Understanding 'wrong 1st single' for NLOTH

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I do not think MoS would've done much better chart-wise or in amount of play time on the radio, but it would get attention from the media for being a pretty ballsy thing for one of the greatest acts in the world to do - releasing a slow, 7 minute song as first single.

It would also have gotten good reviews from the critics (which Boots did not). Lots of people seemed to have dismissed the album completely just because of Boots' negative reception. With MoS as the first single, a song that is generally approved of by the ones that have heard it, it could've set off the album on a more positive note than Boots did.

I'm not blaming them for what they did, but it could've probably gone a lot better had they done it a bit differently.
 
I don't know if MOS would've necessarily been that critically acclaimed though. I mean, it took awhile for the song to grow on me personally (though I did like it's ambitiousness already on the first listen). But I could see the length or easy listening feel being ripped into by critics just as easily, which to be fair, they might've done anyway whatever the song.
 
MOS might have won the band some critical respect but I don't think it would have had much impact on the charts.

I've no problem with the length of the track but in order for these kinds of offerings to really grab the casual fan I think they need to be far more immediate and really keep the thread taut throughout their duration.

It's a cliche I know, but look at something like Bohemian Rhapsody, that spine-tingling piano melody combined with those profoundly stirring lyrics hook the listen immediately. The operatic mid-section is completely idiosyncratic but sustains the listeners absorption beautifully. The track doesn't allow the audience to become restless, it keeps them guessing at each and every turn.

Hey Jude is another good example of a tune that rewards its listeners patience with a good old singalong as a pay-off, a raucuos and rowdy release of energy and emotion that lifts the spirits (the one thing MOS really does lack; a cathartic finale).

You could even throw MeatLoaf's I'd Do Anything For Love into the equation. Incredibly overwrought and melodramatic, but packed to the gills with so much unapologetic bombast that listeners stayed the distance.

MOS, dare I say it, can seem a little meandering and directionless and the chorus can come off as a bit whiny. I can see its kind of 'one-note' quality turning people off. There has to be some kind of euphoria for people to get behind.


In general U2 have had the most success with singles that have one simple, clear idea at their core. Sunday Bloody Sunday, One, Desire, Beautiful Day, WOWY etc, a tune entitled Get On Your Boots leaves the casual fan floundering. On this basis perhaps Magnificent should have been the first release, then again I can imagine listeners thinking back to City Of Blinding Lights and thinking 'same old, same old.'

LIke so many people have already said, there just wasn't a single on NLOTH.
 
Breathe, No Line on the Horizon, and Magnificent all could have worked better as first singles imho

Get on your Boots should have been that fun live song that never sees the light of day as a single.
 
DevilsShoes brings up some valid points. Come to think of it, has there ever been a 5+ minute song that got a lot of attention on the radio in the past, say, 10 years or so?
 
trevgreg said:
I don't know if MOS would've necessarily been that critically acclaimed though. I mean, it took awhile for the song to grow on me personally (though I did like it's ambitiousness already on the first listen). But I could see the length or easy listening feel being ripped into by critics just as easily, which to be fair, they might've done anyway whatever the song.

Rolling Stone put it high on their list of the best songs of the DECADE, and I've never once heard it described as "easy listening." It's pretty uniformly considered the best song on the album, and why wouldn't you want your best song on the radio?

If you release MOS first (it has to be first to achieve the same effect), you make it clear that you have no interest in pandering, and that you're going to do your thing, because what you have to offer is good. The single choices were conservative and weak, and the public responded in kind. Magnificent is awesome, but after GOYB, everyone could smell the desperation.
 
Rolling Stone put it high on their list of the best songs of the DECADE, and I've never once heard it described as "easy listening." It's pretty uniformly considered the best song on the album, and why wouldn't you want your best song on the radio?

Compared to, say, Vertigo or something else with a high BPM or a loud guitar, it would come off as a bit of an "easier" listen. I'm certainly not typecasting it as one genre or another, but I was doing it for the sake of describing it as compared to other U2 singles and otherwise.

In terms of being the "best" song, that's all subjective. But I certainly don't think it's a bad song at all. I've said as much before. In terms of it being a radio single, who knows? But singles don't always come out of being the "best" songs off an album either, you know? I'm not quite sure the public would've clung onto this one like a lot of people here did, for reasons put here earlier.
 
I make the argument for MOS because I don't think there is a sure-fire hit anywhere on NLOTH. In that situation, why not challenge convention?

To paraphrase Bono, there have been a lot of U2 songs on the radio over the years. Why does the public need another one? MOS does the best job of answering that.
 
Perhaps someone who knows more about radio can answer this, but would radio stations, AOR or otherwise, even have played a 7 minute song, especially a slow burner...even if it was by U2?

I don't know enough about the radio biz to answer that question, but this might have been a factor in rejecting Mr. Eno's suggestion.
 
Depends on the station. Stairway To Heaven is one of the most overplayed songs of all time and it's even longer.
 
The stations ("classic rock") I can think of that would play Stairway aren't playing anything remotely new, no matter how much they play "classic" U2.
 
what if U2 released MOS as the first single and it got completely ignored/fell off the charts/ripped by some critics? I think Pitchfork when reviewing NLOTH tore into MOS.

think about how much that would have sucked, especially considering the band seems to take to heart what the public says about them. It'd basically have ruined any chance of getting more MOS-like material in the future.
 
what if U2 released MOS as the first single and it got completely ignored/fell off the charts/ripped by some critics? I think Pitchfork when reviewing NLOTH tore into MOS.

think about how much that would have sucked, especially considering the band seems to take to heart what the public says about them. It'd basically have ruined any chance of getting more MOS-like material in the future.

Yes...it's a risk. That's what ground-breaking artists do. Take risks. No one ever achieved anything truly great playing it safe. That's why such a move would have required courage.

But then again, maybe not so much. U2 is in a position to do whatever they wish artistically. And if an album, or song under performs, the only real blow is to their egos and pop culture cache'. Their wallets will be just fine either way.

As the biggest band in the world, fabulously wealthy, and as musicians whose legacy is assured no matter what they do from this point out, U2 is in the unique position of simeltaneously having everything and nothing to lose.
 
U2 should have released 3 singles, in the following order:

Breathe (b-side: NLOTH/Cedars of Lebanon (maybe))
Moment of Surrender (b-side: Unknown Caller/Pez Being Boring)
Magnificent (or remix) (b-side: I'll Go Crazy/White As Snow/other Magnificent remix)

/thread

I wouldn't have released Magnificent as a single at all.
 
Then we'd be talking about how the band should've released GOYB instead because it sounded the most like Vertigo! :lol:

exactly. we need to just accept that there wasn't a huge single on the album and move on accordingly.

I like Boots, and I think it's an awesome live song. Probably not the smartest choice for the first single. Releasing it as the first single could easily be seen as risky too. No real hook, and i guess you could say two choruses if you were lazy-ish.

There are two songs that would have maybe worked well as a first single, Breathe and I'll go crazy. Breathe has the uplifting U2 chorus, but it's a bit different for U2 but still not too far out there, and it's already at an appropriate length for the radio.

Crazy tonight tanked as the third single, I know, but it's still publicly readily accessible (much moreso than Boots or MOS or Magnificent), and had they released a mix similar to the one of the Blackberry ad as a first single, I think it would have been moderately successful.

Of course, it's all playing armchair quarterback. We'll never know what could have been, if anything. I love NLOTH to death, but there's no Vertigo, Beautiful Day or City of Blinding Lights on it. That's not to say those three songs are better than every song on NLOTH, but those are three excellent, excellent singles (and they are excellent songs to me as well).
 
exactly. we need to just accept that there wasn't a huge single on the album and move on accordingly.

I like Boots, and I think it's an awesome live song. Probably not the smartest choice for the first single. Releasing it as the first single could easily be seen as risky too. No real hook, and i guess you could say two choruses if you were lazy-ish.

There are two songs that would have maybe worked well as a first single, Breathe and I'll go crazy. Breathe has the uplifting U2 chorus, but it's a bit different for U2 but still not too far out there, and it's already at an appropriate length for the radio.

Crazy tonight tanked as the third single, I know, but it's still publicly readily accessible (much moreso than Boots or MOS or Magnificent), and had they released a mix similar to the one of the Blackberry ad as a first single, I think it would have been moderately successful.

Of course, it's all playing armchair quarterback. We'll never know what could have been, if anything. I love NLOTH to death, but there's no Vertigo, Beautiful Day or City of Blinding Lights on it. That's not to say those three songs are better than every song on NLOTH, but those are three excellent, excellent singles (and they are excellent songs to me as well).

:up:
 
as musicians whose legacy is assured no matter what they do from this point out

According to some people they've been dismantling their legacy since October 31st, 2000 though.

MOS would have tanked even harder, but at least it's a brave fail.

There were only two realistic choices : hope for a decent hit and charge out of the gates with Magnificent (the only 00's U2 song I can think of with as much unifying praise on the forums was Beautiful day). If they wanted something a little closer to today's rock, title track would have been a good choice. Other singles...not any standouts except for Breathe.
But instead they went with arguably the weakest song on the record, and a attempt to repeat Vertigo. You'd think a band with a history of excellent lead singles would know better.
 
I think the moment Bono managed to start a song with the lyrics "the future needs a big kiss" it was always going to be the lead single unless there would have been an obvious other candidate
 
I think Fire may have been a worse lead single than Boots, but their stakes were a lot lower in 1981.
 
what was behind the guyliner bono wore in the very first promos for the song?

I remember him taking his glasses off at the granmys and brits to reveal the guy liner.what was all that for?im sure i read in q he was testing out ideas for a new alter ego for the tour.

Seemed abit daft to me.

While im on it aswell those early performances of boots were terrible .the grammys were woefull, worst u2 performance ive ever seen.
 
Yes, I can't deny that I was hugely relieved when he ditched the guyliner persona, wherever that had been heading.
 
While I didn't have a problem with him in eyeliner, I couldn't see the general public warming up to an alter ego which was supposed to be Elvis' deceased twin brother. I know he never stepped out on stage and said hey that's who I am, but he said that was his idea in an interview. I don't knock him for having the guts to wear it (and I say it that way only because he never did it before: The AB drag shots don't count) and try it anyway though. I'm sure he had some fun with it. :up:
 
While I didn't have a problem with him in eyeliner, I couldn't see the general public warming up to an alter ego which was supposed to be Elvis' deceased twin brother. I know he never stepped out on stage and said hey that's who I am, but he said that was his idea in an interview. I don't knock him for having the guts to wear it (and I say it that way only because he never did it before: The AB drag shots don't count) and try it anyway though. I'm sure he had some fun with it. :up:

I had a Rolling Stone magazine on my coffee table when my family came to visit back in 2009, and it happened to be the one with Bono in the eye liner. My mother picked it up and asked "Why is Bono trying to wear eye liner these days?" I had to explain that I was just as clueless as her! :|
 
For the first time I'm now hearing Stand Up Comedy on the radio. And fuck me. It sounds good.

Don't care what the haters think. This song would have been a good single. Such a shame they never played it live.
 
Back
Top Bottom