Author Topic: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America  (Read 6267 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline m2

  • Administrator
  • Desert Rose
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,144
  • I love the smell of fresh forum killspam.
Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
« Reply #75 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.

Offline This Dave

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 772
Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
« Reply #76 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?
« Last Edit: March 24, 2017, 12:25:24 PM by This Dave »

Offline soloyan

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,437
  • A dangerous idea that almost makes sense
Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
« Reply #77 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.

Offline soloyan

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,437
  • A dangerous idea that almost makes sense
Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
« Reply #78 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.

Offline soloyan

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,437
  • A dangerous idea that almost makes sense
Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
« Reply #79 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.

Offline tigerfan41

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,780
  • 2017 Concerts: Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit
Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
« Reply #80 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. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login 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. 

Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,430
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
« Reply #81 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.

Offline tigerfan41

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,780
  • 2017 Concerts: Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit
Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
« Reply #82 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.

Offline This Dave

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 772
Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
« Reply #83 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.

Offline This Dave

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 772
Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
« Reply #84 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. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login 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?
« Last Edit: March 24, 2017, 12:46:50 PM by This Dave »

Offline tigerfan41

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,780
  • 2017 Concerts: Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit
Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
« Reply #85 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.

Offline Manos73

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 897
  • Stop trying to change the world, I like it.
Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
« Reply #86 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

Offline ian ryan

  • Global Moderator
  • Child of Grace
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,699
  • Don't worry, baby, it'll be alright
Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
« Reply #87 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?

Offline This Dave

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 772
Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
« Reply #88 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.

Offline ian ryan

  • Global Moderator
  • Child of Grace
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,699
  • Don't worry, baby, it'll be alright
Re: NPR: U2 on The Joshua Tree, a Lasting Ode to a Divided America
« Reply #89 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.