U2 LP13 Discussion

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
Status
Not open for further replies.
Registered Dude said:
anyone else find that U2's official communication channels have improved (or at least changed) since Oseary came aboard?
Click to expand...

Considering U2.com just reacted to an actual trending topic within hours --> absolutely!

U2.com's announcement mentions the track is for RED purposes, however it does not exclude it from being on the album.
 
It could explain why the YouTube clips haven't been taken down if it's really just a song for red and not the lead single. Or maybe because the clips are just so poor in quality they're leaving it to create more buzz. I will say that it does sound like it has enough punch to be the lead single so I would be surprised if it is not.
 
nice to read that things seem to be notching up a gear! i'm not tempted to listen to any leaks this time, but excited about hearing the finished songs sometime soon...
 
Gonna Run 2 U said:
It could explain why the YouTube clips haven't been taken down if it's really just a song for red and not the lead single. Or maybe because the clips are just so poor in quality they're leaving it to create more buzz. I will say that it does sound like it has enough punch to be the lead single so I would be surprised if it is not.
Click to expand...

Especially since a prior article said it would be on the new album.
 
Beats already have a (Red) line of headphones, right? So maybe the idea of a 3 in 1 commercial isn't too much of an overload due to the Beats and (Red) association currently. I'm hoping that the products are an after thought to U2, but that'll only happen if the music is class.
 
Well we know the ads going to be for Red and have a new U2 track on it but where has this beats thing come from? Is it just a rumour? People putting 2 and 2 together? Or has it been confirmed that U2 will be launching the new beats streaming service?
 
Well if they really want (RED) to make money off a single that likely costs $1.29, it would probably be best as the lead single from an album.

The cost of a Super Bowl ad for (RED) would be more than the single would make if it wasn't attached to an album or a promotion with something like beats. The money would not be coming from the charity...likely from the band, the label or a company, or all of them combined.

The beats thing is just speculation.
 
Talk about having cold feet,the band are upgranding it in to another level.2 outside projects before a new album.
 
If U2 are doing a Super Bowl ad for their new album, people would see that as SELLING OUT. However, if they tie it in with a charity in the commercial, people might think it's okay. It's brilliant. It's a huge promotion for the band/album, while simultaneously benefiting a charity and getting the cynical "sell out police" off their backs to a certain degree.
 
The "sell out police" probably hate U2 anyway (Laz excepting), so I don't think anything is going to change their minds. I doubt U2 gives a shit, though.
 
The_acrobat said:
If U2 are doing a Super Bowl ad for their new album, people would see that as SELLING OUT. However, if they tie it in with a charity in the commercial, people might think it's okay. It's brilliant. It's a huge promotion for the band/album, while simultaneously benefiting a charity and getting the cynical "sell out police" off their backs to a certain degree.
Click to expand...

If they didn't say it after the iPod ad, why would they say it now?

If they did say it after the iPod ad, they're already gone.

Sent from my android cause iphones are for old people
 
LUNEDEMINUIT said:
Talk about having cold feet,the band are upgranding it in to another level.2 outside projects before a new album.
Click to expand...

I really don't buy all this "cold feet" talk. The band have had this album pretty much in the bag for months now. They had 3 albums worth of songs as far back as 2011, and pretty much the core of an album with Danger Mouse as far back as 2010. With the timing of the Mandela movie, and with other variables (the Grammys, The Oscars, etc), and now the Super Bowl, they are simply being opportunisitc (not a bad thing when you are the biggest band in the world for a reason). Anyways, they have something pretty HUGE on their hands, and are waiting for the perfect time to release it. Are they perfecting the songs in the meantime? I'm sure, but that doesn't mean they have "cold feet". It means they are perfectionists who are using their time wisely.

"The enemy of 'great' is 'very good'" - Bono
 
I'm a little confused about "Invisible" because I thought it was a track on the new album, now U2.com is saying it will be released as part of a (RED) project?

I hope the (RED) thing, as noble as it may be, doesn't get in the way of the album. Will be interesting to see how the two projects are connected.
 
last unicorn said:
I'm a little confused about "Invisible" because I thought it was a track on the new album, now U2.com is saying it will be released as part of a (RED) project?

I hope the (RED) thing, as noble as it may be, doesn't get in the way of the album. Will be interesting to see how the two projects are connected.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Precisely what they want: organized confusion.
 
I really hope neither Invisible nor Ordinary Love is on the album. It'd mean we get the 10-12 album tracks plus these two songs. More new U2 music is better than less new U2 music, ceteris paribus.
 
Why would anyone assume Invisible isn't on the album, just because they're using it for a (RED) thing?

And why would (RED) "get in the way" of anything with the album?

This is some bizarre leap of logic, I must say.
 
youarenotimmune said:
I really hope neither Invisible nor Ordinary Love is on the album. It'd mean we get the 10-12 album tracks plus these two songs. More new U2 music is better than less new U2 music, ceteris paribus.
Click to expand...
Well, it's 6 of one or half a dozen of the other. If these two songs had been on the album, it would have been a 12 song album. Without them, it'll probably be a 10 song album. It's the same in the end. At the end of the day, U2 will release the best 10-12 songs they have, and we will get to hear them one way or another (whether they're on the album or not).
 
The beats link would be a great move towards re inventing themselves to a younger generation just like the iPod advert did. It would be a move towards being relevant which is what they want.

A red advert wouldn't really do anything apart from grab the attention of people like us.
 
What the hell people. Some of the jumping to conclusions that happens on this board amazes me.

U2 didn't spend 4 mil for something that doesn't have anything to do with the new album.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using U2 Interference mobile app
 
If Invisible was the lead single of new album,U2 wouldn't have post that message on their facebook page.
 
They're watching us, aren't they? I'm more shocked that U2.com say it first, but it's completely weird that they don't have a domain with u2invisible in it, if this song is the new single.

They shoot in Santa Monica earlier week, the (RED) thing, whatever this is. But the reports from Friday are different, saying they sang 4 different songs....

Well, now I see the "Invisible" title making sense, singing about how invisible some people are for us, and etc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Headache in a Suitcase
New Album Discussion 9 - Larry needs new arms, ba rum pa pum pum
33 34 35
Replies
1K
Views
56K
clerks
clerks
cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
D
Other bands/artists who've worked with as many great producers as U2?
Replies
4
Views
486
lazarus
lazarus
N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
11 12 13
Replies
388
Views
11K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
MrsSpringsteen
Billie Eilish Thought U2 Was From Scranton
Replies
1
Views
732
lazarus
lazarus

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom