U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f288/)
-   -   For all those spanners who reckon U2 are sellouts... (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f288/for-all-those-spanners-who-reckon-u2-are-sellouts-39515.html)

lazyboy 04-28-2002 02:38 PM

For all those spanners who reckon U2 are sellouts...
 
I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I was reading the Sunday World today and I came across an interview with Bono. He mentioned that the band had been offered $23 million, yep, TWENTY THREE MILLION DOLLARS!from a car compnay that wanted to use Where The Streets Have No Namein one of its ads. Bono commented on how much the band dwelled on it, seeing as they coulda helped so many charities with all that money. But in the end they decided that the song meant so much to them and their fans that it was invaluable, and that using it in a commercial would ruin it. He also commented that if other similiar offers came in for other songs then the band would definitely consider them.

Now I never agreed with the idiots who freaked at U2 "selling out" with Elevation, cos it was on the bloody soundtrack! To me it was the same as UTEOTW being used in the Wim Wenders film of the same name. But this clearly shows how much U2 care about the reputation and image of their songs. If anything, I'd criticise them for NOT selling out, $23million!!! https://forum.interference.com/u2feedback/eek.gif I mean, as they said, they coulda put that money to good use!! But it's U2, they've done so much for charity that these actions in defense of one of their classics should be overlooked.

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

Mrs.Clayton 04-28-2002 02:42 PM

WOW!!!
Good for them!

elevatedmole 04-28-2002 02:46 PM

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

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

Popheart.org

cass 04-28-2002 04:26 PM

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

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

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

V Nura 04-28-2002 07:40 PM

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


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

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

elevatedmole 04-28-2002 08:19 PM

Quote:

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


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

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

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

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

Popheart.org

typhoon 04-28-2002 09:04 PM

We all know they like attention more than money anyway. https://forum.interference.com/u2feedback/smile.gif

Basstrap 04-28-2002 09:15 PM

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

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

Zoomerang96 04-28-2002 09:36 PM

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

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

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

Spyplane 04-28-2002 09:44 PM

Quote:

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



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

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


SkeeK 04-28-2002 11:17 PM

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


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

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

Guy With The Stuff 04-28-2002 11:44 PM

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

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

kariatari 04-29-2002 03:04 AM

Me too! But I'm also glad to hear that the money that they would have made off it it (or any other song used in a commecial) would have been given to charities. https://forum.interference.com/u2feedback/smile.gif

MBH 04-29-2002 07:51 PM

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

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

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

V Nura 04-29-2002 08:15 PM

Quote:

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

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



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

cheers,

Arun


MBH 04-29-2002 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arun V:

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

cheers,

Arun


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

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

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

elevatedmole 04-29-2002 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MBH:
[B]While on the subject: why didn't Moby receive much flack for selling out all of his songs to commercials?(dont get me wrong, I like Moby).
B]
Moby DID receive flak for letting companies use his songs in commercials. Moby has addressed this issue in his weblog on moby.com -- I believe he said he didn't care, he liked his music, and if companies wanted to use it because they liked it, fine -- it was okay by him.

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

Popheart.org

lazyboy 04-29-2002 08:31 PM

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

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

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

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

Michael Griffiths 04-29-2002 10:14 PM

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

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

Saracene 04-29-2002 10:41 PM

I agree that some songs should be left alone, but it wouldn't bother me if U2 gave one of their less "serious" songs to be used in the ads... now what were these un-serious songs anyway? https://forum.interference.com/u2feedback/smile.gif

Tech 04-29-2002 10:56 PM

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

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

doctorwho 04-30-2002 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rafmed:


Doing a striped down show is selling out.

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

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

Hey! Great post Raffie. Thanks for enlightening us with your brilliance! https://forum.interference.com/u2feedback/biggrin.gif

oliveu2cm 04-30-2002 12:16 AM

Quote:

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


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

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

Quote:

Originally posted by lazyboy:
The reason U2 gave for not allowing Streets to be used was because it is a cornerstone of each gig, Bono said "it's like when we have a bad night, that song is where God usually shows up".
ooooooooh i really love this quote- do you have the direct source by any chance? https://forum.interference.com/u2feedback/smile.gif




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

*U2TakeMeHigher*

rafmed 04-30-2002 03:17 AM

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

Doing a striped down show is selling out.

Releasing a best of is selling out.

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

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

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

wertsie 04-30-2002 03:21 AM

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

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

https://U2Baby.com

Saracene 04-30-2002 06:49 AM

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

brettig 04-30-2002 07:22 AM

Quote:

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

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

Saracene 04-30-2002 07:35 AM

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

Salome 04-30-2002 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by doctorwho:
And it's far better to keep touring Europe over and over than record new songs in the studio.
yeah, 1 leg every 5 years



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

V Nura 04-30-2002 07:48 AM

Quote:

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



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


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

brettig 04-30-2002 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Saracene:
Wasn't Aussie dollar much stronger during ZooTV and POPMart?
it was, and I dont mind people saying U2 skipped aus cos of money, but I do mind people making it sound like they were doing us a favour by avoiding us.

Angela Harlem 04-30-2002 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lazyboy:

Now I never agreed with the idiots who freaked at U2 "selling out" with Elevation, cos it was on the bloody soundtrack! To me it was the same as UTEOTW being used in the Wim Wenders film of the same name.



Yep.

Of course, you dont see it from the other side of the world. Unless you are one of those dedicated well learned fans who fly half way across the world to be in a place where they arent touring, just to see what it feels like to see a band you idolise skip you becuase they cant make enough money out of visiting you.

This shows they are still here for the music, but money does matter to them.

popkidu2 04-30-2002 10:21 AM

couple of quick thoughts...

1. Moby allowed his music to be used by advertisers because the radio was not playing his singles. After people heard his music on tv and asked "who is that?" was when he started getting album sales and play on the radio.

Sting used the same strategy when his album Brand New Day didn't sell well. He allowed Jaguar to use that song (which I cannot remember right now) with the Indian singer in it for an ad. Suddenly, his music started selling.

I think the whole "sellout" thing is a little stupid. If you want to get your music heard, you have to make some concessions these days. Unless you want to play the "woe is me I'm the poor intelectual underground rockstar living on water and heroin because the big bad music corporation won't play my music whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" crap. I'm not saying the music corporations are good. They're not. But U2 WANTED and still WANTS to have their music played and be popular and they are now willing to make some concessions that they wouldn't have 10 or 20 years ago because the TIMES HAVE CHANGED. It is not 1981 or 1991 folks, it's 2002, and the fact is, things have changed and what was once deemed "selling out" is now standard practice and you have two choices in life, you either waste your energy fighting the process and getting nowhere, or you find a way to accomplish your goals within the process while not losing your integrity. I think U2 has done that, and will continue to do that, even if they have some of their songs in ads.

I really can't see them allowing Sunday Bloody Sunday for a tampax ad for example. But ya never know......

dizzy 04-30-2002 10:26 AM

Awww, dizzy is proud of her Irish boys. https://forum.interference.com/u2feedback/biggrin.gif

wertsie 04-30-2002 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rafmed:
who say that using a song in a movie is selling out?

Doing a stripped down show is selling out.


How do you figure?



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

https://U2Baby.com

rafmed 04-30-2002 11:46 AM

Only someone like Dr. Who would use so lame arguments to disagree, as long as I know, at least around the world, Popmart tickets were cheaper than most of Elevation, and if you can't find where the sounds of ATYCLB are comming, my god man, you are deaf, about aerosmith, very smart comment, surelly someone else is the one that has it in his mind https://forum.interference.com/u2feedback/wink.gif .
So saying that ZOO TV and Popmart are closer to NSYNC certainly shows how much you understand what U2 is all about.
And as long as I know any Best of is cheaper to produce and will have good earnings, in this case I think U2 was forced after poor Popmart performance in tha USA, thank you for the support.
Only a selfish will use those comments to justify that U2 will not go to countries with lower economic levels.
For your information this places most of the time sellout faster than any USA city.
You better do some research before trying to look cool in this forum, as is the case with some others.
I wonder if U2 do an album that resembles Achtung Baby or Pop, and if the next tour goes back, to what they once called progress, and a way of giving back a good show for the money. Will you be there?



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

Seconds 04-30-2002 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rafmed:
You better do some research before trying to look cool in this forum, as is the case with some others.

You're telling doctorwho he should do more research? There is no one here who knows more about the business side of U2 than DoctorWho.

Seems to me you're just pissed off cause U2 didn't go to wherever your from. So they didn't go to your country. Big shit, deal with it. Not all bands make a stop in Montreal, I just deal with it, I don't think they're sell outs just because they didn't stop here. If you think they're such sell outs, I suggest you stop listening to them, Instead of having all this hatred for the band.

I wouldn't want to be in U2's shoes. With fans like you, they can never do right. Name one band that comes close to U2's integrity. They've never even used a Tour Sponsor, something which is considered normal these days. But that's not enough for people like you.

In your eyes, unless they work for free, they're selling out. You need to understand something. U2 members are human. They are not god, jesus or Mother Teresa. They will never make everyone happy, especially people like you.

rafmed 04-30-2002 01:11 PM

Of course I didn't enjoyed they not comming here, but that is no problem for me, I have seen them perform enough times, hmm, ok never is enough of U2. To be honest, I could be more bored for young fans that had the hope of watching U2 live, which to me are some of the best experiences I has ever had.

I don't know if DrWho knows or not, but if someone think U2 did a favor to Oz and Latin america fans for not touring ths places, or that they would lose money, well, its laughable.

Actually i woud say the same to you, U2 are humans, and as you and me, can make it good or wrong, now if people expect that this forum is only to praise them and threat them like gods, well then it will be very narrow, and I have all the right of listen to whatever I want, and also I have all the right to have my opinion, no matter if it bothers anyone, and I have arguments to support it, right or wrong, but it seems that some can just debate through sarcasm.

I have to let one thing clear, I love U2 music, there is nothing close to it in my opinion, I would see u2 perform in a 200,000 people stadium or in a parking lot or in a garage, they are the best, period, and I will still be buying U2 albums even before release date as I has been able to do since achtung baby.

If anyone think that someone its not a fan because one can question some things, well, then lets forget the purpouse of this forum.



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

doctorwho 04-30-2002 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brettig:
Your reasons didnt stop Creed, Live or any number of other acts from coming here.
Yay! You got Creed. Lucky you!

doctorwho 04-30-2002 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rafmed:
Only someone like Dr. Who would use so lame arguments to disagree, as long as I know, at least around the world, Popmart tickets were cheaper than most of Elevation, and if you can't find where the sounds of ATYCLB are comming, my god man, you are deaf, about aerosmith, very smart comment, surelly someone else is the one that has it in his mind https://forum.interference.com/u2feedback/wink.gif .
So saying that ZOO TV and Popmart are closer to NSYNC certainly shows how much you understand what U2 is all about.
And as long as I know any Best of is cheaper to produce and will have good earnings, in this case I think U2 was forced after poor Popmart performance in tha USA, thank you for the support.
Only a selfish will use those comments to justify that U2 will not go to countries with lower economic levels.
For your information this places most of the time sellout faster than any USA city.
You better do some research before trying to look cool in this forum, as is the case with some others.
I wonder if U2 do an album that resembles Achtung Baby or Pop, and if the next tour goes back, to what they once called progress, and a way of giving back a good show for the money. Will you be there?


*slaps Rafmed for taking him seriously. https://forum.interference.com/u2feedback/biggrin.gif

Only a Raffie would give NO arguments to support his "sell-out" attacks and then get all riled up over a mocking post. https://forum.interference.com/u2feedback/wink.gif

O.K., if I *must* get serious...

I think the intimate Elevation show is FAR better than ZOO TV or POPMart. There, I said it. I didn't like POPMart anywhere near as much as Elevation. It was just too big. The music was lost. I did like ZOO TV, but the spectacle it was also detracted from my real reason for seeing U2 - which is the music. Elevation allowed me to truly enjoy the music, while still being visually entertained. It is, by far, the best tour U2 has done, IMO.

As for touring Australia... well, that is a tough one. I do think U2 should have gone there, especially considering how successful the album was in Australia. Hopefully, with a new album in the making, U2 will tour Australia next time and perhaps skip other parts of the world (like yet another visit to the U.S.).

As for the "Best Of" - I'm not convinced that this is "selling out." Many, many artists have these albums. Yes, they may be "easy money" but I think they are highly beneficial for the new fan. For example, if I was just getting into U2 now, the "Best Of" would be a great way to hear some of their older music without having to shell out $12-18 for all the albums. When I first started collecting music as a teen, these "greatest hits" albums were wonderful just for that reason. I didn't have a lot of $$, so the ensemble allowed me to nicely sample the artist's work over a period of time without spending a fortune getting each album. Then, if I really liked the artist, I would get the actual albums. In other words, greatest hits albums aren't meant for long-time fans, they are meant for new fans. And having once been in that position, I really appreciate artists releasing these albums.

As for looking cool - considering you gave absolutely NO supporting statements to your initial arguments, I think it is you who needs to do some thinking before just blurting out your thoughts. Don't try to look cool by being the "anti-Bono" - oh, wait, that's already been done too. Whaddya know...

rafmed 04-30-2002 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by doctorwho:
*slaps Rafmed for taking him seriously. https://forum.interference.com/u2feedback/biggrin.gif
OUCH! https://forum.interference.com/u2feedback/tongue.gif

Quote:

Originally posted by doctorwho:
Only a Raffie would give NO arguments to support his "sell-out" attacks and then get all riled up over a mocking post. https://forum.interference.com/u2feedback/wink.gif

ok you got a point, is always good to stir some controversy.

Quote:

Originally posted by doctorwho:
O.K., if I *must* get serious...

I think the intimate Elevation show is FAR better than ZOO TV or POPMart. There, I said it. I didn't like POPMart anywhere near as much as Elevation. It was just too big. The music was lost. I did like ZOO TV, but the spectacle it was also detracted from my real reason for seeing U2 - which is the music. Elevation allowed me to truly enjoy the music, while still being visually entertained. It is, by far, the best tour U2 has done, IMO.

I disagree, but I have seen many people in USA think like you about Popmart, I think it was much better when they come here with that tour for some reason, maybe they were more used, I didn't see Elevation, but I doubt that it would has been better for me than ZOO TV, well matter of opinions.

Quote:

Originally posted by doctorwho:
As for touring Australia... well, that is a tough one. I do think U2 should have gone there, especially considering how successful the album was in Australia. Hopefully, with a new album in the making, U2 will tour Australia next time and perhaps skip other parts of the world (like yet another visit to the U.S.).

As for the "Best Of" - I'm not convinced that this is "selling out." Many, many artists have these albums. Yes, they may be "easy money" but I think they are highly beneficial for the new fan. For example, if I was just getting into U2 now, the "Best Of" would be a great way to hear some of their older music without having to shell out $12-18 for all the albums. When I first started collecting music as a teen, these "greatest hits" albums were wonderful just for that reason. I didn't have a lot of $$, so the ensemble allowed me to nicely sample the artist's work over a period of time without spending a fortune getting each album. Then, if I really liked the artist, I would get the actual albums. In other words, greatest hits albums aren't meant for long-time fans, they are meant for new fans. And having once been in that position, I really appreciate artists releasing these albums.

As for looking cool - considering you gave absolutely NO supporting statements to your initial arguments, I think it is you who needs to do some thinking before just blurting out your thoughts. Don't try to look cool by being the "anti-Bono" - oh, wait, that's already been done too. Whaddya know...


Should we do a contest about cool and anticool?


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



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

kobayashi 04-30-2002 05:25 PM

what's a spanner?

wertsie 04-30-2002 05:44 PM

IMHO, "sell-out" and U2 do not even belong in the same SENTENCE. I guess I just dislike the term "sell-out" in general.

As some have said, I think that the Best Of CD is good for fans that aren't as familar with the music. I mean, the band has released 10 studio albums. It's easier for the new fans to get a Best Of CD and stick with the songs they know, then maybe they'll buy some of the other CDs later. I have a friend who bought the Best Of CD because he really liked "Sweetest Thing."

Everybody has different opinions about what they feel were "better spots," if you will, in the band's career. Definitely understandable.

I don't think U2 could ever "sell out." They have too much integrity to do that.

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

https://U2Baby.com

V Nura 04-30-2002 07:12 PM

Quote:

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

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

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

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

laz I never said it was selling out...I just think it's the way the music scene is now. I have NO problem with it. I have seen the coke ad..it's a coke ad


Michael Griffiths 04-30-2002 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arun V:

No, it was used ina coke ad, that was used to promote the olympics ( if that makes sense). In the United states it was an ad that had clips from events and a coke glass being poured with the chorus from BD being played at the end. in short...a coke ad..I even have it on tape actually. I will check it again though[This message has been edited by Arun V (edited 04-30-2002).]

Actually, it is still not technically an ad for Coke. Why? Because Coke did not pay U2 a cent to advertize their product. 'Beautiful Day' was being used to promote the Olympics, not Coke. It just so happened that Coke also sponsored the Olympics, and it was run simultaneosly. I'm sure U2 didn't agree to promote Coke, and I'm positive that if they did agree to do a Coke ad, as you say, they would have demanded money for it. They did agree, however, to promote the Olympics -- for free.

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

V Nura 04-30-2002 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Michael Griffiths:
Actually, it is still not technically an ad for Coke. Why? Because Coke did not pay U2 a cent to advertize their product. 'Beautiful Day' was being used to promote the Olympics, not Coke. It just so happened that Coke also sponsored the Olympics, and it was run simultaneosly. I'm sure U2 didn't agree to promote Coke, and I'm positive that if they did agree to do a Coke ad, as you say, they would have demanded money for it. They did agree, however, to promote the Olympics -- for free.


it still doesn't change the fact that u2 music..was used in a coke ad.


and for the record I'm nost against this sort of thing really. Afterall playing a show like letterman or leno, is basically a commercial arrangment " you play on our show, we will expose you to an audience, and we can make advertising dollars" it's much liek a commercial really...and even if u2 did let them use streets in an ad..it' not seilling out


cass 04-30-2002 10:19 PM

I don't really understand the economic arguments against best of CD's. I know I rejoiced the day I got the Best of and Bsides myself. I used to spend ages making mixture tapes for friends and there it was all in one place. Handy.(this said by a person who doesn't down load and burn music from the net) I bought the video for a couple of friends who are discovering U2, great value I thought.
Yesterday I decided to treat myself to a Salva Grigoryan CD, there were three, the choice was so hard. If he had a "Best of" I'd have bought that I suppose and been very happy (highly recommend Tommy Emmanuel's Best of Double CD I saw that there too. I want them all. End of plug for Australian guitarists https://forum.interference.com/u2feedback/smile.gif)
So what's up with Best of's?

brettig 04-30-2002 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by doctorwho:
Yay! You got Creed. Lucky you!
I dont like Creed, but chartwise and exposure wise right now theyre up with U2...


U2girl 05-01-2002 03:12 AM

I don't mind U2's music used in TV ads as long as they give the money to charity. It's their decision.

I would disagree with Elevation used for the movie (because there were better songs on ATYCLB that could have been used as singles and didn't get the chance, and because i don't think that those who liked it in Tomb Raider will go out and buy the whole album - which i presume was the idea). Or the ticket prices - how is it possible that the stripped down tour costs more than the elaborate, mega Zoo tv and Popmart tours?

Just my opinion.

As for U2 repeating themselves - ATYCLB is the album that has most references from the past. I love it, but it's true.

As for Best of - it's worth buying for a new fan getting into the band, buying the first release. Older fans already have the albums, and (chances are) B-sides or MP3s of them. Personally i wouldn't buy it.

ps: Instead of giving a song off the album for the movie soundtrack, why not make a new song (a la Gangs of New York)? Or M:I theme, or Goldeneye?



[This message has been edited by U2girl (edited 04-30-2002).]

rafmed 05-01-2002 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by U2girl:
I don't mind U2's music used in TV ads as long as they give the money to charity.

I would disagree with Elevation used for the movie (because there were better songs on ATYCLB that could have been used as singles and didn't get the chance, and because i don't think that those who liked it in Tomb Raider will go out and buy the whole album - which i presume was the idea). Or the ticket prices - how is it possible that the stripped down tour costs more than the elaborate, mega Zoo tv and Popmart tours?

Just my opinion.

As for U2 repeating themselves - ATYCLB is the album that has most references from the past. I love it, but it's true.

ps: Instead of giving a song off the album for the movie soundtrack, why not make a new song (a la Gangs of New York)? Or M:I theme, or Goldeneye?

[This message has been edited by U2girl (edited 04-30-2002).]

https://forum.interference.com/u2feedback/smile.gif



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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:11 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