the populace that it wasn't good at all. But they sure as hell enjoyed playing the songs on the PopMart tour and promoting the hell out of it.

 

[indigo tree]

Well, if you've been reading what I've been saying, you'd see that. And I'm not cynical, I'm disillusioned.

\\
I have read what you have said. You seem to be less impressed with what they have been putting out lately. You say its not innovative enough? Beautiful Day is not innovative? I have never heard a rock band put out a song like that or like Stuck. You may think they are not be innovative or whatever, but it all comes down to the fact that you simply aren't crazy over thier later stuff. Just because you aren't impressed with it, doesn't mean its not innovative, and it doesnt mean that U2 isn't trying, and therefore being greedy.


I'm not irked over the fact that you arent crazy about thier stuff anymore, but I don't like the fact that you are saying that they are being "greedy." I think its a very rash and unfair judgement.

 

[NoControl]

\\
I have read what you have said. You seem to be less impressed with what they have been putting out lately. You say its not innovative enough? Beautiful Day is not innovative? I have never heard a rock band put out a song like that or like Stuck. You may think they are not be innovative or whatever, but it all comes down to the fact that you simply aren't crazy over thier later stuff. Just because you aren't impressed with it, doesn't mean its not innovative, and it doesnt mean that U2 isn't trying, and therefore being greedy.


I'm not irked over the fact that you arent crazy about thier stuff anymore, but I don't like the fact that you are saying that they are being "greedy." I think its a very rash and unfair judgement.

Well, fair enough. Everyone's see things differently. But I don't see how I could be more clear with what I'm getting at?

 

[starsgoblue]

I agree with Indigo Tree on that one...to call a band that splits everything they earn evenly (and have done so forever) greedy is not accurate or even fair. This band could have retired years ago if it was just money they were after...they've had careers spanning two decades...they do this because it's who they are-musicians.

 

[NoControl]

I agree with Indigo Tree on that one...to call a band that splits everything they earn evenly (and have done so forever) greedy is not accurate or even fair. This band could have retired years ago if it was just money they were after...they've had careers spanning two decades...they do this because it's who they are-musicians.

There's no need to repeat everything I've already said a million times to make you see my point of view. If you don't agree, you don't agree and I respect that.

 

[Salome]

Bono said in 2001, "We won't make two crap albums in a row." He's referring to Pop. And hence agreeing with the populace that it wasn't good at all. But they sure as hell enjoyed playing the songs on the PopMart tour and promoting the hell out of it.

ah that's an entirely different arguement than the flawed one I replied to

this one is also flawed though
so I will give this another go

no one in the band ever stated that the songs on POP are bad and rightfully so
the production side of it all wasn't to everyone satisfaction though
and the reason why the populace agrees with that one is because it's true

it's a mysterie to me why a band shouldn't play songs live when they think these songs could have sounded better on the album
and obviously neither does U2

if promoting the hell out of an album is a crime then they should have quit 20+ years ago

 

[kellyahern]

ah that's an entirely different arguement than the flawed one I replied to

this one is also flawed though
so I will give this another go

no one in the band ever stated that the songs on POP are bad and rightfully so
the production side of it all wasn't to everyone satisfaction though
and the reason why the populace agrees with that one is because it's true

it's a mysterie to me why a band shouldn't play songs live when they think these songs could have sounded better on the album
and obviously neither does U2

if promoting the hell out of an album is a crime then they should have quit 20+ years ago

and I like POP

 

[NoControl]

ah that's an entirely different arguement than the flawed one I replied to

I don't see how it really is.

Originally posted by Salome no one in the band ever stated that the songs on POP are bad and rightfully so
the production side of it all wasn't to everyone satisfaction though
and the reason why the populace agrees with that one is because it's true

Bono stated they were though. And Pop is IMO their best album, next to Achtung Baby.

Originally posted by Salome if promoting the hell out of an album is a crime then they should have quit 20+ years ago

I was just showing the glaring contradiction between the two.

 

[beli]

Wow, there is a bigger postwhore than me!














peace

 

[indra]

Wow, there is a bigger postwhore than me!














peace

Ha! So far you have "Post of the Day" beli!

 

[starsgoblue]

There's no need to repeat everything I've already said a million times to make you see my point of view. If you don't agree, you don't agree and I respect that.

Could you please crawl out of my throat...you just jumped down it. I'm not being disrespectful, I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

 

[NoControl]

Could you please crawl out of my throat...you just jumped down it. I'm not being disrespectful, I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

What are you talking about? The only insults that have occured on this thread have been from people other than myself.

 

[VertiGone]

NoControl you've made your point. Now instead of spending all your time on a U2 fan site, even though you're "disillusioned" with the band, maybe you should work on getting a second job or something so that you can secure a U2 ticket in addition to the basic necessities of life. However, if you are somehow able to come up with that astounding sum of money, I'm just wondering how you will react when a song from ATYCLB or HTDAAB is played? Will you boo?

 

[imogen]

Originally posted by Jimmy2004 Also, just to clarify what "selling out" means - to put it like Manyard James Keenan.... "Everything you know about me is what I've sold you, motherfucker."

LOL Thanks for keeping it real

 

[starsgoblue]

Nice avatar imogen.

 

[imogen]

You know what, I don't actually know what the avatar is, all I have is the dreaded red X. What is it?