egafd.com

U2's new album, Songs Of Innocence, was posted free to 500 million i-tunes accounts a few weeks ago - 1 in 12 of the entire population of the world got it at the same time. The hard copy, on CD, came out today (Monday). Even though I could have listened to it for free I bought the CD as I have every one of their albums, going back over 30 years, and I like to own the thing physically - you also get the CD booklet and the album artwork, which you obviously don't get with the audio download. There are some extra tracks on the CD aswell that the download doesn't have (although they are bound to be available online for free somewhere).

I've been listening to it this afternoon, it's a good album, but I do wonder why U2 fans had to wait 5 years for it. I think U2 are one of the greatest bands ever, although that is not to say some of their albums haven't been mediocre. Two of their albums, The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby, are amongst some of the best albums ever released in my opinion. They are great live aswell and I've seen them in concert many times. No other band has even lasted as long as them without breaking up and reforming a number of times and without members doing solo albums. No member of U2 has ever done a solo record, so they've consistently been a band longer than anyone else, ever.

Bono is a man of contradiction though: banging on more than any other celebrity on earth about how government's should give money in aid to the Third World, yet he moved U2's business affairs oversees 3 or 4 years ago to avoid paying tax (how can government's give money in aid to the Third World Bono if people don't pay their taxes?) I also remember their manager Paul McGuinness, who was with them from the start but has recently retired from it all, criticising "the creeping corporatism of the music business" in the 1990's. He also had a go at a few artists around that time for accepting commercial sponsorship for their tours - something viewed by many as the ultimate sell-out for an artist. Yet U2's last tour, the 360 tour, had commercial sponsorship - Paul McGuinness was still their manager then. Bono tried to defend U2's decision to move their money into an offshore tax-shelter recently by saying "we are a business like any other and therefore favour tax efficiency". Compare that statement to Paul McGuinness's comment in the 1990's of how the music business was becoming too corporate! So U2 have become what they and their manager said they never would become. It's all very odd.

Anyway, the new album is good, not up there with their classics - but a good album anyway. Anyone else heard it and what do you think?

No one listened to the new U2 album then? I was listening to it again today, it's good actually, the second 'bonus' disc that comes with it has tons of hidden tracks on it.

Like a lot of people I don't buy Apple's overpriced products and in truth they are way past the glory days of Joshua Tree and Achtung. If Bono wasn't so pompous their music might still be taken seriously but like most 80s mega bands (Dire Straits, Bon Jovi, Def Leppard et al) their time has passed.

According to press reports yesterday and today U2 looks like having their lowest chart entry in 30 years, it is thought the album will barely make the top 30. It is 'selling' very well, in that vast numbers of U2 fans have it, probably as many as acquired their other releases going back years and years - but because it was given away free to so many people the physical copy, which I bought on Monday, is not being purchased by many people.

U2 did a Facebook question-and-answer session yesterday where Bono apologised for getting it wrong with this idea they had to do the free download. They showed a clip on Sky News last night and it was excruciating to watch: Bono with his usual constant smirking as he said it, long pauses, and silly choice of words. At one point during Bono's monologue guitarist The Edge started laughing. I think they've harmed themselves with this silly version of an apology.

max_tranmere wrote:

but
> because it was given away free to so many people the physical
> copy, which I bought on Monday, is not being purchased by many
> people.


26 million free downloads, which presumably don't count for charting purposes.

I downloaded it because it was free, haven't listened to it, never really liked much they did, a couple of tracks I like, the rest, meh. Never rated the edge as anything more than a competent guitarist, and of course, Bono's double standards would put Diane Abbott to shame.


>
> U2 did a Facebook question-and-answer session yesterday where
> Bono apologised for getting it wrong with this idea they had to
> do the free download.

It was more the 'enforced' download that some people suffered and complained about, and the Bono arrogance of "why would anyone not want it?"



They showed a clip on Sky News last night
> and it was excruciating to watch: Bono with his usual constant
> smirking as he said it, long pauses, and silly choice of words.


Looks like that old bloke that's always in the pub, thinks he's still cool, others just think he's a sad git, in this picture.

[img]http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/20 ... pology.jpg[/img]

max_tranmere wrote:

> it is thought the
> album will barely make the top 30.


Not according to the BBC - who say expect to see the album at #4 this week or if not #5.

They made one good song 30 years ago( bloody sunday) and they have got steadily worse since , but seemed to have gained this cult status. The music they make these days is fcking awful. Bono reminds me of David Brent.

U2 is one of those bands I just can't get into. Sold millions though, so what do I know.... Could never get into Springsteen either and believe me, I've bought his albums and tried. Not a chance. Leaves me cold.

The iTunes give away was fantastic, though. You have to be some arrogant mother fucker to think everyone in the world wants your album. What a slap in the face that Apple had to release a patch to specifically wipe the album from peoples' iTunes libraries. It was so offensive to so many, they couldn't even just keep it but just ignore it. I mean, I can't listen to Springsteen, but I still have the albums on CD. The equivalent would be for me to refuse to have them in the house !laugh!

I wonder if any other bands are going to do this 'enforced download' thing to vast numbers of people. As far as I understand U2 were given a lump sum of money for the album, presumably a very big lump sum, then it was sent to 500m accounts worldwide. A lot of other acts would probably do the same, seduced by the big wad of cash they're offered to do it, even if it might not be the thing they would normally consider. U2 will obviously make money from the physical sales but I don't think there are vast vast quantities out there - obviously there are large quantities available but the advert this week on TV for the physical release says 'while stocks last'. The music business is changing before our eyes (and ears).

That's interesting, I read something different. We'll have to see what happens with the charts this week. I think some people like to do things the way they've always done them, and therefore a lot of people will want a physical copy rather than a download. When I bought my CD of it this week I was interested to see that it is also available on vinyl. I don't know how many people will be buying that.