bono puts his money where his mouth is when u2 is releasing an album. donating is a great publicity stunt
Nonsense. In those years in between when U2 is on tour or recording albums, Bono is on the ground in the Third World working to improve people's lives.
Its great for such a promient figure to use his celebrity like Bono does, this is a not in question. But its not hard to put a finger on why he pisses so many people off. The beliefs above by TP are not unusual, they are in fact very common. There is something ironic about a rock star worth hundreds of millions preaching to people about poverty. The guy owns his own plane for gods sake. If he was that committed, he could sell the damn plane, donate it and fly with an airline? Im not saying he should but it rankles with people when they have someone who is grossing $2 billion per tour, to then tell you to donate, too many people are in poverty yet Bono lives the life of a lord. Dont get me wrong he has earned that, hes extremely talented and has made the life he has, respect to him for that, but I'm just trying to point out why so many feel this way...
The other thing about Bono is that he comes across to many as a egomaniac....but thats another thing.
I know for sure the constant preaching from stage totally ruined my U2 live experience, There must have been over 20 minutes in all and personally i think what TP wrote above was right on the button. Im sorry but people do not pay to see that. Thats not what they sign up to. There are appropriate arenas for that sort of thing, and Bono uses those too very successfully. But if what you are saying is right and people understand the lyrics of the songs, the politics, etc they will hear those songs at the show right? so is there any need to spell it out too? I came away from U2 immensely disappointed. Not only did he babble on far too much, segregate the crowd on the General admission in terms of who could pay the most (good work on your creating equality in the world bono - those who can pay the most get closer (golden circle)) they played pissing Vertigo twice. Now that i didnt understand.
There is something ironic about a rock star worth hundreds of millions preaching to people about poverty. The guy owns his own plane for gods sake. If he was that committed, he could sell the damn plane, donate it and fly with an airline? Im not saying he should but it rankles with people when they have someone who is grossing $2 billion per tour, to then tell you to donate, too many people are in poverty yet Bono lives the life of a lord.
So it would be better for the wealthy to act as if poverty does not exist than to try to raise awareness of it so as to help eradicate it? As far as owning the plane is concerned, you're missing the forest for the trees. The greater freedom of movement it allows creates the potential for much greater benefit to his causes than the relatively small amount of money he would get for selling it.
I know for sure the constant preaching from stage totally ruined my U2 live experience, There must have been over 20 minutes in all and personally i think what TP wrote above was right on the button. Im sorry but people do not pay to see that. Thats not what they sign up to. There are appropriate arenas for that sort of thing, and Bono uses those too very successfully. But if what you are saying is right and people understand the lyrics of the songs, the politics, etc they will hear those songs at the show right? so is there any need to spell it out too?
I would argue that it is what you sign up for. Anyone who has heard bootlegs from U2's early days, or seen its DVD releases, or read a review of a U2 show in the newspaper, knows that this is part of the show. But your last point is our key area of disconnect: you can't just separate out the politics from the art when the art is about politics (and, by politics, I don't mean Democratic and Republican-- I mean issues of policy). In your ideal world, Eddie Vedder would be allowed to say, "This next song we're going to play for you is about lost love. It's called 'Black.'" But he would have to say, "This next song is about... well, I can't tell you what it's about because some of you might disagree or be offended. It's called 'Glorified G." In fact, just so that no one gets upset about the blatant advocacy of gun control in the song, I'm going to substitute the word 'pelican' for 'pellet gun.'" Or, "This next song is about racial profiling and police brutality, unless you didn't come here to hear me talk about politics, in which case it's about sunshine and puppies. This is 'W.M.A.'"
Just curious: are you one of the people who cheers if Eddie promotes the legalization of pot during a show? Or do you think, "You know, this really isn't the place for that sort of talk." Because I guarantee you that a lot of the same people who complain about Bono or Eddie's in-show advocacy are among the loudest in affirmation when pro-marijuana banter is uttered, which is ironic.
There is something ironic about a rock star worth hundreds of millions preaching to people about poverty. The guy owns his own plane for gods sake. If he was that committed, he could sell the damn plane, donate it and fly with an airline? Im not saying he should but it rankles with people when they have someone who is grossing $2 billion per tour, to then tell you to donate, too many people are in poverty yet Bono lives the life of a lord.
So it would be better for the wealthy to act as if poverty does not exist than to try to raise awareness of it so as to help eradicate it? As far as owning the plane is concerned, you're missing the forest for the trees. The greater freedom of movement it allows creates the potential for much greater benefit to his causes than the relatively small amount of money he would get for selling it.
I know for sure the constant preaching from stage totally ruined my U2 live experience, There must have been over 20 minutes in all and personally i think what TP wrote above was right on the button. Im sorry but people do not pay to see that. Thats not what they sign up to. There are appropriate arenas for that sort of thing, and Bono uses those too very successfully. But if what you are saying is right and people understand the lyrics of the songs, the politics, etc they will hear those songs at the show right? so is there any need to spell it out too?
I would argue that it is what you sign up for. Anyone who has heard bootlegs from U2's early days, or seen its DVD releases, or read a review of a U2 show in the newspaper, knows that this is part of the show. But your last point is our key area of disconnect: you can't just separate out the politics from the art when the art is about politics (and, by politics, I don't mean Democratic and Republican-- I mean issues of policy). In your ideal world, Eddie Vedder would be allowed to say, "This next song we're going to play for you is about lost love. It's called 'Black.'" But he would have to say, "This next song is about... well, I can't tell you what it's about because some of you might disagree or be offended. It's called 'Glorified G." In fact, just so that no one gets upset about the blatant advocacy of gun control in the song, I'm going to substitute the word 'pelican' for 'pellet gun.'" Or, "This next song is about racial profiling and police brutality, unless you didn't come here to hear me talk about politics, in which case it's about sunshine and puppies. This is 'W.M.A.'"
Just curious: are you one of the people who cheers if Eddie promotes the legalization of pot during a show? Or do you think, "You know, this really isn't the place for that sort of talk." Because I guarantee you that a lot of the same people who complain about Bono or Eddie's in-show advocacy are among the loudest in affirmation when pro-marijuana banter is uttered, which is ironic.
I think we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this...this could go round all day long. There is introducing a song and then there is going on and on and boring your crowd to tears. When said frontman starts to address Tony Blair from the stage, when the guy isnt even there, he goes too far.
Its easy for a rock star to abuse his position to preach his own politics, but i can see that if you have earned the right to get on that stage then your artistic freedoms are a product of that.
Regardless, I am not at all pro drugs, never have been never will be. I am not offended by those who use drugs, but i would never advocate their use. Its just not my thing. I certainly wouldnt go wild because someone who i believe to be an exceptional singer and entertainer and a total idol of mine says that they should be legalised. I just couldnt bend my ethics to accord with that, just because its someone saying it whom i hold in such high regard. random point by the way.
Regardless, I am not at all pro drugs, never have been never will be. I am not offended by those who use drugs, but i would never advocate their use. Its just not my thing. I certainly wouldnt go wild because someone who i believe to be an exceptional singer and entertainer and a total idol of mine says that they should be legalised. I just couldnt bend my ethics to accord with that, just because its someone saying it whom i hold in such high regard. random point by the way.
And I wasn't assuming that you were pro-drug/pro-legalization. I was just asking. My point is that, even though I don't use drugs and am not in favor of legalization of pot, I don't think, "This isn't what I signed up for" when I hear an artist promote drugs on stage. I fully expect to hear that at a rock show, and for lots of people to cheer in affirmation. By the same token, when I go to see an artist who consistently writes about important social themes, I am not surprised or offended when he or she takes the opportunity to expand upon the discussion of the themes in the art.
I understand your point that artists can sometimes take it too far. Eddie has made me roll my eyes sometimes, even when I agree with him. I was adamantly against the Iraq war since before it started, yet I still cringe when I watch Eddie flip out on the Showbox DVD screaming "NO WAR!!!" I'd bet that he'd even be a little embarrassed if he watched that today.
bono puts his money where his mouth is when u2 is releasing an album. donating is a great publicity stunt
Nonsense. In those years in between when U2 is on tour or recording albums, Bono is on the ground in the Third World working to improve people's lives.
does he take his private jet to these countries while wearing outfits that cost thousands of dollars? his sunglasses alone cost more than what the average person makes a year in a third world country.
i'll tell you what, if u2 ever puts on a world tour and donates every cent of the profit to charities (it's not like it would hurt their bank account), i'll shut my mouth and call bono a great guy. until then, he's a douche.
I've seen rage over 15 times and I agree with everybody who said different crowds and different band. Rage shows are like a movement whereas pj shows are parties!!! I leave a rage show angry and drained, I leave a pj show looking for oxygen and water, with a big ass on my face!!!
bono puts his money where his mouth is when u2 is releasing an album. donating is a great publicity stunt
Nonsense. In those years in between when U2 is on tour or recording albums, Bono is on the ground in the Third World working to improve people's lives.
does he take his private jet to these countries while wearing outfits that cost thousands of dollars? his sunglasses alone cost more than what the average person makes a year in a third world country.
i'll tell you what, if u2 ever puts on a world tour and donates every cent of the profit to charities (it's not like it would hurt their bank account), i'll shut my mouth and call bono a great guy. until then, he's a douche.
U2 hasn't even made a profit yet on their current tour even though every show sells out.
All I'm saying is that, arrogant or not, the guy's efforts have quantifiably improved tens of thousands of lives. Taking the piss out of him for wearing expensive sunglasses (for example) is missing the forest for the trees.
U2 hasn't even made a profit yet on their current tour even though every show sells out.
All I'm saying is that, arrogant or not, the guy's efforts have quantifiably improved tens of thousands of lives. Taking the piss out of him for wearing expensive sunglasses (for example) is missing the forest for the trees.
This is probably irrelevant but aren't the sunglasses for an eye condition he has?
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
U2 hasn't even made a profit yet on their current tour even though every show sells out.
All I'm saying is that, arrogant or not, the guy's efforts have quantifiably improved tens of thousands of lives. Taking the piss out of him for wearing expensive sunglasses (for example) is missing the forest for the trees.
This is probably irrelevant but aren't the sunglasses for an eye condition he has?
Comments
Its great for such a promient figure to use his celebrity like Bono does, this is a not in question. But its not hard to put a finger on why he pisses so many people off. The beliefs above by TP are not unusual, they are in fact very common. There is something ironic about a rock star worth hundreds of millions preaching to people about poverty. The guy owns his own plane for gods sake. If he was that committed, he could sell the damn plane, donate it and fly with an airline? Im not saying he should but it rankles with people when they have someone who is grossing $2 billion per tour, to then tell you to donate, too many people are in poverty yet Bono lives the life of a lord. Dont get me wrong he has earned that, hes extremely talented and has made the life he has, respect to him for that, but I'm just trying to point out why so many feel this way...
The other thing about Bono is that he comes across to many as a egomaniac....but thats another thing.
I know for sure the constant preaching from stage totally ruined my U2 live experience, There must have been over 20 minutes in all and personally i think what TP wrote above was right on the button. Im sorry but people do not pay to see that. Thats not what they sign up to. There are appropriate arenas for that sort of thing, and Bono uses those too very successfully. But if what you are saying is right and people understand the lyrics of the songs, the politics, etc they will hear those songs at the show right? so is there any need to spell it out too? I came away from U2 immensely disappointed. Not only did he babble on far too much, segregate the crowd on the General admission in terms of who could pay the most (good work on your creating equality in the world bono - those who can pay the most get closer (golden circle)) they played pissing Vertigo twice. Now that i didnt understand.
So it would be better for the wealthy to act as if poverty does not exist than to try to raise awareness of it so as to help eradicate it? As far as owning the plane is concerned, you're missing the forest for the trees. The greater freedom of movement it allows creates the potential for much greater benefit to his causes than the relatively small amount of money he would get for selling it.
I would argue that it is what you sign up for. Anyone who has heard bootlegs from U2's early days, or seen its DVD releases, or read a review of a U2 show in the newspaper, knows that this is part of the show. But your last point is our key area of disconnect: you can't just separate out the politics from the art when the art is about politics (and, by politics, I don't mean Democratic and Republican-- I mean issues of policy). In your ideal world, Eddie Vedder would be allowed to say, "This next song we're going to play for you is about lost love. It's called 'Black.'" But he would have to say, "This next song is about... well, I can't tell you what it's about because some of you might disagree or be offended. It's called 'Glorified G." In fact, just so that no one gets upset about the blatant advocacy of gun control in the song, I'm going to substitute the word 'pelican' for 'pellet gun.'" Or, "This next song is about racial profiling and police brutality, unless you didn't come here to hear me talk about politics, in which case it's about sunshine and puppies. This is 'W.M.A.'"
Just curious: are you one of the people who cheers if Eddie promotes the legalization of pot during a show? Or do you think, "You know, this really isn't the place for that sort of talk." Because I guarantee you that a lot of the same people who complain about Bono or Eddie's in-show advocacy are among the loudest in affirmation when pro-marijuana banter is uttered, which is ironic.
I think we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this...this could go round all day long. There is introducing a song and then there is going on and on and boring your crowd to tears. When said frontman starts to address Tony Blair from the stage, when the guy isnt even there, he goes too far.
Its easy for a rock star to abuse his position to preach his own politics, but i can see that if you have earned the right to get on that stage then your artistic freedoms are a product of that.
Regardless, I am not at all pro drugs, never have been never will be. I am not offended by those who use drugs, but i would never advocate their use. Its just not my thing. I certainly wouldnt go wild because someone who i believe to be an exceptional singer and entertainer and a total idol of mine says that they should be legalised. I just couldnt bend my ethics to accord with that, just because its someone saying it whom i hold in such high regard. random point by the way.
And I wasn't assuming that you were pro-drug/pro-legalization. I was just asking. My point is that, even though I don't use drugs and am not in favor of legalization of pot, I don't think, "This isn't what I signed up for" when I hear an artist promote drugs on stage. I fully expect to hear that at a rock show, and for lots of people to cheer in affirmation. By the same token, when I go to see an artist who consistently writes about important social themes, I am not surprised or offended when he or she takes the opportunity to expand upon the discussion of the themes in the art.
I understand your point that artists can sometimes take it too far. Eddie has made me roll my eyes sometimes, even when I agree with him. I was adamantly against the Iraq war since before it started, yet I still cringe when I watch Eddie flip out on the Showbox DVD screaming "NO WAR!!!" I'd bet that he'd even be a little embarrassed if he watched that today.
does he take his private jet to these countries while wearing outfits that cost thousands of dollars? his sunglasses alone cost more than what the average person makes a year in a third world country.
i'll tell you what, if u2 ever puts on a world tour and donates every cent of the profit to charities (it's not like it would hurt their bank account), i'll shut my mouth and call bono a great guy. until then, he's a douche.
U2 hasn't even made a profit yet on their current tour even though every show sells out.
All I'm saying is that, arrogant or not, the guy's efforts have quantifiably improved tens of thousands of lives. Taking the piss out of him for wearing expensive sunglasses (for example) is missing the forest for the trees.
This is probably irrelevant but aren't the sunglasses for an eye condition he has?
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
yeah and michael jackson had a skin condition