U2 Has usherd in a new dark age.

ff_1593.png
 
Wait... I haven't looked at my iTunes library. Do I somehow have this atrocity?

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
 
Just listened to the album. A few good songs made it on but the rest is tripe.

Signed,
B. Ono (Mrs)
 
I haven't listened. Of course, I don't have an iTunes account (or at least haven't logged into it for a few years).
 
The album is a carousel; it's slow, predictable, and never goes anywhere.

I don't really care about this non-debacle debacle, TBH.
 
You'll end up living in that van your whole life though. The idea that you put in your dues now and hopefully be able to step up the food chain I think is not going to happen for most folks. Lots of artists are going to die on the vine.


Not that I claim to know anything but isn't this how it has always been? Even from the days of making vinyl records?

I'm not saying things haven't changed but I think the odds have never been in a start up musician or band's favor. Very few ever made it past the van stage. It seems to me it was probably a lot harder to actually make an album because studio time was very expensive so you pretty much needed a record deal to do it. Whereas now you can make one at home. So the very basic picture in my head of the model from years past was it would cost someone a lot of money to make an album and promote it but since the only way to get it was to buy it, you made a lot of money back. Much of which paid for the making and promoting. Once cassette tapes came on the scene, revenue started to leak because now the consumer could copy the tape. Fast forward to now and you can make an album for the price of some software and mics (over simplified I know), you can get it in front of people easier over the internet but it is far harder to make any money on sales. So it costs a lot less and you make a lot less. The model doesn't apply to those who somehow got a big break and have multiple revenue streams in either case.

I think from a casual observers point of view it has always been the garage band or gigging musician trying to hit it big. Now you dont have to really gig, just get on youtube. Either way I don't think the general consumer thinks much about what middle ground might exist. That there are bands that make a decent living selling music. Either you play in clubs or you have a record deal. That obviously isnt the case now and as someone mentioned, I'm not sure how a record label can exist in the future. So now everyone has to make a move to try to figure out how to make the money because it is too hard to capture revenue from the recorded music at least in the conventional methods. Easy for U2 to figure out but a lot harder for the Marks of the world for sure.

To me as a consumer it is a great time in music because I do have access to more music than I was in the past. I can look up bands you guys mention and give a listen and see what I like. The negative side is what gets mainstream exposure is decided by a demographic that clearly doesn't include me. Music has become visual and ridiculous is apparently more visually marketable than quality music. So those of us who like music are stuck with looking at Miley.

Maybe that's the future model. Maybe online video with revenue coming from sponsors is going to be the best way for musicians to make some money and try to get the big break. Isnt that kind of how it works now. More views on youtube creates revenue?

To be clear, I support all of you guys and try to go out and listen to live music (and tip) when I can. I try to spread the word about good music. I raise some questions in this post mainly because I dont know the answer. I dont want it to come across like I am being argumentative toward you guys.
 
I can't imagine anyone making a living through YouTube, Spotify, etc.; as much as everyone loves to bitch about the major labels, streaming services make them look fucking generous. On the other hand, nobody made a living solely from radio plays, either, but that's basically all that exists.

Something will come up, I guess.

I harp on this every time, but it annoys me every time; music isn't all about 5-piece rock bands. Is it possible for larger ensembles to exist? What about professional songwriters and composers? What about music studios, producers, engineers, etc.?
 
The album is a carousel; it's slow, predictable, and never goes anywhere.

I don't really care about this non-debacle debacle, TBH.
I am of a similar opinion. the album is ok. I don't hate it. A couple/few songs are enjoyable. But as @Mark Wein , no particular edge or energy. It feels to me as though this new material is something for them to play at whatever big shows they may plan as "new material" so they can act like they are still releasing music, sell tickets, and play something between other hits they will play. Basically an adapted strategy at an aging band still attempting to be out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tig
I'd recommend the most recent NY Times Popcast, focusing the U2 album. Podcast available, obviously, on iTunes. :tongue:
 
I haven't listened. Of course, I don't have an iTunes account (or at least haven't logged into it for a few years).

Pretty much my situation too. Maybe I'll get my daughter to download it for me. I'm certainly not going to install iTunes just to get the U2 album.
 
BTW, as I listen to the pop cast, I think I will give this album a good long chance, after or during reading all the liner notes. The tunes don't catch me right away. But perhaps the liner notes and lyrics will be interesting in some sense. I like the one critic's point that this album is about guys in their 50's remembering what it is like to be guys in their 20's. Being of similar vintage (just a couple/few years behind them), I can relate.
 
BTW, as I listen to the pop cast, I think I will give this album a good long chance, after or during reading all the liner notes. The tunes don't catch me right away. But perhaps the liner notes and lyrics will be interesting in some sense. I like the one critic's point that this album is about guys in their 50's remembering what it is like to be guys in their 20's. Being of similar vintage (just a couple/few years behind them), I can relate.

I like the NYT music writers, I really do. They're smart, funny, incredibly knowledge, strongly opinionated, etc. I don't really care if I disagree with them or not.
 


http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/15/bono-apology-for-itunes-giveaway/

Apple and U2 may have touted that Songs of Innocence iTunes giveaway as a breakthrough music deal, but not everyone appreciated seeing an album forced into their collection. And apparently, front man Bono is now well aware of this -- he just used a fan Q&A on Facebook to offer an apology of sorts. He's sorry that U2 got "carried away" with its idea, and claims that the band was worried that years of work "might'nt be heard" if it had a typical launch.

Bono's contrite response seems sincere, and you might appreciate it if you felt that Apple and U2 were too presumptuous about your interest in receiving free arena-friendly rock. Having said this, the apology rings a bit hollow. The damage has been done, and the band isn't about to reverse a deal that reportedly earned it about $100 million. But hey, look at it this way -- at least U2 is unlikely to repeat the ploy and have your friends once more questioning your taste in music.
 


http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/15/bono-apology-for-itunes-giveaway/

Apple and U2 may have touted that Songs of Innocence iTunes giveaway as a breakthrough music deal, but not everyone appreciated seeing an album forced into their collection. And apparently, front man Bono is now well aware of this -- he just used a fan Q&A on Facebook to offer an apology of sorts. He's sorry that U2 got "carried away" with its idea, and claims that the band was worried that years of work "might'nt be heard" if it had a typical launch.

Bono's contrite response seems sincere, and you might appreciate it if you felt that Apple and U2 were too presumptuous about your interest in receiving free arena-friendly rock. Having said this, the apology rings a bit hollow. The damage has been done, and the band isn't about to reverse a deal that reportedly earned it about $100 million. But hey, look at it this way -- at least U2 is unlikely to repeat the ploy and have your friends once more questioning your taste in music.

As much as I'm not a U2 fan... He was really worried about a U2 album release going unnoticed? Is he fucking high?

Sent from my VK810 4G using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top