Magnificent single not available on CD?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
So has anyone managed to hear any info as to WHY it was cancelled? Or is it just one of those things that happens for no good reason other than to annoy folk?
 
Let's face it, everything to do with the singles from this album has been poor and questionable.

- confusion over when and how the single Boots was to be released in each country
- CD version of Boots coming weeks after release to iTunes
- video not ready until Boots was starting to drop out of the charts
- NLOTH (the title track of the album) being a b-side and being available before the album version
- Magnificent CD not available in most countries (and having questionable b-sides)
- Breathe being included as a b-side instead of an a-side
- the best remixes of Magnificent not being commercially available
- many countries (including Australia/SE Asia) not even getting a 2nd single yet (3 mths after Boots)
 
So has anyone managed to hear any info as to WHY it was cancelled? Or is it just one of those things that happens for no good reason other than to annoy folk?

Because the song is gonna be their worst charting in decades and they wanted to have an excuse for why that happened?

That actually might be a real reason, if Magnificent bombs they might just want to have an excuse
 
Let's face it, everything to do with the singles from this album has been poor and questionable.

- confusion over when and how the single Boots was to be released in each country
- CD version of Boots coming weeks after release to iTunes
- video not ready until Boots was starting to drop out of the charts
- NLOTH (the title track of the album) being a b-side and being available before the album version
- Magnificent CD not available in most countries (and having questionable b-sides)
- Breathe being included as a b-side instead of an a-side
- the best remixes of Magnificent not being commercially available
- many countries (including Australia/SE Asia) not even getting a 2nd single yet (3 mths after Boots)

all of these issues completely overshadowed by an amazing listening experience.
 
Just put the 3-track single (bought in Grafton St HMV in Dublin yesterday - hidden downstairs among the games) into my iTunes and GraceNote returned the following:

1. Untitled - 4.25 - Akon - Audio CD - Reggae
2. Untitled - 3.48 - Akon - Audio CD - Reggae
3. Untitled - 3.26 - Akon - Audio CD - Reggae

Maybe I should leave it like this?
 
Just put the 3-track single (bought in Grafton St HMV in Dublin yesterday - hidden downstairs among the games) into my iTunes and GraceNote returned the following:

1. Untitled - 4.25 - Akon - Audio CD - Reggae
2. Untitled - 3.48 - Akon - Audio CD - Reggae
3. Untitled - 3.26 - Akon - Audio CD - Reggae

Maybe I should leave it like this?

Ouch. That's a harsher criticism than anything Pitchfork could dish out.
 
Because the song is gonna be their worst charting in decades and they wanted to have an excuse for why that happened?

That actually might be a real reason, if Magnificent bombs they might just want to have an excuse

Well according to your argument, neither Green Day's label should release physically Know Your Enemy since it was obvious that it would be difficult to enter the top 10. The same goes with the latest singles from Oasis, Doves, Morrissey and Maximo Park. All their singles peaked lower than the artists used to. So i don't think Mercury didn't release Magnificent because they predicted that is was going to flop. Actually had they released Magnificent, it would propably have entered top 20, so they would have prevent all this negativity. That's why i tend to believe that they chose not to release Magnificent in order to strengthen album sales. It's the same strategy that they follow in U.S.A since 2000.

P.s. NLOTH is #19 from #27 this week in uk albums chart.
 
Well according to your argument, neither Green Day's label should release physically Know Your Enemy since it was obvious that it would be difficult to enter the top 10. The same goes with the latest singles from Oasis, Doves, Morrissey and Maximo Park. All their singles peaked lower than the artists used to. So i don't think Mercury didn't release Magnificent because they predicted that is was going to flop. Actually had they released Magnificent, it would propably have entered top 20, so they would have prevent all this negativity. That's why i tend to believe that they chose not to release Magnificent in order to strengthen album sales. It's the same strategy that they follow in U.S.A since 2000.

P.s. NLOTH is #19 from #27 this week in uk albums chart.

But not releasing a physical single will not increase album sales because only fans buy the physicals these days, and if a single charted higher, it would get more airplay etc and then generate more album sales. it was released digitally so obviously they didn't care too much about album sales.

Oasis and Morrissey base nearly all their sales on physicals, they would struggle to hit top 75 without it. Green Day and Maximo Park are releasing their first singles, the question is will single two be physical. Magnificent hit 42 without a physical cd, and the fact that it gained 30 positions during the week shows that at least a decent majority of the people who would buy the physicals purchased it anyway.
 
According to a post on u2's page on myspace, posted on 5th May, neither the vinyl will be available this week in uk :
U2’s brand new single ‘Magnificent’ is out NOW. The track is available to download with a brilliant remix package on iTunes (remixes from the likes of Pete Tong, Redanka, Fred Falke, and Adam K and Soha) plus for ONE WEEK ONLY the single is available on 7” format.
 
According to a post on u2's page on myspace, posted on 5th May, neither the vinyl will be available this week in uk :

You gotta be kidding...
Actually I was waiting for my collector's box to arrive before ordering the single. After reading this I thought let's go and order it through HMV.com anyway. Only to find out it's unavailable; 'sorry this item is deleted' :angry:
Anywhere else I can still get it?

----update----
Bought it at juno.co.uk for 4,50 GBP.
 
Just put a few unreleased songs (b-sides...what a concept) on a CD single and sell the things at U2 concerts with the t-shirts. That'll get some serious sales.
 
I think it's the sense of what you get for what you pay these days, the death of the physical CD EP.., When you bought the singles from TJT, R&H, AB and subsequent albums you felt you were getting a decent set of songs over 12" + 1, 2 CD formats.

Now you are spending up to 2.29 on a lousy 2 track CD single.

I know the industry is desperately wanting an end to physical CD singles and wishes a total emphasis on digital, so we're really screwed either wway I guess.

but still, oldstyle...

7"/Digital
Magnficent [Edit]
GOYB [Justice Mix]

CD01/Digital
Magnficent [Album Mix]
Breathe [Live]
Vertigo [Live]

CD02/Digital
Remixes 1-5

I think it might have done better in that format + the video ready to go, ah who knows...
 
I understand if U2 decides to forego physical CD single releases, but why make the digital Magnificent B-sides only available thru iTunes UK? They make a big deal about it on U2.com but I can't even obtain it in Canada if I want to? Huh?
 
I understand if U2 decides to forego physical CD single releases, but why make the digital Magnificent B-sides only available thru iTunes UK? They make a big deal about it on U2.com but I can't even obtain it in Canada if I want to? Huh?

Yeah that's pretty weak. I even got a couple of emails referring to the release and I'm in the US where it's not available.
 
The vast majority of people can't hear the difference between 256 kbps AAC and CD. The sound quality is not "horrible;" at best there are barely detectable sonic differences.

V0 sounds a lot better than 256 kbps AAC, but I have pretty expensive headphones. If you've only got normal headphones then 256 is fine quality wise
 
"A lot better" is a subjective term. Honestly, I have a pretty expensive set of noise isolating headphones myself, and there is little if any perceptible difference between 256 kbps AAC, V0, and lossless.

"Horrible" is what you get when you rip a third generation audio cassette. The beach clips are "horrible." Most people would not know whether they were listening to an AAC or a CD in a typical listening environment.

Audio quality of encoders at 256 kbit/s - SoundExpert

I have no particular fondness for Apple, but I see people everywhere bagging on iTunes for its sound quality when it's really not bad at all. Perhaps people have been listening to the ripped stream of Unreleased and Rare and basing their opinions on that?
 
The reason V0 sounds a lot better than 256 to me is because V0 is incapable of sounding worse and can sometimes even be smaller in size, a constant bit rate is a really inefficient way of ripping music.

I never said it was horrible though, that was someone else. I find nothing wrong with itunes sound quality. I really think it depends on the album, an acoustic album isn't going to sound better on V0 (probably would be a smaller size though) but if the album is really sonic, has a lot of quality production etc. then it will definitely sound better, at least to me.
 
If anyone really wants the single, and you're not afraid to go trough a bit of a hassle, I think you can order it online from Indiana Jones 4, Kung Fu Panda en Iron Man nieuw in 3 voor 25. I can help with translating if you need it. :)


I'll eventually try and buy a copy on-line somewhere I guess.

Just a bit annoyed, this is the first U2 CD single I've been unable to buy in over 20 years, I've bought them all since Where The Streets Have No Name.
 
Back
Top Bottom