U2's Bono to become the world's richest musician tomorrow - NME.com

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I think it was the other way around ie Katrina Benefit first, in Sept 2005. This was also long before the decision to cut the track was made. It was a taped for TV performance with no audience, so it would have been hard for them to judge "crowd" reaction at the time. Less than a month later, they asked her back onstage at MSG at a show and fuck yeah, it went off! I was there, it was amazing, moving, the crowd ate it up, a real highlight of the tour. Then they did it a few times later whenever they were in the same city. Finally, they recorded it using some studio vocals of hers and some stage recordings of One from the Vertigo tour, with some mixing and editing. Lastly (I think?) they did the video for it.

But your point is completely valid, there was likely a point where they all looked at each other and went 'wow, that was truly special, that needs to be cut properly' - it was totally a spontaneous organic thing that grew out of two artists with mutual respect for one another trying to do a good thing and show a UNITED FRONT IE ONE (in a time where we had Kanye saying GB doesn't care about black people, tensions high etc) and the notion that it was some sort of cash grab or cross marketing attempt is about as absurd as it gets. From what I recall they both happened to be in Toronto when the Katrina benefit was announced (unless of course, Paul McG plotted the hurricaine too...along with what else, 9/11 to boost ATYCLB sales? :rolleyes: )

It was arguably even more organic than The Wanderer, a song that Bono imagined Johnny Cash singing and went thru several iterations or at least working titles, finally to invite Cash to the studio specially to sing the song. That's about as contrived as it gets, no? But not even I would be so foolishly cynical to suggest that U2 teamed up with Cash to try to win over die hard country music fans or boost record sales off the back of Cash's popularity with his fans. Good grief!

they played the katrina benefit together...

mary decided to record the song for her upcoming album after that. while recording, she called u2 up and asked if bono would sing on the track. he didn't, but they gave her permission to use audio from the katrina benefit in the track. song, done. listen to the live version, listen to the "studio" version... bono's performance is exactly the same. why? because it's the same performance.

what a bunch of sellouts.
 
Some of you seem to be saying: "It's showmanship!" "It's smart marketing for the 21st century!" Okay, that's fine; I respect your opinion.

But now ask yourselves: What if Bono and Larry appeared in a McDonald's commercial? Would that be smart, and good marketing?

Probably not, right?

So, clearly there is a line drawn somewhere in everyone's personal parameters of good taste and necessity of self-promotion.

And all I am saying is, U2 crossed my personal parameters in the past dozen or more years. (And yes, there are thousands who feel like I do, whether you know it or not.)

That is all I'm saying. Thank you.

(P.S. I was never angry.)

that's fine.

my question then would be this... why are you still here?
 
Some of you seem to be saying: "It's showmanship!" "It's smart marketing for the 21st century!" Okay, that's fine; I respect your opinion.

But now ask yourselves: What if Bono and Larry appeared in a McDonald's commercial? Would that be smart, and good marketing?

The difference is that in a McD commerical, they would be advertising for McD. In contrast, by appearing in the Super Bowl, they are really advertising for themselves. Nothing wrong with that, IMO.

Also, Larry did do a Harley commercial back in the 80's. So....

And all I am saying is, U2 crossed my personal parameters in the past dozen or more years. (And yes, there are thousands who feel like I do, whether you know it or not.)

I accept your comments, but I caution you about revisionist history.

People used to say how U2 would never appear on SNL or the Grammy's or other things - they were too "cool" for that. BS! U2 appeared on dozens of shows in Ireland and the U.K. in the 80's. U2 had zero problems showing up in 1988 for their Grammy's. They had no issues doing the full press tour for R&H.

In other words, U2 did advertise - just using the means available at that time.

The world has changed. Advertising has changed. Radio has changed.

In the 80's and early 90's, one would hear new music from both established artists as well as brand new acts. Contrast that to today. When Steely Dan won "Album of the Year" a few years back, most people didn't even know they had released an album. They were considered a band of the 70's. If this were the 80's, chances are at least some of those Steely Dan songs would have been played - but in today's world radio ignored them all.

In the late 90's and early 00's, Moby and Sting both had poor-selling album, until TV commercials started using their songs. Suddenly, they had big selling albums. Sting was a famous artist, who had produced tons of great music. And the powers that be at radio yawned at his new release. He was probably considered an "80's leftover". Then the public heard his music and he had a hit album. Did radio learn its lesson? Of course not.

So U2, who could get music on radio in the 80's and 90's, now has to do all sorts of TV and promotion just to get noticed. Even younger successful artists have to do this.

You may feel U2 should never advertise or advertise VERY selectively. However, given that U2 can still generate Platinum albums even when they don't always have a hit song, clearly their strategy is working. So...
 
they played the katrina benefit together...

mary decided to record the song for her upcoming album after that. while recording, she called u2 up and asked if bono would sing on the track. he didn't, but they gave her permission to use audio from the katrina benefit in the track. song, done. listen to the live version, listen to the "studio" version... bono's performance is exactly the same. why? because it's the same performance.

what a bunch of sellouts.

Assuming that your last sentence is sarcastic..aren't we both basically the same thing? When I said "they recorded", I meant more "she recorded" and "they provided" the other audio elements. I don't know how much of the instrumentation came from Katrina or from later performances/recordings. All I was saying was the decision to allow her to do it/use their audio was spawned out of the Katrina and later performances, they mustve felt it was magical enough to allow the collaboration :shrug:
 
"Hey, can i bring my friend Larry to the jam tomorrow?"
"Sure! What instrument does he play?"
"The motorbike."

(At least, that's what i got from that video)
 
I like how NME is trying to do an about-face here now...

U2's Bono could lose $342 million after Facebook shares plummet | News | NME.COM

U2's Bono could lose $342 million after Facebook shares plummet

Facebook share prices have dropped 15.7 per cent in the last week



U2 frontman Bono has seen his vast fortune slip by $342 million (£218 million) in the last week, according to NME's calculations.

The singer owns 2.3 per cent of the shares in Facebook through his private equity firm, Elevation Partners, which they bought for $90 million (£57 million) in 2009.

When Facebook floated last week, 2.5 billion shares were issued at $38 (£24) a share, meaning Bono's firm's 57.5 million shares were worth $2.19 billion (£1.38 billion).

But, as the week has gone on, Facebook share price has fallen sharply and is now $32.05 (£20.45), meaning Bono's firm's stake is now worth $1.84 billion (£1.17 billion).

The U2 frontman has taken steps to distance himself from reports that he has become the richest musician in the world, overtaking Paul McCartney with his new Facebook windfall.

He told MSNBC: "Contrary to reports, I'm not a billionaire or going to be richer than any Beatle - and not just in the sense of money, by the way, The Beatles are untouchable - those billionaire reports are a joke."

He added: "In Elevation, we invest other people's money – endowments, pension funds. We do get paid of course. But you know, I felt rich when I was 20 years old and my wife was paying my bills. Just being in a band, I've always felt blessed. I got interested in technology because I'm an artist."

He continued: "Technology is huge, I wanted to learn about it. People might say that's odd, but I think it's odd if artists aren't interested in the world around them. I'm always chasing that. Facebook are an amazing team, a brilliant team, it's a technology that brings people together."

U2 are rumoured to be working on new material with One Direction's songwriters, according to reports, with Swedish pop svengali Carl Falk, who penned the boyband's 'What Makes You Beautiful' apparently on board.
 
These reports are a joke. The media acts as if Bono was personally winning and/or losing money when, in fact, he's only part of a larger company who invests money. It's not "his" firm, he's one of many.

according to NME's calculations.

Sure :lol:

Someone's bored.
 
The sad part is that the people who write these reports are fucked up journalists who are obsessed with money, yet they make about $40K a year but write like billionaires.
 
Wow. Not only was Bono never a billionaire but his meagre sub-billionaire net worth has taken a serious hit with the collapse in Facebook shares - and at a time when he is facing college bills, I'd imagine. Plus the fact that he is going bald - maybe from all the stress? Sucks to be him.
 
Too limited of a market to invest in.

Maybe he should invest 100% of what he's got into the next U2 album. :up:
 
Back
Top Bottom