Next Album Rumours Thread V - Your Song Ruined My Life

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
womanfish said:
I actually think it's more perception. U2 is an arena/stadium band. If they want to do a cool one off theater show like the Apollo gig, that awesome because it's totally exclusive and gets attention. But I really don't think they want to do a tour of theaters. Can you imagine the coverage from Pitchfork and Stereogum?

U2 goes from biggest tour of all time to touring 2000 seat theaters!! LOL!!!
All the geniuses on Twitter that had to go on anti-depressants after getting a free album would also be buzzing.

IMO, if they were to do anything for ZooTV 30 (which i firmly believe they should NOT)
they should do multiple nights in arenas in big markets and leave it at that. Get back to the studio.
Click to expand...

I think we're all agreed it'll never happen, but they could easily do it if they wanted-to and it wouldn't be seen as "U2 can't sell out stadiums anymore" because they could just easily say "we wanted to get out and play some live music, play this album in full & celebrate it while we work on other stuff". I guarantee you they'd get great reviews - U2 show they can still do it even without massive video screens etc.

JT tour was a unique set of circumstances. Given their age and how long they take to do anything, I really hope there's nothing similar in the future as its just keeping them out of the studio. If we're not getting a new album for a couple of years, then things like recording these acoustic arrangements and releasing them sound like a great thing to do as again, I think we all know they won't just record music and release it as they go.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
i'm envisioning something in line with the acoustic takes they showed on From The Sky Down

Click to expand...


This is a great point - if their approach is anything like this, I’d be excited. That arrangement brings out a bit of Dylanesque nastiness that suits the song well

For some reason I’ve been thinking they’re going to do something like what they did to Winter for that movie with Tobey Maguire.. but maybe it’ll actually be good!
 
Those arrangements they did for the documentary is a great example of something they should just release on to streaming platforms or make available for fan club members, especially with the AB anniversary.
 
womanfish said:
I actually think it's more perception. U2 is an arena/stadium band. If they want to do a cool one off theater show like the Apollo gig, that awesome because it's totally exclusive and gets attention. But I really don't think they want to do a tour of theaters. Can you imagine the coverage from Pitchfork and Stereogum?

U2 goes from biggest tour of all time to touring 2000 seat theaters!! LOL!!!
All the geniuses on Twitter that had to go on anti-depressants after getting a free album would also be buzzing..
Click to expand...

This is sadly 100 percent true. Any other big-name musician does an intimate tour and it's praised all day long --- if U2 did it, it would be spun as a failure.

It's funny, I thought most of the memorable live moments of the JT30/E&I era were actually from the smaller shows (BBC orchestra, the Apollo Theatre, even the BTBS performance on Fallon) rather than the big stadium or arena shows.
 
U2 did a small venue show in Los Angeles a few years back for KROQ at the Roxy. I think it was back in 2015. They Played in front of just 500 people. But they also only played 12 songs..
 
In the absence of any other direct U2 related news, I just wondered what folks thought of the Boss selling the rights to his entire music catalogue for $500m?

I know there are a few Boss fans on here (Headache?) and wondered if Boss fans view that as any form of sellout, or just a sensible business decision for an artist near the end of his career? I would hazard a guess that if U2 did same there would a clamour of people labelling them as sellouts!
 
macawaca said:
In the absence of any other direct U2 related news, I just wondered what folks thought of the Boss selling the rights to his entire music catalogue for $500m?

I know there are a few Boss fans on here (Headache?) and wondered if Boss fans view that as any form of sellout, or just a sensible business decision for an artist near the end of his career? I would hazard a guess that if U2 did same there would a clamour of people labelling them as sellouts!
Click to expand...
I'm sure some see it as a sellout.

I don't. I see it as a natural evolution of the music business. Albums don't bring in cash like they used to. It's all about live music (which has paused for a year).

Bruce has limited time left to tour live. He had an opportunity to set up his family for generations (beyond what they already have) and he took it.

Nobody would fault a business owner for selling off his business when he was in his 70s for a huge sum that would set up their family for generations to come. I don't know why we do for musicians.
 
I think with some of these artists, they probably have a conversation with their eventual heirs to see if they'd rather control the rights, or would prefer to have someone else deal with it. Springsteen clearly doesn't need the money at this point so it's just a matter of what he wants to leave behind, as said above.

It's likely why Lucas sold Star Wars to Disney, although he wound up donating a large chunk of that money to charity already. His family is set regardless.
 
Feels like the good guy won. Is anyone in rock going to top that number? Hard to say.
 
I think the notion of “selling out” died a long time ago. As a millennial, I’ve always thought of that mentality as something from the Baby Boomers.

Personally, I work hard and I put a lot of care and pride in my work. But I don’t do it for free - I don’t mind if my favorite artist capitalizes on his efforts, and I think most people my age feel the same way. It’s the hip-hop mentality. While rock stars were busy trying to hide their millions by dressing like they were broke, hip hop artists were looking at them like “what are you, fucking nuts? Of course I want to get paid.” Common sense has won out.
 
Selling Out is definitely antiquated. Though, I’d say it’s a Gen-X response to Boomer/Silent Gen over-commodification of the arts. If it was ever viable to *not* sell out, that time has passed.

You can still sell out if you willingly allow your art to promote some dubious cause that goes against your morals, but profiting off of your art is so rare these days that selling out for cash is totally acceptable. Modern patronage.
 
The John Tree said:
I think the notion of “selling out” died a long time ago. As a millennial, I’ve always thought of that mentality as something from the Baby Boomers.

Personally, I work hard and I put a lot of care and pride in my work. But I don’t do it for free - I don’t mind if my favorite artist capitalizes on his efforts, and I think most people my age feel the same way. It’s the hip-hop mentality. While rock stars were busy trying to hide their millions by dressing like they were broke, hip hop artists were looking at them like “what are you, fucking nuts? Of course I want to get paid.” Common sense has won out.
Click to expand...

Excellent, spot on post!!

Common sense has won out indeed. The boomers who held these views so "sacred" with music and art were the same people who embraced the "greed is good" ethos in pretty much every other area of their lives and left us where we are now.

I'm willing to bet a good amount of these purists do in fact have 7 figure retirement accounts. Which is good for them, I'm thrilled. However, the hypocrisy would kill me if I were in their shoes.
 


Bill Hicks doesn't have a 7 figure retirement account, that's for sure. Dead before 40 from pancreatic cancer (or killed by the government, who knows?).

The full bit is one of his best:




pacemaker said:
Selling Out is definitely antiquated. Though, I’d say it’s a Gen-X response to Boomer/Silent Gen over-commodification of the arts. If it was ever viable to *not* sell out, that time has passed.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what it was, and if you're old enough to remember when Lennon's Revolution was used by Nike and the controversy that ensued, you might be able to understand why this was such a betrayal for many people (though rights-holder Michael Jackson was to blame, not Yoko).

I've said this before, but while it may be passe to condemn 21st century acts for cashing in, I still reserve my highest respect for the 20th century bands who didn't, like R.E.M., Radiohead, and to a certain extent, U2 (who have yet to license one of their songs for a commercial that isn't associated with music or one of their tours).
 
Definitely mixed feelings on this.

I’m glad “Streets” hasn’t been used to hawk SUVs … but it’s not like I enjoy “Instant Karma” or “Puctures of You” or “Twin Cinema” any less because they were all in major commercials.

I’m also not 100% sure how this works financially … isnt Bruce likely already worth $500m? Does he trust Sony more than his estate and heirs to make decisions about his work after he’s gone?

No judgment. I assume U2 will eventually do the same. I just don’t know how this works.
 
As I suggested in a post the other day, his children/Patti likely declined. It’s a big responsibility and some would rather pursue their own interests than be the caretaker and decider of all the requests.
 
Plus, it takes a certain amount of business savvy to navigate that type of thing. If I’m Evan Springsteen, I’d rather just have the $100+ million than have to worry about how much Born To Run should be worth to license to Nike.
 
The John Tree said:
Plus, it takes a certain amount of business savvy to navigate that type of thing. If I’m Evan Springsteen, I’d rather just have the $100+ million than have to worry about how much Born To Run should be worth to license to Nike.
Click to expand...

There’s also no guarantee that the family are fans, particularly. Is his catalog safer in the hands of a label or his kids? Could go either way.
 
The only reason it's passe to judge people for selling out is because our culture has been completely altered by 40 years of extreme capitalism and extreme capitalist propaganda.

Bruce's bloodline was already set for the next several generations. Maybe none of them wanted to manage his catalog, but they could just hire someone. The Bowie estate has someone handling the catalig. Corporations have proven themselves to be terrible stewards of the art they own and it's very unfortunate that so many extremely rich artists are selling their life's work to institutions that don't care about it. I see these moves as representations of extreme greed more than anything else. The only thing the super rich - and Bruce is certainly super rich - want is MORE. It's unfortunate to see people like Bruce resort to turning tricks when they could afford to buy a small country.
 
Hollow Island said:
The only reason it's passe to judge people for selling out is because our culture has been completely altered by 40 years of extreme capitalism and extreme capitalist propaganda.
Click to expand...

That's reductive. While the "get paid" credo that came with the dominance of hip hop in the 90s and made it acceptable in the mainstream to do this kind of thing, piracy of recorded music went off the charts in the digital age to the point where artists gradually make less and less off their studio output and have to rely more and more on touring, merchandising, and yes, licensing.

It's just a different world now.
 
From what I understand, Tom Petty didn't really have much set up in terms of his estate. After he died, his 2 daughter have been at war with his wife (not their mother) about a bunch of things regarding his estate, legacy, and the future of his music. Because of this, a lot of other older artists are selling off the rights to their music, preferring their heirs to just inherit a sum of money, rather than have them fight over what to do with everything. Bob Dylan recently made a similar deal. Motley Crue have also recently sold their catalog to BMG, so now they'll be providing the soundtrack to many a strip club.

U2 will probably do this someday soon.
 
Hollow Island said:
The only reason it's passe to judge people for selling out is because our culture has been completely altered by 40 years of extreme capitalism and extreme capitalist propaganda.

Bruce's bloodline was already set for the next several generations. Maybe none of them wanted to manage his catalog, but they could just hire someone. The Bowie estate has someone handling the catalig. Corporations have proven themselves to be terrible stewards of the art they own and it's very unfortunate that so many extremely rich artists are selling their life's work to institutions that don't care about it. I see these moves as representations of extreme greed more than anything else. The only thing the super rich - and Bruce is certainly super rich - want is MORE. It's unfortunate to see people like Bruce resort to turning tricks when they could afford to buy a small country.
Click to expand...

https://youtu.be/v3ddie96k1E

Cool that Bowie has someone managing his catalog, tho.
 
Last edited:
It’s gotta be true, otherwise this is the most random rumor ever. I’ve still never seen Man On A Train, but I think it’s pretty adorable that the grumpiest U2er likes - of all things - acting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Janet H
  • Sticky
Forum Update - We're back! Ask your questions here.
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Popmartijn
Popmartijn
pacemaker
Next Album Rumours Thread IV - 2 Sing 2 Furious
33 34 35
Replies
1K
Views
50K
ferball415
F
dan_smee
U2 - the lost album
Replies
4
Views
1K
gvox
gvox
P
The Band That Saved My Life - Paulo Vetri's project
Replies
4
Views
2K
Paulo Vetri
P
Hollow Island
Vulture: All 234 U2 Songs, Ranked From Worst to Best
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
phommel
P

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom