U2NativeSon
Refugee
I'd think it would be really amazing if the new U2 album did not leak.
It'd be nice for a change considering that we live in the instant gratification age where greedy selfish people want something without paying for it.
I'd think it would be really amazing if the new U2 album did not leak.
It'd be nice for a change considering that we live in the instant gratification age where greedy selfish people want something without paying for it.
I'd think it would be really amazing if the new U2 album did not leak.
It'd be nice for a change considering that we live in the instant gratification age where greedy selfish people want something without paying for it.
What is sad is, I'm really not trying to stir up any pot tonight. I just thought today why this album as opposed to so many others has not leaked. Then I thought why could that be? I thought I'd ask on here and see what people had to say. I didn't think I'd get the same clowns in here tearing my head off, I really didn't. Some people pointed out good stuff on here that I read. INCLUDING THE FACT THE KILLERS JUST RELEASED AN ALBUM THAT DIDN'T LEAK.
Why couldn't that comment have been mentioned and then the discussion could have turned to, well why instead of thousands of personal attacks, or my argument being debunked? I just had a thought and wanted an educated discussion. You know - Are radio companies now doing something different? Is U2's management on this album unique? What are the economic reasons behind it when you consider how the record would do with out it?
Those were the types of things I wanted people to discuss rationally. Not just come on here and act like third graders who have nothing productive to say.
And on all of your notes, I'm going to bed! Sicy, close the thread! All of you can spend time going on about when the album will leak, when, when, when. That's much more intellectually stimulating then possibly questioning why it hasn't leaked. Anyone who does that is just completely inane.
For the record on here too, if you don't like what I have to say, just ignore it. I really don't try to argue with people on here. I state my opinion and like to read people's well-thought out posts, not immediate attacks.
My approach was very civil. I have like 3 qualifiers in my original post that make sure it came off as a thought, not an argument or a statement. For example, your comment about Radiohead, why couldn't that have just been said in a civil way?
Is Martin Scorsese a money hungry director for not personally giving out bootlegged versions of his movies?
What is sad is, I'm really not trying to stir up any pot tonight. I just thought today why this album as opposed to so many others has not leaked. Then I thought why could that be? I thought I'd ask on here and see what people had to say. I didn't think I'd get the same clowns in here tearing my head off, I really didn't. Some people pointed out good stuff on here that I read. INCLUDING THE FACT THE KILLERS JUST RELEASED AN ALBUM THAT DIDN'T LEAK.
Why couldn't that comment have been mentioned and then the discussion could have turned to, well why instead of thousands of personal attacks, or my argument being debunked? I just had a thought and wanted an educated discussion. You know - Are radio companies now doing something different? Is U2's management on this album unique? What are the economic reasons behind it when you consider how the record would do with out it?
Those were the types of things I wanted people to discuss rationally. Not just come on here and act like third graders who have nothing productive to say.
Assuming it was greed isn't very civil.
Yes.
I think it's so funny when people assume that it's the record company making U2's decisions for them.
Actually, no, he is money hungry for casting Leo DiCaprio in every fucking lead role now for the past 8 years! Get fucking De Niro back! We want Raging Bull 2!
The band are not the only people with a stake in this. In fact, the band are almost certainly not the people who are desperate to make sure this album doesn't leak. The people at the record label—the ones whose industry has been in jeopardy for a decade or so now, and whose jobs are disappearing by the month, and who depend on a handful of big releases each year making a lot of money—they are the people who have a real stake in this.
I would be shocked if any of the band bothered with any of the minutiae of making sure the album doesn't leak. You think Edge is writing memos to the CD pressing factory staff? U2's clout might matter, but I doubt it.
Honestly, probably a big reason the album hasn't leaked is because the people who work in the pressing factories and all down the line would like to keep their jobs very much more than has been the case in past years, thanks to the present economy. If I had to choose between (a) a steady wage and benefits or (b) possibly getting fired if I got caught and definitely costing the company that employs me some money, when it's already hemorrhaging it, I'd go with (a) too.
Between this and your album review, you are quickly becoming one of my favorite posters here. Good, insightful, common sense stuff. Losing your job is just not worth it, especially in these times when you may not find another one in the music industry or anywhere. This is not your run of the mill recession, and you would think most of these clowns like walkon would not need to be reminded of that, but evidently they do.
The best chance of a leak is some disgruntled person already on their way out at a radio station or reviewing publication getting their hands on a copy and letting it loose. However, and correct me if I am wrong as you seem to be an industry person in some way, these people I mentioned are not the ones usually in a position to have access to an unreleased album.
Assuming it was greed isn't very civil.
You just keep trying to cover your arse.
Between this and your album review, you are quickly becoming one of my favorite posters here. Good, insightful, common sense stuff. Losing your job is just not worth it, especially in these times when you may not find another one in the music industry or anywhere. This is not your run of the mill recession, and you would think most of these clowns like walkon would not need to be reminded of that, but evidently they do.
The best chance of a leak is some disgruntled person already on their way out at a radio station or reviewing publication getting their hands on a copy and letting it loose. However, and correct me if I am wrong as you seem to be an industry person in some way, these people I mentioned are not the ones usually in a position to have access to an unreleased album.
Actually no I'm not.
(soft voice, not angry, not argumentative, just talking) How is that not civil? It is an opinion? I didn't call them greedy capitalist pigs or bastards did I? I just thought it odd their album is one that hasn't leaked. They took a ton of hit in the past, this isn't my thought by the way. The whole Ipod debacle plus critics saying their music went corporate. This wasn't my original thought. I don't understand why saying they're being overly greedy warrants the amount of negative hate this thread has produced instead of a rational discussion.
(soft voice, not angry, not argumentative, just talking) How is that not civil? It is an opinion? I didn't call them greedy capitalist pigs or bastards did I? I just thought it odd their album is one that hasn't leaked. They took a ton of hit in the past, this isn't my thought by the way. The whole Ipod debacle plus critics saying their music went corporate. This wasn't my original thought. I don't understand why saying they're being overly greedy warrants the amount of negative hate this thread has produced instead of a rational discussion.
(soft voice, not angry, not argumentative, just talking) How is that not civil? It is an opinion? I didn't call them greedy capitalist pigs or bastards did I? I just thought it odd their album is one that hasn't leaked. They took a ton of hit in the past, this isn't my thought by the way. The whole Ipod debacle plus critics saying their music went corporate. This wasn't my original thought. I don't understand why saying they're being overly greedy warrants the amount of negative hate this thread has produced instead of a rational discussion.
And in that same calm, not angry, soft voice, I dont see how you can make the claim that U2 is greedy for wanting to control the release of an album they worked their asses of to try and make their best(in their upper 40s nonetheless) at considerable cost to their time, energy, families, etc. It is their work, they want to be compensated for it. As others have pointed out, it is not all money grubbing people in the industry, it is alot of people just like anyone trying to get by, get through college, get their kids through college, pay for parents' funerals, etc.
I appreciate the rational discussion, and I am more than willing to have one. Do you think the flack they took over I-Tunes was warranted in 2004? I dont think so, I always point people to what Larry said about as soon as we sign on that dotted line w/ a record company, our job is to make money selling our music. Anything after that is all the same, so one can not sell out at any point during their career, only at the initial decision to leave street corners and opening up at wet t shirt contests, which U2 did back in the 1970s.
I dont think the worst in you or anyone else here, and alot of people here have done alot more to prove to me that they are irrational than you have, so I dont think you are a troll or anything. I just do not see for the life of me how you make the leap from U2 wanting to control the release of their work to excessive greed.