Author Topic: Let's just accept this is about money...  (Read 3233 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,082
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #105 on: February 14, 2017, 03:48:23 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LN can request all they want. They cannot dictate. U2 would never sign a contract that makes them practically employees.

As we appear to be keeping score is that your opinion or a fact?....

We can bat it back and forth all night - and add depth and opinion that may or may not add value to the discussion - all I know is that I believe strongly that u2 are playing shows this summer at LN's request as a part of a very lucrative contract they signed and received a very large sum of money for signing....

That is not necessarily a bad thing, by the way - u2 are a business - but I believe it to be the case.

Look at U2's track record in choosing and hiring competent, knowledgable, best-in-the-world level technical, legal, and artistic people running the multinational, multimillion dollar business that is U2. In no way would U2 put themselves in a position that would make them take orders off anyone but themselves & Principle Management. If they did it would be the first time since around 1985 that that was the case, and given the bands financial clout, it is extremely unlikely they would. 

-

Side note : LN's deal with the band may cover a number of years (I think 12) in a 360 Merch/Tickets/Albums deal, but also was linked to an expectation around a degree of tickets and profit generated in that period the band agreed to honour at the time of signature. Any tour is something the band committed to years & years ago : i.e. "We, U2 agree to three major touring cycles in the next 12 years, with an estimated revenue of 500 million over 400 shows and if we choose not to tour we pay you 33% of the advance back per tour we don't do" etc. The band committed to this years ago with their eyes wide open, extremely well informed, and with the most expensive and competent legal advice money can buy. They're not LN's employees.

Nobody said they are LN's employees as such...but as soon as you take a payday that has conditions attached to it in terms of revenue etc then you are bound to do certain things... if you aren't delivering them then you will be asked to pull your finger out so to speak...and as stated by me here and across this thread by others what I believe is that the semen that fertilised the egg that has become the baby that is the TJT 2017 tour is the terms of the contract u2 signed....

Most likely because u2 were falling behind on the agreement (they have only toured twice so far in the deal period and one of those was a relatively limited tour....they probably thought they would be on a big tour this year) so what we have keeps everyone involved happy - the minimum amount of 'work' for u2 to meet the agreed terms and a decent return for LN.


Offline Ultrafly

  • Babyface
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #106 on: February 14, 2017, 03:53:40 PM »
Read some of my earlier posts. U2 aren't being dictated to by LN. LN wouldn't ring them up and say "Time for a payday!". U2 wouldn't sign a contract with anyone that gave away that amount of control.

Online an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,082
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #107 on: February 14, 2017, 03:59:16 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Read some of my earlier posts. U2 aren't being dictated to by LN. LN wouldn't ring them up and say "Time for a payday!". U2 wouldn't sign a contract with anyone that gave away that amount of control.

Read the last paragraph of my previous post for my view on what you are saying here.

Offline JTNash

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 665
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #108 on: February 14, 2017, 05:42:20 PM »
Several other artist have done this and had success Pearl Jam and Springsteen.  So I think they thought it would be fun for them and for the fans.  The music business is changing and live shows are how bands reach the fan.  They just wanted to reach their fan and have fun get back to the basics of who they are.

Offline DoYouFeelLoved

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Holy Dunc Space Junk
Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #109 on: February 14, 2017, 06:21:03 PM »
Everything that has been said here so far is plausible.

However I'm still convinced that (putting aside money, contracts, pseudo-nostalgia celebrations and Donald Trump) there's a very well obvious "fear factor" dictating their moves.

They're scared.
They're afraid that SOE will either bomb or be completely ignored.

So they're using every excuse they can find to postpone the release and restart tinkering again.

TJT anniversary happens to be the most perfect and innocent of these excuses, and it will serve the purpose of bringing back people's interest and
revive many dormant fans.

Mind you, I'm not saying it's the only reason, but I'm sure there's more than some truth in that.

Just my 2 cents
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 06:30:57 PM by DoYouFeelLoved »

Offline tigerfan41

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,170
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #110 on: February 14, 2017, 10:34:10 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LN can request all they want. They cannot dictate. U2 would never sign a contract that makes them practically employees.

As we appear to be keeping score is that your opinion or a fact?....

We can bat it back and forth all night - and add depth and opinion that may or may not add value to the discussion - all I know is that I believe strongly that u2 are playing shows this summer at LN's request as a part of a very lucrative contract they signed and received a very large sum of money for signing....

That is not necessarily a bad thing, by the way - u2 are a business - but I believe it to be the case.

Look at U2's track record in choosing and hiring competent, knowledgable, best-in-the-world level technical, legal, and artistic people running the multinational, multimillion dollar business that is U2. In no way would U2 put themselves in a position that would make them take orders off anyone but themselves & Principle Management. If they did it would be the first time since around 1985 that that was the case, and given the bands financial clout, it is extremely unlikely they would. 

-

Side note : LN's deal with the band may cover a number of years (I think 12) in a 360 Merch/Tickets/Albums deal, but also was linked to an expectation around a degree of tickets and profit generated in that period the band agreed to honour at the time of signature. Any tour is something the band committed to years & years ago : i.e. "We, U2 agree to three major touring cycles in the next 12 years, with an estimated revenue of 500 million over 400 shows and if we choose not to tour we pay you 33% of the advance back per tour we don't do" etc. The band committed to this years ago with their eyes wide open, extremely well informed, and with the most expensive and competent legal advice money can buy. They're not LN's employees.

Nobody said they are LN's employees as such...but as soon as you take a payday that has conditions attached to it in terms of revenue etc then you are bound to do certain things... if you aren't delivering them then you will be asked to pull your finger out so to speak...and as stated by me here and across this thread by others what I believe is that the semen that fertilised the egg that has become the baby that is the TJT 2017 tour is the terms of the contract u2 signed....

Most likely because u2 were falling behind on the agreement (they have only toured twice so far in the deal period and one of those was a relatively limited tour....they probably thought they would be on a big tour this year) so what we have keeps everyone involved happy - the minimum amount of 'work' for u2 to meet the agreed terms and a decent return for LN.

The issue with this (and I've mentioned this a few times in the past) is that the LN deal was only for $100 million. I'm going to guess that buying out the contract would be less than this...especially given the 360 tour and how much LN likely made off that. U2 have made a LOT of money in their career, and I'd guess that buying out the contract (if they so choose) would be a drop in the bucket. I know of several bands who bought out their recording deals for millions and they were FAR less successful financially than U2. I would think that if LN were truly saying "get out on the road and tour, or else you're going to be violating the terms of the contract" and U2 did NOT want to tour, they'd simply take them to court and get out of the deal.

I think this is more of a case of U2 wanting/or being willing to tour this year but not being ready to continue I&E. It's a happy coincidence that TJT just happens to be turning 30 this year, so they can tour that, maybe play a couple new songs, and they'll be fulfilling the contract.

Now, of course, if the contract they signed is really iron clad/impossible to get out of, it's entirely possible they're doing this because LN forced their hand. But I'd like to believe they (and their lawyers) are smart enough to have negotiated a solid contract with LN with clauses that allow them to leave it if they so choose.

Online an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,082
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #111 on: February 15, 2017, 01:37:25 AM »
There seems to be a perception that what is being said here is u2 don't want to do it LN are making them....that isn't what is being said.

There is quite a difference between LN requesting they get out and do something and u2 going 'yeah agreed' and LN saying 'get out and do something' and u2 doing it against their will...

What I believe is the case is LN have requested they get out and do something and u2 because of the big payday they got and because of the agreement they signed happily agreed to do something because they realised there was an expectation for them to do/earn 'x' amount.....

I would imagine the deal with LN is one u2 probably want to renew one more time at least and of course with even more money involved and they don't want to fall out with LN so are therefore happy to deliver for them with these shows as a compromise for not being ready to go out with the new record.

That scenario is quite different to the 'they'd walk away' 'they can afford to tell LN to stick it' 'nobody tells u2 what to do' etc. type comments being made here.

U2 signed a big deal...LN expect a big return...I believe U2 have probably been pushed a little as they have hardly been prolific during the period of this deal and LN probably expected the SOE tour/record this year....what we have with this jaunt around their main market is a quick fix that keeps all parties happy.

None of that means that said jaunt can't end up being a great experience for band and fans and be great shows etc....But for me these shows would simply not be happening if it wasn't for the deal that is in place.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 01:39:21 AM by an tha »

Offline Ultrafly

  • Babyface
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #112 on: February 15, 2017, 11:37:13 AM »
It's not about money. It's about prestige. U2 are terrified of being irrelevant. If you look at their contemporaries that came up at the same time, hardly any of them have high charting, big selling records anymore, and none of them have 'hits'. U2 think they cheat the market and still be a band in cultural mainstream, with radio play, hit singles, big selling records and failed to grasp that every band has a golden 10-20 years to start off with and then simply don't. No act has had a high profile consistent stream of big selling albums into their 50's. (even Pink Floyd had a commercially dormant few years).

What we've seen on at least three occasions is a visible crisis of confidence, disguised in innovative release strategies (release your album for free so nobody notices it doesn't really chart, a Greatest Hits after your first commercial 'knock' and a second Greatest Hits when you're riding high) - as well as cancelled/delayed album releases in 2003, 2010, 2016 when you lose faith in the record as it may not be as Enormous as you want. Rather than risk not being huge, U2 simply don't be until the records have had the life squeezed out of them in overthinking. They don't even have the conviction to follow a reissue programme through properly!

TJT30 is their decision to play a safe bit of commercial restatement to remind everyone how great they once were. A masterstroke would be drop SOE midtour and ride the wave, but who knows if they have the courage to just be artists and exist outside of chart positions without caring about being enormous?

Offline tigerfan41

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,170
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #113 on: February 15, 2017, 11:44:49 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There seems to be a perception that what is being said here is u2 don't want to do it LN are making them....that isn't what is being said.

There is quite a difference between LN requesting they get out and do something and u2 going 'yeah agreed' and LN saying 'get out and do something' and u2 doing it against their will...

What I believe is the case is LN have requested they get out and do something and u2 because of the big payday they got and because of the agreement they signed happily agreed to do something because they realised there was an expectation for them to do/earn 'x' amount.....

I would imagine the deal with LN is one u2 probably want to renew one more time at least and of course with even more money involved and they don't want to fall out with LN so are therefore happy to deliver for them with these shows as a compromise for not being ready to go out with the new record.

That scenario is quite different to the 'they'd walk away' 'they can afford to tell LN to stick it' 'nobody tells u2 what to do' etc. type comments being made here.

U2 signed a big deal...LN expect a big return...I believe U2 have probably been pushed a little as they have hardly been prolific during the period of this deal and LN probably expected the SOE tour/record this year....what we have with this jaunt around their main market is a quick fix that keeps all parties happy.

None of that means that said jaunt can't end up being a great experience for band and fans and be great shows etc....But for me these shows would simply not be happening if it wasn't for the deal that is in place.

The thing is, a lot of people ARE acting as if U2 have been forced to go out and tour this year. Maybe not you, but it's been a common comment posted here ever since TJT tour was rumored/announced. People are acting as if LN held a gun to U2's head and said "tour this year or we sue you to oblivion." And I'm saying I do not think that is the case, I think U2 wanted to tour this year (given the very short I&E tour...how much longer do they have and do they really want to take so long between tours?) but aren't confident enough in the new album. TJT just happens to be turning 30 this year and it's the perfect compromise. They get to play an album that is critically acclaimed to sold out or near sold out audiences in stadiums, they fulfill the LN contract, and they have the option to test out some of the new songs without the pressure of a full-on tour for the new album. It's a win-win-win from that perspective.

I think it'll be interesting to see if they continue the I&E early next year and if they release SoE later this year. I think if they DO release SoE later this year, they have to tour it fairly close to the release date which would be early next year. You could consider TJT tour as a sort of warm up to a multiple leg tour concluding I&E in 2018.

Offline Saint1322

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 983
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #114 on: February 15, 2017, 12:02:46 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There seems to be a perception that what is being said here is u2 don't want to do it LN are making them....that isn't what is being said.

There is quite a difference between LN requesting they get out and do something and u2 going 'yeah agreed' and LN saying 'get out and do something' and u2 doing it against their will...

What I believe is the case is LN have requested they get out and do something and u2 because of the big payday they got and because of the agreement they signed happily agreed to do something because they realised there was an expectation for them to do/earn 'x' amount.....

I would imagine the deal with LN is one u2 probably want to renew one more time at least and of course with even more money involved and they don't want to fall out with LN so are therefore happy to deliver for them with these shows as a compromise for not being ready to go out with the new record.

That scenario is quite different to the 'they'd walk away' 'they can afford to tell LN to stick it' 'nobody tells u2 what to do' etc. type comments being made here.

U2 signed a big deal...LN expect a big return...I believe U2 have probably been pushed a little as they have hardly been prolific during the period of this deal and LN probably expected the SOE tour/record this year....what we have with this jaunt around their main market is a quick fix that keeps all parties happy.

None of that means that said jaunt can't end up being a great experience for band and fans and be great shows etc....But for me these shows would simply not be happening if it wasn't for the deal that is in place.

The thing is, a lot of people ARE acting as if U2 have been forced to go out and tour this year. Maybe not you, but it's been a common comment posted here ever since TJT tour was rumored/announced. People are acting as if LN held a gun to U2's head and said "tour this year or we sue you to oblivion." And I'm saying I do not think that is the case, I think U2 wanted to tour this year (given the very short I&E tour...how much longer do they have and do they really want to take so long between tours?) but aren't confident enough in the new album. TJT just happens to be turning 30 this year and it's the perfect compromise. They get to play an album that is critically acclaimed to sold out or near sold out audiences in stadiums, they fulfill the LN contract, and they have the option to test out some of the new songs without the pressure of a full-on tour for the new album. It's a win-win-win from that perspective.

I think it'll be interesting to see if they continue the I&E early next year and if they release SoE later this year. I think if they DO release SoE later this year, they have to tour it fairly close to the release date which would be early next year. You could consider TJT tour as a sort of warm up to a multiple leg tour concluding I&E in 2018.

There can be different motivations. In the case of Springsteen doing The River 2016/17 Tour, he told us in so many words why: #1, the new album he has ready is not a 'band album', meaning the next tour wouldn't be with the ESB. #2, he didn't want to go several years without touring with the ESB, because time is beginning creep up on them. So, he could either go out and tour behind some kind of archival release, or simply do an untitled 'greatest hits' tour.

When artists get older, they have less and less to say. It is only natural. Bono cannot possibly as full of lyrics and melodies as he was at age 25. So, are U2 limited to two tours a decade when they have 24 releasable songs?

Personally, I don't care why U2 tours, as long as they aren't using it as a pure, straight-up cash grab, and I don't believe that's the situation now, nor has it ever been. So, they can tour TJT, Boy, the 34th anniversary of Red Rocks, ZooTV, whatever. I. Don't. Care. They owe me nothing, and they have been to good to all of us over the years for us to start questioning their motives, if you remember what ELSE Larry said during the Vertigo ticketing flap. The idea that any of that was pulled by the band in order to rip us off? That idea didn't sit well.

Offline padrepio

  • Babyface
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #115 on: February 15, 2017, 02:53:44 PM »
opening post is pretty spot on...are they not also contracted to a certain number of tours with live nation and i think their contract with therm runs out in roughly 4 years when they are all about 60 ...this tour is a contractual financial obligation targeted directly at cities where they know maximum capacities in each stadium will be hit and whilst in europe i wouldnt be surprised if they fly home to Dublin at every opportunity...asia and australia are ruled out for age/distance/fatigue reasons i would imagine...i think there is an intention to tour again quite soon (arenas possibly) if they ever finish the new album

Offline tigerfan41

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,170
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #116 on: February 16, 2017, 12:24:03 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There seems to be a perception that what is being said here is u2 don't want to do it LN are making them....that isn't what is being said.

There is quite a difference between LN requesting they get out and do something and u2 going 'yeah agreed' and LN saying 'get out and do something' and u2 doing it against their will...

What I believe is the case is LN have requested they get out and do something and u2 because of the big payday they got and because of the agreement they signed happily agreed to do something because they realised there was an expectation for them to do/earn 'x' amount.....

I would imagine the deal with LN is one u2 probably want to renew one more time at least and of course with even more money involved and they don't want to fall out with LN so are therefore happy to deliver for them with these shows as a compromise for not being ready to go out with the new record.

That scenario is quite different to the 'they'd walk away' 'they can afford to tell LN to stick it' 'nobody tells u2 what to do' etc. type comments being made here.

U2 signed a big deal...LN expect a big return...I believe U2 have probably been pushed a little as they have hardly been prolific during the period of this deal and LN probably expected the SOE tour/record this year....what we have with this jaunt around their main market is a quick fix that keeps all parties happy.

None of that means that said jaunt can't end up being a great experience for band and fans and be great shows etc....But for me these shows would simply not be happening if it wasn't for the deal that is in place.

The thing is, a lot of people ARE acting as if U2 have been forced to go out and tour this year. Maybe not you, but it's been a common comment posted here ever since TJT tour was rumored/announced. People are acting as if LN held a gun to U2's head and said "tour this year or we sue you to oblivion." And I'm saying I do not think that is the case, I think U2 wanted to tour this year (given the very short I&E tour...how much longer do they have and do they really want to take so long between tours?) but aren't confident enough in the new album. TJT just happens to be turning 30 this year and it's the perfect compromise. They get to play an album that is critically acclaimed to sold out or near sold out audiences in stadiums, they fulfill the LN contract, and they have the option to test out some of the new songs without the pressure of a full-on tour for the new album. It's a win-win-win from that perspective.

I think it'll be interesting to see if they continue the I&E early next year and if they release SoE later this year. I think if they DO release SoE later this year, they have to tour it fairly close to the release date which would be early next year. You could consider TJT tour as a sort of warm up to a multiple leg tour concluding I&E in 2018.

There can be different motivations. In the case of Springsteen doing The River 2016/17 Tour, he told us in so many words why: #1, the new album he has ready is not a 'band album', meaning the next tour wouldn't be with the ESB. #2, he didn't want to go several years without touring with the ESB, because time is beginning creep up on them. So, he could either go out and tour behind some kind of archival release, or simply do an untitled 'greatest hits' tour.

When artists get older, they have less and less to say. It is only natural. Bono cannot possibly as full of lyrics and melodies as he was at age 25. So, are U2 limited to two tours a decade when they have 24 releasable songs?

Personally, I don't care why U2 tours, as long as they aren't using it as a pure, straight-up cash grab, and I don't believe that's the situation now, nor has it ever been. So, they can tour TJT, Boy, the 34th anniversary of Red Rocks, ZooTV, whatever. I. Don't. Care. They owe me nothing, and they have been to good to all of us over the years for us to start questioning their motives, if you remember what ELSE Larry said during the Vertigo ticketing flap. The idea that any of that was pulled by the band in order to rip us off? That idea didn't sit well.

These are great points. I hadn't heard that about Springsteen, but it makes sense. Still can't wrap my head around the fact that he is close to 70 and still playing the shows he plays.

Regarding older artists having less and less to say...that's definitely true in a lot of cases. I don't know if it necessarily is with Bono since we have no idea what sort of lyrics he's writing to songs that will likely never end up seeing the light of day. For instance, we know the guys tend to have 30-40 songs written for any album, then that ends up narrowed down to the best 10-14. I'm going to assume Bono writes lyrics for each of those at least partially, if not fully. It's possible songs containing his best lyrics are being scrapped because they're musically boring or just not a good fit. I think he still has it in him to write some great lyrics. In fact, I remember seeing lyrics to one of their new songs on the U2 blog recently and thinking "well, that's more interesting than anything he's written the last decade."

I'm just saying, don't rule him out yet. I would think that as he sees more of the world (and gets further involved in his charities) he may get more ideas for songs. He may especially draw inspiration from the current state of the world. Songwriting is sort of unpredictable--you never know what's going to end up inspiring you.

I agree with you about touring. Look, the guys are ridiculously wealthy (or at least Bono is from his investments). They do not need to tour to make money like, say, Bon Jovi might. They could have literally walked away 10 years ago and never toured or made another album again and they (plus their kids and grandkids) would still be really rich. I've heard nothing to indicate that any of them are hurting for money or that they've made stupid financial choices like many musicians have. For instance, I know Leonard Cohen was touring well into his 70s because he needed the money after someone close to him embezzled millions. I don't think that has nor will ever be the case for U2.

Being a relatively young fan of the band and having only saw them twice, I'm eager for them to tour as much as they want to. I don't care if they tour to celebrate the 15th anniversary of HTDAAB in 2019, I'd still go to the show. I am hoping that if they go the nostalgia route again, they do another Zoo TV because AB/Zooropa deserve to be played in their entirety (or most of the 2 albums, anyway). But that's just wishful thinking on my part.

U2 have already put out a lot of great music. I'm not counting on them to release new music that is as good as or better than the old stuff. At this point, any new album they put out is just a bonus.

Offline CDarwin

  • Stranger in a Strange Land
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Let's just accept this is about money...
« Reply #117 on: February 17, 2017, 02:36:20 PM »
I thinks it's a combination that works out like this: Back when POP and POPMART flopped, what did U2 do? Release a "Best of the 80's" to remind the fans of who they were and what everyone liked about them. Then, they followed it up with a great album, that, coincidentally kinda returned to their 80's sound (ATYCLB). They built up the fan base further with HTDAAB and tour, then when they went 360 tour, it didn't matter that NLOTH flopped, this time they had momentum on their side.

So this tour, to me, is getting people fired up about them again before the next album (which should be great).

But in addition to marketing strategy. Hey, they didn't do a 25th anniversary tour. Why wait to do a 35th anniversary tour? The time is right right NOW. Since this election things have come full circle in a way, and it happens to be the JT 30th anniversary, U2 was making statements before the election . . so . . .

Yeah, I buy what the Edge says. And maybe the marketing aspect is just serendipity. Either way, I get another couple of U2 concerts in under two years so I couldn't be happier!