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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Seem a pretty open and shut case.