SOE 18: New Tour, New Despair...

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.
Is there anyone who still thinks SOE (if it ever actually happens) won't be U2's last record?

Regardless of whether SoE is successful and yields a hit, I think it'll probably be their last 'proper' album.

If it's a success, then they'll have managed a third comeback. And it'll be late enough in their career that risking a dud on top of it will be too great - I imagine they'll want to go out on a high, and won't risk ruining that with another Pop/NLOTH afterwards. They're running out of chances to blow :wink:

And if it's a failure, that'll be three in a row. I can't see them trying after that, especially as any subsequent release will likely see the band in their 60's.

So I don't think there will be any 'usual' u2 album after SoE. At least not in the sense of being commercial or trying for a hit. I'll think they'll semi-retire from releasing music, but return after an even bigger gap than normal with something that's acting it's age. Something that doesn't try for hits. And it'll probably be quite good. It just won't have a 'beautiful day' on it. But that'll be ok, because they probably won't be trying to have that at that point.
 
They marketed as significantly different shows each night, which was the whole point of booking every shows in pairs.

Inside U2’s Ambitious Upcoming Tour Strategy | Billboard

"The new tour will arrive with an ambitious strategy in which U2 plays two dates in each market (and four at both Los Angeles’ Forum and New York’s Madison Square Garden) with different sets on consecutive nights -- one representing Innocence, the other Experience (an indication that U2’s already confirmed next album, Songs of Experience, may be previewed or even released by then)."

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I don't recall it being in an actual release aside from the Bono quote, so the Billboard article could have just been rewording what he said in the original release, taking it as a given.

I'm not objecting to anything else being the impression. But to me, the quote seemed to give a slight out if things didn't pan out. TJT releases seem to be a bit more of solid ground in terms of what to expect.
 
Folks,
Being 60, 70, 80 etc does not mean someone has to retire and and leave their passions behind. Especially when were not talking about sports. As long as everyone is healthy and interested, there is no reason to stop. The Rolling Stones are still touring and Keith Richards and Mick Jagger are 73! Hell, Mick Jagger has a new born baby as of last month with his 28 year old girlfriend. There are several artist who continue to record and tour in their 60s 70s and 80s just as they did when they were younger.
For U2, this is not a job or work they go to 5 days a week. This is their passion. Music is like breathing to them. They're friends and this is something they enjoy doing together. They don't have to stop doing it because they reach a certain birthday.
So let go of all this ageism and wondering or believing that this or that album is it because 60 is just around the corner.
I've heard every argument in the book since 1990 about why the band was done, why the previous album was their last or why the next one would be their last. Guess what, every time someone has predicted or thought that, its been wrong.
 
Last edited:
Edge and Adam's comments don't exactly fill me with confidence. They're sort of dismissive and noncommittal about SOE. It's like there's no urgency or motivation AT ALL. Like "Yeah, we'd like to explore the Innocence and Experience Tour again at some point". Okay...

Had that Columbus I&E tour date not leaked, we might not suspect a thing. But we do know that at one point U2 intended to tour the USA leg of the I&E Tour in October 2017. The fact that the SOE album/tour has been delayed, and now this Joshua Tree thing has come to pass, tells us one of two things;

1. The band, management, LN, etc, realized that the 30th anniversary of TJT was coming up, and saw a massive potential to rake in millions of dollars by doing 30 some stadium shows. So SOE album/tour was simply delayed again... why not?

2. The band had their SOE album/tour ready to go in 2017. LN was pissed off for not getting the I&E tour in 2016, but were alright with it because it was going to happen in 2017... and then it wasn't. Band decides to sit on SOE for awhile, and delay the tour. LiveNation gets pissed off and says "YOU HAVE A CONTRACT, YOU BETTER THINK OF A WAY TO MAKE US SOME FUCKING MONEY!!!!"

I don't believe for a second that this is some sort of artistic statement about how this current political climate is similar to what it was in the mid eighties. You could bend that narrative to fit any time, really.

I'm quite excited for this 2017 JT tour, don't get me wrong. I just wish that the I&E Tour could've run it's course throughout 2015-16, with SOE in there too, wrapping it all up in a neat little package. Then do this JT Tour this year with a clean slate.

I hear what you're saying however, both traditionally and historically, U2 have spread their tours out between 4-5 years Ex. 1987, 1992, 2001, 2005, 2009, 2015. They, as we, are older now. I never anticipated a 2017 tour just 2 years after the last one. I think the JT is something they want to do. SOE will follow in all due time, but not two years after being off the road. Just doesn't match their typical schedule over the past 30 years.
 
Folks,
Being 60, 70, 80 etc does not mean someone has to retire and and leave their passions behind. Especially when were not talking about sports. As long as everyone is healthy and interested, there is no reason to stop. The Rolling Stones are still touring and Keith Richards and Mick Jagger are 73! Hell, Mick Jagger has a new born baby as of last month with his 28 year old girlfriend. There are several artist who continue to record and tour in their 60s 70s and 80s just as they did when they were younger.
For U2, this is not a job or work they go to 5 days a week. This is their passion. Music is like breathing to them. They're friends and this is something they enjoy doing together. They don't have to stop doing it because they reach a certain birthday.
So let go of all this ageism and wondering or believing that this or that album is it because 60 is just around the corner.
I've heard every argument in the book since 1990 about why the band was done, why the previous album was their last or why the next one would be their last. Guess what, every time someone has predicted or thought that, its been wrong.

Well said. I agree!
 
I don't see them giving up touring. To pull out a cliched Bono'ism "live is where we live."


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
To sum up and respond to several different views and questions in spread out threads, here are my thoughts, which don't amount to anything...

I think the "Trump excuse" has SOME merit, but of course isn't the entire reason for the "delay" of SOE.

The Best Thing, from what we've heard was pretty "lighthearted" and bouncy for U2. What if they did really feel like their audience wasn't ready for that kind of departure in this climate?

What if they felt pressure to do stadium gigs and be serious about what's going on politically, but that didn't work with the current ie plan? I mean, I still am not sure how some thought that stage and screen concept would work in stadiums. So this conveniently worked out.

I think they still want SOE and then finish the tour. So autumn release and another leg make sense.

Then? My guess is we get SOA, in a very relaxed release with no tour.

And finally we get one last tour that isn't marketed as a farewell tour.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I waited to read the whole rolling stone interview before saying something, and while I am happy about the Joshua Tree tour, I call horse manure on the reason SOE has been 'put on ice', according to The Edge.

I believe (because the noises -- that DJ guy saying it was done, the band all together saying we will see SOE this year -- seem to point in that direction) that SOE is done. And if it is done or close to being done, then putting it on ice is stupid. Putting it on ice because of Trump undermines them as artists.

An album as a sort of musical expression has one major thing going for it, if it is any good. The coherence, the unity and consistency of thought and sound, come from taking a metaphorical snapshot of a band at a certain point in their career.

Now U2, they have already been taking those snapshots through slow-shutter cameras of late. But thinking of changing an album because something has happened after they finished it or semi-finished it leads me to think that they can only ruin it. That is not what artists do... they are supposed to express. For me, that SOE expression is done... if they want to talk about trump write another bloody album.

My anger comes from the certainty that when edge says they might work on it, they will work on it and when they start they can't stop. It's not to do with the timeline; if they said t's done and they are waiting till after JT30 to release it, I would have been fine with it. But this trump bullshit tells me they are gonna fuck this up for 2017.

Seriously guys, rediscover some nuts and trust yourselves as artists.

(All written under the assumption that Edge reads this forum)

EDIT: I realise that some might take issue with me saying what artists should and should not do. Well yes, I am no authority of course, but I don't think you can uphold purity of expression if you start meddling with something as basic as the motivation behind lyrics, etc. which is what I think rethinking the album in light of Trump means.
 
Last edited:
I don't see them giving up touring. To pull out a cliched Bono'ism "live is where we live."

That's not really the question, though. If physical limitations prevent them from doing a tour (I hate to keep using Larry as an example, but he's had issues in the past), they won't have a choice. And they're not going to replace anyone in the band.

The question is, would they continue writing and recording if they reach that point?


An album as a sort of musical expression has one major thing going for it, if it is any good. The coherence, the unity and consistency of thought and sound, come from taking a metaphorical snapshot of a band at a certain point in their career.

For me, that SOE expression is done... if they want to talk about trump write another bloody album.

So much this.
 
I can buy the Trump excuse and the whole idea that an album's anniversary can hijack a whole tour. Achtung took over 360, and it's not a stretch that u2 would be aware that continuing iE through a period of JT's anniversary would just as likely result in the same conflict of demand. Doesn't it make sense to split the tours and the ticket sales into two more independent and coherent live offerings? The JT tour even serves as a proper warm up to Experience; much more organic to drop a single and/or an album during a nostalgia tour to get traction on the 'new stuff', when no one wants another Apple tie-in. Plus, hadn't they already started the JT ball rolling with their live performances of Bullet? They'd been saying it had renewed power long before Trump and this tour announcement, and their Dreamforce bit seems like the seed that makes the JT tour in this climate make sense. Now if Experience means some live White House phone calls, I can see U2 making the news again for the right reasons. That would be great. Perhaps even relevant.


Sent from my fingertips.
 
We found out back in late September when Adam Clayton was interviewed for the 40th anniversary that Songs Of Experience would not get a 2016 release and would not be released until sometime in 2017. Missing the release window for the 4th quarter of 2016 for whatever the reason, naturally meant that your looking at late 2017 for a release and not until 2018 for the resumption of the Innocence and Experience Tour.

Now, we could wait and hear nothing from the band until the first single is released for Songs Of Experience in October 2017 or, HEY, its 2017, 30 years since Joshua Tree, and U2 will take a little summer vacation of about 10 weeks playing somewhere around 30 Joshua Tree shows.
All this is, is a 10 week departure from their normal schedule. Its being called a tour, but its really more a selection of shows, special shows. Can't a band and their fans have a little off scheduled FUN without everyone freaking out and over analyzing it?
 
We found out back in late September when Adam Clayton was interviewed for the 40th anniversary that Songs Of Experience would not get a 2016 release and would not be released until sometime in 2017. Missing the release window for the 4th quarter of 2016 for whatever the reason, naturally meant that your looking at late 2017 for a release and not until 2018 for the resumption of the Innocence and Experience Tour.

Now, we could wait and hear nothing from the band until the first single is released for Songs Of Experience in October 2017 or, HEY, its 2017, 30 years since Joshua Tree, and U2 will take a little summer vacation of about 10 weeks playing somewhere around 30 Joshua Tree shows.
All this is, is a 10 week departure from their normal schedule. Its being called a tour, but its really more a selection of shows, special shows. Can't a band and their fans have a little off scheduled FUN without everyone freaking out and over analyzing it?


There's no reason the album HAD to come out in the autumn. It could easily have been a spring or summer release.

Regardless, this album should have been finished a YEAR ago. They were writing and recording during the last tour, and have been on a permanent fucking vacation since it ended.
 
There's no reason the album HAD to come out in the autumn. It could easily have been a spring or summer release.

Regardless, this album should have been finished a YEAR ago. They were writing and recording during the last tour, and have been on a permanent fucking vacation since it ended.

Album sales, whats left of them, are more strongly tied these days to 4th quarter releases than ever before. You don't have to release an album just before Christmas, but its a wise thing to do from a business perspective. POP and NLOTH were spring releases, while ATYCLB and HTDAAB were 4th quarter releases.
 
Well, I'd argue the lower sales of Pop and NLOTH have more to do with confounding audience expectations and the choice of a lead single more than what time of year they were released. Had Songs of Innocence been released in a normal fashion, you're saying it would have been a big hit? Doubtful.

And if Q4 automatically equalled higher sales, why wouldn't EVERY artist release their albums at the same time? Do you think managers have to argue with the record company over who gets to delay their albums til the fall?

Don't be as delusional as McGuinne$$.
 
Just watching The Hippodrome show on the TJT bonus DVD - getting excited for a show I can't go to. This will be epic.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Yes because Adam said there would be, why don't people look at facts?

That Adam said there would be more records is a fact. Whether there will actually be more records remains to be see....it's not a "fact" because it hasn't happened yet.

And of all bands, you should know that U2 saying something is going to happen doesn't mean it is going to happen.
 
Yes because Adam said there would be, why don't people look at facts?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

band member quotes are ALWAYS a thought, an idea at the very moment they spell it out... these ideas/thoughts change ... I stopped hanging on their lips ..
 
Well, I'd argue the lower sales of Pop and NLOTH have more to do with confounding audience expectations and the choice of a lead single more than what time of year they were released. Had Songs of Innocence been released in a normal fashion, you're saying it would have been a big hit? Doubtful.

And if Q4 automatically equalled higher sales, why wouldn't EVERY artist release their albums at the same time? Do you think managers have to argue with the record company over who gets to delay their albums til the fall?

Don't be as delusional as McGuinne$$.

Most artist these days do release their albums in Q4. Q4 is by far the biggest time of the year for album sales and the release schedule is chalk full of albums and artist that are positioned to do big business.

Songs Of Innocence would have sold more if released the normal and released in Q4 than it would have at any time of year. Probably would not have been a big hit because of the lack of radio airplay or the failure of the songs to generate streams, but it still would have sold more thanks to the holiday gift giving season than if it had been released at any other time of year.

In fact, the low probability of a hit song almost makes it a must to release in Q4 in order to get more sales. U2 still have the name that people recognize and that works great for the Christmas season and giving gifts.

Arguing about releasing or not releasing in Q4 has been a frequent argument with U2, management, record company with nearly every release since POP. The Record company was pissed off that U2 did not make the original Q4 1996 deadline for POP. POP would have been at least a double platinum album had they got it out before Christmas 1996. Proper release, product placement, marketing, are key to getting extra sales, regardless of whether the record meets the definition of a "hit" or not.
 
Last edited:
Ok so we are pretty certain if SOE does come out in 2017 it will be late in the year. Is there any chance we will get any new music from U2 before the Joshua tree tour starts?

Adam did say something about playing other songs for the joshua tree tour including ones they have played in previous tours and others about the direction music has taken them through expereince.
 
Most artist these days do release their albums in Q4. Q4 is by far the biggest time of the year for album sales and the release schedule is chalk full of albums and artist that are positioned to do big business.

Songs Of Innocence would have sold more if released the normal and released in Q4 than it would have at any time of year. Probably would not have been a big hit because of the lack of radio airplay or the failure of the songs to generate streams, but it still would have sold more thanks to the holiday gift giving season than if it had been released at any other time of year.

In fact, the low probability of a hit song almost makes it a must to release in Q4 in order to get more sales. U2 still have the name that people recognize and that works great for the Christmas season and giving gifts.

Arguing about releasing or not releasing in Q4 has been a frequent argument with U2, management, record company with nearly every release since POP. The Record company was pissed off that U2 did not make the original Q4 1996 deadline for POP. POP would have been at least a double platinum album had they got it out before Christmas 1996. Proper release, product placement, marketing, are key to getting extra sales, regardless of whether the record meets the definition of a "hit" or not.


200_s.gif


You're being a little myopic about why Pop and No Line failed in the wake of their predecessors.

The rumors of a techno-based album and the cheeky video for Discotheque didn't have anything to do with its poor sales?

And Get On Your Boots was a divisive lead track, to say the least. The band has admitted as much.

Again, why would any artist release earlier in the year if it's all about Q4?
 
200_s.gif


You're being a little myopic about why Pop and No Line failed in the wake of their predecessors.

The rumors of a techno-based album and the cheeky video for Discotheque didn't have anything to do with its poor sales?

And Get On Your Boots was a divisive lead track, to say the least. The band has admitted as much.

Again, why would any artist release earlier in the year if it's all about Q4?

Your right, I'm just saying that Q4 does impact sales heavily enough for artist to sometimes delay the release of an album. Many other artist don't have the option of waiting as such a wait in their young career could kill it. U2 are in a vastly different position where waiting one year is not going to impact their career, but that Q4 release will definitely lead to more albums sold thanks to the gift giving season.
 
You're right, they are in a vastly different position. They're millionaires many times over and their career isn't dependent on whether they go platinum or sell 750K or even 400K.

So to delay new material for this long just to spike the numbers is either greed or pride. Neither are acceptable excuses.
 
Again, why would any artist release earlier in the year if it's all about Q4?


it's interesting ... i think the spring releases of Pop and NLOTH had to do with the upcoming massive stadium tours that couldn't be moved -- those deadlines actually got the band to finish the albums. We may have been better served if we'd had a Fall 1997 release of Pop. It may have gone over better, the album might have been better, the campaign more effective, and the tour more coherent.

Although it seems the extra time on NLOTH worked against the album.
 
Last edited:
Just watching The Hippodrome show on the TJT bonus DVD - getting excited for a show I can't go to. This will be epic.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I love Trip Through Your Wires from this show. Bono at his best
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom