IF U2 releases another sub-standard album will you see them live

[Tumbling Dice]

If the new album was simply 47 minutes of hearing Adam brush his teeth, I would go see them live.

This is exactly why they get away with not being up to the old U2 standard. Because we will still go and they will still make millions of dollars and only put in half the effort. I would much rather see a great new Album put out and hold off on the tour until the album has taken off then play all the arenas or stadiums etc.....Now a days concerts venues are booked before the album even drops. When the Joshua Tree was released the album already hat hits being played before any concerts were announced. Then you couldn't buy a ticket to save your life.

I agree - one gets the sense U2 are much more interested in playing big connects rather than releasing albums with integrity - the album is simply a gimmick to publicise the tour. Certainly 360 supports this argument - most people here would agree and I see no reason to doubt them

A U2 album that takes a full year to produce is considered by the band to be more than just a 'gimmick' to publicise a tour.

Not when one considers the financial rewards of a big tour

They can have the same financial rewards doing an all out GH/nostalgia tour without a new album.

[Sugarcube]

If the new album was simply 47 minutes of hearing Adam brush his teeth, I would go see them live.

This is exactly why they get away with not being up to the old U2 standard. Because we will still go and they will still make millions of dollars and only put in half the effort. I would much rather see a great new Album put out and hold off on the tour until the album has taken off then play all the arenas or stadiums etc.....Now a days concerts venues are booked before the album even drops. When the Joshua Tree was released the album already hat hits being played before any concerts were announced. Then you couldn't buy a ticket to save your life.

I agree - one gets the sense U2 are much more interested in playing big connects rather than releasing albums with integrity - the album is simply a gimmick to publicise the tour. Certainly 360 supports this argument - most people here would agree and I see no reason to doubt them

A U2 album that takes a full year to produce is considered by the band to be more than just a 'gimmick' to publicise a tour.

Not when one considers the financial rewards of a big tour

They can have the same financial rewards doing an all out GH/nostalgia tour without a new album.

360 was an attempt to test the market for a Greatest Hits Tour. However they needed a new album to support the tour if the Greatest Hits concept failed. As things turned out the reverse was true. The album failed then the Greatest Hits tour failed rather than the other way round.

I suspect they will always release substandard records from now on to support their tours. They act as good marketing vehicles for the much larger financial rewards touring brings.

[bonorules]

If the new album was simply 47 minutes of hearing Adam brush his teeth, I would go see them live.

This is exactly why they get away with not being up to the old U2 standard. Because we will still go and they will still make millions of dollars and only put in half the effort. I would much rather see a great new Album put out and hold off on the tour until the album has taken off then play all the arenas or stadiums etc.....Now a days concerts venues are booked before the album even drops. When the Joshua Tree was released the album already hat hits being played before any concerts were announced. Then you couldn't buy a ticket to save your life.

I agree - one gets the sense U2 are much more interested in playing big connects rather than releasing albums with integrity - the album is simply a gimmick to publicise the tour. Certainly 360 supports this argument - most people here would agree and I see no reason to doubt them

A U2 album that takes a full year to produce is considered by the band to be more than just a 'gimmick' to publicise a tour.

Not when one considers the financial rewards of a big tour

They can have the same financial rewards doing an all out GH/nostalgia tour without a new album.

360 was an attempt to test the market for a Greatest Hits Tour. However they needed a new album to support the tour if the Greatest Hits concept failed. As things turned out the reverse was true. The album failed then the Greatest Hits tour failed rather than the other way round.

I suspect they will always release substandard records from now on to support their tours. They act as good marketing vehicles for the much larger financial rewards touring brings.

360 was a failure?  How?  It was the best attended and highest grossing rock tour in history.  Other than your own personal opinion of the final product, how did it fail?

[mattressjedi]

Please dont start that argument again. The only objective measurements we have show it to be an astounding success(attendance and gross profit).

Dreamboat has his own subjective opinion.

[Tumbling Dice]

If the new album was simply 47 minutes of hearing Adam brush his teeth, I would go see them live.

This is exactly why they get away with not being up to the old U2 standard. Because we will still go and they will still make millions of dollars and only put in half the effort. I would much rather see a great new Album put out and hold off on the tour until the album has taken off then play all the arenas or stadiums etc.....Now a days concerts venues are booked before the album even drops. When the Joshua Tree was released the album already hat hits being played before any concerts were announced. Then you couldn't buy a ticket to save your life.

I agree - one gets the sense U2 are much more interested in playing big connects rather than releasing albums with integrity - the album is simply a gimmick to publicise the tour. Certainly 360 supports this argument - most people here would agree and I see no reason to doubt them

A U2 album that takes a full year to produce is considered by the band to be more than just a 'gimmick' to publicise a tour.

Not when one considers the financial rewards of a big tour

They can have the same financial rewards doing an all out GH/nostalgia tour without a new album.

360 was an attempt to test the market for a Greatest Hits Tour. However they needed a new album to support the tour if the Greatest Hits concept failed. As things turned out the reverse was true. The album failed then the Greatest Hits tour failed rather than the other way round.

I suspect they will always release substandard records from now on to support their tours. They act as good marketing vehicles for the much larger financial rewards touring brings.

The Vertigo tour had already proven that there was a market for a GH tour.

[MelancholyBaby (U2Katya)]

Hi Guys,

I am really getting torn about U2. I have been a rabid fan for 25+ years and the last few years with them has been hard. I loved NLOTH, it was better then I expected but something still wasn't right. I loved the 2 360 shows I saw but something was still missing. I can't actually pinpoint what it is but something definitely is lacking. It's not me as I can listen to the JT and AB era and get the same feeling I have always gotten. ATYCLB and HTDAAB are 2 cds I never listen to and just can't make it through anymore.
I can honestly say unless the next CD is a killer I may not even see them live. I haven't missed a tour since The Unforgettable Fire.

I used to feel about POP as I do now about NLOTH, and I have been a fan for the release of both. I am a hardcore Achtung Baby and Zooropa fan so POP was like, "Wha...?"

Some songs are brilliant from NLOTH but it's like I'm not completely bonded to it yet. The thing is, if you asked me my opinion of POP right now, I'd tell you it's one of my top favorite U2 albums. It just took time to truly discover what was great about it.

Even if U2 put out another album that I felt a bit of a disconnect with like NLOTH, I'd NEVER miss a tour. Going to U2 concerts to me is much more than hearing songs off the current album being played live, though that's what keeps going to concerts a long time fresh. Actually, with the 360 tour I discovered I liked songs off NLOTH a lot more after seeing them played live. (Breathe is an example.)

 That said, I will admit that I also felt like something was lacking after the 360 shows I went to. I had a ton of fun attending multiple shows but not one of them did I feel "satisfied" like I have with any other tours I've seen shows for. Not sure what this was!

I think once U2 puts something new out, the energy for being a fan will be invigorated in us that feel kind of "lost" or disappointed from U2 right now.

[Sugarcube]

If the new album was simply 47 minutes of hearing Adam brush his teeth, I would go see them live.

This is exactly why they get away with not being up to the old U2 standard. Because we will still go and they will still make millions of dollars and only put in half the effort. I would much rather see a great new Album put out and hold off on the tour until the album has taken off then play all the arenas or stadiums etc.....Now a days concerts venues are booked before the album even drops. When the Joshua Tree was released the album already hat hits being played before any concerts were announced. Then you couldn't buy a ticket to save your life.

I agree - one gets the sense U2 are much more interested in playing big connects rather than releasing albums with integrity - the album is simply a gimmick to publicise the tour. Certainly 360 supports this argument - most people here would agree and I see no reason to doubt them

A U2 album that takes a full year to produce is considered by the band to be more than just a 'gimmick' to publicise a tour.

Not when one considers the financial rewards of a big tour

They can have the same financial rewards doing an all out GH/nostalgia tour without a new album.

360 was an attempt to test the market for a Greatest Hits Tour. However they needed a new album to support the tour if the Greatest Hits concept failed. As things turned out the reverse was true. The album failed then the Greatest Hits tour failed rather than the other way round.

I suspect they will always release substandard records from now on to support their tours. They act as good marketing vehicles for the much larger financial rewards touring brings.

360 was a failure?  How?  It was the best attended and highest grossing rock tour in history.  Other than your own personal opinion of the final product, how did it fail?

It was an artistic failure. I don't care how much money it made. IKEA made $30 billion profit in 2010 - does that make it a commercial success? Yes. Does it make great products? No

[Sugarcube]

If the new album was simply 47 minutes of hearing Adam brush his teeth, I would go see them live.

This is exactly why they get away with not being up to the old U2 standard. Because we will still go and they will still make millions of dollars and only put in half the effort. I would much rather see a great new Album put out and hold off on the tour until the album has taken off then play all the arenas or stadiums etc.....Now a days concerts venues are booked before the album even drops. When the Joshua Tree was released the album already hat hits being played before any concerts were announced. Then you couldn't buy a ticket to save your life.

I agree - one gets the sense U2 are much more interested in playing big connects rather than releasing albums with integrity - the album is simply a gimmick to publicise the tour. Certainly 360 supports this argument - most people here would agree and I see no reason to doubt them

A U2 album that takes a full year to produce is considered by the band to be more than just a 'gimmick' to publicise a tour.

Not when one considers the financial rewards of a big tour

They can have the same financial rewards doing an all out GH/nostalgia tour without a new album.

360 was an attempt to test the market for a Greatest Hits Tour. However they needed a new album to support the tour if the Greatest Hits concept failed. As things turned out the reverse was true. The album failed then the Greatest Hits tour failed rather than the other way round.

I suspect they will always release substandard records from now on to support their tours. They act as good marketing vehicles for the much larger financial rewards touring brings.

The Vertigo tour had already proven that there was a market for a GH tour.

Yes - and they released a substandard record to support it. It's clearly an approach that works and will make the band yet more money in touring revenues. The downside being the recorded output will remain average at best