from atu2.com

Arcade Fire criticise U2 and Oasis

Win Butler talks exclusively to NME

NME, February 21, 2007


Arcade Fire have criticised the marketing strategies of band's like U2, Oasis and the Rolling Stones.

Speaking in the new issue of NME, frontman Win Butler had a go at bands who aggressively force feed their music to fans.

Butler said: "It's not like we shun success, but at the same time we don't want to shove it down people's throats. In the U.K. there's this kind of rock star competition.

"I don't know if U2 started it, or the Stones or Oasis but a lot of bands think in terms of: 'I'm going to be the biggest band in the world. F--k all those bands who've got no ambition.' I think that's a total crock of s--t.

"There's nothing less interesting to me than the idea of marketing the f--k out of something so people are forced to like it. Some bands are just manipulating people to buy music. That's how 90 percent of the record industry works! It's basically the same as selling a f--king toaster or a cruise package."

is it just me, or is this really transparent jealousy?


they've got their 200 fans. if that's all they want, why would they begrudge anyone else having as many as they want?

I think the transparent part is admitting they have no ambition

i don't know. u2 has had a solid fan base since, what, 1983? just because they use current technology as a tool doesn't make them "manipulators" of music. and if they are, so what?

the arcade fire is a great band (though, they're no broken social scene) and i'm pretty sure they had to agree to let u2 use their song "wake up" as the intro to the band's set every single night of their 2 year sold out vertigo tour. one could consider that to be manipulative...couldn't one?

its funny to me when people in the biz crack on others. sure, the rolling stones are incorporated now. yes, they are more of a product than a music band. and what? if you don't like them, don't see their show. do things differently for yourself. why make naive and rash comments in an interview.

hmmm...maybe because it gets them some free advertisement just before a new record drops.

and there's that word "manipulation" creeping in my head again.

.
[Edited 3/3/07 9:38am]

Tessa said:

Well that's awfully silly, even if I do like Funeral more than anything any 3 of those bands have done. I do agree about Oasis though. They really are up themselves. Seems like Arcade Fire may be following suit.

Tessa said:

talking shit about other bands and artists is the oldest and cheapest
way to get your name in the press. voila. marketing right back atcha.



still, i love their music

I agree, i love how bands that should not be talking, always come out "talking". But i blame part of this on the Music magazines like Q,Blender etc.. For labeling "new" bands "The best band ever", every other month theres a new one and then the band breaks up after 1-2 albums and never grows into an artist. U shouldnt get that sort of acclaim until you at least have 10 years or so in the business and 5-6 albums at least.

it's the old "corporate rock sucks" thing... been said a zillion times over the years. oddly enough, if given the opportunity, many of the bands doing the complaining will end up on the other side of the fence

sigh. another hipster expressing contempt for the mass audience. he's basically saying that any artist with mass appeal can't be any good because the pop audience are spoon-fed morons who only gravitate towards mediocrities.

If his music is too precious to be marketed, then perhaps he shouldn't be selling recordings of his music and charging audiences fees to see his performances. Those things are economic transactions hardly different from buying dish detergent, with a user getting a product and the producer gaining income. If he's too pure for such things, then he should stop making money off the audience he has.

Win Butler is an ass.....worst stage-presence ever!

IstenSzek said:

co-sign all

damosuzuki said:

I don't know if I agree with that. I feel like he's talking more about the way record labels and certain bands treat mass audiences, rather than anything about mass audiences themselves. And while I kind of agree with what he's saying, it's always kind of stupid to call out other artists on having ambition, even ones as idiotic as Oasis

Of course, I might be less forgiving if Neon Bible weren't the best thing I've heard so far this year...

A pity. I thought that Mr. Butler was smart enough to avoid such comments, but he has proved that he's just one of those stupid young musicians who talk shit about other "corporative" bands. (Kurt Cobain was the first of them).
[Edited 3/3/07 11:36am]

JoeTyler said:

Tessa said:

As if someone could be forced to like something they genuinely dislike.

It cracks me up when bands (or specific band members) come off like this.
If they're seriously not concerned about being successful in a big way, then just play in your local club, stay out of the press and STFU!

Seems pretty simple.

tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

MendesCity said:

But what is the difference, really? If you fault labels and bands, then you also have to find fault with the audiences since you must believe they are being led like horses to the trough rather than making their own choices.

I'm not a defender of modern music - I've said on this site more than a few times that I think there's been a precipitous decline in the characteristics I enjoy most in music. However, I do believe that the bands that are selling these days are selling because people genuinely like them, not because a cabal of record executives or marketing gurus forced them to do so. The fact that it doesn't appeal to me just means I'm out of fashion, and happily so!
[Edited 3/3/07 14:15pm]

damosuzuki said:

I don't see the connection there. The labels (and, by association, some bands) clearly try to stuff music down our collective throats. Payola is still going strong and mainstream radio/TV offers little in the way of real variety. But that doesn't mean people are buying it (and as you said, thye're flocking to alternatives they actually like). Brooke Hogan (Hulk's daughter) seems to be the worst recent example of this. Viacom so obviously gave her heavy, heavy promotion becuase of Hulk's show, and the hosts of Mtv/VHI just started acting like she was already a star. But the public wasn't having any of it, and it was a massive flop. But they certainly tried...
[Edited 3/3/07 14:55pm]

MendesCity said:

So that proves the point that it doesn't work as well as the Arcade Fire guy will have you believe.

There has to be an audience out there that's receptive to having something rammed down its throat in the first place, or it's not going to work.

I honestly don't mind having something marketed at me. I'm either going to like what they're selling starting out, or I'm not, or it's going to grow on me. How I came to like it (or not like it) really makes not one iota of difference in the end.

MendesCity said:

Well, record companies are like any business – they have a product to move, it’s their job to make people want to buy it, and they will have successes and failures. One can lament the fact that this results in musical crimes occasionally being inflicted on the world, but why bother? Whatever misgivings I may personally have, I think major labels generate enough interesting music to more than justify their existence for as long as they last.
The same system that brought us monstrosities like Brooke Hogan has also given us The Beatles, Prince, and Bob Dylan - and the Arcade Fire as well, though their vocalist seems to have forgotten that fact. If their lead singer finds 'marketing' so reprehensible, then, as TheAudience said, he should just retreat to the club circuit and release his own music.

Perhaps I’m being too harsh, but I think he just sounds like another tiresome alt-rocker who thinks he’s too good for anything as common as 'the popular audience'.

And here we are talking about Arcade Fire. That's the idea.