sad but true

[Flying FuManchu]

I think the Superbowl show was great... people I knew, who weren't fans, came away impressed with U2 from that show. Of course some "fans" want U2 all to themselves...

 

[MrBrau1]

Rename this thread "Sad but false."

 

[gareth brown]

Hmmm. Good point. [FuManChu] I'm not in THAT position, but I just think it's a BIT too much where promotion is concerned right now. Fair enough, they play in places when they put the new single out and maybe I'm under a false impression they're appearing everywhere simply because I read about all their exploits HERE!

However, I must say I am VERY embarassed because I have COMPLETELY forgotten what I was going to type!! Embarassment BECAUSE it really was going to dig me out of the hole I dug myself! I still think, though, that they have certainly changed their way of going about business since 2000.

Anyway, I don't think I can put my view on it into words properly at the moment in such a way that people will see where I'm coming from, but I must say this thread is bloody civil it's scary...! I expected this to get WAY out of hand due to a flood of HARDCORE-hardcore U2 fans coming in and defending the band from whatever slings and arrows may come their way...but no, this is a good discussion!!

 

[JOFO]

It doesn't matter what age the band is.

Young band is trying to break through. Old band is staying relevant. Fact is, the young market, who are the predominant music consumers, don't care for the older bands. Significant ageism. So U2 have to promote themselves, to show that they aren't "old guys who suck".

Nature of the industry.

And really, I like U2 on TV. Better than anything else that could be on.

Absolutely.
Unless you're actually IN a band, you don't realize this is just the nature of the beast.

 

[MrBrau1]

2 things I've learned in this thread so far:

1-The lip syncing sucks. I think all U2 fans can agree on that. It blows. I know shows have their formats, but it still sucks.

2-The amount of promo is what pisses people off it seems. Maybe if this was 1985, I wouldn't know about how much they do, cause I'd only see, what I saw.

 

[JOFO]

I think the Superbowl show was great... people I knew, who weren't fans, came away impressed with U2 from that show. Of course some "fans" want U2 all to themselves...

I'd like to take a moment a remind people what u2 actually did at that superbowl:

pay tribute to the victims of 9/11/01.


read that sentance again; they weren't hocking their latest single and weren't lip syncing. what other band does something like that under those circumstances?

case closed.

 

[JOFO]

btw, that is not directed at you fumanchu.

 

[Axver]

I just think it's a BIT too much where promotion is concerned right now.

Back in early January, I was actually thinking they hadn't done enough, especially not with ABOY. We can all see where a lack of promotion gets you - the single failed to chart on the Top 100! So clearly, U2's promotional activities are beneficial for the band, whether or not a few people like them.

And as I said before, I love the promos. There's nothing better than U2 to appear on television. I hate it when policy says they have to lip-synch, but when it's a live promo (SNL, Jonathon Ross, Grammy's), then it's absolutely excellent. And even with the lip-synching, it's much more bearable to see U2 on TOTP than some shit act like Britney or Maroon 5.

 

[indra]

yeah they do have a point. i remember around like 98 thinking, "i don't think U2 have ever been on snl. good for them." and now they've been on twice, one for each past album.

i guess i miss the days when it was cool to NOT do the talk show circuit, and do all these promo concerts. now it seems to be career suicide.

I also agree. It makes me uncomfortable and a little sad to see this massive promotion/saturation by U2. And before anyone says "Joshua Tree" in response, it made me uncomfortable and unhappy then too. I understand that, especially here in the US, to achieve the sales numbers the band wants (or in other words to "move the product", they, and their songs, have to be omnipresent.

But I've always thought of music as more that just "product," I think of it as art. And I'm not pleased when art and music is used as mere background, which is what I find happens when there is such a massive push.

I'm a glass artisan and sell my and others' work (various media, 2D & 3D fine art and fine craft). It's a thrill when someone come up and buys a piece of my work, but that thrill fades fast when the buyer says "Oh, this is great! I didn't think I was ever going to find anything to go with the tiles in my guest bathroom!" (And the ever so delightful, "Oh it matches the colours in my sofa!") I don't buy art to match anything...I buy it because it moves me, and if it sticks out, well that's just fine, because the work itself moves me.

But when something is pushed so very hard...when it is everywhere (gad! I heard "Vertigo" on a soap opera last week! ), it becomes mere background noise, akin to the painting purchased strictly because it matches the colours of the sofa.

I won't say that it's right or wrong for U2, but it takes aways a certain aura from their music for me. I guess that makes me a snob.

 

[Axver]

Question: has U2 ever lip-synched in the States? It seems only the British shows have this policy ...

 

[Flying FuManchu]

No offense... I watch the Superbowl and actually watch the halftime shows... Usually the shows would have someone like Reba McEntire, some MC Hammer type, or a Whitney Houston type of celeb... lot of country and pop with occasional R&B. I've always wished for someone like U2 to come along and play. Stuff like that is a nice change of pace.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Of course over-exposure sucks... the IPod commercial, to me, used to be entertaining and exciting... now it's over-exposed, over done, and a little embarassing.

There's good and bad in promotion, no doubt....

 

[indra]

This thread shouldn't get locked. It's been very civil. There are a million threads like it, but so is every other thread on this board.

But all the really fun threads get locked....

 

[Flying FuManchu]

But all the really fun threads get locked....

Yes... unfortunately...

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

I must say this thread is bloody civil it's scary...! I expected this to get WAY out of hand due to a flood of HARDCORE-hardcore U2 fans coming in and defending the band from whatever slings and arrows may come their way...but no, this is a good discussion!! [/B]

Its probably because a few notorious, incredibly irritating trolls haven't entered the thread as yet..

 

[-macphisto-]

All you guy's got to admit though, every U2 show promotion(superbowl, SNL, late show) blows all the other shows out of the water. I think they just do those shows to show all the other bands how it's done!

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

since some have expressed fear of this thread getting locked...don't worry. other mods may not feel this way, but i don't think anyone is being out of line. just continue like this and the only way it'll be closed is if it reaches 500 posts!

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

When I saw your name there as the last poster, I thought you had closed it!

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

When I saw your name there as the last poster, I thought you had closed it!

 

[indra]

since some have expressed fear of this thread getting locked...don't worry. other mods may not feel this way, but i don't think anyone is being out of line. just continue like this and the only way it'll be closed is if it reaches 500 posts!

No worries, I was just frustrated because my pc kept locking up and losing what I typed before I could post (and I couldn't keep up with the conversation, so I figured it might well be going south in a hurry). Hey, it happens sometimes....

 

[neutral]

When I saw your name there as the last poster, I thought you had closed it!

So did I.

Seems fine so far though.

 

[cmb737]

Actually the Grammys have a strict policy against lip-synching.

oh...THAT's why Maroon 5 sounded so horrible.

Mr Brau1, again your wisdom is abundant. The simplest deduction of this post to me is that U2's promotion and marketing has always been industry leading. The fact that every single one of us sees every single review, ad, show, promo, poster, website out there with anything referring to, for, against, over or under U2 is what makes the momemtum seem so much stronger.

This is only U2's third album campaign in the internet era.

The direction is different, aimed at achieving the same results through different mediums.

I love it. I love hearing criticism in the media or by non-U2 fans about it. It takes a very successful album and band to justify people complaining about them and their marketing or Bono's other activities.

Besides appearance of new marketing strategies, what evidence does anyone have that U2's mindset regarding their work has changed. I don't feel a shift at all...but rather misinterpretations of events, shows, and statements.

 

[namkcuR]

I started a thread about this very review a couple weeks ago. This is what I said then and I stand by it:

Take this statement from Bono quoted above: "Bono said for so long he wasn't going to let the corporate monster swallo him..."

The thing is, he said this years ago, most frequently in the late 80s and first half of the 90s. It is easy to say something like that when you already are the biggest band in the world and you've made it to that point without being 'swallowed'. But to think U2 weren't interesed in the bottom line at every point in their career is not only ridiculous, it is naive.

It was just much, much less visible in those days, because when they were releasing Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby and Zooropa, they were MTV darlings. They were still young enough to appeal TO the young. And most importantly they were making music that was still of popular taste. But a lot changed between 1993(when Zooropa was released) and 1997(when Pop was released). The GenX teens that had made up a large chunk of their fanbase were no longer teenagers, but now in their twenties, the next generation had entered teenage-hood. And this new generation wasn't interested in the same stuff. They were interested in the 'alternative' music spawned from the ashes of the Grunge era. They were also increasingly interested in hip-hop. The face of the music-listening young adult demographic was rapidly changing, and with it the face of popular music itself was rapidly changing.

After 'Pop', whatever you might think of it(I myself think it's brilliant), it was clear, at least, to U2, that they could no longer release records and have them sell big numbers without having to push them much. MTV had mutulated into further craphood, and the new generation's preference in music had proceeded even further down the shitter. And because U2 have ALWAYS been concerned with the bottom line(again, to think otherwise is niave), they HAD to start pushing their records more. That is what this whole new era of U2 is all about. They are no longer selling to the demographic that grew up with them, they are selling to the younger siblings of that demographic, and that is not the easiest thing in the world when those younger siblings are under the tragically flawed impression that Hoobastank is in fact good rock music. That is why they have been pushing their records so much more with ATYCLB and HTDAAB, and with the IPod commercials and so on and so forth.

As for the music itself, yes, U2 has consciously made less experimental music, but the 'it' so many fans think is lost...'it' is there, perhaps not as obviously and not as in the forefront as in the past, but in songs like 'Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own', 'Love And Peace Or Else', and 'One Step Closer', I hear and feel 'it'. Unfortunately today's teen demographic is more concerned with a catchy chorus than with hearing or feeling 'it', and so they have to have it sold to them more. Sad as it is, that is what this is all about.

Just my two cents on U2 and new millenium.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

In 1991 I went to Tower Books every weekend, EVERY WEEKEND to see what I could find out about the making of the new album. By the time October 1991 rolled around I had read approximately 1 page worth of credible information.

In 2003/04 I came to Interference every day and found a good thread to read about the new album EVERY DAY!

In 1991/92 if U2 played somewhere or did a TV show there is no way in hell I'd know about it unless they broadcast it in my county and/or area.

In 2004/05 I know exactly when and where U2 are playing, what they are doing, who has a cold and who got a new haircut.

These are different times my friends. U2 are riding that information wave, and it's paying off for them. I think some people dislike the album because it is so popular.

 

[Yahweh]

All I have got to say to the haters is has their ever been a band that is undoubtbly the biggest band in the world and arguably the best band in the world when they reach the rock and roll hall of fame?

The answer is No...so in the end U2 must be doing something right whether you agree with it or not.

 

[thrillme]

Do you people ever read my posts. They never appeared on these lipsycnch shows from 1983-2000. The last performance I can remember from these type of shows was for 2 hearts beat as one for totp in 1983. If they did so elsewhere like in the USA then somebody will no doubt say. But in the UK they never appeared in the studio on totp miming from 1983-2000. Just makes me cringe when I watch these type of programs and you see on this forum saying how fuc#ing great was U2 performing karaoke on CDUK the other day and blah blah.

That's because their album sales would go down after performing on those shows re--TOTP.

I read it from an interview, Bono I think, who said the reason they stopped doing TV shows, was because they'd perform on TOTP, and their album sales would go down in the early days, I guess pre 1983. They stopped going on TOTP because it hurt their sales.

SNL is not exactly TOTP, Saturday Night Live was a groundbreaking American TV show, where its musical performers are expected to perform live, the entire show is live.

You can't lip synch on SNL without people knowing, case in point, Ashlee Simpson.

And, aren't most U2 videos, basically them doing karoake?

Aren't most music videos, like karoake?

 

[indra]

And, aren't most U2 videos, basically them doing karoake?

Aren't most music videos, like karoake?

Music videos in general are a joke, and often a bad one at that. Personally I think music videos were one of those really bad ideas in history.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

U2's two SNL appearances were some of the best SNL concert moments IMO. Up there with the Costello moment, or Van Halen going crazy on guitar (to name a few). An elitist attitude would have meant we as fans would never get to experience that. So I agree with Moonlit_Angel in that I don't see anything majorly wrong with the talk show circuit/ musical promotions.

Agreed, and thank you.

Originally posted by Flying FuManchu
But my impression from some fans on this board is that they prefer U2 not to do the promotional appearances where they play a song/ songs live for people. Instead these "fans" seem to want these people to try to get tickets to a concert (that many can't afford or will have a hard time seeing b/c of demand) and have them experience live U2, only at a concert hall . Right? Freakin' INDIE attitude...

Unless some serious miracles happen within the next couple of months for me, I, at this time, will not be able to go to any U2 concerts anytime soon due to circumstances beyond my control. So as of now, the only place I can see any U2 performances is on TV, and I'd like to be able to see them perform. I want to have SOME way of hearing their new songs live (and in regards to the album debate, whether or not it's good and all that-to some people it is, to some it isn't. It's all personal opinion, and it's always going to be personal opinion. Nobody should try and act like their beliefs regarding the new album are fact). So it'd be nice if people kept that in mind when they sit there and say that they don't want to see U2 on TV every single second. And as for being everywhere...I'm surprised people are still amazed that a well-known artist pops up every imaginable place possible when they have some new album out. This has been happening since, like, the beginning of rock and roll, it's nothing new.

Anywho, I missed out on any possible shows people are referring to here where U2 lip-synched in any way, shape or form...sounds like these were all in Europe anyway, so I wouldn't have seen them regardless, but lip-synching...the only time I see that as a true problem is if you're performing in concert. But I know multiple artists, even the well-respected ones, lip-sync in music videos, and sometimes, on certain shows they appear on, they'll do it there, too, and...maybe I'm just odd, but I don't really lose much sleep over that aspect of the lip-synching ordeal. It happens, I know that they'll perform live at some point and time, especially if they're a respected band, so I move on.

And I've said it before and I'll say it again: I freakin' hate the term "sell-out". I really, really do. It's being used way too often nowadays, and it seems like anything a band does is up for the "sell-out" accusation. And I just don't like it, personally.

I do not mean any of this to be an attack on anyone in this forum, thread, whatever, by the way. These are just my personal views, you're all still entitled to think whatever the heck you want to think.

Angela

 

[Aardvark747]

And I've said it before and I'll say it again: I freakin' hate the term "sell-out". I really, really do. It's being used way too often nowadays, and it seems like anything a band does is up for the "sell-out" accusation. And I just don't like it, personally.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

.

Angela