U2: Corporate Sellout's? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong > Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-22-2002, 09:42 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in Valparaiso, IN
Posts: 6,361
Local Time: 06:40 AM
Thanks Sting2 for the refresher - I especially agree with the last statement. U2 have indeed been accused of "selling out" since 1987 when JT became big.

Now while it was U2's goal to always become one of, if not the, world's best (or biggest) band, this does not automatically mean "sell out." For example, every student in a class starts out wanting an "A" (or the equivalent). If the student received the "A" at the end of the semester, did the student "sell out" or did he/she just work really hard to receive that grade? I would state this is true for U2 - they just worked really hard to achieve the status of "best band."

Also, I wanted to comment once again that what may be perceived as hypocrisy by some is being perceived as being "behind the times" by others. For those who say "U2 are hypocrites" I contend that you are not allowing U2 the opportunity to market themselves the way today's world demands.

And while some of you may love to see U2 sell 3 albums as long as they kept making music, there are others of us who love seeing U2 sell millions of albums and dominate the charts and awards shows. For those that fall into the latter category, we realize how important marketing is and we will allow U2 that luxury.
__________________

doctorwho is offline  
Old 02-22-2002, 11:20 PM   #22
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Kearny, NJ
Posts: 91
Local Time: 02:40 PM
U2 realized this time around that they had to do more then just put out a good album to sell records. There is nothing wrong with what they have done.

I would not consider them sellouts until the music suffers. And their last 12 albums and 28 concerts kicked my ass, so who cares what else they do. keep up the good work.
__________________

grant72 is offline  
Old 02-23-2002, 01:06 AM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Saracene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia, some time after tea
Posts: 6,325
Local Time: 02:40 PM
I think it's ridiculous to suggest that U2 only realised that they did care about what other people thought of them when POP flopped. They're an extremely self-conscious band who never existed in their own bubble; their work has been driven by external forces as well as internal. Some people say that every U2 album is a sort of a reaction to their previous album, but you could also say that many of their albums are a reaction to the reaction of the audience to their previous albums. Why would they go through that drastic image & music transformation at the beginning of the 90s if they didn't care about what other people thought of them? Sure, part of it was to keep things interesting for themselves, but they also were clearly hurt by the backlash against R&H and their entire 80s "holier-than-thou" image. I remember reading that they were initially very hesitant about the idea of broadcasts from Sarajevo during the ZooTV tour, as they were afraid that people would accuse them of going back to their 80s personas they seemed to have left behind for good.

I also remember reading an interview with Bono where he said that he identifies with the hip-hop artists rather than most of the rock artists in a sense that the hip-hop artists want to take care of the business as well as music, and see absolutely no shame in that.
Saracene is offline  
Old 02-23-2002, 02:16 AM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:40 PM
U2 has not recieved any money from VH1 or MTV. MTV and VH1 do not usually spend money on someone unless they are a small act and its not much money. MTV and VH1 like the promotional tie in with U2 thought, which is why you see them on the ticket, and the commericials on the channels.
The Police did the same thing for their last two tours back in the early 80s. It was even more pronounced then with MTV being shown on the video screens before the band went on. Of course MTV heavily promoted The Police on their channel, which at the time had a much smaller number of viewers than it does today.
The band in general pays for everything itself. I have the interviews and programs from TV that explain this.
The idea of U2 needing money from someone is silly. The band is worth nearly a Billion dollars and a deal with target is a tiny drop in the bucket. The band probably has never even heard of the store name Target. U2 have a very large organization and despite the bands involvement in lots of things, McGuinness, Interscope, and Principle Management handle a load of stuff that the band never sees or hears about.
The deal with Target is one of hundreds or thousands that have occured over the past 20 years in over 70 countries around the globe. It is essentially irrelevant and not out of touch with the bands business past from decades ago. A drop in the bucket.
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-23-2002, 05:09 AM   #25
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 07:40 AM
Billy Corgan once appeared on Regis & Kathie Lee. Now THAT..is fucking selling out.
pub crawler is offline  
Old 02-23-2002, 12:39 PM   #26
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 02:40 PM
This is not an example of the "little guy" getting hurt. The comments you quoted are from one major chain complaining about another major chain. There is no "little guy" in sight.

If you would have read the article a little more carefully, you may have noticed the obvious "little guy" who is UNQUESTIONABLY getting hurt. Here it is again:

"This is something that made everybody pretty furious," says Steve R. Wiley, co-owner of the independent Hoodlums New & Used Music in Tempe, Ariz. To fan the fires, Wiley dashed off an e-mail letter to 500 record labels and distributors that accused U2 of "one of the biggest corporate sellouts of all time."

I tried to add some objectivity by posting this new forum. Some people agree with my point of view and some do not. That is fine. However, you appear to be angry, unnerved and annoyed by my post. I corrected myself and gave credit on the "Presented" vs. "Sponsored" issue. You STILL felt it was necessary to point this out again. That is redundent.

I love and support U2 just as much if not more than the other people who frequent this site. However, it is necessary and productive to question their actions. All too often in this society people speak with their heart instead of their head which leads to a very ignorant society(that is a generalization on society, NOT on U2 fans).
You have cleary chosen the former in this instance.

MBH is offline  
Old 02-23-2002, 12:44 PM   #27
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 02:40 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by oviedo:
[B]Actually, to the Good Doctor, I don't think we fans mind the corporate tie-ins so much as much as what appears to be hypocrisy. If u2 wants to embrace the corporate mentality like everyone else, so be it. We still love the music. But we shouldn't pretend that they haven't compromised their business integrity. And while they haven't used their songs to promote the glories of Oldsmobile, they did lend songs like 'UTEOTW' and 'Desire', which have deep, deep meanings to plug the football playoffs. And I presume that they didn't do it for free.

u2 is my favorite band, always will be. I think they do have more integrity than most bands, but let's try to use some objective judgments. There's nothing wrong with making money from your music - hell, even Dylan doesn't GIVE his CDs away. But let's admit that the promotional tie-ins are a money-making gambit. And they do hurt smaller stores and bands. There is a cause-and-effect relationship.

And funny that you mention Neil Young and Pearl Jam. Young sang about this very thing in the blistering 'This Note's For You.' And Pearl Jam is hardly irrelevant: their integrity - trying to fight Ticketmaster, exercising restraint in public appearances, even their fan-friendly Live CD series - assures that they'll be around long after the flavors of the months such as Britney and N'Suck have disappeared.

I am guilty, too. I bought the DVD at Best Buy, the CD at Target. I enjoyed them, but I can't help but wonder if a bit of the gold hasn't rubbed off the band I fell in love with in the late 80s and early 90s. Maybe they've changed. Or maybe I have.

My point exactly!--you seem to have an excellent grasp on the point that I am trying to make.

MBH is offline  
Old 02-23-2002, 03:12 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:40 PM
I'm sorry but U2 is not doing anything now business wise that have not done before period. This whole thing with Best Buy and Target is normal and happens all the time. Plus it involves a DVD which has very small sales, tiny, compared to an album or a current single. The 7 song single again is something that will not sell many copies. Its not a current single and will only appeal to hardcore fans. The DVD and the single itself will only sell combined maybe about 200,000 copies over the first year when sales will be highest. This is small change folks and the little guy would not have made a lot of money from this anyway.
Since U2 themselves probably are not involved, U2s management, if they are out for a money grab they should have released the 7 song single worldwide! They didn't! Its a gift to U2 fans who did not have the opportunity to buy these songs except on import. The logic that has been used to describe certain actions as a "sellout" holds no water. I think some people here are uninformed about the bands business history and GLOBAL dealings.
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-24-2002, 08:43 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in Valparaiso, IN
Posts: 6,361
Local Time: 06:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MBH:

I tried to add some objectivity by posting this new forum. Some people agree with my point of view and some do not. That is fine. However, you appear to be angry, unnerved and annoyed by my post. I corrected myself and gave credit on the "Presented" vs. "Sponsored" issue. You STILL felt it was necessary to point this out again. That is redundent.

I love and support U2 just as much if not more than the other people who frequent this site.

While you accuse me of being selective in my reading, you apparently are equally, if not far more so, selective in your interpretations.

I'm not angry at all - actually, I feel YOU are. You talk about being subjective, but when someone presents an alternative view, you accuse of them of being condescending, angry/annoyed or not open-minded. The hypocrisy there is a little thick, no?

Also, I stated that any misconceptions you wrote are easily forgiveable - it's those of the press that really bother me. And while one "little guy" may have written an angry e-mail, I still contend that this is hardly a "little guy" problem - more like one guy complaining because he didn't make $$.
doctorwho is offline  
Old 02-25-2002, 12:08 AM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Zoomerang96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,462
Local Time: 09:40 AM
one thing that noone here who thinks that u2 havent sold out has mentioned yet, is something rather critical...

you dont need to sell records to be good. plain and simple as that. who cares if it sells well? i like seeing it do well, but if it means kissing ass for a company, screw it. u2s album would be just as good if it had or hadnt sold as well as it has. bottom line.

------------------
-deathbear
Zoomerang96 is offline  
Old 02-25-2002, 03:36 AM   #31
Registered User
 
truecoloursfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: The Wet Coast
Posts: 299
Local Time: 06:40 AM
Great discussion, all. I too have had mixed feelings -- well, really, mixed thoughts -- and this is what I needed to hear. All I might add is that most of us here haven't a flippin' clue what it is to run a multimillion dollar business -- they are four artists, yes, but also a "corporation of five," and one that's in the big leagues. I simply respect the fact that they can exist in those two very different spheres and be successful in BOTH. (The average well-made film is a multimillion-dollar affair all by itself, and if it happens to be one of soul and intelligence the filmmaker's integrity is not questioned -- the art speaks for itself in its relationship with its audience.)

Meanwhile, utah:
Quote:
That leads to one of the main reasons more people don’t speak out about injustice or try to affect change in the world—they think they have to be perfect when it comes to their own lives, and that they have to know absolutely everything about an issue before they have a right to speak up. People are afraid to be called “hypocrites” or to be taken to task for not knowing something. That’s why Bono’s example is so great. He’s an example of someone who is obviously a hypocrite and knows it, yet doesn’t let that stop him. He has the courage to take the criticism and other "lumps" and to keep going. (That overblown ego does come in handy sometimes ) Does that mean he isn’t accountable for his actions? No. He should feel obligated to try to become more congruent between his words and his actions, but he doesn’t use his failings as an excuse to do nothing and that is a lesson for us all.
BRAVO. Point well-taken.

Deb D


------------------
I wanna walk with you on an unapproved road

the greatest frontman in the world - by truecoloursfly: http://www.atu2.com/news/article.src?ID=1575
truecoloursfly is offline  
Old 02-25-2002, 12:02 PM   #32
sv
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 229
Local Time: 02:40 PM
The term "sellout" is indeed overused and abused to refer to all kinds of things.

On Best Buy and the little guy:

Little guys don't have significant media access. So when the little guy gets screwed (which probably occurs about a thousand times a day), WE DON'T HEAR A PEEP ABOUT IT. On the other hand, when Virgin Records (hardly a little guy) gets a bad deal, we hear talk in the media that U2 may be "selling out" - we hear about it because the big guys have a voice, and use it. So I don't buy the Best Buy thing as a "corporate sellout".

On what is really a corporate sellout:

I believe that knowingly providing corporate leaders and their political patrons (who have until now only added to the African problem) with credibility as "friends of Africa", in exchange for an incredible mass media push (remember that these corporate leaders own and influence the major media companies) which results in millions of dollars and a sharp rise in fame with access to a worldwide mainstream audience, with subsequent recognition as the best and biggest band since the Beatles . . . IS SELLING OUT.

That, to me, is a clear example of sacrificing the truth and one's principles, for cash and fame. Essentially, that's covering up corporate America's complicity in the African problem in exchange for cash and media hype.

I believe that when a person all of a sudden does a 180 degree turn, drapes himself in the American flag when he's spoken against flags and nationalism for 20 years, applauds the retaliatory bombing of another country when he's spent 20 years criticizing retaliatory bombings, right when he needs the U.S. media to promote his band's tour and its legacy (i.e. Super Bowl, Grammys, Time magazine), that perhaps something's a little fishy. (though I grant that the events of 9-11 altered everyone's frame of reference)

But I will withhold judgment until I see just how far Bono is willing to go to help the people of Africa. The main current argument in his favor is that of pragmatism -i.e. he can accomplish more by schmoozing the elites than by throwing stones at them. But what will probably happen is this: a token effort will be made to help Africa, and in the process Bono will be hailed as a hero (maybe even a Nobel nomination) - but very little substantial aid will reach African citizens.

If this occurs, and Bono publicly rejects the accolades, publicly states that nothing has really been accomplished, names the governments and corporations that are benefiting the most by Africa's misery, and gives back the money he's earned by running interference for these companies, then I will applaud him. If not, then I would say he's sacrificed the truth and his principles for cash and fame, which is what I would call being a corporate sellout.
sv is offline  
Old 02-25-2002, 12:57 PM   #33
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sv:
The term "sellout" is indeed overused and abused to refer to all kinds of things.

On Best Buy and the little guy:

Little guys don't have significant media access. So when the little guy gets screwed (which probably occurs about a thousand times a day), WE DON'T HEAR A PEEP ABOUT IT. On the other hand, when Virgin Records (hardly a little guy) gets a bad deal, we hear talk in the media that U2 may be "selling out" - we hear about it because the big guys have a voice, and use it. So I don't buy the Best Buy thing as a "corporate sellout".

On what is really a corporate sellout:

I believe that knowingly providing corporate leaders and their political patrons (who have until now only added to the African problem) with credibility as "friends of Africa", in exchange for an incredible mass media push (remember that these corporate leaders own and influence the major media companies) which results in millions of dollars and a sharp rise in fame with access to a worldwide mainstream audience, with subsequent recognition as the best and biggest band since the Beatles . . . IS SELLING OUT.

That, to me, is a clear example of sacrificing the truth and one's principles, for cash and fame. Essentially, that's covering up corporate America's complicity in the African problem in exchange for cash and media hype.

I believe that when a person all of a sudden does a 180 degree turn, drapes himself in the American flag when he's spoken against flags and nationalism for 20 years, applauds the retaliatory bombing of another country when he's spent 20 years criticizing retaliatory bombings, right when he needs the U.S. media to promote his band's tour and its legacy (i.e. Super Bowl, Grammys, Time magazine), that perhaps something's a little fishy. (though I grant that the events of 9-11 altered everyone's frame of reference)

But I will withhold judgment until I see just how far Bono is willing to go to help the people of Africa. The main current argument in his favor is that of pragmatism -i.e. he can accomplish more by schmoozing the elites than by throwing stones at them. But what will probably happen is this: a token effort will be made to help Africa, and in the process Bono will be hailed as a hero (maybe even a Nobel nomination) - but very little substantial aid will reach African citizens.

If this occurs, and Bono publicly rejects the accolades, publicly states that nothing has really been accomplished, names the governments and corporations that are benefiting the most by Africa's misery, and gives back the money he's earned by running interference for these companies, then I will applaud him. If not, then I would say he's sacrificed the truth and his principles for cash and fame, which is what I would call being a corporate sellout.
Excellent post! You make some very interesting points and observations here.

However, I ask you this: what are Bono's other options in the fight to cure global woes such as debt relief and aids? In other words, although he may seem very hypocritical in some cases(curses big corporations then hangs w/them), he truly does believe in what he is doing and has the knowledge and dedication to back it up(unlike say, Liz Taylor, et. al). Do you really think that his MAIN objective in this case is to sell records? After all, he has ALWAYS had a political agenda and ATYCLB is not being released say in March of 2002. The record has already been sold and he is already rich(although I would agree that U2 has been over-exposed in the US and it is time to go away for awhile)!

What money should he give back? What money are you specifically referring too? I doubt that anyone would do that b/c it is impossible to decifer which money has been made by U2 is a direct response from his activism(e.g. "hey lets go by the new U2 album b/c Bono is trying to change the world.")

By the way, when did he verbally approve of the retaliatory bombings in Afghanistan? And besides, isn't the case in Afghanistan different than other bombings in the past(not done by another country but by a terrorist organization that encourages hate and violence whereas Bono supports peace)?

I look forward to you reply.
MBH is offline  
Old 02-25-2002, 03:10 PM   #34
sv
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 229
Local Time: 02:40 PM
MBH: Thanks. Here's my 2 cents on your questions:

I think that every human does things that serve both selfish and altruistic purposes at the same time. I believe Bono really wants to make a difference in Africa, and that he thinks that cozening up to the powers-that-be will be his best chance to do so. I also believe Bono has megalomaniacal tendencies that thrive on being part of the world spotlight, and that thrive on being the world's "good guy". I think U2 (and Bono in particular) has a raging ambition be considered the biggest and best band ever - while eclipsing the Beatles in terms of mainstream public recognition is probably not in the cards, U2 is clearly after the #2 spot. I think they've learned enough about the music business, the international press, and its corporate ownership to know how to go about this (and in fact they've learned some hard lessons in the past) - specifically, how to give the American press what they want (American patriotism and justification for U.S. actions) so they'll give U2 what the band wants (continued acclaim and access).

I think the number of dollars U2 makes is only important to them in terms of building their legacy (i.e. 2nd highest selling tour ever, etc.) with the media, who will ultimately write history. Obviously I'm quite aware that Bono will not be returning any money to anyone, and when I look back at it I don't really like the way I phrased that part of the sentence. What I meant to say is that in my mind, Bono has accepted significant material gains and therefore needs to come through with real benefits for Africa (in which case I'd congratulate him for a job well done) or at least to protest-like-hell if the fatcats don't come through, in order to keep his integrity.

In many quotes in the music and lay press over the last 4 months, Bono has approved of the bombing of Afghanistan. These quotes are well-documented in the archives of the website youtwo.net.

Regarding the bombing of Afghanistan itself, and whether the post-9-11 situation is different . . . that argument has been held in this forum MANY MANY times over the last 4 months, and tends to get fairly nasty fairly quick. So get ready for the onslaught . . .

My opinion is that killing civilian Afghanis in response to the actions of a relative few criminals (Al-Queda) is completely unacceptable and immoral.

If a gang of murderers was holed up in a school in New York and the only way to catch them was to bomb the school (killing 2000 kids in the process), would you do it? I hope not. Why is it different if that school is in Afghanistan, and the children are Afghani?

If I was your next door neighbor, and I killed a young girl, would the father of the girl have the right to blow up the entire neighborhood in revenge, and call the death of your family "unavoidable collateral damage"? I certainly hope not. Yet this is what the U.S. has chosen to do.

OK, here we go.



sv is offline  
Old 02-25-2002, 05:36 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:40 PM
Yep,
Here we go, but I promise to be brief. I really think BONO is involved in debt relief because he believes he can make a difference. U2 has already been the #1 band worldwide for most of the past 15 years solid! The album has sold very well, but when it comes to airplay in the USA the album has only recieved the same radio airplay that POP recieved. Walk On and Elevation failed to make the top 100 and Stuck.. peaked at #52 and Beautiful Day #21. The Band only had to play 10 more Arena shows to have the #1 US tour of all time, but they did not go for it. They certainly want to be the best band in the world and would like to be the biggest as well. But they have not done anything different business wise that they did not do in 1985. The comparisons to the Beatles were already there in 1987. Thats old news.
I also don't think the relationship between media, business, and politics is as well oiled and slick as you think it is. Its there, but when and where it happens is more random.
The small gang of criminals in Afghanistan had control of 90% of the country with 50-100,000 troops and nearly 2,000 Tanks, Ammored Personal Carriers, Artillery, and other vehicles. There was simply no other way than military action to bring the end of the Taliban regime and begin the road towards stability and reform in Afghanistan. Bombing was well targeted and not nearly as intense or heavy as the Gulf War and Kosovo. Civilian losses were light.
Bono supported it because he understands what is at stake and knows that there is a justification for the use of military force in many situations. Bono wanted to see NATO launch military strikes in Bosnia back in 1992 and 1993. It did not happen though until 1995. This is the book "Until The End Of The World" and also something I remember when they stayed a whole week in nearby Hershey PA back in August of 1992.
Bono has never really been a peace at any cost pacifist. If you want to argue that there was a time, I disagree, but then again if that was so, he was young and uninformed. He is against unjust and unneeded violence but understands the need for security and stability worldwide and that there is such a thing as evil, and a time when military force is needed.
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-25-2002, 05:47 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 10:40 AM
wow. there's been a lot of typing in this thread.

sell out
?
kobayashi is offline  
Old 02-25-2002, 06:41 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 6,402
Local Time: 02:40 PM
now we are swerving off into territory that just isn't even relevant. What bono thinks about military action in certain countries is really not part of the whole corporate sellout debate. At least as it first started on this thread.

I think my biggest problem is this. Every other band on the planet seems to be able to use whatever sales/marketing strategies that they see fit in order to promote their albums, music, singles, tours, videos, DVD's, etc.... EXCEPT U2!

Not only can they not do that, but they can't support any causes that might have some sort of corporate ties or that is just plain hypocrisy! Like I said earlier - Bullshit!!!!

U2 is a band. They strive to be not only a great band, but a BIG band. In doing so they do selective marketing. In my eyes, their marketing has been quite dignified, relying the most heavily on actual non-lipsynched performances (TRL, Grammys, MTVawards, Superbowl, VH1 awards, etc...)
I have started to pay closer attention to other artists out there and their marketing. In the past week I have seen about 5 food commercials, 2 shoe commercials, 3 car commercials, the list goes on, of rock, pop, r&b artists who use their music to sell products.

Do I really care about this. Not too much since it really has become the name of the game. What really gets me is that these are also people that do NOTHING or next to nothing for outside causes. People criticize U2 because they play the superbowl and are fighting for debt and AIDS relief in Africa. Well at least they are fighting for debt and AIDS relief in Africa! 'nsync just sings about babyback ribs, but doesn't give a shit about anyone else. I can supersize my meal at Burger King and have the Backstreet Boys on my cup, but they could care less about anything outside their BurgerKing world.

To me the important thing is U2 can promote themselves and get their name out all they want (although avoiding crispy fried chicken is good) because the bigger they are, the more potent Bono's message is and the more people that are exposed to it.

One last comment is this. People also criticize that Bono doesn't give his own money to the causes he is supporting. Number one, I don't know if that is true, he may well be giving donations to certain causes. But aside from that and more importantly, he is giving his time and energy to these causes. As a pop star, your time is your money. You have a limited shelf-life. U2 could have put out two albums - probably in 1999 and 2001 or 2002, if not for bono's continuous absence from recording. Just something to think about.
He, and the rest of U2, are millionares a hundred times over. They don't NEED to be doing anything but sitting on their asses drinking whiskey and womanizing. But they are respectable guys that are really trying to make a difference.
womanfish is online now  
Old 02-25-2002, 07:00 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by womanfish:
But aside from that and more importantly, he is giving his time and energy to these causes.
when you're doing charity work time is often a much more gracious donation than money.

given the situation he is helping even his money would be potatoes.

half of his argument does not involve money even. it's about changing attitudes.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 02-26-2002, 03:56 AM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Saracene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia, some time after tea
Posts: 6,325
Local Time: 02:40 PM
sv... you make it sound as if it's in the hands of the American press to make U2 a no.2 band after the Beatles. The Beatles aren't America's most-famous band, they're the world's most-famous band, and "America" doesn't equal "the world". If anything, Bono's jacket-wearing actions are more likely to annoy the people outside of USA a lot, especially if you remember that US is not exactly the best-loved country as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

I also find it unlikely that the press needs some Irish band's opinion to justify America's military actions. I can't imagine anyone thinking, "Wow, if Bono approves, then it must be all right and proper." And if you remember all those threads worrying about the post-Superbowl backlash, it's not as if everyone in the press and public was happy about U2 wrapping the American flag around themselves, metaphorically and literally.

I also don't think that Bono needs to save his integrity by speaking against the companies and governments that profit the most from Africa's troubles. Sure, it would probably make him look "cool" in the eyes of some (as opposed to his current position which most people find decidedly uncool and even ridiculous), but would it actually help achieve anything? The problem is not that the regular people are unaware of the way governments and companies exploit Africa, the problem is that most people simply do not give a damn about it. IMO if a "token help" case occurs as you've described, the best Bono can do is to urge the same people to do more and give more, instead of giving indignant speeches that will have as much effect as a straw house against the wind.
Saracene is offline  
Old 02-26-2002, 11:48 AM   #40
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sv:
MBH: Thanks. Here's my 2 cents on your questions:

I think that every human does things that serve both selfish and altruistic purposes at the same time. I believe Bono really wants to make a difference in Africa, and that he thinks that cozening up to the powers-that-be will be his best chance to do so. I also believe Bono has megalomaniacal tendencies that thrive on being part of the world spotlight, and that thrive on being the world's "good guy". I think U2 (and Bono in particular) has a raging ambition be considered the biggest and best band ever - while eclipsing the Beatles in terms of mainstream public recognition is probably not in the cards, U2 is clearly after the #2 spot. I think they've learned enough about the music business, the international press, and its corporate ownership to know how to go about this (and in fact they've learned some hard lessons in the past) - specifically, how to give the American press what they want (American patriotism and justification for U.S. actions) so they'll give U2 what the band wants (continued acclaim and access).

I think the number of dollars U2 makes is only important to them in terms of building their legacy (i.e. 2nd highest selling tour ever, etc.) with the media, who will ultimately write history. Obviously I'm quite aware that Bono will not be returning any money to anyone, and when I look back at it I don't really like the way I phrased that part of the sentence. What I meant to say is that in my mind, Bono has accepted significant material gains and therefore needs to come through with real benefits for Africa (in which case I'd congratulate him for a job well done) or at least to protest-like-hell if the fatcats don't come through, in order to keep his integrity.

In many quotes in the music and lay press over the last 4 months, Bono has approved of the bombing of Afghanistan. These quotes are well-documented in the archives of the website youtwo.net.

Regarding the bombing of Afghanistan itself, and whether the post-9-11 situation is different . . . that argument has been held in this forum MANY MANY times over the last 4 months, and tends to get fairly nasty fairly quick. So get ready for the onslaught . . .

My opinion is that killing civilian Afghanis in response to the actions of a relative few criminals (Al-Queda) is completely unacceptable and immoral.

If a gang of murderers was holed up in a school in New York and the only way to catch them was to bomb the school (killing 2000 kids in the process), would you do it? I hope not. Why is it different if that school is in Afghanistan, and the children are Afghani?

If I was your next door neighbor, and I killed a young girl, would the father of the girl have the right to blow up the entire neighborhood in revenge, and call the death of your family "unavoidable collateral damage"? I certainly hope not. Yet this is what the U.S. has chosen to do.

OK, here we go.



Some good points once again(especially on the militarized retaliatory examples of the neighbor and school)...

However, as someone pointed out in a follow-up post, the US strikes against Afghanistan are JUSTIFIABLE. They are justifiable because they are trying to eradicate hateful, violent individuals who thrive on destroying and removing people from the world who are not like them and who do not share the same beliefs(similar to the facist ways of Hitler, I might add).

I am in NO WAY condoning the killing of innocent civilians and those killings were a sad and horrendous act. However, in the effort to solve a problem and eradicate the world of these evil-minded people(Al-quada, Taliban), it was inevitable.

I understand that 2 wrongs don't make a right and that some of the US foreing policies(hey, Bono had a good point there w/BTBS) need to be reviewed and changed. You must understand though that simple sanctions and/or court-imposed actions taken against these aforementioned hate-mongering terrorist organizations will only continue to slowly impede the problem, instead of making progress toward ending the problem(although, I believe there will always be terrorists in the world).

We certainly have changed directions in this thread which wasn't my intention....maybe some of you would like to join me over at CNN.com for further discussions on the world's problems, LOL....look forward to any and all replies.
__________________

MBH is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Oh my goodyness, have u ladies seen these shots? mad1 PLEBA Archive 21 05-07-2002 12:45 PM
I need some happy U2 lovin' Mrs.Clayton PLEBA Archive 10 04-13-2002 12:55 PM
non U2 fans praising U2... nice. foray Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive 7 02-13-2002 10:46 AM
The U2 Fuzzies WildHonee PLEBA Archive 4 11-25-2001 04:12 PM
About knowing each other, U2 fan code MissZooropa PLEBA Archive 2 11-01-2001 04:18 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×