U2 'Songs of Innocence' Album // iNNOCENCE + eXPERIENCE Tour 2015 Discussion

[***Flawless]

Yep and every other band is as big and gets the the attention that U2 does when it comes to an album release. Fact is this was completely under wraps and nobody knew about it at all until it happened. Criticize and downplay it all you want if that's what you're getting at but the fact a band as big as they are pulled it off the way they did and get their music out to over 500 million people in the blink of an eye is cool regardless of what other bands have managed it. The reality is no other band has managed it this way though. It's a first.

The artist in particular I'm thinking of did and does, and she's not a band. I'm not downplaying U2's hustle, i'm just saying that relaxing an album without people knowing is not unheard of in this modern time as you inferred.

You say no other artist has done it this way? I hope you mean for free because otherwise, an iTunes exclusive surprise release has been done before.

[Bono]

Here's a good article about how U2 released this album. http://ajournalofmusicalthings.com/learn-u2s-surprise-album-announcementapple-dealgiveaway-ten-things-least/

"So What Did We Learn from U2’s Surprise Album Announcement/Apple Deal/Giveaway? Ten Things–At Least.

When Tim Cook pressed that metaphorical button that sent U2’s new album, Songs of Innocence, to 500 million iTunes subscribers, a major part of the traditional music industry crumbled. Half a billion people in 119 countries instantly gained access to an album created by the biggest band in the world.

I’m still trying to digest all the implications of that. It’s something that extends beyond merely releasing an album. This is a marketing coup that has the potential to be a game-changer. A big one.

First, let’s not focus on whether the album is any good or if U2 still matters. That’s besides the point for the purposes of this discussion. Let’s talk it through.

1. CDs do not matter anymore. Now that U2 has demonstrated that they’re willing to leave physical product–even temporarily–it shows that physical media is that much closer to death. However, albums may still have some life left in them. Even though so many people prefer to buy their music a la carte, U2 has shown that maybe the hoopla around the release of a full album can still attract attention. Forbes wonders the same thing.

[uM, HOLD UP: A physical release for the album is coming next month. See the newsletter text below.]

2. Charts don’t matter anymore. Because of the way Songs of Innocence was released in an exclusive “push” manner–i.e. you got the album in iTunes whether you wanted it or not–it’s ineligible for including on any charts or any album sales awards. But who needs those metrics when half a billion people now have your record? Even if a fraction of them decide they like it and are converted or repatriated into U2 fans who will buy concert tickets and other releases in the catalogue, it’s worth it.

3. The management of both U2 and Apple are incredibly powerful and can influence events across every single level of the music industry. U2 just couldn’t create an album and give it away for free. Deals had to be cut with their label, which in turn will have to deal with the shit storm raised by their remaining retail partners. How would you feel if you ran a chain of record stores? Pissed, that’s how–and majorly so. And U2 is willing to take lumps from other online retailers. If I’m Jeff Bezos over at Amazon, I’m apoplectic. If I’m running Google Play Music, I’ve taken the shotgun down from above the fireplace. And is any streaming service other than Beats going to get the album? If not, Spotify, Rdio, Songza and everyone else will be shrieking mad.

4. Are there any more questions as to why Apple bought Beats? Only Jimmy Iovine could have pulled off this masterstroke of negotiation. Relationships in business can be worth hundreds of millions. And props to new U2 manager Guy Osery. He had a guiding hand in this concept. Here’s Paul McGuinness’ take on the situation, too.

5a. This album wasn’t “free.” Someone had to pay because many people needed to be paid. Remember Jay Z’s deal with Samsung late last year? The deal was that everyone got a copy of his new album when they bought one of their new phones. To make this happen, Samsung had to buy a million copies of the record. So what was the arrangement between U2, Apple and Universal? Money must have exchanged hands, although hardly at the standard iTunes price of $10 per album. Apple got a steep, steep discount in exchange for the publicity and distribution this arrangement provided.

5b. The cost of making this album can simply be built into the price of tickets for the next tour under U2’s 360 deal with Live Nation. The last U2 tour grossed $736,000,000; they’ll easily pay for this record with the next tour.

6. U2 did something like this before–and it worked great. Remember 1993 when Zooropa suddenly showed up while the band was still touring behind Achtung Baby? This is like that, except in reverse. Songs of Innocence is the surprise amuse bouche. The real album will be Songs of Experience, which is still in the pipeline. If I’m a betting person, I’d wager that it will be a more conventional release with plenty of physical media to go around. Note that Songs of Innocence will stop being free at 11:59pm PT on Monday, October 13. Who wants to lay money on Songs of Experience coming out Tuesday, October 14?

[sECOND THOUGHTS: Well, maybe not. Perhaps October 13-14 will be reserved for the physical release of Innocence. Again, refer to the newsletter below.]

[THIRD THOUGHTS: Hey, maybe it'll be a double album with Innocence and Experience released together.]

7. Some people are screaming that U2 had sold their soul to Apple. I disagree. I had a long conversation with Bono about U2’s original business dealings with Apple about 10 years ago. His answer was “Striking a deal with Apple allows us to publicize and spread our music in ways that we could never afford to do. And what artist doesn’t want as many people as possible to hear their music?” He had something similar to say this time:

“From the very beginning U2 have always wanted our music to reach as many people as possible, the clue is in our name I suppose—so today is kind of mind-blowing to us. The most personal album we’ve written could be shared with half a billion people… by hitting send. If only songwriting was that easy. It’s exciting and humbling to think that people who don’t know U2 or listen to rock music for that matter might check us out. Working with Apple is always a blast. They only want to do things that haven’t been done before—that’s a thrill to be part of.”

It’s estimated that Apple has $100 million to spend for this watch/iPhone 6 and iOS 8 campaign. Who wouldn’t want to piggyback on that? With U2 starring in a commercial (which features the new single, “The Miracle (Of Joey Ramone),” everyone will soon know that the band is back in business after five years.

9. Back to the notion of relationships: given how U2 jumped ship to BlackBerry for a couple of years, it’s interesting to speculate if they could have come back to Apple were Steve Jobs still alive. The man did know how to carry a grudge.

So why did U2 jump ship? As Bono told me my face: “BlackBerry offered to give us access to their people and labs, something that Apple would not.” It was a bold experiment–hey BlackBerry was still on top of the world back then–but it obviously didn’t work out for either party.

10a. Is U2 still relevant? A lot of people–especially those under 30–will say no. No Line on the Horizon was a stiff, so U2 had to come up with some kind of comeback plan. There’s no obvious hit single on Songs of Innocence, although the more I hear “The Miracle” (Of Joey Ramone), the more I like it. (The studio version is much better than the live performance U2 gave at the Apple event.) But how many people around the planet at least gave them a chance today when they went for their free album on iTunes? And give them and their people credit for willing to experiment with things no one else would or could.

10b. And do you still need convincing that tech is the new rock’n’roll?

Anyone else have anything to add?"

[Bono]

Achtung Baby is well known to be U2 taking on the influences of UK dance rock (Stone Roses, Primal Scream) and the industrial stuff in Berlin. I watched a whole documentary about it with Bono going on about the Berlin wall.

Look I'm not saying I could do better. I'm not wanting to be as mean spirited. But when people are saying what genius artists they are when it's so glaringly obvious that's not what is happening here. Zooropa is my favorite album from them. But don't tell me they don't change style to stay relevant. And yes kind of that makes them sell outs. Just doing anything they can to stay relevant. Jump on the Killers bandwagon, do a deal with iTunes. "Sell outs" a bit strong but don't act like this is artistic genius. This is a solid rock band that's been surviving since the early 90s, exploiting trends.

I don't mind what they do, it's a bit gimmicky this time, that's all. This time round it's just more heavy handed and blunt. It's no necessary. That combined with doing a record to stay relevant again, and the point is not changing anything, not taking any risks, it's the same U2 but just done so it fits in with Coldplay or Killers or whatever that song is I hear in Carl's Jr. It's too much of a product. They have this massive platform and all they seem to do is find a way to suck even harder than before. Then Bono will turn up with a suitcase of money and start talking about some charity or political issue to promo it. What about all the worker suicides at Foxcomm making fucking iPods? Bad for business? Thought so. iTunes is built on slavery in developing countries. 6,000 techie hot shots in the US cream off the top and sign U2 to promote them while workers are jumping off the top of factory roofs cos they work 20 hour shifts to fufil the west's Christmas rush. Big deal. You scumbags. Axl just made the music he wanted to and because it wasn't delivered on everyone's schedule they set for him they shit on him. Just take another prescription pill and let Bono lull you to sleep.

Innocence is still a nice record musically, even lyrically, it's just the stuff driving it is so crass and it has no soul. It's just a bunch of lies. It's almost like the narrative of the release is more important than the music.

Did you ever stop to think the reason U2 sounds like the Killers or Coldplay or whoever is because the those bands sound like U2 and are obviously influenced by them? Did you just ignore what I said about Battle Born having a lot of U2 influences that sound straight out of No Line on The Horizon which was released 3 years earlier than Battle Born? And yeah U2 changed their sound to stay relevant in the 90s but so fucking what? They still put out a killer album that was true to them. They made arguably their best album ever with Achtung Baby. They still sounded like U2 though but apparently that's a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with taking from your surroundings and being influenced by the current music culture. If bands didn't they'd all sound like their first album. I'm glad as fuck U2 changed their style in the 90s.

And honestly dude if you think Bono is using charities to promote U2 albums you need to give your head a shake. It's the other way around. Nobody cares what he has to say when they aren't promoting an album yet he's still saying it all the time. That's what he does but you only hear about it duringa U2 album release because that's when he has all the media attention Pretty stright forward common sense. When they have an album to release that's his platform to talk about the humanitarian causes. You seriously think he uses the humanitarian stuff to promote the albums? Haha! The only reason he has any pull or sway or influence when it comes to his charity work is because of the albums. It's very obvious the albums are how he promotes the humanitarian work. Not the humanitarian work promoting the albums.

Seriously you should stop defending Axl by saying he just did it his way and made the music he wanted to as if to suggest U2 didn't and that Axl's way is that much more genuine and artistic. Axl's way sucks a big bag of dicks and if Axl just did what U2 did you and everyone on this board would have blown a load in their pants 50 times by now. itunes has over 500 million people using it and you're gonna sit their and criticize U2 for being in a partnership with them? Why? Because they're U2? Because U2 should be the ones rebelling against itunes? If Axl did it it'd be awesome and you know it. U2 has been in this industry for almost 40 years and they are middle aged men in their mid 50s and they just blew the doors open on music distribution. They delivered their music to a potential 500 million people and doing what they can to stay relevent when every other band fro the 80s is pretty much dead to anyone under 25. How is it a bad thing that U2 actually try to stay relevent? It's not like they're putting out albums featuring Beyonce and Nikki Minage and Taylor Swift.

You don't like the music so you're imagining all this other bullshit. For me the album is fantastic and is full of heart and soul. It's sounds like U2 would and should in the year 2014 and it's NOT the same U2. It's new U2 and I'll take that any day over sitting on a website arguing that a guy who releases 1 album every 20 years has a better approach to it.

It's funny how non U2 fans have higher expectations for U2 than actual U2 fans.

** Need to clarify that if U2's partnership with apple meant that it was exclusive to itunes and I needed to pay itunes in any way to ever hear the album or if I had to buy a phone or something to get it I would criticize the hell out of that. I'll criticize any artist who releases material outside of a fan club where not everyone has access to it. I think that's bullshit.

Yep and every other band is as big and gets the the attention that U2 does when it comes to an album release. Fact is this was completely under wraps and nobody knew about it at all until it happened. Criticize and downplay it all you want if that's what you're getting at but the fact a band as big as they are pulled it off the way they did and get their music out to over 500 million people in the blink of an eye is cool regardless of what other bands have managed it. The reality is no other band has managed it this way though. It's a first.

The artist in particular I'm thinking of did and does, and she's not a band. I'm not downplaying U2's hustle, i'm just saying that relaxing an album without people knowing is not unheard of in this modern time as you inferred.

You say no other artist has done it this way? I hope you mean for free because otherwise, an iTunes exclusive surprise release has been done before.

Sorry but yes, NO other artist has done it this way. First of all it's free. Ok other artists have done that. Fair enough. Secondly it dropped out of the blue unexpectedly with no promo. Ok fair enough others did that too. U2 did both and not only that their album was actually delivered to every single itunes account's library. NOBODY has ever done it that way. Every single person who has itunes actually has this album. Radiohead didn't do that and neither did Beyonce(who I assume you're talking about) Radiohead's was free but you still had to search for it. Beyonce's was a surprise but you had to pay for it and search for it. U2's was a surprise, it was free and everyone got it automatically. So when I say NO OTHER BAND HAS EVER DONE IT THIS WAY, I'm stating a fact.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Bono

[wasted]

No, you just don't get what I'm saying. All I'm saying is why do U2 have to sound what is around at the time. Why do they have to taken on current bands stuff, even if those bands are influenced by them. It's not very creative, it's just a safe way to sell records. They must all have real interests and a ton of musical knowledge. Go outside the box, brighten up our lives! You say they can't be musical innovators, they never really were but that's another thing, but really they have the base and support to take chances, it's not even that hard to find something, just be yourself. What they actually do is so conservative. And we end up talking about the iTunes deal. It's interesting, but not that interesting, I'd rather they did a more interesting music.

An example could be, Blur. After the Brit Pop trilogy, they jumped on the American alternative band wagon and the song called Song 2 did well for them in the US. Okay, they are a pretty fake band to begin with. They did that a couple more times and stayed in the game. kind did a Beck album. Then on Think Tank, Albarn brought in his interest in African music. And that was kind of the most interesting thing they ever did. And it bombed. I totally get that the audience wants what it wants and bands play the game. But why do you like it? Why do you want U2 by numbers with a new lick of paint? I kind of know from the Manics, it just delivers something comforting, it's not quite as good but it doesn't upset me either. So I settle. But shouldn't the artists want to do something fresh? At least not this callous bandwagon jumping where they just use the bands popular at the time to hold their record up. It's just too safe.

The other stuff about Axl is just that he gets criticism for doing it his way, not a record every 4 years, the hostility is ridiculous. But yeah I do think it's better what he does. Imagine if he came out with a song that sounded like the Kings of Leon today just to sell records? He doesn't seem to want to do the same record over and over again, he seems more genuine with what he takes on. And I'm sorry U2 do that for the most part, they are keeping abreast of current trends. And I quite like a lot of the tunes. I'm just disappointed, or don't get why they need to use the current scene to play it safe. Manics did it too on Lifeblood. The singles are kind of cringe. The music is fine, it's just not cool.

And the iTunes deal is hypocritical. Based on their world view. But who gives a fuck, I have an iPhone, iPod, iwatch, kindle. It's just one minute he's chatting about all this stuff. Then he's turning a blind eye. He uses the political stuff to give U2 a higher profile. He does it in U2 interviews, so it's for U2. But you know, no one's perfect. It's cool what they did with distribution, but most bands have been giving their stuff away for free anyway. But I think it has been successful 500 million people got the album. Not sure what this means for music industry? iTunes will get to select what they want us to hear?

Edited September 11, 2014 by wasted

[Bono]

Ugh. We don't agree clearly on almost all of this. I find the new album fresh and I like that ,to me it doesn't sound like U2 by the numbers. That's what initially annoyed me with No Line on the Horizon is that it sounded like U2 by the numbers. I like Kings of Leon and the Killers and though I can see some sort of resemblance to the Killers I don't see the Kings of Leon thing at all. If Axl did a Kings of Leon album like Mechanical Bull with his vocals I'd probably like it a lot. I honestly feel the reason U2 might sound like these bands to some is because these bands sound like U2. U2 doesn't sound like Coldplay. Coldplay sounds like they want to be U2 but don't quite get there. the Killers are obviously heavily influenced by U2 so their albums sound like U2ish albums and in turn U2 is going to sound similar to them I suppose. But when I'm listening to songs like Song for Someone, Every Breaking Wave, Sleep Like a Baby Tonight, The Troubles, Volcano, Iris, all I hear is genuine U2. I hear band that's still at the top of their game and I hear a band that is going to influence the next Killers album and the next 30 seconds to Mars album and maybe the next new band we haven't heard yet. I like those bands so to me it's not a bad thing. U2 is at a point where they won't release something unless they believe in it. You don't sing like Bono if you don't believe what you're singing.

And I asked You already but who's bandwagon were U2 jumping on with Achtung Baby, Zooropa and Pop? Sure the electro dance scene in europe of the 90s but do we complain about that when they gave us Achtung Baby? They took what was around them at the time and did what they wanted to. They made music influenced by bands they were listening to at the time. So basically influenced by music they enjoyed. You don't see U2 trying to copy Kanye West or Drake. There's easier ways to sell albums if they really wanted to. The Killers aren't a barn burner when it comes to album sales. U2 could do a Nickleback album if they wanted to sell albums. Who were they copying with ATYCLB, HTDAAB and NLOTH? Those albums don't sound like anything other than U2 trying a little too hard to sound like U2. The new album to me sounds like U2 borrowing from U2 but ina really good way.

As for the humanitarian work people just need to accept the motives are genuine because Bono has been doing that stuff for Africa since 1985 and if he wasn't genuine about it he'd have moved on a LONG time ago. Nobody on this planet dedicates that much time and effort to something they don't genuinely care about. He is the frontman of U2 so no matter what he does outside of U2 it's going to be mentioned. No different than if say Axl was working his ass off for a cause. GnR will always be mentioend along side it. Again Bono doesn't use humanitarian work to give U2 a higher profile. He uses U2 to give the humanitarian cause a higher profile.

As for Axl's way being better I'm just gonna call your bullshit. I'm 100% positive everyone on this board would much rather have 5 GnR albums since 1997 than 1. U2 fans aren't complaining at all despite how many non U2 fans say their albums suck haha. If Axl had released 5 good albums since 1997(which is what U2 has done) there isn't one single person on this board that would say "Oh gee I wish Axl had only done one album instead and really made it great" C'mon man.

[wasted]

I think it's more the production but there are Killers type parts. Just about every other pop song in the charts has that kind of chanting going on. This kind of 80s synth pop rock production has been done by many bands. Strokes, Manics, Keane, Killers, Lana Del Rey there's a market for the softer synth pop albums. Even if its Bruno Mars its all kind of synthetic. Maybe it's how music works. I just think its very pop oriented. I like Atom Bomb and they said they had been influenced by the garage revival to strip it down. And they did it on Achtung. They don't hide it, they talk about it in interviews. I just wonder why they jump on the bandwagon of the current trend. I guess it's to stay current. Some times it seems callous because its still the same U2 type songs but in a different dress. It seems like whatever comes along they will be like that's how we started. I just think its cosmetic changes, it sounds very sterile. All that You Can't Leave Behind was the last time I was convinced, great songs, real emotional impact. It was just U2 i didnt have another band in my head like i do with Innocence. I liked some of the songs on Atom but there seemed no point to it. Same with No Line. Going through the motions.

Axl takes his time and makes strong statements with the records. He hasn't made a pop album to stay relevant. It's still the big rock band thing.

I don't resent them staying current, I just wonder why they don't cut their own course. Like Springsteen doesn't jump on whatever trend is coming along. They work it out and it has some balls. I don't the same pandering vibe as I do from U2.

[The Real McCoy]

Listened to the first few songs last night. It's alright. Probably wouldn't run out to buy it, but as a freebie? No complaints at all.

[Black Sabbath]

Updated the OP. This album really is great. The last 4 tracks are fantastic.

[MEXzilla]

Every Breaking Wave, Song for Someone, Raised By Wolves, Cedarwood Road, Sleep Like A Baby Tonight, This is Where you Can Reach Me are the songs that I have in repeat. It's more than enough to call the album great imo. Seriously I have no idea why reviewers and people are hating on the album so much.

[maynard]

So, do you guys believe 'Songs of Experience' will be.. um, released at all? The U2 guys have promised a "sister album" before with 'Songs of Ascent' and it never came out. This time it looks slightly different, with SOI being a free, digital album, and stuff. It seems more likely this time around... Here's hoping this time they'll do it!

[Black Sabbath]

I think it will. I think Songs of Ascent was the original idea, but then after working on the album and making so many songs, they got the idea of Innocence/Experience. Looking at Ascent as the third and end of a hopeful trilogy is a bit of a pipe dream I think, but Experience will happen. Maybe even this year.

Also: Songs of Innocence and Experience

So yeah, it'll get released, and I'd be surprised if it's later than a year from now.

[Bono]

Dave Fanning doesn't really know but he's as close to a "reliable" source as there is I guess. He speculates U2 will release 2 more albums within the next 18 months.

http://www.goss.ie/2014/09/u2-are-planning-to-release-two-more-albums-before-2016-after-shock-free-record/?utm_content=buffer42c66&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Wouldn't it be something if on October 14th U2 released a double albums with Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience. I don't think they need to though. I'd say they should release Songs of Innocence in it's physical form and then drop the next album a month or so before their tour starts and then if they do have a third album drop that album right as the 2nd leg of the tour starts, whether that be the North American leg or European leg.

[arnold layne]

Their newest song on the iTunes commercial isn't very good. At all.

I am also disappointed that Invisible won't have a formal physical release. It was one if their best since the nineties.

[Cosmo]

This is the best U2 album in a long time. Man.... this is so great. I'm listening to it over and over and over. It's light, it's fresh, it's solid. You don't skip a single song. Worst song is what? Volcano? And it's not that bad. Excellent, U2. Excellent. Loving this. And BTW, this is the best marketing move I've seen in a long time. Awesome. People are loving this.

[WhazUp]

This is the best U2 album in a long time. Man.... this is so great. I'm listening to it over and over and over. It's light, it's fresh, it's solid. You don't skip a single song. Worst song is what? Volcano? And it's not that bad. Excellent, U2. Excellent. Loving this. And BTW, this is the best marketing move I've seen in a long time. Awesome. People are loving this.

I totally agree! Well except I think Volcano is one of the best off the album lol but I am very happy with the way this album sounds.

I am glad that I could say that a new U2 album is actually damn great, it has been a little while

Edited September 12, 2014 by WhazUp

[Black Sabbath]

The Miracle is the "worst" song on the album I think, but it's a grower.

Raised By Wolves could have been a little "heavier", mainly in the chorus, because it makes you think it's going to be, but I still like it a lot.

I don't think the honeymoon phase will run out with this one, but we'll see in a week or two. I still want to listen to every song just as much as the next for the most part.

[Bono]

Their newest song on the iTunes commercial isn't very good. At all.

I am also disappointed that Invisible won't have a formal physical release. It was one if their best since the nineties.

I don't mind The Miracle but yeah it's not one of my favourites from the album. I actually burnt the album to a disc already but I included Invisible to the track listing after Every Breaking Wave. It fits perfectly there. I agree I like Invisible. I wonder if they will include it in the live show still? I liked their live performance of it n Jimmy Fallon.

My least favourite song on the album is Cedarwood Road. Awesome guitar riffs but when those stop it's kind of a let down. The song doesn't go where it should in my opinion. It should rock more but falls short.

I think the first single should've been either California as it's upbeat, high tempo and and just a feel good song and it sounds very much like U2 or I think Volcano would have worked too because it's different and not your typical U2.

I also think Every Breaking Wave and This Is Where You Can Reach Me Now would work as singles and I think if they release Song for Someone it will be looked at in the same vain as Sometimes You Can't Make it On Your Own. An understated classic(not like One or WOWOY)

Edited September 12, 2014 by Bono

[wasted]

The first three are okay, California is pretty good. Then it drops way off. There's nothing as good Beautiful Day here. If you like this kind of stuff Ariana Grande is doing it with a lot more balls. Why Try Just A Little Bit of Your Heart and My Everything blows away anything on Songs of Innocence.

[MEXzilla]

Bono sounds amazing in this album, it's weird it's as if he's 40 rather than 50. Seriously I've said this before and I'll say it again, this album sounds similar to stuff that's on the radio(it's unique enough to distinguish, hence why the band gets my praise) but it's Bono's voice that sets it apart.

Seriously Chris Martin? That guy from the Killers? Non of them sound as good as Bono here and I'm not even gonna go into other pop acts that have no relation to the sound created by U2 here. Bono totally brought his A game here.

Edited September 12, 2014 by MEXzilla

[Bono]

The first three are okay, California is pretty good. Then it drops way off. There's nothing as good Beautiful Day here. If you like this kind of stuff Ariana Grande is doing it with a lot more balls. Why Try Just A Little Bit of Your Heart and My Everything blows away anything on Songs of Innocence.

WTF? Ariani Grande dude sounds like every other little pop tart out there. You lose all credibility when you sit there and knock this album and try to say Ariani Grande is doing it better. It's not the same at all and it's asinine to even suggest such a thing. And of course there isn't anything as good as Beautiful Day on here. That's one of their best songs ever. It's like saying there isn't anything on CD as good as SCOM. Of course not. Like really where's you make no sense saying Ariani Grande is doing the same thing as U2 but only with more balls. You sit there and say it's too much like the Killers and those kinds of bands and now today say it's the exact thing Ariani Grande is doing but she does it better. Ariani Grande and the Killers are NOTHING alike. You're making zero sense. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Edited September 12, 2014 by Bono

[Bono]

Some footage from in the studio and members of the band talking about the album

https://amp.twimg.com/v/72c2a486-c8c3-4dfd-9cd7-57b64c3d7f37

[AxlsMainMan]

How do I go about accessing this album on itunes?

[Bono]

How do I go about accessing this album on itunes?

I don't have itunes myself but I believe if you just go into the purchased section in your account it should be there and I think you just need to click on it to play/download it.

[***Flawless]

Sorry but yes, NO other artist has done it this way. First of all it's free. Ok other artists have done that. Fair enough. Secondly it dropped out of the blue unexpectedly with no promo. Ok fair enough others did that too. U2 did both and not only that their album was actually delivered to every single itunes account's library. NOBODY has ever done it that way. Every single person who has itunes actually has this album. Radiohead didn't do that and neither did Beyonce(who I assume you're talking about) Radiohead's was free but you still had to search for it. Beyonce's was a surprise but you had to pay for it and search for it. U2's was a surprise, it was free and everyone got it automatically. So when I say NO OTHER BAND HAS EVER DONE IT THIS WAY, I'm stating a fact.

Dude, it's just a U2 album. I was simply pointing out that this wasn't as revolutionary as you seemed to think it was and you've taken to having a tantrum.

[wasted]

The first three are okay, California is pretty good. Then it drops way off. There's nothing as good Beautiful Day here. If you like this kind of stuff Ariana Grande is doing it with a lot more balls. Why Try Just A Little Bit of Your Heart and My Everything blows away anything on Songs of Innocence.

WTF? Ariani Grande dude sounds like every other little pop tart out there. You lose all credibility when you sit there and knock this album and try to say Ariani Grande is doing it better. It's not the same at all and it's asinine to even suggest such a thing. And of course there isn't anything as good as Beautiful Day on here. That's one of their best songs ever. It's like saying there isn't anything on CD as good as SCOM. Of course not. Like really where's you make no sense saying Ariani Grande is doing the same thing as U2 but only with more balls. You sit there and say it's too much like the Killers and those kinds of bands and now today say it's the exact thing Ariani Grande is doing but she does it better. Ariani Grande and the Killers are NOTHING alike. You're making zero sense. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

You'll get used to it.

What I'm saying is they are mixing pop production of the day with bits The Killers etc. and kind of conjuring up an album. That takes talent as well. Manics did a similar thing with Rewind the Film. An acoustic pop album that is kind of popular now. You can't quite put you're finger on it, it's kind of part nostalgia, part whoring, but it's still good, especially if you are a fan. But I think U2 in this case neglected songwriting, there's 3 songs on it. But like you said they are old, and like the Manics they are out of gas really. They can go more, or more pop, or do this or that but they are just U2.

And they do it to stay relevant. I'm not saying it's evil. Just like sometimes I just wish they'd take a risk. Everything is just so serious now. It's like they have to run it past the label before they do anything. All the execs tapping their foot to the mellow…I'm nodding off just picturing. Let's get a latte. Ice lattes for everyone. If Bono grows a beard for this record I will be back!

Edited September 12, 2014 by wasted