@U2 Forum

U2 => News and Rumors => Topic started by: 1985 on March 20, 2017, 09:36:47 AM

Title: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: 1985 on March 20, 2017, 09:36:47 AM
http://www.npr.org/2017/03/20/520443744/u2-on-the-joshua-tree-a-lasting-ode-to-a-divided-america
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: Manos73 on March 20, 2017, 01:52:49 PM
Meh. Americans have to put up with a lot these days. Could you imagine anyone saying, "Rather arrogantly, we don't think you own [Ireland, UK, etc]. We think Ireland is an idea that belongs to people who need it most," without sounding like a p****?
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: Saint1322 on March 20, 2017, 03:07:00 PM
There's your answer about whether this tour will be political or not.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: WookieeWarrior10 on March 20, 2017, 03:15:44 PM
Aaand this is why people don't like Bono... are you an American Bono? Because last time I checked, you were Irish.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: mariomofo on March 20, 2017, 04:35:52 PM
Nice interview. That Reagan-on-a-chariot mural sounds wild!
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: Thunder Peel on March 20, 2017, 05:00:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There's your answer about whether this tour will be political or not.

That's why I'm sitting this one out. I'm so tired of politics and everyone feeling the need to make a political statement every ten minutes. Can we not just enjoy a night of music without making it a soapbox event?
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: Neil Young, man! on March 20, 2017, 05:25:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There's your answer about whether this tour will be political or not.

That's why I'm sitting this one out. I'm so tired of politics and everyone feeling the need to make a political statement every ten minutes. Can we not just enjoy a night of music without making it a soapbox event?
Quite right. The lyrics are political already, so why oh why do we need all the theatre in betweeen songs.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: monopoly on March 20, 2017, 05:35:21 PM
It'll be interesting to see when the American audience becomes divided
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: Izzy on March 20, 2017, 05:53:06 PM
Maybe someone will say to him "Bono, you sure you want to go with that mix?"  And he'll go back to fretting over the new album 😬
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: miryclay on March 20, 2017, 06:45:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Aaand this is why people don't like Bono... are you an American Bono? Because last time I checked, you were Irish.

Bono keeps prodding Americans with issues of identity and charity.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: miryclay on March 20, 2017, 06:47:13 PM
When you own luxurious NYC penthouses I suppose that makes you Murican.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: Daniel94 on March 20, 2017, 09:16:52 PM
Pretty inoffensive interview. Man TJT is such a great album. 
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: mcpaulson22 on March 20, 2017, 10:07:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There's your answer about whether this tour will be political or not.

That's why I'm sitting this one out. I'm so tired of politics and everyone feeling the need to make a political statement every ten minutes. Can we not just enjoy a night of music without making it a soapbox event?

Ah.. yes.. because U2 has never been political while on tour. . . why start now? *sarcasm*
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: tigerfan41 on March 20, 2017, 10:38:45 PM
U2 have always been a social and politically minded band. They came out against Reagan, taunted Bush senior on Zoo TV, spoke out against other social issues etc. How in the world is anyone surprised or angered that they've chosen to keep doing what they've always done?

People have a choice: either like the band or don't like them. If their politics suddenly make you uncomfortable, stop listening to them. Don't bother to attend the concerts. But do not expect to silence them. They have a right to their opinion, just as right-leaning musicians have a right to theirs, just as left-leaning musicians have a right to theirs.

The fact that they're Irish is irrelevant as far as their opinion goes--they've got a right to it just as much as any American does. They pay taxes here, they own property here, they live here a decent amount of time and have knowledge of our country. Being from Ireland, they've witnessed a lot of things and perhaps have insights and knowledge that we don't have. No harm in taking what they say at face value and making our own decision on whether or not to believe what they're saying.

Also, people are reading way too much into what they said in this interview. They are certainly drawing parallels between TJT and the world in 1987 and TJT and the world today. Because there ARE parallels. But that does not mean they're going to spend 2 hours every night preaching about politics or religion or what have you. It just means that they're acknowledging the album and its political ties.

Do people not remember what Bono said a month and a half ago in the U2.com interview? He very clearly said that he disagreed with who was elected, but respected that Americans made their choice. Further, he said that music has the ability to unite people and that's what he wanted to accomplish during the upcoming tour. That, to me, says that any political talk will be kept to a minimum on TJT tour. In short, people are panicking about this for no real reason.

That's all I'll really say since this forum has a rule against political commentary. We're all U2 fans here and I would hope we know our band's history well enough to know that this interview is par for the course and a continuation of what this band has always been.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: PopMart_1997 on March 21, 2017, 04:40:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Aaand this is why people don't like Bono... are you an American Bono? Because last time I checked, you were Irish.
Hey, America is not the world.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: miryclay on March 21, 2017, 06:17:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Aaand this is why people don't like Bono... are you an American Bono? Because last time I checked, you were Irish.
Hey, America is not the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2scLTOkqa7s
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: georgemccauley on March 21, 2017, 06:37:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There's your answer about whether this tour will be political or not.

It's U2, of course it will be political!
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: Kmama07 on March 21, 2017, 06:47:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Maybe someone will say to him "Bono, you sure you want to go with that mix?"  And he'll go back to fretting over the new album 😬
Hahahahahahaha! Just choked on my coffee reading that! F'ing funny!
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: riffraff on March 21, 2017, 06:51:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Maybe someone will say to him "Bono, you sure you want to go with that mix?"  And he'll go back to fretting over the new album 😬
Hahahahahahaha! Just choked on my coffee reading that! F'ing funny!
And, so horribly possible!
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: Saint1322 on March 21, 2017, 08:08:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It'll be interesting to see when the American audience becomes divided

Springsteen already dealt with this. He lost some people who apparently just flat-out didn't 'get' the message of Bruce's albums from Darkness (1978) forward. U2 have always been so overtly political that I can't imagine they haven't weeded out the folks who would actually boycott a band over their politics. If they go after Trump, there may be a smattering of boos, but I think the crowd they draw in America is overwhelmingly either on board with the politics or used to tuning it out. I don't think there will be much squawking.

As for the 'and this is why people don't like Bono/are you American' comment earlier: Bono very clearly states -- and has been stating for the last 30+ years -- that he is in love with the idea of America. He is a FAN of America, and just like any other FAN, when the object of your fandom acts in a way that doesn't 'fit' what you thought they were supposed to be about, it hurts your feelings.

Surely U2 fans can appreciate and relate to that sentiment. :)
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: Thunder Peel on March 21, 2017, 08:12:42 AM
I don't get this idea that someone must agree with an artist's politics or else they're not a "true fan" and probably never understood their music in the first place. If that's the case then most of my record collection is worthless and I have no business listening to it.

I don't care one way or another what the band believes. I'm just tired of everything needing to be a political or social commentary, especially when the band claims they want to bring people together. You simply can't keep talking politics and expect people from opposite sides of the aisle to be hugging at the end of the night. The music should be able to be speak for itself. The band does better when they tackle issues that everyone can get behind, like fighting AIDS or poverty. When you begin to attack certain candidates and parties it becomes less unifying and unfortunately that's where they've decided to make their bed. They're free to do that but just a glance at the band's Facebook page tells me it's having a more divisive effect than they realize.

But hey, I'm not technically a true fan, so maybe I'm just naive in expecting concerts, films, and video games to entertain me instead of shoving political and social views down my throat.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: Saint1322 on March 21, 2017, 08:24:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't get this idea that someone must agree with an artist's politics or else they're not a "true fan" and probably never understood their music in the first place. If that's the case then most of my record collection is worthless and I have no business listening to it.

I don't care one way or another what the band believes. I'm just tired of everything needing to be a political or social commentary, especially when the band claims they want to bring people together. You simply can't keep talking politics and expect people from opposite sides of the aisle to be hugging at the end of the night. The music should be able to be speak for itself. The band does better when they tackle issues that everyone can get behind, like fighting AIDS or poverty. When you begin to attack certain candidates and parties it becomes less unifying and unfortunately that's where they've decided to make their bed. They're free to do that but just a glance at the band's Facebook page tells me it's having a more divisive effect than they realize.

But hey, I'm not technically a true fan, so maybe I'm just naive in expecting concerts, films, and video games to entertain me instead of shoving political and social views down my throat.

But the politics pre-date the activism. You have to remember where U2 come from. They've dealt with conflicts and choosing sides their whole lives, and quite frankly, there are some issues going on in the world -- and mods, I realize I am treading on thin ice here -- where there can be no compromise. You either respect the inherent dignity all human beings, or there's the door. We aren't talking about tax codes and climate change or abortion or other morally ambiguous issues in America right now. We are talking about caring for the sick and feeding the hungry. We are asking ourselves if we are still that shining city on the hill that welcomes all who would come seeking a better life. Your door is either open, or it is closed.

So while I get your point, i.e., you can love the art without agreeing with the politics or religion or the values of an artist, there comes a point where the two can't be separated. There was a time in my young, idealistic days, that I couldn't/wouldn't listen to Guns N Roses, the Stones and Motley Crue, because they were made up of deplorable human beings (in my view at the time). Axl was accused of doing horrible things to an ex-girlfriend in a Rolling Stone article that turned my stomach. There was the offensive album artwork in one of their albums. Mick Jagger has kids all over planet Earth that he doesn't support. Vince Neil from Motley killed a guy in a DUI crash and walked. That kind of thing used to prevent me from enjoying the music. Sometimes, it still impacts what I can listen to or watch. I won't watch Woody Allen or Roman Polanski films. It troubles me when I see the Cosby Show on TV now. The list goes on and on.

I guess what I am trying to say is, re: the message of an artist, there comes a point where we all draw a line in the sand. As Bruce Springsteen says 'if you don't like it, your money is at the door.'

And I will leave it there.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: Saint1322 on March 21, 2017, 01:36:28 PM
Like I said, I know that is teetering on the edge, but I didn't attack anyone's beliefs. I feel relatively certain that someone wouldn't be well-received if they raised the wrong flag at a U2 show. Remember the infamous 'U2 SF' incident from the Joshua Tree Tour?

Again, all apologies if that crossed the line; I was just discussing the line between the art and the artist. I am more than happy to drop it. :)

(But I will say, this tour IS going to get political, so be ready)
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: ian ryan on March 21, 2017, 02:54:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Aaand this is why people don't like Bono... are you an American Bono? Because last time I checked, you were Irish.

But America has a massive influence over most other countries on this planet. The Irish-American connection is one of the fundamental personality traits of the US. Bono has every right to express that connection as he interprets it.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: Hawkmoon2e on March 21, 2017, 02:59:46 PM
Just a quick reminder that forum moderation is not a topic for public discussion.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: ian ryan on March 21, 2017, 03:00:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't get this idea that someone must agree with an artist's politics or else they're not a "true fan" and probably never understood their music in the first place. If that's the case then most of my record collection is worthless and I have no business listening to it.

I don't care one way or another what the band believes. I'm just tired of everything needing to be a political or social commentary, especially when the band claims they want to bring people together. You simply can't keep talking politics and expect people from opposite sides of the aisle to be hugging at the end of the night. The music should be able to be speak for itself. The band does better when they tackle issues that everyone can get behind, like fighting AIDS or poverty. When you begin to attack certain candidates and parties it becomes less unifying and unfortunately that's where they've decided to make their bed. They're free to do that but just a glance at the band's Facebook page tells me it's having a more divisive effect than they realize.

But hey, I'm not technically a true fan, so maybe I'm just naive in expecting concerts, films, and video games to entertain me instead of shoving political and social views down my throat.

The band has no obligation to cater to your personal feelings at this time, and you have no obligation to follow them in whatever they do. But when you start saying they need to be quiet and behave...

I also think it's hard to say that they are at their best when they don't take political sides when their two most successful album eras were very clearly political, either in the albums themselves or the tours that followed.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: Saint1322 on March 21, 2017, 03:19:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just a quick reminder that forum moderation is not a topic for public discussion.

Not being a wise guy, but I have no idea what that means.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: an tha on March 21, 2017, 03:30:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just a quick reminder that forum moderation is not a topic for public discussion.

Not being a wise guy, but I have no idea what that means.

Let me help......

http://forum.atu2.com/index.php/topic,22535.0.html

From those rules:

"Respect our moderators. Forum rules and moderation are not a topic for public discussion. Don't post questions wondering if other members have been disciplined or banned. Be respectful of the moderators in all communications with them, whether on the forum or in private messages"




Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: Saint1322 on March 21, 2017, 03:46:51 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
Just a quick reminder that forum moderation is not a topic for public discussion.

Not being a wise guy, but I have no idea what that means.

Let me help......

http://forum.atu2.com/index.php/topic,22535.0.html

From those rules:

"Respect our moderators. Forum rules and moderation are not a topic for public discussion. Don't post questions wondering if other members have been disciplined or banned. Be respectful of the moderators in all communications with them, whether on the forum or in private messages"






Ah. I see. Thank you!
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: tigerfan41 on March 21, 2017, 06:31:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't get this idea that someone must agree with an artist's politics or else they're not a "true fan" and probably never understood their music in the first place. If that's the case then most of my record collection is worthless and I have no business listening to it.

I don't care one way or another what the band believes. I'm just tired of everything needing to be a political or social commentary, especially when the band claims they want to bring people together. You simply can't keep talking politics and expect people from opposite sides of the aisle to be hugging at the end of the night. The music should be able to be speak for itself. The band does better when they tackle issues that everyone can get behind, like fighting AIDS or poverty. When you begin to attack certain candidates and parties it becomes less unifying and unfortunately that's where they've decided to make their bed. They're free to do that but just a glance at the band's Facebook page tells me it's having a more divisive effect than they realize.

But hey, I'm not technically a true fan, so maybe I'm just naive in expecting concerts, films, and video games to entertain me instead of shoving political and social views down my throat.

The band has no obligation to cater to your personal feelings at this time, and you have no obligation to follow them in whatever they do. But when you start saying they need to be quiet and behave...

I also think it's hard to say that they are at their best when they don't take political sides when their two most successful album eras were very clearly political, either in the albums themselves or the tours that followed.

This exactly. People are free to believe what they want to believe, vote for who they want to vote for, and give their opinion. And that includes the artists themselves. We as fans cannot expect to silence them just as we would not want to be silenced ourselves. If their opinions bother us that much or make us feel disgusted when listening to their music, we have the choice to simply tune out their music and move on. But we can't expect them to cater to our personal beliefs.

It would perhaps be different if U2 were never political in their music before and suddenly decided to be political on this tour. But that is so far from being the case. They have been political dating back to the 80s. Maybe they haven't always been in your face about it consistently, but they have been in your face about it at various points and they've certainly used their platform to repeatedly speak out about social issues, too.

It's just frustrating to see all of the people who are suddenly angry at U2 because of who they happen to oppose this time around. It's as if people were oblivious to who U2 have been for the past 30+ years....or maybe they were fine with what U2 stood for in the past but suddenly aren't now.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: ian ryan on March 21, 2017, 08:52:12 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
I don't get this idea that someone must agree with an artist's politics or else they're not a "true fan" and probably never understood their music in the first place. If that's the case then most of my record collection is worthless and I have no business listening to it.

I don't care one way or another what the band believes. I'm just tired of everything needing to be a political or social commentary, especially when the band claims they want to bring people together. You simply can't keep talking politics and expect people from opposite sides of the aisle to be hugging at the end of the night. The music should be able to be speak for itself. The band does better when they tackle issues that everyone can get behind, like fighting AIDS or poverty. When you begin to attack certain candidates and parties it becomes less unifying and unfortunately that's where they've decided to make their bed. They're free to do that but just a glance at the band's Facebook page tells me it's having a more divisive effect than they realize.

But hey, I'm not technically a true fan, so maybe I'm just naive in expecting concerts, films, and video games to entertain me instead of shoving political and social views down my throat.

The band has no obligation to cater to your personal feelings at this time, and you have no obligation to follow them in whatever they do. But when you start saying they need to be quiet and behave...

I also think it's hard to say that they are at their best when they don't take political sides when their two most successful album eras were very clearly political, either in the albums themselves or the tours that followed.

It's just frustrating to see all of the people who are suddenly angry at U2 because of who they happen to oppose this time around. It's as if people were oblivious to who U2 have been for the past 30+ years....or maybe they were fine with what U2 stood for in the past but suddenly aren't now.

This exactly.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: The Edges Cat on March 21, 2017, 09:07:40 PM
U2's getting a lot of positive publicity thanks to TJT Anniversary tour. So far, media reactions have been mostly positive. Very smart move, especially releasing SoE during the tour or at its tail end.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: Manos73 on March 21, 2017, 10:22:33 PM
Some of us have been annoyed with the politics since the 80's. Nothing new in these complaints. I don't even always disagree. Sometimes it's just the delivery that annoys.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: ian ryan on March 21, 2017, 10:43:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Some of us have been annoyed with the politics since the 80's. Nothing new in these complaints. I don't even always disagree. Sometimes it's just the delivery that annoys.

It can make a concert drag a little bit, but so far I haven't found a better option for communicating the message and being honest with themselves.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: tigerfan41 on March 21, 2017, 11:47:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Some of us have been annoyed with the politics since the 80's. Nothing new in these complaints. I don't even always disagree. Sometimes it's just the delivery that annoys.

It can make a concert drag a little bit, but so far I haven't found a better option for communicating the message and being honest with themselves.

Yeah, it's never really bothered me. Even when I've disagreed with certain things. As long as I'm getting 2+ hours of music, I couldn't care less about their speeches. I came for the music and so long as I get that, I'm happy.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: This Dave on March 22, 2017, 01:36:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Maybe someone will say to him "Bono, you sure you want to go with that mix?"  And he'll go back to fretting over the new album 😬

Why do I get the feeling that we are entering the phase of this band's career where, like all the greats before them, fretting over the new album takes a back seat to how the old ones are going to be re-packaged?
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: WookieeWarrior10 on March 22, 2017, 11:22:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Maybe someone will say to him "Bono, you sure you want to go with that mix?"  And he'll go back to fretting over the new album 😬

Why do I get the feeling that we are entering he phase of this band's career where, like all the greats before them, fretting over the new album takes a back seat to how the old ones are going to be re-packaged?
Because that is exactly what is happening. SOE is being delayed while the band focuses on touring and remixing an album they made almost 30 years ago.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: The Exile on March 22, 2017, 12:13:51 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
Maybe someone will say to him "Bono, you sure you want to go with that mix?"  And he'll go back to fretting over the new album 😬

Why do I get the feeling that we are entering he phase of this band's career where, like all the greats before them, fretting over the new album takes a back seat to how the old ones are going to be re-packaged?
Because that is exactly what is happening. SOE is being delayed while the band focuses on touring and remixing an album they made almost 30 years ago.

And am I the only one dying of anticipation over the forthcoming 50th anniversary edition of Cartoon World?
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: This Dave on March 22, 2017, 12:50:11 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
Maybe someone will say to him "Bono, you sure you want to go with that mix?"  And he'll go back to fretting over the new album 😬


Why do I get the feeling that we are entering he phase of this band's career where, like all the greats before them, fretting over the new album takes a back seat to how the old ones are going to be re-packaged?
Because that is exactly what is happening. SOE is being delayed while the band focuses on touring and remixing an album they made almost 30 years ago.

That's why I've been surprised by the general approval of the Memberberries Tour around this forum. Even a year or two ago, I feel like most fans would have said "That's BS, make more new music". Have we given up? It's undeniable that "There are no reverse gears on this tank" no longer applies. The band is now embarking on a lucrative crowd-pleaser for the causal fan who can't name 5 songs they've made since 1987, and I'm not sure if I can muster an ounce of belief that they are "burning up with ideas" or whatever the line of the moment is. Kind of in mourning. I know a lot of people are going to disagree with this, but I'm 90% sure U2 is basically done. We all used to talk about how they'd never become a Greatest Hits band, but would that surprise a single one of you now?
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: riffraff on March 22, 2017, 01:08:01 PM
I guess I'm one of the 90%...I don't think they are almost done. They may not be as raw and desperate in their songwriting and performing as they once were, but as stated before, some mellowing comes with age. They are still quite energetic and intense on stage. Still rocking. I don't know how many more really, really rocking songs they will come up with, but they are still in the game.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: This Dave on March 22, 2017, 01:14:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I guess I'm one of the 90%...I don't think they are almost done. They may not be as raw and desperate in their songwriting and performing as they once were, but as stated before, some mellowing comes with age. They are still quite energetic and intense on stage. Still rocking. I don't know how many more really, really rocking songs they will come up with, but they are still in the game.

I don't mean "done" as far as ability to perform onstage. I mean done as a band which is earnestly trying to make their greatest work yet with each album. The Stones, Aerosmith, etc. can continue to put out albums full of songs you'll never hear as a pretense for touring, but we all know they are greatest hits acts now. U2 was supposed to be the band who never went that route. 
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: bass slap on March 22, 2017, 01:48:48 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
Maybe someone will say to him "Bono, you sure you want to go with that mix?"  And he'll go back to fretting over the new album 😬


Why do I get the feeling that we are entering he phase of this band's career where, like all the greats before them, fretting over the new album takes a back seat to how the old ones are going to be re-packaged?
Because that is exactly what is happening. SOE is being delayed while the band focuses on touring and remixing an album they made almost 30 years ago.

That's why I've been surprised by the general approval of the Memberberries Tour around this forum. Even a year or two ago, I feel like most fans would have said "That's BS, make more new music". Have we given up? It's undeniable that "There are no reverse gears on this tank" no longer applies. The band is now embarking on a lucrative crowd-pleaser for the causal fan who can't name 5 songs they've made since 1987, and I'm not sure if I can muster an ounce of belief that they are "burning up with ideas" or whatever the line of the moment is. Kind of in mourning. I know a lot of people are going to disagree with this, but I'm 90% sure U2 is basically done. We all used to talk about how they'd never become a Greatest Hits band, but would that surprise a single one of you now?
I generally agree. The first sign of this was during the Glastonbury period, where they played AB heavy set, released the box set, and made the documentary. That was a memberberry cash in right there. But they have taken it up a notch with this tour. Does it bother me personally? No.. I'm more than happy to be watching them live again.
I am excited for new material, but I am a realist and my expectations are low.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: bass slap on March 22, 2017, 01:56:08 PM
The irritating and cringeworthy aspect of this is watching band interviews where they deny that they're becoming more of a heritage act..they don't exactly have to own up or use that label but I would prefer the edge to show more respect to fans by admitting they're happy to look back and give fans what they want..or words to that effect.. instead of the corporate lines he came out with that really didn't stack up too well imo.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: This Dave on March 22, 2017, 02:06:58 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Maybe someone will say to him "Bono, you sure you want to go with that mix?"  And he'll go back to fretting over the new album 😬


Why do I get the feeling that we are entering he phase of this band's career where, like all the greats before them, fretting over the new album takes a back seat to how the old ones are going to be re-packaged?
Because that is exactly what is happening. SOE is being delayed while the band focuses on touring and remixing an album they made almost 30 years ago.

That's why I've been surprised by the general approval of the Memberberries Tour around this forum. Even a year or two ago, I feel like most fans would have said "That's BS, make more new music". Have we given up? It's undeniable that "There are no reverse gears on this tank" no longer applies. The band is now embarking on a lucrative crowd-pleaser for the causal fan who can't name 5 songs they've made since 1987, and I'm not sure if I can muster an ounce of belief that they are "burning up with ideas" or whatever the line of the moment is. Kind of in mourning. I know a lot of people are going to disagree with this, but I'm 90% sure U2 is basically done. We all used to talk about how they'd never become a Greatest Hits band, but would that surprise a single one of you now?
I generally agree. The first sign of this was during the Glastonbury period, where they played AB heavy set, released the box set, and made the documentary. That was a memberberry cash in right there. But they have taken it up a notch with this tour. Does it bother me personally? No.. I'm more than happy to be watching them live again.
I am excited for new material, but I am a realist and my expectations are low.

I didn't want think it was a big deal in the context of Glastonbury, because it was one show, and the Glastonbury crowd would be there regardless of which songs they played. Making a documentary about a really important and unique album didn't seem like a threat to moving forward at the time. 

It's different now. They are quite literally doing an entire tour of memberberries INSTEAD OF putting out the new album we were supposed to be so excited about. And whether intentionally or not, the target market for this tour is the absolute most casual of fans. If you found out that the opener was Bono arriving onstage in a horse-drawn carriage wearing a cowboy hat and vest while The Sweetest Thing plays before jumping down to wave a white flag in front of a flaming rock while singing the "Yeah yeah" part of Vertigo, how shocked would you be? Right now, maybe a 5 out of 10. Two years ago, you would have been 20 out of 10.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: This Dave on March 22, 2017, 02:08:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The irritating and cringeworthy aspect of this is watching band interviews where they deny that they're becoming more of a heritage act..they don't exactly have to own up or use that label but I would prefer the edge to show more respect to fans by admitting they're happy to look back and give fans what they want..or words to that effect.. instead of the corporate lines he came out with that really didn't stack up too well imo.

Denying that while promoting your heritage tour is like sitting there eating a donut during the interview while denying you are eating a donut. I mean, if they are not, then can someone explain what the standard is? How does one tell if a band has become a heritage act?
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: The Exile on March 22, 2017, 02:21:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How does one tell if a band has become a heritage act?

Having a Joshua Tree Tour in 2017 is one indication....
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: Izzy on March 22, 2017, 02:29:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How does one tell if a band has become a heritage act?

Having a Joshua Tree Tour in 2017 is one indication....
Yeah but there's new remixes so....
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: an tha on March 22, 2017, 02:45:01 PM
'blame' livenation for this IMHO...

i feel it is very clear that the main reason this thing is happening is because it is the compromise that the band reached with livenation as they wanted a payday as a part of the big deal they inked.

had u2 been more active over the last 6/7 years i have no doubt this wouldn't be happening.

Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: WookieeWarrior10 on March 22, 2017, 03:08:02 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
Maybe someone will say to him "Bono, you sure you want to go with that mix?"  And he'll go back to fretting over the new album 😬

Why do I get the feeling that we are entering he phase of this band's career where, like all the greats before them, fretting over the new album takes a back seat to how the old ones are going to be re-packaged?
Because that is exactly what is happening. SOE is being delayed while the band focuses on touring and remixing an album they made almost 30 years ago.

And am I the only one dying of anticipation over the forthcoming 50th anniversary edition of Cartoon World?
Count me in, if and only if they also play Street Mission.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: This Dave on March 22, 2017, 03:19:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How does one tell if a band has become a heritage act?

Having a Joshua Tree Tour in 2017 is one indication....

That's kind of my point. If I had told you all about this a year ago with the band and album name removed, there isn't a single person here who wouldn't have voted "Heritage Act". I'd like to hear a counter-argument that doesn't read like starting with the conclusion and trying to backfill the proof.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: This Dave on March 22, 2017, 03:20:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
'blame' livenation for this IMHO...

i feel it is very clear that the main reason this thing is happening is because it is the compromise that the band reached with livenation as they wanted a payday as a part of the big deal they inked.

had u2 been more active over the last 6/7 years i have no doubt this wouldn't be happening.

Oh come on. Livenation needs a tour contractually? Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Songs of Experience tour.

The end
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: an tha on March 22, 2017, 03:39:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
'blame' livenation for this IMHO...

i feel it is very clear that the main reason this thing is happening is because it is the compromise that the band reached with livenation as they wanted a payday as a part of the big deal they inked.

had u2 been more active over the last 6/7 years i have no doubt this wouldn't be happening.

Oh come on. Livenation needs a tour contractually? Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Songs of Experience tour.

The end

Not that simple is it....
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: This Dave on March 22, 2017, 05:13:35 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
'blame' livenation for this IMHO...

i feel it is very clear that the main reason this thing is happening is because it is the compromise that the band reached with livenation as they wanted a payday as a part of the big deal they inked.

had u2 been more active over the last 6/7 years i have no doubt this wouldn't be happening.

Oh come on. Livenation needs a tour contractually? Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Songs of Experience tour.

The end

Not that simple is it....

Why not? If they owe LiveNation a tour, why can't they tour their new album? Did they sign some sort of agreement with LiveNation to do a Memberberries tour? If so, that's on U2. If not, then what does LiveNation have to do with this being JT tour?
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: bass slap on March 22, 2017, 06:33:19 PM
There's an interesting comment from bono on the Facebook extra questions at the very end where he says they originally only planned to do 10 shows (and I quote) "but then we had to do Europe so became 20"

Why did they have to and who twisted their arms..? Open to interpretation, but suspect there must always be compromise between the artist and the business.. even with heavy weights like u2.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: bass slap on March 22, 2017, 06:38:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How does one tell if a band has become a heritage act?

Having a Joshua Tree Tour in 2017 is one indication....

From the sky down documentary, AB master package and the Glastonbury performance which basically promoted AB. Plus all the remastered box sets that seem to come out every couple of years and haven't they released multiple greatest hits albums?
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: This Dave on March 22, 2017, 06:51:20 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
How does one tell if a band has become a heritage act?

Having a Joshua Tree Tour in 2017 is one indication....

From the sky down documentary, AB master package and the Glastonbury performance which basically promoted AB. Plus all the remastered box sets that seem to come out every couple of years and haven't they released multiple greatest hits albums?

The greatest hits albums are no big deal as long as they are moving forward at a good pace, although the 80's one had a hell of a lot more to offer in terms of extras and original B-sides.

We are chronologically running out of greatest hits though.

Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: tigerfan41 on March 22, 2017, 09:11:38 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
'blame' livenation for this IMHO...

i feel it is very clear that the main reason this thing is happening is because it is the compromise that the band reached with livenation as they wanted a payday as a part of the big deal they inked.

had u2 been more active over the last 6/7 years i have no doubt this wouldn't be happening.

Oh come on. Livenation needs a tour contractually? Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Songs of Experience tour.

The end

Not that simple is it....

Why not? If they owe LiveNation a tour, why can't they tour their new album? Did they sign some sort of agreement with LiveNation to do a Memberberries tour? If so, that's on U2. If not, then what does LiveNation have to do with this being JT tour?

An tha is right in that, if they had been more active, they wouldn't have toured TJT this year. But that's only because 2017 likely would have been an off-year in that scenario. Think about it. 360 tour from 2009-2011. 2012 off year. 2013 work on new album, 2014 release it. 2015 through 2016, world tour with SoE hitting the shelves in early 2016 before the last legs of the tour. 2017, year off. 2018, work on new album and release toward the tail end of 2018. 2019, tour it. And so on.

The only thing I can think of is, like An Tha suggested, U2 were meant to tour this year but didn't have SoE polished enough to release. It's the 30th anniversary of TJT, so why not do a quick tour of that to fulfill their end of the deal? Except LN didn't just want 10 dates, they wanted U.S. and Europe. So it turned into a slightly longer tour. Now instead of having perhaps 5 months off before the continuation of I&E, they instead have 4 and will likely be spending some of that promoting the new album on the various shows.

I'm going to bet that when they did the Christmas video, the intent was to only do a limited 10 show run. That's why they probably felt comfortable promising SoE in 2017, because they figured they'd get a quick tour done (satisfy LN and the fans), have most of the year to relax and put the finishing touches on SoE. Except that's not what happened and now they're going to be doing an almost full fledged tour of Europe and U.S., plus finishing SoE, plus going back on tour again in early 2018.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: Kmama07 on March 22, 2017, 10:25:07 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
'blame' livenation for this IMHO...

i feel it is very clear that the main reason this thing is happening is because it is the compromise that the band reached with livenation as they wanted a payday as a part of the big deal they inked.

had u2 been more active over the last 6/7 years i have no doubt this wouldn't be happening.

Oh come on. Livenation needs a tour contractually? Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Songs of Experience tour.

The end

Not that simple is it....

Why not? If they owe LiveNation a tour, why can't they tour their new album? Did they sign some sort of agreement with LiveNation to do a Memberberries tour? If so, that's on U2. If not, then what does LiveNation have to do with this being JT tour?

JT30 is a sure shot for $$$.  SOE could be viewed as hit or miss. Especially with the time it's taking to get their sh** together. They are losing what little momentum they had with SOI.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: m2 on March 22, 2017, 11:10:59 PM
Quote
U2 were meant to tour this year but didn't have SoE polished enough to release

The SOE album and tour were meant to happen last fall (2016). And I fully believe the JT Tour 2017 is only happening because of contractual obligations.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: ian ryan on March 22, 2017, 11:31:40 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
'blame' livenation for this IMHO...

i feel it is very clear that the main reason this thing is happening is because it is the compromise that the band reached with livenation as they wanted a payday as a part of the big deal they inked.

had u2 been more active over the last 6/7 years i have no doubt this wouldn't be happening.

Oh come on. Livenation needs a tour contractually? Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Songs of Experience tour.

The end

Not that simple is it....

Why not? If they owe LiveNation a tour, why can't they tour their new album? Did they sign some sort of agreement with LiveNation to do a Memberberries tour? If so, that's on U2. If not, then what does LiveNation have to do with this being JT tour?

Which would you guess makes more money, an arena tour or a stadium tour?
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: tigerfan41 on March 22, 2017, 11:33:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
U2 were meant to tour this year but didn't have SoE polished enough to release

The SOE album and tour were meant to happen last fall (2016). And I fully believe the JT Tour 2017 is only happening because of contractual obligations.

Right, and that didn't happen last fall which meant they would have to tour in 2017. I don't disagree that U2 are doing TJT because of the LN contract, but I do disagree that they're being forced into it as some have implied. It sounds like more of a compromise with LN on their part than anything else, a way to feed the beast, so to speak.

I think their intention was to release SoE early in 2016 and continue the tour--all the interviews seem to suggest that they wanted to get SoE out there as close to SoI as possible. For whatever reason, that didn't happen, and here we are with a nostalgia tour and potentially a continuation of I&E + a new album, all within the span of less than a year. As a fan who wants to see them live as much as possible before they do hang things up, this isn't such a bad thing. I can see where other fans would be bothered by the nostalgia, though.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: The Edges Cat on March 23, 2017, 01:32:40 AM
And I hope when I get old I don't sit around thinking about it
but I probably will ... glory days!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vQpW9XRiyM

Happens to all of us. Heck, half the forum members are still reliving the glory days of Pop. ;)
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: PopMart_1997 on March 23, 2017, 07:10:36 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
Aaand this is why people don't like Bono... are you an American Bono? Because last time I checked, you were Irish.
Hey, America is not the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2scLTOkqa7s
Yes, lol, I was intentionally quoting Morrissey... Although I am American, I think Moz does have a point.

As an American, I'm ashamed our country and our people weren't sharp enough (or even groovy enough) to appreciate PopMart.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: PopMart_1997 on March 23, 2017, 07:41:15 PM
Honestly, I don't get all the backlash from so-called "U2 fans" for the band celebrating The Joshua Tree on its anniversary by playing the entire album live. Pearl Jam played Ten in its entirety during their shows, nobody complains. The Cure played their trilogy of albums live -- Pornography, Disintegration, Bloodflowers -- and from what I understand no one was complaining about that. Even the Sex Pistols played Never Mind The bo****ks... live. (Ironically, its their only studio LP). Peter Hook, founding member of Joy Division and New Order, plays his band's albums live in their entirety just about  every night -- even the singles compilations... people say his band performs the material better than even New Order does now, and truthfully New Order doesn't even play the songs that fans want to hear, its what Bernard, being the diva he is, wants to play. And its roughly the same setlist for the past 15-20 years.

But, when U2 decides to play The Joshua Tree live in its entirety for a short tour while they finish their upcoming album, people complain!!!!!!

I just don't get why.

What is wrong with playing an album live??? That's something that 10-20 years ago, most artists never did, and people are so used to studio versions of select popular songs anyway. This is a pretty sweet concept, and yet people complain.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: WookieeWarrior10 on March 23, 2017, 07:48:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Honestly, I don't get all the backlash from so-called "U2 fans" for the band celebrating The Joshua Tree on its anniversary by playing the entire album live. Pearl Jam played Ten in its entirety during their shows, nobody complains. The Cure played their trilogy of albums live -- Pornography, Disintegration, Bloodflowers -- and from what I understand no one was complaining about that. Even the Sex Pistols played Never Mind The bo****ks... live. (Ironically, its their only studio LP). Peter Hook, founding member of Joy Division and New Order, plays his band's albums live in their entirety just about  every night -- even the singles compilations... people say his band performs the material better than even New Order does now, and truthfully New Order doesn't even play the songs that fans want to hear, its what Bernard, being the diva he is, wants to play. And its roughly the same setlist for the past 15-20 years.

But, when U2 decides to play The Joshua Tree live in its entirety for a short tour while they finish their upcoming album, people complain!!!!!!

I just don't get why.

What is wrong with playing an album live??? That's something that 10-20 years ago, most artists never did, and people are so used to studio versions of select popular songs anyway. This is a pretty sweet concept, and yet people complain.
A large part of the reason is that the fans don't want to accept that U2 are getting older as a band... because tours like these are often associated with aging. For me, though, it's just that I don't want for U2 to go looking back into their past for inspiration. U2 have said themselves that they would not become a heritage act... but that feels exactly like what is happening now.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: PopMart_1997 on March 23, 2017, 08:09:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Honestly, I don't get all the backlash from so-called "U2 fans" for the band celebrating The Joshua Tree on its anniversary by playing the entire album live. Pearl Jam played Ten in its entirety during their shows, nobody complains. The Cure played their trilogy of albums live -- Pornography, Disintegration, Bloodflowers -- and from what I understand no one was complaining about that. Even the Sex Pistols played Never Mind The bo****ks... live. (Ironically, its their only studio LP). Peter Hook, founding member of Joy Division and New Order, plays his band's albums live in their entirety just about  every night -- even the singles compilations... people say his band performs the material better than even New Order does now, and truthfully New Order doesn't even play the songs that fans want to hear, its what Bernard, being the diva he is, wants to play. And its roughly the same setlist for the past 15-20 years.

But, when U2 decides to play The Joshua Tree live in its entirety for a short tour while they finish their upcoming album, people complain!!!!!!

I just don't get why.

What is wrong with playing an album live??? That's something that 10-20 years ago, most artists never did, and people are so used to studio versions of select popular songs anyway. This is a pretty sweet concept, and yet people complain.
A large part of the reason is that the fans don't want to accept that U2 are getting older as a band... because tours like these are often associated with aging. For me, though, it's just that I don't want for U2 to go looking back into their past for inspiration. U2 have said themselves that they would not become a heritage act... but that feels exactly like what is happening now.
If U2 were becoming a "heritage act", that would mean no recording/releasing any new albums or songs. Clearly U2 are still putting new stuff out, and NOT playing shows 100% devoted to "greatest hits". So, I don't buy that tag, its one created by close-minded people, ie. hipsters.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: Kmama07 on March 23, 2017, 08:12:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Honestly, I don't get all the backlash from so-called "U2 fans" for the band celebrating The Joshua Tree on its anniversary by playing the entire album live. Pearl Jam played Ten in its entirety during their shows, nobody complains. The Cure played their trilogy of albums live -- Pornography, Disintegration, Bloodflowers -- and from what I understand no one was complaining about that. Even the Sex Pistols played Never Mind The bo****ks... live. (Ironically, its their only studio LP). Peter Hook, founding member of Joy Division and New Order, plays his band's albums live in their entirety just about  every night -- even the singles compilations... people say his band performs the material better than even New Order does now, and truthfully New Order doesn't even play the songs that fans want to hear, its what Bernard, being the diva he is, wants to play. And its roughly the same setlist for the past 15-20 years.

But, when U2 decides to play The Joshua Tree live in its entirety for a short tour while they finish their upcoming album, people complain!!!!!!

I just don't get why.

What is wrong with playing an album live??? That's something that 10-20 years ago, most artists never did, and people are so used to studio versions of select popular songs anyway. This is a pretty sweet concept, and yet people complain.
A large part of the reason is that the fans don't want to accept that U2 are getting older as a band... because tours like these are often associated with aging. For me, though, it's just that I don't want for U2 to go looking back into their past for inspiration. U2 have said themselves that they would not become a heritage act... but that feels exactly like what is happening now.

I can't speak for anyone else but I get what you mean.  Being a fan who feels she grew up along with the band (pooled $ with my brother and bought October on cassette in 1981...still have the cassette) accepting U2 getting older means accepting I AM GETTING OLDER, too!  So many years and memories...entire periods of my life associated with different periods of their music. Truth be told, as much as I truly look forward to new music, I still cherish the old and look forward to seeing them for ANY tour.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: PopMart_1997 on March 23, 2017, 08:17:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Truth be told, as much as I truly look forward to new music, I still cherish the old and look forward to seeing them for ANY tour.
This! ^
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: WookieeWarrior10 on March 23, 2017, 08:58:59 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
Honestly, I don't get all the backlash from so-called "U2 fans" for the band celebrating The Joshua Tree on its anniversary by playing the entire album live. Pearl Jam played Ten in its entirety during their shows, nobody complains. The Cure played their trilogy of albums live -- Pornography, Disintegration, Bloodflowers -- and from what I understand no one was complaining about that. Even the Sex Pistols played Never Mind The bo****ks... live. (Ironically, its their only studio LP). Peter Hook, founding member of Joy Division and New Order, plays his band's albums live in their entirety just about  every night -- even the singles compilations... people say his band performs the material better than even New Order does now, and truthfully New Order doesn't even play the songs that fans want to hear, its what Bernard, being the diva he is, wants to play. And its roughly the same setlist for the past 15-20 years.

But, when U2 decides to play The Joshua Tree live in its entirety for a short tour while they finish their upcoming album, people complain!!!!!!

I just don't get why.

What is wrong with playing an album live??? That's something that 10-20 years ago, most artists never did, and people are so used to studio versions of select popular songs anyway. This is a pretty sweet concept, and yet people complain.
A large part of the reason is that the fans don't want to accept that U2 are getting older as a band... because tours like these are often associated with aging. For me, though, it's just that I don't want for U2 to go looking back into their past for inspiration. U2 have said themselves that they would not become a heritage act... but that feels exactly like what is happening now.

I can't speak for anyone else but I get what you mean.  Being a fan who feels she grew up along with the band (pooled $ with my brother and bought October on cassette in 1981...still have the cassette) accepting U2 getting older means accepting I AM GETTING OLDER, too!  So many years and memories...entire periods of my life associated with different periods of their music. Truth be told, as much as I truly look forward to new music, I still cherish the old and look forward to seeing them for ANY tour.
Then I guess that's something I don't understand, being a younger person.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: This Dave on March 23, 2017, 09:20:10 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
'blame' livenation for this IMHO...

i feel it is very clear that the main reason this thing is happening is because it is the compromise that the band reached with livenation as they wanted a payday as a part of the big deal they inked.

had u2 been more active over the last 6/7 years i have no doubt this wouldn't be happening.

Oh come on. Livenation needs a tour contractually? Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Songs of Experience tour.

The end

Not that simple is it....

Why not? If they owe LiveNation a tour, why can't they tour their new album? Did they sign some sort of agreement with LiveNation to do a Memberberries tour? If so, that's on U2. If not, then what does LiveNation have to do with this being JT tour?

Which would you guess makes more money, an arena tour or a stadium tour?

So U2 gave up the authority to decide when, how, and with what material they tour? If that's true, they have the most incompetent management in history.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: This Dave on March 23, 2017, 09:24:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Honestly, I don't get all the backlash from so-called "U2 fans" for the band celebrating The Joshua Tree on its anniversary by playing the entire album live. Pearl Jam played Ten in its entirety during their shows, nobody complains. The Cure played their trilogy of albums live -- Pornography, Disintegration, Bloodflowers -- and from what I understand no one was complaining about that. Even the Sex Pistols played Never Mind The bo****ks... live. (Ironically, its their only studio LP). Peter Hook, founding member of Joy Division and New Order, plays his band's albums live in their entirety just about  every night -- even the singles compilations... people say his band performs the material better than even New Order does now, and truthfully New Order doesn't even play the songs that fans want to hear, its what Bernard, being the diva he is, wants to play. And its roughly the same setlist for the past 15-20 years.

But, when U2 decides to play The Joshua Tree live in its entirety for a short tour while they finish their upcoming album, people complain!!!!!!

I just don't get why.

What is wrong with playing an album live??? That's something that 10-20 years ago, most artists never did, and people are so used to studio versions of select popular songs anyway. This is a pretty sweet concept, and yet people complain.

Well it's already built into the equation that Joy Division is not an active band anymore, and if the Cure are still pushing new music, that hasn't been going well for 25 years now.

It's an apples to oranges comparison, at least to what U2 are supposed to be.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: This Dave on March 23, 2017, 09:26:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Honestly, I don't get all the backlash from so-called "U2 fans" for the band celebrating The Joshua Tree on its anniversary by playing the entire album live. Pearl Jam played Ten in its entirety during their shows, nobody complains. The Cure played their trilogy of albums live -- Pornography, Disintegration, Bloodflowers -- and from what I understand no one was complaining about that. Even the Sex Pistols played Never Mind The bo****ks... live. (Ironically, its their only studio LP). Peter Hook, founding member of Joy Division and New Order, plays his band's albums live in their entirety just about  every night -- even the singles compilations... people say his band performs the material better than even New Order does now, and truthfully New Order doesn't even play the songs that fans want to hear, its what Bernard, being the diva he is, wants to play. And its roughly the same setlist for the past 15-20 years.

But, when U2 decides to play The Joshua Tree live in its entirety for a short tour while they finish their upcoming album, people complain!!!!!!

I just don't get why.

What is wrong with playing an album live??? That's something that 10-20 years ago, most artists never did, and people are so used to studio versions of select popular songs anyway. This is a pretty sweet concept, and yet people complain.
A large part of the reason is that the fans don't want to accept that U2 are getting older as a band... because tours like these are often associated with aging. For me, though, it's just that I don't want for U2 to go looking back into their past for inspiration. U2 have said themselves that they would not become a heritage act... but that feels exactly like what is happening now.

Not so much aging, but there has always been an agreement between the fans and the band that each time out is an honest attempt to make the best album or do the best tour they've done. This is a heritage act move. They CAN overcome the stigma of that, but will they try?
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: This Dave on March 23, 2017, 09:28:08 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
Honestly, I don't get all the backlash from so-called "U2 fans" for the band celebrating The Joshua Tree on its anniversary by playing the entire album live. Pearl Jam played Ten in its entirety during their shows, nobody complains. The Cure played their trilogy of albums live -- Pornography, Disintegration, Bloodflowers -- and from what I understand no one was complaining about that. Even the Sex Pistols played Never Mind The bo****ks... live. (Ironically, its their only studio LP). Peter Hook, founding member of Joy Division and New Order, plays his band's albums live in their entirety just about  every night -- even the singles compilations... people say his band performs the material better than even New Order does now, and truthfully New Order doesn't even play the songs that fans want to hear, its what Bernard, being the diva he is, wants to play. And its roughly the same setlist for the past 15-20 years.

But, when U2 decides to play The Joshua Tree live in its entirety for a short tour while they finish their upcoming album, people complain!!!!!!

I just don't get why.

What is wrong with playing an album live??? That's something that 10-20 years ago, most artists never did, and people are so used to studio versions of select popular songs anyway. This is a pretty sweet concept, and yet people complain.
A large part of the reason is that the fans don't want to accept that U2 are getting older as a band... because tours like these are often associated with aging. For me, though, it's just that I don't want for U2 to go looking back into their past for inspiration. U2 have said themselves that they would not become a heritage act... but that feels exactly like what is happening now.
If U2 were becoming a "heritage act", that would mean no recording/releasing any new albums or songs. Clearly U2 are still putting new stuff out, and NOT playing shows 100% devoted to "greatest hits". So, I don't buy that tag, its one created by close-minded people, ie. hipsters.

Not really. Plenty of heritage acts release new albums as a pretense to tour, but nobody knows those songs and they aren't playing them.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: PopMart_1997 on March 23, 2017, 09:35:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well it's already built into the equation that Joy Division is not an active band anymore.
Yes, Joy Division isn't active anymore, but New Order still is. At least Hooky, and now U2, are doing something for their respective setlists that New Order would never do....
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: tigerfan41 on March 23, 2017, 10:00:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Truth be told, as much as I truly look forward to new music, I still cherish the old and look forward to seeing them for ANY tour.
This! ^

Same! I would say I look forward to the tours more than the new albums these days. With how deep their discography already is, with how good their live shows are, any new album they release is more of a bonus than anything else.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: m2 on March 23, 2017, 10:29:52 PM
Quote
As a fan who wants to see them live as much as possible before they do hang things up, this isn't such a bad thing. I can see where other fans would be bothered by the nostalgia, though.

I agree 100%. I can't imagine any scenario in which I'd be upset that I have a chance to see U2 live. These chances aren't going to be around forever.

Quote
So U2 gave up the authority to decide when, how, and with what material they tour? If that's true, they have the most incompetent management in history.

They signed a contract with Live Nation. A contract puts specific requirements in place on all parties who sign the contract. Live Nation is required to do such and such. U2 is required to do such and such. A contract specifically lays out all the financial details -- who gets how much, when payments are made, etc. A contract also lays out specific penalties to each party if either fails to fulfill their side of the agreement, and also details what legal remedies are available to each side if the other fails to meet the terms (i.e., either party is likely fully within its rights to sue the other for breach of contract if they feel the terms aren't being met).

U2 are rock legends. They are not, however, above the law. If the agreement calls for U2 to earn a specific amount of money for Live Nation by touring at specific intervals within the existing contract, it would be perfectly within LN's right to accuse U2 of breach of contract for not touring in 2016. Likewise, the reverse is true: If the agreement calls for LN to pay U2 X amount of money at specific intervals during the contract, and LN doesn't pay, then U2 would be well within its rights to accuse LN of breach of contract.

I certainly don't know the details of their agreement (other than what's been reported), but if U2 didn't meet the terms of its contract by postponing its album and tour last year, LN would be within its rights to give them two choices: 1) go on tour in 2017 and figure out a way to fulfill your touring commitment, or 2) go to court and suffer the embarrassment of a very public feud, not to mention the likely loss of the case itself.

That doesn't mean U2 has bad management. It means contract law applies to them exactly the same way it applies to anyone else. And if you think U2 has bad management because they agreed to a contract which requires the band to put out albums and go on tour, well ... what else would U2 have to offer to Live Nation in exchange for the millions of dollars that LN has agreed to pay the band? Surely LN wouldn't agree to a contract that pays U2 truckfulls of money but doesn't require the band to ever release and album or tour again. Contracts are a two-way street. You give something, you get something.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: This Dave on March 23, 2017, 11:45:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
As a fan who wants to see them live as much as possible before they do hang things up, this isn't such a bad thing. I can see where other fans would be bothered by the nostalgia, though.

I agree 100%. I can't imagine any scenario in which I'd be upset that I have a chance to see U2 live. These chances aren't going to be around forever.

Quote
So U2 gave up the authority to decide when, how, and with what material they tour? If that's true, they have the most incompetent management in history.

They signed a contract with Live Nation. A contract puts specific requirements in place on all parties who sign the contract. Live Nation is required to do such and such. U2 is required to do such and such. A contract specifically lays out all the financial details -- who gets how much, when payments are made, etc. A contract also lays out specific penalties to each party if either fails to fulfill their side of the agreement, and also details what legal remedies are available to each side if the other fails to meet the terms (i.e., either party is likely fully within its rights to sue the other for breach of contract if they feel the terms aren't being met).

U2 are rock legends. They are not, however, above the law. If the agreement calls for U2 to earn a specific amount of money for Live Nation by touring at specific intervals within the existing contract, it would be perfectly within LN's right to accuse U2 of breach of contract for not touring in 2016. Likewise, the reverse is true: If the agreement calls for LN to pay U2 X amount of money at specific intervals during the contract, and LN doesn't pay, then U2 would be well within its rights to accuse LN of breach of contract.

I certainly don't know the details of their agreement (other than what's been reported), but if U2 didn't meet the terms of its contract by postponing its album and tour last year, LN would be within its rights to give them two choices: 1) go on tour in 2017 and figure out a way to fulfill your touring commitment, or 2) go to court and suffer the embarrassment of a very public feud, not to mention the likely loss of the case itself.

That doesn't mean U2 has bad management. It means contract law applies to them exactly the same way it applies to anyone else. And if you think U2 has bad management because they agreed to a contract which requires the band to put out albums and go on tour, well ... what else would U2 have to offer to Live Nation in exchange for the millions of dollars that LN has agreed to pay the band? Surely LN wouldn't agree to a contract that pays U2 truckfulls of money but doesn't require the band to ever release and album or tour again. Contracts are a two-way street. You give something, you get something.

Are contracts agreeing to earn the promoter a certain amount of money  actually a thing? I could see the number of tours, size of venue, etc, but something like how much money it makes includes factors beyond their control. Can anyone who knows the business weigh in on whether or not that's a standard contractual obligation?
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: soloyan on March 24, 2017, 06:07:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As for the 'and this is why people don't like Bono/are you American' comment earlier: Bono very clearly states -- and has been stating for the last 30+ years -- that he is in love with the idea of America. He is a FAN of America, and just like any other FAN, when the object of your fandom acts in a way that doesn't 'fit' what you thought they were supposed to be about, it hurts your feelings.

Surely U2 fans can appreciate and relate to that sentiment. :)


Very well put.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: soloyan on March 24, 2017, 06:12:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't get this idea that someone must agree with an artist's politics or else they're not a "true fan" and probably never understood their music in the first place. If that's the case then most of my record collection is worthless and I have no business listening to it.

I don't care one way or another what the band believes. I'm just tired of everything needing to be a political or social commentary, especially when the band claims they want to bring people together. You simply can't keep talking politics and expect people from opposite sides of the aisle to be hugging at the end of the night. The music should be able to be speak for itself. The band does better when they tackle issues that everyone can get behind, like fighting AIDS or poverty. When you begin to attack certain candidates and parties it becomes less unifying and unfortunately that's where they've decided to make their bed. They're free to do that but just a glance at the band's Facebook page tells me it's having a more divisive effect than they realize.

But hey, I'm not technically a true fan, so maybe I'm just naive in expecting concerts, films, and video games to entertain me instead of shoving political and social views down my throat.

I think your post says a lot more about where you're at rather than where the band is at. And I don't mean it in a negative way. I totally understand your point, but let's face it : U2 have always been this way.

Have I been annoyed by the religious/political content of U2's live shows ? Yes, I was. More than once. But not to the point of giving up on the band. It's part of who they are and I love them for who they are and what they do. Not what I wish they would do.

I've often compared being a fan of U2 as having old friends. Sometimes you wish your friend would shut up or you have an embarassing moment. You get over it because it's your friend.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: soloyan on March 24, 2017, 06:20:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
As a fan who wants to see them live as much as possible before they do hang things up, this isn't such a bad thing. I can see where other fans would be bothered by the nostalgia, though.

I agree 100%. I can't imagine any scenario in which I'd be upset that I have a chance to see U2 live. These chances aren't going to be around forever.

Quote
So U2 gave up the authority to decide when, how, and with what material they tour? If that's true, they have the most incompetent management in history.

They signed a contract with Live Nation. A contract puts specific requirements in place on all parties who sign the contract. Live Nation is required to do such and such. U2 is required to do such and such. A contract specifically lays out all the financial details -- who gets how much, when payments are made, etc. A contract also lays out specific penalties to each party if either fails to fulfill their side of the agreement, and also details what legal remedies are available to each side if the other fails to meet the terms (i.e., either party is likely fully within its rights to sue the other for breach of contract if they feel the terms aren't being met).

U2 are rock legends. They are not, however, above the law. If the agreement calls for U2 to earn a specific amount of money for Live Nation by touring at specific intervals within the existing contract, it would be perfectly within LN's right to accuse U2 of breach of contract for not touring in 2016. Likewise, the reverse is true: If the agreement calls for LN to pay U2 X amount of money at specific intervals during the contract, and LN doesn't pay, then U2 would be well within its rights to accuse LN of breach of contract.

I certainly don't know the details of their agreement (other than what's been reported), but if U2 didn't meet the terms of its contract by postponing its album and tour last year, LN would be within its rights to give them two choices: 1) go on tour in 2017 and figure out a way to fulfill your touring commitment, or 2) go to court and suffer the embarrassment of a very public feud, not to mention the likely loss of the case itself.

That doesn't mean U2 has bad management. It means contract law applies to them exactly the same way it applies to anyone else. And if you think U2 has bad management because they agreed to a contract which requires the band to put out albums and go on tour, well ... what else would U2 have to offer to Live Nation in exchange for the millions of dollars that LN has agreed to pay the band? Surely LN wouldn't agree to a contract that pays U2 truckfulls of money but doesn't require the band to ever release and album or tour again. Contracts are a two-way street. You give something, you get something.

I know for a fact that someone from U2's management made a European tour of Universal's HQs here and there with a 5 tracks demo of "U2's new album". It was around the time the "Best thing" remix leaked. In fact, there was 2 versions of this song on the demo.

When U2 do that, it's because they're ready to launch. What exactly happened between this, the report of SOE and the JT Tour is anyone's guess but I believe there was a time when we were really close to have SOE but they decided to back off. Why ? That's a good question.

I believe U2 still have a GREAT album (or more) in them. I know they can do it. There are songs in NLOTH and SOI that point to that. They seem to lose focus along the way (and it's easy to lose focus when it's such a long process), I'm not sure why. And I'm not sure they will allow someone to put them in the right direction.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: tigerfan41 on March 24, 2017, 09:38:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
As a fan who wants to see them live as much as possible before they do hang things up, this isn't such a bad thing. I can see where other fans would be bothered by the nostalgia, though.

I agree 100%. I can't imagine any scenario in which I'd be upset that I have a chance to see U2 live. These chances aren't going to be around forever.

Precisely. Younger fans especially are excited, I think. This is one of my favorite bands, but I wasn't born until 12 years after the band was created, 1.5 years after TJT itself came out...and obviously wasn't old enough to attend any concerts until my teens at which point it was unaffordable. I didn't get to see them live until 2009, a full 4 years after I really started getting into them. Didn't get to see them in 2015 because none of the dates/locations worked, so I'm ecstatic to see them this year. If there's anything 2016 taught me, it's that life is fragile--we lost a lot of musical greats that year, so it's best to see your favorite artist as much as you can while you still can. And now that I've introduced my young nieces to the music, they're looking forward to seeing U2 live as much as possible before they inevitably do stop touring. They aren't huge fans of TJT, but they're still very excited about the concerts.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

They signed a contract with Live Nation. A contract puts specific requirements in place on all parties who sign the contract. Live Nation is required to do such and such. U2 is required to do such and such. A contract specifically lays out all the financial details -- who gets how much, when payments are made, etc. A contract also lays out specific penalties to each party if either fails to fulfill their side of the agreement, and also details what legal remedies are available to each side if the other fails to meet the terms (i.e., either party is likely fully within its rights to sue the other for breach of contract if they feel the terms aren't being met).

U2 are rock legends. They are not, however, above the law. If the agreement calls for U2 to earn a specific amount of money for Live Nation by touring at specific intervals within the existing contract, it would be perfectly within LN's right to accuse U2 of breach of contract for not touring in 2016. Likewise, the reverse is true: If the agreement calls for LN to pay U2 X amount of money at specific intervals during the contract, and LN doesn't pay, then U2 would be well within its rights to accuse LN of breach of contract.

I certainly don't know the details of their agreement (other than what's been reported), but if U2 didn't meet the terms of its contract by postponing its album and tour last year, LN would be within its rights to give them two choices: 1) go on tour in 2017 and figure out a way to fulfill your touring commitment, or 2) go to court and suffer the embarrassment of a very public feud, not to mention the likely loss of the case itself.

That doesn't mean U2 has bad management. It means contract law applies to them exactly the same way it applies to anyone else. And if you think U2 has bad management because they agreed to a contract which requires the band to put out albums and go on tour, well ... what else would U2 have to offer to Live Nation in exchange for the millions of dollars that LN has agreed to pay the band? Surely LN wouldn't agree to a contract that pays U2 truckfulls of money but doesn't require the band to ever release and album or tour again. Contracts are a two-way street. You give something, you get something.

This is quite true. I will say that, while it's uncommon, some bands do get out of recording or promotion contracts if they are really that unhappy. Alter Bridge (a rock band I follow) happens to be one such example. http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/alter-bridge-part-ways-with-wind-up-records/ They had a multi-million dollar contract with their label and got fed up with how the label promoted them. These aren't rich guys on the level of U2, they are probably barely millionaires themselves. They had to tour their butts off, but they managed to buy out the contract and move on to a better situation.

That's what makes me believe that, if U2 were really that unhappy, they'd buy their way out of the LN deal. If I remember correctly, the deal was for around $100 million. By now, they've probably fulfilled a significant portion of the LN earning requirements after 360 and the I&E first legs, so I would assume that buying it out wouldn't be even close to $100 million. Unless they've been completely terrible with money or signed the worst deal imaginable, I can't see how getting out of such a contract would be impossible.

It sounds to me like, as you said, they needed to fulfill their obligation this year and came up with TJT tour as a happy compromise of sorts. It gives them time to further work on SoE while keeping LN happy. I just don't buy into this "being forced against their will to tour" argument that some have put forth. 
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: an tha on March 24, 2017, 10:46:42 AM
Have people said that u2 are 'being forced to tour against their will' or have they just been saying that the tour is happening mainly due to contractual issues - which people have then interpreted as people saying 'it is them being forced'....

There is a difference.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: tigerfan41 on March 24, 2017, 12:04:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Have people said that u2 are 'being forced to tour against their will' or have they just been saying that the tour is happening mainly due to contractual issues - which people have then interpreted as people saying 'it is them being forced'....

There is a difference.

Yes, there is a difference and yes, there have been some who have insisted that they're being forced to do this. Not you, of course, but this has been discussed considerably ever since the rumors of TJT redux tour came up back in late December.

They have a contract to adhere to. I'm inclined to believe that if they really, truly vehemently opposed this tour, they'd put their foot down and buy out the contract. That's why I think this is more of a case of them having a contract to fulfill and being open to the idea of doing TJT tour to fulfill said contract.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: This Dave on March 24, 2017, 12:30:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
As a fan who wants to see them live as much as possible before they do hang things up, this isn't such a bad thing. I can see where other fans would be bothered by the nostalgia, though.

I agree 100%. I can't imagine any scenario in which I'd be upset that I have a chance to see U2 live. These chances aren't going to be around forever.

Quote
So U2 gave up the authority to decide when, how, and with what material they tour? If that's true, they have the most incompetent management in history.

They signed a contract with Live Nation. A contract puts specific requirements in place on all parties who sign the contract. Live Nation is required to do such and such. U2 is required to do such and such. A contract specifically lays out all the financial details -- who gets how much, when payments are made, etc. A contract also lays out specific penalties to each party if either fails to fulfill their side of the agreement, and also details what legal remedies are available to each side if the other fails to meet the terms (i.e., either party is likely fully within its rights to sue the other for breach of contract if they feel the terms aren't being met).

U2 are rock legends. They are not, however, above the law. If the agreement calls for U2 to earn a specific amount of money for Live Nation by touring at specific intervals within the existing contract, it would be perfectly within LN's right to accuse U2 of breach of contract for not touring in 2016. Likewise, the reverse is true: If the agreement calls for LN to pay U2 X amount of money at specific intervals during the contract, and LN doesn't pay, then U2 would be well within its rights to accuse LN of breach of contract.

I certainly don't know the details of their agreement (other than what's been reported), but if U2 didn't meet the terms of its contract by postponing its album and tour last year, LN would be within its rights to give them two choices: 1) go on tour in 2017 and figure out a way to fulfill your touring commitment, or 2) go to court and suffer the embarrassment of a very public feud, not to mention the likely loss of the case itself.

That doesn't mean U2 has bad management. It means contract law applies to them exactly the same way it applies to anyone else. And if you think U2 has bad management because they agreed to a contract which requires the band to put out albums and go on tour, well ... what else would U2 have to offer to Live Nation in exchange for the millions of dollars that LN has agreed to pay the band? Surely LN wouldn't agree to a contract that pays U2 truckfulls of money but doesn't require the band to ever release and album or tour again. Contracts are a two-way street. You give something, you get something.

I know for a fact that someone from U2's management made a European tour of Universal's HQs here and there with a 5 tracks demo of "U2's new album". It was around the time the "Best thing" remix leaked. In fact, there was 2 versions of this song on the demo.

When U2 do that, it's because they're ready to launch. What exactly happened between this, the report of SOE and the JT Tour is anyone's guess but I believe there was a time when we were really close to have SOE but they decided to back off. Why ? That's a good question.

I believe U2 still have a GREAT album (or more) in them. I know they can do it. There are songs in NLOTH and SOI that point to that. They seem to lose focus along the way (and it's easy to lose focus when it's such a long process), I'm not sure why. And I'm not sure they will allow someone to put them in the right direction.

I'd hesitate to call "The Best Thing " leaked. "Floated" is more fitting, in my opinion.

Am I being negative when I say that "They were ready to release but then something happened" does not seem to EVER be a good thing with this band? Hasn't it historically amounted to "We re-did the album to sound more like something people are used to and expect from us"?

I can't speak for the rest of the fan base, but at this point I'd kill for them to release an album that doesn't sound anything like what I thought it would.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: This Dave on March 24, 2017, 12:38:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
As a fan who wants to see them live as much as possible before they do hang things up, this isn't such a bad thing. I can see where other fans would be bothered by the nostalgia, though.

I agree 100%. I can't imagine any scenario in which I'd be upset that I have a chance to see U2 live. These chances aren't going to be around forever.

Precisely. Younger fans especially are excited, I think. This is one of my favorite bands, but I wasn't born until 12 years after the band was created, 1.5 years after TJT itself came out...and obviously wasn't old enough to attend any concerts until my teens at which point it was unaffordable. I didn't get to see them live until 2009, a full 4 years after I really started getting into them. Didn't get to see them in 2015 because none of the dates/locations worked, so I'm ecstatic to see them this year. If there's anything 2016 taught me, it's that life is fragile--we lost a lot of musical greats that year, so it's best to see your favorite artist as much as you can while you still can. And now that I've introduced my young nieces to the music, they're looking forward to seeing U2 live as much as possible before they inevitably do stop touring. They aren't huge fans of TJT, but they're still very excited about the concerts.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

They signed a contract with Live Nation. A contract puts specific requirements in place on all parties who sign the contract. Live Nation is required to do such and such. U2 is required to do such and such. A contract specifically lays out all the financial details -- who gets how much, when payments are made, etc. A contract also lays out specific penalties to each party if either fails to fulfill their side of the agreement, and also details what legal remedies are available to each side if the other fails to meet the terms (i.e., either party is likely fully within its rights to sue the other for breach of contract if they feel the terms aren't being met).

U2 are rock legends. They are not, however, above the law. If the agreement calls for U2 to earn a specific amount of money for Live Nation by touring at specific intervals within the existing contract, it would be perfectly within LN's right to accuse U2 of breach of contract for not touring in 2016. Likewise, the reverse is true: If the agreement calls for LN to pay U2 X amount of money at specific intervals during the contract, and LN doesn't pay, then U2 would be well within its rights to accuse LN of breach of contract.

I certainly don't know the details of their agreement (other than what's been reported), but if U2 didn't meet the terms of its contract by postponing its album and tour last year, LN would be within its rights to give them two choices: 1) go on tour in 2017 and figure out a way to fulfill your touring commitment, or 2) go to court and suffer the embarrassment of a very public feud, not to mention the likely loss of the case itself.

That doesn't mean U2 has bad management. It means contract law applies to them exactly the same way it applies to anyone else. And if you think U2 has bad management because they agreed to a contract which requires the band to put out albums and go on tour, well ... what else would U2 have to offer to Live Nation in exchange for the millions of dollars that LN has agreed to pay the band? Surely LN wouldn't agree to a contract that pays U2 truckfulls of money but doesn't require the band to ever release and album or tour again. Contracts are a two-way street. You give something, you get something.

This is quite true. I will say that, while it's uncommon, some bands do get out of recording or promotion contracts if they are really that unhappy. Alter Bridge (a rock band I follow) happens to be one such example. http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/alter-bridge-part-ways-with-wind-up-records/ They had a multi-million dollar contract with their label and got fed up with how the label promoted them. These aren't rich guys on the level of U2, they are probably barely millionaires themselves. They had to tour their butts off, but they managed to buy out the contract and move on to a better situation.

That's what makes me believe that, if U2 were really that unhappy, they'd buy their way out of the LN deal. If I remember correctly, the deal was for around $100 million. By now, they've probably fulfilled a significant portion of the LN earning requirements after 360 and the I&E first legs, so I would assume that buying it out wouldn't be even close to $100 million. Unless they've been completely terrible with money or signed the worst deal imaginable, I can't see how getting out of such a contract would be impossible.

It sounds to me like, as you said, they needed to fulfill their obligation this year and came up with TJT tour as a happy compromise of sorts. It gives them time to further work on SoE while keeping LN happy. I just don't buy into this "being forced against their will to tour" argument that some have put forth.

I can buy an argument that it's about making LN a big payday to satisfy a contract. What I don't buy is that U-F'ING-2 has to do a nostalgia tour to hit a payday. If I am wrong, and it's actually true that a band of U2's singular stature can't bank on putting out a good album and taking in the tour cash, then it truly is game over for the Rock Band as we knew it.


Would also add that if they truly didn't want to do this, if they truly cared about what it looked like...what does buying out the contract do to them? Is it ignorant of me to say that buying out the contract means their families are only guaranteed to be wealthy for the next seven generations instead of the next eight?
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: tigerfan41 on March 24, 2017, 01:27:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I can buy an argument that it's about making LN a big payday to satisfy a contract. What I don't buy is that U-F'ING-2 has to do a nostalgia tour to hit a payday. If I am wrong, and it's actually true that a band of U2's singular stature can't bank on putting out a good album and taking in the tour cash, then it truly is game over for the Rock Band as we knew it.


Would also add that if they truly didn't want to do this, if they truly cared about what it looked like...what does buying out the contract do to them? Is it ignorant of me to say that buying out the contract means their families are only guaranteed to be wealthy for the next seven generations instead of the next eight?

I mean, it all depends on their personal wealth (as well as wealth as a band, since U2 is a brand and a business) and what sort of deal they signed. Like I said, unless they signed a really terrible deal and are really poor managers of money, it's totally feasible that they could buy the contract out and be done with it. I can't even see it costing them that much money, so they'd still be set financially.

At this point, it would come down to a few possible reasons. 1. U2 don't want to burn bridges with LN, for whatever reason, so they're touring TJT. 2. U2 signed a bad deal that they financially can't get out of, so they're touring TJT and that's their only option to fulfill the deal. 3. U2 are greedy, don't want to do TJT, but don't want to pay to get out of the contract, so they are doing TJT tour. 4. They're indifferent or even happy to tour TJT and don't want to lose out on $$$ so they're touring it.

I'd be inclined to believe 1 or 4. They're likely wealthy enough to not do something they hate just for a little more $$$ and they're likely wealthy enough to get out of the contract if it's something they hate that much.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: Manos73 on March 24, 2017, 01:30:43 PM
Conversations follow the same patterns on here. Someone could write a bot.

Provocative comment saying don't like x that the band is doing
Reply - you're not a true fan
Reply - just don't always like what they do
Reply - who gave you the right to claim everything they did always sucked?
Reply - didn't say that
Reply - I bet you're one of the old fans who's just bitter and angry
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: ian ryan on March 24, 2017, 02:22:02 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
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
'blame' livenation for this IMHO...

i feel it is very clear that the main reason this thing is happening is because it is the compromise that the band reached with livenation as they wanted a payday as a part of the big deal they inked.

had u2 been more active over the last 6/7 years i have no doubt this wouldn't be happening.

Oh come on. Livenation needs a tour contractually? Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Songs of Experience tour.

The end

Not that simple is it....

Why not? If they owe LiveNation a tour, why can't they tour their new album? Did they sign some sort of agreement with LiveNation to do a Memberberries tour? If so, that's on U2. If not, then what does LiveNation have to do with this being JT tour?

Which would you guess makes more money, an arena tour or a stadium tour?

So U2 gave up the authority to decide when, how, and with what material they tour? If that's true, they have the most incompetent management in history.

U2 have always had to live up to their contracts. Why do you think we got 3 greatest hits albums in the space of a decade?
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: This Dave on March 24, 2017, 02:38:33 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
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
'blame' livenation for this IMHO...

i feel it is very clear that the main reason this thing is happening is because it is the compromise that the band reached with livenation as they wanted a payday as a part of the big deal they inked.

had u2 been more active over the last 6/7 years i have no doubt this wouldn't be happening.

Oh come on. Livenation needs a tour contractually? Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Songs of Experience tour.

The end

Not that simple is it....

Why not? If they owe LiveNation a tour, why can't they tour their new album? Did they sign some sort of agreement with LiveNation to do a Memberberries tour? If so, that's on U2. If not, then what does LiveNation have to do with this being JT tour?

Which would you guess makes more money, an arena tour or a stadium tour?

So U2 gave up the authority to decide when, how, and with what material they tour? If that's true, they have the most incompetent management in history.

U2 have always had to live up to their contracts. Why do you think we got 3 greatest hits albums in the space of a decade?

 You aren't wrong, but I would put the " 'Member The Joshua Tree?" Tour on a different level then releasing a collection of greatest hits.
Title: Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
Post by: ian ryan on March 24, 2017, 06:41:28 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
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
'blame' livenation for this IMHO...

i feel it is very clear that the main reason this thing is happening is because it is the compromise that the band reached with livenation as they wanted a payday as a part of the big deal they inked.

had u2 been more active over the last 6/7 years i have no doubt this wouldn't be happening.

Oh come on. Livenation needs a tour contractually? Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Songs of Experience tour.

The end

Not that simple is it....

Why not? If they owe LiveNation a tour, why can't they tour their new album? Did they sign some sort of agreement with LiveNation to do a Memberberries tour? If so, that's on U2. If not, then what does LiveNation have to do with this being JT tour?

Which would you guess makes more money, an arena tour or a stadium tour?

So U2 gave up the authority to decide when, how, and with what material they tour? If that's true, they have the most incompetent management in history.

U2 have always had to live up to their contracts. Why do you think we got 3 greatest hits albums in the space of a decade?

 You aren't wrong, but I would put the " 'Member The Joshua Tree?" Tour on a different level then releasing a collection of greatest hits.

A contractual obligation is a contractual obligation, be it album releases or tour profits.