Live Nation to buy Principle Management

[lemonfly]

Just putting this out there - if after the next album/tour cycle, Adam (or Larry) decided to retire and U2 carried on regardless (due to contractual obligations as Live Nation's premier cash cow or whatever), what would be the overriding reaction of U2 fans? Would it be "Good luck to Adam/Larry, but U2 are right to continue" or "U2 need to pull the plug while they are still recognizable as the band I grew up with". Straw poll anyone?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Pull the plug.

 

[mama cass]

+1 pull the plug

 

[LadySpinHead]

+2

 

[rennowba]

Yeah i cant see u2 ever going on if one band member pulled out. Theve been together for nearly 40 years now so i couldnt see it happening

 

[Rockhound252]

Coukd be that the finish of U2?

 

[jeevey]

Pull the plug yes, but more importantly I think the band would agree. In 1992 they could think of going on without Adam but I think that time has passed. I wouldn't be surprised to see Bono and Edge continue to collaborate on small stuff for as long as they're both living, though.

 

[Iskra]

Dear U2,
I miss talking about your music and not everything but.

 

[U2girl]

They signed a 12 year deal in 2008. This isn't the last tour or album.

 

[chork]

It's not U2 without all four of them. I'd lose touch if that were to happen, drift off and stumble into the bleak abyss of the current music scene with little hope of anything ever replacing what I feel for U2's music.

 

[morgan1098]

They signed a 12 year deal in 2008. This isn't the last tour or album.

But did the deal stipulate how many albums they would have to release in that time? Based on their current output there MIGHT be time to squeeze out another album before the contract expires in 2020, but are they even obligated to do so?

I think this might be the last one for them. Even if the album is the best thing they've ever done musically, they're never going to have the huge radio hit and cultural relevance that they so desperately desire. The music business simply doesn't work that way anymore, for anyone.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

They signed a 12 year deal in 2008. This isn't the last tour or album.

Obviously it isn't... but the question was if one or more of the members decided to retire, should the band call it quits or go on without them.

If they quit or retired, hypothetically, they could easily get out of their contract. Renegotiate, give back a portion if the advance, call it a day.

At their current age, every tour and album cycle should be looked at by fans as possibly being the last one.

Doesn't mean it will be, but the possibility is very real.

 

[Rachel D.]

I don't anticipate them quitting until after 2020; when I say "quitting," I'm thinking that Larry and Adam won't want to do the band thing anymore, but I can't imagine Bono and Edge not being involved with music in some way until they both kick the bucket. We'll probably be seeing them around for decades no matter what happens with U2.

 

[Rachel D.]

lol

Hey, I was just thinking of the worst case scenario, not saying that it's actually going to happen, Smarty Pants.

 

[chork]

In their defense, I'd like to point out that they're only in their early 50s. This is not old. I'd even hazard a guess that none of them require pharmaceutical assistance with maintaining erections yet.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

So every artist above 35 is a sinking ship? Yeah, that totally makes sense.

Artistically, yes. Very few important artists in the rock-era have cut records ten years into their recording career, or later, that are as vital and significant as what they did before. Hell, the bulk of acts in the rock canon (think Rock Hall of Fame) built their credentials up within the first five years of their recording career.

Next year, U2 will be at the point in their recording career that The Stones were when they released Bridges to Babylon. If we get a good record with a few keepers, we should be thankful.

 

[U2girl]

Obviously it isn't... but the question was if one or more of the members decided to retire, should the band call it quits or go on without them.

If they quit or retired, hypothetically, they could easily get out of their contract. Renegotiate, give back a portion if the advance, call it a day.

At their current age, every tour and album cycle should be looked at by fans as possibly being the last one.

Doesn't mean it will be, but the possibility is very real.

I was referring to the doom calls of "last album/tour" talk, not a member quitting. I don't think they would consider going on without a member.

Can they get out of the deal ? I'm sure they can, but Live Nation surely has to be somehow compensated in that case. Whether that's renegotiation or U2 coughing up some money.

At the age of a little over 50, what's the concern ? The back issue has been dealt with, as long as Bono's voice and Larry's wrists hold out... Look at Bruce, or Stones. Older than U2, and still happily touring. The Who also announced a farewell tour. They're selling Principle Management, and replacing McGuiness...for what ? Farewell plans ?

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Based on their current output there MIGHT be time to squeeze out another album before the contract expires in 2020

The ridiculousness of what you just said, and the fact that its based on reality, should really make people wonder just what's up with the band these days.

It's not like they spend five years in the studio, either. They'll go for six month stretches without even recording anything. If they simply cooped themselves up in the studio for three months at a time, we'd get an album every three years at least. Instead, it's a week of recording and then Bono flying to go see Chic. A week of recording followed by Adam's week long wedding, etc. There's nothing exceptional about their recording process that's making it take so much longer than anybody else.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

They signed a 12 year deal in 2008. This isn't the last tour or album.

That just means anything they do in that time is with Live Nation, not that they have to do it for 12 years. They can quit at any time. Same with 'X album' deals. You don't have to deliver X albums, but if you do, that company owns that many.

 

[gvox]

I was referring to the doom calls of "last album/tour" talk, not a member quitting. I don't think they would consider going on without a member.

Can they get out of the deal ? I'm sure they can, but Live Nation surely has to be somehow compensated in that case. Whether that's renegotiation or U2 coughing up some money.

Out of what deal, exactly?

The digital merch and touring deal they inked in 2008 with LN? That has nothing to do with recording obligations. The only reason they'd need to "get out" of it would be if they wanted someone else to handle their digital merch and touring. If they tour never again (or once more and never again) they don't "owe" LN a tour.

And even this most recent deal has nothing to do with an obligation on the part of U2 to give LN n recordings by year whatever. As a matter of fact, it likely doesn't even drastically change whatever contract they have with Principle. It's not a recording contract between U2 and anyone. It's an ownership deal between PM and LN, to transfer control from PMcG to LN headed by GuyO.

U2 is affected, but it would appear only insofar as their assets being managed by new hands. Other artists in PM's stable will likewise experience the same change.

They can very well make this the last album and tour. Even this album and tour, they could pull the plug on and just pay out whoever they've already made promises to.

Now...would LN have paid $30M for an ownership deal of a company who's biggest client looks about to call it quits and not output anything ever again (other than reissues and compilations, of course)? Logically, no. But I don't think it necessarily means there's another decade or more of new U2 music, per se.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I was referring to the doom calls of "last album/tour" talk, not a member quitting. I don't think they would consider going on without a member.

Can they get out of the deal ? I'm sure they can, but Live Nation surely has to be somehow compensated in that case. Whether that's renegotiation or U2 coughing up some money.

At the age of a little over 50, what's the concern ? The back issue has been dealt with, as long as Bono's voice and Larry's wrists hold out... Look at Bruce, or Stones. Older than U2, and still happily touring. The Who also announced a farewell tour. They're selling Principle Management, and replacing McGuiness...for what ? Farewell plans ?

Sure... Surgically repaired backs never have additional problems for those in their late 50s and up. They're fine forever.

What issues? Any issues. They're getting old. The late 50s through late 60s are a rough time, health wise.

You brought up Bruce Springsteen. Bad example. Two members of the E Street band are dead and others have had to take health related breaks over the past few years. Bruce? Yea, he's a freak of nature. He also keeps himself in phenomenal shape... something that can't be said about Bono.

Is this automatically the end? Of course not... and I sure as shit hope it isn't. But every album/tour cycle from this point certainly COULD be, and every fan should approach it as such.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Out of what deal, exactly?

The digital merch and touring deal they inked in 2008 with LN? That has nothing to do with recording obligations. The only reason they'd need to "get out" of it would be if they wanted someone else to handle their digital merch and touring. If they tour never again (or once more and never again) they don't "owe" LN a tour.

And even this most recent deal has nothing to do with an obligation on the part of U2 to give LN n recordings by year whatever. As a matter of fact, it likely doesn't even drastically change whatever contract they have with Principle. It's not a recording contract between U2 and anyone. It's an ownership deal between PM and LN, to transfer control from PMcG to LN headed by GuyO.

U2 is affected, but it would appear only insofar as their assets being managed by new hands. Other artists in PM's stable will likewise experience the same change.

They can very well make this the last album and tour. Even this album and tour, they could pull the plug on and just pay out whoever they've already made promises to.

Now...would LN have paid $30M for an ownership deal of a company who's biggest client looks about to call it quits and not output anything ever again (other than reissues and compilations, of course)? Logically, no. But I don't think it necessarily means there's another decade or more of new U2 music, per se.

Plus retired acts never make any money any more.

I mean just look at The Beatles. Nobody buys Beatles albums or merch anymore. I bet their management company is pissed.

 

[corianderstem]

What issues? Any issues. They're getting old. The late 50s through late 60s are a rough time, health wise.

You brought up Bruce Springsteen. Bad example. Two members of the E Street band are dead and others have had to take health related breaks over the past few years. ....

Is this automatically the end? Of course not... and I sure as shit hope it isn't. But every album/tour cycle from this point certainly COULD be, and every fan should approach it as such.

Ayup.

 

[Aleh_Hewson]

Everytime anyone talks about "the end" I got nervous. It sucks that I wasn't old enough to see the boys as much I wanted to.

In the meantime, I guess this is the very first time that everyone who was involved with the records and everything has changed, I wonder how this will impact for them in business and propaganda terms.

But of course, mr. McGuinness won't let them go this easy, even the article says that he'll be around, heading something...

In the end, of course, it's all about the band. Or it should be.

 

[last unicorn]

Our friend Alan Cross has been looking into his weird magic ball again:

Alan Cross - A Journal of Musical Things - Doing the Math on the Possible End (Retirement?) of?U2

 

[Galeongirl]

Sure... Surgically repaired backs never have additional problems for those in their late 50s and up. They're fine forever.

What issues? Any issues. They're getting old. The late 50s through late 60s are a rough time, health wise.

You brought up Bruce Springsteen. Bad example. Two members of the E Street band are dead and others have had to take health related breaks over the past few years. Bruce? Yea, he's a freak of nature. He also keeps himself in phenomenal shape... something that can't be said about Bono.

Is this automatically the end? Of course not... and I sure as shit hope it isn't. But every album/tour cycle from this point certainly COULD be, and every fan should approach it as such.

I don't think Bono's health is going to be decisive on the end of the band. Larry is in much worse shape with his back and tendonitis. Check the amounts of tape he had on last tour, which was more than he already had on the Vertigo Tour. He's rather private so it's not all out in the media as Bono's back issue was, but I have a feeling this isn't quite easy on Mullen at all.

 

[gvox]

Is Larry Lootsteen a member of Interference? I know he writes prolifically on Wire still. In fact, most days he's the only person writing on Wire lol!

 

[last unicorn]

Let's just hope they stay healthy enough to make music as long as possible. They don't have to do huge tours any more if they don't feel like doing it and if more family time and longer pauses and rest help them to cope with whatever personal or physical issues they have, I say it's fine they take their time. At that age, physical health isn't a given any more, so we should appreciate them still being together, working, making music and touring.

 

[last unicorn]

Interesting take by Neil McCormick in the Telegraph:

McGuinness is the fifth member of the U2 cabal, with an equal share of the profits, and an equal vote at the table. I don’t expect that to change a great deal. McGuinness will still be available for big-picture strategising, which has always been his great strength, to balance the band’s artistic impulses with the fundamental principle that they are a business, and what they do has to make money. It might seem obvious but any experience of the giddy flamboyance of rock and roll management will tell you this is not always the case.

U2: what will $30m management deal mean? - Telegraph

 

[morgan1098]

I don't think Bono's health is going to be decisive on the end of the band. Larry is in much worse shape with his back and tendonitis. Check the amounts of tape he had on last tour, which was more than he already had on the Vertigo Tour. He's rather private so it's not all out in the media as Bono's back issue was, but I have a feeling this isn't quite easy on Mullen at all.

Health/age might play a part in it, but I think they'll call it quits when they finally have to admit that they cannot achieve that culture-transforming, "relevant" single and album that they're always chasing. It simply isn't possible in today's musical world.

When the new album is released and it is met with a collective whimper outside the U2 fan community, which of course it will be, my guess is they will gracefully bow out after the tour. UNLESS they can somehow abandon the dream of "relevance" and just make music for music's sake again. But I'm not optimistic, since they had a "beautiful, quiet, spiritual" album in Songs of Ascent, and they threw it away because it didn't have hit potential.