New album discussion: After despair comes acceptance

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
YBORCITY said:
I wouldn't be so sure of this statement anymore.Since the latest cast off isn't hiding his displeasure with the band. Put yourself in DM's shoes, you're the new hottest producer out there you have a number of critically acclaimed albums, in fact you have you're own critically acclaimed album out. U2 rings you up and says you wanna produce our next album? Wow what an opportunity for a young hipster producer to get a chance to work with the giants of the industry. After YEARS of work and maybe a glimmer that this thing could be on its way to finishing. I mean put out a couple of good tunes them only to hear they are going to others to finish the album. Fuck yeah Id be pissed. You wonder how all of this is playing out industry-wide. I mean the Rubins and Thomas's of the world must be saying to themselves, "shoulda warned the young whipped snapper. I can't actually believe Im saying this..... get Eno, Lanois, Lillywhite even you "shine box" Jimmy. You all deserve each other and yes we'll get VertigoIII and sappy lyrics from Bono, Im sure Larry could retire quite fitfully after another luke warm album and sold out tour.
Click to expand...

"I don't know. I'm working on Bells right now I have no idea what they're doing. I've been working on it for YEARS but I'm sure they're still working on the record."


And this will scare off ANYONE from working with U2 ? Really ?

Remember he still has majority of the record credited to his production, the other producer(s?) will only have a hand right at the end. This isn't like Rubin or Thomas where very little material survived.

They can always get Eno/Lanois back...let's keep new producers for a while.
 
What the hell. This is exhausting.
I'm still going to assume 2015, that way when it's delayed again this summer/fall/whatever, it won't be so disappointing. An actual 2014 release will be a bonus to me.
 
U2 still has horrible PR team/skills.

They really screwed the pooch with the Super Bowl ad. I know it was charity, but what a waste of promotion
 
chrissybaby said:
This is Shakespearean!
Click to expand...
No.....
h8aKgSD.jpg
 
My best guess is that the band still has some finishing up work to do, but also their machine had been at work on preliminary tour logistics and date-holds on some arenas.

Given that the album isn't likely to wrap up in the next couple of weeks, said machine is starting to release some of those holds on arenas and back up the potential start dates. Billboard, et. al jumped to conclusions about the album, happiness with the material, etc.

At least I hope this is what it is. Far and away the worst scenario for me is if the statements about the magic not happening yet are true.
 
Interesting that "a spokesman for the band" didn't feel confident to give us his or her name, just like the anonymous Interscope sources. If someone is authorized by the band to make a statement like this, why can't they give their name?

So now there are two conflicting sources, both reputable. I think the bottom line here is that no one really has any idea when the album will come out, including U2 themselves.
 
At this stage I think we safely say that there will be a media lockdown, which will be further maddening. After all, what can they possibly say that millions of people won't read into? If they say that they're still working on it, people will say "Oh word, surprise release next week"; if they say they need more time "Friggin thing will never get done before 2030".

Honestly, I can't imagine that they're going to say anything definitive either way for a long, long time.
 
morgan1098 said:
Interesting that "a spokesman for the band" didn't feel confident to give us his or her name, just like the anonymous Interscope sources. If someone is authorized by the band to make a statement like this, why can't they give their name?

So now there are two conflicting sources, both reputable. I think the bottom line here is that no one really has any idea when the album will come out, including U2 themselves.
Click to expand...

*edit*

If there is an "official" announcement from U2, it will stop the craziness that is "Interference"...:no:

This is fun...and excruciating...and interesting...who knows what's going...:hmm:
 
Well, among other things it's clear that U2 has lost control of their people over the last few months. Fanning and the false new track, McCormick tweeting about the delay without appearing to check in with the band, Billboard with the 'false' information (presuming this announcement is not a backpedal of previously confirmed information)-- they are not finding it easy to keep their usual supporters on board with a unified message.
 
morgan1098 said:
Interesting that "a spokesman for the band" didn't feel confident to give us his or her name, just like the anonymous Interscope sources. If someone is authorized by the band to make a statement like this, why can't they give their name?

So now there are two conflicting sources, both reputable. I think the bottom line here is that no one really has any idea when the album will come out, including U2 themselves.
Click to expand...

Um no, they are not equally reputable. A band spokesperson is just that, a person assigned to make a statement or statements on behalf of the band. A record label rep does not represent news straight from the band, per se.

And not only that, but the statement made was in direct response to the misinformation published by Billboard. It wasn't some random statement. It directly addressed the 2015 rumour.

Band spokesperson >>> Interscope rep, by a good mile, imo

And I don't see how knowing/not knowing the spokesperson's name makes one iota of difference. If CNN reports that a spokesperson for the White House blah blah...do we not generally accept that the person has been tasked to make a statement on behalf of the White House? Usually.
 
morgan1098 said:
Interesting that "a spokesman for the band" didn't feel confident to give us his or her name, just like the anonymous Interscope sources. If someone is authorized by the band to make a statement like this, why can't they give their name?

So now there are two conflicting sources, both reputable. I think the bottom line here is that no one really has any idea when the album will come out, including U2 themselves.
Click to expand...

See, that's what made me doubt the day the Billboard report came out. Not Billboard which I trust pretty much over anything. But who these sources are and if these time deadlines come *straight* from the band or are assumptions of some rep at Interscope who knows U2's ways of working. Does the rep get instructed by the band or has he/she a sketchy time schedule he/she agreed to leak?
 
gvox said:
Um no, they are not equally reputable. A band spokesperson is just that, a person assigned to make a statement or statements on behalf of the band. A record label rep does not represent news straight from the band, per se.

And not only that, but the statement made was in direct response to the misinformation published by Billboard. It wasn't some random statement. It directly addressed the 2015 rumour.

Band spokesperson >>> Interscope rep, by a good mile, imo

And I don't see how knowing/not knowing the spokesperson's name makes one iota of difference. If CNN reports that a spokesperson for the White House blah blah...do we not generally accept that the person has been tasked to make a statement on behalf of the White House? Usually.
Click to expand...

If you're honest, you'll realize that this statement by an anonymous "representative of the band"--basically saying that the tour is in flux and the album is still on track for 2014 (not summer, not fall but just... 2014) is actually a corroboration of the Billboard story. Of course no band is going to officially say "We have postponed the album and tour." That's what an industry publication like Billboard is for!

I do believe a representative of the band gave The Guardian a quote that represents his or her best understanding of the current situation.

I also believe Billboard's report is solid, based on their contacts within Interscope.

...And none of this has ANY bearing on when the album will come out. It isn't finished, and saying "it's still on track for 2014" isn't any more encouraging than just pushing it to 2015.
 
prbiker15 said:
Exactly. :up: I personally find it a bit hard to believe that an Interscope rep would know so much about an album and tour delay. Or it's just me?
Click to expand...

It's just you.

j/k. :)

I'm not sure either of these "reports" are entirely true or false (or necessarily in conflict), because there may be no truth to either report if the band is winging it.

Billboard wouldn't run with a story from an Interscope "rep" that they didn't think was reliable, and in a position to know. They are an industry publication, and have a good (though not perfect) track record with such things, and can tell a genuine source from someone just spouting BS. And my guess is that the person at Interscope is probably offering an assessment of how Interscope regards the current status of the record. I suppose it's also possible that, as others have speculated, the 2015 date is about the tour and not the record.

U2's anonymous "spokesperson" on the other hand, if they are indeed a real "spokesperson" are doing what such people do...conveying whatever message or spin their boss (in this case, the band) wants them to. So the statement that the record is "still on track" for 2014 could be PR, or at best aspirational. But the assumption that a PR flack for U2 is a better "source" from someone in a position to know at their label might be a bit naive.

I'm not saying I know which is "correct", if either is "correct" at this point because my suspicion is that the band does not yet know what the timeline of this thing is. Clearly its' evolving. But I don't think this article in the Guardian necessarily cancels out, or makes inaccurate, the report in Billboard. Nor do I think the stories are necessarily in contradiction...the point is, the record is delayed, whether it's late 2014 or 2015 hardly matters.

In other words, I'm not sure what I believe. Nor am I sure I care much at this point. U2 will release the record when they think it's finished, and that's fine with me.
 
I never really believed the billboard article,always thought the album would be out in the autumn. Time will tell though!

Sent from my GT-P3110 using U2 Interference mobile app
 
Nick66 said:
It's just you.

j/k. :)

I'm not sure either of these "reports" are entirely true or false (or necessarily in conflict), because there may be no truth to either report if the band is winging it.

Billboard wouldn't run with a story from an Interscope "rep" that they didn't think was reliable, and in a position to know. They are an industry publication, and have a good (though not perfect) track record with such things, and can tell a genuine source from someone just spouting BS. And my guess is that the person at Interscope is probably offering an assessment of how Interscope regards the current status of the record. I suppose it's also possible that, as others have speculated, the 2015 date is about the tour and not the record.

U2's anonymous "spokesperson" on the other hand, if they are indeed a real "spokesperson" are doing what such people do...conveying whatever message or spin their boss (in this case, the band) wants them to. So the statement that the record is "still on track" for 2014 could be PR, or at best aspirational. But the assumption that a PR flack for U2 is a better "source" from someone in a position to know at their label might be a bit naive.

I'm not saying I know which is "correct", if either is "correct" at this point because my suspicion is that the band does not yet know what the timeline or this thing is. But I don't think this article in the Guardian necessarily cancels out, or makes inaccurate, the report in Billboard. Nor do I think the stories are necessarily in contradiction...the point is, the record is delayed, whether it's late 2014 or 2015 hardly matters.

In other words, I'm not sure what I believe. Nor am I sure I care much at this point. U2 will release the record when they think it's finished, and that's fine with me.
Click to expand...

Brilliant! The bottom line is that you can't have a release date--or year--for an album that isn't finished.
 
morgan1098 said:
If you're honest, you'll realize that this statement by an anonymous "representative of the band"--basically saying that the tour is in flux and the album is still on track for 2014 (not summer, not fall but just... 2014) is actually a corroboration of the Billboard story. Of course no band is going to officially say "We have postponed the album and tour." That's what an industry publication like Billboard is for!

I do believe a representative of the band gave The Guardian a quote that represents his or her best understanding of the current situation.

I also believe Billboard's report is solid, based on their contacts within Interscope.

...And none of this has ANY bearing on when the album will come out. It isn't finished, and saying "it's still on track for 2014" isn't any more encouraging than just pushing it to 2015.
Click to expand...


:lol: I'm not sure you're the one who should be questioning someone's honesty.

You scoffed at anyone questioning the Billboard article, but now you're trying to raise doubt about the Guardian piece.
 
BEAL said:
U2 still has horrible PR team/skills.

They really screwed the pooch with the Super Bowl ad. I know it was charity, but what a waste of promotion
Click to expand...

Maybe not.

"Invisible" obviously generated interest with millions of downloads, but it didn't really take off on the charts (due to the fact that free downloads don't count and radio hasn't played it that much). Regardless, U2 accomplished their goal of having a wonderful charity single for RED. Great job! :applaud:

If "Invisible" is still planned to be a track on the album, then I fully agree with you, BEAL. They wasted the promotion for their "first single" (even if it was unofficial). However, if the album is released in the autumn and "Invisible" is NOT on it, then the promotion wasn't wasted. In the U.S., U2 did the rounds, playing both OL and/or "Invisible" on various shows. They accomplished their goal of "testing the waters" as well as reminding people they are still around after their 5 year absence (at least in terms of new material).

In other words, OL and "Invisible" could have been some brilliant strategic actions by U2. They win awards for OL while gaining some TV time. Then they release a charity single that generates millions of $$. That also gains them some exposure. Simultaneously, they get to judge reactions from fans.

I think Bono is a bit off in his assessment of "Invisible". The song is accessible. The trouble is, it's not that exciting. It's a solid song, but it doesn't grab you like some of U2's best singles. "Mysterious Ways" isn't that accessible of a song either, but it has a fantastic hook. "Invisible" is one of the mid-level U2 singles - not bad but not outstanding. Now that U2 know this, they can re-examine how the current work is flowing. If they still want that one big hit song (ala "Beautiful Day" or "Vertigo") they can tinker. I just hope they don't tinker so much as to destroy some brilliance on the album as was done with "Mercy".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Master List and Discussion Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
5K
Axver
Axver
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 1 Listening Thread
7 8 9
Replies
244
Views
7K
LemonMelon
LemonMelon
N
Best Non-Album Track Survivor - Intro, Rules, & Discussion
Replies
23
Views
2K
Oregoropa
Oregoropa
youvedonewhat
Diaries Part 6.
Replies
2
Views
1K
lharper
lharper
lharper
New Fic: Innocent Experience - Chapter 1
Replies
5
Views
2K
lharper
lharper

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom