Songs of Ascent V - The Final Bell

[jphelmet]

I don't think U2 fans or U2 want this. Too much U2 touring is not a good thing and that's for any band. The hype/excitement/mystery is part of the U2 experience and too much excess of U2 won't go over too well with the general public/mass media. New music is essential to a U2 show, even though it might be 5-6 songs, there still making relevant music for themselves and their fans. U2 touring every year charging $100-$250 playing warhorses is a habitual I don't want to see. There not the Rolling Stones for right reasons

i am already waiting to see what this leg looks like, before i commit to buying tickets/travelling to see this leg (they are not coming raly close to where i live). If they are going to roll out the exact same 360 show, with just a song or 2 difference, I am not spending the money on it.

I liked 360, was a good show, but not worth the expense / pain of travel to see the exact same thing rehashed again.

 

[Tim Wallach]

could it be that -- given the McGuinness quote about U2 becoming a live experience more than anything else -- we're going to get many more U2 tours in the future? since no one seems to make much off the actual selling of music anymore, the $$$ is in the live setting where people like me will happily pay $250 a ticket. could we see a June-October run in 2011 as well with new music sometime in between? could the new songs be available first as live tracks sold on iTunes before any album is even available?

just wild, unfounded speculation, but it does seem as if the business model has shifted, and the ubiquity of the availability of free music has turned the live experience into the only thing that can truly be bought and sold.

This also further points towards the death of the album.

Not to mention my own excitement. When music decisions start being made for business reasons over creative reasons, hope is all but lost. And no, I'm not naive. I realize business has become a huge part of the game and always has been. However, the basic principle remains that fans like us are in it for the creative and if the band starts allowing business to corrupt the creative, it will create distance between them and their fanbase.

For me, U2 is in a unique position where they have enough money to not cave in to the business side. But by giving us one-off new songs in a live format, they lose all appeal as part of a cohesive work of art and they all start to assume that throw-away feel of other one-off songs they've done like their movie tunes, Window in the Skies, etc.

Hence, I am firmly in the camp that wants an album/cohesive collection of songs or nothing at all.

 

[last unicorn]

I usually don't follow "album news" unless there's really something concrete or specific in there, but I just want to say that I don't think we'll get an album BEFORE the tour, no matter what has been said by anyone. I feel we might get a new song/single/whatever before the tour or with the start of the tour and the album after the 2010 leg of the tour, in fall 2010, which is fine for me. If we can wait until June, we can wait until October or November as well, because in the meantime all of us will be distracted by the tour anyway. And I'm looking very much forward to the tour, I'm sure there will be lots of new stuff.

I've always thought it wasn't a great idea for U2 to release an album in "June", because the news about the album will almost immediately be drowned out by news/reports about the tour. I'd rather have a great 2010 tour leg and an album afterwards to look forward to when the tour ends.

And not to forget, we've already got a "live" preview of a SOA song, namely Kingdom. I think the band might premiere more SOA songs live.

 

[Registered Dude]

This also further points towards the death of the album.

Not to mention my own excitement. When music decisions start being made for business reasons over creative reasons, hope is all but lost. And no, I'm not naive. I realize business has become a huge part of the game and always has been. However, the basic principle remains that fans like us are in it for the creative and if the band starts allowing business to corrupt the creative, it will create distance between them and their fanbase.

For me, U2 is in a unique position where they have enough money to not cave in to the business side. But by giving us one-off new songs in a live format, they lose all appeal as part of a cohesive work of art and they all start to assume that throw-away feel of other one-off songs they've done like their movie tunes, Window in the Skies, etc.

Hence, I am firmly in the camp that wants an album/cohesive collection of songs or nothing at all.

you raise some interesting points, and I once would have agreed with you about sticking to the ALBUM format. But, the distribution model is changing; the album is irrelevant as an art form as it is not going to connect to mass audiences. it's like trying to paint on cave walls.. you can still do it, but if you want your artwork to be seen, then why bother?

the album - the 45-60 minute collection of songs, united by common themes/musical styles.. an artform that grew from the technology available. a technology that has grown obsolete.

digital model - not restricted in terms of length.. how can an artist take advantage? do they need to fill 60 minutes any more? will social networks be the new medium for distribution? digital EPs? one-off songs? or will live performance once again be the centre piece for artistic releases? similar to the heyday of classical music..

maybe U2 will tour their next artistic piece.. maybe they will be playing new songs without an accompanying album because they see new potential to the art form?

interesting food for thought..

 

[paulrg]

I usually don't follow "album news" unless there's really something concrete or specific in there, but I just want to say that I don't think we'll get an album BEFORE the tour, no matter what has been said by anyone. I feel we might get a new song/single/whatever before the tour or with the start of the tour and the album after the 2010 leg of the tour, in fall 2010, which is fine for me. If we can wait until June, we can wait until October or November as well, because in the meantime all of us will be distracted by the tour anyway. And I'm looking very much forward to the tour, I'm sure there will be lots of new stuff.

I've always thought it wasn't a great idea for U2 to release an album in "June", because the news about the album will almost immediately be drowned out by news/reports about the tour. I'd rather have a great 2010 tour leg and an album afterwards to look forward to when the tour ends.

And not to forget, we've already got a "live" preview of a SOA song, namely Kingdom. I think the band might premiere more SOA songs live.

You make some very good points here. Rather than the album drumming up interest for the tour this time around they can use the tour to drum up interest in the album by playing teasers.

Then get the album out at a more favourable time of year for sales. Makes sense.

 

[Utoo]

I'm not happy that that makes sense.

 

[paulrg]

I'm not happy that that makes sense.

Me too. If Songs of Ascent is finished then I would much rather they issue it now and then they can put out the new 'happy' songs at the end of the year. Only it never works out like that with U2. I almost think they deliberately space out releases.

 

[Tim Wallach]

you raise some interesting points, and I once would have agreed with you about sticking to the ALBUM format. But, the distribution model is changing; the album is irrelevant as an art form as it is not going to connect to mass audiences. it's like trying to paint on cave walls.. you can still do it, but if you want your artwork to be seen, then why bother?

the album - the 45-60 minute collection of songs, united by common themes/musical styles.. an artform that grew from the technology available. a technology that has grown obsolete.

digital model - not restricted in terms of length.. how can an artist take advantage? do they need to fill 60 minutes any more? will social networks be the new medium for distribution? digital EPs? one-off songs? or will live performance once again be the centre piece for artistic releases? similar to the heyday of classical music..

maybe U2 will tour their next artistic piece.. maybe they will be playing new songs without an accompanying album because they see new potential to the art form?

interesting food for thought..

Definite food for thought, but I think what you're pointing out potentially lends itself to a happy medium (pun intended). If the digital model still allows for a comprehensive collection, that's where I'd like U2 to go. My opposition is to the one-off single format.

I understand that it could be argued that obsolete technology gave birth to the album format, but I would argue semantically that perhaps it was obsolete technology that stumbled upon the best format.

What I'm saying is that an album or work - whether it's 40 minutes or 70 minutes - is a very workable way to present material. For one, it's a time frame that is long enough to involve the listener in a journey, yet short enough to hold their attention. Some would argue the perfect time frame. Secondly, when an artist works on a theme/concept over a period of a year or two, it seems that the best they can do is come up with 8-10 songs that are top-notch and fit together. Rarely does anyone come out with 20 or 30 that are both strong and can conceptually focus a listener.

For acts that are less artsy and more poppy and business driven, I can see the one-off song format working perfectly.

However, my whole argument from the start was that U2 is in a unique position to not be driven by business reasons and to use the framework of the latest technology to their advantage. And to me, that means a digital album release which the fans pick up on that is supported by digital single releases of the top 3 or 4 songs for the masses.

Either way, what I'm trying to say in my rambling way is that the death of the 10 - 12 song U2 album would be a great tragedy in my opinion and it would have nothing to do with technology.

 

[Registered Dude]

What I'm saying is that an album or work - whether it's 40 minutes or 70 minutes - is a very workable way to present material. For one, it's a time frame that is long enough to involve the listener in a journey, yet short enough to hold their attention. Some would argue the perfect time frame. Secondly, when an artist works on a theme/concept over a period of a year or two, it seems that the best they can do is come up with 8-10 songs that are top-notch and fit together. Rarely does anyone come out with 20 or 30 that are both strong and can conceptually focus a listener.

for pop songs, yeah I agree.. 40 minutes or so seems the perfect length.. unless we're talking live performance..

let's just fast forward 25 years.. U2's fate/place in history will be sealed - we'll have all the songs they'll likely ever release, the album will be dead, and we'll have answers to this question of how to release music in the 21st century..

of course, I'll be 53...

 

[Steved1998]

This also further points towards the death of the album.

Not to mention my own excitement. When music decisions start being made for business reasons over creative reasons, hope is all but lost. And no, I'm not naive. I realize business has become a huge part of the game and always has been. However, the basic principle remains that fans like us are in it for the creative and if the band starts allowing business to corrupt the creative, it will create distance between them and their fanbase.

For me, U2 is in a unique position where they have enough money to not cave in to the business side. But by giving us one-off new songs in a live format, they lose all appeal as part of a cohesive work of art and they all start to assume that throw-away feel of other one-off songs they've done like their movie tunes, Window in the Skies, etc.

Hence, I am firmly in the camp that wants an album/cohesive collection of songs or nothing at all.

I agree, U2 already made their money.. They really should just do what they want at this point.. If an album doesn't sell, so what, it's what they wanted to do. I don't know why they're still concerned about selling millions of albums, having a hit single, and winning grammies. They'll still pack arenas/stadiums either way..

 

[Registered Dude]

I agree, U2 already made their money.. They really should just do what they want at this point..

what they want:

selling millions of albums, having a hit single, and winning grammies.

 

[Niceman]

what they want:

Actually, you make a really important point. People who think Bono would rather be Thom Yorke do not understand U2's psychology. They don't want to be a brilliant art-house film. They "want to be the song in your head."

 

[JoRu]

You make some very good points here. Rather than the album drumming up interest for the tour this time around they can use the tour to drum up interest in the album by playing teasers.

Then get the album out at a more favourable time of year for sales. Makes sense.

That actually sounds really good. They seem to be doing some writing and recording now during the winter/spring and by the time the tour starts they'll have a lot of material to tease about during the tour.

As U2 on certain occasions plays new stuff, either snippets or full songs, the audience, Interference and the media will go nuts over the previously unreleased material. Then everyone finds out that "HOLY SHIT, this will be on U2's new, fantastic album that comes out in November!!". Interference goes happy, U2 goes happy and especially McGuine$$ goes crazy tonight!

It cannot fail!

 

[Jdelbove]

Actually, you make a really important point. People who think Bono would rather be Thom Yorke do not understand U2's psychology. They don't want to be a brilliant art-house film. They "want to be the song in your head."

I think u are right but a side of them want to be thom yorke still - where did zooropa or passengers come from

i think they are torn and always will be

 

[bram]

Definite food for thought, but I think what you're pointing out potentially lends itself to a happy medium (pun intended). If the digital model still allows for a comprehensive collection, that's where I'd like U2 to go. My opposition is to the one-off single format.

I understand that it could be argued that obsolete technology gave birth to the album format, but I would argue semantically that perhaps it was obsolete technology that stumbled upon the best format.

What I'm saying is that an album or work - whether it's 40 minutes or 70 minutes - is a very workable way to present material. For one, it's a time frame that is long enough to involve the listener in a journey, yet short enough to hold their attention. Some would argue the perfect time frame. Secondly, when an artist works on a theme/concept over a period of a year or two, it seems that the best they can do is come up with 8-10 songs that are top-notch and fit together. Rarely does anyone come out with 20 or 30 that are both strong and can conceptually focus a listener.

For acts that are less artsy and more poppy and business driven, I can see the one-off song format working perfectly.

However, my whole argument from the start was that U2 is in a unique position to not be driven by business reasons and to use the framework of the latest technology to their advantage. And to me, that means a digital album release which the fans pick up on that is supported by digital single releases of the top 3 or 4 songs for the masses.

Either way, what I'm trying to say in my rambling way is that the death of the 10 - 12 song U2 album would be a great tragedy in my opinion and it would have nothing to do with technology.

I love this post. Completely agree.

 

[U2387]

The break allows the option of another album, but not a guarantee of one. Live Nation has a lot of input in scheduling as well.

Understandable, option but not guarantee. What still is hard for me to comprehend is U2 taking this kind of prolonged break at this stage in their career and not thinking it is absolutely necessary to get something out. Especially with the reception NLOTH got commercially. I know people still want to see U2, but the "greatest hits" criticism is already out in full force.

I think its the weather and the fact that they are going exclusively outdoors that has more say than LiveNation. U2's deal with Live Nation is unprecedented in terms of retaining artist and management control. They are the promoter, granted, but they can't jerk U2 around like they do other acts.

The Southern hemisphere requires 2 legs, both of which can't really be scheduled into a 2 month window (before the holidays)

.

How about doing just South America before the holidays and Australia/NZ/Japan in February or March 2011?

This tour need not be jammed into a year and a half, its the biggest tour ever, get some mileage out of it. (Vertigo, Zoo TV, long lasting tours.)

 

[God Part III]

you raise some interesting points, and I once would have agreed with you about sticking to the ALBUM format. But, the distribution model is changing; the album is irrelevant as an art form as it is not going to connect to mass audiences. it's like trying to paint on cave walls.. you can still do it, but if you want your artwork to be seen, then why bother?

Your cave-painting analogy is ridiculous in my opinion. The album didn't become an artform before the mid-60's anyway. By artists who didn't need to make money or distribute to a mass audience, since they already had a huge audience. U2 is in the same position, they can easily stick to the album formula and have their work been heard. They're one of the biggest bands in the world.

One of the reasons I love U2, and one of the reasons that they're still very respected so widely is because they're an album band, not a single band.

I'm in the "album or nothing"-group. And not only that, I will bet my account on Interference that U2 will keep making albums until they call it quits.

let's just fast forward 25 years.. U2's fate/place in history will be sealed - we'll have all the songs they'll likely ever release, the album will be dead, and we'll have answers to this question of how to release music in the 21st century..

I don't think the album will die either.

 

[Irvine511]

I agree, U2 already made their money.. They really should just do what they want at this point.

they also have to make other people money.

 

[Niceman]

I think u are right but a side of them want to be thom yorke still - where did zooropa or passengers come from

i think they are torn and always will be

They want to be high art, but popular high art. They don't want to be a respected cult band. They never have.

I think Bono would rather be Mozart than Thom Yorke.......

 

[TM]

I read some posts about the format. It will be weird if they release it as a download, because Bono said in an interview during the release of NLOTH that they filmed Linear for more experience. The experience used to be a big vinyl cover, then the cd and now it's a download ("nothing"), as he said.

So if they release SoA as a download, there is no experience at all...

 

[Registered Dude]

Your cave-painting analogy is ridiculous in my opinion. The album didn't become an artform before the mid-60's anyway. By artists who didn't need to make money or distribute to a mass audience, since they already had a huge audience. U2 is in the same position, they can easily stick to the album formula and have their work been heard. They're one of the biggest bands in the world.

why is my analogy ridiculous? I'm not trying to say anything profound with it, but I don't think it's an unfair comparison.

NLOTH only sold 4 million copies (or however many it is now) because it had the name U2 stamped on it, not because of the music on the disc

the mass market physical album is on it's way out. you don't like it; I don't like it, but it's the fact of the matter.

 

[Niceman]

I read some posts about the format. It will be weird if they release it as a download, because Bono said in an interview during the release of NLOTH that they filmed Linear for more experience. The experience used to be a big vinyl cover, then the cd and now it's a download ("nothing"), as he said.

So if they release SoA as a download, there is no experience at all...

Any suggestion that U2 will release a download instead of an album is rubbish! It goes against everything the band have shown us that they want.

 

[bram]

The physicality of the album is different from the actuality of the presentation of the music. I'm ok (but not happy) with them releasing music only via digital means, but it should (and almost certainly will) still be an album in every other sense of the word.

 

[God Part III]

why is my analogy ridiculous? I'm not trying to say anything profound with it, but I don't think it's an unfair comparison.

Because painting isn't an industry like music is. Cinema is a better example. And you know, 10 years ago everyone was raving that the internet would rend cinemas redundant. Now look. 3D and Avatar is smashing all records.

the mass market physical album is on it's way out. you don't like it; I don't like it, but it's the fact of the matter.

While I am of the opinion that anyone will always prefer a physical album than a digital one, you're right, the mass market is dying as it is now.
I predict the music industry will, like the movie industry, change, but that doesn't mean that albums will go away.

NLOTH only sold 4 million copies (or however many it is now) because ithad the name U2 stamped on it, not because of the music on the disc

Exactly, which is why they can keep doing it. 4 million is a great deal, you know.
U2 will have no problem releasing physical albums for the last 10 years of the career, also because many of the people buying these records are from the LP generation anyway. There is no reason to change this. They want a hit single, we can all agree on that, NLOTH didn't have it, but that doesn't mean they'll stop making albums.

 

[Niceman]

The physicality of the album is different from the actuality of the presentation of the music. I'm ok (but not happy) with them releasing music only via digital means, but it should (and almost certainly will) still be an album in every other sense of the word.

YOU're cool with it, but I don't see U2 being cool with it. They like physical media, even big fancy deluxe collector's edition boxes.

 

[gweeps]

So, no new album until at least after the 3rd leg?

 

[mikal]

you know, one thing that i'm wondering is when this Paul McG interview actually took place. in the interview, he says that the tour resumes in California "next June". since we're in 2010, shouldn't he have said "this June"? makes me wonder if it's an old interview just posted now. maybe it's just a bad translation, but just something small that i noticed....

 

[ntalwar]

How about doing just South America before the holidays and Australia/NZ/Japan in February or March 2011?

This tour need not be jammed into a year and a half, its the biggest tour ever, get some mileage out of it. (Vertigo, Zoo TV, long lasting tours.)

That was sort of my point (except with maybe the legs the other way around).

you know, one thing that i'm wondering is when this Paul McG interview actually took place. in the interview, he says that the tour resumes in California "next June". since we're in 2010, shouldn't he have said "this June"? makes me wonder if it's an old interview just posted now. maybe it's just a bad translation, but just something small that i noticed....

The interview places him at the Midem show, which is taking place now. He also mentions 45 shows "last year".

 

[The_acrobat]

Here's my new scenario: U2 will be finished (or almost) with their part of the album by California showtime. Even after they're done, it takes a few months to get the album ready (get the first single out beforehand, press the cds, finish the artwork/booklet etc). Maybe they'll release the album in the fall of 2010 in order to make use of the Christmas sales season that I'm sure they wished they'd utilized with NLOTH.

While it makes absolutely no sense to me to release an album AFTER the tour, I thought about it this way. If the album is released in the fall and is a holiday hit due to a successful 1st single, U2 will be perceived as "being back" after the mediocre (at least in the public's eye) NLOTH period. Then, they won't really need to tour the album, and it'll take on a life of it's own. If U2 release it in the 4th quarter, most of it's subsequent sales will happen in that timeframe anyway. I don't really think that touring promotes album sales that much anymore. Maybe "road testing" the songs on the 2010 tour will get people excited about the next album?

Paul has made it pretty clear that we won't be getting a new album before the tour starts. So it's either the scenario I've provided, an EP to accompany the tour (which would still be awesome even though I prefer an album), or we wait until 2012.

 

[lazarus]

Am I the only one who thinks that regardless of when they release the album, or whatever the lead single sounds like, it isn't going to significantly outsell the last album?

They should be happy to have the sales they ARE getting at this point.

As fans, we know they aren't going through the motions like the Rolling Stones have been for the last 25-30 years. But with the general public, there's just a point where you're too old to sustain a high level of interest or excitement, even if they don't necessarily consider you a pathetic dinosaur act. Diminishing returns are just a natural part of the process. There are certainly older bands/artists who still have critical respect, but can anyone name any around 50 years old who regularly (if ever) pull multi-platinum numbers? I sure as hell can't.