Tim Ingham, editor of Music Week
This is great news for U2 and bad news for rock’n’roll. For starters, it sets a worrying precedent for the perceived value of the album, especially among a section of the public – middle-aged U2 fans – who are a continuing, valuable bedrock of the industry’s (and therefore artists’) income. How much damage, I wonder, will the perception that albums should be cost-free now unleash on brilliant young artists who, unlike Bono and co, are reliant on sales of their records just to pay the rent? That’s not to mention the depressingly commercial spectacle we saw on Tuesday night. Irony of ironies: U2 paying tribute to Joey Ramone (who, to be fair, was a fan of their music) on track one of an LP that premiered while Bono touched fingers with the figurehead of one of the most powerful and materialistic entities on the planet. Rock’n’roll isn’t now only in bed with corporate interest, it’s wilfully demeaning itself between the sheets, merely in the hope of being told it still matters.
Andrew Mueller, writer and journalist
To complain at this stage that a major artist giving an album away devalues music is to reduce oneself to the contortions associated with attempting to stuff toothpaste back into a tube while locking the door of a long-empty stable. Artists never devalued music – fans did that, when they decided they’d rather steal it than buy it. It being the case that so many consumers are willing to commit theft when technology enables them to get away with it, it has been obvious for some time that the music business, like the media as a whole, is going to have to figure out new ways of paying creators. Deals of the scale of U2’s with Apple will doubtless remain the exclusive preserve of entities of the scale of U2 and Apple, but there might be something in the model that could work for mere mortals. Like, for example, Blitzkrieg Bop being licensed to sell Budweiser, Diet Pepsi and Coppertone, or Do You Remember Rock’n’Roll Radio? soundtracking a Cadillac ad. All of which have happened.
TI So that’s it? We just give up on the prospect of music fans paying for music and kill the next generation of culture before it’s even started? We just accept art is worthless in monetary terms? Sorry, no. Some of us have too much of a conscience for that. Millions of people are still willing to part with their hard earned for albums every week because they feel a duty to reward creative spirits for briefly illuminating the mundane drudgery of our existence. Whether through old-fashioned purchases or ongoing streaming services such as Spotify, real music fans are paying for albums and tracks in their droves, and that number is growing. The horse hasn’t bolted – it’s just stuck its nose out of the stable. Problem is, now Bono’s dug his diamond-encrusted spurs into its jacksie, just as the warmth of its trusty old hay bale was starting to look alluring once again.
AM Well, for a start, the decision to join forces with Apple will have been made by U2, not Bono. It’s always interesting that objections to U2, not all of which are unreasonable, tend to end up getting expressed as ad hominem swipes at one member of the group. But I’m not – and U2 certainly are not – suggesting that art has no monetary value. Again, it’s the people who steal it who have made that decision. U2 have made damn sure they’ll get paid for Songs of Innocence, just not over the counter. You’re quite right that many people do still pay for music but ask a musician, especially one who operates in rather less rarefied commercial strata than U2 do, whether they find it easier to make a living now than they did before someone plugged the internet in. Or along similar lines – not that I’m bitter or anything – ask what is euphemistically referred to as a “mid-list” author. Multinationals interested in paying handsomely to distribute my next work instantly to half a billion people are welcome to drop me a line.
TI As I write, I’m chatting to a hugely talented, signed composer who’s just been told by a big TV company: “We’d love to use your track... sadly, there’s not any budget for music.” U2 and Apple’s icky tryst will only accentuate this poisonous culture. But forget piracy – what about privacy? I’m pretty uncomfortable having music I haven’t actively endorsed being “pushed” into my iTunes library – and on to my personal device – by a sprawling corporation. Where will this invasive trend end? I can’t shake the feeling it’s a baby step towards marauding intrusion – one dressed up as innocent innovation.
AM I remain unpersuaded that U2 getting paid to make an album by a different corporation than the one that paid them to make their other albums is going to make the television company you mention any less tight-fisted. As for having things in which one is not interested pushed at one over the internet, I’m not sure U2 can be cited as innovators on that front.
TI OK, let’s posit that music’s value really has irreversibly changed. If so, I only wish this: that instead of spending around $100m on a marketing campaign with U2 at the centre of it, Apple had spent $1m each on promoting the music of 100 brilliant artists who deserve the exposure. U2 don’t need to be any bigger. They could, though, do with being a bit cooler; even with its army of acolytes and its bazillions of dollars, Apple hasn’t helped them with that challenge one iota.
AM True. But as U2 themselves have acknowledged more than once, they have never really been cool (except maybe a bit circa Achtung Baby/Zooropa, which I’ll concede is my favourite U2 period). And seriously, is there any aspiration more overvalued? Ask any (sane) musician whether they’d rather have good reviews in Pitchfork or a vast sack of Apple’s cash. I’m pretty sure I can guess which way your hypothetical 100 brilliant artists would vote.
TI I’m no dogmatic U2 hater. Only a fool would refuse to acknowledge that their career has provided some stupendous moments. I’m sure this stunt will reignite public appreciation of those moments, as it supercharges interest in their back catalogue. But at what cost? It’s a clarion indication to me that this band care much more about being big than being great. Songs of Innocence might be, as Apple’s Eddy Cue boastfully branded it, “the largest album launch ever”. But what of the damage to rock’s magnetism, mystique, allure? I’m actually less interested in this record precisely because it’s arrogantly and aggressively annexed my personal space. The Apple launch was a predictably imperious, pristine obelisk of grasping capitalism. On top of it now sits the Edge’s trademark delay pedal, reverberating a corporately subservient howl for all eternity.
AM U2 have always cared about being big, though, and never pretended otherwise. Better that than the far more common pose of railing against the Man while cheerfully trousering his shilling. Everybody who adopted a stance of pious horror at U2 last week needs to ask themselves the following question: if Apple offered me a skipful of money to show up at its wingding, would I say no?
