1. Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
    Yes releasing it ‘via Apple’ was about the money but releasing SOI in general was nothing to do with money. The album was going to be released anyway, not for free, but it wasn’t a case of ‘ if Apple don’t pay us we won’t release the album’. For the time and effort it takes they wouldn’t release new material anymore if money was a big factor, I’m talking about the band members specifically. Yes for the ‘brand’ I’m sure they’ve got lots of stuff locked away that they’ll be hoping to make money off in the future. But if anything rather than the band members thinking about how much these future releases can make I actually think it will be the opposite and they’ll be trying to be as protective as possible about what can and can’t be released. The idea that the band members want stuff saved away for their future generations I just don’t buy into, their kids and grandkids will be looked after with non band related stuff like investments etc. I don’t think Bono is thinking well the grandkids can make some money of zoo tv Dublin 40 years from now, or the outtakes album.
    Yes, the album would be released anyway, but never would got the same money they got from apple.

    They never would give that for apple for less money than they could get selling

    And the only reason for don’t repeat it was the terrible reception of that, U2 was humiliated around the world to had did that. Just one of the problems to keep without Paul McGuine$$

    I dont mind about what do you think about their future generations, because I‘d never stated this, it was just ONE of the hypothesis I raised, but you keep hold on that like it was a completly non sense stated.😂
  2. Originally posted by pleasegone:[..]


    Big laugh here, and I'm not trying to be mean, I promise. There is almost ZERO value holding on to music films or audio recordings. Physical media used to bring in big money, and downloads too. Now the value of a music release is going down at an exponential rate. Release them now, while the fans who care might be willing to buy them. I have never found a single person under 25 who owns a James Brown album. I'm sure there are some, but I have not met one yet. In fact, I don't know anybody under 25 who knows ANYTHING about U2. Sure, there could be a tiny bit of interest if they all died around the same time....but that would just be a tiny boost, not enough to matter.... Nobody's Grandchildren will make much money over any unreleased audio, or film, unless it has MAJOR box office potential. I promise you that JT 2017 will not make more than a Marvel Movie about someone slicing a potato. "Potato Slicer Man," anyone? The physical sales of SOI and SOE combined were less than that of NLOTH. They did not even bother to release Berlin and threw it out to the fan club. Record Store Day releases bring in a few pennies, but it's not like Edge will buy a $59 million mansion and thank everyone who bought the JT 2017 Blu Ray. They make money off of Touring, past glories, and other things. This film will be a nice gift to the fans, and that's it. I'd rather be able to buy it on Amazon or Best Buy than as a fan club gift. In other words, release what you have now, before the only few people willing to pay for it have aged to the point where they won't care, or sadly, most of us will be dead.
    You can be happy and laugh, you have mouth for that, because nothing of this would be about sells something, but about rights. The people, group or whatever who got rights over the collection from one of the biggest band in the history also got a lot of power, money and market to do what he want, and never released stuffs are always a great thing on valuation and market.

    Nobody cares for the Mickey black and white from 1924, nobody have interest to watch that, any kid would stop in front of TV for watch it, but Disney are spending millions of dollars fighting to avoid lose the rights of it. So its better don’t pretend we understand about something when clearly that is not the situation.
  3. Originally posted by ZoopGun:[..]
    Yes, the album would be released anyway, but never would got the same money they got from apple.

    They never would give that for apple for less money than they could get selling

    And the only reason for don’t repeat it was the terrible reception of that, U2 was humiliated around the world to had did that. Just one of the problems to keep without Paul McGuine$$

    I dont mind about what do you think about their future generations, because I‘d never stated this, it was just ONE of the hypothesis I raised, but you keep hold on that like it was a completly non sense stated.😂
    Yes but again that makes your point irrelevant. Nobody is saying they would have got the same money as they got from Apple but it really doesn’t matter does it? It would only matter if they gave Apple SOI to release if the alternative was not to release the album at all, then you could say the release was only for the money. But the album was getting released anyway so it was just a bit of a bonus that Apple were coming up with a crazy amount of money for it . And it sounds like you’re arguing with yourself now, if the band didn’t repeat it because they were humiliated doesn’t that suggest that money isn’t an important factor when it comes to new releases? The reception was obviously more important than the money according to your own words. I don’t think they were humiliated at all though. They made a load of money and got their album all around the world. Sure they received plenty of criticism but I’m sure it was quite easy to laugh off. It was likely enough to put them off repeating it but I doubt it was ever going to be more than a one off thing anyway. What I find more bizarre is how many u2 fans are willing to take on board the opinion of a bunch of idiots whining about a free album.
  4. Coming back to earth.

    About JT-2017's official concert, I repeat what I said some time ago. They just don't want to launch. And my perception is that the fans don't want it either. Because to this day I haven't seen any fan clubs, or pages make a campaign, or a hashtag to get U2's attention.

    My opinion is that U2 will sell its video/concert collection for some Streaming platform. I believe the Streaming "U2.com" has already been discarded, in the same way as the transmissions Youtube. Sell it to a HBO or NetFlix will be more profitable for the band.
  5. Originally posted by pleasegone:[..]


    I have never found a single person under 25 who owns a James Brown album. I'm sure there are some, but I have not met one yet. In fact, I don't know anybody under 25 who knows ANYTHING about U2. .

    FFS most of them have SOI on their ITunes everyone knows who they are after that ,you mustn't know that many people under 25 ,
  6. Originally posted by AnselmoLopes:Coming back to earth.

    About JT-2017's official concert, I repeat what I said some time ago. They just don't want to launch. And my perception is that the fans don't want it either. Because to this day I haven't seen any fan clubs, or pages make a campaign, or a hashtag to get U2's attention.

    My opinion is that U2 will sell its video/concert collection for some Streaming platform. I believe the Streaming "U2.com" has already been discarded, in the same way as the transmissions Youtube. Sell it to a HBO or NetFlix will be more profitable for the band.
    I expect you’ll see a lot of it pop up on Netflix when their biopic series debuts. Yes it’s a few years off, but what better way to add some promotion to the show? Make a bunch of their old concerts available. Maybe even a new one that hasn’t been released before.
  7. Originally posted by popmarter:[..]

    FFS most of them have SOI on their ITunes everyone knows who they are after that ,you mustn't know that many people under 25 ,
    I do know people under 25, and none of them buy physical releases, and none of them buy U2 releases in any form. The JT 2017 film is for die hards. My argument with Zoop is that keeping stuff in the vault to help pay bills for Larry's children and grandchildren is hysterical. Nobody cares about these releases now, and by 2065, they will be a footnote in music history. Maybe their legacy lives on, maybe not. But no matter how big it does, none of their vault material will be paying bills for their Grandchildren, 4th degree cousins or anybody else. That's why they should release it now...but they won't. I'm hoping that JT 2017 does see the light of day, as it was a great tour.
  8. Curious how well any recent vault releases from The Stones sell? Are those making much money? I guess my point is U2 is a somewhat-fair comparison but about 15 years behind. Most U2 fan are probably younger than 60 so there’s a few more decades to milk out of us (?). I dunno…I’m pushing 50 and can’t help but wonder if I’ll be purchasing any 50th anniversary releases (vault or not) of TJT or AB.
  9. Originally posted by pleasegone:[..]
    I do know people under 25, and none of them buy physical releases, and none of them buy U2 releases in any form. The JT 2017 film is for die hards. My argument with Zoop is that keeping stuff in the vault to help pay bills for Larry's children and grandchildren is hysterical. Nobody cares about these releases now, and by 2065, they will be a footnote in music history. Maybe their legacy lives on, maybe not. But no matter how big it does, none of their vault material will be paying bills for their Grandchildren, 4th degree cousins or anybody else. That's why they should release it now...but they won't. I'm hoping that JT 2017 does see the light of day, as it was a great tour.
    The majority of people younger than 25 don't even know U2
  10. Exactly! Their entire vault will simply be destroyed. By 2050, 99% of anyone who would have interest will either be dead, or have no interest in paying anything for it. The time is now to empty the vaults and just get it over with. Has Pearl Jam become a laughing stock for making so many live shows available? No. Neither would U2. It would make a few fans happy and maybe generate a few dollars. Not too much as the market dries up every passing day.
  11. They need to sell their logos to Old Navy and Target. Plenty of Rolling Stones, GNR, and Nirvana t-shirts there and tonnes of youths (and adults!) wear them. Sure, many can’t name five songs by these bands but it’s something!

    Edit: This comment might not be a popular opinion but it’d break my heart if this great band is completely forgotten in 50 or so years.
  12. U2 wont be forgotten the same way all the great bands aren’t forgotten. It’s fair to say the popularity will likely continue to decrease but there will always be people who are big supporters of the band and pass that passion on to others. It might not mean they’re the biggest fans but they’ll know who they are. I’m 31 and well aware of artists like led zeppelin, the doors, the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Elvis presley, fleetwood Mac, Bob Dylan, Neil young, Jimi Hendrix, the who, the list goes on. ‘Most’ people younger than me probably don’t know a lot of these but there’s always ‘some’ that do. I don’t know a lot of their work but I know some from all of them, lots from others. U2 are massively known still, I wouldn’t underestimate how big a name they are. Also one hurdle that might not be in the way in the future (I don’t agree with it myself) is the dislike for Bono as an individual that clearly exists, the ‘I don’t mind u2 but I can’t stand Bono’ stuff. As I say I don’t like that mindset or agree with it but I definitely think as years go by people’s personality and character isn’t questioned as much, (unless they do something terrible like commit a bad crime). It’s the music and band reputation that lives on more. Does all that mean they’ll still sell music well in 50 years time? Maybe not, but I’m certain they’ll still be known.