Project Zero One / Songs of Ascent / New Album Discussion

[santiago]

Well, it also has to be said that, while the picture is funny, announcing that the band you manage is going to release an album is hardly what I would call money-grabbing behaviour.

I mean... the guy's doing his job -> being a manager. Perhaps people think he should be hard at work with the band in some studio, singing lead vocals on the new single and writing all the lyrics?

 

[BoMac]

Except not every band has a manager that has an equal take, in this case 1/5 or 20%, of what the sales are.

 

[JamietheEdgefan]

"U2 fever" to hit Johannesburg as stage arrives - National U2 | Examiner.com

The claw has arrived in South Africa, it won't be long hopefully until we get some interviews with the band which mention the new album

 

[powerhour24]

Exactly .

 

[partygirl43]

You are awesome.

 

[partygirl43]

If someone can crop out McG, replace that wine glass with a cartoon bag of money, and upload the pic here I'll be eternally grateful.

That shit-eating grin is just too amazing.

Also needed: A slave driver whip: "work Boys...we gotta pay for the Claw and Spiderman!!!!"

 

[lazarus]

Are the Paul defenses really necessary? Do we need to debate this all over again? It's just a running joke here, like calling Bono a liar (or fat).

I don't think anyone believes that Paul announcing an upcoming release is some display of greed.

Can we move on now?

 

[powerhour24]

Agreed.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

My only thing on the mcguinness thing is that its comical how some people think the rest of the band doesn't agree with what they call "money grabs"

 

[U2girl]

Are the Paul defenses really necessary? Do we need to debate this all over again? It's just a running joke here, like calling Bono a liar (or fat).

I don't think anyone believes that Paul announcing an upcoming release is some display of greed.

Can we move on now?

It's Paul McGuine$$. Of course it's a display of greed.

 

[U2girl]

The big elephant in the room is that after very disappointing sales of NLOTH, and in a climate where records/CDs simply don't sell well anymore, I think you have to assume that U2 Inc. will do nothing short of a year-end holiday/Christmas release. Another off-cycle release, especially with the SOA songs sounding experimental and possibly not radio-friendly, is almost unfathomable. U2 doesn't need to release an album to sell tour tickets anymore. Factor in the zero hype to date, and lack of any credible sources or confirmation of a new album, and my money is on a year-end release, if anything. Hope I'm wrong.

Given the dropping of sales each year, perhaps year-end/Christmas sales won't matter anymore. It seems NLOTH and this Danger Mouse follow-up will be released in Spring.

They don't need new material to sell the tour, but I think they are itchy to have new material per se, to spice up the rest of the shows. NLOTH songs are rare in the setlist as it is now, they might as well add new songs, as we've seen in Europe last year.

 

[lazarus]

My only thing on the mcguinness thing is that its comical how some people think the rest of the band doesn't agree with what they call "money grabs"

Here we go again.

Is the band complicit in this stuff? Yes.

Are they the ones that come up with these questionable ideas or price points? Doubtful.

We are talking about celebs who have no idea what things are overpriced for the average person, or rates of inflation. As a businessman, it IS McG's job to know this stuff, and I think he is the one who convinces the band that these moves are fair or reasonable even when they may not be.

 

[Galeongirl]

Oh, and another thing: 3 months prior is usually when the first single is released. We don't even have a friggin' PRESS RELEASE about album name, release date, single name, anything. Occam's razor: no new album any time soon. Just my 2 cents.

Wait What? 3 MONTHS?
How long have you been a fan mate? With U2 a first single release is usually 3 WEEKS rather than months. And usually we get info about 1-2 months in advance. That's how it was with NLOTH, early January Boots aired on Irish radio with NLOTH2, it leaked I think early feb and then at the end of February the album was released. We first heard concrete info... late december I think. It's usually like that with U2 releases.

 

[MikeyJB]

We should all treasure Paul McG, he is the last example of the great rock-manager tradition - Col. Parker, Peter Grant, et al.

 

[nielsgov]

A late-year release date would come into conflict with the Achtung Baby remaster, which will likely be released during that very period to make it a true 20th Anniversary edition (the original was released in November), and I think we all can agree that it is going to be a BIG fucking deal in terms of marketing, reviews, etc. And it will also be perfect for Christmas gifts. No way they're going to have a new album compete with that.

The band has a five week break between the South Africa shows and their first South America show in Chile; from Mid-Feb to late March. Whether or not that McGuinne$$ quote was real, if the band is interested in keeping any kind of artistic momentum with this project, they really should be finishing the album during that time. And if they're already in the mixing stage, 5 weeks is more than enough. I just hope they don't wind up having to go back yet AGAIN to work on Spider-Man, a project that at this point must be sucking the creative life out of them.

After the South America shows, the band has a month break between the final Brazil show and their Mexico City stand, from mid-April to mid-May. That leaves a nice gap for a new album release precisely when Paul McG supposedly suggested. So if the band is done with their work by late March, that still gives the record company two months to get their shit together, which is certainly short by modern standards, but is enough.

This way, the band gets to practice more new songs during their 3-night stint in Mexico (if they haven't been previewing them earlier) to make sure they're streamlined for the U.S. shows, which are likely to be more scrutinized.

I can't fathom a scenario where the band would put out the album right in the middle of an American/Canadian leg. No way. And the idea that they would sit on it until AFTER the tour in the fall, or as far away as early 2012, doesn't make any sense either.

That's your first post in this part of the forum in like ages.
It's a great one too.

 

[Tyagu_Anaykus]

Are the Paul defenses really necessary? Do we need to debate this all over again? It's just a running joke here, like calling Bono a liar (or fat).

But... but....Boner never lies!

 

[tomtom]

Wait What? 3 MONTHS?
How long have you been a fan mate? With U2 a first single release is usually 3 WEEKS rather than months. And usually we get info about 1-2 months in advance. That's how it was with NLOTH, early January Boots aired on Irish radio with NLOTH2, it leaked I think early feb and then at the end of February the album was released. We first heard concrete info... late december I think. It's usually like that with U2 releases.

My bad. 3 months is the time period between album announcement and release. BD, Vertigo, and Boots all came out around 7-8 weeks prior to album release. Look up the dates - I just did. So more like 2 months. Not 3 weeks. Not a huge difference w.r.t. my original point which is, if we don't hear anything formal by end-Feb, forget about May.

God, I can't believe I'm the only one being this cynical about things! Have we not learned anything from the past???

 

[corianderstem]

Dude, if I were Paul McGuiness, I'd walk around with a shit-eating grin all the time, too.

 

[ouu2fan23]

The whole U2 company lies. Most likely they are just smoking weed with Danger Mouse laughing at all of us. Plus Paulie McG is a drunk and lies about everything. U2 hates their fans.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Here we go again.

Is the band complicit in this stuff? Yes.

Are they the ones that come up with these questionable ideas or price points? Doubtful.

We are talking about celebs who have no idea what things are overpriced for the average person, or rates of inflation. As a businessman, it IS McG's job to know this stuff, and I think he is the one who convinces the band that these moves are fair or reasonable even when they may not be.

Like I said, it's comical that some people think the band isn't fully aware of every last decision before its made.

Mcguinness has a sweetheart deal, one that very few managers ever get to have. You could easily argue that u2 are giving way too much of a cut to mcguinness. Yet they keep him on year after year after year. If they had issue with how he operates they would have fired him years ago.

That they don't pretty much verifies that the band is very much in tune with all that mcguinness does. If they didn't want to, say, put out U218 for fear it would look like a money grab? They wouldn't put it out.

Comical, it is. U2 likes making money. Who wouldn't? Its insulting to praise bono as this great humanitarian mind who solves world problems in one band, and then say he's just a bumbling celebrity who doesn't understand simple economics in the other.

 

[MikeyJB]

Mcguinness has a sweetheart deal, one that very few managers ever get to have. You could easily argue that u2 are giving way too much of a cut to mcguinness. Yet they keep him on year after year after year. If they had issue with how he operates they would have fired him years ago.

Thats cos he is one of them pretty much. He is 'the fifth member'. If it wasn't for McGuinness they may not even have made it out of Dublin.

 

[KEVIN051269]

Thats cos he is one of them pretty much. He is 'the fifth member'. If it wasn't for McGuinness they may not even have made it out of Dublin.

Exactly, throughout their career U2 have always been loyal to the people who helped them in the early years. Nowt wrong with that.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

The whole U2 company lies. Most likely they are just smoking weed with Danger Mouse laughing at all of us. Plus Paulie McG is a drunk and lies about everything. U2 hates their fans.

+ w/o Paul McGuinne$$ PLEBA would just be LEBA. In other words, Paul McG puts the "P" in PLEBA.

GO PAUL GO

 

[Registered Dude]

McGuiness doesn't give a shit what any of us think..

he's living large and loving it

 

[popacrobat]

Paul McG puts the "P" in PLEBA.

I feel like this should be a bumper sticker.

 

[Registered Dude]

I wonder if this will be a laid back U2 album...

 

[SeeLoganRun]

I saw on a French website translated into German that the album will be bossa nova.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

We should all treasure Paul McG, he is the last example of the great rock-manager tradition - Col. Parker, Peter Grant, et al.

I'm sure Paul McGuiness has a lot of treasure, yes.

 

[subnet]

why are people being drunk and stupid all of a sudden?

 

[lazarus]

Like I said, it's comical that some people think the band isn't fully aware of every last decision before its made.

Mcguinness has a sweetheart deal, one that very few managers ever get to have. You could easily argue that u2 are giving way too much of a cut to mcguinness. Yet they keep him on year after year after year. If they had issue with how he operates they would have fired him years ago.

That they don't pretty much verifies that the band is very much in tune with all that mcguinness does. If they didn't want to, say, put out U218 for fear it would look like a money grab? They wouldn't put it out.

Comical, it is. U2 likes making money. Who wouldn't? Its insulting to praise bono as this great humanitarian mind who solves world problems in one band, and then say he's just a bumbling celebrity who doesn't understand simple economics in the other.

Apparently you missed the part of my post where I said the band was complicit in all of these business moves. All I'm saying is, the band aren't the ones sitting around coming up with this shit.

I don't know what else to tell you, but I certainly don't want to talk about this shit anymore.