Is U2 a product or a friend to you?

[Flaming Friar Sr]

even though i strongly disagree when u2 is concerned, i consider this to be jick?s first post showing some interesting insights. i believe a lot of fans feel that way. actually, i feel that way about a lot of bands other than u2. its not a bad thing either. when the music itself tells you all, gives you all you need, why would you - necessarily - want to know everything about the people behind it? hey, its always interesting to know some stories about the music itself, e.g. the way a certain song came to life. but its not necessarily interesting to know what the lead singer had for lunch while recording it. to me its probably the difference between being a casual fan of a certain band and a hardcore fan. i really love r.e.m. for instance, but i couldnt tell you a lot more than that they are a band from athens, georgia and the names of its members. but, i still love their music.

 

[what a bomb!]

Jick you say what have U2 ever given back to the fans? Let me give you the date 21/08/01, the place London Earls Court this was the day Bono's father died but did they cancelled the concert? No, he didn't want to let the fans down on such a day as that day, and I think even the fans would of understood if the show had been cancelled, but they didn't cancel and as Bono has said, he glad he went ahead with it cos the fans helped carry him through a big event in his personal life. This gig could of easily been rescheduled. Some people have short memories.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Good God! $45CAN for a floor ticket at a U2 concert. Outrageous!

That's not that bad. What's the average price here in America for a ticket?

Originally posted by iacrobat
I think U2's sacrafice has come in other ways. I'd much rather have Bono fighting for his causes than releasing hundreds of concerts for me to spend my savings on.

Exactly. By participating in these causes and wanting others-politicians, your average citizens in all countries of the world, etc.-he's pushing so that everyone can eventually live in a safer, happier, more peaceful world. And, like you, I think that's a little more important than releasing every single concert they've done.

Also, well said on everything else. .

As far as knowing everything about the band-no, I don't think there's many here that want to know every single last detail of their lives. But there are certain things they tell us that does get us interested-it helps us to understand more why they believe what they do, and what inspired their songs, and so on and so forth.

Plus, some people do get analytical when interpreting their songs. Why is that a bad thing? That's how they choose to understand the song, to relate to it, whatever.... No problem with that.

Angela

 

[jick]

Jick you say what have U2 ever given back to the fans? Let me give you the date 21/08/01, the place London Earls Court this was the day Bono's father died but did they cancelled the concert? No, he didn't want to let the fans down on such a day as that day, and I think even the fans would of understood if the show had been cancelled, but they didn't cancel and as Bono has said, he glad he went ahead with it cos the fans helped carry him through a big event in his personal life. This gig could of easily been rescheduled. Some people have short memories.

U2 still stood to make profit from this show anyway. Continuing with the show as long as they are physically able is part of professionalism and honoring commitments. It's not for the fans.

Has U2 ever held a "fans' day" where people gather and have free food and a mini-concert and autograph signing? Has U2 ever held a free concert in recent memory? Don't count the save-the-yuppie `87 gig because that was a publicity stunt for the R&H movie and that wasn't "recent memory." Where are the live albums and live DVD's for the fans? In the entire history of their overpriced fanzine, they only give us two cd's "Hasta La Vista" and "Melon" - and they make it in such limited quantities. Do you get something like a free autographed t-shirt for signing up as a U2 fan club member? I always remember a Bono interview during the Zoo TV era when he said he doesn't care about the pop kids because U2 doesn't need them anyway. That was such an arrogant statement back then. Obviously, U2 did not care for their fans. Fast forward to ATYCLB when U2 were desperately trying to make up for the POP marketing fiasco, they start playing on TRL to the pop kids again. All they care for is themselves, their image and the profits - not so much the fans like Pearl Jam.

But I don't care if U2 doesn't care for the personalities behind the fans. What matters is that they make the best music around (which they happen to do), and that the fans are extremely satisfied with the product they put out. Kinda like Nike, they make a good product so I'll buy it - doesn't matter too much if they were made by sweatshops in Vietnam. My point is that U2 is more of a product than a personality. Buying a U2 cd is like buying an appliance, while watching a U2 concert is like a broadway show, you don't really need to know the background of the broadway singers and their families to appreciate the show because it is already scripted.

Look at other bands who are so heavily into drugs. The fans know they are into drugs, the dogs know they are into drugs, and even the pope knows. And all these people have a strong anti-drug stance. Yet, they purchase the music made under the influence of drugs because it is not the personalities behind the music they care about but the music itself. Kinda like "if you make good music I'll buy it, it doesn't matter how you made it."

Finally, Bono's charitable work for Africa has nothing to do whatsoever with his fans. I don't think those starving children dying of AIDS have heard a U2 song their entire life. It is a sacrifice Bono makes because of the Christian morals and values inherent in him, not because of payback to the fans who have made him filthy rich.

The main point of this thread is to ask why some people are so passionate about the personalities. We should distance ourselves from the personalities and quit living in this illusion that U2 are "friends". They are only products and if there is something to be passionate about, it's the music not the people.

Cheers,

J

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I don't think those starving children dying of AIDS have heard a U2 song their entire life.

In the "Diary" show, there was a teenage girl Bono had visited who was singing a bit of Usher's "U Remind Me", and practically every kid at these events that Bono and Chris Tucker and Paul O'Neill went to knew who Chris was.

So if these starving, poor, dying children have heard of Chris Tucker and Usher, then I'm betting they've heard U2's music. They do have radio stations they listen to.

Angela

 

[Sue DeNym]

what is that about the edge's extra marital affairs.

I was wondering that myself. Unless Jick's talking about Edge hooking up with Morleigh while he was splitting up with Aislinn, that's the only thing I can think of. I've seen no such stories in the news anywhere. And you know the media would be all over it like flies on garbage if such a thing happened.

 

[u2sangel]

U2 hasn;t done anything for fans?Please of course they have they have kept the price of their cds fairly low,ticket prices lower(when most big name acts charge $60 and up per ticket to start)and I remember years ago they would release eps for little cost too !Also part of the Boston Elevation concert was shown on VH1 so fans who might not get the video or dvd would have a chance to see it!I don;t beleive u2's main motivation is to make money now or in years prior either!They certainly don;t need to as they have made more than they could ever spend in their lifetimes its about the music period!!!!!!!

 

[Soulrock2]

All they care for is themselves, their image and the profits.

In a certain way I agree. Nobody can?t deny the fact that the Elevation Tour schedule was all about the money. Why else did they play the US twice and the rest of the shows in the wealthier part of Europe (no Eastern-European countries!)?

 

[iacrobat]

But I don't care if U2 doesn't care for the personalities behind the fans. What matters is that they make the best music around (which they happen to do), and that the fans are extremely satisfied with the product they put out. Kinda like Nike, they make a good product so I'll buy it - doesn't matter too much if they were made by sweatshops in Vietnam.

For some people it does matter if shoes are made in a sweat shop Jick. It ought to matter. No one lives in a bubble even though they might live that way.

Finally, Bono's charitable work for Africa has nothing to do whatsoever with his fans. I don't think those starving children dying of AIDS have heard a U2 song their entire life. It is a sacrifice Bono makes because of the Christian morals and values inherent in him, not because of payback to the fans who have made him filthy rich.

I don't think you understood, I'll say it again. As a fan of U2, I prefer that Bono spend his energy saving the world rather than releasing rarities and concerts. (most of which I already have) For me it is a payback Jick. If all the money I have paid affords him the ability to do these things, better that than throw a U2 convention.

There is one thing I don't understand. Do you think U2 ought have "fan day" or release an entire tour like Pearl Jam?

And finally, how can you feel so passionate about U2, yet compare them to a shoe?

 

[iacrobat]

In a certain way I agree. Nobody can?t deny the fact that the Elevation Tour schedule was all about the money. Why else did they play the US twice and the rest of the shows in the wealthier part of Europe (no Eastern-European countries!)?

There could be many reasons why U2 didn't play.

But, why should U2 play shows that aren't profitable?

 

[flaming june]

Music is not a product for me, music is more related to my soul than my body and U2's music especially. As Bono has said, they're close to the music and we're close to the music, so we're close to each other. They are not "friends" on the traditional way, but they are an important part of my life.

 

[Soulrock2]

There could be many reasons why U2 didn't play.

But, why should U2 play shows that aren't profitable?

So the band should only play for the "rich"? Please, be realistic. I'm sure there are many reasons, but the most important reason to play USA and Europe only is money (i.e. making huge profit!).
Well, to be honest, this is really one thing that I doesn't like about Bono. He's telling the pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices, but at the same time he only wants to play profitable shows for "the rich people" (since ZooTV was almost a financial disaster)?
Oh well... At least they are making some pretty good music.

 

[iacrobat]

So the band should only play for the "rich"? Please, be realistic. I'm sure there are many reasons, but the most important reason to play USA and Europe only is money (i.e. making huge profit!).
Well, to be honest, this is really one thing that I doesn't like about Bono. He's telling the pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices, but at the same time he only wants to play profitable shows for "the rich people" (since ZooTV was almost a financial disaster)?
Oh well... At least they are making some pretty good music.

I did not say that the bad should only pay for the rich, please do not put words in my mouth.

You have not answered my question as to why U2 should play concerts and lose money. Who is not being realistic? If eastern European shows were profitable, I expect that U2 would play them. While it is their art, it is also their business.

To assume Bono wants to play shows for the "rich" is short sighted and contradicts almost everything the band stands for.

 

[najeena]

I think that jick is a person who loves to make waves, throw a rock into the pond and watch the ripples. What better way than to question a rather basic premise of U2 fandom here in Interference? We love what brings us joy, and feeling a personal connection to them is what they're all about.

 

[jick]

So the band should only play for the "rich"? Please, be realistic. I'm sure there are many reasons, but the most important reason to play USA and Europe only is money (i.e. making huge profit!).
Well, to be honest, this is really one thing that I doesn't like about Bono. He's telling the pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices, but at the same time he only wants to play profitable shows for "the rich people" (since ZooTV was almost a financial disaster)?
Oh well... At least they are making some pretty good music.

Bono wrote a song called Acrobat. In it, he sings that he must be an acrobat to talk a certain way but act another way. In short, he is an admitted hypocrite. Bono has said many times in interviews that he admires people like the Pope, MLK, Mother Teresa, etc. because he would be the last person to "turn the other cheek." So while lobbying to politicians to drop the debt, he is wearing his $400 designer eyewear, and is drinking booze and wine while South African children are starving.

But that is precisely the point of this thread. I don't care so much about Bono's hypocrisy as long as he continues to write great music, I will always buy U2's albums. The only time I may remotely care about his private life is when it interferes with the recording and delays the new album, but then again this "care" is only incidental to my real intention which is to get the product released ASAP.

Cheers,

J

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I did not say that the bad should only pay for the rich, please do not put words in my mouth.

You have not answered my question as to why U2 should play concerts and lose money. Who is not being realistic? If eastern European shows were profitable, I expect that U2 would play them. While it is their art, it is also their business.

To assume Bono wants to play shows for the "rich" is short sighted and contradicts almost everything the band stands for.

Yep.

Besides, there might be other reasons that have nothing to do with money-for example, it might be due to the political climate of some of the countries in recent years, or the fact that some of these countries might be near volatile regions right now or whatever.

Angela

 

[Soulrock2]

You have not answered my question as to why U2 should play concerts and lose money. Who is not being realistic? If eastern European shows were profitable, I expect that U2 would play them. While it is their art, it is also their business.

To assume Bono wants to play shows for the "rich" is short sighted and contradicts almost everything the band stands for.

Who tells you they would lose money? You really believe that? Well OK, but it's my opinion to think they would make less profit. That's something different. (They did it during Popmart and still made profit!)

The band stands for what? Is that an identity? Is that how I see the band ( an image)? Is that how you see the band (again an image)? IMO it's all three. After the Elevation Tour I have an image where I see the band as great musicians who want to make HUGE profits by playing only huge profitable countries. You can have your image. And the band can have both an image and identity. OK?

When Bono calls the pharmaceutical compinies to lower their prices I can?t help but thinking: lower your own prices! Or keep them as high but play also other countries besides the highly profitable ones... That?s how I feel now and of course this could change in the future, when they will satisfy more fans like they did with Popmart. Probably at the cost of less profit.

 

[iacrobat]

Who tells you they would lose money? You really believe that? Well OK, but it's my opinion to think they would make less profit. That's something different. (They did it during Popmart and still made profit!)

The band stands for what? Is that an identity? Is that how I see the band ( an image)? Is that how you see the band (again an image)? IMO it's all three. After the Elevation Tour I have an image where I see the band as great musicians who want to make HUGE profits by playing only huge profitable countries. You can have your image. And the band can have both an image and identity. OK?

When Bono calls the pharmaceutical compinies to lower their prices I can?t help but thinking: lower your own prices! Or keep them as high but play also other countries besides the highly profitable ones... That?s how I feel now and of course this could change in the future, when they will satisfy more fans like they did with Popmart. Probably at the cost of less profit.

I think we are all making assumptions here, about the band's intentions, let's be clear about that. I don't know if it would be profitible or not to play eastern Europe.

You said they only play for rich people, then I asked why they should play in a city and lose, it seemed to be a logical next question.

If playing a city were only marginally profitable, but still profitable, I would expect them to do that. That is if there are no other circumstances, like Moonlit Angel mentioned.

My assumption about the band is to give them the benefit of the doubt. If they don't play a place, there is a reasonable justification, not GREED. This is essentially what you are describing. And I cannot reconcile greed with the songs I hear from U2 and with the actions of the band.

The band has an image, but why is that a sign of their greed?

As for ticket prices, you pay for what you get. Popmart and Elevation cost a lot of money to put on. Besides, the general admission tickets at Elevation were very cheap.

 

[Diemen]

Bono wrote a song called Acrobat. In it, he sings that he must be an acrobat to talk a certain way but act another way. In short, he is an admitted hypocrite. Bono has said many times in interviews that he admires people like the Pope, MLK, Mother Teresa, etc. because he would be the last person to "turn the other cheek."

Jick, for someone who sees such a clear separation between the people and the music, I think it would be wise to not make such contradictory assumptions, such as inferring that because Bono wrote a lyric about hypocracy that he is a hypocrite himself and this somehow applies universally to every U2-related issue.

The same goes for taking a quote from an interview and projecting it way out of context.

But the most disappointing thing I've found pop up in your commentary is that you believe U2 are in this for the money above all else. I find it nearly paradoxical that someone can (claim to) be such a fan of U2's music and come to this conclusion. Do you even pay attention to the lyrical context and common themes in U2's music, or do you just judge the songs on whether the overall mishmash of sound is pleasing?

 

[u2sangel]

I refuse to consider u2s lyrics that are written with such heart and honesty as mere product!U2s music is a comforting friend but I don;t consider the individual members of u2 as friends of mine!Those of you who can think of u2's music as mere product is beyond me!!!!!!!!

 

[jick]

Jick, for someone who sees such a clear separation between the people and the music, I think it would be wise to not make such contradictory assumptions, such as inferring that because Bono wrote a lyric about hypocracy that he is a hypocrite himself and this somehow applies universally to every U2-related issue.

The same goes for taking a quote from an interview and projecting it way out of context.

But the most disappointing thing I've found pop up in your commentary is that you believe U2 are in this for the money above all else. I find it nearly paradoxical that someone can (claim to) be such a fan of U2's music and come to this conclusion. Do you even pay attention to the lyrical context and common themes in U2's music, or do you just judge the songs on whether the overall mishmash of sound is pleasing?

U2 are in it for the money. That's their job. It's not like having an uptown lawyer playing the piano during his spare time, or a medical doctor having painting as a hobby. Music-making is U2's line of work, so that is where they derive profits. Doctors don't go through many years of medschool and study hard just to help - they also do it to make a living. Ditto for U2. But I still have my favorite doctor, my favorite dentist, and my favorite band - all because they give the best product/service around according to my preferences.

I find an attachment to U2's music. Their lyrics stir my soul, the melodies stick in my head, every note gives me comfort and reassurance. But does that make me consider the invidual members as "friends"? Or would I suddenly be all defensive if someone tells me Clayton should lay off the substances? Or should I call the pedophile police to petition U2 to delete the Mysterious Ways video from the Slane DVD because it might be traumatic for Eve? Their private lives are none of my business and my private life is none of theirs. What matters is they give me good music and I give them my money for it. It's just that I notice some people who take swipes at U2's private life personally, and defend them as if U2 were there real friends. Many people in this board make U2's private life part of their business. I'm here for the music, not the gossip.

Cheers,

J

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I think we are all making assumptions here, about the band's intentions, let's be clear about that. I don't know if it would be profitible or not to play eastern Europe.

You said they only play for rich people, then I asked why they should play in a city and lose, it seemed to be a logical next question.

If playing a city were only marginally profitable, but still profitable, I would expect them to do that. That is if there are no other circumstances, like Moonlit Angel mentioned.

My assumption about the band is to give them the benefit of the doubt. If they don't play a place, there is a reasonable justification, not GREED. This is essentially what you are describing. And I cannot reconcile greed with the songs I hear from U2 and with the actions of the band.

The band has an image, but why is that a sign of their greed?

As for ticket prices, you pay for what you get. Popmart and Elevation cost a lot of money to put on. Besides, the general admission tickets at Elevation were very cheap.

Yep.

Angela

 

[iacrobat]

I think this thread has revealed Jick's cynicism more than anything else.

 

[Santabono]

This one can really go either way, regarding the money/greed issue. My take is that Bono struggled to balance the idea of "giving back to the fans" with a blatant MARRIAGE to SFX/Clear Channel during the Elevation tour. SFX was ALL ABOUT MONEY - they were the ones who sold those stupid $150 "VIP packages" where people got to eat a lil food and listen to CDs before the actual concert (ie - no backstage or true VIP priviledges).

It was a really wierd tour if you look at this particular balancing act that Bono (as the leader of the band) had to subject himself to. Alas, he has always been great at spending time with the fans, even if some of that time was fielding complaints about the money-making machine that U2 has become...

 

[Blue Room]

Actually, I think they don't release stuff like Pearl Jam because it is redundant. It is a big enough thing to have released 2 shows from the same tour. So many of their shows are available as bootlegs anyways, many would perceive it as a cash grab. U2 is also obsessed with releasing the best of what they do, not every performance. They are perfectionists. To release an entire tour would be ridiculous, here you go, 140 ZOO TV shows! They would not make anything from it, they would lose. I think we can expect to see Zoo Tv and Popmart on DVD. Rattle and Hum is precedent.

Okay, this I completely disagree with as far as their live recordings being profitable. U2 would make a bundle if they decided to go the route of Pearl Jam. Why do you think U2 is the most heavily bootlegged artist out there? Because there is a huge demand for their live recordings, much higher than Pearl Jams. That being said they wont do it because as you say they are perfectionists (even though Jick likes to point out every single error on every single recording of every single show or album, but YEAH, he loves the music???? LOL). But I wish they would, it would be dream come true for me. Artists are moving towards doing this anyway. I think eventually U2 will follow suit. Unfortunately it wont be by the tour next year.

Some people might view it as a cash grab and that would be factor as I think they would make money. But I also see it as providing the fans with the best possible recording of every single show they want. As a fan and collector of their live recordings this would be one of the greatest things they could do, so they would also be providing and meeting a huge demand for their fans. Not to mention they would virtually eliminate most bootlegging.

 

[iacrobat]

It wouldn't be profitable. Who could afford 100 live recordings? $20 x 100 shows....and that is just one tour. I don't have $20 to drop on 1 CD very often, let alone 100.

 

[Blue Room]

LOL, yes it would be, you are thinking only in terms of major collecting and assuming everyone would buy every single show, major assumptions that are false. It wouldnt be marketed this way. It would be marketed as a souvenir for the individual show, much like a concert T shirt. There are two ways it is done, they have the recording available about 15 minutes after the show for sale or they have the order forms at the T shirt stands. The immediately available is the least attractive option IMO as it is limited in scope and the CD's would be CDR's. There has been talk of using this method but the artists that have done official recordings have gone the order form at the show or ordering online method. ALOT of people simply want the show they were at. If they sold 200 out of a crowd of 20000 they would make money it and if they played stadiums the number would be even more. Also they would have ordering of the CD's available online on U2.com. So you could order the specific show you wanted. The cost to make the official bootlegs is minimal as they do not include artwork and major packaging. Typically the cost is $3 per CD per show max. So if they sold at $15 each and sold an average of 100 to 200 per show (this is a low estimate) it would be profitable. Also if they went by ordering online they would know how many to make (or have a rough idea) so they would not over manufacture a certain show.

If it was not profitable other artists would not be doing it. The Who, Peter Gabriel, Duran Duran, Pearl Jam and now Dave Matthews Band are all doing this or have done it. Do you think they would be if they were losing money on it? NO way. Clear Channel is actually pushing for alot of their artists to do it because it is a major money generator. Also regarding the who could afford all the shows, some could, some could not. Actually Peter Gabriel has a box set of his entire tour you can purchase and it has sold pretty well. In the Pearl Jam community what typically occurs is that fans buy a copy of the show they attended and then trade for others. I dont know why this wouldnt happen with U2.

I have actually been checking on this for the last year and have contacted Music.com (who does The Who, Gabriel and Duran Duran) and they would absolutely love to have U2 do this. So they obviously think it would make some money. If the cash grab or the usual "selling out" phrase is used they could even go the route of The Who. They donated all of their profits for their recordings to charity. Also, some would argue that U2's setlists are fairly static so they wouldnt release them. I would agree except that The Who's setlists were almost all identical and they did it and sold very well.

The bottom line is U2 will probebly not do it, but they would make money if they did.

 

[Diane L]

There's a lot I'd like to say about this thread, but I just don't have the time to get into a detailed post.

Just a couple of points:

*Bono and Adam seem to be exceptionally easy to meet for members of a major, major band. The fact that those two have met fan after fan who has visited Hanover Quay and chatted with them, signed autographs and such proves to me that they, at the very least, appreciate the people who have given them, as B. would say, "a great life."

*I think many of us are critical of the official website and magazine because we believe we could do it far better. I'm an editor and writer and if I could have put together Propaganda with a fellow editor/writer/U2 fan I know--I know we would have done a fantastic job, because getting a magazine out about this best of subjects would have been sheer joy and that would have been reflected in our work (and we also know from production schedules and deadlines!). But that chance will never come, sigh... As for the website, this "fan" site does a far better job than the official site, IMHO.

*It shouldn't matter to people whether their fellow U2 fans think of the guys as "friends" or not. We're all entitled to think of them as we please, as long as it isn't potentially harmful to them or to ourselves (obsessive fantasies, etc.) I do like the feeling that my favorite band seems to be on the whole four pretty good guys.

Diane

 

[TiaraGurl]

*It shouldn't matter to people whether their fellow U2 fans think of the guys as "friends" or not. We're all entitled to think of them as we please, as long as it isn't potentially harmful to them or to ourselves (obsessive fantasies, etc.) I do like the feeling that my favorite band seems to be on the whole four pretty good guys.

Diane

Well said.

 

[iacrobat]

Blue Room,

The way you suggest is different from what I was thinking. It makes sense.

I was thinking the way Pearl Jam did it.