What’s Good For the Goose…
…must not be good for the gander.
I’m surprised this hasn’t been brought up prior to now.
I took the time to re-read the full speech published on U2.com Paul McGuinness gave to those at the MIDEM International Manager Summit.
In his remarks, Mr. McGuinness stated, “They have families and it is terrible that a direct effect of piracy and thievery has been the destruction of so many careers.” This was in regard to the losses of jobs in the record industry due to the loss of profits and the forced consolidation of the labels.
Wasn’t it Bono who said “Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief?”
Readers of atu2 may remember reading a story written by Kevin Hutchinson back in July 2005 about Polish artist Piotr Mlodozeniec, the creator of the CoeXisT image in 2000 which Bono utilized in one of the most dramatic parts of the Vertigo Tour (which McGuinness shared that in 2005/2006 grossed $355m and played to 4.6m people in 26 countries.)
The CoeXisT image was created for an exhibition by The Museum on the Seam in Jerusalem. The Museum on the Seam’s Director and Curator, Raphie Etgar, said in a statement, “It is the responsibility of the Museum on the Seam to protect the images and the rights of the artists participating in the exhibition.”
When atu2 last communicated with Mr. Mlodozeniec, he received a credit on Vertigo 2005: Live from Chicago DVD but he did not state that he received any financial compensation for the use of his artwork. He went on to let us know, “the people from U2 proposed me long time ago to give them my sign as royality free (i haven’t done this). now they are not contacting me
anymore. if the museum on the seam had got something - i was not informed.” The Museum on the Seam has not updated us as to if they received any compensation.
If Mr. McGuinness feels that there are thieves in the midst, then he and/or U2 should revisit the use of this artist’s work as part of their live show which they made $335 million.
The kicker - I believe Mr. Mlodozeniec was remarkably missing from the credits at the conclusion of U2 3D. Shouldn’t he be compensated for the use of his image in this film as well?
The other kicker - in the United States, the CoeXisT image was trademarked by coexistonline.com. Piotr was unable to copyright his own image, nor was the Museum on the Seam able to protect him as an artist.
Sylvia said,
February 7, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
True, true, painfully true. The way they adapted the “Coexist” sign is one of those things you cringe about when you read. I suppose all you can say is “we all make mistakes.”
jon said,
February 7, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
well, sadly, “we all make mistakes” doesn’t really cut it for U2. A band this much in the public eye has a real thin line to walk. One half the world loves Bono for his activism, the other half is sick to death of him (personally, I think it’s incredible, but I’d care a lot more about his efforts if he was making a more concerted attempt to get some new music out there, take up the rock star mantle in a more significant way).
Paul McGuiness’s comments are really, for me, the first time I have found myself flat out disagreeing with the band’s manager, and more than that I think his comments were rather pigheaded and offensive.
I have no porblem with music being profitable, it should be. When it seems like the band and the manager are more concerned with U2 as a financial enterprise than an artistic project, that’s really the last stop for me. My U2 wrote Achtung Baby! and Pop, and quite nearly endangered their fortunes to try and give the fans an out-of-the-world experience. They were more dedicated to the idea of artistic merit than financial success. Honestly, part of me feels McGuiness should be standing up there, THANKING all of U2’s fans that have sacrificed paycheck after paycheck just because they loved U2. I sacrificed a month’s worth of money to see U2 last time around. It was worth it, no doubt, but to see McGuinness throwing out this elitist trash is a little much - sounding just a little too close to “the consumer is stupid, we need to guide them.”
McGuinness, U2: The consumer drives the market, especially in music. If we get another album in the HTDAAB/ATYCLB vein, you will have stalled for three albums in a row (both albums were good, ya, but hardly up to their best standards, especially in terms of consistency). I can name 8 people I know who will stop listening to the band, will stop defending the band against everything, no matter how insufferable Bono can be sometimes. This doesn’t make them bad fans, it makes them informed consumers.
Sorry for the rant, just sometimes I find myself increasingly unable to get 100% behind a band that views me as the bad sheep in the herd of consumers who need to be led. I’d like it if the band could adapt, produce, and avoid judging. Because Piotr shouldn’t have to ask U2 to recieve royalties or be credited. U2 should have the ethics to do this straight away.
Michael said,
February 7, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
There is a bully streak to some of this. I assume U2 and manager operate on some own wavelength in these matters. Sort of Bulldozer-ish. No doubt that the image contributed greatly to the show and deserved to be seen and probably would have been held up in court.
Their wanton disrespect for the rules is sometimes not cool. Yeah, we know it rock n’ roll and all that but sometims it is really annoying. Like when they took it upon themselves to play three songs on SNL. I notice that there are behavioural patterns that keep occurring.
Chris Borman said,
February 8, 2008 @ 12:11 am
Regarding “Whats Good for the Goose”, and the related posts leaves much to be debated about regarding the issue of intellectual property i.e. music file sharing and artistic license.
First, I personally think what’s being debated here is much more hearsay than fact. By this I mean to say that quotes are being taken in (or out) of context as a means of taking a position on an issue, which is natural. This is particularly true with the practice of journalism, with its claims at “objectivity” and its almost complete lack at attempting to examine the roots of issues, as well as people’s day-to-day intake and processing of information. Added to this the fact that none of us are acquainted with the complete facts of the situation.
Having said that, perhaps U2 could’ve have taken more steps in securing permission for artistic license, perhaps not, we don’t know their side of the story, only a few quotes from the artist in question and the museum. In my view, it is the muesum’s legal responsibilty to protect the work the artist in question (as was basically stated in this post). Perhaps the members of U2 should be allowed to give their side of the story before bloggers start throwing hissy fits.
Speaking of which, I found fans reactions regarding the ticket fiasco of the first leg of the Vertigo tour abhorrent. I was so distasted by it, I stopped visiting @u2 for at least three months because all I saw everytime I logged on was another post from some fan whining and complaining like an adolescent child. In my view this would be condonable if the band had done nothing to remedy the situation, but they went well beyond what would be expected of them. From using air time on the Grammys to publicly apologize (as well as at concerts, Bono apologized at the Chicago show I was at) and Larry writing a letter to all U2.com subscribers, I’d say they more than made up for the transgression.
Reading various posts, I’ve also gotten the feeling that people see U2 as somehow turning into money hungry businessmen as opposed to artists. I feel people are forgetting that there has never been a seperation between art and commerce, patron and artist, the capitalistic economic system that we utilize and that the Italians invented during the Renaissnance does not allow for a seperation. Do you think the Reniassance masters worked for free?, of course not, they were patronized by the Medici and the Vactican. Anyways, U2 have always stated that they desire to be good at the music and the business. The fact that the media is focusing on the finanical aspects of their career now as opposed to say in the late 80s or the 90s is a more a reflection of peoples’ desires and motivations, not the band’s. Its not like U2 are running around shouting out their monetary worth, its the media that’s so insistent on finding it.
As for McGuiness’ speech, that people find his comments bullying is fine, people are entitled to their opinions, but people are also entitled to legally protecting what is their intellectual property, this is the underlying message in McGuiness’ speech. Illegal downloading is what it is, illegal in the eyes of the law, as well as those who hold legally binding contracts such as U2. He is merely attempting to protect what is his (and the band’s) to legally protect by law. So it should really not come as any surprise that the tone of McGuiness’ speech was as it was. If people are so offended by his comments, or the marketing campaigns for the last two albums for that matter, just stop buying the product that’s being offered to you, its not like someone’s holding a gun to your head to buy it.
As for U2’s artstic mertis, I feel they are just as committed to the artistic endevour of their music and their concerts as they’ve always been.The idea of sacrificing one’s financial future for the sake of one’s art (which is the argument with the 90’s tours, mainly Zoo TV), and as a means of demonstrating one’s artistic daringness and loyalty to fans seems a little strange to me. Its like throwing your life savings on the gambling table for your friends, just to prove your worth. That U2 want to make a profit on their tours is not only logical, but makes since both finanically and businesswise. Again, if you’re so affronted by the so called high ticket prices (seeing as they are charging waaaayyyyy less than their peers like the Rolling Stones, or Elton John), don’t buy the ticket, allow someone who will actually appreciate the show to enjoy it.
As for the quality of thier albums, while the 90’s albums are probably my favorite “period” (I got on the U2 band wagon with Pop), I feel the last two albums are just as innovate and experimental in their own right.In my view, it helps if you look at each new album in conjunction with the rest of their albums, that way you can see the artistic evolution. I personally love all their albums and don’t have a clear favorite. I also find it funny that the 80s fans bitched and moaned about U2’s 90s albums, and then the 90s fans bitched and moaned about the last two albums, seems more than a little childish to me. If people are that unsatisfied about the artistic direction the band is taking don’t buy the product.
There are far more important things in the world that need energy and devotion than our postings regarding issues we are not fully acquainted with. Speaking of more important things, I need to get back to my homework (lol!!) Thanks for reading . . .
Kevin Hutchinson said,
February 8, 2008 @ 6:49 am
Chris,
In response to “perhaps U2 could’ve have taken more steps in securing permission for artistic license, perhaps not, we don’t know their side of the story, only a few quotes from the artist in question and the museum.”, @U2 (i.e. me personally) had many conversations with Piotr (including an email exchange yesterday), and I feel it is safe to say that we very much know his side of the story. @U2 also gave the band opportunity to present their side of the story. They declined, as they have the right to. However, the fact that they chose not to present their side does not exclusively take away everyone else’s right to discuss the issue, don’t youthink?
Chris Borman said,
February 8, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
Oh yeah of course, I didn’t mean to suggest that debate should not take place, I mean that’s what blogs are for anyways. I was just throwing my two cents in. I guess I’m more apologetic towards the band and less critical than others. That’s interesting that the band declined to comment…
Andrea said,
February 9, 2008 @ 11:37 am
I agree with everything Jon said in his post. I couldn’t have said it better myself!
U2 have always been great businessmen as well as artists and activists, but thankfully they always kept the business side of things very private and hidden from the public. Whenever they did speak about it, they made it sound as though their business decisions were made on behalf of the audience or to fight injustice in the music industry. For example, when I first became a fan several years ago, I was thrilled to learn that U2 stubbornly refused to sign a contract unless it gave them ownership of their songs. I found myself praising them for their tenacity, sound business sense, and willingness to fight for the rights of artists in the face of big, powerful corporations. Did it occur to me that U2 were stubborn because they simply wanted a bigger paycheck? Yes, but that didn’t matter to me as long as the band appeared to maintain their integrity and humility about it.
So Paul’s speech set off alarm bells for me because it came across as blatantly anti-public and pro-music industry. The speech (which I’ve seen blasted on blogs by music industry people who were at that conference just as much as I’ve seen on fan sites like this one) seemed a bit hostile toward the general public and well-known supporters of the band such as Radiohead and Steve Jobs. For me it wasn’t the content of his argument that bothered me, but the self-centered, higher-than-thou tone that contradicts everything the band has represented in the past. To Paul’s credit, it’s possible that he did not mean the speech to come across the way it did. Perhaps he is just not practiced at public speaking and was not able to communicate effectively.
In any case, I’m worried that it hurt U2’s image, or worse, reflects a change in the band’s direction as artists. I certainly felt the last album was more commercially driven than usual. It was pretty to listen to, but not nearly as thought provoking or risky as previous albums. I worried at the time that U2 appeared obsessed with creating a #1 single for the radio, as though that is how they measure their success as artists these days. So I was really hoping that Radiohead’s recent success with In Rainbows would inspire U2 to do something innovative when they release their next album as well, and free them from marketing themselves to Top 40 radio so much. Unfortunately, Paul’s speech has dashed my hopes about that, and changed my perspective of the band’s values quite a bit. I’m still a die-hard fan of course, but perhaps less willing to defend them against critics when they release that new album next year.
Scott said,
February 9, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
Why aren’t the band being sued?
Seem a pretty open and shut case.
Silvrlvr said,
February 10, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
Paul is barking up the wrong tree. I’m willing to bet the way most younger fans get music now is through downloads that they either pay for, or get free. Wasn’t the whole reason U2 decided to authorize a U2 iPod was to reach younger fans? Isn’t that why they listed their whole catalog on iTunes? And now he’s upset about downloads?
I am getting very worried that U2’s so-called business acumen is going to do some serious harm to their relationship with their fans. What makes sense for multi-media corporations to do (moving the publish empire, speaking out about downloads) is not always the best move for a band that has always been seen as having a common touch.
Michael said,
February 10, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
Hey Chris & others.
There is no debate that piracy is wrong though I am a lover of context! If someone downloads a Celine or U2 album Illegally I am not going to call Interpol.
As for U2 I think sometimes we forget that they are in the “Show” business. In the business of presenting. If anyone has spent any time with any Irish they know that, amongst other things, they are cunning and clever. Trust not appearances! Please forgive me for stereotyping and generalizing….
As a matter of fact for the Vertigo ticket fiasco I would estimate that the band had knowledge of what was going on. As for Larry’s apology, yes was heartfelt, but apology carries no weight anymore.
Isn’t it better to overreach than apoligize than accept the obvious and less rewarding middle ground?
Look at the US sprinter, who won and had millions of endorsements and then apoligized! (Oh! that must make it OK while I slave in poverty pergutory!)
Don’t be so naive
SW said,
February 11, 2008 @ 2:05 am
The COEXIST logo is used all over the world, by artists, institutions, all kinds of people. I agree that U2 should have taken care of the legal side of things here, but I feel they are singled out because of publicity.
Genereally I have to say that I am a bit worried about all the negativity towards the band that has taken over this blog. I don’t come to a U2 “Fan” site to read all this anti-U2 stuff. If this is what Paul’s speech has generated and will continue to generate in the future, I’d say SHAME because it’s obviously tarnishing the band’s image. The general negativity here is really bothering me to the point that I don’t want to visit this site anymore. I think we desperatly need new music from U2 so the focus shifts to those things again that once made me proud to be part of this fan community.
U2isABLE said,
February 11, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
This has been a great discussion and I hope y’all continue to contribute.
There are a few things that have come up in the comments I’d like to address:
1) Negativity on the site as of late: There is a fine line in reporting and commenting about U2 on a fan site, and we recognize that. We also receive comments from readers pointing out that we’re way too positive about U2 at times as well. As the phrase goes - can’t please everyone all the time. We recognize the readership we have, as well as the struggle to remain objective, which sometimes means that from time to time the rose-tinted glasses come off. We all are fans of U2, otherwise we wouldn’t be volunteering for @U2. In my reporting and commenting, it doesn’t bring me joy to point out things that go against previous band policy or experience. As the music industry changes, so does the fan experience. In this situation, Mr. McGuinness has a lot of clout in the industry, and his words have a lot of weight. Given U2’s ability to transform the industry over the past few decades, the direction Mr. McGuinness was giving to other managers and industry insiders will have a domino effect.
2) I agree that piracy is not a good thing, and when at all possible, there should be ways to let the artist receive what they’re due for the work they’ve done. Once again, it’s a fine line - if U2 are using social networking sites like iLike, Facebook, and MySpace, one would have to expect that viral marketing has its good and its bad.
Once again, thank you for the discussion on this topic, and I hope it continues. Our readers are very articulate, and it’s been a great debate - I look forward to following your thougths.
Chris Borman said,
February 11, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
Hey all,
Michael, regarding your post, I’ll agree that U2 are in “show business”, but I don’t feel that my, and others’ comments regarding their handeling of the ticket fiasco would necessarily qualify as niave. Are my comments apolgetic and not as critical as others, yes. But I feel concerning the Vertigo ticket episode, they handled the situation in an appropriate, and (yes) timely fashion given the circumstances of prepping for a tour and handing authority off to a third party to faciliate the business transactions of selling tickets. I’m also holding these views as one of the members of the fan club who didn’t get the seats as promised that a fair number of people who post on this site were so upset over, as is their perogative of course.
In my view, U2 have always treated their fans with dignity and respect. In the few instances where that dignity and respect has been put into question, as in the Vertigo ticket incident, they have made amends. Have these amends pleased everyone, of course not, but given the primadon and primadonna actions and attitudes of most of their musical peers, the actions they have done to rectify any wrongs speak volumes to their character as a band and as individuals.
Concerning the art and commerce issues being disuccused in this and other threads, they speak not only to the articulate nature and inquisitive minds of the U2 fanbase, but also to individuals’ interpretation of what type of relationship art and commerce should have concering U2. I feel (as I’ve stated previously), that there is no clear line between art and commerce with U2, the line is in fact blurred, with the two concepts being juxtaposed, as the capitalistic economic system cannot allow for a complete and autonomous seperation of these two concepts. The band has always desired to be successful in both the artistic and commerical aspects of their profession, that the commercial aspect is more the focus now than earlier in their career doesn’t really change my perspective on the band.
Rather, I feel this discussion of the reltionship between art and commerce, merely serves to reinforce the band’s own ambition and the meida’s preoccupation with monetary worth of individuals and groups. By “the band’s own ambition”, I mean to say that their success today, as well as the legal means they utilize to protect that success is in part, the realization of that ambition. That some of their measures to protect their sucess i.e. Paul McGuiness’ speech at Cannes, upset some fans, is to be expected. What upsets me about the negative reactions, isn’t the negativity as such (people are entitled to their opinions), but that some (not all) of the negative posts appear to be attacking with little substance to their positions.
As for the media’s role in art and commerce, I feel it is perpetuating an almost obsessive preoccupation with monetary worth of individuals and groups (again, an offshoot of the capitalistic economic system, that is historically ingrained within it, that technological advancments have made more prevelant). I remember a statement from Bono from the 1997 Rolling Stone U2 cover story, regarding Pop’s sales numbers in the United States. To my recollection, he commented that the music industry had in part, evolved into the film industry, in that the “success” of an album was no longer based on its artistic merits but financial ones: on how it charted the first week or two, and not on how the album in question fit into the artist’s body of work, and advanced or hindered that work. While this comment showed more his “artist” side than his “commercial” one, the observation also showed me both the interconnectivity between art and commerce as it related to the music industry, and the preoccupation of the media with the financial aspects of artistic product.
In sum, I feel there is a balance between art and commerce as it concerns U2 and that they have largely suceeded in achieving that balance. Have they sided more on the commerce side than artistic one in recent years, in my view yes. But that is to be expected in an industry whose target age demographic is 15-25 and a band whose members are pushing into their 50s. That given this age discrepency, their artistic product is doing as well as it is commercially, is due in part to their commerical and aritstic ambitions (and of course a loyal fan base), and that this achievment should perhaps be given more acknowledgement (and praise?) than the criticism and attacks it has seen. Just my two cents, thanks for reading.
Sylvia said,
February 12, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
Gosh, this is probably the biggest discussion in a long time. I think my little comment was not sufficient. What I meant by “we all make mistakes”, Jon, was not “they blew it, so what? get over it!” I personally think that U2 should admit they used Coexist sign without permission, make an agreement with the artist and pay him royalties from now on/put his name in the credits. Others have done it and moved on. Michael Cretu and Enigma is one example, he’s worked it out with artist whose music he’s sampled and they get the credit for it, and the cut. It’s not rocket science. If U2 wanted/cared enough to work it out, I think they could easily do it.
SW, I don’t think they are singled out, everybody gets that for using other people’s work. On the other hand it’s obvious that some who preaches love, peace and fairness will be criticized more for doing something which was simply dishonest. Now once they’ve done it, and everyone knows about it, IMO they are in no position to come out and lecture the world about illegal usage of copyrighted material. All this to say, I love them still.
Watts4 said,
February 14, 2008 @ 8:13 am
I find it ironic that we have a flap over this “piece of art” that says :
“COEXIST”
It’s just not as easy as it sounds. Can’t we all just get along?
Apparently not. Not when there’s money involved, eh?
Platitudes like this just fall apart when faced with reality. I wish it weren’t so, but unfortunately sometimes we don’t “coexist” easily, and there’s conflict, as this controversy shows.
Watts4 said,
February 15, 2008 @ 9:49 am
I love them still, too, and I think “COEXIST” is something we should strive for….I agree with the message, I just wanted to point out the irony.
Interesting discussion. I agree that U2 should make good now that it’s clear, and Paul M. should keep his opinions on digital music to himself if he doesn’t want to look foolish here. Why pick this fight?
macmango said,
February 17, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
I’m not at all taken aback by the McGuinness speech, based on his goal of rallying the industry troups. However, I was quite surprised at the bad judgement in putting it up on u2.com. Apparently the decision to appear at that forum and go on the offensive was to push the momentum for Nations to legislate in the favor of the artist. Quite a risk it was, but on the other hand its been decades since the 1st Quarter of U2’s marketing cycle. With France in the camp and UK being courted, Paul is probably looking for someone to pass the baton to as we blog.