Jump to content

Why the disinterest all of a sudden?


Recommended Posts

Soda wrote:

LifeFactory... uhm... really? So radio stations across America spent days promoting U2 with contests and concerts... but are at the same time boycotting U2?

 

 

Hey, I didn't say it. I am just citing the story:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jQNuYiK-i-l5mbyQxqhJY5Ll5tWwD98NSJ304

 

Reports that a complaint has been filed with the courts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

LifeFactory wrote:

Soda wrote:

LifeFactory... uhm... really? So radio stations across America spent days promoting U2 with contests and concerts... but are at the same time boycotting U2?

 

 

Hey, I didn't say it. I am just citing the story:

 

Reports that a complaint has been filed with the courts.

 

Are you relaying a story you yourself are skeptical of? :P

 

The story correctly notes that will.i.am supports royalties too and yet the BEP's new single is/was at #1 and getting a lot of radio play. Even if the U2 vstations speculation is true, there is still something that remains unexplained. Are Boots and Magnificent songs that radio listeners WANT on the radio butcan't get because radio stations refuse to play U2 songs? Does this pass your baloney detector? :P It doesn't mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't listen to the radio. But if I did, yes, I would want to be able to hear those songs, (and many others off the album, for that matter).

 

As far as whether the story is true or not...I don't know, and I said several times in my initial post: "If this is true..."--as you may or maynot have noticed, Soda.

 

It is not a huge stretch for me to imagine a story like this might, in fact, be true.

 

A bunch of artists start calling for a change to the status quo that would cost broadcast companies loads and loads of money. And the companies respond withN. Korean-style brinkmanship by simply saying:

"Ok, f-you. We just wont play your music," -- knowing that performers (unless they are very innovative and clever--which more need to be), aresomewhat dependent on radio play. It is a "f-you we own you" response from the industry, if it is a true story.

 

Just because you do not think the songs belong on the air, Soda, does not negate the story. But, maybe it is bollocks-- a PR campaign pre-tour, as some willundoubtedly speculate. I doubt that, somewhat. But who knows?

 

I was just citing "the news."

Link to post
Share on other sites

continuing....

 

Are you suggesting, Soda, that the songs tanked on their own and that rather that accept this, Bono "may" be responding by claiming a boycottconspiracy against the band?

 

quoting the story:

 

"In the filing, the musicFIRST Coalition says the top-selling artist - there are hints it could be U2 frontman Bono - recently released a new album andspoke during April in support of an effort to require radio stations to pay musicians royalties similar to those paid to songwriters.

 

Soon after, it said, "several stations within a major radio broadcast group notified the artist's label that they would no longer play his single onthe air."

Link to post
Share on other sites

LifeFactory wrote:

Just because you do not think the songs belong on the air, Soda,

 

I don't think that at all. Or rather, I don't care. If people want to hear those songs (both which I like) on the radio then great. I'm justquestioning the notion that radio stations will stop playing songs their listeners are demanding to spite an artist as that would not make financial sense.

 

I did notice you said "If this is true" I'm just wondering why you relayed it if the source is so shaky to begin with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LifeFactory wrote:

Are you suggesting, Soda, that the songs tanked on their own and that rather that accept this, Bono "may" be responding by claiming a boycott conspiracy against the band?

 

Actually, we can't even go as far as saying Bono is calling foul because we have no confirmation of the identity of the artist affected. Hell, we don'teven know if the artist (whether U2 or not) is actually being boycotted by radio at all.

 

The Occam's Razor explanation is that the songs tanked on their own (no conspiracy involved) and that Bono didn't call foul at all (that would seemweird coming from them).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Subscriber

Soda wrote:

LifeFactory wrote:

Are you suggesting, Soda, that the songs tanked on their own and that rather that accept this, Bono "may" be responding by claiming a boycott conspiracy against the band?

 

Actually, we can't even go as far as saying Bono is calling foul because we have no confirmation of the identity of the artist affected. Hell, we don't even know if the artist (whether U2 or not) is actually being boycotted by radio at all.

 

The Occam's Razor explanation is that the songs tanked on their own (no conspiracy involved) and that Bono didn't call foul at all (that would seem weird coming from them).

 

That's what I found odd about the article. They say a complaint was filed, citing the "artist" as Bono. Why would it just be Bono and not theentire band? I mean, since they're collaboraters and have writing credits on the songs, wouldn't they be affected as well? Just my thinking, butsomething doesn't add up there...

 

No idea if it's true or not. I've heard magnificent quite a bit on the various radio stations I listen to, so I have no idea (Boots seemed to fade fromtheir playlists after a week or so, but given the play the new single is getting on those same stations, I'd chalk it up to Boots just not getting much ofa reaction from their listeners).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Soda wrote:

LifeFactory wrote:

Just because you do not think the songs belong on the air, Soda,

 

I don't think that at all. Or rather, I don't care. If people want to hear those songs (both which I like) on the radio then great. I'm just questioning the notion that radio stations will stop playing songs their listeners are demanding to spite an artist as that would not make financial sense.

 

I did notice you said "If this is true" I'm just wondering why you relayed it if the source is so shaky to begin with.

All "news" is shaky. This did come over the wire, however. Associated Press. And I included it because this thread's author asked: "Whythe disinterest all of a sudden?" And people went on to discuss radio playlists and singles releases. I have mearly added to the speculation ;) . Personally, I think this tour will be as splashy as any other, once it starts. 19 DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

LifeFactory wrote:

All "news" is shaky.

 

That AP story certainly is, although not ALL news is shaky. Had the story included on-the-record statements by Principle Management and/or Radio Managers thestory would be solid and we would have an honest to goodness explanation for the performance of U2's latest singles.

 

AP is not immune to using anonymous sources and making unsubstantiated claims. As it stands that news item is at best noise/innuendo/gossip and at worstdisinformation.

 

Since the story is close to worthless as presented I'll make the temporary conclusion that the singles did not perform well do to lack of interest in thegeneral public and not because of some intra-industry vendetta against U2, which again, does not jive with what we DO know:

 

1. Intense promotion (concerts/contests/retrospectives/U2-days) done for U2 and NLOTH.

2. Radio stations have a vested interested in playing what listeners want and would be shooting themselves in the foot if they didn't.

3. Other artists have spoken for royalties and yet their singles are doing quite well (will.i.am).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stranger In A Strange Land wrote:

People! What the heck does it matter how the album does in the charts? If you ask me it's better if only we, the hardcore, buy the album.

 

When U2 try to get new fans they get it badly wrong, i.e. Get On Your Boots - a song written purely for radio and joe dumbass public.

 

U2 have a huge fanbase of 25-50yr olds and should remember who they're writing songs for - bollocks to being popular with kids - they suck at doing that anyway,
U2 are "way uncool" with teens.

that's definitely true, i feel like i'm one of the only people my age that likes U2. but i like all their stuff (except pop and zooropa),not just bomb (although it's a very good album, but that's not what got me into them, the 80's stuff did). my favorite album is joshua tree,something most people my age wouldn't have the attention to listen to. depressing that people my age don't have the mental capacity to listen to goodmusic-all the want to listen to is rap and bubblegum pop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...