U2 packing it in? - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong > Where The Album Has A Name - Songs of Experience
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 04-07-2014, 10:55 AM   #46
Blue Crack Addict
 
last unicorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: lost in poetry
Posts: 19,446
Local Time: 08:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjhbonovox View Post
To be fair Bono's had problems writing new songs since 1997.
So I guess you are also one of the lucky ones having a direct line to Bono. Or how else could you know something like that, unless he personally told you so?
__________________

__________________
last unicorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2014, 03:09 PM   #47
Refugee
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,096
Local Time: 07:16 AM
I've got faith that they will pull through this. But, it's interesting to consider how the band will eventually end. Will they call it quits during one of these difficult album prep periods or have the foresight to know that they can't do it anymore?

Or will they get two albums in the can, tour one and have a ready-made "final" album in the queue?
__________________

__________________
ahittle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2014, 03:43 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,541
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Hopefully they don't pull an REM and just toss a decent album out there, followed by literally NO PROMOTION and then say 6 months later "ah we're done". U2 would definitely capitalize on their ending with a big final tour, as long as they're physically able to do so.
__________________
The_acrobat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2014, 04:20 PM   #49
Refugee
 
Hollow Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,143
Local Time: 03:16 AM
I'd prefer U2 go out the REM way than do a big cheesy farewell tour. That's one of the greatest cliches in rock, and it would be diservice to U2. REM promoted Collapse Into Now, but Stipe didn't do any press. He's taken albums off before. Had they announced that the album was their last one it would have been a lot bigger, but I think that they would have found cashing in on their retirement to be crass, and that's one thing REM never were, and U2 have rarely been.

I think (and hope) that U2 decide to end during the fallow period after a tour and between a new album and don't use it as a marketing tool. It's only slightly less distasteful than the "my drug hell" that has-beens rely on to distract us from the decline in their musical output.

U2 have their flaws and their commercial ambitions seem to be stronger than their artistic ones now, but they're still a pretty classy band.
__________________
Hollow Island is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2014, 07:52 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,598
Local Time: 12:16 AM
If the farewell tour had a performance and DVD as good as Crowded House's I would support that.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2014, 11:42 PM   #51
Acrobat
 
Montrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 465
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by last unicorn View Post
So I guess you are also one of the lucky ones having a direct line to Bono. Or how else could you know something like that, unless he personally told you so?


"I would wake up in bed in the foetal position, and Ali would say: 'What's wrong?' I'd tell her, 'I don't want to get out of bed.' And she'd say, 'You don't want to write is what you mean.' ... Ali was literally kicking me out of bed in the morning, putting the pen in my hand."

—U2 by U2, pg 166
__________________
Montrose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2014, 11:52 AM   #52
Babyface
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 18
Local Time: 11:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadelynIris View Post
Nope, U2 got at least 3 albums and big tours to support those albums too. They won't be breaking up any time soon.
__________________
U2fan20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2014, 12:38 PM   #53
Refugee
 
Hollow Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,143
Local Time: 03:16 AM
Three albums and tours in their contract? They'll have to find a loophole to get out of it because there's no way they'll manage three more albums and tours given how they work. This will be their only album this decade, barring a miracle. I'd be shocked if they were more productive next decade, when they're all in their 60s, than they are now. I think it's more likely that NLOTH is their last album than we get three more albums and tours.

Of course, they could do smaller tours and be a full-time band again, but what are the odds of that happening?
__________________
Hollow Island is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2014, 01:20 PM   #54
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,420
Local Time: 07:16 AM
The best unexpected thing for them to do would be playing in smaller venues. Get back to the clubs. I think it would inspire them. They wouldn't have to envision every song being sung back to them in a stadium.
__________________
ozeeko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2014, 01:54 PM   #55
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,973
Local Time: 08:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollow Island View Post
I'd prefer U2 go out the REM way than do a big cheesy farewell tour. That's one of the greatest cliches in rock, and it would be diservice to U2. REM promoted Collapse Into Now, but Stipe didn't do any press. He's taken albums off before. Had they announced that the album was their last one it would have been a lot bigger, but I think that they would have found cashing in on their retirement to be crass, and that's one thing REM never were, and U2 have rarely been.

I think (and hope) that U2 decide to end during the fallow period after a tour and between a new album and don't use it as a marketing tool. It's only slightly less distasteful than the "my drug hell" that has-beens rely on to distract us from the decline in their musical output.

U2 have their flaws and their commercial ambitions seem to be stronger than their artistic ones now, but they're still a pretty classy band.
U2 is fundamentally too much of a live band to not tour an album. (provided no health issues or any one of them throwing the towel)
__________________
U2girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2014, 02:08 PM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
Hewson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your own private Idaho
Posts: 26,667
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozeeko View Post
The best unexpected thing for them to do would be playing in smaller venues. Get back to the clubs. I think it would inspire them. They wouldn't have to envision every song being sung back to them in a stadium.
Outside of one or a few promo shows a la Irving Plaza or Kunstmuseum, no way they are going back to clubs, nor theaters. Arenas and Stadia or (most likely at this point) retirement.
__________________
Hewson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2014, 03:31 PM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 01:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollow Island View Post
Three albums and tours in their contract? They'll have to find a loophole to get out of it because there's no way they'll manage three more albums and tours given how they work. This will be their only album this decade, barring a miracle. I'd be shocked if they were more productive next decade, when they're all in their 60s, than they are now. I think it's more likely that NLOTH is their last album than we get three more albums and tours.

Of course, they could do smaller tours and be a full-time band again, but what are the odds of that happening?
The only thing they owe is promises they've already been paid for.

U2 have not been paid anything for albums they haven't made. So they actually don't owe any albums to their label, it's just IF they do make a new album, they have to release it on Universal (Interscope, Island) until those three (if that's what the contract says) are provided.

This is aside from any guarantees that pertain to music that has already been recorded (Box Sets, Best Of's). I'm talking about new music. Any artist could die tomorrow, so not only will they not be obligated to provide future releases, they won't be paid for it. And vice versa, because they aren't paid anything for it, they aren't obligated to provide it.

This is factoring in the implausibility of a 'shit deal'...some artist out there might very well have a 'shit deal' but certainly not U2. U2 will have every advantage and have all the bases covered. More on that in a moment.

The worst case scenario for U2 (should they retire tomorrow) is that they'd owe money to Live Nation. And we don't know if they received advance money for their Live Nation deal or not. Based on the reporting, it sounds like they may have. As all the reports say it's a similar deal to Madonna's LN deal.

But even so, the Live Nation deal is for a number of years (expires in 2020) and not number of albums. So, for all intents and purposes, their Live Nation deal is for one more tour. Unless someone believes they will actually squeeze in two tours in the next 6 years. Not to mention this LN deal was signed in 2008 and any advance money was likely paid PRIOR to the 360 tour. So who is to say that, even if U2 had received advance money, that they aren't totally square by now? Especially after the biggest selling tour of all time.

And finally, as I alluded to previously, knowing Paul McG's crafty ass and U2's general business savvy, they surely have all bases covered. I wouldn't be surprised if Universal is actually on the hook for that money. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised if U2 didn't owe a future cent to anyone for anything.

Regardless, almost certainly U2 will tour again at some point before 2020. But there is nothing in the world beyond their own personal desires that says they have to make another new album, much less three.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2014, 03:45 PM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
Hewson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your own private Idaho
Posts: 26,667
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
This is

But even so, the Live Nation deal is for a number of years (expires in 2020) and not number of albums. So, for all intents and purposes, their Live Nation deal is for one more tour concert.
Fixed.
__________________
Hewson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 08:47 AM   #59
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,381
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_acrobat View Post
Hopefully they don't pull an REM and just toss a decent album out there, followed by literally NO PROMOTION and then say 6 months later "ah we're done". U2 would definitely capitalize on their ending with a big final tour, as long as they're physically able to do so.
I actually have a lot of respect for the way REM bowed out. They wanted their last album to be received (both commercially and critically) on its own artistic merits, not heaped with undue praise for being their last, and it was. They could have embarked on a big money-spinning farewell tour to feather their pension bed, but they didn't. Kudos to them for not milking their departure at all. Personally, I don't think U2 would consciously try to milk their last album/tour either, but I suspect they would be a little more open to it. Unlike REM, U2 would want to ride off into the sunset to the fanfare of trumpets ringing in their ears, and there's no better way for them to do that now than saying "this is it, folks".
__________________
lemonfly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2014, 09:37 AM   #60
Refugee
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,096
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lemonfly View Post
I actually have a lot of respect for the way REM bowed out. They wanted their last album to be received (both commercially and critically) on its own artistic merits, not heaped with undue praise for being their last, and it was. They could have embarked on a big money-spinning farewell tour to feather their pension bed, but they didn't. Kudos to them for not milking their departure at all. Personally, I don't think U2 would consciously try to milk their last album/tour either, but I suspect they would be a little more open to it. Unlike REM, U2 would want to ride off into the sunset to the fanfare of trumpets ringing in their ears, and there's no better way for them to do that now than saying "this is it, folks".
I've always wondered how that REM thing went down. The album was critically well-received, but that's about it.

If, somehow, it had caught commercial fire, would they have been re-energized to keep going? I recall them being in the studio again shortly after CIN, saying they were working on another album. But I guess that stuff just turned into the extras added to the last compilation album. But there are clues about the band's dissolution in the lyrics, so who knows...

I would love Peter Buck to write a book.
__________________

__________________
ahittle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com