U2 in the Super Bowl...how low can they go?!?!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
H

Hawkfire

The Fly
Joined
Jun 26, 2001
Messages
295
Location
Chicago, IL
So it looks like from youtwo.net that U2 will appear at halftime of the Super Bowl. YUCK. Playing tunes to a bunch of non-fans. Perhaps Britney and Justin will join them for a duet ala Aerosmith. YUCK.

This Elevation tour has REALLY run its course. It should have closed up shop after Slane, after 80 hard-hitting dates with exciting setlists, 23 song concerts, tons of energy. Is it just me or does it seem:

(1)U2 is desperate to sell more records. Perhaps McGuinness swindled their money away or they donated it all to Bono's drop the debt campaign but U2 seem really grabby for cash at the moment - and consequently will demean themselves and their legacy with these embarrassing promotions.

(2)U2 is equally willing to clutch onto anything "American" in the wake of 9/11. Yeah, rah rah USA..okay, enough already. I'm tired of my favorite band - from Ireland - inexplicably declaring themselves
chief mourners. U2 - once a brash political band - is now so political correct it is almost sickening. Posting the names of the passengers on their video screen is tacky and unnecessary. Read a great review of their LA show in the news section of atu2.com for a viewpoint I completely agree with.
 
There are tons of rumors out there. It may be best to hold back your lambasting until after the Super Bowl rumor is confirmed.

Regarding the tour, perhaps U2 wanted to extend it because they might not tour again for a while. Or if U2 does tour, they may visit other parts of the world. In other words, U2 may have wanted to "saturate" the U.S. as much as possible since they may not return for a while. This doesn't make them greedy. Rather, it makes them considerate of their fans. Furthermore, U2 have returned to the U.S. in all of their previous tours, so they aren't doing anything unusual here.

As for being "too American..." I have found it refreshing yet odd that just about every critic has praised U2's post-Sept. 11th concerts. Many write that U2 before was "good" but now they are "great." I disagree with this statement. I saw three Elevation shows before Sept. 11th and one after. The shows before were just as moving and powerful as the one after. I think the difference is not in U2 so much as in the audience - the audience, including these holier-than-thou critics, are finally realizing the beauty of U2's music.

Nonetheless, this type of praise shows that the country really appreciates U2. It also shows that U2 are understanding and compassionate towards a country not used to terrorism. Coming from Ireland, I feel U2 are perfect for this role - and clearly the audience agrees. This hardly means that U2 are extolling anything American.
 
Nice post doctorwho, you pretty much summed up my opinion about the tour and U2 currently.

Regarding the Super Bowl. I dont have a problem with it as long as they are not performing with a bunch of teeny boppers. It would be cool for some performers like Michael Stipe, Peter Gabriel, Sting, etc. to join them on stage for a few songs. I dont think any U2 fan would have a problem with that. If they do like Aerosmith (this is IF they even perform at the Super Bowl) then I will agree that it was a bad thing. But it has the possibility of being super cool also. After all, its U2!
 
Doctorwho: Said it perfectly, as always.


And, I like them playing at the Superbowl. The U.S.A's biggest game every year and U2 will be there, I'm excited.



------------------
"Work like you don't need the money, love like you've never been hurt, live like there is no tomorrow, dance like no one is watching." --Bono

"The only limits are the limits of our imagination. Dream up the kind of world you want to live in. Dream out loud. At high VOLUME".
 
I agree with just about everything U2 has been doing lately, BUT, please no superbowl performance. Every superbowl performance I've seen seems to fall pretty flat. They wheel out a little stage into the middle of the field, the band looks out of place, the sound sucks, and the crowd isn't into it unless there is tons of fireworks, etc. What U2 song works with fireworks? Bullet?
 
I won't comment on the Super Bowl rumour cause it's just that -- a rumour

but I do think U2 is obsessed with being "the biggest band in the world"

and yes, the greatest hits setlists are disappointing to me, only because I like just about every song in their catalogue, but I realize they have to "make the casual fans happy"
 
If U2 does perform at the Superbowl, I doubt we would be disappointed. They'd probably blow everybody's minds.

------------------
"I don't know you,
But you don't know the half of it..."
 
Originally posted by vox626:
I know it sounds crazy, but how about this, U2 might even be trying to make some money, I mean its the way they make their living its their job.
Click to expand...
I thought they all had a REAL job and this music thing was just a hobby

tongue.gif


------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it
 
WHy does anyone care if U2 plays the SuperBowl and my God, why the hell is it seen as a bad thing??? To me it is one more opportunity to see the best band in the world. And my favorite band too.

I do not fool myself into thinking this is the band that I fell in love with in 1983, a band that said there is only one true flag, and waved a white flag of surrender.

The year is 2001. I am not 16 anymore I am 34. The members of U2 are not 21-23, they are 39-41.

The world has changed, how can you not expect the humans that make up this band to have done the same?

Time for a reality check....
 
First thing: we always discuss here about how the lbum is selling, that it should stay up on the chart as long as it can, and now when they are playing at superbowl - which will certanly boost album sales - we tend to criticise it.
I'm sure that if they are going to do it that they will kick ass and that all the critics will say that it's the best performace on the superbowl ever - we know they can do it.
Why is it good that they are touring US again - i read the article about how every act is cancaling their shows in US, and the only ones who can tour sucesfully and with purpose and healing power is U2 - heck they are writeing that it has healing efect... - great marketing efect
on other hand - they are doing it mostly for the money. Wake up people, if they were doing it for the loyal fans than they would put up cheaper tickets - i mean, one of the biggest grossing tours in the US, and it's indors - all other big grossing tours were outdors in stadiums.
So don't tell me that they are doing it for the fans b/c then they would tour Australia, S.America, Asia and all the places full of fans who never in their lives saw them live...
Don't make saints out of them (remember HMTMKMTM lyrics), they are hard working men who earn a lot of money while making in fair and making a lot of people happy...(for big bucs)
 
i, for one, am glad the boys are banking some cash this time around--it's a nice change of pace. when was the last major tour they did that they didn't pretty much lose money? and this is after scaling down their product, not building up and selling out. as for the super bowl, if it is true, the sound might not be great, the crowd might not be slane, but we're talking about U2 here, and the story goes that they will have 10 min to do as they wish, so you know they'll kick ass! after 30+ years of sorry halftime shows, how can anyone here complain?
 
I agree with DoctorWho!



------------------
I know someday you'll have a beautiful life.
I know you'll be a star in somebody else's sky
but why, why, why can't it be, oh, can't it be mine?



(??.?(?*?.? ?.?*?)?.??)
?.???. *Monica*.???.?
(?.??(?.??* *??.?)??.)
 
Let's leave it until it's confirmed. I for one, would love to see U2 perform the superbowl. Provided it's done tastefully...I don't want to see them singing along with Britney and Justin.
Maybe U2 really is obsessed with being the biggest band in the world.
As for the greatest hits setlist, at Slane they played ASOH. Listen to the background nopise. HALf the people there didn't know it...many didn't care. What do you do? Play obsure songs to make the die-hards happy, or play greatest hits to satisfy the masses?
 
DoctorWho, first off I love your chartwork on Where The Album. I agree with a lot of your points, I understand U2 generally includes a 2nd American leg on the tour, I was not at all surprised to see more dates added.

From my perspective, the Leg III shows seems overly scripted (even by U2 standards), right down to Bono crying into the flag during Sunday Bloody Sunday. It's a bit much for me, someone who loved the Leg I and II shows I saw. To be fair, I still very much enjoyed the Leg III shows I attended, to those who would say "well don't go then if it's so bad." Nevertheless, I am disheartened like so many others by the harsh attrition of songs such as "The Fly" at the expense of the "fan friendly" casual U2: SBS and Pride.

And in response to Headache's post, my problem with the names is that I while I understand the sentiment, I'd rather hear of U2 donating some of the $120M they've earned on tour this year to the victim's families then to include their names in the show. It's just not necessary for a rock concert. Bono could make mention of it in the lyrics of 'New York' and that would definitely be warranted and a nice gesture, but to script your entire encore on the events seems forced. I saw a rock show at the Double Door last week here in Chicago, and (naturally) there was no mention of 9/11. Not surprisingly, nobody accused this band of being unpatriotic.

Finally, with regards to the Super Bowl, yes, it is still unconfirmed so perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself. But I hope its untrue. While some people say "what's wrong with getting to see U2," even those wearing the most Bono-tinted glasses can see this would be done SOLELY to move albums off the shelves - $$$$$. I'd like to think U2's SONGS could shift albums in stores...a novel concept that has worked well historically. A bit odd that such marketing/promotion is deployed for an album that has already sold over 10M copies...when will U2 be satisfied? When the last Britney-N Sync-loving 12 year old girl purchases their copy? I'd like to think U2 aren't that DESPERATE. I'd like the return of the U2 of Zooropa/POP - "we don't NEED this/them."

Fire away...
 
I'll tell you why it absolutely can be seen as a bad thing, U2LA...

Because Aerosmith looked like idiots when they did it last year. That's why. They looked like complete and utter fools out there, and 9 out of 10 would agree with that.

Why? Obviously because they teamed up with 'NSync & Britney on the medley.

If U2 goes out and performs Walk On and/or Stuck in a Moment and/or New York by themselves it will be great. If they ham it up with a bunch of teeny boppers they'll be blasted by a lot of people; including many on this board...and probably with good reason.

But as doctorwho said, at this point it's all just speculation.
 
I don't see how playing the Super Bowl would be so bad. If U2 declines the offer, we'll probably have to sit through NSync or some pop crap group. Shouldn't we be glad that U2 is gaining some ground?

------------------
The one and only!
 
I got one-maybe U2 added a third leg to their tour to....and get this crazy shit.........promote their album and to play more dates so that fans who might not have seen them the first time around could see them again! I know it sounds crazy, but how about this, U2 might even be trying to make some money, I mean its the way they make their living its their job. I must say if they play the super bowl I would think it would be a bit tacky but to say U2 should have stopped touring after slane?????Are you a fuckin joke. Not to mention EVERY tour, they have come back to the USA, I mean have you been a U2 fan for a year. ZOO TV they toured the USA twice, POPMART they toured the USA twice, Joshua Tree...TWICE the second time it was stadiums. So, of all places a U2 forum to criticize U2, and for no good reason, except the super bowl thing(maybe). One last point, i dont think they are trying to milk their new album for more sales because it has already sold 10million worldwide and 3million in the USA, better then almost all their albums for the FIRST year!!!! Im done know
smile.gif
 
Hawkfire I agree with every little thing you said in your posts....
I've really started to doubt U2 lately.
It seems a hell lot of the things I fell in love with in the band, has disappeared. It makes me very sad.
 
I think U2 are ravenously suckling away at the captive and lucrative American market, in hot pursuit of high selling marks for their album and tour. I very much doubt theyll ever be touring beyond the parts of the world theyve covered this year, these shows are lucrative, massively popular and relatively close to home...

-------------
'No Chance.' Larry Mullen jnr When asked by a fan about A possible tour of Australia.
 
No.1 Areosmith are idiots

No.2 U2 are not

Thus performance will not suck

So fuck all of you who are so quick to critisise. It was the same shit when ATYCLB came out. "It's not what they promised" Blah, blah "Its not inovative" Blah, blah "It sounds too much(LOL) like U2"

Jesus FUCKING Christ, Shut up!
What the fuck have U2 done so wrong that they need this kind of bull shit from thier own fans.
 
Originally posted by Hawkfire:
I'd like the return of the U2 of Zooropa/POP
Click to expand...
I don't
(though I love Zooropa)

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[This message has been edited by Salome (edited 11-19-2001).]
 
The majority of people just don't care about this.

Think about it... all those people that hate U2 for being pious and sincere and political... how can they when U2 appear at the SUPERBOWL??
 
"Finally, with regards to the Super Bowl, yes, it is still unconfirmed so perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself. But I hope its untrue. While some people say "what's wrong with getting to see U2," even those wearing the most Bono-tinted glasses can see this would be done SOLELY to move albums off the shelves - $$$$$."

Maybe it's just that some people's lack of rose-tinted glasses lets them enjoy U2 without putting them on a pedestal, so the idea of U2 doing something purely commercial (and probably fun, too) doesn't ruin anything. I mean, even when they started off with the dreams of becoming the biggest band in the world, I just somehow strongly doubt that there was absolutely no thoughts of the big money that would come with it, youthful idealism or not,
smile.gif


"I'd like to think U2's SONGS could shift albums in stores...a novel concept that has worked well historically."

Truth is, most people can't be bothered to spend their time and money on actually finding good music by themselves. Word-of-mouth helps, of course, but hype and promotion are still essential.

"A bit odd that such marketing/promotion is deployed for an album that has already sold over 10M copies...when will U2 be satisfied? When the last Britney-N Sync-loving 12 year old girl purchases their copy?

I'd like to think U2 aren't that DESPERATE. I'd like the return of the U2 of Zooropa/POP - "we don't NEED this/them."

Sure, they could afford to say that back when they were still at the top of the charts. Then the mainstream public lost interest and that nearly got them written off as the middle-aged failures by the end of the 90s. Despicably commercial as it may be, you do need the mainstream public to be the biggest band in the world as U2 want it. You can always argue how far can you go in wooing the public without looking like total dickheads in the process, but I think that if U2 REALLY decided to lose their dignity they would do something really stupid like going nu-metal or making an album with teeny-bopper guest-star on every track. What they've done so far is pretty innocent, IMO.
 
Originally posted by U2LA:
WHy does anyone care if U2 plays the SuperBowl and my God, why the hell is it seen as a bad thing??? To me it is one more opportunity to see the best band in the world. And my favorite band too.

Click to expand...
Originally posted by NicaMom:

I have to agree with that!
Click to expand...

I agree as well, I think that about sums it up. I'd rather see U2 perform than Michael Jackson or anyone else for that matter....this could go down as the greatest half time performance ever....If they do it and do 2 songs, my guess is Elevation and Stuck.....


[This message has been edited by ZOOTB (edited 11-19-2001).]
 
Honestly, I'm distressed because this means one of two things happened:

1) The Super Bowl Halftime Committee drastically raised their standards from last year's N*Sync/Aerosmith danceoff.

2) U2 are now officially a "flavor of the month," succumbing to the lowest common denominator just to be the world's biggest band for a brief moment, then fading off into irrelevance.

Unless they throw in a curveball like "The Fly" at halftime, they'll have a lot to prove to me come their next album. God help them if they play "New York" and "Stuck...." GRRRRRRR!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Headache in a Suitcase
  • Sticky
U2 in Vegas - Tips for booking hotels, flights and other Vegasy type things.
20 21 22
Replies
642
Views
33K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
H
Every Breaking Wave - has the full band version from the album ever been played live?
Replies
12
Views
2K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
D
Paul Epworth provides some interesting insight into U2's songwriting process.
Replies
24
Views
2K
An Cat Gav
An Cat Gav
MrsSpringsteen
New U2 Stamps
Replies
7
Views
719
david
david
C
Happy that they still bleed when cut
Replies
7
Views
2K
lazarus
lazarus

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom