1. For years now we are criticizing McG about boxsets and shit and that U2 have become so conservative. So I see this a chance. Who knows, I don't think it can get any worse, although I hope the band themselves are also guarding what happens concerning ticket prices etc.
  2. I do think though that this is the move of a band who want more publicity and to be "relevant" again. If what Ade's saying is true, they are about to get a ton of festivals and shows that feature songs that are for the common, causal U2 fan. This would definitely give them some fans in the eyes of the common music listener.
  3. Originally posted by BelgianBono:I
    - The new manager, Oseary, will probably do some innovations, à la working with social media, what we've discussed recently. Give him the benefit of the doubt. It's not JUST Livenation.
    - You can also make this conclusion by the fact they're looking for commercial partners again. And THIS is what I don't understand. They're the richest band in the world and they still want more. You can't keep saying this is just McGuiness' fault, it's the decision of our 4 heroes. U2 has drifted as far away from ZooTV as possible.


    It's not like this Guy guy is a new manager; I am at least interested in what might happen.

    Regarding the partners I think it's a way to get their new music out there for the masses like with the iPod commercial.
  4. The most I think about this, the most disappointed and fearful I am. It's just awful
  5. Originally posted by clover68:next tour
    U2-MDNA-1D world tour .. mostly in playback and a couple of hours the whole

    ps: miley cryurs, or what is her name, is an option too


    i'd pay more to see Bono in a basque than i would madonna.

    but enough about my private life.

    The manager will also be the promoter then? The rock world is full of success stories when jobs like that are combined. looking a lot like the beatles and allen klein to me.

    "and in the end....."
  6. Originally posted by kris_smith87:[..]


    It's not like this Guy guy is a new manager; I am at least interested in what might happen.

    Regarding the partners I think it's a way to get their new music out there for the masses like with the iPod commercial.

    I know, but I guess managing Madonna isn't the same as managing U2, right ? At least I hope so.

  7. i suspect that most of livenations target audience wouldn't know the difference.

  8. The proper "managing" aspects aren't really different when it comes to international bands that play stadiums or big arenas all around the world and want their albums promoted worldwide as well. That's why "most" managers could be chosen for "most" bands, as well as sports players' representatives can manage several players at the same time, etc. BUT McGuinness was a key role in U2's development from minute 0 and I doubt that any manager, or anyone in the world, can get to his level of influence and knowledge of the band's wishes and idiosyncrasy.
  9. I am happy about this for one reason, and one reason only: you don't sign up new management if you've only got one album and one tour left.
  10. I've always said this... I think usually nobody, not even the bands themselves, know when their time comes. Sometimes it's a dead member, other times it's an unsolvable discussion between the members, sometimes it's just the inspiration and passion that go away. But I think nobody plans a schedule and says "this is going to be our last album and our last tour"... That just comes suddenly for most of the bands, sometimes in the middle of a tour or an album recording. Changing management doesn't mean a thing regarding the future of the band. If they're quitting, they will quit regardless their manager or whatever.
  11. I think it won't mean as big a change as some people seem to think. They're still U2 playing music. Calm down. McGuinness probably feels like doing something else. It does seem like a pretty logical step.
  12. It feels like we've lost someone in the core group almost to me... it's BIZARRE THAT HE'S GONE.