Release Date Speculation

[Nick66]

I don't care if its causation or correlation. There will never be enough U2 albums for us to have a statistically relevant sample. But with millions of dollars on the line and the examples of 2 of the last 4 albums (IMO the better of the 4) all underperforming, I would be shocked if U2 ever took the financial risk of releasing an album at any time of the year except fall again. McG would be guilty of malpractice for letting them try again for at least a decade.

But there are very good reasons why an album released in the fall is likely, all things being equal, of selling better than one released in the spring.

I actually agree w/you that, all things being equal, fall is probably a better time to release a record, and that it can, to some extent, impact record sales. But not to the extent that it's going to make people buy an album with music they're not interested in. There's just no evidence that this record would have sold better with another release date.

In any event, I seem to recall that they were initially planning on a late fall/holiday release, but that it got delayed. It might not have been McG's first choice to release the record when they did.

 

[digitize]

Nick, I agree with you that sales probably aren't really driven by release time to any huge degree. I think a fall release would help U2, but probably nominally, and not to a degree that would change how an album is popularly viewed.

That being said, I would guess that U2 would still go for whatever they can and release in November. I can't read their minds, but that is my guess.

 

[Niceman]

I actually agree w/you that, all things being equal, fall is probably a better time to release a record, and that it can, to some extent, impact record sales. But not to the extent that it's being to make people buy and album with music they're not interested in. There's just no evidence that this record would have sold better with another release date.

I think if you read what you said, it may be a contradiction.

#1 "all things being equal, fall is probably a better time to release a record, and that it can, to some extent, impact record sales. "
#2 "There's just no evidence that this record would have sold better with another release date."

Since we can't travel sideways in time, we can never KNOW the album would have sold a single extra copy. But logic tells us the Christmas season and the double Grammy punch could have been.... shall we say, useful?

If you think I'm saying that GOYB and Magnificent would have been the right single choices at any time of year, I'm not. Release date was not the only mistake made. But POP and NLOTH were FAR better albums than ATYCLB and HTDAAB IMO and we have a situation where lesser albums released in the fall are out-selling better albums sold in the spring. That should be enough to scare them away from Spring releases for a long time.

 

[Nick66]

I would guess that U2 would still go for whatever they can and release in November. I can't read their minds, but that is my guess.

I agree. All things being equal, I'm sure they'd prefer a fall release date.

I do wish there were some simple explanation like a fall release date that could explain why a mediocre record like Bomb sells better than the far superior NLOTH. As it is, I'll just have to accept the fact that the general public for the most part has crap taste in music.

 

[digitize]

I do wish there were some simple explanation like a fall release date that could explain why a mediocre record like Bomb sells better than the far superior NLOTH. As it is, I'll just have to accept the fact that the general public for the most part has crap taste in music.

I think just about anyone could find boundless evidence to support that conclusion!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kffacxfA7G4

 

[Nick66]

I think if you read what you said, it may be a contradiction.

#1 "all things being equal, fall is probably a better time to release a record, and that it can, to some extent, impact record sales. "
#2 "There's just no evidence that this record would have sold better with another release date."

Since we can't travel sideways in time, we can never KNOW the album would have sold a single extra copy. But logic tells us the Christmas season and the double Grammy punch could have been.... shall we say, useful?

If you think I'm saying that GOYB and Magnificent would have been the right single choices at any time of year, I'm not. Release date was not the only mistake made. But POP and NLOTH were FAR better albums than ATYCLB and HTDAAB IMO and we have a situation where lesser albums released in the fall are out-selling better albums sold in the spring. That should be enough to scare them away from Spring releases for a long time.

I'm not saying it might not have impacted sales to some extent...a release closer to the holidays likely would have. I'm just saying it would not make any kind of significant difference...i.e. seriously affected sales figures or chart position.

I do agree that NLOTH is a superior album to Bomb, and in some ways ATYCLB. My views on Pop are well known around these parts....though I will note that it also sold better than NLOTH, albeit under very different circumstances.

 

[nathan1977]

Since we can't travel sideways in time, we can never KNOW the album would have sold a single extra copy. But logic tells us the Christmas season and the double Grammy punch could have been.... shall we say, useful?

McGuiness is on record in U2 By U2 as saying that there's no sense in releasing an album at any other time of the year than fall, when albums supposedly sell as many as the rest of the year combined. Every U2 album since Unforgettable Fire has had a scheduled fall release date, including Joshua Tree, which was originally supposed to be a fall 86 release. (The Conspiracy of Tour pushed those plans back.) Zooropa is really the one exception to this plan, since it was a spontaneous album without a lot of pre-thought in terms of release. Pop and NLOTH missed those release dates in famously spectacular fashion. Otherwise, McGuiness' (who is known in these here Interference parts for being all about the $$$s) wisdom seems at least partially sound.

However, at the same time, Coldplay's La Vida was a summer release, and was a monster, and certainly other albums have been released in other seasons and have sold incredibly well. (Including Joshua Tree.) So while the business advice of releasing an album in the fourth quarter seems sound, it also appears that really good albums -- with one hell of a marketing push, whether it's from the label or simply word-of-mouth -- sell well any time.

 

[Niceman]

I agree. All things being equal, I'm sure they'd prefer a fall release date.

I do wish there were some simple explanation like a fall release date that could explain why a mediocre record like Bomb sells better than the far superior NLOTH. As it is, I'll just have to accept the fact that the general public for the most part has crap taste in music.

We can agree on this!

 

[gvox]

You guys are all missing the bigger picture...it's not fall per se, it's not the hair per se...it's *both*..long hair + fall release = masterpiece = huge sales

So they should wait till Fall 2013: Hair goes down, quality goes up..time to release gets extended, sales are greater due to both increased quality of output + fall factor

I'm sure someone can make an equation expressing this in mathematical terms..

 

[digitize]

You guys are all missing the bigger picture...it's not fall per se, it's not the hair per se...it's *both*..long hair + fall release = masterpiece = huge sales

So they should wait till Fall 2013: Hair goes down, quality goes up..time to release gets extended, sales are greater due to both increased quality of output + fall factor

I'm sure someone can make an equation expressing this in mathematical terms..

Sales Factor = (2-(Length of Bono's Hair in Centimeters))/(Days of separation from November 15)

 

[Niceman]

Maybe its a fall release which causes the short hair?

Or maybe short hair makes them release an album in the fall???

 

[silkensky]

You can't blame GOYB completely, nor should the release date really determine whether an album will sell well or not. Fact is, NLOTH simply isn't as immediate as the previous two U2 records. People today have much shorter attention spans, and a record like No Line contains many songs that take a while to sink in and "connect" with the listener. The general listening public doesn't have the patience for this. I'm not saying this is the sole reason for the relatively low sales, but it may be the biggest reason.

 

[Niceman]

You can't blame GOYB completely, nor should the release date really determine whether an album will sell well or not. Fact is, NLOTH simply isn't as immediate as the previous two U2 records. People today have much shorter attention spans, and a record like No Line contains many songs that take a while to sink in and "connect" with the listener. The general listening public doesn't have the patience for this. I'm not saying this is the sole reason for the relatively low sales, but it may be the biggest reason.

Would you still say that about NLOTH if Beautiful Day was on it? If not, it kind of does come down to the lead single in a big way.

I still say the singles should have been MOS and No Line to start. If they marketed those two right, they would have done a lot better. I even think IGCIIDGCT was the right choice for third single, but it was much too late by then.

 

[gvox]

Sales Factor = (2-(Length of Bono's Hair in Centimeters))/(Days of separation from November 15)

Somehow, I knew you'd be the one. Thanks!

 

[Nick66]

Would you still say that about NLOTH if Beautiful Day was on it? If not, it kind of does come down to the lead single in a big way.

Indeed, I'm quite certain that NLOTH would have sold significantly better had BD been on it. But it wasn't, that's the point. Even if Boots wasn't the first single, there isn't another song on that record that has the pure radio charisma and mass pop appeal of a Beautiful Day, or Vertigo. Yeah, U2 fans can argue that Magnificent or some other song comes close, but obviously nothing on NLOTH caught on (with the general public) the way those singles from ATYCLB and HTDAAB did. I simply disagree that Magnificent, or No Line on the Horizon, had they been the first single, would have impacted sales of the record that much. And I don't think there's any evidence to back up the conclusion that they would have.

This is not a commentary on the artistic merits of the songs on NLOTH; merely their commercial appeal.

 

[zoopop]

Indeed, I'm quite certain that NLOTH would have sold significantly better had BD been on it. But it wasn't, that's the point. Even if Boots wasn't the first single, there isn't another song on that record that has the pure radio charisma and mass pop appeal of a Beautiful Day, or Vertigo. Yeah, U2 fans can argue that Magnificent or some other song comes close, but obviously nothing on NLOTH caught on (with the general public) the way those singles from ATYCLB and HTDAAB did. I simply disagree that Magnificent, or No Line on the Horizon, had they been the first single, would have impacted sales of the record that much. And I don't think there's any evidence to back up the conclusion that they would have.

This is not a commentary on the artistic merits of the songs on NLOTH; merely their commercial appeal.

'

The reason I think if Breathe, NLOTH, or even MOS (not Magnificent) would have been released as the 1st single the general public & fans would have been given something different from U2. And all 3 are excellent U2 songs.

There was too much hype from the media, fans, & even the band for GOYB. They guarded this single as being the mother of all songs. Do you guys remember hearing about record executives holding listening meetings? Its just a song!!! And a song that didn't give the public any indication for what NLOTH really is. GYOB had too much hype to be a big hit from U2. As much as it sounds different from Vertigo we heard it already with Vertigo (if that makes sense). The simple 3 minute rock n roll formula.

I listened to Breathe for the first time in a while the other day and thought what great song to lead NLOTH. The drums, vocal delivery, it sounds fresh (for U2), & its a complete departure from Vertigo.

GYOB should have been the Mofo of the 360, meaning when they played it live it stole the show. I enjoy Boots, especially live, but just a bad bad choice for your 1st lead single in 4.5 years.

 

[U2girl]

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?

It does matter, evidently. Hence ATYCLB/Bomb outselling NLOTH even if most would agree the latter is a better album.

The Kot interview was great, and explains things but the $ellout brigade just won't listen. Then again, they stopped listening in 2000. If playing 5 Pop songs on Elevation tour is disowning, think again. That's more than Bomb got on 360. It might very well be more than what NLOTH will get on the tour following up 360.
And the mistake with Pop is well known. Booking the tour early buried them, along with the bad video. There is no conspiracy theory here at work. Made a big mistake and paid for it. Like the exposure with Rattle and Hum, and IMO age with NLOTH. Vertigo is likely their last megahit, and they better get used to it.

It's not that hard. With the short span attention of today's audiences, you'd better deliver right out of the gate. Get them in those few minutes or it's too late. Having the goods ? NLOTH is clearly the superior record of the last decade. But put in a truly weak song, and inferior re-write of your previous single and...yeah. You've only got yourself to blame, along with chopping off NLOTH off the setlists.


Yes...JT was a Spring album. Except back then people actually buyed more records, and it had two massive US no.1 hits. Yes...Coldplay had a Spring album release. Except Viva la Vida was a major hit...and they're not 50 but the hottest band to emerge in the last decade.

I do wish there were some simple explanation like a fall release date that could explain why a mediocre record like Bomb sells better than the far superior NLOTH There is. It's called "pick the right lead single."

 

[trevgreg]

You can't blame GOYB completely, nor should the release date really determine whether an album will sell well or not. Fact is, NLOTH simply isn't as immediate as the previous two U2 records. People today have much shorter attention spans, and a record like No Line contains many songs that take a while to sink in and "connect" with the listener. The general listening public doesn't have the patience for this. I'm not saying this is the sole reason for the relatively low sales, but it may be the biggest reason.

I do remember reading quite a few comments on other music forums where people said they didn't buy/check out NLOTH because of snippets of the songs on itunes didn't appeal to them at all. So there could be some validity there, though I don't know if further listens would've improved their opinion on anything.

'

The reason I think if Breathe, NLOTH, or even MOS (not Magnificent) would have been released as the 1st single the general public & fans would have been given something different from U2. And all 3 are excellent U2 songs.

There was too much hype from the media, fans, & even the band for GOYB. They guarded this single as being the mother of all songs. Do you guys remember hearing about record executives holding listening meetings? Its just a song!!! And a song that didn't give the public any indication for what NLOTH really is. GYOB had too much hype to be a big hit from U2. As much as it sounds different from Vertigo we heard it already with Vertigo (if that makes sense). The simple 3 minute rock n roll formula.

I listened to Breathe for the first time in a while the other day and thought what great song to lead NLOTH. The drums, vocal delivery, it sounds fresh (for U2), & its a complete departure from Vertigo.

GYOB should have been the Mofo of the 360, meaning when they played it live it stole the show. I enjoy Boots, especially live, but just a bad bad choice for your 1st lead single in 4.5 years.

I did enjoy it live, and I stand by the idea that it would've been a decent album track. As a single by itself though, it just didn't stand a chance to go alongside Beautiful Day or Vertigo though.

 

[LemonMelon]

I think NLOTH would have been far easier to defend had the title track or Magnificent or Breathe been the lead single (online, I have no doubt it would have been stripped of whipping boy status), but I doubt the album would have caught fire regardless. It didn't have a hook; no undeniable, airtight classic single, and no clear direction.

Oh well, I still really like it.

 

[blueeddy]

NLOTH was NOTHING to do with release dates but about courage of convictions - if it had been released a year earlier it would have been a coherent (albeit African tinged) collection of beautiful tunes (Soon - EBW - Winter etc)- that critics (and fans) would have applauded.

And they really had tunes- Magnificent sounded like a dubby monster on the beach clips but ended up a compromised toppy/middy U2- lite sort of thing. The much maligned UC could have been a convincing lead single - maybe something like the below? Their best music used to be kind of ecstatic didn't it?

Unknown Caller (Live Single Mix) - YouTube

5 years between releases is a complete anomaly in the 21C. The ENTIRE Achtung Baby reinvention - from stepping off stage in Dublin at the end of that decade to reappearing with a new sound, shades and sheepskin coats - took about 18 months. They now appear to be lethargically doing their best to piss away their (wonderful) musical legacy....

 

[LemonMelon]

Video was removed by the user.

Apparently, they didn't want to be part of this conversation.

 

[blueeddy]

Apologies - back up now

Friggin' FBI.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-r_QD0n40E&feature=youtu.be

 

[purpleoscar]

I hope the U.S. election won't be an excuse to delay the album release. They won't want it overshadowed.

 

[DevilsShoes]

That version of Unknown Caller is great. It actually has a sense of purpose, there's momentum, atmosphere and Bono's vocal is streets ahead of what we ended up with, he sounds fully invested and focused. Why on earth did they think the album version was superior?

I remain sceptical about Breathe as a single, it just feels too bolted together, too cumbersome and for me the chorus has always sounded like it's still striving for a definite melody, just too undefined to be really radio-friendly.

 

[JamietheEdgefan]

Magnificent does seem like a bit of a missed opportunity to me. I agree with you, Blueeddy - the beach clip version sounded somehow epic (although maybe that was just the distortion creating an audio illusion).
I think, had the song had production which made it heavier, stronger, more of an attack, and with busier, angrier guitar work, it could have done well - i'm thinking with the same vibe as the Killer's 'Somebody told me'
The Killers- Somebody Told Me - YouTube

As Brian Eno put it (and you can see in videos of NLOTH sessions) they started out with something kind of similar to what i'm describing, but ended up with what he called "a more feminine version". And i think the song ended up way too chilled, ambient for the 'dancefloor shock' hit they were going for.
They should've made it a lot heavier, more busy.... not faster, just less laid back (especially the verses). The version we got was cool, and suited the mature, atmospheric mood of the album, but it meant it wasn't single material. It sounded like 50 year olds taking a very careful, delicate approach to dance music, while you have other rockers like killers playing the fuck out of their song.
(FYI, i'm not even that big a fan of the killers, i'm just talking about production/vibe).


And then on top of that, marketing was way too lazy once they got into it. Remember what they did for 'All because of you', driving a trick through NYC playing their latest single? For magnificent we got a for-the-most-part-generic video, and a single with some generic remixes. They did nothing very creative for it, and it felt like the publicity for the single was simply going through the motions.

 

[lemonfly]

Magnificient is U2 on cruise control, going through the motions, by-the-numbers <insert preferred idiom here>. It tanked as the 2nd single, there is absolutely nothing to suggest it wouldn't have tanked as the lead single. But really, there are no good singles on NLOTH, period. Boots is a steaming pile. Kwazy is a steaming pile. Breathe is too cantankerous (though I love it as an album track). UC is just too mellow and lyrically hokey. Only MOS could have salvaged something. The general strangeness and length of the song would have gotten people talking. It's a million miles away from Vertigo and that's precisely what was needed. I'm not suggesting for a nanosecond in would have made a dent in the charts, but it would have given them something that was maybe more valuable - good buzz. NLOTH would have been unleashed on the unsuspecting public with genuine curiosity rather than with the lingering odour of a fart smell (which was the case with Boots).

 

[Nick66]

Magnificient is U2 on cruise control, going through the motions, by-the-numbers <insert preferred idiom here>. It tanked as the 2nd single, there is absolutely nothing to suggest it wouldn't have tanked as the lead single. But really, there are no good singles on NLOTH, period. Boots is a steaming pile. Kwazy is a steaming pile. Breathe is too cantankerous (though I love it as an album track). UC is just too mellow and lyrically hokey. Only MOS could have salvaged something. The general strangeness and length of the song would have gotten people talking. It's a million miles away from Vertigo and that's precisely what was needed. I'm not suggesting for a nanosecond in would have made a dent in the charts, but it would have given them something that was maybe more valuable - good buzz. NLOTH would have been unleashed on the unsuspecting public with genuine curiosity rather than with the lingering odour of a fart smell (which was the case with Boots).

Yeah, I think you've got it about right here.

U2 took a risk with this record, and I give them credit for that...but they equivocated on the first single and it cost them. You're right...MOS would not have really made a dent in the charts, or made this record fly off the shelves (that just wasn't in the cards), but it would at least have gotten people talking about U2 and curious about what the rest of the music sounded liked.

Woulda Coulda. Hindsight is 20/20.

 

[U2girl]

I think Magnificent stands out as a single. Maybe not a huge BD/Vertigo single, but the best option they had for that "we're back" message. I can't remember such a unanimous positive reaction to a U2 song on fan forums since BD.

As for MOS...yes, total opposite to Vertigo/Boots. But 7+ minute song as your lead single, and the vocals don't enter until 1:15 in the song ? No. Maybe a little "crediblity" blip on the critics radar, and a extra star from Pityfork for effort, but that's about it.

 

[trevgreg]

I think Magnificent stands out as a single. Maybe not a huge BD/Vertigo single, but the best option they had for that "we're back" message. I can't remember such a unanimous positive reaction to a U2 song on fan forums since BD.

The extra publicity for being the first one wouldn't have hurt either. And how is U2 on "cruise control" a bad thing?

 

[JamietheEdgefan]

The extra publicity for being the first one wouldn't have hurt either. And how is U2 on "cruise control" a bad thing?

Because if a band, no matter how good they are, releases the same type of stuff over and over again, the public will eventually get bored.
(i actually don't think magnificent is u2-by-the-numbers, but regardless, if they never tried to challenge themselves and develop their style over time, i think it would probably be pretty unfulfilling both for the band and most of their fans. But that's just me, one of my favourite aspects of u2 is how they can change it up, like going from rattle and hum to achtung baby.)