Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10
21
Tours / Re: Pro shot 2018 tour on youtube links?
« Last post by laoghaire on September 25, 2018, 06:44:45 AM »
Was that the Joe Buckley one? I have no idea why it would be down. I watch his edit of JT30 and was momentarily worried that was gone too.

Here's another Apollo.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
22
News and Rumors / Re: Bono meets Pope Francis
« Last post by 73October on September 25, 2018, 04:34:42 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 And of course Bonoís message to the church was exactly this...the church should be leading the way in helping with extreme poverty and AIDS, which in many cases, it wasnít.  If the church was doing its job, the issue about liberal vs conservative approach would be moot.


Bono has, and always will be, one of the great critics of the established Church (in whatever format the Church is in).  He is a great contemporary spiritual thinker in the context of (very much) applied theology - think arts and philanthropy.
Bono also is a great political motivator - but his is not a politician.  He has the ability to make politicians and the people alike think though situations and rationalise their thoughts (heck, even some people that critique Bono have rationalised the way they feel - but I repeat, SOME people....there is a way to go with some of the Bono bashers).
23
Tours / Re: If there is an Achtung Baby Anniversary Tour, then...
« Last post by 73October on September 25, 2018, 04:24:07 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
While it might be nice to imagine, there's no way on earth you'll see them do this.  One of the three albums was considered a huge success--the other two, not so much.  I'm pretty sure their acknowledgement of Pop on the current tour is about as much as you'll ever see them do from that album.

Perhaps they could do an Achtung Baby Anniversary tour, and include selections from Zooropa and Pop, rather than the whole albums. But my gut tells me they won't do it. Although we do have the next three years to speculate wildly about it...:D

I think at most they either do an AB anniversary tour or, maybe even more likely, a Zoo TV anniversary tour, with no complete album but a heavy dose of AB with maybe a few Zooropa tracks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think they may do it.  It depends on a couple of things....
1. Are they at a point now where they are completing the storytelling arc of their lives to date (this is, effectively, Bono's autobiography - there has been a separate discussion somewhere as to whether he'd ever write one.  I think we now have the answer?). So they feel that anything after this tour has to be on a different trajectory.
2. Was there ever an agreed extension to the Live Nation contract?  The rumours have died down.  If there isn't then this leaves the door open to a whole load of possibilities.
24
The Band / Re: MacPhisto Worship Thread
« Last post by 73October on September 25, 2018, 04:06:52 AM »
I see MacPhisto as a great orator - he speaks his mind and that makes people uncomfortable and think though things and why things are as they are, even if he has to be devils advocate.

Both MacPhisto and U2 have, as SkankAsu pointed out, been very pro-EU on this leg of the tour.  I'm not sure if it is because Ireland is a very enthusiastic member of the EU and it suits the band as Irish nationals - and they have homes in France too.
 
Clearly some of MacPhisto's talk has riled those who side with elements of the far-right (via responses on social media to MacPhisto's exploits). 
Having been at the edges of the UK Labour Party conference yesterday, I could feel 'anger' in the air from the left. Because people are passionate about these issues on both sides.
I have read/heard in the UK media that there are fears of social tension and unrest in the advent of anything other than a Brexit that would satisfy the people.  I kind of believed it from the portrayal of the right wing activists in the media (and via the U2 shows - MacPhisto, and showing video clips of right wing protests).  I can now sense there is a move within the left wing to not just counter protest, but to really go in there antagonistically.  I could sense there are some people wanting to 'fightback'.
It's all very well MacPhisto campaigning for Europe (there is the funny side) and U2 promoting the EU and encouraging people to get out on the streets.  I agree with getting out there and being active in promoting a cause close to your heart.  But without boots on the ground, it's really hard to gauge the mood out there.  When the cause is so divisive and the people engaged with it are seemingly wanton with combative protest and counter protest that could easily break the peace, that's when it seems so uneasy.
People have accused U2 of taking sides and not remaining neutral.  I honestly think that they are only doing what other artists are doing - speaking out against the big divisive issues in the USA and the EU.
The only thing is that because they are not always on the ground, their honest heartfelt calls to fans and the wider public who will take note to 'get up and stand up' seem slightly misjudged in the context of how people really feel about politics and global issues - both on the right and the left.
25
Tours / Re: If there is an Achtung Baby Anniversary Tour, then...
« Last post by garyu2 on September 25, 2018, 01:59:00 AM »
90ís only song. Great idea.


But U2 would play Elevation, Beautiful Day and Pride again.
26
New Member Introductions / Transparency International & Civil Rights Defenders
« Last post by Karmamalaga on September 24, 2018, 11:19:45 PM »
Hello from TI (Transparency International), CRD (Civil Rights Defenders) and more, through mere me!
I am former member of Propaganda. I don't believe in any god. U2 act in the name of love Ė not hate. They are my own Beatles.
10 concerts since 1987.
27
News and Rumors / Re: Bono meets Pope Francis
« Last post by Tortuga on September 24, 2018, 10:33:42 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You can say heís only criticizing Christians who donít share his politics only if you consider scripture like Matthew 25 to be a political statement rather than a message from Christ.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The religious message is that ďthe least of theseĒ should have their needs met. Jesus is setting the goal. How we accomplish the goal is where politics comes in.

People with liberal politics believe that government should care for the needy and tend to think anyone who doesnít agree lacks compassion and isnít listening to Jesus. Therefore, they conclude, conservatives are cold and heartless and bad Christians.

But that isnít necessarily true. Iíve seen statistics showing that conservatives give more to charity ó both in money and in time ó than liberals do. I think giving to the poor out of your own pocket requires greater commitment and personal sacrifice than agitating for government to do it.

There are reasons why some people donít like what they consider ďsocialismĒ even though they donít want anyone to go without. Some are afraid of giving government too much power. Some worry about creating a culture of dependency that is not in the ultimate best interests of the people supposedly being helped.

Now, you can also argue that private charity alone canít get the job done, and in a democracy government action represents our values as a society.

It is because of such factors that peopleís politics may differ even though they agree on basic Christian principles.

I donít disagree with anything you are saying, in theory.  The problem though, is that in practice, many Christians advocate solving problems of poverty directly instead of through the government.  The ďconservative generosityĒ is largely comprised of tithing to the church.  But if you look at the typical church budget, only a tiny percentage goes to help the poor.  The bulk goes to church facilities.  I donít consider funds that build a basketball gym or fancy facilities giving back to God.  More like a co-op.

Other funds go to helping people but with evangelical strings attached which hinders its effectiveness as aid and sends mixed signals about who Jesus really was.

So as charitable organizations, most churches are highly inefficient.  Ironically, this is the argument many conservatives make against government programs and the liberal approach.

So everything you say is true, but not the whole story and I believe liberals have some very valid points.  And of course Bonoís message to the church was exactly this...the church should be leading the way in helping with extreme poverty and AIDS, which in many cases, it wasnít.  If the church was doing its job, the issue about liberal vs conservative approach would be moot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
28
News and Rumors / Re: Bono meets Pope Francis
« Last post by Luzita on September 24, 2018, 09:50:01 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You can say heís only criticizing Christians who donít share his politics only if you consider scripture like Matthew 25 to be a political statement rather than a message from Christ.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The religious message is that ďthe least of theseĒ should have their needs met. Jesus is setting the goal. How we accomplish the goal is where politics comes in.

People with liberal politics believe that government should care for the needy and tend to think anyone who doesnít agree lacks compassion and isnít listening to Jesus. Therefore, they conclude, conservatives are cold and heartless and bad Christians.

But that isnít necessarily true. Iíve seen statistics showing that conservatives give more to charity ó both in money and in time ó than liberals do. I think giving to the poor out of your own pocket requires greater commitment and personal sacrifice than agitating for government to do it.

There are reasons why some people donít like what they consider ďsocialismĒ even though they donít want anyone to go without. Some are afraid of giving government too much power. Some worry about creating a culture of dependency that is not in the ultimate best interests of the people supposedly being helped.

Now, you can also argue that private charity alone canít get the job done, and in a democracy government action represents our values as a society.

It is because of such factors that peopleís politics may differ even though they agree on basic Christian principles.
29
News and Rumors / Bono meets Pope Francis
« Last post by Tortuga on September 24, 2018, 07:31:47 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
   I think it's great he's finally met Pope Francis--two great spiritual leaders.  This pope has great humility and personal warmth.  My hope is that he will help lead the church into a  brighter future.
Bono is NOT a spiritual leader.  Even for being a Christian, he sure does like to make fun of them a lot.

Being a Christian does not mean you donít criticize yourself or your brothers when you or they are wrong.  Quite the opposite.  And making fun is a good way to stay humble, one of the key traits of authentic Christianity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When has Bono ever criticized himself?  And I don't see Bono staying humble when he puts down other Christians- i see the opposite in fact, almost like he thinks he's a better Christian.  I've read many interviews where he puts down the Christians in America seemingly because they don't have the same politics as he does.

If you donít see Bono criticizing himself then you arenít hearing or reading his interviews.  He is constantly mocking his rockstar status and saying things like he is a poor advertisement for God.

You can say heís only criticizing Christians who donít share his politics only if you consider scripture like Matthew 25 to be a political statement rather than a message from Christ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'll concede partially on the self-criticism (it's kind of a weak argument, but more tongue in cheek), but i do know when someone is putting people down, and that's what i've taken away from Bono talking about Christians in the US.  I personally think its because they don't see eye to eye on many things outside of religion and i'm not saying who is right, but i do feel like Bono can be condescending.

I donít think telling people they need to think about things differently is condescending.  Thatís basically what pastors and ďspiritual leadersĒ do.  That is their job.  Christians donít feel their preacher is being condescending at the sunday sermon.  That is why they are there.  To be challenged and inspired.  I havenít heard Bonoís message being delivered in a haughty or disrespectful way.   This is typical of what I see as Bonoís delivery style to make people think:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

And a link on how at least some American Christians view his ďspiritual leadership:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
30
General U2 Discussion / Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Last post by Tortuga on September 24, 2018, 07:00:42 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
People are still pi**ed that they got a free album on their iPhones four years ago.

I don't think U2's reputation could survive ANY SORT of forced album purchase.

And, what, are you going to for a family of four to shell out an extra $48 for four albums they don't want? Even hard core fans will be pi**ed.

Besides, people can already get the album for free with tickets - they just have to click a link and choose a download or CD. And they count toward the album sales. So they are already tapping the concert ticket market to the fullest extent.
Yes, trying to force people to buy an album is really not a good idea.

Of course anyone who buys a ticket has paid for an album, itís figured into the cost. So U2 could conceivably say up front, every ticket buyer gets an album, and send one automatically without waiting for people to request it. But that would be meaningless. If people canít be bothered to order an album theyíve already paid for they must just not want one.

Or maybe some people didnít understand they had to order it, or forgot? I had to remind my friend about ordering her album before the offer expired. I donít know. I think we have to accept that it is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think most people did not notice, or forgot the album option on the latest tour. Automatically getting the album with a ticket purchase would be a better idea. The fan would have the option of digital or physical and if they did not choose then they would just get the digital copy on their U2.com account or through E-mail.

But hey, its just an idea. I don't know of any other way of boosting album purchases at this point with more than 80% of the population no longer purchasing music and just streaming. Anyone got a better idea for boosting album sales, lets hear it.

Quit worrying about album sales and awards.  Music is not a competition and even if it was album sales is no longer a way to keep score.  It is becoming obsolete.  You may as well be a fan of Beethoven in 1800 complaining that heís not selling any recordings.  Youíre worrying about a statistic that isnít even relevant any more, trying to come up with a way to boost a score that no longer has any meaning.

People are less and less interested in owning and ďprogrammingĒ their own music.  They would rather listen to a curated playlist.  You can mourn the fact that things arenít the way they used to be.  Iím sure there were people who mourned that horses became relatively scarce when the car came along.  But most people were just glad there were no longer manure puddles in the street every time it rained.

The truth is you canít even give recorded music away to many (especially younger) people today.  People used to gift my kids itunes cards and they would just sit in a drawer unused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whether its album sales or some other format to determine popularity and earn the band money, its important to U2 and most of their fans enjoy seeing U2 succeed at it. U2 is a music band but its also a businesss. Success in the business is important to the band for many reasons.


Album sales for U2 are relevant because that is how most of their music is listened to. U2's streaming numbers are tiny compared to their album sales numbers both physical and digital.

Please, spare us your crazy comparisons with horses and cars. You really think listening to an album on a physical CD or in a digital format is the equivalent of riding a horse into town as opposed to going in a CAR?! Are you NUTS? CD or digital album = horse while youtube/spotify = a car?  There is virtually no difference in sound quality. The only difference is that in one case the artist gets payed directly and while in the other a service is payed and then the artist might make some money from the service. You enjoy youtube/spotify because its essentially free music or cost very little money. Your philosophy is screw the artist! Who cares if they make any money for their work. It fits with your lazy ass lets sit down at concerts perspective as well.

Finally, I put I lot of time in collecting the information found in this thread. If your not interested in it or don't like it, why the hell do you bother reading and posting in it?

I spend around $500/year on musicians, most of which goes directly into their pockets, not siphoned off to a major label.  I think I do my fair share as a patron of the arts.  I post because Iím very interested in the evolution of the business model for the performing arts.  You and I just disagree on whether its good or bad for most artists.

In thinking the car/buggy analogy is wrong you are making the same mistake the industry initially made.  They thought the point of Napster was theft.  There is a huge advantage to streaming over digital downloads or CDs.  Its called convenience.  You donít understand that because its not relevant to you.  Streaming is continuing to grow and eventually enough people will be paying the monthly fee that the services and artists will both make money.  Or it wonít grow and in that case it will die.  The jury is still out.

Again, most people never bought more than one CD per month.  The same revenue into the system as streaming.  Its not that high of a hurdle.

Most young people pay for it.  Its the older people who think its the enemy that are undermining its success.

In the United States, the music industry revenues were 21.5 BILLION in 1999, adjusted for inflation(2017 dollars). By 2015, revenues were 6.9 BILLION dollars adjusted for inflation(2017 dollars). That's means by 2015 the music industry was making about 70% less than it was in 1999.

By comparison, United States GDP and total wealth grew 40% to 50% over that time period. That means if the music industry had kept pace with normal economic trends its revenues by 2015 should be in the $30 BILLION dollar range. Instead they are at $6.9 BILLION. That is a total DISASTER.


So what happened? Did people stop listening to music? Nope. Are less people listening to music? Nope. In fact, more people are listening to music today than ever before thanks to population growth. What happened is that the vast majority of people STOPPED paying for music or at the very least started paying only a fraction of what they used to pay.

A 70% drop in businness, likely 80% if you look at what the music business should be earning now given average economic growth, is a disaster. People simply won't pay for what they can get for free. When people don't pay a business for the service it provides, it suffers enormous losses.

Wonderful for the consumer, terrible for the business. How would you like it if 80% of your wealth and earnings were wiped out?

Streaming subscriptions are now where near to replacing what has been lost. Your idea's about what people used to buy are grossly inaccurate as the numbers show.

People are definitely listening to music less.  When I was a teenager we had three TV channels and no video game.  Music was our thing.  Today teens pay very little attention to music.  They play video games and watch netflix.  Visual and interactive is more compelling than aural and there is an unlimited supply of it.  In my high school years we spent our money on stereos and cars.  How do you think sales of Crager wheels and Hooker headers compares to the past?  Kids donít care about cars anymore either.  When they do listen to music they are much more casual about it, content to hear a free programmed playlist (akin to radio) instead of paying for the privilege to hear what they want to hear on demand.  Its the kids you need to watch because it has always been the youth that bought music.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, so if you graduated in High school in 1982, that year music industry revenues were $9.2 BILLION adjusted into 2017 dollars. 17 years later, that figure had more than doubled to $21.5 BILLION. Long before 1999, you had cable TV, internet, Personal Computers etc. Yet, the number of music listeners had grown enormously given the massive increase in revenues. The music industry has it entered the new century was at its peak. Far more people were engaged in listening to music in the year 2000 than in 1980, 1970, or 1960.


             The point here is that what you are comparing is not 2018 with 1969, but 2018 with the year 2000. You have video games and this other media in the year 2000 when the music industry is at its peak. What happened is that technology arrived that allowed more and more people to obtain music for FREE! Again, why pay for something when you can have it for free? Technology has allowed the consumer to get what music they want without paying for it.


             Notice how the concert industry has survived while the recording music industry has essentially been destroyed. Why? You may be able to obtain recorded music for free thanks to technology, but you can't get into a stadium or arena and see a live concert in person without buying a ticket. This is all about what people can get away with. Its easy to steal recorded music, there are so many different ways you can do it. But your chances of getting into a concert without buying a ticket have not changed at all. That perfectly explains why one business has sunk dramatically and the other has continued to grow.

 I donít know anyone getting recorded music for free.  Napster has been gone for ages.  The only reason it ever existed is because there was no legal alternative.  People stream for free only in a format that is comparable to radio, which has always been free.  Maybe youtube is an inconvenient hybrid but still requires you to be connected (no downloads).

You canít seriously be comparing 1999 to 2018.  The internet was in its infancy as far as the general public was concerned.  There was barely streaming media and there were no smartphones, which is what really changed everything.  There was no netflix streaming or any of the other services and video games had nowhere near the mass appeal and compulsion they have with modern technology.  Tis was the era of dial-up AOL.  Remember that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10