Release Date Speculation - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong > Where The Album Has A Name - Songs of Experience
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 05-09-2012, 12:36 PM   #61
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 493
Local Time: 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Downloading, sattelite radio, pandora, subscription music, a la carte buying... a lot has changed since 1987 when it comes to music.

There's a lot of factors that play into album sales, but you would be ignoring all facts to say season doesn't play a part, for all numbers show otherwise. And season has always played a factor since the 80's, but even moreso since the dawn of downloading.
You really believe GOYB would have been a smash hit if the album would have been release in November 2008 instead of Marsh 2009?

Really?
__________________

LUNEDEMINUIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 01:02 PM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
popacrobat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: this house
Posts: 9,866
Local Time: 01:32 PM
I'm not sure anybody is arguing that Boots would have been a smash hit if it were released in 11/08.

I do think that the album would have sold better had it been released in November, absolutely. Release anything 'big' during the Christmas/holiday period, and it'll sell more. Have Best Buy put it out for $9.95 as a Black Friday promotion, and you're boosting sales.

Would the album have been a huge, huge, commercial success ala Atomic Bomb or All that you can't leave behind? no, but would it have sold more? yes.
__________________

popacrobat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 01:03 PM   #63
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,091
Local Time: 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LUNEDEMINUIT View Post
You really believe GOYB would have been a smash hit if the album would have been release in November 2008 instead of Marsh 2009?

Really?
How did you get that from anything I said?

NLOTH was pretty big as far as sales in 09 even with a weak lead single and being a spring release, it would have done even better if it were a fall release. Bringing 87 into the conversation doesn't make any sense.
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 01:11 PM   #64
Refugee
 
JamietheEdgefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: London
Posts: 1,634
Local Time: 06:32 PM
I'm thinking NLOTH would have sold better in the autumn what with holiday sales, but given the lead single was Boots, i doubt sales would have improved significantly so.

Plus, as others pointed out, albums not released in autumn - like viva la vida - were bestsellers.

I guess it depends on if u2 believe the holiday sales will improve the next albums general financial success. I'd guess they'd place more importance on having a good single than on the time of year they release, but will still want the added sales of the autumn, given the talk about wanting hits and whatnot.
So to give them that added sales edge, i think it'll be autumn 2012 or 2013.
JamietheEdgefan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 02:23 PM   #65
Blue Crack Addict
 
mikal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Black Lodge
Posts: 25,038
Local Time: 12:32 PM
The thing about NLOTH....it felt like more of a Winter album. He'll, it even had songs like White As Snow and Winter on it.

Pop? Now that was a summer album.
mikal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 03:10 PM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
zoopop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Antonio TX
Posts: 3,428
Local Time: 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikal View Post
The thing about NLOTH....it felt like more of a Winter album. He'll, it even had songs like White As Snow and Winter on it.

Pop? Now that was a summer album.
I agree, wasn't NLOTH expected to be released in the Fall 2008? I remember all the hype approaching then Bono wrote the letter (via u2.com) to fans explaining the delay.
zoopop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 04:20 PM   #67
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Apartment of Surrender...
Posts: 5,629
Local Time: 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
discotheque went to #2 and then fell off the face of the earth.

if the album is good enough, it will sell regardless of release date.

if the album is medicore or worse? sure... it will sell more if it's released in time for the christmas bump. unless it's crap.
I'm sorry. U2's history just does not bare your theory out.

Most people on this board seem to still agree that NLOTH was a better album than ATYCLB or HTDAAB. ATYCLB not a mediocre album? I'm sorry. It had a strong single, but I can't listen to anyone call songs like New York, Grace, When I Look at The World, Walk On, the album version of Elevation, or the final verse of Kite above average for the band and not smirk. Those songs are weaker than most U2 B-sides. As an album, ATYCLB was the epitome of mediocrity but it had a strong single and then was released at the optimal time of year to maximize sales.

I enjoy the album more than most, but are there many people on this board who think HTDAAB was a better album than NLOTH?

Any disagreement you have to this can only be theoretical. The facts are the facts. When U2 releases albums at any time of year except the fall they underperform by a wide margin.
Niceman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 04:51 PM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Apartment of Surrender...
Posts: 5,629
Local Time: 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikal View Post
The thing about NLOTH....it felt like more of a Winter album. He'll, it even had songs like White As Snow and Winter on it.

Pop? Now that was a summer album.
I agree with both points.
Niceman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 05:03 PM   #69
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
trevgreg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 3,591
Local Time: 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niceman View Post
Most people on this board seem to still agree that NLOTH was a better album than ATYCLB or HTDAAB. ATYCLB not a mediocre album? I'm sorry. It had a strong single, but I can't listen to anyone call songs like New York, Grace, When I Look at The World, Walk On, the album version of Elevation, or the final verse of Kite above average for the band and not smirk. Those songs are weaker than most U2 B-sides. As an album, ATYCLB was the epitome of mediocrity but it had a strong single and then was released at the optimal time of year to maximize sales.
It's still subjective though. If one wants to base it on public opinion, I could go off on how many copies of NLOTH I see at second-hand bookstores in my area - compared to the other albums, it certainly rises above them in terms of numbers. Does that mean more people keep ATYCLB because of the non-singles on it? I'm not really sure, but somebody could take that as saying something.

Just because a lot of people don't debate the merits of a band or their albums online doesn't make it a be all, end all, you know? And I'm not even against NLOTH as a whole, although I've been pretty blunt about it's weaker second half on here.
trevgreg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 05:26 PM   #70
The Male
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 66,312
Local Time: 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerhour24 View Post
But this has always been their MO since they became huge, with the exception of Zooropa. It's always been album-->tour, album-->tour, and Zooropa was only different because they were in the midst of a tour anyway.

So have they been creatively stagnant since The Unforgettable Fire? I think we've seen enough evidence to the contrary even in recent years, the neuroticism and worrying over pleasing every era of fans certainly has limited how much we/the world has gotten to see that creative spark, but they're certainly not The Rolling Stones.
Prior to Popmart (which infringed on the recording sessions), was there ever an example of the band managing the release around a specific tour date/season? Most bands follow an album>tour>album>tour pattern of release (I don't know where I complained about this pattern, only that constant touring prevents them from recording), but I've never seen a band as clinical about their release schedule as U2. There is, quite literally, no room for surprise, and I can imagine that this influences the recording sessions to a degree.

I don't believe U2 consciously places a higher priority on touring than recording new music, but if they were to do that, as hypothesized in the post I quoted, I believe it would be a sign of creative stagnation.
__________________


Now.
LemonMelon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 05:43 PM   #71
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Apartment of Surrender...
Posts: 5,629
Local Time: 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by trevgreg View Post
It's still subjective though. If one wants to base it on public opinion, I could go off on how many copies of NLOTH I see at second-hand bookstores in my area - compared to the other albums, it certainly rises above them in terms of numbers. Does that mean more people keep ATYCLB because of the non-singles on it? I'm not really sure, but somebody could take that as saying something.

Just because a lot of people don't debate the merits of a band or their albums online doesn't make it a be all, end all, you know? And I'm not even against NLOTH as a whole, although I've been pretty blunt about it's weaker second half on here.
Sure, best is always subjective.

What's not subjective, is that U2 now has a history of weaker sales if they release an album at any time of year except the fall.
Niceman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 01:12 AM   #72
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 11:32 AM
What's also not subjective is that their biggest selling album ever was released in March.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Niceman View Post
The facts are the facts. When U2 releases albums at any time of year except the fall they underperform by a wide margin.
Facts are facts, indeed.
U2DMfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 01:23 AM   #73
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Apartment of Surrender...
Posts: 5,629
Local Time: 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
What's also not subjective is that their biggest selling album ever was released in March.



Facts are facts, indeed.
Not sure which one that is, but it was a long time ago. The last two albums released in spring underperformed.

Honestly, I"m surprised there's any debate about this. I would think it a self-evident point. Anyway, place your bets. The next U2 album will be a fall release. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, but I would be very shocked to be wrong about this.
Niceman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 01:45 AM   #74
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 11:32 AM
I actually don't disagree that there is a 99% chance that U2 releases an album in that commercial Halloween-Christmas window. I was just correcting your asserted "fact".

And yes, the Joshua Tree was 25 years ago. But before anyone wants to make that argument, let's have some more actual facts.

Lady Gaga had the #2 best selling album of 2011 worldwide and it came out in May.
Last year Adele was #1 on that list with '21' and even it came out 3 weeks after Christmas.
Beyonce's '4' came out in June and was the 10th best seller worldwide in 2011.

Odds are still better for the Fall but you either have the goods or you don't.
U2DMfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 02:20 AM   #75
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 11:32 AM
The thing that disappoints me about the discourse around here...

I visit many different music forums. And on none of them is there such an issue about lead singles, sales, charts and all the like. I understand it's part of figuring out what U2 might do...but still it's disappointing that it should matter so much. I had to Google to find out what were the biggest selling albums last year. I couldn't have guessed more than half of the top 10. I haven't really cared about sales since I was a teenager. And I think lead singles don't matter all that much, unless you make it a turd.

The bottom line is this - the single biggest 'tell' in the history of Bono's bullshitting is his comments to Greg Kot (in 2005) about how Discotheque needed to be a #1 hit for POP to make sense. It really is the best example of his 'politicking' and excuse making for the creative direction they would later take (and at present when he was speaking) and the 'issue' he was trying to sell in that particular conversation. Which amounted to, his answer to why they were disowning POP (in their setlists and otherwise) and most of the rest of the 90's material. It's just bullshit. You don't release The Fly and Numb back to back as lead singles, with certain success between both of them and them come back and complain that a song that hit #10 (higher than the previous two lead singles) suddenly tanked that album. The problem was the Village People video + the tour + half of that album was substandard. But if Bono can convince some of his fans that he's telling the truth, then he can excuse away why (insert 21st century single here) is so annoyingly poppy and accessible. More or less saying 'Don't you see? This is what we had to do?'. It's just bullshit.

And the most amazing thing is...there are people around here that agree with Bono.


And it's one of the primary reasons there is so much time spent on discussing Boots as a lead single. Yeah, it was a bad choice. There were probably a lot of bad choices in '09, but I think it's too simple to pin it all on Boots. Although it is an easy argument to make.

I'll say it again, you either have the goods (songs) or you don't. I don't see on forums anywhere else where fans are complaining about a lead single. The problem with NLOTH was that U2 was due for some pop culture comeuppance. And specifically Get On Your Boots didn't 'work' because of the song, the video and the album itself was all over the place. Had they put all their chips in on...something, creatively, it might have stood a better chance. But since they CLEARLY pandered in the middle, they got that kicking - at least in a lot of loud circles. So let's stop the excuse making. It was U2's time to get kicked and they gave people an excuse to do it. Same thing happened with Rattle.

It didn't matter when they released it. It was all inside of the songs. I mean, yeah...maybe it sells X more copies. But who cares?
__________________

U2DMfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com