Boudist - music and photography

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

no.

U2 are whores, fallen to the capitalist machine. Their agenda has always been self promotion rather than politics.

Ayesha, if you'd said that yesterday i'd have called you a lying stinking meanie, however, now you're right (about the shameless self promotion).
*weeps* despite the fact that U2, Vertigo, the iPod and Mark Romanek are a few of my favourite things.

Maybe the devil made them do it...?

First of all, I never said that about Jet, I just said that they suck. Oh yeah and something about them being no talent hacks. (Incidentally, that song is on like every other ad, Apple should have negotiated a bit more exclusive deal methinks)

Now as for U2, i'd have to say the same except that it much, much, older news.

I've gotta say i view it a little less harshly. U2, as much as any other band want to get their music out there and get be heard. I also think they genuinely believe the iPod and iTunes are cool products, Bono's been praising the iPod since it was released and i think they're interested in new ways to distribute music. I'm not aware of U2 endorsing or advertising a product before, they're very selective. And it's not like they're advertising beer or a car or something. The product is directly related to what they do, which is making music.

Saying all that, i do think that U2 has become a bit of an industry, rather than just a band who make music. There's so much money riding on the back of a new u2 album it ain't funny. So like the launch of any new product, a new U2 album needs a big ad campaign. And unfortunately, because so much money is at stake i'm sure the music becomes more palatable to a mass audience, less innovation, more of the same. They've got stadiums to fill and homes on the riviera to buy.

Personally i thought that the Regurgitator band in a bubble publicity stunt was a great idea. Sure it's crass commercialism, but it gets the band's name out there and lets people know to expect a new album. Why not manipulate the media for one's own gain? It's cheaper than paying for ads.

And about U2's agenda being self promotion rather than politics, i'm not sure that's fair. As a band i think it's neccesary to engage in self promotion. You can't just make your music in a studio and expect everyone to listen to it if you don't self promote. And i don't think they use their political causes to enhance the band's publicity. I think the way Bono get's himself photographed with Tony Blair, George Bush or whoever actually harms their image. It makes people like you and i label them as publicity seeking whores. Call me naive but i think Bono is doing this because he thinks it's the most effective way to use his notoriety.

There's my rant for this morning...

I just thought about this... If U2 were advertising say, Microsoft's new music service i'd be the first one calling for their heads. Perhaps i'm defending them because i'm blinded by my fondness of Apple.

yes d, i have to agree that my love for Apple is stopping me from giving Bono the all over spanking with a wet plimsol he so thoroughly deserves. but what's more sad about the whole thing is how indicitive it is of the shape of the music industry today - it's commerce first, art second.

I think a lot of folks will have mixed feelings about this... The biggest band in the world endorsing the most popular music download site and personal music player, it's hardly a surprise is it?
It is a big business and as dan said that's what 'The Music'(TM)is about nowadays kids... And to be honest if it keeps apple rolling on, happy and healthy too, well, I am not going to complain!

As for U2... I am just waiting for them to start ripping off Joy Division again.
They'll probably disapear up their own arses and impload.

Who can really know Bono's intention, I don't have a window into his soul. But, I do think that everytime he does something philanthropic he loves to put himself on a pedestal and postulate. There are so many bands that help out charity's without bigging themselves up. There is one thing making sure that something gets publicity, its something totally different when the publicity centres around you with whatever cause you're carting along is on the periphery. If we're talking about generating a sustainable interest in a particular cause, that takes alot more than a corporate band sticking their faces on it.

that criticism is levelled at Bono all the time - and i'd have to say that i'd much prefer it if he kept out of view while undertaking all the work he does - however i wouldn't doubt his intentions, which are noble. it's difficult to say if or not his celebrity draws attention to the cause, or draws attention to Bono, it's probably both. but the fact that he is an activist and not sitting up in his mansion growing his fortune is inspiring to me.

dazza, if you want to hear someone ripping off joy division, have you heard the new Interpol record?

Wait a minute, does that mean Interpol are done ripping off Television? Oh well, at least they have good taste.

wait wait wait - U2 are not a 'corporate' band, at least they weren't up until getting into bed with apple. they have never accepted corporate sponsorship on any of their tours, nor have they ever licensed any of thier tracks to advertisers, up until now (they have licensed out tracks to sport coverage on the provisor that their royalties went to designated charities.) ontop of that, they don't just adopt fashionable causes - what they do campaign for (amnesty international, greenpeace, AIDS awareness,) they have been for what is going on 20 years, it's not "whatever cause you're carting along on the periphery". so grrrr.

it cracks me up that people are always accusing U2 of selling out (which they had to go and ruin by actually doing), while Moby gets off scot free when he licenses EVERY TRACK off his record to a dozen different products. or when as a band like Nirvana are held up as some deities of the sacred underground - which is hilarious when you consider the fact that Kurt Cobain sat down with meta producer Butch Vig and said "i want this record to outsell REM and U2 together," and then consented to the changes demanded by Walmart to the cover of Nevermind before they would put it on their shelves. U2 managed to get copies of their record out with full frontal male nudity.

so in summation, U2 suck for: attemting to make apathetic, selfish, affluent young people politically aware; selling tonnes of records; ripping of joy division (and television) which is ok for Interpol; selling thier soul to an mp3 player. i'll give you the last one at a pinch.

I'll stand behind you on that one elmo.

Blimey!
Fair points elmo, I do think the problem has been people see Bono and they read U2. When in fact U2 have been supporting charities for years without the sort of publicity Bono gets by just being Bono.

(I have to say though even if his motives for charity work are led by his ego does that make it any less worthwhile? He is out there doing stuff and getting attention for it, so what if he gets off on it? Who gives a shit if it actually works??)

As for Joy Division... I actually liked U2 when they were ripping off Joy Division!
Nothing wrong with that... I suppose I am just dreading the new album...

Obviously I have upset a few people, which is the risk you take when perniciously starting a debate. U2 are not emblematic of music corporatism, and Moby for example is a bigger whore (who produces worse music). It is better that they're partaking in some kind of activism in whatever form than sitting in their private jets drinking caviar. Even if I find them self absorbed in their own blandness, that doesn't negate the fact that they do some good work and raise a profile for whichever cause they're championing. But, from an activists point of view, this doesn't generate a long term interest in any given cause. I know that this is not what you're disputing, but if they really wanted to stand behind any single issue campaign they should bring the cause to the fore of their fame and notoriety not just use their notoriety to promote a campaign (ie: providing a platform for the affected to speak, rather than speaking for them). You could argue that this is one and the same thing. Maybe they do this already, if so, I'm more than happy to eat my words. But as an observer of Bono, from the outside (ie: not being a fan) it appears that the politics are secondary to the fact the HE is promoting the political issue. I am certainly not alone in this perception. I think that to make 'apathetic, selfish, affluent young people' politically aware would be to empower them to think reflectively about their own activism (or lack of). This is in opposition to merely telling their fans that world problems exist. Radiohead are a good example of this, as their music and their political views are conveyed through their reflections of power that resonate in our daily lives, as well as taking an active stance on issue such as the world debt and war. I mainly said what I said because everytime I see Bono championing a cause it seems abit empty, I can't seem to get behind his aesthetic. I'm willing to accept that my lack of love for U2's music has clouded my perceptions on the group. But also, as an activist of 9 years I tend to expect alot more from other activists.

In any case I'm glad my contentious statements have cause such a debate.

I'm with elmo on this one... Though as insanely cool as the thought the rumored iPod preloaded with U2's back catalog is, it does smell a little commercial. Or is it just a clever way of repackaging a box set?

But hey, if you're going to go down that road, what better company than Apple?

Great Success doesn't automatically equal selling out. Neither does self promotion. Promoting a cause that otherwise gets little or no attention, again, not selling out. I define selling out as: going against your core beliefs and ideals and/or actively contributing to their demise for money and only money, not, and this is the tricky part, because you may have grown or changed as person.

So as you might have guessed, this is very hard to pin-point, although there have been some glaring examples of sell outs in our times.

As far as u2=bad Joy Division clone, what about Joy Division= The Doors with
a 80's
big-hair-synth-pop sound?(although, without the hair, and one of the innovators of the genre, but stil....) How come no one ever mentions that, which is so much more true.

umm dude, have you actually ever listened to these bands?

I mean, I don't actually think U2 (at their best or worst) really owes that much to Joy Division but a blues based 60s pop band from L.A. couldn't have less in common with either of them

if there's one thing that we can all agree on here, it's that Bono is gay. so gay.

Ummmm... I am a little late on this but lighten up!!! Life is really short and um music is fun. Bill Clinton wasn't a bad president because he had an affair. U2, are they bad musicians because they made a commercial?