I hope Bono sold early...
I hope Bono sold early...
I hope Bono sold early...
I hope Bono sold early...
I hope Bono sold early...
I hope Bono sold early...
.I hope Bono sold early...
I hope Bono sold early...
I hope Bono sold early...
I hope Bono sold early...
I hope Bono sold early...
I hope Bono sold early...
I hope Bono sold early...
I hope Bono sold early...
.I hope Bono sold early...
I hope Bono sold early...
As already stated, my feelings have absolutely nothing to do with how much money U2 has.If Bono was penniless and living in a cardboard box with only a guitar, three chords, and the truth, then he'd have some integrity. And BO. And fleas. But everyone would love him and think he was a saint, right?
played the Superbowl
taken iPod corporate sponsorship
duetted with Mary J. Blige
The Panther said:As already stated, my feelings have absolutely nothing to do with how much money U2 has.
I'm fairly sure they could have not played the Superbowl, not taken iPod corporate sponsorship, not duetted with Mary J. Blige, and still Bono wouldn't have had to live in a cardboard box.
Show more nipples. It's the only way.
False. For example, I don't like Bon Iver or Bon Jovi, but if U2 collaborates with them, I don't think they've lost any integrity.U2 can only collaborate with artists that I like.
False. I have nothing against big gigs per se, although I would prefer them to be saved for special occasions or a few select giant markets, as I personally don't think stadium rock is a force for good in the world. But in any case, U2 played mega-gigs in the 80s and 90s and it didn't bother me. However, the Superbowl strikes me as indicative of a lack of integrity. For one thing, do U2 even know what American football is, or what teams were playing? It's sort of akin to Larry King interviewing Johnny Rotten or something -- it's just invalid. But that's a minor point. What's more awful is that the Superbowl is obviously associated with (a) the highest-possible ratings to the lowest common denominator audience, (b) the worst mainstream artists for safe consumption for middle-class housewives, and (c) corporate sponsorship of the most gargantuan type.Big gigs steal your soul.
I generally think so, yeah. (And it's not exactly a "free commercial" -- maybe they weren't paid in cash, but their music was heavily marketed thereafter by iPod and they got endless airtime of their single not by its own merit, but by iPod's corporate power.)And doing a free commercial for a groundbreaking innovation of music is the definition of flushing your integrity away.
However, the Superbowl strikes me as indicative of a lack of integrity. For one thing, do U2 even know what American football is, or what teams were playing? It's sort of akin to Larry King interviewing Johnny Rotten or something -- it's just invalid. But that's a minor point.
not duetted with Mary J. Blige,
False. For example, I don't like Bon Iver or Bon Jovi, but if U2 collaborates with them, I don't think they've lost any integrity.
What I dislike is collaborations with artists that U2 have nothing in common with musically or socially, which are blatantly done as a crossover-marketing attempt (not to mention intentionally hawking an already done-to-death song). Case in point: duetting with Mary J. Blige.
If the U2 of today went back to 1987, instead of collaborating with the 'New Voices of Freedom' amateur choir in Harlem, they likely would have collaborated with Lisa Lisa & Cult Jam or C&C Music Factory. Why, just imagine the dollars!
I happen to thing that the One collaboration with MJB is absolutely dreadful, but that's a personal taste thing. I honestly think it's pretty cool that they did it. I certainly have no moral issues with it.
Don't get me wrong, no one on earth hates Bon Jovi more than I do -- if U2 duetted with them, I would have to garbage all my U2 records. However, at least I could rest easy feeling that it was less a marketing scheme than genuine mutual interest between the groups.ETA: A duet with Bon Jovi doesn't compromise U2's integrity, but a duet with MJB does? Are you high?
What did U2 have in common with Johnny Cash sonically? I mean you must have hated the 90's when bands like Pearl Jam were collaborating with rap artists just blantantly trying for that crossover market. THIS point is probably one of the most ridiculous I've heard.What I dislike is collaborations with artists that U2 have nothing in common with musically or socially, which are blatantly done as a crossover-marketing attempt (not to mention intentionally hawking an already done-to-death song). Case in point: duetting with Mary J. Blige.
Middle-class housewives? Do you even know anything about American Football?False. I have nothing against big gigs per se, although I would prefer them to be saved for special occasions or a few select giant markets, as I personally don't think stadium rock is a force for good in the world. But in any case, U2 played mega-gigs in the 80s and 90s and it didn't bother me. However, the Superbowl strikes me as indicative of a lack of integrity. For one thing, do U2 even know what American football is, or what teams were playing? It's sort of akin to Larry King interviewing Johnny Rotten or something -- it's just invalid. But that's a minor point. What's more awful is that the Superbowl is obviously associated with (a) the highest-possible ratings to the lowest common denominator audience, (b) the worst mainstream artists for safe consumption for middle-class housewives, and (c) corporate sponsorship of the most gargantuan type.
So now you lose integrity points by being smart? In the mid 2000s the music video is a dying artform, how was this any different than MTV picking and choosing what songs get heavy rotation? There have been plenty of artist that have done iPod commercials, some successful some not, so apparently the song's merit does matter some, Apple can't force all "lowest common denominator" audiences to like a song.I generally think so, yeah. (And it's not exactly a "free commercial" -- maybe they weren't paid in cash, but their music was heavily marketed thereafter by iPod and they got endless airtime of their single not by its own merit, but by iPod's corporate power.)
Spoken from someone who obviously wasn't around then. U2 got all kind of flack from 1980 to 1993. There were the "integrity crowd" complaining how they did music videos, complaining how they did an NBA tie-in in 1988, how they embraced electronic music and backing tracks during live shows. The list goes on and on, and looks very similiar to yours, just different mediums different times.I realize that some people are not bothered by bands going to the Nth-degree to get exposure. But I am. U2 worked hard to be a big group from 1980 to 1993, but they didn't stoop to sacrificing integrity to do it.
Don't get me wrong, no one on earth hates Bon Jovi more than I do -- if U2 duetted with them, I would have to garbage all my U2 records. However, at least I could rest easy feeling that it was less a marketing scheme than genuine mutual interest between the groups.
(Thanks for the polite and respectful tone in which you framed your four-letter words of rage, by the way.)
False. For example, I don't like Bon Iver or Bon Jovi, but if U2 collaborates with them, I don't think they've lost any integrity.
What I dislike is collaborations with artists that U2 have nothing in common with musically or socially, which are blatantly done as a crossover-marketing attempt (not to mention intentionally hawking an already done-to-death song). Case in point: duetting with Mary J. Blige.
If the U2 of today went back to 1987, instead of collaborating with the 'New Voices of Freedom' amateur choir in Harlem, they likely would have collaborated with Lisa Lisa & Cult Jam or C&C Music Factory. Why, just imagine the dollars!
False. I have nothing against big gigs per se, although I would prefer them to be saved for special occasions or a few select giant markets, as I personally don't think stadium rock is a force for good in the world. But in any case, U2 played mega-gigs in the 80s and 90s and it didn't bother me. However, the Superbowl strikes me as indicative of a lack of integrity. For one thing, do U2 even know what American football is, or what teams were playing? It's sort of akin to Larry King interviewing Johnny Rotten or something -- it's just invalid. But that's a minor point. What's more awful is that the Superbowl is obviously associated with (a) the highest-possible ratings to the lowest common denominator audience, (b) the worst mainstream artists for safe consumption for middle-class housewives, and (c) corporate sponsorship of the most gargantuan type.
I generally think so, yeah. (And it's not exactly a "free commercial" -- maybe they weren't paid in cash, but their music was heavily marketed thereafter by iPod and they got endless airtime of their single not by its own merit, but by iPod's corporate power.)
I realize that some people are not bothered by bands going to the Nth-degree to get exposure. But I am. U2 worked hard to be a big group from 1980 to 1993, but they didn't stoop to sacrificing integrity to do it.
What I dislike is collaborations with artists that U2 have nothing in common with musically or socially, which are blatantly done as a crossover-marketing attempt (not to mention intentionally hawking an already done-to-death song). Case in point: duetting with Mary J. Blige.
If the U2 of today went back to 1987, instead of collaborating with the 'New Voices of Freedom' amateur choir in Harlem, they likely would have collaborated with Lisa Lisa & Cult Jam or C&C Music Factory. Why, just imagine the dollars!
U2 & MJB's version of One is better than the original, and just behind Cash's reading.
She just takes that tune and makes it defiant, she owns it. Brilliant tune. 3 recording with completely different tones.
U2 & MJB's version of One is better than the original, and just behind Cash's reading.
She just takes that tune and makes it defiant, she owns it. Brilliant tune. 3 recording with completely different tones.
There's quite a difference between making heaps of money from (non-corporate, lest we forget, prior to 1997) concerts