New Album - inc 'Invisible' - discussion of Hangar Clips, Super Bowl and Amy Poehler

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
digitize said:
I like Coldplay, but Atlas is ABHORRENT.
Click to expand...

I had a couple of songs from Parachutes come on during an "I Feel Lucky" playlist on Google Music (*ding ding), and it reminded me how far they've fallen. I really, I mean REALLY loved their first two albums. It's a damn shame.. :angry:
 
If they don't feel confident in the stuff they have, maybe they should just release bits of it at a time. Tweak as they feel the need to. Pass any disasters as one-off experiments.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
:bono:

Guy, guys, I’ve got an idea.

Let’s spend $4,000,000 on buying a Super Bowl ad, and spend heaps on an expensive production of said ad.

Let’s use it to launch a new song that has nothing to do with our upcoming album.

Let’s then make it about (RED) and say that somewhere between a portion and all proceeds from the song go to (RED)!

So all we have to do is spend a minimum of $4million, and then if the song sells as much as top flight singles do these days, (RED) might make a hundred grand or so!

With this amazing plan of mine, there is absolutely no benefit to anyone!

LET’S DO IT!
Click to expand...
The only problem with any of this is U2 aren't the ones spending $4 million (if any). That's what sponsors are for. The add is for a product (the sponsor), not just U2's single, with proceeds going to RED. As far as how much money U2 are putting in, I don't know obviously, but I would guess they are not going to use money; they are going to use their song, 'Invisible' to pay for the add (ie, donate it for free).
 
mikal said:
I'm currently feeling like this year can go either way. If the new single isn't great and the band chickens out on releasing the album in April, then it's going to be a very challenging year in regards to being a fan of this band.
Click to expand...

I understand you Mik, we sure have reasons to doubt how good a single they can deliver now and how much confidence do they have in their own material (yes NLOTH I'm lookin at you :wave: )...
But I feel really optimistic. They are U2. They know they have a lot to prove, and they know how to come back (yes AB and ATYCLB I'm lookin at you :applaud:)...
Also and of more importance, don't you guys think that they are too close to the rumored release dates of the album ( March/April/June ) to scrap it now? Don't they have to plan things like promotion, tour, rehearsals etc etc well in advance?
Like I said, I know we have our resons to doubt...but I feel like everything is pointing at this year being their comeback year.
And no band calls their comeback album Donkey Punch if they don't have a guitar player on fire :sexywink: !!!!!

Or maybe I'm a fuckin shitty optimistic :reject: ...
 
i can't see why they'd go to all the trouble of a Super Bowl commercial, and not maximize the goodwill flowing towards them from the GG win and the Oscar nod (they all showed up for the GGs as well, and were clearly all back in fighting form), if an album isn't released fairly soon. this is all a lot of work, involving a lot of people, and there's some rather sophisticated cross-coordination that has to take place across a variety of media ... it all seems like too much to do if not for the ultimate goal of promoting the new album, which is second only in importance to the tour.

if this is a charity one-off, that's great, but it seems like a missed opportunity for an aging group of rock legends who are seeing their window get smaller and smaller by the day.

i guess i can see the "testing of the waters" theory with "invisible" -- which, while it might seem like they've lost their collective nuts, also isn't necessarily a bad idea, and if it tanks, i don't think an entire album will be rescrapped, but it might involve a few more months of tweaks and a shake up in the song order.

it's obvious that U2 are trying to make the best album they possibly can, and the lesson learned from NLOTH is not to be so insular that you think anything you play is awesome -- didn't Bono say at one point post-NLOTH that they're now good enough as a band that they can make a bad song sound pretty good? -- but simply to check in with the outside world to make sure you aren't being insufferable?

but then again, isn't that what OL already is? and the reaction has to be encouraging.
 
last unicorn said:
I don't get this cynicism either. It's common in sports and everywhere to say "we" if the team you support and identify with is successful. This forum has reached a real low by making fun of fans who are proud of their band and happy for them. It's almost like you have to justify yourself for supporting the band. You Tube and random reader comments with online articles aren't much worse, really.
Click to expand...
People who use "we" to talk about the sports teams they root for also suck (and I say this as someone who will occasionally let a "we" slip as hard as I try not to).

There are some sensitive people on this forum.
 
has the Super Bowl ad been officially confirmed somewhere? i.e. not just a widespread rumour??
 
I find it extremely hard to believe that U2 is waiting to see how Invisible does before deciding how/when to move forward with the album and tour.

Did I misinterpret what you were saying gvox? Because that's pretty whackadoo right there.
 
corianderstem said:
I find it extremely hard to believe that U2 is waiting to see how Invisible does before deciding how/when to move forward with the album and tour.

Did I misinterpret what you were saying gvox?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that will be the sole reason why things might not pan out the way we first thought, but I am saying that if it supremely tanks, don't be too surprised by what might happen....
 
Ugh. Can we please stop with the incorrect and ludicrous meme, repeated per and over around here, that U2 is spending 4 million on this supposed ad? IF there is an ad, and IF it's tied to RED and/or Beats, you can be sure that U2 is not spending 4 million of their own cash on it, if they are spending any of their own money at all, which is very unlikely. U2's contribution to these things, like the iPod ad, is being U2.

IF there were an ad, just for U2's record, and nothing else, there might be a point somewhere there. But even in that case, it would most likely be their label paying for it.
 
gvox said:
But it wouldn't really be a waste per se, if helped them to decide that they want to take a slightly different direction..

Like...which 12 of the n songs they have recorded to actually use for the album, for instance :wink:
Click to expand...


this i can see -- which might necessitate a push from March to June, with a tour to start immediately.

but fall or 2015? no. it would be such a colossal waste of time, money, and effort. and i don't think U2 are quite at the Axl Rose stage of mental health.
 
Beats has an ad. If that comes and goes with no sign of a U2 tie in then all hell will break loose around here. :wink:
 
The speculation is that the Beats Music streaming service will include the U2 song, and somehow tie into (RED) as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Best Live Track Survivor - Intro, Rules & Discussion
Replies
1
Views
675
Hewson
Hewson
LuckyNumber7
U2 Catalog: Take the Survey!
3 4 5
Replies
146
Views
10K
LuckyNumber7
LuckyNumber7
bono_212
  • Locked
LP 13/Invisible: Please return, there's stuff to see!
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
49K
blujein
blujein
Musikwala
  • Locked
New Album Discussion (Will it be bigger than Zeppelin? Rush? Bon Jovi? Jesus? Allah?)
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
72K
lazarus
lazarus
prbiker15
  • Locked
LP13 Discussion - Rock Bottom: Still No F#@&*ng News!
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
65K
Zimmy1987
Z

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom