New album out by October??

[Lila64]

According to Digital Spy

Music - News - McGuinness reveals U2 LP release plans - Digital Spy

McGuinness reveals U2 LP release plans
Tuesday, June 10 2008, 08:28 BST

By Alex Fletcher, Entertainment Reporter


Rex Features
U2's manager Paul McGuinness has said the group will not let fans download their music for free.

McGuinness said the band would consider using "whatever technology is available", but claimed that Radiohead's decision to allow fans to pay what they want was not the way forward.

"We should all be aware that Radiohead's honesty box release of their album to some extent backfired," he told BBC 6 Music.

"Even though it was available on their own website for no money at all, if that was what you preferred to pay - 60 to 70% of the people who downloaded the record stole it anyway, even though it was available for free."

Speaking about U2's new LP, he said: "There will be events around the release of the album but for U2 physical sales are still an enormous part of our business and we still sell a lot of actual CDs.

"We will obviously work with whatever technology is available to make the release of the new record as interesting as possible."

U2's 12th studio album is expected to be released in October.

 

[djerdap]

Well, McGuiness is working hard on his asshole image. Where did he get that info about 60-70% for Radiohead is a mystery. There has been no official confirmation whatsoever that that occured. Basically, he is full of shit.

Like I said, release the record exclusively on u2.com, without any announcement. It would give them huge promotion, just like the In Rainbows deal. No more bad Elevation music videos or Top of the Pops-playbacks.

 

[major_panic]

"Even though it was available on their own website for no money at all, if that was what you preferred to pay - 60 to 70% of the people who downloaded the record stole it anyway, even though it was available for free."

60 to 70% of the people who downloaded the record stole it anyway, even though it was available for free."

stole it anyway, even though it was available for free.

Sometimes, you really have to wonder if the damn fool listens to himself...

 

[Axver]

Sometimes, you really have to wonder if the damn fool listens to himself...

I bet he thinks all the commuters here reading MX stole that too.

 

[kennerado]

This guy is actually making U2 look bad now.

Also, I guess he does not care that the album will leak out early and get put online anyway.

At least Radiohead CONTROLLED the release because no physical CD's were made, it was a digital release then CD's came later. Hence killing the possibility of it being leaked.

 

[U2girl]

Well, McGuiness is working hard on his asshole image. Where did he get that info about 60-70% for Radiohead is a mystery. There has been no official confirmation whatsoever that that occured. Basically, he is full of shit.

Like I said, release the record exclusively on u2.com, without any announcement. It would give them huge promotion, just like the In Rainbows deal. No more bad Elevation music videos or Top of the Pops-playbacks.

I don't care about his statements, but there was never really any official reports just how that Radiohead release went down. I'd like to see something like this, posted on atu2.com

Trent Reznor: Why won't people pay $5? | Tech news blog - CNET News.com

 

[U2opra]

Paul McGuinness is trying to maximize the sales as much as possible. In this day and age I guess it's hard for U2 to sell albums like they used to. The last big seller was Achtung Baby, perhaps it's more of a reflection on quality that sells(most will say Achtung and Joshua are U2's best). However it does make you wonder if HTDAAB could've done better if there wasn't so many leaks or the availablity to get it for free.

I'm assuming the reason U2 need to maxmize their sales is so they can afford to tour. Not just for U2 themselves, but to pay for roadcrew salaries, equipment, fuel etc. Who knows whether they struggled financially with the last tour because of the sales of the album?

Don't forget, living and costs are harder now than they've been in a long time. With the dollar dropping, it does make sense that U2 as a company are trying to find the best business strategy, to accomodate the high costs of touring. People are also not spending their money as much either, because of the rise in prices. So I guess the fear is, people will be eager to download for free than buy the album.

 

[Axver]

I'm assuming the reason U2 need to maxmize their sales is so they can afford to tour. Not just for U2 themselves, but to pay for roadcrew salaries, equipment, fuel etc. Who knows whether they struggled financially with the last tour because of the sales of the album?

You're kidding, right? The Vertigo Tour briefly held the world record for the highest revenue ever (it was quickly passed by the latest Rolling Stones tour). And you better believe that a substantial chunk of that revenue was profit. After struggling to break even on ZooTV, U2's touring deals with promoters have always guaranteed U2 a profit - if the tour is not profitable, the promoter rather than U2 loses money, and no promoter good enough to secure the job of promoting U2 is going to be a hack who'll lose money. They take the deal because they know they will be making a profit too. Of all the bands in the world, U2 are one of the bands who have to worry the least about being able to afford to tour.

And if you're going to talk about HTDAAB being hit by leaks, being available for free, etc., you should perhaps first consider the fact that it has wildly outsold Pop despite the fact the Internet and MP3 downloading in 2004 was much more widespread and commonplace than in 1997. I think it's also outdone Zooropa, an album largely unaffected by piracy that followed one of the band's most successful albums. Though, to be fair, last time I saw the stats, it had fallen a little short of ATYCLB's figures.

 

[U2opra]

I never said it was the worst seller, I was merely saying it maybe could've done better.

I did not know about the Vertigo tour world record.

 

[U2girl]

The question of internet affecting album sales is interesting and the music industry still doesn't have the answer.

 

[vaz02]

so glad i decided not to start Uni next year

 

[U2opra]

My second year at uni this october, little time for U2 me thinks.

 

[phommel]

It's strange that they seem to make such a big deal on how much money they will earn on album sales. They should care about how to reach as many people with their new and innovative songs.
Everybody knows that the money they make on album sales is a fraction compared with the tour profit.
Hearing McGuinness talking about this and other subjects (like doing auctions! on their next tour!!!) gives me a bad feeling. I think it's after all not such a good idea that U2 and McGuinness share profits by dividing it by 5. The feeling he gives me is that he is a very greedy and old fashioned person. He also doesn't seem to understand that the CD-era is slowly getting over and the new reality is choosing your favourite songs yourself and put the music in mp3 format on your mp3-player. In stead of blaming p2p and isp just think about creative ideas. Like Radiohead did, to say 'screw you' to the whole music industry. It gave them also a lot of attention and they also make a lot of money with touring, but at least it's all more believable to me. Like this, I am scared that U2 will become the new Rolling Stones.

 

[zoopop]

From that read Trent Renzor had good intentions but people won’t pay $5 for a digital download when it’s free on the same website. This business example is the same as premium vs. regular gas.

The root of the piracy dilemma is radio stations in general. Mostly Clear Channel. There job is to promote music. As was the case through most of the late 90’s to maybe 2002. Since then radio stations have become a jukebox with greatest hit collections. There are some great bands out there ready to make their scratch on the music scene, but most people don’t have the time to get online to look them up. They would rather listen to the simple tunes. The tunes they know. The tunes that have been in rotation for the last 20-40 years. The tunes they already have purchased on vinyl, tape, or CD. I live in San Antonio TX and drive up to Austin TX ever so often, the “music capital” of the US, and they even have issues of new music being played.

I admit I don’t purchase as much music as I used too. But I do pay monthly subscriptions for satellite radio and broadband. Two media outlets I have to pay for to hear new music. That’s almost $400 a year. $400 I could use on CD purchases . Right now to get that physical medium sensation of listening to an album I really enjoy (has an effect on my life or I really like the band) is to purchase vinyl. A format indie bands use to release their music.

As for U2, they are a different beast. Like many bands, they make there $$ touring. While U2 enjoys seeing solid record sells, them like many bands just want their new music heard. So the crowds at the shows don’t look confused when they play the “Miracle Drugs”, “Kites”, or “Love Peace Or Else” of the worlds. Or complain too much about not playing enough old material.

It’s a mess and I don’t see how the record industry will get out of it. Having Paul complain about it in every interview he does now isn’t helping. Larry needs to take him in the back

 

[zoopop]

Like this, I am scared that U2 will become the new Rolling Stones.

I don't think we've come close to that bridge yet. Trust me. U2 fans won't put up with:

-Crappy records (ATYCLB & HTDAAB are masterpieces compared to the last 4-6 Stone records, though Voodoo Lounge is pretty good)

-Touring and playing 1-2 songs from the new album, with the rest of the set being the typical warhorses they've been playing for 30 years.

-Charging $400 (Face value) for 1 ticket.

-Charging over $100 to be in a fan club.

-Canceling shows due to "sickness" and not making them up (Remind you these shows are stadium gigs)

-What else, oh yeah, adding 4-5 band members to add nothing to your live set.

I like the Stones, but their image of being greedy has gotten pretty transparent.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Like this, I am scared that U2 will become the new Rolling Stones.

the stones still put on a hell of a show, and if u2 is still touring every 4-5 years when they're in their 60's, with the type of energy that mick jagger has, then i'll be a happy man.

 

[zoopop]

the stones still put on a hell of a show, and if u2 is still touring every 4-5 years when they're in their 60's, with the type of energy that mick jagger has, then i'll be a happy man.

Stones do still put on a hell of a show. I can't disagree with that. Mick is still phenominal as ever, its just they've come consumed with the fact they have to be the biggest rock band in the universe at such a expensive price.

Jagger & co. should be content playing clubs & releasing r&b/blues records. If there was ever a need of band needing Rick Rubin to produce an album for them it would be the Rolling Stones. The duet with Buddy Guy on "Shine A Light" is a prime example who the Stones could be right now.

 

[U2girl]

Stones do still put on a hell of a show. I can't disagree with that.

What about the nostalgia "see the legends before they die" factor ?

U2 playing at 60 ? I'll pass.

 

[veber]

I don't care about his statements, but there was never really any official reports just how that Radiohead release went down. I'd like to see something like this, posted on atu2.com

Trent Reznor: Why won't people pay $5? | Tech news blog - CNET News.com

18% paid $5. 82% took it for free. And it was availabe in FLAC. So quality isn't an issue.

There you have it. People had a chance to support the artist directly, and bypass the evil record company pigs, and 18% did it.

I'd imagine Radiohead had an even lower paid %, as they didn't offer the lossless FLAC option.

 

[kingofsorrow]

ok i don't know if this has any real relevance here, and it most likely applies to people in the U.S.. i run my own gas stations, and when people get done paying $4 or more for regular unleaded, they don't want to and can't spend money on anything else. i've watched sales on the inside of my stores drop 25-30% in the last 6 mths.
folks are taking the music for free because these days $5 is a gallon of gas,a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread and 1 dozen of eggs. and when you add to that the interest fee for using your credit card, 7% interest or higher on $5 these days is a big deal to people.

 

[LemonMelon]

In this day and age I guess it's hard for U2 to sell albums like they used to. The last big seller was Achtung Baby

Selling 22 million of the last two with generally declining album sales everywhere isn't impressive?

 

[U2opra]

I didn't say it wasn't impressive.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

ok i don't know if this has any real relevance here, and it most likely applies to people in the U.S.. i run my own gas stations, and when people get done paying $4 or more for regular unleaded, they don't want to and can't spend money on anything else. i've watched sales on the inside of my stores drop 25-30% in the last 6 mths.
folks are taking the music for free because these days $5 is a gallon of gas,a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread and 1 dozen of eggs. and when you add to that the interest fee for using your credit card, 7% interest or higher on $5 these days is a big deal to people.

not for nothing, but when i started downloading music for free i was paying 20 bucks to fill the tank of my maroon brown 1988 dodge aires.

gas prices have nothing to do with people not buying music... it's been an issue since long before the gas prices increased.

 

[U2girl]

18% paid $5. 82% took it for free. And it was availabe in FLAC. So quality isn't an issue.

There you have it. People had a chance to support the artist directly, and bypass the evil record company pigs, and 18% did it.

I'd imagine Radiohead had an even lower paid %, as they didn't offer the lossless FLAC option.

Reznor posted the number of people downloading for free, if you referr to those numbers. I meant I'd like to see that for Radiohead.

 

[popacrobat]

people like to download music for free because, well, who doesn't like free things? why pay for something when you can get it free? that's basically what it boils down to. there's no ifs and or's or buts about it.

 

[ramblin rose]

Yeah, I guess you're right. Why pay for something when it's so easy to steal. I'll have to remember that the next time I have an opportunity to steal something I want.

 

[popacrobat]

Yeah, I guess you're right. Why pay for something when it's so easy to steal. I'll have to remember that the next time I have an opportunity to steal something I want.

did i say i did it? if i personally download a song for free or "steal" it and I enjoy it I'll go out on itunes or to FYE and buy the album or whatever.

However my guess is that the general public feels that since it's not actually tangible that you're not stealing it. Also that these people are rich enough, etc. But if you are looking for the reason why people download free music its because

it's free. there's nothing else to it. it's easy to do. it's free. anybody can do it. and everybody does it, so there's a perfect rationale.

 

[ramblin rose]

I don't think I was accusing you if anything. I was agreeing with you.

I will disagree with you in that it's not "free". It costs something. It's just taken without being paid for.

 

[silvrlvr]

Selling 22 million of the last two with generally declining album sales everywhere isn't impressive?

It's impressive, yes, but HTDAAB's sales were approximately 4 million fewer than ATYCLB (roughly 8 million and 12 million, or down by 33%.) If that trend continues, it means the new album would sell around 5-6 million copies, not counting downloads.

It will be interesting to see how Coldplay does. Viva La Vida is as close to a U2 album as anything can be, and it is debuting in a tough market. I think it was a brilliant move for them to give away a track and put another track up for sale weeks ahead of the release. U2 ought to pay close attention.

 

[kingofsorrow]

gas prices have nothing to do with people not buying music... it's been an issue since long before the gas prices increased.

hence my use of the words "ok i don't know if this has any real relevance here".