3rd single from NLOTH

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Question: Why does it matter to YOU as a fan as to how U2 albums are selling? Shouldn't it really come down to YOU as a fan liking a song or not? I could care less what is being played on the radio, whatever favorite band it is.

I love the song Magnificent, and if no one else does, I am ok with that. I don't need chart positions to validate my liking the song. Just as I don't particularly care about Apple's stock even though I am a fan of Apple products.

Maybe I am weird. :reject:

:up:
 
Question: Why does it matter to YOU as a fan as to how U2 albums are selling? Shouldn't it really come down to YOU as a fan liking a song or not? I could care less what is being played on the radio, whatever favorite band it is.

I love the song Magnificent, and if no one else does, I am ok with that. I don't need chart positions to validate my liking the song. Just as I don't particularly care about Apple's stock even though I am a fan of Apple products.

Maybe I am weird. :reject:

I agree with all that you've said, it shouldn't really matter to fans, all that matters is what songs the individual likes. I agree with that fully, and I too really like Magnificent.

However, I still think that the recent flopping of u2 singles in the uk is still very strange - whether the flopping particulaly bothers us as fans or not, I still think this is an issue worth discussing.
 
Question: Why does it matter to YOU as a fan as to how U2 albums are selling? Shouldn't it really come down to YOU as a fan liking a song or not? I could care less what is being played on the radio, whatever favorite band it is.

I love the song Magnificent, and if no one else does, I am ok with that. I don't need chart positions to validate my liking the song. Just as I don't particularly care about Apple's stock even though I am a fan of Apple products.

Maybe I am weird. :reject:

:up: No, you're not weird. Just indifferent.
 
If it affects U2's own opinions of the album that they are obviously very proud of as a result of poor sales then yes, I do care about it doing well. (see Pop as an example)
 
remember magnificent was not relaeased as a physical single only a download and if a physical single was available based on how many BOOTS sold magnificent would of entered the charts in the top 15. so please don't take much notice of the no42 postion
 
who gives a flying fuck?? Do you like the song? thats all that should matter I could care less if it sells 20 million copies or only 1! As long as I like it thats all that matters. And I am quite glad that U2 is not as main stream anymore atleast we will not get all those people complaining about how they sold out.
 
U2 isn't mainstream anymore? lol last time i checked they had the best selling rock album of the year so far.. and play the grammys..and the brits..and are going on a stadium tour...not mainstream? please.. they define mainstream and i love every minute of it :) btw crazy tonight should be a lock, I'm sure they'll get Joseph Kahn or someone similiar to give the video a more hip-vid like elevation and Stuck In A Moment..And I can promise it'll crack the top 10 in the UK and the top 20 here in the states, it's this decade's "the sweetest thing" but it's got a much bigger chorus, be prepared to be bombared with "crazy tonight" by july/august
 
Question: Why does it matter to YOU as a fan as to how U2 albums are selling?

Because once the record company and music industry think U2 is irrelevant, we don't get any more albums & tours.

U2 won't continue recording new material if they're a failure. So it's in my personal interests to see them chart well.
 
I'm not so sure that the choice of singles and their order of release would have made any difference. Perhaps this is U2's transition into the likes of AC/DC and The Rolling Stones in that most people don't care about their new material and instead the big thing is the tour.

Will be interesting to see what U2 make of that. I've always been under the impression they didn't want their career to go this way. But really, you have to wonder, why should a band of their standing care about singles any more.

Singles are a dead format. Perhaps better to focus on -

TV appearances... they get you onto the all important Youtube.

Their web site... making 'exclusive' stuff available to download, even for non members.

Similar to above, instead of releasing a single and expecting the radio to give a stuff, instead make exclusive material available to the radio stations. e.g. live material. Those Letterman performances were pretty good. I want to hear those on the radio.
 
Because once the record company and music industry think U2 is irrelevant, we don't get any more albums & tours.

U2 won't continue recording new material if they're a failure. So it's in my personal interests to see them chart well.

that's not true. it may have been somewhat true in 1997, but this is a different band now. i truly believe that U2 is in that "comfortable, yet hungry" stage in their career. they are in position to end it on their own terms. not one album can take them down.
 
The Edge has said in the past, maybe Bono too, that they wanted to be regarded as "relevant", now I am pretty sure that includes being in the various charts too, a matter of pride ie them not being an AC/DC or Stones, where it's about the past... they might be getting nearer that territory but I think the hardcore still care about the new record enough, no, it's also about the more casual music fans who buy tickets later on.. has it clicked with them? if so, then you get a big seller and more of those Top 40 hits maybe...

Actual physical CD singles are becoming a nuisance for this industry, I mean even for the fans they are a waste of money now, come on, seriously? 2.99 for 2 songs....? give me a break... it's not 1997 anymore when a 2xCD single set gave you 7 songs over the 2 formats for under 8.00 GBP...

The record industry etal want the switch to digital music... oh and all the 'album only' crap they can throw at us in the process alas...!
 
yep. and this is why i'm so sick of some the people here that are panicking because the singles aren't doing well. why fight a battle that U2 doesn't even care about?

Gimme a break. Do you really think U2 would release singles if they didn't care about how they were perceived by the public?
 
Gimme a break. Do you really think U2 would release singles if they didn't care about how they were perceived by the public?

sorry, i'm not giving out breaks today. you seem to be forgetting that the band has contractual obligations. i truly believe that if U2 had it their way, they wouldn't have released any singles from this album. every interview i've seen from them pre and post release suggests this. but there's no way the industry would let that slide.
 
I think you're underestimating their egos.

Given that they have to release singles, of course they'd like to see those go as far up the charts as possible.
 
i heard crazy on the radio a couple times why not it might do well


though strangely enough ive heard moment of surrender a few more times than crazy on the radio... and my friends actually seem to enjoy it (i am a junior in high school so figure it out)

great music transcends all

those are the only two songs i've heard on the radio in my area off NLOTH btw...
 
Question: Why does it matter to YOU as a fan as to how U2 albums are selling? Shouldn't it really come down to YOU as a fan liking a song or not? I could care less what is being played on the radio, whatever favorite band it is.

I care. It pains me to see, from an Aussie point of view, Kings Of Leon recieving all this media hype, and to see their album go PlatniumX8 and still be in the top ten, while No Line has already exited the top 50 after achieving PlatniumX1, which is extraordinarily weak in comparison with previous U2 albums (aside from PoP).

I wanna know Y? Magnificent is a gloriously accessible tune, more so than SYCMIOYO and COBL. Yet it's failing miserably in terms of single sales (Yes, singles don't matter as much these days, but why has it not cracked the top 50 while there are 3 Kings Of Leon songs in there), and has done nothing to lift sales of NLOTH.

I just find the comparative failure of NLOTH staggering and unfathomable, and that is why I care.

Why are musical tastes and the general Australian mainstream of 2009 dictating against U2? Why? It's why I care about chart performance and sales, because I want to understand.
 
I care. It pains me to see, from an Aussie point of view, Kings Of Leon recieving all this media hype, and to see their album go PlatniumX8 and still be in the top ten, while No Line has already exited the top 50 after achieving PlatniumX1, which is extraordinarily weak in comparison with previous U2 albums (aside from PoP).

I wanna know Y? Magnificent is a gloriously accessible tune, more so than SYCMIOYO and COBL. Yet it's failing miserably in terms of single sales (Yes, singles don't matter as much these days, but why has it not cracked the top 50 while there are 3 Kings Of Leon songs in there), and has done nothing to lift sales of NLOTH.

I just find the comparative failure of NLOTH staggering and unfathomable, and that is why I care.

Why are musical tastes and the general Australian mainstream of 2009 dictating against U2? Why? It's why I care about chart performance and sales, because I want to understand.

I agree.

I'm astounded at how successful Kings of Leon's "Revelry" and "Manhattan" have been. Both great songs but when I heard the album I never for a moment thought "hit single" when I came to those tracks.

By contrast we have a song like Magnificent which works well as a rock/pop song and has translated very well as a dance track, yet is a dismal failure.

I just don't get it.

It's the success of the 4 singles from Kings on Leon's album that have kept it in the charts and allowed it to go 6 x platinum. If U2 had managed 3 hit singles, I'm sure No Line... would've stayed in the charts.

And despite what mikal or others want to argue, the success of singles is vital to an album's sales and therefore the band's longevity (and my ongoing listening pleasure).
 
remember magnificent was not relaeased as a physical single only a download and if a physical single was available based on how many BOOTS sold magnificent would of entered the charts in the top 15. so please don't take much notice of the no42 postion

Not a chance, boots was in the top 25 in itunes for the entire week, Magnificent didn't even enter the top 100 at all. A physical cd wouldn't have saved the song's chart position at all
 
And despite what mikal or others want to argue, the success of singles is vital to an album's sales and therefore the band's longevity (and my ongoing listening pleasure).

but why is NLOTH the highest selling of the year? so the failure of the singles and your theory don't match.
 
As far as singles go, I think that a song has to compete, not only against the other available singles, but against the artist's back catalogue. Newer artists are going to sell more singles while established artists like U2 are going to sell more albums. If a purchaser on iTunes is only going to own a few U2 songs, it likely is not going to be anything on NLOTH. Even based on this site's polls, no song on NLOTH can crack the U2 top 15 notwithstanding that there are some very good songs on it.
 
As far as singles go, I think that a song has to compete, not only against the other available singles, but against the artist's back catalogue. Newer artists are going to sell more singles while established artists like U2 are going to sell more albums. If a purchaser on iTunes is only going to own a few U2 songs, it likely is not going to be anything on NLOTH. Even based on this site's polls, no song on NLOTH can crack the U2 top 15 notwithstanding that there are some very good songs on it.

When we did a top 50 competition not long ago Magnificent made the top 10 overall really easily, and that competition had little if any strategic voting
 
I think you're underestimating their egos.

Given that they have to release singles, of course they'd like to see those go as far up the charts as possible.

Absolutely. U2 care very much what people think about them. They want to be hugely popular, that's part of the deal with U2. That ego is part of what has made them so wildly successful.

I don't know how so many people on this board could actually convince themselves otherwise, as if wanting to be popular is some sort of bad thing.
 
I was referring to the elimination voting but I see your point. My general point is that with such an amazing back catalogue, the people who buy U2 singles (ie. non-U2 fans) will be may to choose a so-called U2 classics like One, Streets, ISHFWILY, Pride, NYD, SBS etc than to buy a new single. I think that for U2 the only chance for a hit single going forward will be the first single on anm album (since U2 fans will buy it also in advance of the album release and more buzz from pent up demand will be present). Unfortunately Boots was the wrong choice in my opinion. I think that Magnificent's popularity generally will grow over time because it is such a strong song but it needed to be the first single in order to have a significant placement on the charts. I think that
U2 should still release a two or three more singles from the CD. We shouldn't expect a significant chart placement for the single but album sales would be helped. But then of course I could be completely wrong and Crazy Tonight could be the next Umbrella.
 
Back
Top Bottom