Why is that phrase used to mean something bad? It can be a very, very good thing -- especially if you are on the receiving end.
I fully agree, but then I would've used it in the positive, receiving end...like "U2's last album is so great its balls were sucked until the end!!!"....errr, not...
U2 has also patrnered with Amazon.com to offer their new album No Line On The Horizon at the drastically reduced price of only $3.99
Why? Because Amazon wants people to experience buying DRM music from them rather than iTunes. U2 gives Amazon the opportunity to introduce tens of thousands of customers to an alternative to iTunes.
It worked on me. This was my first time buying music from MP3s from Amazon and it probably won't be the last.
U2's "No Line On The Horizon" is only available for $3.99 for Amazon customers, and only from 48 states in the USA (plus Hawaii and two other places which I forgot) so it's not available world-wide.
You also need to installed the "Amazon MP3 Downloader" but saving $6 on this specific album might get people interested (I installed the Amazon MP3 Downloader yesterday evening) and a bit of fair competition never hurts customers.
U2 stopped being musically relevant at least 20 years ago, so I couldn't care less...and by the way, Bono, it's about time you changed those ridiculous "goggles"...they make you look like an alien.
Is it just me or is Bono starting to look like Robin Williams, Mick Jagger is starting to look like Don Knots and Paul McCartney is starting to look like Angela Lansbury?
I was wondering when this would happen but it took about 5 years too long. U2 is such a retarded group anyway, mixing politics and music. I can't believe Apple saw any value in partnering with them anyway. I think Apple just wanted to get a foot in the door at the UN where Windoze is undoubtedly king and the Zune is probably as exciting as it gets with those boring politicians. Now maybe U2 will return to the 80's and leave the world alone (bunch of tater tots).
I think everyone is missing one more key point. Other than Bono being a partner in Elevation Partners, another partner is Fred Anderson - Apple's former CFO who took the fall for the option back dating. Given that there are only five partners, Bono and Anderson probably have a pretty good relationship, and I'm sure Anderson has spoken about this with Bono given U2 relationship with Apple at the time. Anderson always had an excellent reputation as someone who does everything by the book and was very financially conservative (Why do you think this is the only exec Steve kept when he took over?). He was probably the wrong guy to pick to take the fall (with their GC, Nancy Heinen). My guess is this is one of the reasons you see U2 working with Amazon and not iTunes.
Regarding U2 - it does not really matter if you personally like the new album or not (I personally do), they will sell millions of albums and play to sold out venues around the world - I'd prefer to have this type of influence on my side rather than the competitions...Amazon, RIM or anyone else.
Apple was never a promoter or sponsor for their last tour. The Apple/U2 partnership was for the iPod only and to promote their catalog on iTunes. Apple had nothing to do with promoting the band beyond iTunes. So this is not something to get upset about. Also, the U2 iPod was discontinued years ago. U2 doesn't need Apple to sell millions of CD's or tickets. They don't need RIM either. They do just fine on their music alone.
I think everyone is missing one more key point. Other than Bono being a partner in Elevation Partners, another partner is Fred Anderson - Apple's former CFO who took the fall for the option back dating. Given that there are only five partners, Bono and Anderson probably have a pretty good relationship, and I'm sure Anderson has spoken about this with Bono given U2 relationship with Apple at the time. Anderson always had an excellent reputation as someone who does everything by the book and was very financially conservative (Why do you think this is the only exec Steve kept when he took over?). He was probably the wrong guy to pick to take the fall (with their GC, Nancy Heinen). My guess is this is one of the reasons you see U2 working with Amazon and not iTunes.
Regarding U2 - it does not really matter if you personally like the new album or not (I personally do), they will sell millions of albums and play to sold out venues around the world - I'd prefer to have this type of influence on my side rather than the competitions...Amazon, RIM or anyone else.
dofo
Excellent post. (Ftr, I am not a U2 fan - find their music rather bland and uninteresting - but I agree that they are influential. As a shareholder, I'd rather have them on Apple's side than not).
However, I do think this is a big deal, but from another perspective. This shows that RiM is definitely moving into a more competitive role against the iPhone by clearly moving away from business-only devices with little to no real multimedia support. This is a good thing.
Right, it sure does show that, because as we all know, when we want cutting edge info about the inner workings of tech companies and the future of the tech world, we need look no further than what Bono's doing.
The first album was excellent, everything else since has just been going through the motions IMO.
Did U2 really bail on Apple or was it the other way around?
As of late it seems like Apple has had dealings with a multitude of musicians & appears to be moving away from singling out an artist of any sort. Maybe they felt singling out U2 so much & sponsoring them might hurt their relations with other artists, which in turn hurts their efforts with iTunes.
U2 probably doesn't care much who sponsors them so long as the company is not controversial. RIM probably offered them a sweet deal. Doesn't surprise me that RIM would copy Apple in this regard though, seems a lot of companies are copying Apple these days. "Apple got U2 for all those years & it helped their iPod sales! Lets get U2, maybe it will help ours!"
I would have been thrilled if they kept up the greatness throughout their whole career, but it just hasn't happened. And don't confuse commercial success with quality music.
Is it just me or is Bono starting to look like Robin Williams, Mick Jagger is starting to look like Don Knots and Paul McCartney is starting to look like Angela Lansbury?
U2 is not and never was alternative. And the use of the word "ally" makes no sense at all to describe their relationship with Apple or anyone else. They had a partnership with Apple to produce special edition iPod for a charity cause - that's it.
Furthermore, U2 has been a sell out from every album they've released since Rattle and hum. They went from making socially conscious rock to mostly pop music pap. Although their public persona has addressed worthy causes and Bono has done lots to improve awareness of issues, their music stopped doing so long ago.
Their best song IMHO was Bullet the Blue Sky. Although their first album was groundbreaking, Joshua Tree is their most polished musical effort, both lyrically and musically. Unfortunately, Achtunt Baby started their decline.
Is it just me or is Bono starting to look like Robin Williams, Mick Jagger is starting to look like Don Knots and Paul McCartney is starting to look like Angela Lansbury?
You nailed it with Bono (and I'll leave the other two comparisons to other readers), but I'd add that he looks like a cross between Robin Williams and my middle-school shop teacher, y'know, with the safety goggle and the spiky crew-cut.
Is it just me or is Bono starting to look like Robin Williams, Mick Jagger is starting to look like Don Knots and Paul McCartney is starting to look like Angela Lansbury?
I believe that Live Nation are behind a lot of this - U2 signed a BIG deal with them last year (I think for 10 years) that covers pretty much everything around U2 tours. I'm guessing that the deal was struck between LN and Blackberry. Furthermore the 'official' response from the band has been made by the manager - Paul McGuinness - and not any of the band .... further proof that this was a cold business decision, rather than anything to do with the band.
I'm surprised at all the negative posts about the new album - I'm not their biggest fan, but the new album has, largely, been positively received by the critics. Yup, they're media whores at the moment, but they need profile to sell product. To those that long for the 'I will follow' and 'Gloria' days, can I point out that these were (at the time) minor hits in Ireland and the UK - didn't even register in the US. What have they done since? - Bad, One, Elevation, Vertigo, Stuck in a moment, etc. Compare their recent album sales with those of the other aging wrinklies - The Stones - and you should be able to quickly garner which ones have become tribute acts of themselves. You mightn't like it, but it seems lots do. At least they do continue to make 'new' music - and I'm sure the bean counters at Apple are enjoying the additional revenue that's now rolling through iTunes as a result of No Line on the Horizon.
I couldn't agree more. The 5th generation iPod ad featured some of the most awful, out of tune vocals I've ever heard. U2 made some great albums back in the day, but musically they've been irrelevant to me for a long time now...
Quote:
Originally Posted by axual
I could care less about Bono and Edge and U2. This is all about money, and they've obviously decided to venture forth for more cash. Shows they are more about themselves then anyone else. Live and let live.
Comments
Or....could the failure to agree a new licensing agreement between Google and the PRS have anything to do with it?
Why is that phrase used to mean something bad? It can be a very, very good thing -- especially if you are on the receiving end.
I fully agree, but then I would've used it in the positive, receiving end...like "U2's last album is so great its balls were sucked until the end!!!"....errr, not...
U2 has also patrnered with Amazon.com to offer their new album No Line On The Horizon at the drastically reduced price of only $3.99
Why? Because Amazon wants people to experience buying DRM music from them rather than iTunes. U2 gives Amazon the opportunity to introduce tens of thousands of customers to an alternative to iTunes.
It worked on me. This was my first time buying music from MP3s from Amazon and it probably won't be the last.
U2's "No Line On The Horizon" is only available for $3.99 for Amazon customers, and only from 48 states in the USA (plus Hawaii and two other places which I forgot) so it's not available world-wide.
You also need to installed the "Amazon MP3 Downloader" but saving $6 on this specific album might get people interested (I installed the Amazon MP3 Downloader yesterday evening) and a bit of fair competition never hurts customers.
U2 stopped being musically relevant at least 20 years ago, so I couldn't care less...and by the way, Bono, it's about time you changed those ridiculous "goggles"...they make you look like an alien.
Is it just me or is Bono starting to look like Robin Williams, Mick Jagger is starting to look like Don Knots and Paul McCartney is starting to look like Angela Lansbury?
U2's music, I can take it or leave it....
Regards,
Chris
Regarding U2 - it does not really matter if you personally like the new album or not (I personally do), they will sell millions of albums and play to sold out venues around the world - I'd prefer to have this type of influence on my side rather than the competitions...Amazon, RIM or anyone else.
dofo
I won't follow.
Sorry, but they jumped the shark at "In the Name of Love."
When was the last time they did something that could compare to "I Will Follow", "Gloria", "New Year's Day" or "Sunday Bloody Sunday?"
Simple: The Joshua Tree and Auctung Baby
I think everyone is missing one more key point. Other than Bono being a partner in Elevation Partners, another partner is Fred Anderson - Apple's former CFO who took the fall for the option back dating. Given that there are only five partners, Bono and Anderson probably have a pretty good relationship, and I'm sure Anderson has spoken about this with Bono given U2 relationship with Apple at the time. Anderson always had an excellent reputation as someone who does everything by the book and was very financially conservative (Why do you think this is the only exec Steve kept when he took over?). He was probably the wrong guy to pick to take the fall (with their GC, Nancy Heinen). My guess is this is one of the reasons you see U2 working with Amazon and not iTunes.
Regarding U2 - it does not really matter if you personally like the new album or not (I personally do), they will sell millions of albums and play to sold out venues around the world - I'd prefer to have this type of influence on my side rather than the competitions...Amazon, RIM or anyone else.
dofo
Excellent post. (Ftr, I am not a U2 fan - find their music rather bland and uninteresting - but I agree that they are influential. As a shareholder, I'd rather have them on Apple's side than not).
However, I do think this is a big deal, but from another perspective. This shows that RiM is definitely moving into a more competitive role against the iPhone by clearly moving away from business-only devices with little to no real multimedia support. This is a good thing.
Right, it sure does show that, because as we all know, when we want cutting edge info about the inner workings of tech companies and the future of the tech world, we need look no further than what Bono's doing.
This just shows that U2 can be bought by anyone.
Who cares anyway?
The first album was excellent, everything else since has just been going through the motions IMO.
Did U2 really bail on Apple or was it the other way around?
As of late it seems like Apple has had dealings with a multitude of musicians & appears to be moving away from singling out an artist of any sort. Maybe they felt singling out U2 so much & sponsoring them might hurt their relations with other artists, which in turn hurts their efforts with iTunes.
U2 probably doesn't care much who sponsors them so long as the company is not controversial. RIM probably offered them a sweet deal. Doesn't surprise me that RIM would copy Apple in this regard though, seems a lot of companies are copying Apple these days. "Apple got U2 for all those years & it helped their iPod sales! Lets get U2, maybe it will help ours!"
Simple: The Joshua Tree and Auctung Baby
Not even close.
I would have been thrilled if they kept up the greatness throughout their whole career, but it just hasn't happened. And don't confuse commercial success with quality music.
Is it just me or is Bono starting to look like Robin Williams, Mick Jagger is starting to look like Don Knots and Paul McCartney is starting to look like Angela Lansbury?
You're a sick, sick individual...
Furthermore, U2 has been a sell out from every album they've released since Rattle and hum. They went from making socially conscious rock to mostly pop music pap. Although their public persona has addressed worthy causes and Bono has done lots to improve awareness of issues, their music stopped doing so long ago.
Simple: The Joshua Tree and Auctung Baby
Their best song IMHO was Bullet the Blue Sky. Although their first album was groundbreaking, Joshua Tree is their most polished musical effort, both lyrically and musically. Unfortunately, Achtunt Baby started their decline.
That sounds like the Vista theme.
I thought that was the theme song for Spotlight.
Is it just me or is Bono starting to look like Robin Williams, Mick Jagger is starting to look like Don Knots and Paul McCartney is starting to look like Angela Lansbury?
You nailed it with Bono (and I'll leave the other two comparisons to other readers), but I'd add that he looks like a cross between Robin Williams and my middle-school shop teacher, y'know, with the safety goggle and the spiky crew-cut.
Is it just me or is Bono starting to look like Robin Williams, Mick Jagger is starting to look like Don Knots and Paul McCartney is starting to look like Angela Lansbury?
Apparently it's not just you....
I believe that Live Nation are behind a lot of this - U2 signed a BIG deal with them last year (I think for 10 years) that covers pretty much everything around U2 tours. I'm guessing that the deal was struck between LN and Blackberry. Furthermore the 'official' response from the band has been made by the manager - Paul McGuinness - and not any of the band .... further proof that this was a cold business decision, rather than anything to do with the band.
I'm surprised at all the negative posts about the new album - I'm not their biggest fan, but the new album has, largely, been positively received by the critics. Yup, they're media whores at the moment, but they need profile to sell product. To those that long for the 'I will follow' and 'Gloria' days, can I point out that these were (at the time) minor hits in Ireland and the UK - didn't even register in the US. What have they done since? - Bad, One, Elevation, Vertigo, Stuck in a moment, etc. Compare their recent album sales with those of the other aging wrinklies - The Stones - and you should be able to quickly garner which ones have become tribute acts of themselves. You mightn't like it, but it seems lots do. At least they do continue to make 'new' music - and I'm sure the bean counters at Apple are enjoying the additional revenue that's now rolling through iTunes as a result of No Line on the Horizon.
I could care less about Bono and Edge and U2. This is all about money, and they've obviously decided to venture forth for more cash. Shows they are more about themselves then anyone else. Live and let live.