yertle-the-turtle
ONE love, blood, life
tennispunk said:haha well i can't tell whether you're joking about that or not,
I was. I love the Clash, as everyone should.
tennispunk said:haha well i can't tell whether you're joking about that or not,
caylan said:
Maybe so. But the sledgehammer had to be brought down.
Why do ppl constantly denigrate U2 for creating music & offering different avenues to acquire it?
Isn't one of the sins - ENVY?
Maybe if we stop envying what others have & focus on our own bigger problems, things would be better in world.
SELFISH works both ways.
To come here & say the band sold out cause it's offering the same 11 songs (not counting fast cars) in different formats is ludicrous.
In this day & age, when you want to feel connected to your heros - U2 definintely is - their omnipresent media barrage makes them accessible. Not arrogant or money hungry.
MrBrau1 said:
Buy my new record
Send more money
Fuck you, buddy.
ponkine said:
your lovely daddy can buy you all that stuff, isn´t he ?
you still don´t know any shit about other countries situation
I´m not defending myself, I´m defending situation for South America and other regions you don´t care a shit, because you or your parents can buy you all that iPod, Collector´s editions, itunes, DVD´s, Books, etc and all that stuff people here simply can´t
I´m not denigrate U2 as a band, they´re fantastic. I´m in love with all 1980 - 1998 era. What I don´t respect is all that commercial attitude just for people from the first world they´ve been doing recently.
so please do yourself a favor. Stop being so selfish and try to see poorer people way. I know if you were been U2, you wouldn´t performed any Live Aid concert, because you´re blind and don´t care anything about poorer regions, that´s clear. Shameful
yertle-the-turtle said:
I was. I love the Clash, as everyone should.
tennispunk said:true
except i always piss off most of their fans by saying that "London Calling" is the most over-rated album of alltime. their s/t album and "Give 'Em Enough Rope" are far superior. IMO, LC is so famous b/c of the album cover.
ponkine said:I don´t know if they´re 100 % sell out, but one thing I´m sure of: This is the most commercial intended U2 era ever
I think many fans forget something: many of us we don´t live according to U.S nor U.K rules, I mean, we don´t have that need to have a credit card, even many people here don´t have a CHANCE to have one, because it´s so expensive
also here at least 90 % of people don´t use any new fashion like iPod. Still people here ( including me ) love to listen real CD´s instead
So maybe for you U2 isn´t so sell out, but for me...
with all that iPod, Apple Tunes, "Collector´s Edition", pay per view internet, expensive tickets, short and commercial albums, etc, etc it seems the band don´t care at all simple fans like me, and they really care about ones who have credit card and a lot of golden cash $$$$$
that´s really an insult for people like me, try to see my way, if you just live here in Chile or another poorer country
I really believe this is the worst U2 face ever, shameful.
starsforu2 said:I want to defend the $40 price tag for U2.com for fans...
Do you know how expensive it is to host a website? My meager little website with low traffic and little content costs me a flat fee every month.
Do you know how expensive it is to keep programmers and web developers around to update content, fix technical issues and redesign a website of this size? I don't know the answer off hand, but I would say that it would cost several hundred thousand dollars for the just the staff salaries involved.
So what do we get when the band does this? Is it worth $40? Well, I think it is for one reason and one reason alone... tickets.
If advance tickets were available to anyone who registered (without paying a fee) , scalpers who aren't fans would just register for free and then just send in their requests for tickets by the boatload thus beating all of us just want to get enough tickets for family and friends. The $40 price tag will help prohibit scalpers from taking the ticket risk (they may still pay it, but it's less appealing than free) which should free up more tickets for the rest of us who really want to be there. For me, this was always the best part of Propaganda. The magazines were nice, and the web content is nice, but the real thing is where I want to be and $40 is less than a new xbox game and a U2 concert is much more satisfying.
doctorwho said:
Wow! I may live in the U.S., but I simply cannot disagree with this sentiment more.
...
The main difference between 2004 and 1984 is the internet and media. In 1984, we didn't have instant access to info. We couldn't instantly see and hear everything about U2. Now we can - and it seems this advantage is making some of you realize that this band you idolized isn't quite as perfect as you thought. Trouble is, they never were. They were just as much "sell-outs" in 1981 as they are now - we just hear about it a LOT faster.
Flying FuManchu said:
Uhmmmm... correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it $40 a year for the membership to U2.com? So, if another tour comes around or if there is 2nd leg that starts up in 2005... shell out another $40 for U2.com just to get an "advantage" in pre-sale of tickets?
As for running a website and the cost incurred with it. My GOD!!! U2 is the freakin' biggest band in the world if not one of the biggest bands around. They have the full power of Interscope/ Universal backing them as well as having tons of cash in their own accounts or cash backing up their group that they call U2.
You don't think the record company wouldn't be willing to shell out big bucks for a competent official website in order to sell goods or promote the band. This is the 21st century. Its almost unheard of for a huge band or celebrity to not USE the internet or have web site. Any costs incurred at this point are "neccesary" and would be part of the "promotion" of U2. The idea that U2 NEEDS that $40 for their freakin official website is ridiculous to me (not inconceivable though). Hell, Interference (which happens to be better than u2.com) is basically run out of the pockets of Elvis and monthly donations/ memberships who don't have the wealth or power of Interscope or U2.
That $40 is U2 trying to pad its wallet and nothing more... cost of website.... LOL... Oh, yeah I feel bad for Interscope/ Universal (who by the way are hampering true fan websites who contribute a lot to U2 fans and the group's popularity for free. These fans sites doing much more than u2.com ever really did).
starsforu2 said:
I also think you misspoke on the tour. I think you meant 2006 not 2005. Membership will cover 2005, probably not 2006. If they tour or sell tickets at all for that year.
bonnevoix02 said:While I found agree that U2 has more than enough money and doesn't really need to make a profit, there's also hundreds, if not thousands, of people who depend on them for their jobs. These people have families just like anyone else. And I imagine when U2 makes decisions--business or otherwise--they think about their organization and the people whose livelihood depends on them.