U2's second chance

[U2387]

Magnificent is what COBL tried to be : getting that vintage U2 feel, only doing it right.
And Beautiful day may be the most overrated U2 hit.

I agree.

It is not that I don't like Beautiful Day, quite the opposite. I just have never, ever gotten all of the worshiping of it here and in the general public. In studio, I think the production is bad, you can hardly hear Larry and Adam in parts. Save for some spectacular live performances(most notably, Tokyo 12-4-06) it has never "taken me to that other place." Its a good song to blast as you drive down the road on the first warm day of Spring, but then again, IGC, Streets, ASOH, Trip Through Your Wires, Magnificent and Crazy Tonight work even better here.

If U2 could play BD about 1/2 as much as they do now without everyone under 25 in attendance thinking it was a capital offense, then I would be all for it.

COBL I love, but it is exactly as you say. It is almost to that vintage U2 level, but not quite. I do like what Niceman said about them looking back at themselves when they were young, etc, it has an awesome, uplifting nostalgic feel about it, but musically, it still falls a little short.

Magnificent is a whole different story. It has all 4 of them at their best, is a true surging U2 anthem and gives me the same kind of feeling as 80s greats like New Year's Day, Gloria, A Sort of Homecoming, Pride and Streets. Adam and Larry turn in some of their best work of the decade here. Add in the slide solo from Edge and you get the 90s represented too. Magnificent is one of the few songs that represents almost everything that is great about U2.

Turn Magnificent up loud and you'll get the pulsating drums and bass rattling the walls that you get in NYD or Pride or the studio version of ASOH.

As for the premise of the thread, alot of what has been said is extremely valid and for different reasons.

Earnie Shavers: I still like your suggestion from a while ago about letting MOS leak out unofficially as the first thing music fans hear on the internet. It is probably too complex and would suffer from radio shortening, but as an unofficial leak, it would have worked extremely well and got people talking.

Galeongirl: I agree, the lack of promotion for Boots was glaring, and maybe, just maybe, it could have worked better if they had promoted it.

Original Poster: It is hard to tell if something that was exactly what we would expect from U2 would have done the trick as the first single. Given that the Killers and Coldplay were getting alot of airplay at the time, something tells me that U2 would have had to have ventured out there a little for their first single to differentiate themselves. Magnificent made almost no waves as the 2nd single, I am not saying there is no way it could've been a good 1st if properly promoted, but its failure to catch on has to say something.

My ideas:

-I dont think Boots can be seen as the "Fly-type" single. Musically, it might catch people the same way, but in the end, what makes it a bunch of tiers below the fly as a single and as a song is the lyrics. If you don't intimately get Bono and his irony, you are going to think the lyrics are cheesy, throw away crap. I would not go that far, but suffice it to say, U2 has written better lyrics before. Hell, they even dropped the "sexy boots" in live performances. Even though the lyrics are not as bad as people may think, there is nothing brilliant in there like there is with the Fly.

-I think Earnie Shavers' unofficial MOS leak, combined with either NLOTH or NLOTH2 as a properly promoted first single would have done the trick. Both versions are high energy, catchy right off the bat and fit on radio. They are different enough for U2 and for radio in general to catch people's attention, but they are not as cheesy/out there structurally as Boots. "I know a girl who's like the sea, I watch her changing every day for me..." and "songs in your head are now on my mind, you put me on pause, I'm trying to rewiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnd and replay" are much better/more respectable than "Sexy boots" and "candy floss, ice cream" any day. Plus, as PowerHour24 mentioned, it never hurts to have the title track as the first single promoting the album. Hell, the chorus repeats the album name over and over again. So you know which album you are looking for when you go to I-tunes or the record store.

-I also think those who argue Breathe may have done it have a point.

 

[Niceman]

Magnificent is what COBL tried to be : getting that vintage U2 feel, only doing it right.
And Beautiful day may be the most overrated U2 hit.

I kinda feel the other way around about Magnificent and COBL. Or maybe I just continue to be turned off of the song by the massive over-hyping it gets on this board?

I agree, Beautiful Day is U2's most over-rated hit, but Magnificent may be the most over-rated ignored single! (Which SHOULD be a contradiction, but somehow isn't!)

 

[mikal]

i used to think COBL was overrated, but it has actually aged very well for me, and has become one of my top U2 songs of all time.

i have no problem with Beautiful Day either. it was the right song at the right time. i don't know that the song is overrated, just fortunate, imo.

 

[digitize]

I love all of BD, COBL, and Magnificent.

 

[mikal]

I love all of BD, COBL, and Magnificent.

i'm sorry, enjoying U2's big anthem tunes is not allowed here. consider this a warning.

 

[Niceman]

Don't get me wrong - Magnificent is a good song. But Track 2 on NLOTH is not as strong as tracks 1 or 3.

 

[mikal]

Don't get me wrong - Magnificent is a good song. But Track 2 on NLOTH is not as strong as tracks 1 or 3.

i think you can say that about track 2 on The Joshua Tree too.

 

[doctorwho]

This is a thread I could have written back in my youth.

When "Pop" failed to perform as well as expected (and again, the album, singles and tour did very well, but not per the U2 standards they had set since 1987), I felt that ATYCLB was really a "make it or break it" album for U2. If that album failed to catch on, U2 would then possibly become like many other 80's artists.

Of course, we all know what occurred. U2 had two big albums after that "mini-slump" (relatively speaking). They won tons of awards. They have nothing left to prove.

Now what?

NLOTH was successful - given the current world. It was still a top selling album in the U.S. and worldwide. Trouble is, these days, a Platinum album in the U.S. is "huge". This contrasts the sales seen from about the mid-80's to 2003 or so. And clearly the effects of downloading - whether illegal or legal - has an effect. Illegal downloads are obvious and legal downloads allow for "cherry picking" songs. This is why there have been some monster hit songs last year, but the albums for those songs failed to go Platinum. People are just buying the song, not the album. Still, NLOTH could have done better. What went wrong?

As Bono stated - and I concur - the goal of NLOTH was to make more of a true album. I feel U2 created the best album since AB. However, sometimes making an album results in a lack of hit singles. JT produced big hits for U2, but I'm willing to bet that if U2 released JT today it might not be a hit. This is because JT is an album and the songs aren't really hit material. U2 had hits then because it was the perfect time for U2 to break out. Everything aligned perfectly for U2 - their sound stood out, they were young, they had the look, they had the "80's angst" (i.e., went against materialism), they had passion, and, most importantly, they had great music. But now, the world is different and a JT album, as brilliant as it might be, might not catch on simply because U2 doesn't have all of those other factors. NLOTH is a very strong album - easily in U2's top 3 in terms of creativity (even if you don't like it, hopefully you can see that aspect). But it's a different world and it didn't quite catch on.

Many felt GOYB was one of U2's worst lead singles ever. Many compared it to "Discotheque", which radio felt was U2's worst lead single. So if radio feels a song is crap, they won't play it. "Vertigo" is a similar tune to GOYB, but the mystery of the word, the rock sound, the fun lyrics (that still can have depth), allowed for it to be a hit (that along with the ubiquitous iPod commercial).

Can U2 do that again?

More importantly, do U2 want that huge single?

As I wrote above, with the success of ATYCLB (and then, HTDAAB), U2 have proven that they can succeed on a massive level in three decades. Even NLOTH is a hit, as is the tour. U2 have nothing to prove. But *if* they want that huge single, they have to create something that is mainstream enough (like "Pride", WOWY, "Desire", BD and "Vertigo") that audiences will love and radio will play. U2 can't be too risky, in their music, lyrics or the video, at least not in the first single from a new album, because that could cause fans (and radio) to reject all of it. It's unfair, but that's what U2 faces.

U2 have released a series of faster paced songs as the first single. In fact, WOWY was the last "slow" first single. U2 can do a slower song again, BUT, not so slow that it bores people. While songs like "The Hands that Built America", "White as Snow", "Winter", "Grace", "Please", etc. are loved by many - they are just TOO slow for a lead single. A slower song like "Stay" or "One" though could work.

I thought "Magnificent" was going to be the big hit for U2 off of NLOTH. I felt GOYB was like "The Fly" - a taste of a new direction. GOYB followed by two radio-friendly songs should have created a monster album. U2 followed the same formula as they did with AB, but this time it didn't work. Sadly age plays a role. U2 aren't in their late 20's/early 30's. They aren't the "super huge band" where radio will play anything they release. U2 are nearing fifty (and some members will turn 50 this year). Some - even those in the industry - feel that rock aritsts should retire in their 30's as no one wants to see any one "rock" in their 40's or 50's. Well, tell that to the Stones' fans. And tell that to U2's fans too. Because we are happy to rock!

But radio caters to the young. For U2 to succeed now, they need something that will catch the attention of youth. GOYB was too risky to do that. Furthermore, GOYB was too "odd" to be a hit on the adult stations. And that killed it and NLOTH. "Magnificent" wasn't a big hit. Could it have been had it been release first? It's the same question we could ask about "Staring at the Sun". Had that song been released first, would the world have treated "Pop" differently?

As my "alternate universe" machine is on the fritz, I can't answer this. But the point of this diatribe is to state that I do feel a "fun" song will work, as long as it's not too out there. Yeah, maybe it needs to be a bit "safe" (ala "Desire", BD or "Vertigo"), but this type of song will create interest. A slow song will also work, as long as it's not TOO slow. And if U2 can do this, they may have that big hit single (at least big enough to carry an album).

But that's only if they care. Most artists would kill for a Platinum album in their career. U2 are producing them consistently 30 years after they started. And that is what's really impressive.

It will be interesting to see where U2 go next. I do hope, though, that this time they accept that they have nothing to prove. It's OK to go for the big hit, but be sure it's a song that one can stand behind in 10 years. Not so sure U2 can say that about all of their lead singles.

 

[Saracene]

Sadly age plays a role.

That's pretty much it, and it's hardly been mentioned in this discussion so far. U2 have done extremely well with the success they had in their 40s, but as they push 50s I think the question will not be whether they can grab the youth and galvanise the masses, but whether many people outside of their immediate fanbase will be interested in their new music, period. Regardless of what the music might actually be.

 

[phommel]

Indeed, the age plays a role. If KOL came up with the song NLOTH II, I think it would have been a massive radio hit.

 

[AndrewCowley]

Joe Average doesn't want U2 to 'threathen' him any more with 'weird' music. In the eyes of the ordinary public, and lets face it these are the people U2 want to get onside, they are now pigeon holed. For what U2 wanted to achieve with this album, Breathe would have been a really good first single. Magnificant is too Bon Jovi.

Next time around they should take the attitude 'screw Joe Average' and do something new with conviction rather than always tending back to the middle ground just for Joe.

I like NLOTH a lot. Don't get me wrong.

 

[BVS]

For what U2 wanted to achieve with this album, Breathe would have been a really good first single. Magnificant is too Bon Jovi.

These statements couldn't be anymore wrong...

 

[Niceman]

i think you can say that about track 2 on The Joshua Tree too.

Maybe. But track 2 is one of the most famous and popular songs in U2's catalog. Magnificent isn't.

 

[doctorwho]

These statements couldn't be anymore wrong...

I concur. I don't hear Bon Jovi in "Magnificent". This song is very classic U2, with a modern twist (the "disco beat", for example).

But Bon Jovi provides another example of the "age" factor.

A few years back, Jackson Browne appeared on "The Simpsons" (obviously in cartoon form). Browne's on stage stating how he's going to play something from his new album. Homer and the crowd groan. Browne then states how he's just joking and proceeds to play one of his old hits, much to the delight of the town of Springfield.

All of that was meant as a joke, but it reflects the truth very well. Many who see acts like Bon Jovi don't want to hear any song that doesn't start with "Johhny's been working on the dock..." (or equivalent 80's juggernaut).

U2 have those "fans" too. But the good news is that U2 refuse to just play their big hits. They always play 6-9 new tracks in their shows. This has been their style and they don't back down. The ZOO TV tour opened with about 7 new songs. The current tour starts with about four new songs (although there's some variation there). That's bold! And it did help album sales, which stabilized in the U.S. as it hit all the big cities. This suggests that people were buying the album after seeing the show.

Still, while I'm sure U2's albums will continue to sell reasonably well, can they produce that big hit? And exactly what is "big"? BD only reached #21 on the U.S. Hot 100. Many argued that this was because there was no physical single in the U.S. "Vertigo" reached #31. Many argued that this is because at the time, Billboard did not include legal downloads (like from iTunes) in their calculations. Had they done so, "Vertigo" would have charted higher. I am one of those who believe this is definitely true. Still, songs have charted well on airplay alone. Also, U2 had their chance to have that big hit with GOYB and it just didn't happen. Kelly Clarkson released a single the same week U2 released GOYB and that song had about 5 times the number of legal downloads. Age clearly played a role there.

Sadly, the pattern set with BD and "Vertigo" are indicators of U2's future. BD was a slow-rising hit, growing very slowly over time. U2's constant promotion and the relative "safety" of the song allowed it to grow. Plus, having the song played in NFL games and other places allowed it to be heard. When it finally crossed over to adult radio, that's when it peaked. "Vertigo" had the commercial which made the song nearly ubiquitous. U2 tried the commercial angle again with "Crazy", but this time it didn't work. Perhaps using that process for a third single is too late.

If U2 want that big hit, they need the song to be relatively "safe" yet catchy. It has to be the first single off of their new "highly anticipated" album. They may need lots of promotion (NFL? NBA?) and maybe even a commercial tie-in. And they need to promote it heavily.

But even if they do all of this, the song may just crack the Top 40 simply because U2 are older. U2 played an etire week on Letterman and even that didn't give the album much of a boost past the first week.

Still, given that Billboard is constantly changing how they create the singles charts (which makes it difficult to compare eras - one can only compare songs released at the same time), U2 still have that chance. Cher had her biggest hit, "Believe", which hit #1 in the U.S. and the U.K., almost 25 years after her last #1. And she was in her 50's when the song - clearly a youthful song - dominated the charts. This proves that age can be overcome, provided its the right song.

If U2 can find that magic to create another WOWY, "I Still Haven't...", "Desire", "Mysterious Ways" or "One" - all top 10 hits - that they can be proud of 20+ years later, then fantastic. But songs like "Discotheque", "Numb" and GOYB are a bit novelty and those have short shelf lives.

Personally, I'd rather see more albums like NLOTH. I don't mind a few "pop" tunes - they help keep the flow upbeat and light (if an album is too serious, it becomes too challenging) - as long as U2 keep writing songs like MOS, "Breathe", NLOTH, WAS and even "Magnificent". Casual fans may not know too much about the new songs, but U2 will be sure to indoctrine them in concert.

 

[mikal]

Maybe. But track 2 is one of the most famous and popular songs in U2's catalog. Magnificent isn't.

i went to a wedding in August, and the bride and groom did a slide show of their photos growing up. the groom used "Magnificent", not "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For".

 

[nielsgov]

i went to a wedding in August, and the bride and groom did a slide show of their photos growing up. the groom used "Magnificent", not "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For".

That would be hilarious at a wedding.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

This is a thread I could have written back in my youth.

i didn't even think u2 were around back in yer youth, old dog you

 

[U2DMfan]

Magnificent is what COBL tried to be : getting that vintage U2 feel, only doing it right.
And Beautiful day may be the most overrated U2 hit.

Agree

 

[Screwtape2]

So if U2 wants another chance to come out with a massive first single AND a hit, they should focus on a Beautiful Day/Magnificent/Mercy-type of song!

I disagree. This thread has shown the numerous variables working against a hit single off NLOTH. Some of those things are on the band while others are out of their control. The problem is that there is no formula for hit. A hit is often a result of a lot of factors coming together.

I agree with the last few posts about the band's age. Ageism is one of the more socially acceptable forms of prejudice out there. Let's be honest, when Bono sings "sexy boots" or "if I don't go crazy, I'll go crazy tonight" a lot of people see a man in a midlife crisis. It's not fair but the music industry and mainstream never have been. It is the same thing as older actors of either gender having a hard time consistently getting top roles. This is a variable that is out of their control.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

the problem was/is, he appeared to the world pre-album wearing guyliner.

Bono Bono Bono, you should have known better than that

 

[Niceman]

i went to a wedding in August, and the bride and groom did a slide show of their photos growing up. the groom used "Magnificent", not "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For".

That's cool, but hardly a statistically meaningful sample, right?

And it would have been pretty rough if they had chosen "I still haven't found what I'm looking for" at a wedding! :O

 

[allbecauseofu2]

AB for u2 was a great change. However, i feel the fly was more commerical then GOYB. Considering in 1991 was the rise of alt-music and other 'weird' music, the fly fits right in. it played off the world of music back then very well. The studio version of GOYB, is just , not ,not, um whats the word? good. its not good. Its not commerical or non commerical for me, its just not good.lol. Besides that, it dosn't play off the current music world at all. In 1991, you got nirvana,nin,pearl jam, even sonic youth getting a little bit of 15 mins of fame in. The fly was so perfect. GOYB is not. Yea, i love when u2's stock is down after another "flop". Is this a every end of the decade thing? i mean, NLOTH,POP,RAH ? Yea, hey don;t forget the Original u2 'flop"! the first time of now 3 times thier career is over. Rattle and hum. They got blasted for that. Blasted for a 5 times platium album. So what chance did pop and NLOTH have? no wait, wait. Didn't u2 release a EP in 1979? heard that flopped. lol. man,

 

[doctorwho]

i didn't even think u2 were around back in yer youth, old dog you

I'm actually younger than all of the members of U2 (no, not combined). So this just tells you how old they are. Granpa Tour 2010 coming up! Yeehaw! OW! My hip!

 

[Harry Vest]

It's really quite simple folks...GOYB is simply a bad song. Period. To be perfectly honest it should have never made the album let alone been the first single.

 

[nielsgov]

That's your opinion. I think it's great for example.

But I do agree that it wasn't a good first single.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

u2's problem is their back catalogue. it doesn't matter what they release, it will always be compared to the past hit albums, and too much time has passed for anything new to be compared favorably to the joshua tree or achtung baby. which is why their album can flop (by their standards... it still did very well by most artists' standards, let us not forget) and they can still sell out massive stadiums across the world.

plus.. they're old. nobody wants to be the old guy at the disco. i think u2 needs to take a page from springsteen and understand that they are old... they can still be relevant, but they don't need to try and be cool and hip with the kids and just be themselves.

and then thus by not trying to be hip and cool with the kids, they'll actually become hip and cool with the kids.

if you continue to try and be hip and cool with the kids long past the point where they don't want you to try and be hip and cool with the kids, you become the rolling stones. which is fine, but it is what it is.

 

[MikeyJB]

I don't think U2 will ever be thought of as being anywhere near as cool as the Stones.

 

[Niceman]

It's really quite simple folks...GOYB is simply a bad song. Period. To be perfectly honest it should have never made the album let alone been the first single.

I do not agree at all! However, I do think it was a terrible choice of lead single.

 

[Niceman]

I don't think U2 will ever be thought of as being anywhere near as cool as the Stones.

For me, they're much cooler.

 

[Edge_Orchestra]

"Get on Your Boots" is a better song that most seem to give them credit for.

The issue is, that after the success of ATYCLB and HTDAAB, I think INTERSCOPE got lazy and didn't put their money, resources and promoters behind getting it played on radio.

Interscope looked at U2 in 2009 just as their label did in 1997 - with the success or proceeding albums, they thought NLOTH (like POP) would sell itself and put their money elsewhere.

Not enough to no radio play = "dead single" = "the song isn't good enough" ---- to some folks.

The same can be said for "Magnificent". You can argue that it is a better song than "Get On Your Boots" but "Magnificent" stiffed as a single too. It didn't "stiff" because it's a bad song, it is because INTERSCOPE puts loads of money and resources elsewhere - such as promoting Black Eyed Peas - which is why they were ALL OVER the radio and in the charts for months at a time.

So second chance? There is no second chance to make a first opinion. Those that will judge "Boots" or NLOTH as substandard have already done so; that view isn't likely to change.

The good news for me? Charts don't mean sh*t to me and I judge the music on it's merits. In the end I like it or I don't. Charts don't matter. Awards don't matter. In the case of NLOTH? I think it's better than ATYCLB and HTDAAB. I like it a lot. Some will agree and some won't.

As for the talk about "Mercy", it's still on the drawingboard as a possible for the "Songs of Ascent". It may or may not see the light of day. I personally like the song. Worst case scenario, I have the demo. Best case, they re-arrange/re-record it and release it. Time will tell.