OFFICIAL - New Album Delayed Until 2009

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I like that this is U2's current idea of marketing. Incredibly vague "yes, we do have an album coming out this year, but we don't really want you to know when yet" type confirmations, riddled with a few "well...we're not sure...but keep your eye on it just in case" contradictions for good measure.
 
Ignore my post above. This is worth commenting on.



If true...

Fuck. Yes.


In fact, if you read the entire spread in Rolling Stone (beyond what I quoted above), it continues to talk about how - last year - a bunch of artists were promising releases that didn't materialize (citing Mariah Carey, Lil Wayne, and Nicole Scherzinger as examples). It then goes on to say, "This year, artists and labels seem determined not to make the same mistake. 'Every one's trying to put out a record while they still can', said Bob McLynn, Fall Out Boy's manager." The piece goes on to talk about how major labels are concerned CD's won't be a viable physical medium for releasing albums any more. They quote someone who says this is true, but that it'll take a while before CD's vanish. And then it says, "But the 2008 holiday season will live or die on old-fashioned hits. 'It depends on whether the U2 record is going to have five singles and is still selling a year later, and if the Beyonce record does the same thing', says Virgin's Gyer (referring to Andrew Gyer, Virgin Entertainment Group's senior music product manager)." :hmm:
 

I like this reminder. Thanks Love!! :up:

And then it says, "But the 2008 holiday season will live or die on old-fashioned hits. 'It depends on whether the U2 record is going to have five singles and is still selling a year later,

5 singles may be stretching it. But I hope to fuck they are right. I'd have no problem listening to U2 everytime I turn on the radio. Granted I listen to much less radio than I use too, now it's mostly going to and from work, and streaming online - still, I will be listening. :hyper:
 
Maybe that's actually why U2 is getting cold feet--they don't feel like they have 5 huge singles and they feel the weight of the entire music industry on their backs.


Edit: I don't really believe this, but it'd be terrible if they felt pressure to have at least 5 radio-friendly songs.
 
I would definitetly agree with Bram,LemonMelon,Irishteen etc. in this day and age of technology with ever increasing ways and mediums to get one's music out....I think this speculation about the album coming out in early 2009 is much ado about nothing.
U2's last spring album release was Pop in March of '97 and we saw how well that sold...they are not going to break from a formula that would see them release a album post holiday season...or as Bram says we wouldn't see until Oct/Nov. 2009 and that ain't happening.
We established that magazine publications are always months behind with their information...my girl works for a magazine publisher...so she would know.....I'm willing to bet that Edge interview wasn't even July...it was June,when they(U2) were still in Dublin.
Finally look at a band that is almost as big around the world as U2 is...Metallica...their new album is being released on a Friday,September 12th....in an attempt to slow down the Tues. to Friday illegal downloading that would have occured.....they didn't finish mixing and mastering their album until August 10th!! ...I mean that's just over a month...they didn't release their new single to radio until August 20th and they played another song off their album early in August.
I think in this ever increasing world of rapid file-sharing,high tech devices and multi broadcast mediums...maybe U2 is just holding on/tghtly guarding their new work after all they're certainly not going to take the Radiohead approach:D
 
Interesting. :hmm:

U2's albums sort of need build up and momentum but I could see them taking this approach.

in what way do they need momentum? they are the biggest band in the world. With no promotion, just having it appear in stores it would sell millions of copies
 
Here's a possibility:

Maybe U2 wants to minimize the chance of the album leaking by giving fans a month to get hold of the album, versus the usual three? There are many positives to this "new" "Hey guys, our album is coming out next week: check it out!" style of marketing. In Rainbows didn't leak, I'm telling you that much.

spot on I would think
 
In fact, if you read the entire spread in Rolling Stone (beyond what I quoted above), it continues to talk about how - last year - a bunch of artists were promising releases that didn't materialize (citing Mariah Carey, Lil Wayne, and Nicole Scherzinger as examples). It then goes on to say, "This year, artists and labels seem determined not to make the same mistake. 'Every one's trying to put out a record while they still can', said Bob McLynn, Fall Out Boy's manager." The piece goes on to talk about how major labels are concerned CD's won't be a viable physical medium for releasing albums any more. They quote someone who says this is true, but that it'll take a while before CD's vanish. And then it says, "But the 2008 holiday season will live or die on old-fashioned hits. 'It depends on whether the U2 record is going to have five singles and is still selling a year later, and if the Beyonce record does the same thing', says Virgin's Gyer (referring to Andrew Gyer, Virgin Entertainment Group's senior music product manager)." :hmm:

This certainly sounds great, but in most cases I wouldn't think much of it. However, U2 really trusts Rolling Stone and have told them important information regarding new material on numerous occasions. I can buy this. It's not that I don't buy the accuracy of Edge's Q interview, it's just that I think this sounds much more recent.
 
Here's another clue that points to 2008, from the September 4, 2008 edition of Rolling Stone (page 16): "Retailers expect U2, Eminem and Beyonce for Thanksgiving week, though Eminem's label, Interscope, wouldn't confirm the release." This implies (to me) that U2's label WOULD confirm the release, and that we're looking at November 25, 2008 as release date. Any takers?

:hyper:

The Q article is old - the interview was taken when the band was in Dublin. it says so. I don't know the exact dates, but wasn't that like months ago?
 
Alright, there's like 5 fucking threads in this sub-forum discussing pretty much the same thing so I'll just pick this one to add something.

The speculated release date of the album is November 18th. This might not hold much water, but I think it is a good reference point and something upon which we can kinda gauge the realistic possibilities of a November 18th release date...

Taylor Swift, a very popular and talented young country music singer/songwriter has her 2nd album set for a release date of November 11th. The cover art, first single release date, entire album tracklist, etc. have all been available now for about a week. You can already pre-order her album, and you can even stream a 30 second clip of the lead single.

And this is an album by a major artist (trust me she is, this album will probably be #1 the week it comes out) who is releasing her album just ONE week before this supposed November 18th U2 date. And we have all this official information about it, yet none for U2. This, to me, is a bad sign.

You follow? Does this make any sense? I think it does and, personally, I think it is evidence that a November 18th release date is close to out of the question at this point.
 
It's just disconcerting to me that there is all this official information available for this album that's set for a release on November 11th, and we don't have anything official for the U2 album. An album which, I think it's safe to say, most people thought was going to be released right around November.

Fuck.
 
Last edited:
In a way, I almost hope it's Spring '09. Why? Because it'd break the Christmas Cash-In.
 
In a way, I almost hope it's Spring '09. Why? Because it'd break the Christmas Cash-In.

I don't know what's worse.
The band being business minded or the fans being so aware of the business mindedness.

I miss when fans talked about the music and not why the manager is making decisions.
The Beatles had a manager. They made decisions.
All bands do. All bands. Period.
The ones that don't are fools.
We all make business decisions, from paying your bills to taking a job.
There are few, if any people in this world that live free from such burdens.
Just bc U2 has sold millions of albums doesn't elevate them to some space that they can just do whatever they want without consequence.
If you don't think so, take an economics 101 class, please.
 
I don't know what's worse.
The band being business minded or the fans being so aware of the business mindedness.

I miss when fans talked about the music and not why the manager is making decisions.
The Beatles had a manager. They made decisions.
All bands do. All bands. Period.
The ones that don't are fools.
We all make business decisions, from paying your bills to taking a job.
There are few, if any people in this world that live free from such burdens.
Just bc U2 has sold millions of albums doesn't elevate them to some space that they can just do whatever they want without consequence.
If you don't think so, take an economics 101 class, please.

I'm in a band.
We don't have a manager.
All we care about is making good music and releasing it.
If it sells well, great. If it doesn't, oh well.
We don't horde it until we think it will sell more copies. We sell it as soon as it's available.
We don't plan to release it at any specific time other than as soon as we can afford to record things.
Maybe I need to take an economics 101 class, but I'm guessing my teacher will laugh at me when I ask them why U2 (hypothetically) needs to worry about selling 800,000 copies of their album in the first week when released in November instead of selling only 650,000 copies of their album in the first week when released. So 150,000 more can be bought in November, when it's time for Christmas anyway.
It'd be nice to have some diversity, so that album aren't always associated with winter (as it's generally winter of late when their albums are released).
 
Personally, I prefer a winter album, because it's the time of year when I need new U2 music the most. Autumn and winter are just more a "album" season for me, I listen to music more and the evenings are longer. Spring/summer is just not the right time. I buy a lot of CD's in spring and summer, too, but I don't listen to them as much as I listen to a winter album.

On the other hand I think they should release the album when they feel it's ready, Christmas or not. Maybe they'll really break that whole Christmas season spell this time.
 
I'm in a band.
We don't have a manager.
All we care about is making good music and releasing it.
If it sells well, great. If it doesn't, oh well.
We don't horde it until we think it will sell more copies. We sell it as soon as it's available.
We don't plan to release it at any specific time other than as soon as we can afford to record things.
Maybe I need to take an economics 101 class, but I'm guessing my teacher will laugh at me when I ask them why U2 (hypothetically) needs to worry about selling 800,000 copies of their album in the first week when released in November instead of selling only 650,000 copies of their album in the first week when released. So 150,000 more can be bought in November, when it's time for Christmas anyway.
It'd be nice to have some diversity, so that album aren't always associated with winter (as it's generally winter of late when their albums are released).

dude...are you really comparing your band to U2? Even worse...are you really comparing how your band releases their music to how U2 releases theirs? :eyebrow:
 
dude...are you really comparing your band to U2? Even worse...are you really comparing how your band releases their music to how U2 releases theirs? :eyebrow:

Vaguely, yes. I'm not saying my band is like U2. I'm not saying we sound alike. Hell, we don't want to sound like U2. I'm saying they have a certain pattern of late. Pattern=$$$ (as Christmas is a time for U2 cds as gifts). Is the pattern planned? Search me. Does it look planned? Yes. It certainly does. But to some people (the "U2 police"), U2 can do no wrong, and are not rich enough.
 
Why not? Every band should put making good music above selling records no matter the size. :shrug:

I think U2's logic is 'why not make good music AND sell records at the same time'? I could give a damn when the album actually comes out just as long as it's coming out and it's yet another great U2 record.
 
Why not? Every band should put making good music above selling records no matter the size. :shrug:

Vaguely, yes. I'm not saying my band is like U2. I'm not saying we sound alike. Hell, we don't want to sound like U2. I'm saying they have a certain pattern of late. Pattern=$$$ (as Christmas is a time for U2 cds as gifts). Is the pattern planned? Search me. Does it look planned? Yes. It certainly does. But to some people (the "U2 police"), U2 can do no wrong, and are not rich enough.

I think U2's logic is 'why not make good music AND sell records at the same time'? I could give a damn when the album actually comes out just as long as it's coming out and it's yet another great U2 record.


I think PopFly's answer is spot on....

Look, obviously U2 wants to make good music, and that comes first...I don't know how anyone could accuse U2 of caring more about the business than the art...I mean that is ridiculous...the business comes with the art. If the art isn't there, there is no business, simple as that. And I find it funny when people say that the 00's U2 is all about the business and not about the art....oh really? So you mean U2, one of the richest bands in the world, a band that's been going for 30+ years, a band whose members are all in their 40's and nearing 50, and a band who has already proven themselves time and time again is in it for the money? That is absolutely absurd...and if you truly believe that, youa re out of your mind, sorry. Bono/U2 have also said in countless interviews that they feel the best is yet to come. If they didn't feel like they could put out a great record, they wouldn't keep going! U2 are still making music simply to make great music...that's it.

U2 makes the music, paul makes everyone the cash and maximizes profits...it's simple really...it's hard to be as successful as U2 when you suck at the business...you need both, and U2 have both. Live with it...it has always been this way and it will never change.
 
Bono/U2 have also said in countless interviews that they feel the best is yet to come.

Well they'd be assholes to say anything different. It's not good business to promote a new album by saying "It's got good music, but it's no Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby!" When you sell art, you have to sell the idea that the newest thing is the best thing you've ever released, when 90% of the time, it just isn't the truth. But it's good bu$ine$$.
 
Well they'd be assholes to say anything different. It's not good business to promote a new album by saying "It's got good music, but it's no Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby!" When you sell art, you have to sell the idea that the newest thing is the best thing you've ever released, when 90% of the time, it just isn't the truth. But it's good bu$ine$$.

You trash them at the end by saying it's good bu$ine$$. But call them arseholes if they don't do it.. how do you win??
 
You trash them at the end by saying it's good bu$ine$$. But call them arseholes if they don't do it.. how do you win??

You don't appear to care how much your album sells (i.e., you don't release it right before the biggest shopping season of the year--you let the music, not the season, dictate its sales). I don't even know why I'm arguing this. I don't even really care that much--it'd just be nice to see the band get out of the rut and release an album in the spring/summer (for those of us in the northern hemisphere).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom