LP 13/Invisible: Please return, there's stuff to see!

[bono_212]

At least the thread did not lie, there really was "stuff to see"

I don't know, I regret the title now. Whoever starts the next one should probably just name it please disperse, there's nothing to see here again

 

[Nick66]

PS - The Timberlake albums are actually GOOD. I always despised him when he was part of NSuck and his first solo records were too "close" to his group stuff. But these albums are actually good. Considering they're dance/hiphop and not really "pop". I've bought them both. Actually bought the physical albums. Not downloads. And wanted to see him live but the nosebleeds were over $100. (Floor seating STARTED at $500)

Justin Timberlake is talentless scum.

 

[lisag71]

I've never heard of FOPP records.

That thing looks like it was printed out on a inkjet printer (With little ink left, at that!)

 

[Aardvark747]

Justin Timberlake is talentless scum.

A talented actor these days I hear...

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Repost here please?

Sorry just using iPhone was on Twitter

 

[gvox]

Did I miss it or was the info really new, at all?

No diss Digi, I mean I love the effort.. But surely we expected that radio stations would be getting copies of the new song that we already knew would be out Sunday, and playing it sometime Sunday latest Monday? I mean, when else did people think it would be on the radio? Wednesday? Lol

I like that you got a copy of the Interscope presser tho, that's pretty damn cool..

 

[ClaytonsKitten]

Justin Timberlake is talentless scum.

Well played, sir!

A talented actor these days I hear...

Wouldn't know...I've not actually ever seen any of his movies. But I love his skit work on SNL and with Fallon.

 

[Gilead12]

Might well be a joke/some U2 fan employee exercising wishful thinking, but FOPP is very much a real store. It'd be like it showing up at FYE in the US.

 

[Miringeltje]

Hello, hello

All caught up.

So, this is on track to be 1000 posts in 24 hours...

Less than 24 hours.
Perhaps just 20 or 21.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Might well be a joke/some U2 fan employee exercising wishful thinking, but FOPP is very much a real store. It'd be like it showing up at FYE in the US.

They're owned by HMV. With every album there's some individual store somewhere in the world with something like this, or some radio DJ from Idaho or something who mentions a date - it's as solid as any random speculation in here.

 

[Miringeltje]

I'd laugh so hard if that actually did happen.
Someone at that FOPP store was having the same train of thought I was having (before the USA Today articles came online).

It's your fault, gvox, with your early Spring riddle.

 

[iota]

Hold on...you guys think they're going to release a song to raise money for "charity", then not sell it?

This is U2 we're talking about...it wouldn't surprise me in the least. They are frightened to release anything. They need to do like 3 "pretend" releases until they get their mojo back

 

[ClaytonsKitten]

Might well be a joke/some U2 fan employee exercising wishful thinking, but FOPP is very much a real store. It'd be like it showing up at FYE in the US.

Good to know.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

There are rules around pre-orders though. You could in a way test that offer...

 

[ClaytonsKitten]

This is U2 we're talking about...it wouldn't surprise me in the least. They are frightened to release anything. They need to do like 3 "pretend" releases until they get their mojo back

Based on some of the attitudes in here, at the 'core' of the fanbase, are you honestly surprised?

I just want the damn song. And I pray that it kicks ass. We need a shot of adrenaline.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

It's not important for that reason - it's important so that the band don't scrap the rest if the DM stuff

Ding ding ding

Sent from my android cause iphones are for old people

 

[dan_smee]

There are rules around pre-orders though. You could in a way test that offer...

I was just thinking that - what if U2 don't release an album? Surely it's illegal to take money at this stage. Even with a pay back option...

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Hold on...you guys think they're going to release a song to raise money for "charity", then not sell it?

Bank of America are donating a dollar for every download up to 2 million downloads. It's a limited commitment/limited window.

 

[Nick66]

This is U2 we're talking about...it wouldn't surprise me in the least. They are frightened to release anything. They need to do like 3 "pretend" releases until they get their mojo back

LOL true.

Bank of America are donating a dollar for every download up to 2 million downloads. It's a limited commitment/limited window.

I get that. But surely everyone who is going to want the song isn't going to get in in that brief window. And if they can't get it from iTunes, they'll get it from "alternate" sources. So why not sell it and keep curing AIDS? Surely they can still set it for 99p each and donate that money to RED?

Like I said, who knows what they have in mind. Keeping it on iTunes, pulling it...neither would surprise me.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

At this stage no one knows anything. All these options are open:

The album is done and there will be a surprise release soon

The album is nowhere near done, and they are panicking bringing in new producers

The first album is done, and they want to finish the second one so that they don't have to work on it at all before it's released

They actually have no idea where they are, or what they're doing


Prey for a rousing response to this song. Prey hard.

or...

The album is more or less done, but now that it's done, they're having major cold feet about putting it out there for fear of having another tour where nobody gives a shit about the new music.

I could envision a scenario where Invisible is a smash hit and things start rolling very quickly...

...and I can equally envision Invisible going nowhere and the band getting all antsy and scrapping the whole thing.

I really don't see anything in between, actually.

Sent from my android cause iphones are for old people

 

[gvox]

Bank of America are donating a dollar for every download up to 2 million downloads. It's a limited commitment.

They're also donating a 'simple' one time $10M, according to articles quoted here. So that means $12M max from BoA. I believe another $20M or so was thrown in the mix by other contributors like Bill Gates and some other corporations, no?

 

[ouu2fan23]

Maybe they will go on Fallon and announce their retirement.

 

[ClaytonsKitten]

or...

The album is more or less done, but now that it's done, they're having major cold feet about putting it out there for fear of having another tour where nobody gives a shit about the new music.

Sent from my android cause iphones are for old people

Like I just said, it's not surprising given the attitude as of late.

I'm hoping for a kick-ass song on Sunday. And that's it.

 

[dan_smee]

Bank of America are donating a dollar for every download up to 2 million downloads. It's a limited commitment/limited window.

That's another thing I don't get... Why not just donate the $2 million? The only reason at all to tie the donation to the downloads is so that U2 get something (exposure) for it. If they aren't promoting an album / new music, then what benefit do they get out of it. The only real effect this could have at all is that the song tanks, and RED get less money because only 200,000 people download it....

 

[gvox]

or...

The album is more or less done, but now that it's done, they're having major cold feet about putting it out there for fear of having another tour where nobody gives a shit about the new music.

I could envision a scenario where Invisible is a smash hit and things start rolling very quickly...

...and I can equally envision Invisible going nowhere and the band getting all antsy and scrapping the whole thing.

I really don't see anything in between, actually.

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I was just thinking that - what if U2 don't release an album? Surely it's illegal to take money at this stage. Even with a pay back option...

Right. Even without taking money, a record company will tell them to stop doing it if its speculative, and they usually have specific universal start dates for those sort of things. It surely isn't sanctioned, but would be interesting to challenge regardless.

 

[gvox]

That's another thing I don't get... Why not just donate the $2 million? The only reason at all to tie the donation to the downloads is so that U2 get something (exposure) for it. If they aren't promoting an album / new music, then what benefit do they get out of it. The only real effect this could have at all is that the song tanks, and RED get less money because only 200,000 people download it....

I think RED still stands to get at least $10M if not $20-30M, even if only 50 people download it. Before I go too far with that though maybe someone can confirm that there were lump sums being contributed that weren't contingent on the number of downloads..pretty sure that's what I read..

 

[Aardvark747]

Maybe they will go on Fallon and announce their retirement.

 

[JOFO]

"Is he going to do the whole record with them?"
"Apparently they've done just tons of material. Apparently that whole first record is just Brian's work."

The more I read this the more I'm perplexed.
He says "That whole first record..."
As if he's referring to something that RS would know about.
That's why I'm going back to my theory that he's talking about OL, not an album, because why wouldn't RS then question him further about "So you've heard a finished album then?" or something.
Or said "Oh, they have a record done and now working on more material?"
It just doesn't add up otherwise.
Yes, I know he said they have "tons of material"....but that could mean anything....snippets of songs, demos, ideas, jams......that doesn't mean "tons of finished songs and they're going to put out two albums"....He also says APPARENTLY.

No...the more I think about it and read into it I am sure he's referring to OL the single as "That whole first record" as opposed to some finished album he heard in it's entirety.

I hope I'm wrong and there are two albums.
.....and one of them is coming out soon.
I don't think I'm wrong.

 

[dan_smee]

I think RED still stands to get at least $10M if not $20-30M, even if only 50 people download it. Before I go too far with that though maybe someone can confirm that there were lump sums being contributed that weren't contingent on the number of downloads..pretty sure that's what I read..

That is true, but think about it... tying the sum to $1 per download provides U2 with the exposure - the incentive for the public to actually listen to the new music is the donation. I'm sure the values were set based on them being prepared to donate the $2 million - so why not just do it, and say 'because we donated $2 million, U2 have kindly donated this song for free to you, the fans.'

Therefore we know two things:

U2 wanted the donations tied to downloads in order to further promote the song, and therefore raise their profile / promote the U2 brand at this time

U2 wanted the song removed after 24 hours - they could have left it permanently if the 2 mill was donated from the off, just as a present.

The only reason I can think of is that at the very least, the original INTENTION of this process was so that U2 could use this as a launching pad to release an album. Why they didn't alter that when things changed is beyond me though, now they just look stupid.