U2 packing it in?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I'm just sad that I didn't get one last chance to see REM before they retired. Saw them in 2003 (Cleveland) and 2004 (Cincinnati), and both were great! Didn't see them on the Accelerate tour of 2008 because the closest show they played to me was Chicago. Sad that I'll never get the chance.

Supposedly AC/DC are going to be announcing their retirement soon, with rumors swirling about that Malcolm Young is gravely ill. Earlier this year, they were talking about touring this year in honor of their 40th anniversary, and now they're talking about ending the band. None of this is confirmed, but it just goes to show you never know how long anything is going to last.

I plan to savor every moment of U2's next tour, and see as many shows as I can, because it could be their last! Guess we need the album first.....
 
I'm just sad that I didn't get one last chance to see REM before they retired. Saw them in 2003 (Cleveland) and 2004 (Cincinnati), and both were great! Didn't see them on the Accelerate tour of 2008 because the closest show they played to me was Chicago. Sad that I'll never get the chance.

I was lucky enough to see REM in 1999 at Glastonbury - and unlucky enough to have with me that day a girl who freaked out about the size of the crowd and insisted I got her out of there. I saw about 8 songs :doh:

U2 are now pretty much the only band I could possibly see that I might want to see.
 
I'm just sad that I didn't get one last chance to see REM before they retired. Saw them in 2003 (Cleveland) and 2004 (Cincinnati), and both were great! Didn't see them on the Accelerate tour of 2008 because the closest show they played to me was Chicago. Sad that I'll never get the chance.

Supposedly AC/DC are going to be announcing their retirement soon, with rumors swirling about that Malcolm Young is gravely ill. Earlier this year, they were talking about touring this year in honor of their 40th anniversary, and now they're talking about ending the band. None of this is confirmed, but it just goes to show you never know how long anything is going to last.

I plan to savor every moment of U2's next tour, and see as many shows as I can, because it could be their last! Guess we need the album first.....

I heard this today from my brother, who is as big a fan of AC/DC as I am of U2. I don't know as much about them/not as devoted, but I like AC/DC a lot too. Not enough to be torn up about this, but still.

I can't tell you how much this woke me up regarding U2. I still don't think they're breaking up, but there are too many concerning signs since February. I am a realist, I know nothing is forever, but I've never given the end of U2 a serious thought until now. I guess I've been lucky to never have been a mega fan of a band that has called it quits- I was never a big REM person like so many here- and when I think of U2's age, I always think more of Bruce and the Stones being older and active than I do of REM being younger and retired.

Anyways, I still think we'll see U2 around for many more years, but as we are seeing now, nothing is guaranteed and we have to savor EVERY new U2 moment going forward. One thing is for sure, I'll be probably doubling the number of shows I see this tour due to how things have been since February.

Most importantly, I truly hope Malcolm Young will be ok, even if AC/DC does retire. The founder/leader of a great and iconic band that will not soon be forgotten.
 
I heard this today from my brother, who is as big a fan of AC/DC as I am of U2. I don't know as much about them/not as devoted, but I like AC/DC a lot too. Not enough to be torn up about this, but still.

I can't tell you how much this woke me up regarding U2. I still don't think they're breaking up, but there are too many concerning signs since February. I am a realist, I know nothing is forever, but I've never given the end of U2 a serious thought until now. I guess I've been lucky to never have been a mega fan of a band that has called it quits- I was never a big REM person like so many here- and when I think of U2's age, I always think more of Bruce and the Stones being older and active than I do of REM being younger and retired.

Anyways, I still think we'll see U2 around for many more years, but as we are seeing now, nothing is guaranteed and we have to savor EVERY new U2 moment going forward. One thing is for sure, I'll be probably doubling the number of shows I see this tour due to how things have been since February.

Most importantly, I truly hope Malcolm Young will be ok, even if AC/DC does retire. The founder/leader of a great and iconic band that will not soon be forgotten.

From what I'm hearing, AC/DC is not about to retire and Malcolm just needs some time to get better. AC/DC have studio time booked for next month. There will probably be an album and big new tour in a couple of years.
 
From what I'm hearing, AC/DC is not about to retire and Malcolm just needs some time to get better. AC/DC have studio time booked for next month. There will probably be an album and big new tour in a couple of years.

AC/DC will tour next year, new album. No Malcolm.

U2 will, if anything, go down the route of Bruce or Stones and keep on playing live as long as they can.
 
I hope U2 goes the way of Bruce. I saw Bruce last week in Columbus, and I must say at 64 he still exerts more energy onstage then most rock performers half his age or less! As long as the members of U2 take care of themselves, and have a little bit of luck, I see no reason why they can't still be touring 10 years from now.

I can see Bono and Edge happily still performing music in 10 years. Adam would probably go along with whatever the rest of the band decides to do. I can't imagine Larry wanting to still wanting to do this in his mid 60s. The differences between them and Springsteen is that if Bruce's drummer wants to retire, he can just get another drummer (granted, the great Max Weinberg is an integral part of the E Street Band, but even he has had to miss gigs on occasion and they still went off without a hitch). Part of what makes U2 U2 is that it's always been the fab 4 onstage.
 
No they have no record contract left, where do people keep getting this idea from??? that contract ended eons ago. There's NOTHING that's forcing them to record anything.
 
No they have no record contract left, where do people keep getting this idea from??? that contract ended eons ago. There's NOTHING that's forcing them to record anything.

You are thinking about the 6 album contract they signed after releasing Zooropa. Yes, they completed that. Paul McGuinness said after the start of the 360 tour that the band had a contract for 3 albums. Since U2 have yet to release any albums since the start of the 360 tour, it would appear that its still a live one.
 
Nope, you're thinking about the three year contract they signed by the end of the vertigo tour. But with two best offs and NLOTH, that contract was served.
 
I think there was a deal signed with Live Nation, but there wasn't an advance so if they don't fulfill it they don't fulfill it.
 
:hmm: Ok now I'm confused. I'm pretty sure there was a 3 album deal somewhere in the 00s that was dealt with by U218 and/or NLOTH. Maybe it was after ATYCLB and it was best of 90-00, Bomb and U218. Did they switch record labels before or after NLOTH?
 
Nope, you're thinking about the three year contract they signed by the end of the vertigo tour. But with two best offs and NLOTH, that contract was served.

Well, the six album contract signed in 1993 was completed as follows:

1. POP
2. 1980-1990
3. ATYCLB
4. 1990-2000
5. HTDAAB
6. U2 - 18

I have huge article from 1993 that discusses the six album contract, plus it is discussed in the radio broadcast of the ZOO TV show from Dublin, mentioned in Bill Flanigans book Until The End OF The World, and some other areas. The above six albums completed that contract.

So my mistake appears to be including NLOTH in that contract. It would be the first of the new 3 album contract. So its:

1. NLOTH
2. NEW ALBUM
3. NEW ALBUM
 
Some do and some don't, their first two best ofs were covered under a contract specifically for compilations.

Well if that is the case, then we are all wrong and they are still working on that 6 album contract signed back in 1993. It would look like this:

1. POP
2. ATYCLB
3. HTDAAB
4. NLOTH
5. NEW ALBUM
6. NEW ALBUM

I have a feeling though that at a minimum they will do at least one more album, for a grand total of 15 studio albums before they disband. They may do more than that though, but at least 15 I think.
 
Well if that is the case, then we are all wrong and they are still working on that 6 album contract signed back in 1993. It would look like this:

1. POP
2. ATYCLB
3. HTDAAB
4. NLOTH
5. NEW ALBUM
6. NEW ALBUM

I have a feeling though that at a minimum they will do at least one more album, for a grand total of 15 studio albums before they disband. They may do more than that though, but at least 15 I think.

When they do break up, they could release another dozen albums of studio material which never made the cut.
 
I can't remember the details, but that 1993 deal was torn up at some point - either with the Polygram sale to Vivendi (turning it into Universal Music) or when they switched from Island to Mercury/Interscope. It might have been the Island/Mercury/Interscope timing as that's when U218 appeared, kind of out of place, really did seem like it was tying up loose ends. These contracts aren't simple, and are continually being at least amended. Remember U2 had a stake in Island - adds complications to those sales and label transfers . I have no idea, but a lot of U2's terms might have at some point been hitched to that ownership stake, so if/when that changed, the whole nature of the deal did too.
 
I can't remember the details, but that 1993 deal was torn up at some point - either with the Polygram sale to Vivendi (turning it into Universal Music) or when they switched from Island to Mercury/Interscope. It might have been the Island/Mercury/Interscope timing as that's when U218 appeared, kind of out of place, really did seem like it was tying up loose ends. These contracts aren't simple, and are continually being at least amended. Remember U2 had a stake in Island - adds complications to those sales and label transfers . I have no idea, but a lot of U2's terms might have at some point been hitched to that ownership stake, so if/when that changed, the whole nature of the deal did too.

The Island/Mercury/Interscope only involves distribution in the United States and a few other countries. Overall, worldwide, its been Island, then Polygram, and finally Universal. The deal may have changed, but there has not been any source since 1993 that has confirmed that it has. So in light of that, I'd say they are still on it. Of course, the music industry is tiny compared to what it was in 2000 or even back in 1993 now. The amount of money U2 would make from their record deal and sales, used to be their main bread winner with the tours helping to support that. But today, the money made from tours dwarfs what they make from record sales and record deals for a variety of reasons.
 
Well, the six album contract signed in 1993 was completed as follows:

1. POP
2. 1980-1990
3. ATYCLB
4. 1990-2000
5. HTDAAB
6. U2 - 18

I have huge article from 1993 that discusses the six album contract, plus it is discussed in the radio broadcast of the ZOO TV show from Dublin, mentioned in Bill Flanigans book Until The End OF The World, and some other areas. The above six albums completed that contract.

So my mistake appears to be including NLOTH in that contract. It would be the first of the new 3 album contract. So its:

1. NLOTH
2. NEW ALBUM
3. NEW ALBUM

Isn't the 1993 contract invalid once they left to Mercury ?

Best ofs records was a three album deal from 1998 and was completed with U218.
 
yeah I think I remember reading that U218 was some sort of contract-completing release..
 
U2 still have 3 albums to do in their latest contract with Universal. Or wait, is it Live Nation now? I know Live Nation handles the touring, but did they take over the record deal from Universal?

No.

U2 have no albums "to do" at all - ever. And they would never sign a recording contract that somehow required that. And what label in their right mind would give an advance for music when so few people still buy music? Nobody is on the hook here as far as future obligations that can't be met. The only obligation here is for if/when an artist DOES decide to put out new music.

Translation - those 'advance' recording contracts don't exist anywhere anymore. And they never did w/U2. Madonna got an advance in her Live Nation deal but she included her music. U2 didn't do that. And in any case, Madonna's advance from LN, like U2's, is all about touring.

There are lots of topic covered here on the last two pages...

First of all, Seagram purchased Polygram which was then bought by Universal in 1998 and IIRC, the old U2 deal from circa '93 was restructured and it included the 'three compilations' as adding value to to the Polygram side of things. I don't remember what U2 got in return, but whatever. U218 fulfilled it. Their move from Mercury to Island was around this time too. 2006. The bottom line is, this deal doesn't matter anymore.

The only obligations U2 would have today (if any) are on the touring side of things. Their Live Nation deal doesn't have anything to do with the music. They were promised something like $25 million - and were paid in stock (prior to 360). It was reportedly 1.6 million shares according to one report I just read in the atu2 archive. So they would be on the hook to Live Nation for $25 million. Although U2 might have taken less than Madonna (she got something like $100 million) for two reasons. 1) Unlike Madonna, they didn't fork over ANY music content. 2) They were paid in equity/stock, worth $25 million in late 2008, it might be worth more today, five years later and beyond.

So there is a question of what is exactly owed to whom in that deal. So while U2 toured 360 and surely Live Nation made a boatload of cash from it (at least $25 million?), any future obligations are...who knows? These particulars would only be known by people that have seen the actual contract.

My gut tells me that regardless, U2 are going to tour one more time 2015/2016 and given the expiration of that Live Nation deal (expires in 2020), that's probably one more gigantic tour. You could probably take that much to the bank. (plus a new album too, anyhow). That Live Nation deal is for YEARS - not tours. And considering how much money 360 made overall - you might even speculate Live Nation has been paid back $25 million already - the advance. Maybe, hard to say.

The moral to the story is - we don't know what they might owe to Live Nation, if anything. But they certainly owe nothing to their record label. Again, U2 wouldn't be given an advance by their label and weren't. It seems this has to be repeated every 60 days or so around here.

Common sense. If two members died tomorrow, is Universal (Interscope/Island) going to force the two surviving members to hire two news guys and make new music as "U2"? No. They can't be obligated to provide that kind of future content. It's just that IF they do decide to make new music, they are contracted to do it under the Universal umbrella.

In this respect, U2 don't owe one more new song to anyone, ever again. Why would U2 do a deal like that...forget that, why would these labels do such a deal? They wouldn't, not anymore. Not in an era where the #1 selling album in the U.S. sells 2 million copies. There is no real money being made here.

I'll be repeating this in...about August when someone else says "But U2 are contracted for three more albums! They can't quit!!!" They can quit yesterday. And the only obligation they might have is to Live Nation. And if so, and if they wanted to quit tomorrow - they would just sell the Live Nation stock, I would guess. Or there may be a clause where that stock reverts back to Live Nation at a certain point if X, Y and Z obligations aren't met. In other words, it might not even be 'real money' to U2 at this point. Just know one thing - Paul McG knew what the fuck he was doing when this contract was signed. U2 were always, even in the earliest days, more about controlling their own destiny than squeezing the most money they could get.

U2 can retire whenever they want. Regardless, we're clearly getting one more album and tour - and the stars are lining up so that they can truly, comfortably call it quits after this cycle, if they want to. I mean, I think they can call it quits today if they really wanted to and it wouldn't break them.

Just stop paying attention the album deals, folks. They mean nothing as far as whether U2 will continue to make new music.
 
Yes, contracts are meaningless. As much as I love hearing new material and seeing them live, I think it may be time for U2 to pack it in and earn their place in history as the greatest rock and roll band of all time. The Stones, I think, have diminished their role in history by continuing so long. Don't be the Stones.

Bono's voice is better than ever. He couldn't sing a song like Magnificent or Ordinary Love 25 years ago. Invisible was a fantastic song. My 7 year old twins sing it constantly, but it had zero impact on the pop charts. There's only one reason for that: they're too old. And they've become everything they've always railed against. They've become too precious with their music and their image. Everything has to be JUUUUUUUST right or it doesn't see the light of day. Is that how Elvis recorded? Or Buddy Holly, Dylan, the Velvets, the Ramones, the Clash, or anyone they've ever respected?

They only way U2 will make it back is by letting their balls hang out in their music. I just don't think they're capable anymore.

I'm afraid U2 of 2014 has become—or is very close to becoming—the Rolling Stones of the 90s, a band who would release an album of mostly solid material, no one would even notice, and then they'd go on a long, well attended, mostly nostalgia-themed stadium tour.

OK, thank you very much; I'll go every time. I've been a fan since I saw you guys singing on a barge in Dublin on MTV 32 years ago. If yer 65, I'm buying a ticket. But is this what YOU had in mind?
 
Back
Top Bottom