Production cost of NLOTH?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Sken

Refugee
Joined
Sep 10, 2001
Messages
1,042
While we are all patiently waiting for the release I got thinking about the production cost of the new album.

Let’s compare the new album to The Joshua Tree, which according to Bono took them approx. 3 months of studio time. Now looking at the NLOTH, this has been in production for approximately 3 years.

It started with the Rick Rubin sessions, which eventually were scrapped, and in reality the real album began a little under 2 years ago.

The albums production took place in many locations, Morocco, France, New York, and Dublin to name a few. That’s a lot of time for accommodation, salaries of all extras involved outside of U2, hire of studio, transport of equipment, hire of equipment etc.

Aside from the cost of producing the cd’s for mass market, I wonder who absorbs the cost of the production, whether it be Universal or U2, or a bit of both, or for that matter what the estimated production cost would be.

Would this be a cost factored into U2’s portion of the takings, i.e. takings are then split after production cost has been covered, or is it calculated and spread across the band and Universal in another manner.

Would be curious to hear your thoughts on this, as this album may well be one of their most expensive to produce when compared to the albums of the 80’s which involved much less studio time.
 
Wasn't sure as that section talks about sales and chart position. Mods please move it there if that's where it should be.
 
I wouldn't count any of the Rubin sessions towards the cost or time of making this album.
 
While we are all patiently waiting for the release I got thinking about the production cost of the new album.

Let’s compare the new album to The Joshua Tree, which according to Bono took them approx. 3 months of studio time. Now looking at the NLOTH, this has been in production for approximately 3 years.

It started with the Rick Rubin sessions, which eventually were scrapped, and in reality the real album began a little under 2 years ago.

I think that The Joshua Tree took longer to record. According to Wikipedia, the recording sessions were from July until November 1986 (so that's 5 months). But the band had started work on it before that, even before they took part on the Conspiracy Of Hope Tour.
Just a small observation, though not of direct importance to your point.

The albums production took place in many locations, Morocco, France, New York, and Dublin to name a few. That’s a lot of time for accommodation, salaries of all extras involved outside of U2, hire of studio, transport of equipment, hire of equipment etc.

Aside from the cost of producing the cd’s for mass market, I wonder who absorbs the cost of the production, whether it be Universal or U2, or a bit of both, or for that matter what the estimated production cost would be.

Would this be a cost factored into U2’s portion of the takings, i.e. takings are then split after production cost has been covered, or is it calculated and spread across the band and Universal in another manner.

The exact details are of course not known, but this is my view on it. First, keep in mind that U2 take a special place in the recording industry in the sense that the band owns their own masters (recordings) and, in a way, merely licenses the product to the record company.
I guess this means that the band absorbs most of the production costs of the record. It could be that there are arrangements with Universal about it (i.e. that they lend the money from Universal). Once U2 delivers the record, they receive an agreed-upon lump sum of money (the advance) to cover the production (and other) costs. I don't know the exact amount, but this is several millions of dollars. So upon delivery of the record, Universal has paid an amount for it and now they have to sell it to the masses.

The band has, in their contract with Universal, stipulated a royalty rate. For each record sold (or rather, shipped to retailers) they get a certain amount. Rumour has it that they have one of the highest royalty rates, about $3 for each record sold.
Now, Universal does not begin paying out the royalty rate immediately. First they're going to recoup the costs/advance. Only when 'the debts of U2 to Universal' have been paid off, does Universal start paying out the royalty rate.

Would be curious to hear your thoughts on this, as this album may well be one of their most expensive to produce when compared to the albums of the 80’s which involved much less studio time.

Yes, this album is certainly more expensive than their early 80's albums. But keep also in mind that U2 now have their own studio, so costs for that one are certainly lower than for an outside studio. Also, apart from the record being more expensive to produce, the pay-offs are also much higher.
 
Within one month after release they get all the production money back... its U2 we're talking about guys, the biggest band on Earth!! :applaud:
 
What? They'd be free then?

This is definitely where the album started.

That's like counting the costs of producing Electrical Storm, THTBA, and the Mike Hedges mixes towards the total production costs of Bomb.
 
That's like counting the costs of producing Electrical Storm, THTBA, and the Mike Hedges mixes towards the total production costs of Bomb.
Not really. Those were all strictly reserved for the "Best Of..." and "Gangs of New York."

I would think a more likely comparison would be to that of scrapping the production work they had done with Chris Thomas for Bomb - sure, those sessions may not have been fruitful at all for the band, but they were working towards the record... same with Rubin (unless that material was for the Spider-Man musical, or something else completely non-album related).
 
Not really. Those were all strictly reserved for the "Best Of..." and "Gangs of New York."

I would think a more likely comparison would be to that of scrapping the production work they had done with Chris Thomas for Bomb - sure, those sessions may not have been fruitful at all for the band, but they were working towards the record... same with Rubin (unless that material was for the Spider-Man musical, or something else completely non-album related).

Don't agree. Some of the songs they worked on with Chris Thomas made the album.
According to the band the songs they worked on with Rubin were completely scrapped.
 
Production costs just simply aren't the same as they used to be. Back in the day, one would pay $100 an hour for studio time, to rent the studio, and then engineers to help record.

Even with high end bands and studios back in the 80's and 90's, the average production cost would be 250k-700k for a record, and that would include recording, producers fees, and even some promotion and initial cost of pressing.

That was a lot of money back then, and your typical new artist (and even some established ones) could not afford that kind of investment. Same idea for movies, but just by a factor of 20 or 30. So, movie studios and record companies bring 3 things to the game - knowledge of how to make it, how to distribute it, and how to finance it -- The artist brings the content.

U2 on the other hand (and now almost all bands), do the majority of their own recording. But U2 also knows and has the means to finance it as well. What they really can't do is distribute it. Bands like Radiohead, have taken much of that into their own hands now too.

So production cost? U2's biggest cost is probably the fees and royalties they are paying to Eno and Lanois. I'm sure that Eno and Lanois own a part of this record, and they will be paid accordingly based on it's success. Thomas, and Rubin and such, were probably paid a one time fee.

Besides those fees, I'd say the production of this album fell mostly into the 'overhead' of operating the U2 corporation. Their studios, and everything it takes to run them, just are part of the overall costs of keeping U2 operating.
 
I wouldn't count any of the Rubin sessions towards the cost or time of making this album.

I think the costs for those sessions were for the 18 Singles project (i.e. recording one or two new tracks for this compilation). It allowed U2 to safely check out another producer, as there wasn't much pressure.

So indeed, I wouldn't count the cost of the Rubin sessions for this record.
 
So production cost? U2's biggest cost is probably the fees and royalties they are paying to Eno and Lanois. I'm sure that Eno and Lanois own a part of this record, and they will be paid accordingly based on it's success. Thomas, and Rubin and such, were probably paid a one time fee.

Besides those fees, I'd say the production of this album fell mostly into the 'overhead' of operating the U2 corporation. Their studios, and everything it takes to run them, just are part of the overall costs of keeping U2 operating.

I disagree. Studio time is still expensive. U2 only owns HQ and whatever they have in their house in France, not Platinum Studios in New York or Olympic Studios in London. That last one supposedly costs 1,500 pounds a day. So it isn't just overhead.
 
Well, France and Dublin must be fairly cheap, as they are "home locations for U2" - that is, they own the studios.

Fez, New Yok and London must have been more expensive.

And appart from that, yes, the producers will have been expensive, particularly as two of them will also get writing credits.

But we should also remember that they have financed an Anton corbijn movie on top of it. However low-budget that is, that must be quite expensive. Filming is typically much more expensive than recording music.
 
Back
Top Bottom