Well no one in their right mind would buy it
'world wide tour that should net the group hundreds of millions of dollars'
But really it is not giving anything away, it's just an advertisement for the 'soon to be announced by LiveNation'
I love their debut album "Boy" and "War" and also "The Joshua Tree." I've long found it ironic that the album that was their most overtly "christian" {the 2nd one, "October"} is their worst. Apart from one song {"Tomorrow"}, it's a mish mash hodge podge {or is that hotch potch
} of good ideas that just never go anywhere or reach completion.
I used to think so in my more purist days. But I don't now. Perhaps we've overlooked just how much a part of cultures everywhere art and music have long been. All you needed to advertise "Jaws" was that music !
Hendra Virus sounds like the foreign first cousin, twice removed, of Vicky Vomit and Rat Scabies !
In my mind, there has pretty much always existed a very clear difference between the American punks and the British ones. The American ones in the main had a genuine liking for much of the music that preceded them and while stripping things down, weren't trying to overthrow everything while having nothing to put in it's place. Some of that may have crept in later but it doesn't appear to me to have been the defining motivation whereas some of the British punks {not all, some} were laughable in that regard. Many grizzled and whinged and cried in their soup about long guitar solos and progressive rock excess, the Bay City Rollers and Rod Stewart ! Most people in the UK in the 70s couldn't stand long guitar solos and progressive rock excess, the Bay City Rollers and Rod Stewart !
I sometimes refer to it but his autobiography makes for some really harrowing reading. Don't let your 'plane pilot read it before taking you on a long haul flight !
.
You know, at first glance I suspect many, possibly most, will agree with that. But thinking about it, I don't actually believe it. I don't think younger people actually think that music should be free. But anyone with any internet savvy knows that they can get tons of music for free and therefore, the notion of actually paying for music or books or whatever when you can get it for nothing simply won't compute. But there is indeed a subtle difference, quite easily determined. Few think food or houses should be free but if they could get it for free, they would.
There is a difference though. I agree that there are plenty of people that believe that housing should be provided for them and that somehow they are owed a comfortable living. That, interestingly, seems to be more common in countries that have been strong on social welfare. It's almost as though many in those populations have seen a welfare state and the notion of not having one is anathema. But those in that mindset rarely truly believe everyone should be given a house and allowed to live in it utterly free. My emphasis is on the word "should."As to your point about few think food or houses should be free. I would say that most don't believe that, but few? unfortunately there is a growing population that believes the world owes them a comfortable living for doing nothing more than having a heartbeat. But dont' get me started on that..
It's interesting how those that are actually successful with music can adapt and embrace the changing climate. The wannabes are the ones that scream and throw fits about the gradual devaluing of music.
