doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
meriddle said:
In the 80's, U2 wouldn't have done something like an iPod commercial because they didn't HAVE to do an iPod commercial. Back then, bands - MANY BANDS - would get played on the radio (rock/pop stations). One could hear early rap. One could hear pop. One could hear music from a pseudo drag queen. One could hear alternative music. One could hear old punk. One could hear heavier rock. It was a wild mix and all had room - from classic artists to new artists. And they all worked well. One could have a Peter Gabriel or Don Henley song right next to Debbie Gibson. One could hear Quiet Riot after Culture Club. One could hear Blondie before Motely Crue. One could hear U2 after Micheal Jackson. One could hear REM then Madonna. One could hear Tiffany before INXS. MTV played videos from those artists. Radio played music from those artists. Hence, the need to advertise via TV was minimal. So, sometimes the notion of doing commercials was equivalent to "selling out".
But the world has changed vastly in 20 years. MTV and videos? I don't think so. Even the few videos they show are carefully selected. And rock/pop radio is even worse. They seem to latch onto an artist and play them to death. Kelly Clarkson's "Since U Been Gone" is a fun song - and I might've really liked it if I hadn't heard it every single time I happened to turn on the radio. Radio advertises "mix", but there really isn't any. Big pop/rock stations select from a very narrow list. If an artist isn't on there, there's no chance of breaking through.
Sadly, this includes past artists who have enjoyed tremendous success, like Sting. Around 2000, Sting did a Jaguar commercial which became a huge hit. This, in turn, helped make "Desert Rose", the song featured both in the commercial and his new album, a huge hit. This in turn made Sting's new album a huge hit. But why would Sting, a man who's enjoyed plenty of hits as part of the Police and as a solo artist, need to do this? Because radio wasn't playing his music. Turns out, radio was wrong - what a surprise! People wanted to hear this. But they didn't even know it was out there.
Sadly, this is what U2 is up against now. U2 members are in their mid-40's. The group has been around for 25+ years. Radio doesn't think they are hip any more, despite hit songs, sold out tours and multi-platinum albums. Despite awards and better sales than many of the "hot" artists radio and MTV promote, U2 has to keep fighting to get heard. For example, look at the almost non-existence of U2 on the radio after "Vertigo". Some rock stations would play follow-up songs, but the lack of radio play left these songs floundering. Despite a big hit album and big hit song, U2's subsequent singles were inexplicably left stranded by radio.
So U2 found the one way they could break through with dignity and class. Yes, they were in a commercial. But the iPod was still growing in 2004. U2 wanted to be part of that forward thinking. People were downloading songs. That is a part of life. Why not make a legal way for them to download the song? Why not make money from those downloads? Why not advertise your new album, while showing people that there is a LEGAL alternative to downloading. Why not advertise yourself while showing people a new way to listen to music? And, refuse to take money for this as a sign of your integrity. It's smart all the way around.
If Flea is really resistant to iTunes, then he's no better than a guy stuck on 8-tracks when CD's came out. Even though CD's are thin, small and transportable, they can only hold so much music. iPods hold tons and give a great variety. These mp3 players, whether they be iPods or another brand, are here to stay. And labels and music artists have to adjust to this and learn to love it. My iPod holds country, classical music, remixes, rock, pop and even old 50's tunes. I have Sinatra and Beethoven! I have oceans of U2, but I even have Beatles' remixes! It's this variety that I love. And it's all on one small iPod, not 500 CD's! And the portability is huge. I can hear all this music at home, in my car, or at work - and not lug around CD's.
So U2's move was to the future. Yes, "Vertigo" was initially associated with the iPod commercial. But after the tour and release of the album, I no longer feel that's true. The commercial has long since stopped playing. When I hear "Vertigo", I think of the album and mostly the tour - not iPod. Commercials are fleeting. But even if others do think of the iPod, is that really so bad? It's like doing a commercial for a music store. One is simply advertising one's music. And reqally, isn't that the purpose of radio and MTV? Years ago, people would remember a song for its great video. Sadly, now, we might remember it for its commercial!
Maybe the Chili Peppers don't yet need the help of commercials to sell music. Although, even that statement is a bit questionable given some of their prior appearances on TV and movies. But, it's clear to me that U2 does need this extra boost. I would contend that HTDAAB would have sold maybe only half of what it did in the U.S. without that commercial. The die-hards would have bought it along with those happy who loved the music from the tour. But that's it. Look at "Pop". U2 had to promote the heck out of ATYCLB to get it to 4M in U.S. sales. And each U2 appearance on TV worked. The same was true for HTDAAB.
It's sad - it really is. So much great music, and not just U2, is being overlooked. Sometimes I hear about new artists in Best Buy, of all places, because they will play a song from a new artist and advertise it. Is that selling out too? But if radio or MTV won't play this artist, Best Buy becomes the last alternative! And if I'm resorting to a random walk through in a Best Buy to hear a new song from a new artist, then that's pretty bad!
So sorry Chili Peppers, but I disagree. And I have a feeling it won't be long before you are also "selling out" just to get your music heard. Look at the artists doing these iPod commercials - from small to big. All of whom are just trying to advertise their music. Commercials have essentially become the new MTV. What radio did for artists in the 50's-70's, MTV did for artists in the 80's and 90's. Now, with the essential collapse of radio and MTV to select songs, commercials have replaced both. I've actually heard new and better songs on TV than I have on radio or MTV. Trust me, it won't be long before the Chili Peppers find themselves doing the same thing.
Last edited:
wh-wh-whaaa?
a lot of people don't realize that U2 didn't take money for the iPod ad and that it was essentially self-promotion, not "here, buy this unrelated product." I mean, the commercial was basically saying "yo, buy Vertigo on iTunes." how is that selling out? 
)
Amen to everything said above.
