Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by bcaulf, Sep 13, 2014.
Yeah, that's where the streets have no name, right?
With 500 million people across 119 countries getting it just because they happen to own a telephone I suspect there are quite a few people who have no idea who U2 are.
Jeez, there's always someone ready to take the moral high ground.
I'm pretty sure no one forces you to listen to the new album - it's just there if you want it. No different than all the stuff pre-loaded...
I agree with the OP. As long as Apple insists on wasting space on the phone with crap like Apple Maps, there are bigger things to complain about than the new U2 album.
Great comparison - except you CAN delete the U2 album, and you can delete it pretty easily. Took me all of 15 seconds to do that...
I just clicked on the album in my iTunes "Albums" area, hit "delete" and that was that...
something so imposing and presumptuous shouldn't be associated with the word 'free'.
there's another audience besides the 'i haven't heard U2 yet,' listeners that they were targeting.
it's the 'i've heard plenty of u2 and I would prefer not to' group.
I caught the thursday night football add on tv
Nice song interesting video that channels Ramones, Patti Smith and that other corporate rocker Springsteen
Thats a bit much
Then "free on itunes"
Fine, go grab it, cool message
Loading it to accounts is wrong on so many levels
Radiohead with In Rainbows handled this the best
We made an album
Come to our website, decide if you want it
You tell us what you are willing to pay for it
Surprisingly people were willing to pay good money
Of course there they were working in an outside the industry money grab machine
U2 are part of the machine, getting paid by Apple I'm sure and wanting to force their music into your rooms
Bono probably thought he was doing a saintly thing
There's another crowd
The I used to like U2 but the last x albums have been mediocre and I doubt you have another Actung Baby crowd
Not if you have things set up to auto download purchases to all or your devices. Then it gets pushed out since it's considered purchased by everyone who has a iTunes account. I don't purchase from iTunes except for Zappa birthday releases and an occasional free track from Starbucks, but I still don't want that stuff on my phone. It's a pain to get it off once it's there too, so after the first time, I turned off cloud services. I got a new laptop and forgot to do it and I opened iTunes and there was a U2 album that I didn't want. The only think I could do is hide it or download it. I can't say I don't want it.
What? Are you getting paid by Bono?
This is exactly the issue for me. And, in the grand scheme of things, you would think that automatically pushing a band's album onto devices is one of the more innocuous things they could do with the tech.
Much Ado About Nothing Part 2: The U2 debacle.
I'm a pretty big fan of U2's going back to "October" and I get where people are coming from on this one. I'm kinda dreading that this might be the start of some new sort of big-money promotional campaign for big corporate artists. Sure, you're all fine with it being U2 right now but imagine a possible future when this sort of marketing campaign becomes de rigueur. Image if instead of one U2 album, you're having to prune your Itunes library of unwanted One Direction, Justin Bieber and Keisha albums (or whatever it is that you find simultaneously well-marketed and irritating.) Seems like a slippery slope to me and as audiotom pointed out earlier, not nearly as friendly a model as Radiohead's with "In Rainbows."
FWIW, I do like this album, a whole lot more than "Horizon" or "Atomic Bomb" and I'm planning on buying the physical edition with the bonus tracks as soon as it's out.
Yes - yes, I am!
I downloaded this and sampled the first two tracks. Message to the band: Fire the producers, sell the computers, kill the effects boxes - strip off the hallelujah chorus and play the damn songs in a room with guitar, bass, drums and live vocals. If they did that, which they seem incapable of grasping, they would sound like a great vibrant band with a batch of new songs.
Many many knowledgeable peeps are still trying to figuring out how to delete by hitting the delete button and you have the gall to say it can be done in 15 seconds!!!!!!!! those 20 billion dollars Bono got from Apple goes a long way. SHAME!
So who is the most important band in the world? By your comment, it would be someone selling more, in their heyday right now. Yet, none of those bands are making some huge mark on the world to make them the most important band. They are just popular bands who have a lot of young fans who help drive sales. So, actually, U2 is just as important as anyone else out there now, and they have a discograpy to back it up. Even their average albums have some brilliant work on them. Some bands have put out some great albums recently, yet beyond some strong sales, I don't see an impact. Even then it's debatable. I consider Reflektor a great album, but many of my Arcade Fire fan friends say they have lost it. I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder.
You didn't like the album? With the pop elements in it, I would have thought you would like it.
I was thinking the same thing. U2 filling stadiums only matters to the people who care about U2. Depeche Mode had the 9th-highest grossing international tour of 2013, ahead of Kenny Chesney, One Direction, Justin Bieber and Jay-Z/Justin Timberlake. How many of the Kenny-Justin-Jay-Justin axis have ever heard of Depeche Mode? Or heard about them because of the tour? Or would be happy to have Depeche Mode show up unbidden on their phones? Or, after listening to Depeche Mode, be glad they'd heard it?
I'd expect some members in the audience for the 3 older artists have at least heard of Depeche Mode....but, flipping back to the much bigger U2: Justin is 33, and I can think of DOZENS of places I've seen him in the last few years. Gazillions of times on SNL -- even though I don't watch anymore, clips wind up on most of the entertainment news sites I visit -- every awards show, lots of talk shows (again, clips posted on other websites, rather than the shows themselves), videos galore (people still make and watch a LOT of these), on screens in department stores, commercials, movies he's acted in, etc etc. Don't get me started on Jay-Z's visibility. No, don't get me started on Bieber's visibility.
Where's U2 been? One iPod commercial in 2004, and a couple of awards shows, including a dreadful, unmemorable Oscar performance in February. Even if a 15 year old was staring at the screen, no WAY they'd remember that performance a week later.
One of the tweets at whoisU2.com mentions that they'd only ever heard of U2 because of one episode of Entourage, but hadn't heard any music. Where would that have happened? Movie soundtracks? Memorable video clips from TV shows? Anything viral on the web? Commercials? These are all things that other bands use to promote themselves (even supposed purists like The White Stripes), and U2 hasn't been there for any of them. I loved U2 in the 80s and 90s, so I'm also aware of the extent of their absence even on classic rock and alternative radio since Beautiful Day. They really have been functionally invisible since the 2002 Super Bowl....and unless they minted some new 15 year old fans that day, that 15 year old could be 27 now and never have given U2 a second thought.
Radiohead still says that they never made more money from an album than when they did that, even though they gave people the option of paying NOTHING for it -- but they haven't done that since then, nor has Thom done it for Atoms For Peace. There has to be demand to create enough pull to motivate someone to stop what they're doing and go get an album, and my guess is that Radiohead didn't feel they had that kind of pull anymore.
The whole point of this particular exercise has been U2's admission that they no longer have pull, so not enough people would have gone to get the album for free. I wouldn't have, because I'd stopped caring -- even after my wife and I choosing to honeymoon in Ireland because of how much we loved U2! Pathetic, yes, but that's the trajectory -- rabid fandom to less than zero. The plan worked for me, because I like the album, and will definitely buy it for the bonus tracks. History has shown that U2 saves a lot of good stuff for extras and b-sides.
My guess is that if they make money from this, Apple will do it again, controversy be damned. And they'll trumpet it proudly as one of their great successes. Remember the whole "you have to hold the phone THIS way," free bumper thing because iPhone 4 couldn't actually hold a call? Nobody cared enough to do more than whine, and nobody remembers. It was Apple's most successful product to date. They can weather all the amount of negative noise that anybody cares to make.
I've not listened to it yet!
I'm a huge U2 fan but I'm also a devoted physical media guy, so I'm going to wait to listen to it until I get the CD. I deleted it because I didn't want to be tempted to play it until then.
Irrational? Probably, but I gotta be me!
I've been on the fence about U2 since Rattle & Hum where their least-attractive tendencies really started to come to the forefront. I wasn't a hater but I lost interest as they seemed to drift further and further away from what I considered to be the essence of what makes rock music breathe. There was no denying the ever-burgeoning contrivance and ego which enveloped this band and everything they did musically but I wasn't among the "Saint Bono Bashers" and as far as their swerve into blatently corporate rock, it wasn't like they were blazing any new trail there, either. Sure they were too cozy to the corporates and too willing to cozy up to certain types I didn't care for but in return, some good was probably coming of it. And they still served up the occasional catchy little piece of pop among all the lacklustre , pretend-passionate goo they churned out. So really, why would you hate them? Just more innocuous, ignorable background sound and I really had come to expect little else from them other than stadium spectacle and occasionally pleasant but mostly disposable pop music.
Now this. This whole, over-cooked, supposedly "spontaneous" decision to grant half a billion people this great gift of a new U2 record whether they want it or not, to have it described as U2 doing this for "free" which is obvious ******** and doing it in a way which is intrusive, disrespectful and frankly. a bit creepy. All for what? To set some new benchmark so they could out-Beyonce Beyonce and re-achieve some lost commercial & media dominance? To further stoke the already grotesquely-bloated egos involved? To shift some Apple crap? This whole thing just makes me queezy - the contrivance and the manipulative, calculated nature of it and the sheer unbridled egomania involved with the whole thing from the insipid launch mechanism to the pretentious nature of the project from the album titles on down. This is so removed at this stage from anything having to do with rock'n'roll that they might as well be launching some new brand of toilet tissue.
I'm off the fence now. **** U2.
Separate names with a comma.