Red Mosquito

McParadigm wrote:The Guardian is so rock and roll

Lament wrote:Y'know what, I don't even fucking care anymore. This is why I pretty much never post outside of the Secret Mixtape or Post-strike baseball tournament anymore. I'm over it.

Have fun.

Heathen wrote:

broken iris wrote:

U2 Gives Away New Album NOW, Skip Charts, And Who Cares? No Money in CD Sales

by Roger Friedman - September 9, 2014 4:44 pm


U2 has released its new album to iTunes subscribers today like right now, to all 500 million of them. Songs of Innocence is the title. Sign up for iTunes– it’s free– and you can get the album free if you order it by October 13th. The album will not qualify for chart positions or RIAA certifications. And U2 is saying basically Who cares?

Album sales have vanished. The most U2 would sell in its first week, if they were very very lucky, would between 300,000 and 500,000 copies. And that’s being extremely optimistic. It’s not worth the price of printing them up. Just give it away, and make the money through publishing, which the group owns, and concert tours. LiveNation will soon announce a world wide tour that should net the group hundreds of millions of dollars.

It’s brilliant, and no different in concept than giving CDs to ticket buyers, which has been tried with Madonna and Prince. LiveNation has U2 under a 360 contract, they can simply build in the price of the album. Universal Music can collect on vinyl, a small amount of physical CDs, and streaming. My guess though is that “Songs of Innocence” will limited to streaming on iTunes Radio and not available on Spotify and other services.

Check mate.

Hats off to Guy Oseary who continues the tradition of taking U2 into brave new waters, started by Paul McGuinness.

Interesting take.

At the risk of sounding negative, hasn't the whole 'album sales don't matter, money is in touring and licensing' thing been the rule in the music industry for many years now? There's nothing particularly new here except for the scale (and the whole "we will give it to you even if you don't want it" approach). THIS IS NOT A DIG AT U2.

McParadigm wrote:

Heathen wrote:I can't believe people think this is a great move. No wait actually I can believe it.

The delivery is in error, but the intention is not. Give me a huge band that tries to give their music away and fucks it up before a band that bitches about people downloading, anyday. Or, for that matter, one that becomes more interested in pushing fanclub memberships and merch catalog mystery boxes than in writing songs and trying out ideas.

McParadigm wrote:

As if anyone's paid for an album since the late 90s

stip wrote:Maybe smaller artists have already left this model behind and depend on bandcamp or sites like that.

Rangi Guy wrote:OK - that wasn't bad. Nothing I disliked on there and a few songs I really liked!

LetMeSleep wrote:

Rangi Guy wrote:OK - that wasn't bad. Nothing I disliked on there and a few songs I really liked!

Pretty much. The first half feels like U2 in second gear then Side Two is really quite an improvement. RBW to the end is very strong.

LetMeSleep wrote:I could do with Bono being mixed a little lower.