Predict Crazy Tonight's UK chart position!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
yeah, i think we've all been a bit disappointed. Pop was the last album that had interesting bsides. Now it's pretty much a given we'll get remixes and occasional live song...and usually a song all of us have access to anyway.

I don't get what happened. Must feel people don't buy the singles anymore so why waste a song?

No clue but it's just something we have to deal with. Maybe someone could ask the band....though that would be the last thing in my head if I ever met them. But even a reporter/writer could say, any reason why we've gotten about 5 non remixed songs over the past 10-12 singles?
 
can anyone please confirm the official release date of the single here in UK
 
Maybe the lack of b-sides is really to do with a new album?

but how? didn't stop Achtung Baby having almost an album's worth....

Alex Descends Into Hell/K1
Lady With The Spinning Head
Satellite Of Love
Salome
Where Did It all Go Wrong?
Fortunate Son
Paint It Black
Can't Help Falling In Love

+ remixes like Salome and LWTSH that were one off and not the 6, 7 DJ dub/vocal versions of each single... apart from Mysterious Ways and EBTTRT and even then that aspect was different back then, quirky, not run of the mill...

...and after that? THEN we got Zooropa.. :wink:

In the current market it's not worth releasing any half decent song as a b-side as so few people will hear it, save it for the next album and get the album out quicker

I get that point and agree, but here's the conundrum... why then release singles if your fans won't go crazy [excuse the pun] over what you or the label put on them? rock, hard place I guess.
 
In the current market it's not worth releasing any half decent song as a b-side as so few people will hear it, save it for the next album and get the album out quicker

Maybe... but I doubt that most songs U2 would put out as a b-side is something that they would consider a-side material. JT b-sides were different as the initial goal was a double album. As a result, many of those tracks were high quality - in fact, one ("The Sweetest Thing") did become an a-side track later on.

In other words, I don't think the lack of b-sides has to do with the new album. But I do think it's because not many will buy a CD single any more.
 
The single, or should I say album cut, has cracked the top 100 of the itunes UK chart at 78 (at the moment). Can this chart without an official release in the UK?
 
The single, or should I say album cut, has cracked the top 100 of the itunes UK chart at 78 (at the moment). Can this chart without an official release in the UK?

Yup, just for perspective, Magnificent wasn't charting until the week before release in the top 300
 
I think that Crazy debuted at number 100 this week (I know, no official single has been released but still).
 
i'll go crazy move between 100 and 110 on uk itunes. when he will release do you think will rise high or moderate?
 
i'll go crazy move between 100 and 110 on uk itunes. when he will release do you think will rise high or moderate?

The release date isn't important, all that matters is how it responds to airplay. The release date could be 12th of Never and it would make no difference as physical singles barely sell
 
The release date isn't important, all that matters is how it responds to airplay. The release date could be 12th of Never and it would make no difference as physical singles barely sell

but download when will release? i know that phisical market today is dead.
 
but download when will release? i know that phisical market today is dead.

Technically it's out on download now, in the form of two different version. The download release date will see the single and radio version released to download. It's hard to tell how much those will sell, they could actually hurt Crazy's odds of charting high on itunes
 
Technically it's out on download now, in the form of two different version. The download release date will see the single and radio version released to download. It's hard to tell how much those will sell, they could actually hurt Crazy's odds of charting high on itunes

Plus the mixes leaked weeks ago, and that's dbl edged..

You hear them and go ugh no thanks and don't buy them.
You hear them, like them and don't need to buy them again.

That's the world we live in now. Bands just don't make singles worth the money anymore...

Unless you're the dah hot thang just now singles seem so perfunctory, an obligatory thing, the recent U2 singles look almost like they are going through the motions... oh a live track and some mixes... does it inspire?

The album is available in the UK at a fiver and 18Singles at 3.99, which accounts for the rapid rise [translated no one's buying the albums at 11.99!] and the dates to come... I bet as soon as the Uk tour is over those albums will rise in price :sexywink:
 
I would hardly say just because amazon is selling its download of the album thats the reason for the rise, i mean what % of people actually buy downloads off amazon? imo the reason for the rise is from the tour etc.
 
Amazon sent out an email to previous U2 buyers with special prices for physical discs.
 
I would hardly say just because amazon is selling its download of the album thats the reason for the rise, i mean what % of people actually buy downloads off amazon? imo the reason for the rise is from the tour etc.

Well, who really knows... clearly many people do use it though, dito iTunes...

however, is it just the tour? I'm alway amused by the idea of people spending up to 100quid on a ticket but baulking a bit at a fiver/tenner for an album...

Of course the dates have helped but it's the incentive of cheap price first, that has bumped sales, no doubt the CD is likely around 4/5quid in some supermarket too? it's classic selling, marketing.. do you think the album would be 21 or 22.. or whatever # if it was retailing at 12.99? :up:
 
I just look at the amount of people going to the shows who have yet to pick up the album, hearing a few songs then thinking "hmm i think i will buy it after all", i really still belive most U2 fans like to actually buy the physical product rather than a download.
 
I think you are both right (ic170 and KUEFC09U2). :)

First, look at all the other countries in Europe. As U2's tour hit that country, NLOTH spiked on the charts. Therefore, I fully believe that part of the spike in the U.K. is because of U2's touring there.

THEN...

Add to that the fact that people either saw U2 or know they are touring in the country and may have heard more songs on the radio. So they become more curious about the album. Given U2's fans are - in general - older, they are often the type that buy CD's. Plus, those who have been fans for a long time may get the CD just to complete their collection (and I don't necessarily mean one has to be a collector). So that accounts for a jump in physical sales. Any special in price for a CD helps push those sales.

However, there are those who could care less about a CD, regardless of age. Today's mp3 players allow portability - one could play the music on one's person, but also at work, at home, in the car, at a friend's house, etc. So going for a digital download - especially when it's half the price of a CD - seems smart. After all, most of us just convert a CD to digital format anyway, so why bother with a CD?

In other words, I say all of those factors contribute to NLOTH's rise. I would say the tour has the most impact (in Europe, it seems albums rise due to a tour visiting an area, while in the U.S., the album just stays "relevant" - meaning no real jumps or drops while the tour is going).
 
I love how nobody has factored in is apathy, maybe, just maybe, u2s singles dont seem to matter to people now, like they did in the past.
Boots BOMBED, given that it was the lead single, it was suprising.
Magnificent performed the worst of any u2 single since i think circa 1982-83 ish. And now we have Crazy Tonight failing to make an impact. yet many on here feel compeled to try and qualify its failure by blaming this that and the next thing.
I think the real reason is that not enough people care now, simple as that.
 
the reason is downloads now dominate the chart, where as before U2 could sell 30,000-50,000 copies of a single and be easily number 1.
Vertigo was #1 download for 9 non-consecutive weeks (would have been 13 if wasnt for band aid re-issue) these days that would relate to 9 weeks of #1 in the offical singles chart. the NLOTH singles are not commercial enough, and the american hip-hop r&b songs have increased in popularity over here. blame the teeny brigade
 
You know what....i couldnt care less if u2 sold 1/10th of the records they do now....as long as they continue to make music that suits mine and all my fellow u2 fans ears...who cares where they chart!
I would be interested to know the ages of those who are bothered, as i have a theory regarding the whole being bothered about being sucsessful thing. When i was younger, it was of the utmost importance to me that u2 were shifting records and being a sucsess. But...you get to the age where you get past caring. My 16 yr old also seems to attach a lot of importance on chart sucsess.
 
I love how nobody has factored in is apathy, maybe, just maybe, u2s singles dont seem to matter to people now, like they did in the past.
Boots BOMBED, given that it was the lead single, it was suprising.
Magnificent performed the worst of any u2 single since i think circa 1982-83 ish. And now we have Crazy Tonight failing to make an impact. yet many on here feel compeled to try and qualify its failure by blaming this that and the next thing.
I think the real reason is that not enough people care now, simple as that.

My post above only focused on the album. :)

Regarding singles, I'm hard-pressed to say apathy is the only reason. Clearly U2 are not generating the hits as they did during their JT-AB hey day, when it seemed all U2 had to do was sneeze and they'd get a top 10 hit worldwide.

That said, there were also quite a few songs, that we now consider classics, that did not chart that well in various countries. Both JT and AB produced only two top 10 hits in the U.S., and R&H had only one top 10 hit, with several singles from those mega-albums failing to break into the Top 40. My point is that U2 - even in their "glory days" - weren't known as a singles band.

Also, charts are constantly changing. In the U.K., for years, the singles chart was based on CD's sold. So even if a song had minimal airplay, if it sold enough copies - and that could have been in the mere thousands - it was enough to chart high. Now the U.K. chart is about air play and downloads. The same was also true in Canada - a single could be #1 for ages if it sold enough copies. Trouble is, that could have been ridiculously low and wasn't truly reflecting the state of popular music in Canada (at the time). Charts, as a result, changed. U2 might not have had as many hits in certain countries under the current chart rules.

I agree that GOYB did not chart well. For a first single, one would think U2 fans alone would have given it huge sales. Yet, the first week was rather soft and it went down from there. I'm not sure why the song didn't connect - perhaps the topic of "putting on one's boots" was just viewed as too silly (ala "Discotheque") or perhaps fans felt it was "Vertigo - Part 2".

If there is some apathy, it could be that the radio stations across the land pre-determine hits. It seems that very few artists can break through. Artists, new and old, have resorted to commercials and other forms of advertisement as MTV is now "dead" (as far as music videos) and getting on Top 40 radio is ridiculous. If a person doesn't know about a song, how can they download it or request it?

In another thread, one person said a radio station told him U2's "Magnificent" wasn't what their audiences wanted to hear. I challenged this. First, that song is classic U2 in sound (uplifting, soaring vocals, etc.), yet with a modern twist. So clearly fans - the same that helped make U2 so huge - would like this. Furthermore, the song is similar to Coldplay - who is HEAVILY influenced by U2. If fans like Coldplay, they'd love U2. Lastly, NLOTH is one of the top selling albums of the year - both in the U.S. and worldwide - and U2's tour has sold out across Europe and in many spots in the U.S. )and this was before the tour started). So how can an artist that has produced a top selling album and a top selling tour NOT be what fans want to hear? This, again, indicated the bias of radio stations. Fans do want to hear, but radio is apathetic.

There was also the thought of some "conspiracy theories" against Bono regarding artists getting paid by radio for playing an artist's songs. We'll never know the truth, but the evidence suggests this was a possibility. For example, in Canada, "Magnificent" was rising up the charts and then suddenly disappeared. Very odd...

Regardless, you are right in that GOYB and "Magnificent" didn't catch on. We offer possible suggestions for why this is - and I guess apathy is as good as the rest. Yet, I just don't feel fan apathy is the real reason here.

As for "Crazy", it seems to be a slow-rising song. None of us are sure if or when the song will take off. But I do recall "Beautiful Day" taking forever to finally connect with audiences across the world. Once it did, it lingered. If there's a song reminiscent of BD on NLOTH, it's "Crazy". So the verdict remains open on that one. For now, it appears the song is rising on various charts.
 
Back
Top Bottom