Registered Dude
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/877342340347711489
Looks like Ted Cruz is a fan. Yay. That'll help win over the kids
Looks like Ted Cruz is a fan. Yay. That'll help win over the kids
They should do JT stadiums in NOV/DEC Down under, then SOE tour next year, and come back for arenas in early 2019. Why not?
The Rolling Stones don't need the money either. They don't need to be playing stadium shows in 2017, with all band members well above 70. But they just announced a slew of European stadiums. They do it because they are a business, and businesses exist to make money.
Same with U2. This JT Tour has gone from being a sidestep, to being a priority because it's a slam dunk success. Why not strike while the iron is hot, make as much money for the JT 30th Anniversary, THEN release SOE, and Tour for that and make even MORE MONEY!!!!! They certainly didn't add MORE US shows in cities like Indianapolis and Kansas City for any reason other than to make money. Not sure why it's so hard for some people to get.
U2 are artists who are able to make giant piles of money from said art. Sometimes the commerce dictates the art... but they are still artists, nonetheless.
I've been thinking about why u2 would choose to release two singles well in advance of an album, one as far as five months ahead, and I think it really boils down to maximizing their album sales number, and SOE's ultimate chart position.
In 2015 Billboard changed their metrics for the top 200 albums chart, to incorporate song streams. As it now stands, if a song is streamed 1500 times, that counts as 1 "album sale"
Billboard 200 Makeover: Album Chart to Incorporate Streams & Track Sales | Billboard
For some artists, this had led to releasing bloated albums of 15 to 20 songs, not because this makes for a great record (booooo Drake, boooooo) but because, crudely, more songs means more streams, and most importantly - more revenue.
Against the Extra Long Pop Album | Pitchfork
I don't think u2 care about streaming revenue, but we know they care about relevance, and we know they equate relevance, in part, with having a number 1 album. So for them, releasing a song, and letting it rack up the stream count over several months can only help. Theyre building up the streaming numbers, so that ultimately when SOE is released, it's chart position will be boosted by all these extra streams.
Make sense? Too cynical?
I'm not convinced they would do arenas here..... we are looking at a 7 year gap they can easy sell out some stadiums and make some cash. Arenas dont have the same pull for them here I'm afraid. I also doubt them opening E+I down here.....Hopefully I am wrong because I would love an arena tour. I think after all the waiting we deserve to see them up close haha
Yeah, given Adam has said EI will be an arena tour, and that Michael Coppel was in Philly, I'm starting to think they're trying to work out a JT30 leg for Australia despite the denials. Why? Because they know demand is strong and they know they can't do an arena tour, so they have to bring a stadium production here.
It will have been a seven year gap by the time they get down here, possibly seven and a half. For context, the longest previous gap was Popmart to Vertigo, eight and a half years. Demand will be very high. To come even close to scraping the surface of demand, an arena tour would need:
Melbourne x8
Sydney x8
Brisbane x4-6
Auckland x4 (and maybe Christchurch or Dunedin x2 to cover the South Island; Wellington won't get a look-in on an arena tour, only a stadium one)
Perth x4
Adelaide x2-4
That's just the bare minimum; I'm sure all of them could sell more. And if they wanted to they could add 1-2 dates in cities like Canberra, Hobart, Newcastle, and Wollongong, all of which have arenas regularly visited by major artists, though those arenas are probably too small and we all know they won't go beyond the traditional five state capitals in Australia.
Does anybody seriously think that U2 in this day and age would do a tour like this? Working on the principle of 2 show days then 2 rest days, like in 2015, just Sydney and Melbourne would take over a month! The whole tour would be a two-month endeavour. Forget it. Australia is stadiums or nothing.
The Stones are corporate whores and have been for decades. They barely highlight their new material when they tour. They've sold their songs for countless commercials.
Don't even bother making the comparison.
If U2 was only doing this out of a monetary interest they could have announced more shows from the beginning, especially in Europe, where they're playing probably 1/4 of the shows they could if they wanted to.
Thanks for playing.
Melbourne x8
Sydney x8
Brisbane x4-6
Auckland x4 (and maybe Christchurch or Dunedin x2 to cover the South Island; Wellington won't get a look-in on an arena tour, only a stadium one)
Perth x4
Adelaide x2-4
That's just the bare minimum; I'm sure all of them could sell more..
Also this conundrum about whether to extend the JT30 tour is their own iditoic fault. No sympathy. Its yet another means by which they have compromised their ability to release new music (something they once cared about). They should take the JT30 tour (in all its pathetic 21 song sub 2 hour glory) everywhere, release SOE some time next year and then call it quits.
Yeah but surely for the I&E European dates in 2015 they could have done similar in some of those cities? Just because they could do 6-8 shows in one city doesnt mean they have to. Plus I'm not so sure the demand is really this strong in Australia. They have generally dropped out of people's consciousness here.
Also this conundrum about whether to extend the JT30 tour is their own iditoic fault. No sympathy. Its yet another means by which they have compromised their ability to release new music (something they once cared about). They should take the JT30 tour (in all its pathetic 21 song sub 2 hour glory) everywhere, release SOE some time next year and then call it quits.
So about those Australian stadium holds in December that are sooooo for the Joshua Tree Tour...
Yeah but surely for the I&E European dates in 2015 they could have done similar in some of those cities? Just because they could do 6-8 shows in one city doesnt mean they have to. Plus I'm not so sure the demand is really this strong in Australia. They have generally dropped out of people's consciousness here.
Also this conundrum about whether to extend the JT30 tour is their own iditoic fault. No sympathy. Its yet another means by which they have compromised their ability to release new music (something they once cared about). They should take the JT30 tour (in all its pathetic 21 song sub 2 hour glory) everywhere, release SOE some time next year and then call it quits.
Just when I was going to compliment you on a somewhat calm/non hyperbolic/ somewhat factual post, you had to go and make that edit.
[emoji90]
Oh wait, sorry. I thought you were someone else
So about those Australian stadium holds in December that are sooooo for the Joshua Tree Tour...
Yeah but surely for the I&E European dates in 2015 they could have done similar in some of those cities? Just because they could do 6-8 shows in one city doesnt mean they have to. Plus I'm not so sure the demand is really this strong in Australia. They have generally dropped out of people's consciousness here.
Um, we had this clip before the Kyro mix.
I've been thinking about why u2 would choose to release two singles well in advance of an album, one as far as five months ahead, and I think it really boils down to maximizing their album sales number, and SOE's ultimate chart position.
In 2015 Billboard changed their metrics for the top 200 albums chart, to incorporate song streams. As it now stands, if a song is streamed 1500 times, that counts as 1 "album sale"
Billboard 200 Makeover: Album Chart to Incorporate Streams & Track Sales | Billboard
For some artists, this had led to releasing bloated albums of 15 to 20 songs, not because this makes for a great record (booooo Drake, boooooo) but because, crudely, more songs means more streams, and most importantly - more revenue.
Against the Extra Long Pop Album | Pitchfork
I don't think u2 care about streaming revenue, but we know they care about relevance, and we know they equate relevance, in part, with having a number 1 album. So for them, releasing a song, and letting it rack up the stream count over several months can only help. Theyre building up the streaming numbers, so that ultimately when SOE is released, it's chart position will be boosted by all these extra streams.
Make sense? Too cynical?
How does that change the fact that they went back in to tweak and rerecord songs with more of a "live" feel. Kygo I'm sure used the raw audio they had at the time, but then used electronic beats and elements in the song that weren't there in the bands own version.
It in no way changes the original audio that the band is going to use on the album.
Not sure what this comment means...
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/877342340347711489
Looks like Ted Cruz is a fan. Yay. That'll help win over the kids
Yeah, this still doesn't rule out a November leg in Australia.Though actually, looking more closely at that itinerary, the only two venues he's using that U2 would also use are Suncorp in Brisbane and Mt Smart in Auckland.
I misunderstood, I thought you were saying this clip was a result of them going back and rerecording that live feel.
ah gotcha. Yeah, i see where you got that. I dunno. One might guess that since that one was remixed and played to an audience, it's pretty set in stone. But who knows with them. thanks for the reply
Whenever this album comes out all I ask is that it's better than SOI