SOS
Active topics
U2 - Songs Of Surrender (2023)
 Tracks: 40

  1. I know people will see it, but just wanted to share for those that were certain this wasn’t getting released and that u2songs.com had no idea what they were talking about.
  2. Originally posted by Cgmorgan1986:[image]
    I know people will see it, but just wanted to share for those that were certain this wasn’t getting released and that u2songs.com had no idea what they were talking about.
  3. Originally posted by Cgmorgan1986:[image]
    I know people will see it, but just wanted to share for those that were certain this wasn’t getting released and that u2songs.com had no idea what they were talking about.
    Yeah some folks were convinced it was an april fools joke 😁
  4. Originally posted by Cgmorgan1986:[image]
    I know people will see it, but just wanted to share for those that were certain this wasn’t getting released and that u2songs.com had no idea what they were talking about.
    This is going to be GREAT. Where are all the people that doubted @u2wanderer1 now?
  5. Before mocking other users, and I don’t consider myself as one of them as I didn’t doubt the actual release at any point, it’s important to remember the head of u2songs also got his information wrong along the way. He was adamant that the 40 songs were the 40 chapter titles. Didn’t just say that’s what he’d been told but ‘confirmed’ to people it was the 40 chapter titles, said the miracle wasn’t on it (it is by the looks of it now), and said when questioned about certain songs not having reworks on the audiobook that again he could confirm they had been reworked for the album, this again wasn’t entirely true. So yes it would be wrong to say u2songs don’t know their stuff, they obviously get plenty of good solid inside info and I trust them with a lot of stuff myself but they also get it wrong and that means it isn’t silly or wrong for people to question things at times like is being suggested here. It’s the manner in which it’s questioned that should remain respectful however.
  6. I thought it was an April Fools Joke and wish it was because I don,'t see the point of it. Repackaging / rerecording stuff is boring beyond belief.
  7. Yikes
  9. Originally posted by zoostation717:Before mocking other users, and I don’t consider myself as one of them as I didn’t doubt the actual release at any point, it’s important to remember the head of u2songs also got his information wrong along the way. He was adamant that the 40 songs were the 40 chapter titles. Didn’t just say that’s what he’d been told but ‘confirmed’ to people it was the 40 chapter titles, said the miracle wasn’t on it (it is by the looks of it now), and said when questioned about certain songs not having reworks on the audiobook that again he could confirm they had been reworked for the album, this again wasn’t entirely true. So yes it would be wrong to say u2songs don’t know their stuff, they obviously get plenty of good solid inside info and I trust them with a lot of stuff myself but they also get it wrong and that means it isn’t silly or wrong for people to question things at times like is being suggested here. It’s the manner in which it’s questioned that should remain respectful however.
    Was told by two sources that it was the same songs that were on the book. No reason to doubt them. But they probably looked at the two lists and though “yup, they are the same”.

    And all along the page said “expected track list” so shit on me all you want for what I say on social media but the page never said it was the final track list at any point.

    And yes I had the wrong date. But it was given to me last February before the Stories of Surrender tour was planned.
  10. Originally posted by badirishcharlie:I thought it was an April Fools Joke and wish it was because I don,'t see the point of it. Repackaging / rerecording stuff is boring beyond belief.
    Ha I thought that aswell I wasn't doubting the source but the idea of them reworking old songs for a release seemed a crazy and unbelievable idea ,for a band that has mainly been so forward thinking unlike a lot of their contemporaries who have been living off their past glories for years I never thought they would need or want to go down this route however I get it they wrote those songs and instead of releasing another Greatest Hits of songs everyone has they have given them a different spin and new perspective that no doubt that will divide opinions across the fanbase.
  11. Definitely nice to see that they are recreating music at least, rather have this than nothing.
  12. Originally posted by u2wanderer1:[..]
    Was told by two sources that it was the same songs that were on the book. No reason to doubt them. But they probably looked at the two lists and though “yup, they are the same”.

    And all along the page said “expected track list” so shit on me all you want for what I say on social media but the page never said it was the final track list at any point.

    And yes I had the wrong date. But it was given to me last February before the Stories of Surrender tour was planned.

    My advice is own your success and own your mistakes. We all make them and there is nothing wrong with that but it’s never good to be happy to take the credit whilst not acknowledging getting it wrong occasionally. Are you/u2 songs a great source of u2 information before it becomes official/public knowledge? Absolutely. Do you get things wrong? Absolutely. I’ll leave this screenshot and maybe then you’ll be able to see you’ve got carried away yourself in believing your sources, that was your mistake, just like it was the sources mistake for giving you the wrong info. That’s all it is, a mistake, no harm, but own it.