About U2's future...maybe this is a clue

[U2girl]

I looked around and I found these informations:

U2 first signed a record deal for 4 albums in 5 years,

then (before UF came out) they signed a record deal for 4 albums - this time with artistic freedom and the choice of producer, having all rights to their old and new songs,

then in '93 (before Zooropa came out) they signed a deal for 6 albums and 25% from the earnings of those albums,

but in '98 (when first Best of came out) that deal changed to 3 more albums and 1 more Best of.

 

[bayernfc]

well sounds about right..... 2 more albums including this long awaited one will take them till the end of the decade... right time to retire don't you think?

 

[Numb1075]

No !! They will play and record until I am dead.....

 

[dandy]

i'm with you, numb! (some truths are too terrible to contemplate...)

 

[The Sage]

I'd say they have another 3 albums left in them...the one later this year, then I think we'll get another fairly soon after that with all the material they must have, say Dec 2006, then a farewell album by the end of the decade...though of course i'd like them to go on for ever

 

[discothequeLP]

dammit! i missed the 70's 80's and 90's of U2!


bring on 2020! cmon u2, you can do it

 

[Popmartijn]

then in '93 (before Zooropa came out) they signed a deal for 6 albums and 25% from the earnings of those albums,

but in '98 (when first Best of came out) that deal changed to 3 more albums and 1 more Best of.

This is not entirely correct. Yes, U2 did sign a deal for 6 albums (and a really high royalty rate) just before Zooropa came out. However, Zooropa was the last album of their last contract, not the first one of their new one.

The Best Of's are covered in a separate contract, they are not part of the 6 album deal. Reportedly, U2 got $50 million for 3 Best Of compilations, so their 2/3 done with that deal.

As for the multi-album deal, depending on whether or not Passengers is counted as an album under that contract (don't know the details about that one), U2 have made 3 or 4 albums for that one (Pop, ATYCLB, the new one and maybe Passengers). Should they adhere to their contract, then there are 2 or 3 more albums left...

C ya!

Marty

 

[Jack In The Box]

dammit! i missed the 70's 80's and 90's of U2!

me too, I started to be fan since 2000, but I'm realist, U2 will release 2 (or 3) more albums and they will say goodbye

 

[Numbology]

no they won't!!
don't be so pesimistic,goddammit
they are the best friggin' band on the world and they will not call it quits,at least for another 15 years,or more!
put some trust in them!

 

[Rachel D.]

Are you kidding?! They love doing this! That's why they've been going for so long while other bands fall apart and quit. As long as the fans like it and as long as they like it, they're not gonna "retire." Look at Johnny Cash: he kept making music 'til the very, very end. And remember what Bono said, about how the music business is like the priesthood. "You can't get out until you die or somebody whacks you" (God forbid!).

 

[Bono's shades]

Well, seeing that they know take 4 years between albums and they have two or three studio albums left on their contract - that's quite a long time before we even have to think about them possibly retiring.

 

[madonna's child]

Creative types don't ever stop being creative. Whether the boys will get tired of recording and releasing, or at the very least touring, remains to be seen. I don't think it's anything we need to worry about.

 

[discothequeLP]

"You can't get out until you die or somebody whacks you" (God forbid!).

i like how bono says "whacks." sounds like the mafia would do something like that

 

[bonoed]

No! They can keep going until I die, please.

 

[U2girl]

Re: Re: About U2's future...maybe this is a clue

This is not entirely correct. Yes, U2 did sign a deal for 6 albums (and a really high royalty rate) just before Zooropa came out. However, Zooropa was the last album of their last contract, not the first one of their new one.

The Best Of's are covered in a separate contract, they are not part of the 6 album deal. Reportedly, U2 got $50 million for 3 Best Of compilations, so their 2/3 done with that deal.

As for the multi-album deal, depending on whether or not Passengers is counted as an album under that contract (don't know the details about that one), U2 have made 3 or 4 albums for that one (Pop, ATYCLB, the new one and maybe Passengers). Should they adhere to their contract, then there are 2 or 3 more albums left...

C ya!

Marty

If I understood that correctly (btw, my source was U2 History from U2tour.de),

the first 4 album deal in 5 years in 1980 covered from Boy to *Under a blood red sky (do live albums count? if not, then you're right about Zooropa not counting to the 6 album contract)

the second 4 album deal covered *UF, JT, Rattle and hum and AB

the 6 album deal would cover Zooropa, (Passengers?) POP, ATYCLB, "Vertigo" and one more.

and the changed one after the first Best of covers ATYCLB, "Vertigo" and one more album

 

[Popmartijn]

According to Bill Flanagan's At The End Of The World U2 ended their old contract with Zooropa. I see on the U2tour.de website that there was a new contract just before the release of The Unforgettable Fire. That one was still under their old contract (I don't think that a mini live EP counts as a full album), as you generally negotiate new contracts when you haven't fulfilled your old yet (completely). You want to have some time to find something else should negotiations fail. Because when you don't have a record contract, you don't get an advance for making an album (to cover the costs of recording, etc.).

So the first four albums covered are Boy to The Unforgettable Fire, the next four are The Joshua Tree to Zooropa and the subsequent six started with either Pop or Passengers and are for albums with new material.

Seperate of that contract, there is the contract for three Best Of compilations. Here's an excerpt from the Financial Times about that contract:
http://www.atu2.com/news/article.src?ID=869&Key=&Year=1998&Cat=

U2 Sign $50m Archive Deal

Financial Times, September 05, 1998

Alice Rawsthorn


U2, one of the world's most successful rock groups, has reached one of the most lucrative deals in the music industry, with PolyGram, its record company, which is expected to earn the band more than $50m in advances.

The three-album deal, scheduled to be signed early next week, will allow PolyGram's Island Records subsidiary to release three Best Of U2 albums. The first, including recordings from 1980 to 1990, goes on sale in November.

So this one really covers only The Best Of 1980-1990, The Best Of 1990-2000 and another one (2000-2010?).

C ya!

Marty

 

[U2girl]

I didn't know Flanagan says that. Thanks for that info, so yes, it looks like the first contract went till UF, the second one till Zooropa.

I'm not sure Passengers count (there were all members of U2 on it, it was not released under the name U2). I'm guessing the contract albums started with POP, but is it true that in 1998 the 6 album contract became a three album contract like U2tour.de says?

 

[Popmartijn]

I'm not sure Passengers count (there were all members of U2 on it, it was not released under the name U2). I'm guessing the contract albums started with POP, but is it true that in 1998 the 6 album contract became a three album contract like U2tour.de says?

No, that's not true. The 6 album contract for new material has stayed a 6 album contract (AFAIK). However, a second contract was signed for three compilation records. Those contracts are separate, they have nothing to do with each other.

C ya!

Marty

 

[jick]

About U2's future, the 6-album contract is not necessarily set in stone. The label and U2 may mutually end the contract prematurely on terms agreed to by both parties.

If U2's latest album will tank and their tour will be poorly attended, I don't see U2 doing a new album or tour.

Despite touring for two years non-stop (with an album in between), U2 was able to deliver POP (although unfinished) in a little more than three years from Zooropa - not to mention Passengers in between. From the end of the Popmart Tour to the release of ATYCLB, it was a shade under 3 years - and not to mention a new recording of Sweetest Thing and the Million Dollar Soundtrack in between.

Now, from ATYCLB (October 2000) to the new album (November 2004) - we are looking at 4 years - this despite the fact that the Elevation Tour lasted less than one year, and they had no major side projects in between (save for Electrical Storm, Hands That Built America).

It is obvious that U2 are slowing down. It could be because they are older, or their focus is not as sharp as before (Bono seems to have other priorities now), or their heart is simply not in it. After the Grammy success of ATYCLB and the Superbowl appearance and then cashing in on the 9/11 tragedy, U2 would have rode the wave and make a quickie album (ala Zooropa) if they were back in their peak at their younger days. Now they are no longer a hungry band. They are already filthy rich and probably just a tad bit tired of seeing each other's faces.

So after U2 had been traditionally giving us two year waits (80s) to three-year waits (90s) - and now four-year waits (00s) -- the album after this one should probably be out in 2008 (if they ever decide to release one more) or even 2009. At that point U2 would be pushing 50 so they will surely call it quits. U2 have hinted many times that they don't want to be relegated to a ceremonial band basking on past glory like the Rolling Stones. U2 have a much higher standard - and as they grow older, it will be more difficult to live up to that standards.

I'd say disregard the 6-album contract. U2 can always restructure that at all. I'd say that the upcoming album is their last or second to the last - the last being released in 2008 or 2009. U2 are too old to have sudden creative bursts like the ones that lead to Zooropa and Rattle and Hum. U2 have too many outside interests to remain hungry to make great music. U2 are close to calling it quits - believe or not.

I think we are now approaching the second to the last chapter of U2's existence. So let's enjoy it while we can.

As for the third compilation album, I don't think U2 will ever have enough songs to cover a decent 2000-2010 collection. So their third compilation album will probably be a boxed set collect the best of U2 1980 to present, plus some unreleased tracks or rare mixes.

Cheers,

J

 

[Mark Freedman]

Jick, I guess you're pretty young if you think 50 is too old to have creative bursts. That is a complete myth. It's all in the mind. You are NEVER too old.

I'd give you plenty of examples, but I'm too senile to think of any now.

I'd be afraid if you were my grandchild.

 

[Axver]

After the Grammy success of ATYCLB and the Superbowl appearance and then cashing in on the 9/11 tragedy, U2 would have rode the wave and make a quickie album (ala Zooropa) if they were back in their peak at their younger days.

You make me sick.

On topic, U2 are creative guys and without the music, I can't imagine what else any of them apart from Bono would do. We all know Edge is a perfectionist and the quality control of the band. Either Bono's voice or Larry's wrists will dictate the survival of the band. U2 will not release inferior material or allow themselves to become a "greatest hits" band, and while they remain in quality physical shape and feel they are making music to be proud of, they will keep playing. If that holds true, there is no reason they couldn't play well into their sixties and become true legends who stood the test of time. Just look at people such as Frank Sinatra and Johnny Cash, incidentally two artists U2 have worked with and undoubtedly been greatly influenced by.

That's my two cents. I don't see this as their last album or even their second last. It won't flop, either. U2 are now one of the classic bands and they couldn't flop if they tried. Bono reading the Dublin phone book would go platinum in a week!

 

[STING2]

Jick,

"If U2's latest album will tank and their tour will be poorly attended, I don't see U2 doing a new album or tour."


Has U2 ever had an album that tanked or a tour that was poorly attended since Joshua Tree? NO

Don't bring up POP, that album sold 6 million copies worldwide in 1997 and was one of the top 20 selling albums worldwide that year. The POPMART tour was seen by 4 million people and is currently the 4th highest grossing tour worldwide in history. Only the Rolling Stones have Grossed more on tour.

 

[isabelle_guns]

interesting there love

 

[bono_man2002]

they'll quit when they think its time to give it up.....when they feel they cant be creative enough anymore...not because of age.
it could be in 5 years....it could be in 20 years! who knows....

 

[jick]

Jick, I guess you're pretty young if you think 50 is too old to have creative bursts. That is a complete myth. It's all in the mind. You are NEVER too old.

I'd give you plenty of examples, but I'm too senile to think of any now.

I'd be afraid if you were my grandchild.

50 years is not old at all. These people are young. The problem is, is the main music buying market (people under 25) open to buying a record by a band "old" for their standards? This era is all about the latest and greatest. Look at Alanis and how quickly she became a "has-been" who would be lucky to sell a few records -even if she is a bonafide artist (unlike Hilary Duff for example).

Sure U2 can still make 5 good albums. But will they still sell? If their next album does something like less than 5 million worldwide, U2 will consider it a massive failure and an embarrassment. Sure they don't make music for the sales - but they are aware of the sales figures after their albums come out. And Bono has just too big an ego to go on with a bad selling album.

Can you name me a band or artist who is in the 50 age category who still sold so many records? And I'm talking about a continuiing non-stop artist -- not the the "comeback" Santana or Eagles. Sinatra never recorded any significant new material in his older years, ditto for Michael Jackson.

I think U2 are really close to calling it quits. After this album , they only have one more studio album left in them. At least that's my opinion.

Cheers,

J

 

[discothequeLP]

true, there is no band thats over 50 right now that still releases good and succesful new material





But no band right now has been around for 25 years and has stayed in the mainstream since 1983. U2 doesn't have to be subject to the limitations that other artists fall under. They've always been different. Maybe they can still sell records when they pass 50. Maybe they can still appeal to the younger market while keeping their fan base, like they have been doing for a decade now. If anyone can do it, it's U2, for sure.

 

[Mark Freedman]

I see your point, Jick. But I don't think we have seen a band like U2, so maybe they can break the mold (and not get moldy).

Why does U2 have to conform to the majority of artists? They've never conformed before? The most successful people are those who break the so-called established rules of the game. Their track record shows this. Give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[U2girl]

Can you name me a band or artist who is in the 50 age category who still sold so many records? And I'm talking about a continuiing non-stop artist -- not the the "comeback" Santana or Eagles. Sinatra never recorded any significant new material in his older years, ditto for Michael Jackson.

I think U2 are really close to calling it quits. After this album , they only have one more studio album left in them. At least that's my opinion.

Cheers,

J

Bruce Springsteen had a really succesful album and tour with the Rising, and he's 50ish.

I think that they will finish this decade - Vertigo, and - if they go back to 3 year album release rhythm - 2 more. Then the last Best of will come, after that...who knows? I have a feeling Bono's voice will be a big factor, particularly regarding the touring stress.

 

[Axver]

I'm not even sure many people in my generation realise how old U2 actually are. I know when ATYCLB came out, I didn't realise they'd already hit their forties and it's doubtful anyone else I knew was aware of that either.

In any case, my generation isn't U2's core market. U2 do not need the teenage market. U2's core market is aged from 21 to 54. They are still going to have a massive following whether or not 13-20 even give them a thought. When you are as classic as U2 are, you simply can't flop. In any case, as has been said before, U2 have never been restricted by or conformed to expectations, so why should it happen now?

 

[jick]

U2's ATYCLB was their second wind already - kinda like Santana's Supernatural or Eagles' Hell Freezes Over. It was a one-shot deal at popularity and the POP debacle took care of that.

After the POP fiasco that made U2 look so bad, U2 brilliantly decided that the best way for the fans to forget that was to remind them of their 80's work - so they released the Best Of 1980-90. And they included their sugar-coated sing-along super-radio-friendly single Sweetest Thing --- just to remind the people that U2 were sweet -- and not the bitter and dark and directionless band of POP that made inacessible music. True enough, the Best Of 1980-1990 sold big time -- Sweetest Thing was sang by everything (the Boyzone cameo helped immensely too) -- and people forgot all about POP because they all had 80's U2 on their mind.

So U2 got to be "in the zone" and had a tidal wave of success - from cashing in on 9/11, to the Superbowl appearance, to the Time magazine cover, to the second wave of Grammy wins. But instead of riding the wave, U2 went to a standstill. They did not take advantage of their momentum - and I thought this would be detrimental to their career. True enough it was.

U2 broke the standstill with the release of the Best Of 1990-2000. Unfortunately, U2 must have forgot that a big part of the 90's was something most music fans would rather forget - the POP era. And even if U2 tried to "hide" and "disguise" the POP songs in the veil of new mixes -- it still reminded the public of those dreadful years. Hence, the Best Of 1990-2000 tanked. Electrical Storm did not even make the slightest ripple in any chart in any country or region whatsoever. The Hands That Built America was a massive failure also. U2 even anticipated it would be big and was ready to release the song as a single (with a new mix of Playboy Mansion as the B-side), but it seemed no one cared and U2 realized this and did not release the single anyway. Wow, a would-have-been single by U2 was actually cancelled because it was expected to tank anyway.

The Best of 1990-2000 is an indication of things to come. It seems to be a forebearer of a non-favorable destiny for U2's next release. Bono has been saying the same high sounding words about the album the past three years. The album was supposed to come out last year. The delay has made the anticipation of the new album really weak.

While I do not doubt that the new album will once again charter new musical heights and stimulate my artistic appetite, I am pretty sure that the new album is destined for commercial failure -- with the Best Of 1990-2000 being the bad omen. And while hearing great music is all that matters to us U2 fans, for U2 themselves they want to make great music that will sell. I am not sure if they can still comeback from another commercial failure considering their lack of "hunger" since they have achieved everything a band can achieve and much more (including fame and fortune). Rather than ruin their reputation and make one bad-selling album after the other, I think U2 will release this album then tour. And when the album tanks, and the tour slowly morphs into becoming nothing but a nostalgic greatest hits tour -- U2 will make just one more album then call it quits.

That is my prediction.

Cheers,

J