Anything that weakens Universal Musics stranglehold on the music market is a good thing.

The way Live Nation are going, they won't be too far behind Universal in the power stakes.

12 year contract?????

The thing that makes me laugh about deals like this is that it has nothing to do with the quality of the music that the band produces. It's all about getting a big name on your side. U2 are under no pressure whatsoever to make another classic album for the rest of their career and will be even less so now that they've signed on the dotted line. Their last decent album was Zooropa and even that was far from impressive.

True, though apart from the other turkeys, I think "Zooropa", "Lemon", "Stay ", "Daddy's Gonna Pay ", "Some Days " & "Dirty Day" would qualify it as more than a "decent" album.

True, though apart from the other turkeys, I think "Zooropa", "Lemon", "Stay ", "Daddy's Gonna Pay ", "Some Days " & "Dirty Day" would qualify it as more than a "decent" album.

Not in terms of recorded music, where they are a blip. The big players are Universal, Sony, Warner and EMI and even EMI gets pushed around a bit. EMI are either worlds smallest major label or the biggest indie depending on your perspective. When you look at the indies and their attitude to the internet, they are very progressive and forward thinking, usually having no problem with distributing DRM free downloads at reasonable cost. The majors are the ones using the RIAA to sue grannies and kids and generally make up for their crap, inneficient business model. EMI are kind of halfway, kind of see sense to embrace the DRM-free way forward, but lack the will. Universal or one of the other majors besides EMI getting a swift kick in the arse would give the industry the shake-up it needs.

As for Zooropa, brilliant album, utterly flawed, but brilliant.

What is DRM?

Digital Rights Management, its supposed to prevent piracy by preventing you from copying music files, only allowing the files to be played on the PC it's downloaded on and an assigned player, like your iPod. In reality it's a huge pain in the arse, many people have multiple PCs, players, games consoles and MP3 car stereos (which can't play back DRM'd file formats like apples .aac). It's best for consumers if files are distributed in a format like MP3. People want more convenience from digital downloads, not less.

I've never actually bought a download... I've a list of stuff I wanted to buy as downloads - single tracks - but I was put off by the price. This DRM thingey doesn't do much to convince me to change my mind. No wonder people are ripping tracks all over the place.

I disagree. U2 have always made albums on their own terms and have consistently tried to do something different with every album, often when it would have made more commercial sense to do Version Two of the Joshua Tree. The Pop album had plenty of good songs and was a brave, if flawed, attempt to further the experiment they began with Achtung Baby.

It could be argued that their last two albums have been a step back but in my opinion they're perfectly entitled to rest on their laurels a bit. My own personal opinion on those albums is that All That You Can't Leave Behind was mediocre. How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb is a cracking album though and compares very favourably to their best work.

Don't write them off just yet. I think they're still keen to prove that they can produce work that's modern, relevant and different to what they've done before.

I kinda feel the opposite, All that you can't leave behind was definitely treading water, but a decent album of straightforward songs after the sub-Chemical Brothers electronic rock of POP! showed that the path they had been following since Achtung Baby (my fave U2 album) was no longer working for them. I kind of expected that they'd do their straight forward album and then go off on another tangent again, they can afford to take risks, but no, they come back with Atomic Bomb, a lame pastiche of their older stuff, seeming designed for stadiums. It marks the exact point I gave up on U2 and the only album of theirs I haven't bothered buying after hearing it.

i'd say there isnt a u2 album I could put on that I wouldnt enjoy to be honest, thats a fair feat for a fair sized back catalogue...(i'm far from a big u2 fan either)

PQ

"How to... " is a dismal album by any standard. Granted, "Vetigo"'s not a bad tune, but when you hear them trying to reclaim their middle of the road adult orientated stadium rock thunder, after Coldplay stole it with the rotten X&Y, and they end up sounding like a poor man's Coldplay on songs such as "City of Blinding Lights".... you know they should've packed it in years ago.

The main problem with U2, is that they try WAY too hard to keep their "biggest band in rock" monicker & remain commercially sucessful. I don't think it's money driven, but ego driven - the more albums they sell, the better the band they are - mindset.

Bands need to experiment & let loose to keep fresh - look at the difference between them and Radiohead.. there's no comparison between "In Rainbows" & "Atomic Bomb".. I know "In Rainbows" is not their most experimental work to date, but it's one of their best & the route they took to get there was all part of that. U2 definitely have the ability to do something new & re-invent themselves - look at the work they did on Brian Eno's "Passengers" for example - but for them, the thoughts of playing to anything less than full capacity superdomes probably scares the s**t out of them. Hence the 12 year deal with Live Nation. U2 these days are just another Rolling Stones.

U2 were reinventing themselves when Thom Yorke was still in nappies. When "War" and the Under A Blood Red Sky mini album broke them in America, they could very easily have followed it up with Son of War. Instead they recorded The Unforgettable Fire, a huge leap forward and an album that potentially could have lost them fans. They did the same with the Achtung Baby/Zooropa/Pop trilogy. And the difference between them and the Rolling Stones is that plenty of the fans who went to see U2 on their last tour were just as keen to hear their most recent work as they were to hear the greatest hits. I should know, I was one of them. Nobody goes to the Stones to hear anything from their last twenty years.

All in the past, those are good albums, but they should either start trying again or call it a day.

Nobody goes to the Stones to hear anything from their last twenty years.

thats b*ll*cks, their last album sold 5 million copies worldwide and was number 1 in 20 odd countries.So people do listen to their new stuff. they are called stones fans.I'm one of them.

regarding U2, great band, i know someone who has worked with them before. Every single U2 album is different to the last. they come out every 4 years and contain 2/3 number one singles. Everyone who is anyone references them as influential in the last twenty years.
City of Blinding Lighst is awful though....Original of the species is class...one for one...
They easily have at least one more great album in them. Music is fantastic that way. Age doesnt matter.

dont understand folk saying they should call it a day / should have packed it in years ago...why, just incase your ears may, god forbid accidently hear there latest work...they're musicians, they go out there and make music and more power to them.

PQ

Westlife sell more than the Stones & every album has about 57 no.1 singles, so your points about sales & No.1's are hardly relevant. U2, btw, have only had about 6 UK No.1's over their whole career - 3/4 per album is a BIT of a stretch.

Dunno why you mention you knew someone who worked with them - my band worked with Paul Thomas, their engineer from the "Boy", "War" & "October" albums. Big swing.

Look - I love the majority of U2's output, but as I said before - they seem more interested these days in entertaining the masses than they do in making an album that has more than 1 half decent tune. Sure - they're more than capable of it... age has f**k all to do with it - I just wish they'd get on & do it.

U2 have had 2/3 number one singles worldwide off each of the last 3 albums. As in stuck in a moment was number two in UK while number one somewhere else.

My point regarding my pal who worked with them was that they strive to be different while trying to remain popular and relevant on every album they produce. So I would dare to say that they get the balance rightin my opinion, they remain popular i.e go to number one while not completely compromising what they do in the process..

Regarding the stones, john doe said nobody goes to hear the new stuff, i was making the point that Bigger Bang sold 5million plus units therefore some people, i.e fans of the band want to hear the new stuff live.

Who the f*ck made up the rule that in order to produce great art or music you must be selfless in every regard rendering commercial success meanlingless??

...i believe his voice is getting better as he gets older....and forget the charity crap and all the rest,i'm a u2 fan not save the vedgetarian lesbians or whatever cause he's parading around for now....

we all seem to agree they have another good album in them...maybe w'ell get it this year..