Are U2's Top40/MTV Days behind them?

[jick]

After the failure of Electrical Storm and Hands That Built America to even make a blip of the top 40 radars, and its absence in any MTV rotation, can we say U2's top40 days are behind them?

And no, I am not equating top 40 with success. Bands like The Rolling Stones, Depeche Mode, Rush, and the Psychedelic Furs still put out some new material every now and then, and their hardcore fans even argue that the new material is better than the old. But that is not the point. The point is whether you think U2 can still make an impact on the top 40 with their new album.

You think they still can? My guess is they can't. ATYCLB went well with the masses because U2 had marketed that album as the anti-Britney, the anti-boyband, the anti-manufactured-music. They marketed it as a band in full flight playing hand played instruments and having their own songs. So ATYCLB did fill up a void the music-buying public was looking for. But with the advent of artists like Avril Lavigne, Michelle Branch, and Vanessa Carlton, all who also belong to the anti-Britney, anti-manufactured-music brigade, U2 has now lost its market niche to much younger, more marketable females.

So my guess is that U2 will make good music with their upcoming album, but they won't get the radio play and MTV play they deserve.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[HelloAngel]

I beg to differ. I absolutely believe that if the songs are there on the next album, U2 will get airplay. It might depend, however, on the current musical landscape. Even if they don't receive heavy airplay at first, once the tour launches - it will be the biggest thing around. That's when you might see more and more airplay and MTV rotation.

 

[bayernfc]

I agree with HelloAngel......They will eventually get the airtime they deserve even if they don't at the beginning (which i think they will)....... and by the way... I still don't get how exactly Avril and people like her are considered anti-manufactured and anti-Brittney?......nevermind...*doesn't wanna start yet another thread about that topic*

 

[hippy]

After the failure of Electrical Storm

Wait, ES was a failure?

I swear it was on VH1's Top Twenty Countdown for a couple of weeks at least...

Anyway, who watches MTV for the music anyway? Do they even PLAY music anymore? lol

IMO, MTV doesn't really matter that much... I don't buy my music based on what they recommend lol

I agree with HelloAngel and bayernfc

 

[Zoomerang96]

well, i hope so.

 

[cell]

MTV is so corporate and they really dont play that much music anyways. All of those people are around 20 years old, while the majority of the diehard U2 fans are in their late 20's to early 40's...and there are a little bit of the younger fans who keep coming. I believe U2 will be heard alot...one way or the other.

 

[JimmyChicken]

Re: Re: Are U2's Top40/MTV Days behind them?

Wait, ES was a failure?

I swear it was on VH1's Top Twenty Countdown for a couple of weeks at least...

It failure in mine country!

 

[typhoon]

Who cares if U2 isn't played alongside shit like Avril Lavigne and Justin Timberlake? None of the other bands I like are. Radio and MTV can rot without them.

 

[womanfish]

Yes, Electrical Storm was a failure. a couple weeks on a VH1 countdown does not equate to a hit song.

I have my doubts about U2 singles hitting too far into the top 40 territory. U2 has increasingly been unlucky in the style of music meshing with what is being played. (Actually I think they got extremely lucky with Beautiful Day, because that sounds nothing like a hit song to me)

U2's dilemma is this: They once dominated AOR radio format through the 80's. Then when Achtung Baby came along AOR completely abandoned them thinking they had sold out and gone all "alternative". Well "alternative" radio was just starting to take off in 1991 and U2 (along with Pearl Jam, Nirvana and the Chilli Peppers) pretty much dominated that chart for quite a few years. They even had pretty good showings with the singles from POP on the modern rock charts.

But then Modern rock took a new turn. It was rap-metal, butt-rock that came to the forefront and bands like Limp Bizkit and Korn were now taking over that chart.

So now U2's dilemma is that they aren't "hard" enough for the modern rock stations (or young and hip enough) and they aren't "poppy" enough for the top 40 stations (or young and hip enough). The only love they get now is from Adult Top 40, which is good, but probably not good enough to get them much chart placement.

But again, it all depends on the song. If the song strikes a chord with people and popularity starts to build like it did with Beautiful Day, then a top 40 song could easily come their way. It's all in how the cards fall for them this time around.

 

[Zoomerang96]

and i for one hope they dont care what the public thinks and makes music they REALLY want to make.

 

[Jack In The Box]

Who cares if U2 isn't played alongside shit like Avril Lavigne and Justin Timberlake? None of the other bands I like are. Radio and MTV can rot without them.

exactly the same I have said, always

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

U2's dilemma is this: They once dominated AOR radio format through the 80's. Then when Achtung Baby came along AOR completely abandoned them thinking they had sold out and gone all "alternative". Well "alternative" radio was just starting to take off in 1991 and U2 (along with Pearl Jam, Nirvana and the Chilli Peppers) pretty much dominated that chart for quite a few years. They even had pretty good showings with the singles from POP on the modern rock charts.

But then Modern rock took a new turn. It was rap-metal, butt-rock that came to the forefront and bands like Limp Bizkit and Korn were now taking over that chart.

So now U2's dilemma is that they aren't "hard" enough for the modern rock stations (or young and hip enough) and they aren't "poppy" enough for the top 40 stations (or young and hip enough). The only love they get now is from Adult Top 40, which is good, but probably not good enough to get them much chart placement.

Which is a great example of why formats are stupid.

Anyway, it doesn't matter to me if U2's top 40 days are behind them or not. As long as the music's good, that's all that matters to me, and I don't care where I hear it.

As for not being played on MTV anymore-MTV sucks as it is anyway. U2 should be (and will be) played on a channel that still actually plays VIDEOS the majority of the time.

Angela

 

[The_acrobat]

First of all, Electrical Storm wasn't a HUGE failure. I'm surprised it did as well as it did in America. What were you all expecting? The best of 90-2000 to sell through the roof?? Not at all. I think that to release ES was totally a waste of a good song. It could've been a nice addition to the next album. ES and Hands, to me, have no indication of how U2's next album will do. I mean, they'll be promoting the hell out of it, touring, and the very fact that they'll have an album out after 3 1/2 years will make the songs do well. Will they do as well as ATYCLB singles? Who's to say? I personally don't watch MTV, so I don't really care if they're on there. As long as I can listen to the new songs on my CD player in my car, in my room or at my computer desk, I'll get all the exposure I need.

 

[Diemen]

But with the advent of artists like Avril Lavigne, Michelle Branch, and Vanessa Carlton, all who also belong to the anti-Britney, anti-manufactured-music brigade, U2 has now lost its market niche to much younger, more marketable females.

Woah woah woah! Michelle Branch and Vanessa Carlton I'll agree with, but Avril Lavigne is just as manufactured as Britney.

 

[Strato Edge]

During the ATYCLB era, they were all over VH1. Everytime I watched that channel I was getting all of their singles on heavy rotation. As far as they're top forty goes and MTV, who gives a damn? Their next album will sell, that's a given. But I don't I want to hear them on MTV, because I don't watch that shite. U2 has gained a lot of popularity when their last album came out. I think they will get alot of radio airplay and on VH1. BECAUSE THEY ARE U2!

Jesus Christ, I'm sick of these 'doubter' threads. I don't think any of us want to hear that crap, I know I get irritated everytime I see one of these damn things. If you doubt them so much, go find another band that has even half the talent U2 does. ('Cept Coldplay.) Well, that's my 2 cents, don't like it, you know where you could shove it!

Start Edge...OUT!

 

[a-mole]

I think U2 have already reached the status of Rolling Stones, David Bowie, Metallica or any other super big band (singer)
no more heavy rotation for them. and why? because their singles won't sell as well as the "newer" more "pop", "mainstream", "in" songs
but taht is actually not because noone likes their songs, but because people will (do) buy the whole album instead and don't need teh songs double
Compare album with single charts... this gives you the real idea who is really big and who just has a hit song
radio and MtV airplay is mostly to promote the singles... it doesn't really show the sucess of the Bands /albums anyways

 

[adamswildhoney]

U2 are to the point in their career that they dont need to be "marketed" like the younger bands that are around. So the fact that they arent seen on tv or on the radio that often doesnt bother me at all bc I know as soon as their next album comes out and they tour, we will be hearing alot about of them.

 

[JOFO]

U2 are to the point in their career that they dont need to be "marketed" like the younger bands that are around. So the fact that they arent seen on tv or on the radio that often doesnt bother me at all bc I know as soon as their next album comes out and they tour, we will be hearing alot about of them.

ATYCLB was marketed the hell out of; and every time I turned on the radio, "beutiful day" was playing. every time I turned on the tv, one of the 4 videos from that album was playing.
every time I looked around, they were promoting the album on:
mtv
vh1
jay leno show
letterman
saturday night live
60 minutes
bono was on the cover of TIME
u2 was on the cover of rolling stone, spin, guitar player, bass player, etc. etc. etc.

and they're gonna do the exact same thing when the new album comes out; electrical storm and hands were side projects that didn't warrant the time to promote them, thus their "failure".

 

[david]

MTV doesn't play anyone over the age of 40 if they're not Elton John. U2's MTV days are behind them now, but as everyone said, U2 aren't a teenage or early twenties type of band so they have no need for MTV.

Radio will always play U2 anyway and it is very possible for acts to sell records without the aid of MTV.

I am not too worried about U2.

 

[rio589]

well, I really don't give a fuck if U2 is played.

Anyways, I got all their videos and records

and I don't feel so good about watching them in MTV

 

[follower]

and i for one hope they dont care what the public thinks and makes music they REALLY want to make.

I think and wish the same.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

i agree that the last two "singles" (i use that term loosely) did as best as they could've. why do i use the term loosely? singles here in america are a joke. iirc, U2 hasn't really even released a proper single here in a long time. i know during pop, i could only find their singles in the imports section, although i didn't really try looking that hard for atyclb and beyond.

singles don't even sell that well here anymore so most people don't even sell them, so for a song to just get some airplay isn't too surprising, imo. i'm not about to get into chart debates with one of the chart gurus, but it seems the single format is really dead here, unless they do some major revamping.

and yes, i agree about U2 not really fitting into any format. when you look at their music as a whole, they don't fit on any station in particular. not top 40, not adult contemporary, etc. the closest i could come is saying their older stuff can be played on classic rock stations. but that leaves out their stuff from like achtung baby and beyond, which is quite a bit of material.

anyway, to sum it all up, i don't think the past two songs' chart positions are any indication of things to come. i think the next album will do well, they've gotten the attention of a lot more people than they had before (back in 97 so many people didn't know who U2 were when i was gushing about popmart and now they probably went out and bought atyclb), and if this next album comes out soon and is marketed properly, it could do as well or even better than the last.

which could be a good or bad thing, depending on how you look at it.

 

[U2Kitten]

MTV is no longer what it was in the 80's when it played a variety of music, when it paid more attention to music than stupidass shows and biased news commentary, when it was MUSIC television, when it was GOOD. MTV is now nothing more than a teenybopper candy stand. So I would say yes, those days are behind them, but it's MTV's fault, not theirs. MTV is the one that has lost its relevance and credibility, not U2!!

If they get played, great, they might win over some of the intelligent young fans out there. If not, they will survive and prosper anyway.

 

[The_acrobat]

If I said "YES, They're top 40/MTV days are behind them", then would people stop asking this question??? I wonder.

U2 will promote the shit otu of this album. We'll get them on:

Letterman
Leno
Conan
SNL
MTV
KROQ Radio (National broadcast)
Muchmusic
Various award shows

Trust me, they'll promote it like crazy.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

i agree that the last two "singles" (i use that term loosely) did as best as they could've. why do i use the term loosely? singles here in america are a joke. iirc, U2 hasn't really even released a proper single here in a long time. i know during pop, i could only find their singles in the imports section, although i didn't really try looking that hard for atyclb and beyond.

singles don't even sell that well here anymore so most people don't even sell them, so for a song to just get some airplay isn't too surprising, imo. i'm not about to get into chart debates with one of the chart gurus, but it seems the single format is really dead here, unless they do some major revamping.

and yes, i agree about U2 not really fitting into any format. when you look at their music as a whole, they don't fit on any station in particular. not top 40, not adult contemporary, etc. the closest i could come is saying their older stuff can be played on classic rock stations. but that leaves out their stuff from like achtung baby and beyond, which is quite a bit of material.

anyway, to sum it all up, i don't think the past two songs' chart positions are any indication of things to come. i think the next album will do well, they've gotten the attention of a lot more people than they had before (back in 97 so many people didn't know who U2 were when i was gushing about popmart and now they probably went out and bought atyclb), and if this next album comes out soon and is marketed properly, it could do as well or even better than the last.

which could be a good or bad thing, depending on how you look at it.

Agree with all you said.

You actually could probably hear stuff from Achtung Baby at least on classic rock stations, since, like I said in another thread, any songs that are 10 years old or older are considered classic rock...but I don't hear anything from Achtung Baby on the stations in my area...(lately I've been lucky if I hear U2 at all when I'm listening to the radio...it seems that they are playing them less often. Either that or I'm just not listening at the right times).

Angela

 

[Popmartijn]

Hello,

I know this post was written from an US perspective. But since this is an international forum I won't let that prevent me from misinterpreting the post.
No, U2's Top 40/MTV days aren't behind them. OK, maybe MTV doesn't play them that often now, but when they have a single out they do. Beautiful Day, SIAMYCGOO, Elevation were all on fairly high rotation. Walk On and Electrical Storm a bit less IMO. Since Hands... wasn't released as an official single I won't comment on it (although I did see it a couple of times). But they're still not written off by MTV. When their singles are charting high then MTV plays it. It's what the masses want, it keeps the viewer at the channel, it sells.

This brings me to the second point: Top 40. U2's singles still have succes. With Beautiful Day U2 had their very first #1 in the Netherlands (and with Elevation their second). Walk On and Electrical Storm also reached the top 10 (Stuck didn't came higher than #12 or so). ATYCLB was in the top 10 of best selling albums 2 years in a row. So a commercial decline? Don't think so.
In the USA Electrical Storm also wasn't the failure some think it was. Granted, it only reached #72 or so on the Billboard Hot 100 (the main singles chart), but that's a better performance than Elevation or Walk On. Even The Fly reached only #61 back in 1991. In that sense U2's chart performance on the main Billboard singles chart was always a bit overestimated. Yes, they reached the top spot twice in 1987 and have 10 or 11 top 10 hits. But there are also many singles that didn't do too much (AIWIY reached on #83, lower than Electrical Storm!). In that sense U2's chart performance hasn't changed that much.

Commercial decline? Don't bet your house on it yet.

C ya!

Marty

 

[Seabird]

They don't need MTV. They will be promoted everywhere else. They will get the sales and the publicity.

 

[david]

I think Hands was a minor success. It deserves a lot more credit than it seems to get. It was used as a song to a hit movie, it was featured in all of the commercials, the boys got to play it like at the Oscars, they won another award for that song from some other movie award thingy, and it was also nominated for an Oscar wasn't it?

It wasn't written to be blasted from a car stereo, so of course radio didn't play it much, and I doubt they could have made a groundbreaking video for it since it was just a simple little song written for a big movie.

Electrical Storm could have been bigger I guess, but I don't think they really wanted it to be.

And I would like to retract my comments I made about U2 and MTV earlier.... I think that U2 and MTV will always work together whenever U2 releases a new album. I think MTV repsects U2 and acknowledges what they've done for music.

MTV and Madonna have a long standing relationship and I think U2 are the Madonna of rock simply because the way they reinvent themselves and are still able to attract a young audience with good music. So that is why MTV will always support U2, just like they've always have.

 

[sue4u2]

I have to give credit to MTV2, for playing 2 hours of U2 videos this morning. I was thinking "God, it's Bono's birthday and U2 should be on VH1 or something, I turned to MTV2 and the Elevation video was on. It's coming back on tomorrow around 2pm (ET). and the rest of this month. To find the time go to MTV2, click on "the on air schedule" and look for the Artist Collection it gives all the date/time for the rest of the month.
To those of you who can't get MTV2, I'm so sorry. I only watch that station when I know something of rock is coming on, I don't care to watch hip hop, which is all it has on most of the time. The videos are from the beginning to the ATYCLB era. I couldn't believe I just happen upon it.

 

[rockonedge]

I have to give credit to MTV2, for playing 2 hours of U2 videos this morning. I was thinking "God, it's Bono's birthday and U2 should be on VH1 or something, I turned to MTV2 and the Elevation video was on. It's coming back on tomorrow around 2pm (ET). and the rest of this month. To find the time go to MTV2, click on "the on air schedule" and look for the Artist Collection it gives all the date/time for the rest of the month.
To those of you who can't get MTV2, I'm so sorry. I only watch that station when I know something of rock is coming on, I don't care to watch hip hop, which is all it has on most of the time. The videos are from the beginning to the ATYCLB era. I couldn't believe I just happen upon it.

Cool!! I got so mad when i rushed up to the tv after i read eriseds post that it was on and i had missed it by fifteen minutes but now i can just watch it some other time!

I think that U2 will do well on radio. There are at least seven, if not more, radio stations in my area that play U2, from the classic rock, to the modern rock, to the top 40 to the adult mix to the adult rock mix. And theres more but i just can't think of them. In fact this one station in my area (there was a thread or two in pleba about it) that prides (no pun intended ) itself in playing u2, all the djs love them and are known to always throw in the little tidbits about what bono's up to (and one time after "one" this guy started reminiscing about the hilarious ben stiller parody of it with the leprechans...if thats not a u2 fan i don't know who is ) or little things like "oh! and get out your electric glockenspiel for the next song.." (for IWF) . Really..they play everything pretty much, except POP (i'll have to work on them a bit ) and they even have a special U2 @2 (oclock) thing where they'll play anything, even b-sides, non singles, live cuts whatever. They're cool. And i know they're going to be playing massively any new stuff that come out.

As for the videos.....I still think vh1 plays tons and tons of them, and if its not played a lot, hey you can always get the dvd someday right?