|
U-Know! Forum » More Bono bashing (never enough IMO) |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
drewbhoy 2557 posts |
Oct 12, 2010, 16:00
|
||
And that is a good point as well!
|
|||
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited Oct 12, 2010, 16:19
Oct 12, 2010, 16:01
|
||
|
drewbhoy wrote: IanB wrote: keith a wrote: I can only think you're taking the piss, Sanshees. I've said what I didn't understand. I copied and pasted it and put it in inverted comma's lest there be any misunderstanding. However...there clearly was! It really doesn't matter. And what you do with your money is your concern. Differing sources say he has helped between two and four million people. They're huge numbers but that's not the point. If he's helped one person that he didn't have when he could have been getting off his tits like many other musicians we like, then I take my hat off to him. Me too. Anyone who doesn't think rock n roll is a competetive sport at anything above semi-pro level doesn't know rock n roll. Charity is the same way. Some of the most gifted and driven business people I have met have been in the charitable sector and they get off on the big numbers as much as anyone with a string of number one records. Point being that the instinct that makes Bono the biggest star of his generation is the same instinct that makes it possible for him to make 2m lives a bit less horrible. As an aside people forget how neck-and-neck it was between U2, Simple Minds and the Bunnymen for world domination in the early 80s. Up to Joshua Tree it could have gone either way but Bono worked harder than his competitors, they had the best manager, the best plan, the most unversally appealing record when it mattered and no snobbery whatsoever about laying out their stall for the parts of the US between the coasts. If Simple Minds had released a decent studio album in 87 or the Bunnymen's eponymous album had sounded anywhere near as good on the radio as the Joshua Tree then we might not even be having this conversation. Simple Minds didn't try to be the world's biggest band and more accurately they didn't want to be. (best band in the world, maybe) What they did want to be was a vehicle to highlight various campaigns as in South Africa, Amnesty, peace in Northern Ireland etc etc. Street Fighting Years is the album you refer to. I had lost interest in all three bands by 1987 but I don't think SFY came out until long after Joshua Tree. I loved Simple Minds until they started making records that sounded like they were built to reach the back row of a hockey arena in the mid west somewhere. The songs were still there but the production was fairly horrible to my ears.
|
|||
|
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited Oct 12, 2010, 16:07
Oct 12, 2010, 16:04
|
||
|
drewbhoy wrote: And that is a good point as well! The way I look at it is that rock n roll is like football. The fact that it is all about money doesn't stop it being an art or a genuine sporting competition. At a professional level it is about all three things all at the same time. Doesn't stop me loving either rock n roll or football but we can't pretend that artists are not infected by the money or the competition for platinum discs, charts and bigger and bigger venues. The ones that aren't and get out alive and are still artistically vital are few and far between. Those are the people we celebrate here isn't it?
|
|||
Loopy Lumbago 95 posts |
Oct 12, 2010, 16:21
|
||
|
Quote: "The way I look at it is that rock n roll is like football. The fact that it is all about money doesn't stop it being an art..." A question springs to mind here; is it an art because of the money or in spite of the money? But since I don't see art, rock n roll or other, first and foremost as competitive sport I probably, as you wrote; don't know rock n roll and am therefore at the outset excluded from any serious discussion on the topic.
|
|||
Squid Tempest 8761 posts |
Oct 12, 2010, 16:26
|
||
|
IanB wrote: drewbhoy wrote: And that is a good point as well! The way I look at it is that rock n roll is like football. The fact that it is all about money doesn't stop it being an art or a genuine sporting competition. At a professional level it is about all three things all at the same time. Doesn't stop me loving either rock n roll or football but we can't pretend that artists are not infected by the money or the competition for platinum discs, charts and bigger and bigger venues. The ones that aren't and get out alive and are still artistically vital are few and far between. Those are the people we celebrate here isn't it? Now I'm confused. We are meant to celebrate the fact that Bono has done some good things for charidee, but we're celebrating the musicians that don't go for the competition for platinum discs, big venues etc? I guess to some extent I'm playing devil's advocate here TBH. Although I can see that I shouldn't be unkind about Bonio's good works, I have a fixed opinion that he is an utter tosser. This is coz I saw U2 do one of their early London gigs. Not only were they complete rubbish, but Bonio was the most arrogant, self-centred arse I've ever had the misfortune to see on stage. OK, so he has probably redeemed himself by helping zillions of people out of poverty, which I can't knock, but please don't ask me to actually LIKE him!
|
|||
dodge one 1242 posts |
Oct 12, 2010, 16:35
|
||
|
He NEVER did ask you to like him. Its far more a matter of Bearing FALSE Witness that is afoot here. And standing in sympathy with RUPERT MURDOCH puplications and false journalism. But, If that is what AQK is thinking is a righteous thing....Who the hell am i to argue. On the Righteous Meter here....Bono is pegged into the green.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 12, 2010, 16:36
|
||
|
Squid Tempest wrote: OK, so he has probably redeemed himself by helping zillions of people out of poverty, which I can't knock, but please don't ask me to actually LIKE him! I don't think anyone here has demanded that people like Bono. As I've said, I'm in a bit of a minority in that I think he's done some great work and I like some of his music. But I'm not complaining because people don't like him. Instead I was suggesting that perhaps the vitriol that gets heaped upon him (not just here, but in general) may be a little misplaced. Certainly the original post kind of missed the point about the 'One' organisation.
|
|||
|
Squid Tempest 8761 posts |
Oct 12, 2010, 16:40
|
||
|
dodge one wrote: He NEVER did ask you to like him. Well blow me down with a feather! I knew he was an arse!
|
|||
|
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited Oct 12, 2010, 17:06
Oct 12, 2010, 16:40
|
||
|
Loopy Lumbago wrote: Quote: "The way I look at it is that rock n roll is like football. The fact that it is all about money doesn't stop it being an art..." A question springs to mind here; is it an art because of the money or in spite of the money? But since I don't see art, rock n roll or other, first and foremost as competitive sport I probably, as you wrote; don't know rock n roll and am therefore at the outset excluded from any serious discussion on the topic. The point I am trying to make (if unsuccessfully and inadvertently rudely) is that the best art happens sometimes in spite of the commerce and sometimes because of the commerce but the commerce is always part of it. I don't think it is unfair to say that musicians can often be hugely competetive people as are artists from all kinds of disciplines. Some are inspired by finanical gain and kudos and some aren't but the prospect of gain and commerce are part of the picture regardless. You can't really separate the making of the music from the selling of it and the minute a band becomes a business the rules and dynamics of capitalism are part of the picture. Add monster sized egos and it is not hard to see how those who scramble hardest up the shifting sand dunes of fame are more likely to be successful in terms of sales and status than those who potter about (happily or otherwise) on the lower slopes. Any number of rock n roll biographies tell the same story. Very few set out to be influential yet broke and obscure. It often happens to the best but they didn't set out with that end in mind. And plenty of songs have been written about that very subject. Bands fiercely compete (internally and with each other) for artistic credit, for prominence, for money. That's what they do. If they didn't have that gene they would never get out of the garage for the most part. Doesn't mean the music is any more or less likely to be crap but I have never met an artist that willed obscurity upon themselves though plenty have obscurity thrust upon them.
|
|||
|
IanB 6761 posts |
Oct 12, 2010, 16:44
|
||
|
Squid Tempest wrote: IanB wrote: drewbhoy wrote: And that is a good point as well! The way I look at it is that rock n roll is like football. The fact that it is all about money doesn't stop it being an art or a genuine sporting competition. At a professional level it is about all three things all at the same time. Doesn't stop me loving either rock n roll or football but we can't pretend that artists are not infected by the money or the competition for platinum discs, charts and bigger and bigger venues. The ones that aren't and get out alive and are still artistically vital are few and far between. Those are the people we celebrate here isn't it? Now I'm confused. We are meant to celebrate the fact that Bono has done some good things for charidee, but we're celebrating the musicians that don't go for the competition for platinum discs, big venues etc? I guess to some extent I'm playing devil's advocate here TBH. Although I can see that I shouldn't be unkind about Bonio's good works, I have a fixed opinion that he is an utter tosser. This is coz I saw U2 do one of their early London gigs. Not only were they complete rubbish, but Bonio was the most arrogant, self-centred arse I've ever had the misfortune to see on stage. OK, so he has probably redeemed himself by helping zillions of people out of poverty, which I can't knock, but please don't ask me to actually LIKE him! I am not asking you to like him at all. I don't like them either but I think it is worth examining that the commercial instinct and the ego drive for success is a big part of what makes rock n roll tick. The way I look at it is if Bono uses his fame to do what he does then it might be worth giving him some credit for that and making an honest assessment of what drives the likes of Lydon and Iggy et al to wiggle their asses on tv for corporate cash. That's all really.
|
| Pages: 14 – [ Previous | 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
