Larry speaks about new album

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Can't remember their record deal details, but I'm pretty sure a band like U2 could break up whenever they wanted. They wouldn't put out two albums so that they could call it a day. Surely they would just have to buy back 1/3 of the contract price if they failed to release the last 2 records?
 
U2 Record Deal Rocks Industry

this LA times article from '93 makes it seem like the six album deal included Zooropa, which would make 1. Zooropa, 2. Pop, 3. All that you can't leave behind, 4. Atomic Bomb, 5. No Line, 6. next CD.

I really wouldn't read too much into it either way. I thought they had signed another type of deal recently but that might have just been getting mixed up with them satisfying the Best Ofs with U218.

They're under contract with Live Nation through 2020, so I'd expect two more tours out of them in the next 7 years, and then that's probably it?
 
popacrobat said:
I really wouldn't read too much into it either way. I thought they had signed another type of deal recently but that might have just been getting mixed up with them satisfying the Best Ofs with U218.
Click to expand...

They more or less entirely switched labels in 2006.
 
dan_smee said:
That was my recollection, but everything about the LN deal says that it is everything BUT new music
Click to expand...

Well, the LiveNation deal came after this. I believe 2006 was the transition from Island to... Mercury? I'm fuzzy on the details.
 
popacrobat said:
They're under contract with Live Nation through 2020, so I'd expect two more tours out of them in the next 7 years, and then that's probably it?
Click to expand...

The next tour will last from 2014 to 2020 and it will go down as the longest tour in history. U2 will play to 3 billion people and make gazillions from this and save the world economy all by themselves. Good times are ahead.

Seriously, I don't know if contract details and U2's musical carreer are really that closely connected. If one contract expires, there's always a new one. Plus side projects, a new Passengers album, a new movie soundtrack, and so on. I wouldn't over-analyze the end of a contract, it's not U2's end set in stone. Of course it could be, but not necessarily.
 
Why do people think U2 will retire? They seem too restless/eager to remain relevant to stop. Not saying they'll become the Rolling Stones, and I wouldn't be mourning if they pulled the pin after this album/presumed tour, but there hasn't even been the slightest indication that they'll retire, from any of them, as long as I've been following the band, which is near on a decade now.
 
cobl04 said:
Why do people think U2 will retire? They seem too restless/eager to remain relevant to stop. Not saying they'll become the Rolling Stones, and I wouldn't be mourning if they pulled the pin after this album/presumed tour, but there hasn't even been the slightest indication that they'll retire, from any of them, as long as I've been following the band, which is near on a decade now.
Click to expand...

You haven't been following that closely then. After 360 was over and around the time of FTSD Bono was publicly expressing a lot of exitenstial agnst about the band and relevance, whether or not to continue, etc., particularly at the presser for that movie. He made similar musings around the time REM called it quits.

Yeah, yeah, I know, it was the usual Bono blather, but it's not like they haven't given the slightest indication that they've considered retirement, because they have. Edge and Larry have also spoken publicly about retirement the past few years.

In any event, I tend to agree with you, I doubt it's going happen anytime soon (though I'd prefer they do it before they become a self-parody).
 
If U2 releases a song as truly wonderful as Moment of Surrender every four years while continuing to play solid gigs full of brilliant music, I hope they never retire.
 
LuckyNumber7 said:
I honestly don't ever expect them to stop touring so long as they're physically capable.
Click to expand...

This. As they get older, I can see them doing a residency somewhere because the constant travelling would be too exhausting. But playing live is a fundamental part of who they are, they thrive on that direct connection with the audience. Contracts be damned.
 
Still can't believe MOS wasn't a single......

Hell, I still can't believe Crazy Tonight was a single.....:|
 
namkcuR said:
Well...I'm not calling anything doomsday, but, they signed a six-record deal in 1993, after Zooropa. Assuming Passengers doesn't count, they've put out Pop, ATYCLB, HTDAAB, and NLOTH. Releasing two records in close proximity would finish that contract sooner rather than later and leave U2's options wide open. The Best Ofs were on a separate three-record deal(it is believed that U218 was the third of them).

I'm not saying U2 want to quit after two more records, but maybe they do just want to give themselves options.
Click to expand...

Their record deal with Island ended in 2006 with the release of U218. The Best ofs were included in the deal and their contract ended. They went with Mercury records, though I don't recall if they had a specific contract speaking album numbers.

Either way, your reasoning is incorrect, because they do not have the Island deal anymore. Besides, they're ridiculously rich rock stars, they can do whatever the fuck they want. If they want to quit, they quit. No record company is going to change that.
 
Reading these posts has me thinking that maybe at this stage in U2's carrer (closer to the end then the beginning), they are looking to do things differently going forward. Album, Tour and then time off may not be the norm anymore? What if they released two albums before touring again? So I was thinking that maybe the old axioms of Bono, Larry, Edge.... talking about the new album is just out of there arse and not real information might be a thing of the past.
 
popacrobat said:
U2 Record Deal Rocks Industry

this LA times article from '93 makes it seem like the six album deal included Zooropa, which would make 1. Zooropa, 2. Pop, 3. All that you can't leave behind, 4. Atomic Bomb, 5. No Line, 6. next CD.

I really wouldn't read too much into it either way. I thought they had signed another type of deal recently but that might have just been getting mixed up with them satisfying the Best Ofs with U218.

They're under contract with Live Nation through 2020, so I'd expect two more tours out of them in the next 7 years, and then that's probably it?
Click to expand...

The 1993 contract is irrelevant since 2006 when they switched the label.

It's a 12-year deal with Live Nation Artists that includes worldwide touring, merchandising, and the band's U2.com Web site. The deal, however, is not a true 360-degree pact, as there is no publishing component and the band retains its relationship with Universal Music to release music.

From what I understand, Live Nation deal - which is now halfway through - was always about touring/merchandise/website, not so much albums (ie Mercury). I don't think they ever revealed the details of that contract.

That said...I don't think they will go on like the Stones. Larry in his last interviews clearly indicated if U2 tours in their 60's it will be only on the back of a strong record. And that's not even taking into account Bono's back/vocals and Larry's wrists/back.
 
U2girl said:
The 1993 contract is irrelevant since 2006 when they switched the label.

It's a 12-year deal with Live Nation Artists that includes worldwide touring, merchandising, and the band's U2.com Web site. The deal, however, is not a true 360-degree pact, as there is no publishing component and the band retains its relationship with Universal Music to release music.

From what I understand, Live Nation deal - which is now halfway through - was always about touring/merchandise/website, not so much albums (ie Mercury). I don't think they ever revealed the details of that contract.

That said...I don't think they will go on like the Stones. Larry in his last interviews clearly indicated if U2 tours in their 60's it will be only on the back of a strong record. And that's not even taking into account Bono's back/vocals and Larry's wrists/back.
Click to expand...

Your right. Unless we see U2 add 4-6 musicians on stage (see the Stones 1989 & beyond) I could see 2 more tours tops for them.

And that is not a bad thing, sad to think about, but sometimes its best to go out on top.
 
I made a post about a year ago suggesting that they should release 2 albums for each tour. I stand by it - On their next tours they should space out shows a bit more if they do stadiums and play longer sets OR play arenas do more shows and vary the setlists (I prefer option B). I like a release pattern where we get new music not so much contingent on when they are ready to tour, but moreso on when the music is good. Hva e a longish session, make 2 albums, release one - wait until they are ready to tour - release the next.

Maybe it would be good to see them upon release camp in a small arena somewhere, learn the songs live, play a live broadcast show to hardcore fans in Dublin where they play the album live start to finish, and then do a 'greatest hits' B set. Once the second album comes out they can then tour properly.
 
The record deals are completely irrelevant.

U2 can do whatever the fuck they want to do regardless of any of that.

They have ZERO obligation to release another piece of music. Ever.
 
dan_smee said:
Surely they would just have to buy back 1/3 of the contract price if they failed to release the last 2 records?
Click to expand...

They aren't paid in advance like that. They are paid as they make music. If U2 has 2 albums left on any deal with anyone, all that means is that IF they make those 2 albums, they have contracted to release them through (insert label here). If u2 doesn't want to make anything more, they won't.

As far as the previous Best-Of compilations go, I believe that was an old-style contract that promised those to Island. They needed to give them one more to get out of that deal, so we got U218. AFAIK, their Mercury deal doesn't have any of those. But even if it did, that doesn't pertain to new music.
 
I "think" U2 actually have serious visions of doing two albums rather quickly this time. Previously it was more of a wishful thinking/hyperbole vibe and they even knew it. Not this time, legitimately they supposedly have enough material this time they feel is releasable. Still, I will believe 2 albums fairly quickly when it happens. The only for sure thing is that there will be new U2 music by the end of the year. Which is right on schedule. Start saving your money for next years tour. Arenas N. America, Stadiums europe. Sorry Euro fans who wanted arenas, not happening. Stadiums in the U.S. in the spring summer 2015 on a 4th or 5th leg if the new album(s) are any kind of success. Think 3D imaging......
 
Blue Room said:
I "think" U2 actually have serious visions of doing two albums rather quickly this time. Previously it was more of a wishful thinking/hyperbole vibe and they even knew it. Not this time, legitimately they supposedly have enough material this time they feel is releasable. Still, I will believe 2 albums fairly quickly when it happens. The only for sure thing is that there will be new U2 music by the end of the year. Which is right on schedule. Start saving your money for next years tour. Arenas N. America, Stadiums europe. Sorry Euro fans who wanted arenas, not happening. Stadiums in the U.S. in the spring summer 2015 on a 4th or 5th leg if the new album(s) are any kind of success. Think 3D imaging......
Click to expand...

thanks for the informed hunch :up:
 
It is The Sun, but still... Was there ever a record in rock and roll history that took 10 years that "got it right"?

Chinese Democracy certainly didn't get it right.
 
I guess I should revise my previous statement. I don't think arenas in Europe are out of the question. Just not likely. If it happens it will be like the Elevation tour except U2 will go back to Europe to do stadiums in 2015 and do half of the Spring/summer 2015 in Europe and the other half in N. America (again N. America only if there is a huge demand still). Originally U2 were to play stadiums in Europe in 2002 for the Elevation tour but decided not to proceed leaving Europe heavily underplayed for the Elevation tour. I do not think they would want to risk that happening again. Which leads me to believe it will be stadiums only and I believe that is the tentative plan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Miroslava
Friday, February 23, 2024 - MSG Sphere - Las Vegas, NV
Replies
2
Views
496
Miroslava
Miroslava
O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
277
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
dont_turn_around
Hello everyone!
Replies
1
Views
123
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
Janet H
  • Sticky
Forum Update - We're back! Ask your questions here.
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Popmartijn
Popmartijn
dan_smee
U2 Live From Sphere - Final Show SiriusXM stream
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom