Yeah, it would've been fitting if the five of them had ridden off into the proverbial sunset together. I always assumed they would. It would be terrible if U2 decided to "cut him loose" in favor of a younger manager who is more clued-in with the modern market. If that turned out to be what actually transpired, my respect for them would plummet. But we'll probably never know. In any case, I hope McGuinness enjoys his retirement. Who knows where U2 would've ended up without him.
Live Nation to buy Principle Management
- Thread starter trojanchick99
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Yeah, it would've been fitting if the five of them had ridden off into the proverbial sunset together. I always assumed they would. It would be terrible if U2 decided to "cut him loose" in favor of a younger manager who is more clued-in with the modern market. If that turned out to be what actually transpired, my respect for them would plummet. But we'll probably never know. In any case, I hope McGuinness enjoys his retirement. Who knows where U2 would've ended up without him.
Maybe he's just old and doesn't want to travel all over the world anymore.
chork
War Child
My take:
I don't give a shit about the corporate aspect of it. I let that concern go when they started making adverts for Apple and traded Propaganda for a shitastic, soulless website. I realised that, for a band as big as they've become, there has to be some sort of global corporate entity that runs parallel to it.
Know why I'm here? The goddamned music. At the end of the day, that's the lifeblood of it for me.
If they can continue to produce music that -- to me -- feels on par with the work they've shown they're capable of in the past, I'm still in it for the long haul.
Thus decreeth niku2/chork.
I don't give a shit about the corporate aspect of it. I let that concern go when they started making adverts for Apple and traded Propaganda for a shitastic, soulless website. I realised that, for a band as big as they've become, there has to be some sort of global corporate entity that runs parallel to it.
Know why I'm here? The goddamned music. At the end of the day, that's the lifeblood of it for me.
If they can continue to produce music that -- to me -- feels on par with the work they've shown they're capable of in the past, I'm still in it for the long haul.
Thus decreeth niku2/chork.
mama cass
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2004
- Messages
- 6,293
the music, which is why i'm also still here (tho wringing my hands and gnashing my teeth at the rest of it 
)Mr. Millennium
Acrobat
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2005
- Messages
- 339
Unfortunately, this is what I think happened, especially if it’s true that Bono was negotiating on his behalf. Think about it, if this was McGuinness’ doing, why would Bono be negotiating? McGuinness is a businessman and I imagine that if he wanted to move on, he’d be fully capable of developing a plan and negotiating his future. But with Bono doing it, or at least assisting, it sounds to me like “we’re letting you go, but we like and respect you, so we will help ensure your future and we will present it with a positive spin.”
We can all agree that things with the U2 camp have been very odd and non-traditional over the past few months (album almost finished, then its not, long periods of silence, etc). I’m wondering if this had anything to do with it…
And I don’t think U2 has any bad blood with McGuinness, I just think they feel he’s taken them as far as he can.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Ayup.
It's very liberating to get to the point where I don't give as much of a shit about the other non-music portions of the U2 world.
mama cass
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2004
- Messages
- 6,293
if that were the case that would be very sad indeed
i mean, they're at the top of their tree already and have been for a long long time - how much further do they need to go in terms of their success? that would just be getting greedy...
Mr. Millennium
Acrobat
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2005
- Messages
- 339
I don't think it’s so much in terms of success (money) as it is relevancy and exposure. We all know that U2 hasn't truly embraced or accepted the current state of the music industry. It’s not the same animal it was 30, 20, or even 10 years ago. The days of solely making music videos to promote an album are long over. Some may even argue that the days of the album are over. U2 hasn’t really embraced this, or the amazing opportunities that are out there to promote the band and the music through social media. I think a large part of this change is to address this issue and bring the band into the modern era.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Anyone who thinks that it's McG who has been pushing a reluctant U2 to write "hits" the past 30+ years doesn't know the first thing about this band. Which is probably why this theory gets as much traction around here as you say.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
I think it's funny that the same interference that complains about U2 not truly embracing the changes in the industry, the same interference that calls him McGuine$$, the same interference that had a conniption fit when Paul made some speech against downloading and how artists should get paid more are now mourning his departure and talking about plummeting respect. 
This place is perplexing, yet very predictable.
This place is perplexing, yet very predictable.
gvox
Ghost of Love
Uh..who was going to negotiate the terms of a new management proposal on the band's behalf, if not a band member himself (probably with solicitor assistance, I'd imagine)?
There are several parties to this. Each needs to be represented and Bono being involved doesn't in any way necessarily mean that the band is giving PMG a soft push.
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
Bono clearly wanted him out! Look out Paul! Bono wants you dead!
gvox
Ghost of Love
Here's an offer you can't refuse: $30M or cement shoes.
Don't give me time to reconsider.
Mr. Millennium
Acrobat
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2005
- Messages
- 339
While the band would absolutely be involved in the terms of their new manager, the article makes it seem like Bono was involved in negotiating a new position and contract for Paul. That’s what confuses me… if Paul came to them and said, “hey I’m looking to retire soon and I want to move on and into a new position,” I just don’t get why Bono would have anything to do with that beyond dealing with the terms of the new manager. That’s why I feel that Paul’s hand might have been forced in that direction and why Bono, not wanting to screw him over, would be fully involved in the negotiating because he wants the best for Paul. All speculation, of course.
gvox
Ghost of Love
Hold on just a sec here..I may have missed it completely, but nowhere did I read that Bono is involved in negotiating a new position and contract for Paul McG.
The articles I've read say the following:
U2 is readying a new album for tentative release in April, Billboard has learned, and is shopping for brand partners to announce the new project via a Super Bowl commercial. Leading the meetings for Bono, McGuinness & Co. is Oseary, who's been reaching out to potential sponsors on the band's behalf, according to four executives familiar with plans.
This is the mention of Bono that I have. Before we go any further, is there another quote I've missed?
The articles I've read say the following:
U2 is readying a new album for tentative release in April, Billboard has learned, and is shopping for brand partners to announce the new project via a Super Bowl commercial. Leading the meetings for Bono, McGuinness & Co. is Oseary, who's been reaching out to potential sponsors on the band's behalf, according to four executives familiar with plans.
This is the mention of Bono that I have. Before we go any further, is there another quote I've missed?
Mr. Millennium
Acrobat
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2005
- Messages
- 339
U2 and Madonna management in negotiations with Live Nation | Music | theguardian.com
The following quote is in the above article:
I get that it's a vague quote as to exactly what he negotiated and it doesn't 100% support what I'm saying, but it is possible to read into the quote the way I am.
Guy Oseary is Madonna's manager- during his tenure she's branded everything under the sun to make some more cheap cash...and no doubt had some influence behind the dismal collaborations between Madge and rent-a-rappers that have blighted her last 2 albums
I don't consider this particularly good news- hopefully they'll retain some control- if not expect rapid increases in ticket prices for the next tour
I don't consider this particularly good news- hopefully they'll retain some control- if not expect rapid increases in ticket prices for the next tour
I hope this doesn't mean U2 will start succumbing to trendy producers/duets on each release, and enter their yoga phase like Madonna.
Interesting to see it now, in U2's arguably last decade as a big artist, and after Fisher's departure, they now lose McGuiness. Strange way to launch U2 4.0.
Interesting to see it now, in U2's arguably last decade as a big artist, and after Fisher's departure, they now lose McGuiness. Strange way to launch U2 4.0.
gvox
Ghost of Love
Ok I actually had read that. But I don't necessarily think it was "on PMGs behalf". I think that U2, being PMs hugest client, and most important, would have alot to say to say about who would be managing them next. That's the way I read it anyways.
I'm confused as to how some of you see the modern music manager... if Madonna had crappy rappers on her album, it's because Madonna OK'd it. If she wasn't OK with it, it wouldn't have happened.
The manager gives advice and plots a path... but the artist ultimately decides. These are two or the biggest acts of all time we're talking about here... not some new up and commers and the will of a record label.
The manager gives advice and plots a path... but the artist ultimately decides. These are two or the biggest acts of all time we're talking about here... not some new up and commers and the will of a record label.
chocky
Refugee
I think it's fair to say that throughout their career decisions, in the main:
U2 = safe
Madonna = brave
If this leads to U2 being a little more brave than I'm happy. That may just mean the vaults get opened on some of those shelved projects. (40th anniversary mega box set of rare material in 2016?! hint hint)
U2 = safe
Madonna = brave
If this leads to U2 being a little more brave than I'm happy. That may just mean the vaults get opened on some of those shelved projects. (40th anniversary mega box set of rare material in 2016?! hint hint)
gvox
Ghost of Love
The artist comes up with the art - the manager guides them on how they present it to the world.
Madonna has also grown to be rather pathetic with her continued edgey for edgey's sake thing, at least in my eyes. You're neqrijg 60. I don't need to see that anymore.
And I assume you mean their recent career, cause Achtung Baby wasn't exactly safe, and their tour ventures all the way up to 360 have been incredibly risky.
No way maaaaaaaaaan... Paul McGuinne$$ is why the '2 always want hitz! He and steve lillywhite just want to hear classic edge guitar sounds fooooreeeeevvvverrrrr.
morgan1098
War Child
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 700
Right. Which is why we should all be mourning McGuinness's departure. Love him or hate him, he did an outstanding job of "selling" U2 throughout the 80s and 90s. He may be a nefarious and greedy guy at heart, I don't know. But he's at least 1/5 responsible for U2 being the biggest band in the world.
I wish him a quiet and peaceful retirement with his millions. And I don't envy U2 having to start over with a new manager in the twilight of their career, after 35 years with the same guy.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
U2 might talk until they're blue in the face about how they want to keep going and keep touring, but I don't think it's that drastic a prospect to wonder if they're feeling they're in the twilight of their careers now, and this is not something that's going to impact them long-term?
Also, LOL @ people thinking that Guy Oseary's going to completely take over and have them do the same kind of stuff Madonna does.
Yoga! Kaballah! Divorcing Guy Richey! Justin Timberlake on a hit song! Adopting a baby from Malawi! .... wait, that doesn't sound so far-fetched for Bono.
Also, LOL @ people thinking that Guy Oseary's going to completely take over and have them do the same kind of stuff Madonna does.
Yoga! Kaballah! Divorcing Guy Richey! Justin Timberlake on a hit song! Adopting a baby from Malawi! .... wait, that doesn't sound so far-fetched for Bono.
KIDDING.
stigman
The Fly
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 295
Thank you paul mc and best wishes you are a great Irish man!!!!
stigman
The Fly
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 295
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
This makes sense. McGuiness gets to leave the sinking ship and O'Seary's recent work with Madonna has prepared him for working with a falling brand.
last unicorn
Blue Crack Addict
Saying U2 is a "sinking ship" is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard or read. I think every sinking ship in the business wants to have a little part of the success U2 had with their last tour. I'm pretty sure U2 will be fine for the time that's still left for them to have a career.
Similar threads
