U2 Innocence & Experience Tour 2015 (Dublin and Belfast gigs confirmed, post #275)

The Nal wrote: »

He thanked Blackberry on the 360 tour. Thats the moment I lost interest in U2. They're out of the club, so to speak. Shame though, I just think a lot of their output (and Bonos business dealings) are over considered.

Blackberry gave them a massive wad of cash to put the tour on, with that production....

Why you'd have a problem with him thanking them is odd. "Fighting the establishment man" is a load of ****e in the music world. Especially if a band is claiming to be the voice of the people or working class, whilst being signed to a major record label (Oasis, Stone Roses, AC/DC, I'm looking at you guys)

Him thanking DOB, in Ireland, is a much worse offence

Shedite27

Pepsicass wrote: »

Does anyone know when/if the Paris concert will be aired here (don't have HBO)? Looking forward to seeing it.

Christmas Day

RTÉ2 has a host of exciting comedy, music and sports, including The Al Porter Show on Christmas Eve, while U2 are on Christmas Day with their rescheduled U2 iNNOCENCE + eXPERIENCE concert recorded live in Paris.

innuendo141

Shedite27 wrote: »

Christmas Day

RTÉ2 has a host of exciting comedy, music and sports, including The Al Porter Show on Christmas Eve, while U2 are on Christmas Day with their rescheduled U2 iNNOCENCE + eXPERIENCE concert recorded live in Paris.

Oh lovely stuff... The one that leaked online is pretty special to watch in fairness. Good memories

bclar12 wrote: »

Why you'd have a problem with him thanking them is odd.

Its not. Nothing about the "establishment" either. Blackberry are a good company. Not why I go to gigs though. They've crossed the line into Vegas territory. Promoting third party tech companies from the stage is complete bull****, sorry. Am I at a gig or a corporate event here? Im fine with either just let me know before and l can choose not to go.

bclar12 wrote: »

Him thanking DOB, in Ireland, is a much worse offence

Its the same. Both nonsense. Glad I wasn't there.

The Nal wrote: »

Its not. Nothing about the "establishment" either. Blackberry are a good company. Not why I go to gigs though. They've crossed the line into Vegas territory. Promoting third party tech companies from the stage is complete bull****, sorry. Am I at a gig or a corporate event here? Im fine with either just let me know before and l can choose not to go.

Its the same. Both nonsense. Glad I wasn't there.

So, you won't go to a gig and enjoy the music and experience because someone thanks a third party's involvement? That's like saying I'm gonna stop supporting Manchester United because they have Adidas written everywhere.

Bizarre logic but, your loss and your choice

bclar12 wrote: »

So, you won't go to a gig and enjoy the music and experience because someone thanks a third party's involvement? That's like saying I'm gonna stop supporting Manchester United because they have Adidas written everywhere.

Bizarre logic but, your loss and your choice

Music stands apart from any other form of entertainment for me. Its a deep, emotive, very personal and sacred thing when done right. I still remember specific moments from gigs or moments from songs from years ago. As far back as a young kid listening to songs late at night with my headphones on. We all do. Music done right can be life altering for people.

Once a band allows its music to be compromised in favour of unrelated business (for more cash basically) they cease to be in the club for me. This has happened with U2. They're one step away from releasing their own clothing range and using new music to promote it. They've as much credibility as Beyonce.

I'm not a U2 hater either. I love U2 and have traveled to see them in the past. But their recent bland radio friendly output is all very safe - "lets not alienate our business partners" - sort of thing.

Do you think if U2 told Apple or Blackberry that the next album was going to be experimental (as Bono said it would be after Atomic Bomb), they would've paid U2 €100m for the new album?!

The last album was signed off by Apple and used as a co-branding/marketing tool. It also forced a lot of people onto iTunes. U2 effectively saying "sign up with this company or you can't listen to our music." Which is frankly a revolting concept.

Not what I want to get out of a gig or get when I listen to music.

Lots of people think the same. Lots of people couldn't care less, which is fine aswell. Just not for me.

The Nal wrote: »

It also forced a lot of people onto iTunes. U2 effectively saying "sign up with this company or you can't listen to our music."

Have to disagree on that point, you can / could purchase the physical album. no need for iTunes. or download it from other sites.

readytosnap wrote: »

Have to disagree on that point, you can / could purchase the physical album. no need for iTunes. or download it from other sites.

Was released on iTunes on September 9th. Wasn't released physically until October 13th. Apple had exclusivity for over a month.

The Nal wrote: »

Was released on iTunes on September 9th. Wasn't released physically until October 13th. Apple had exclusivity for over a month.

was also on torrent sites an hour after its release.

readytosnap wrote: »

was also on torrent sites an hour after its release.

Was that part of their strategy do you think?

BullBlackNova

The Nal wrote: »

Was released on iTunes on September 9th. Wasn't released physically until October 13th. Apple had exclusivity for over a month.

Exclusivity is pretty standard across all forms of entertainment these days. XBox having timed exclusivity on a game isn't forcing me to buy their console over a PS4, it's just an incentive to do so if I want.

You know how I got the U2 album? I waited until it appeared on Spotify.

I get that people have a bit of a distaste for U2's corporate antics but don't act like this is a new thing. Their relationship with Apple goes back about a decade at this stage (remember their U2-branded iPod for RED?), and it wasn't the first.

Thanking DOB shows a remarkable lack of awareness tbf, but complaining about U2's connections to corporations is showing the same lack IMO - this is a band who has always wanted to be the biggest band on the planet and in bed with corporations. They're as authentic now as they ever have been.

And, as has been pointed out, sponsorship is a huge part of music like other entertainment.

The Nal wrote... "Music stands apart from any other form of entertainment for me. Its a deep, emotive, very personal and sacred thing when done right. I still remember specific moments from gigs or moments from songs from years ago. As far back as a young kid listening to songs late at night with my headphones on. We all do. Music done right can be life altering for people."

Take out music and add in film, TV, football or anything else - the sentences are just as true for anyone else. And sponsorship is just as prevalent in these media too.

U2's relationship with Blackberry or Apple is no different to bands giving their songs for use in ads, on TV or anything else.

T-K-O

The Itunes push was just another excuse for people in general to have a good moan.

Dont want the album, delete it. You thought Apple couldn't access your device, more fool you.

T-K-O wrote: »

The Itunes push was just another excuse for people in general to have a good moan.

Dont want the album, delete it. You thought Apple couldn't access your device, more fool you.

Yeah a lot of people were angry they got it for free but even more angry when they couldn't remove it (for a while at least)

BullBlackNova wrote: »

Exclusivity is pretty standard across all forms of entertainment these days.

No its not. I've been in Tower or HMV or Freebird or Golden Discs etc at 9am for lots of releases. Didn't need to sign up to iTunes to get them. No one did. I can buy video games in HMV or Smyths etc too.

Says a lot about U2 when you chuck them in with video games and bog standard "entertainment". But you're right. Thats all they are now. Except U2 claim to be something else which makes them incredibly disingenuous.

BullBlackNova wrote: »

You know how I got the U2 album? I waited until it appeared on Spotify.

U2 know they have millions of fans who won't wait for that to happen. Essentially holding their loyal fans to ransom. How many people were forced into signing up to iTunes to listen to the album but didn't want to? Or didn't have the technology/know how to use the technology so couldn't!

A sell out in every possible way.

BullBlackNova wrote: »

this is a band who has always wanted to be the biggest band on the planet and in bed with corporations. They're as authentic now as they ever have been.

Disagree massively. They've never been Tom Waits credible, sure, but they have usually had their fans backs.

Music is supposed to be inclusive isn't it?

BullBlackNova wrote: »

And, as has been pointed out, sponsorship is a huge part of music like other entertainment.

Yep and always has been but this is a new thing entirely. Theres a big difference between selling a song for an ad and withholding an album from their fanbase unless they sign up with the company who just paid them 100m. They compromised their musical output to cater for a corporation in order to get paid more, which is the worst crime of the lot.

Biggest band in the world maybe. If so, they should be leading by example.

T-K-O wrote: »

The Itunes push was just another excuse for people in general to have a good moan.

Dont want the album, delete it. You thought Apple couldn't access your device, more fool you.

I don't have iTunes, anywhere. It is and always has been a sh1te music player.

So, take yourself back to the release. As a fan, how do I go about listening to the album with no iTunes?

T-K-O

I kinda agree with you but this is not 1980 and iTunes is not unobtainium, if you really wanted to - you could have listened to the album within 10 minutes.

Unfortunately tower and hmv are a thing of the past.

As for the corporate stuff, would I chose to hear it? No but it really doesn't bother me. If blackberry want to help fund the gig so be it. It's not like the gig/setup is done on the cheap

weadick

John Lydon said when that whole iTunes thing happened that if U2 really wanted to do something extraordinary and daring they should have only released their new album in record stores and avoided online streaming altogether. Thought it was an inteteresting viewpoint.

weadick wrote: »

John Lydon said when that whole iTunes thing happened that if U2 really wanted to do something extraordinary and daring they should have only released their new album in record stores and avoided online streaming altogether. Thought it was an inteteresting viewpoint.

That would have been so good for music in general.

I miss the days of hearing a song on the radio, finding out who it is and then hopping on a bus to Drogheda or Dublin to get the album at the weekend and the excitement of getting it home and playing it on your record player or CD player.

It's a romantic notion of course and I suppose like everything else, times change but, YouTubing a song now ain't the same

BullBlackNova

weadick wrote: »

John Lydon said when that whole iTunes thing happened that if U2 really wanted to do something extraordinary and daring they should have only released their new album in record stores and avoided online streaming altogether. Thought it was an inteteresting viewpoint.

It is and it isn't. Adele, Taylor Swift, Radiohead, AC/DC, etc are just some of the acts I can think of off the top of my head who have music available in physical format or restricted from certain streaming methods. To ignore it entirely would've been silly TBH, and Bono (speaking on Dave Fanning recently) acknowledged that. Whether people like streaming or not, it is how a huge amount of music is consumed. In its absence, a lot of people will simply steal it through torrents.

The Nal wrote: »

No its not. I've been in Tower or HMV or Freebird or Golden Discs etc at 9am for lots of releases. Didn't need to sign up to iTunes to get them. No one did. I can buy video games in HMV or Smyths etc too.

Says a lot about U2 when you chuck them in with video games and bog standard "entertainment". But you're right. Thats all they are now. Except U2 claim to be something else which makes them incredibly disingenuous.

U2 know they have millions of fans who won't wait for that to happen. Essentially holding their loyal fans to ransom. How many people were forced into signing up to iTunes to listen to the album but didn't want to? Or didn't have the technology/know how to use the technology so couldn't!

Disagree massively. They've never been Tom Waits credible, sure, but they have usually had their fans backs.

Music is supposed to be inclusive isn't it?

Yep and always has been but this is a new thing entirely. Theres a big difference between selling a song for an ad and withholding an album from their fanbase unless they sign up with the company who just paid them 100m. They compromised their musical output to cater for a corporation in order to get paid more, which is the worst crime of the lot.

I don't have iTunes, anywhere. It is and always has been a sh1te music player.

Im just numbering these so I don't lose track of what I want to say!

1) You seem to be separating or elevating (heh) music above other forms of entertainment for some reason. Exclusivity in music isn't new - look at the hundreds of bands who give their music to the Guardian to stream ahead of release, for example. Or Prince giving an album away in the Daily Mail. Or radio stations having the first play on a song. I could go on.

Exclusivity in entertainment, of which music is a huge part of, is how many of these places make money. Certain games are only on certain consoles (timed DLC is a huge thing, for e.g.), certain versions of games, DVDs and CDs are only available from certain sites. That's just the way the industry is. Don't like it? Tough, tbh.

2) U2 claim to be "something other that", i.e. different to entertainment. Do they? What? Music has a special place in a lot of people's hearts - mine too - but that doesn't make it any better, purer or more unique than other art forms like film, writing, etc.

3) U2 didn't make anyone sign up to iTunes. They sold their album to Apple who put it exclusively on iTunes. If you wanted to hear it, you could choose to sign up, wait to torrent it or wait a month until physical format let you get it. I really don't see the difference between them doing that and, say, The National or Tame Impala streaming an album before its general release exclusively on the Guardian or the New York Times. You think those bands aren't paid for that? Of course they are. And, in those cases, if you don't want to use the streaming service to hear it, you have to wait. Exactly like this instance.

4) "Compromised their musical output" - Im gonna put this down to conjecture unless you've some basis to back it up? Nothing U2 have done since the 1990s has been as good as what came before it, but this latest album was better than the last few IMO.

5) iTunes sucks balls as a music player. Unusable interface, inferior quality, ugly appearance. I don;t use it either.

As far as I can see, and Im gonna stop after this post, you're annoyed because a band you love partnered with a company you don't. There seems to be very little else to it.

bclar12 wrote: »

get the album at the weekend and the excitement of getting it home and playing it on your record player or CD player.

Dunno how many times I cycled to Dundrum shopping centre (the old one) from Holylands to buy singles and 12" singles like Kraftwerk and Human league then cycle back up the hill wondering what the b side might be like. Also cycled to Tallaght town centre ( remember that place, had a market upstairs) to buy Magical mystery tour LP, Cycled into town for some Bob Marley (golden discs?) and UB40 (tower records) Present Arms with the bonus 12", still have it (the LP not the bike). Happy Days, 2 hours of pacman in Barney's then round to ( was it golden discs?) on marlborough street for the odd LP and a 10 pack of agfa cassettes oh yeah.

This applies to every band out there and every fan of music out there, including myself and everyone here.

If an artist or band writes, produces, releases their own music, it's up to them what they decide to do with it. Myself, the people on here and fans around the world have no right whatsoever to think we know better or to say what they should or should not do.

If people want to dictate their terms on music, your best bet is to start writing music and form a band of your own.

As much as I yearn for my HMVs and Virgin Megastores, if the people in the industry want to have Apple or Tesco stock and sell their music via the internet or supermarkets then, that's their business and their decision.

In relation to U2 and the whole iTunes thing, no one put a gun to people's heads to download iTunes. It was a decision for the individual.
And for those who were complaining about having it on their iTunes, a few things.

1. It's free music! Take anything that's free in life.
2. People shouldn't have been so ignorant and should have gave it a spin. Depriving yourself of a chance to hear new music.
3. Delete it if it was that offensive to you
4. You're an absolute idiot if you signed up and didn't think Apple could access your account

8-10

Think we're going a bit of topic from the tour. Anybody going to the Paris gigs?