I really don't see what the big deal is about this whole publicity stunt? Especially because it was probably not meant to be so imposing on some people! And apparently, whatever happened wasn't technically THEIR fault anyways. Even if U2 were a horrible band
which regardless of anyone's taste, they're certainly not, people shouldn't be complaining about a taste of FREE music. Besides, even a band that's as big as they are can always use a little publicity boost, and it looks like they definitely got one
Here's my beef. Apple is the one that PAID for the albums that were downloaded. U2 isn't giving away ANYTHING for free. That's the first beef I have.
Secondly, how the terms and conditions were set is unknown to the public at large.
I downloaded the album to see if I liked it enough to keep it. I didn't like it. I thought for a album that took 5 years to produce, it was awful. The Beatles wouldn't take 5 years to produce a crappy album like this. It wasn't just the songwriting, it was the production. It was just awful and unlistenable and I've heard a LOT of albums over the years by a LOT of different musicians/bands/genres. I can be pretty open minded, as long as there is a certain degree of proficiency in musicianship and production.
What U2 was doing was trying to promote themselves, make money and to get credit for breaking a record for the most downloaded/sold album. With iTunes and this promotion, it's kind of hard not to be able to do that, regardless of who you are. I get that, Bands have to figure out ways to promote themselves to sell content and tours. Nothing wrong with that, but they are already well known entity that doesn't need to do much to get attention by the media.
If the Beatles were to do this, they would have had a better album, better sounding album and probably 10x the number of people climbing over themselves to get the album, but they aren't around. U2 is NOT the Beatles, yet they are trying to outdo the Beatles in a way where it's just a cheap and slimy way of doing it. Heck, The Roliing Stones, Michael Jackson and any number of top acts that are around or not around could do this. But they CHARGED money for this, U2 didn't give away the album for free.
I would have liked it if the album was produced better where I could actually listen to each song without being irritating by the sound quality. It was just annoying and yes, I do have a better than average stereo to listen to it, so it wasn't my stereo and it's not my ears. I've heard better sounding production from a bunch of nobody's doing a demo on a home based computer system.
At this point, if I were Apple, I wouldn't work with U2 again. There are plenty of other class acts to deal with to promote music. Heck, Peter Gabriel, Sting, tons of jazz artists that need more exposure, and other higher quality musicians/bands that have better production and composition that deserve more public attention could use a break. U2? I'm sick of watching Bono with his self absorbed BS and his pink glasses. He's a jerk as far as I'm concerned. I think his whole Red campaign is BS, I don't think the majority of the money they collect actually does anything except for promote something people are already well aware of. Bono is just too self absorbed and it's getting REAL old.
U2 doesn't need a publicity boost. All they have to do is drop an album, send out Press Releases to the media and they'll get PLENTY of cheap publicity by just sending out a one page Press Release and getting interviewed by the media and sending out demo CDs to every publication that reviews music. It's not that difficult for them to get international attention. Bono can walk out of his door and open his mouth and he'll get free publicity.
