John J. Hlavaty ([email protected])
Sat, 8 Aug 1998 03:57:08 -0400
Not to belittle Lilith's point, but the reason U2 made
R&H was because of the very reason Max cited, namely,
that U2 realized that they had SO many fans that
it would be impossible to play for all of them. R&H
was made to allow fans to see U2 that were unable
to see them in concert.
The arrogance part comes from releasing this movie
in the theaters. This is one movie that should have
been straight to video. Still, the movie grossed $8
million its first week in the U.S. in 1988, which is more
than many films gross at all ten years later! So,
I'm sure it made some $$ for the studios.
While I'm on this topic, I *strongly* disagree with
the notion of U2 being on the cover of TIME as
being arrogant. TIME has also put other bands on
their covers over the years. Perhaps all of those
bands are arrogant. But to me, this is just good
marketing. TIME wanted to write about U2,
so they did. It exposed U2 to people that might
not be that familiar with rock music. Besides,
how could U2 not acquiesce when one
of the more prestigious magazines in the
U.S. wanted to write about them? It's almost a
humbling experience, not an ego-driven one.
But overall, I would readily agree that U2 are arrogant,
Bono in particular. However, he MUST be. If
he wasn't, U2 more than likely would have not
survived past 1983. It was their arrogance
that led them to wear they are today. I feel that
any success a person achieves in life is due to their
arrogance. Anyone that achieves a certain job
or degree or car or whatever often does so because
they feel they deserve to get this - and that is
the definition of arrogance. Therefore, it's hard to
begrudge U2 on something that we all share in.
Ciao,
John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Sat Aug 08 1998 - 01:00:54 PDT