F the charts!!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

wolfwill23

War Child
Joined
Nov 2, 2000
Messages
649
Location
New York, NY
What's this I hear? Springsteen's new disc, "Rising" has hit number one?! Is that true?

I listened to the album today and it's ok, but I feel it is a far cry from ATYCLB.

So the question is, why didn't U2 hit #1 in the states? It seems like people are making a bigger thing out of this than out of U2. Is it becuase this album deal directly with 9/11 issues? Is it becuase Bruce is back with the E-Street band? I just don't get it. It's like the 80's all over again.

Which brings me to another issue. How sad is the music industry today when the only good music out there is from a bunch of 40+-year-olds? New music that is truly relevant is hard to come by these days. Where's the revolution already? What's broken, the machine or the parts of the machine?

Discuss.
 
I totally agree with you! Todays music really kinda suxs bc Its all about hookin up with someone or being broken hearted about someone.

I wish that more bands would surface and take on issues like U2 did!
 
If you dis the BOSS again I will have to shoot you.

Seriously though, this sounds exactly like every non U2 fan when All that you can't leave behind came out. I'm not putting wolfwill23 down, it just sounds familiar. It's a natural reaction when you love your band. Examples:

1.Why isn't (insert your favorite band here) selling as well? Why is (insert not favorite band here) selling so well?

2.It seems like people are making a bigger thing out of this than out of (insert favorite band here).

3. I just don't get it. It's like the 80's all over again. (how many people said this about U2?)

But as to why U2 wasn't at #1, that's pretty simple. That week was much stiffer competition. Bruce had only Nickleback to compete against, and they weren't even close. (And seeing him squash them is just fine by me.)
 
adamswildhoney said:
I wasnt dissing THE BOSS! I was agreeing with the fact that alot of music today suxs!

After all I was:

*singing*

" BORN IN THE USA"

no, no...not you...wolfwill23.
 
the only thing the charts ever do for me is make me nervous about liking a band because I have this weird quirk where the more popular something is, the more skeptical I am about it. but anyway, that being said...

I think there are a lot of great new bands out there such as The Doves, Elbow, Electric Soft Parade, Coldplay, etc. THough I can say I doubt I ever would have found any of them on my own so I am guessing they are not all that hyped up.

as for U2 vs the Boss, I really don't know but well who cares what the charts say, different people like different things and it's never really been that important to me how U2 do on the charts compared to other artists :silent:
they've proven themselves to me.
 
Well, I usually don't even get involved in this kind of stuff, because I just don't like it..

There is no way that U2 is in any sort of 'competition' w/ The Boss-they really don't care imo how many copies of The Rising sell vs ATYCLB (they've had more than their fair share of success w/ this last CD/tour, and they are not the kind of people to begrudge him his). Or that they didn't hit #1 and he did. And personally, as a fan of both, I don't care either.

U2 faced the same sort of criticism on tour re. 9/11 and 'exploitation' accusations. For anyone who thinks Bruce wrote this CD to exploit/make money off 9/11, maybe you could read the interviews in Time or Rolling Stone. He also discussed this on Nightline. The man has a lot of musical and personal integrity-one reason I admire him so much.

Bruce fans have a strong attachment to him, and it's re-energized when he releases a new CD/goes on tour-ditto for U2. And if the '80's all over again' means Bruce taking over the charts, I'm all for it :up:
 
I excitedly watched Bruce's live performance at Asbury Park, which was broadcast on the Today Show. He talked about this, how some critics were saying that he was taking advantage of the whole 9/11 thing and exploiting it or whatever. That's just not true. It's just the way Bruce writes...about everyday life and everyday people. And if what he's always done is popular right now, so be it.

Rock on, Bruce! :up:
 
First off, I like Bruce! But......I don't give a damn about the charts. OK, ATYCLB debuted at #3 and was never any higher......can you say "more competition"? I understand that Paul McGuinness was really pissed off at the record company for putting out another album the same week that debuted at #1 but I seriously doubt if the band sweated it. This is the Competitive Business From Hell. One week is one week. Overall, will "The Rising" sell as many copies as ATYCLB has in the same time span? I don't know. Nobody knows. Does anyone care? Personally, I don't.
 
Gina Marie said:
Well, I usually don't even get involved in this kind of stuff, because I just don't like it..

There is no way that U2 is in any sort of 'competition' w/ The Boss-they really don't care imo how many copies of The Rising sell vs ATYCLB (they've had more than their fair share of success w/ this last CD/tour, and they are not the kind of people to begrudge him his). Or that they didn't hit #1 and he did. And personally, as a fan of both, I don't care either.

U2 faced the same sort of criticism on tour re. 9/11 and 'exploitation' accusations. For anyone who thinks Bruce wrote this CD to exploit/make money off 9/11, maybe you could read the interviews in Time or Rolling Stone. He also discussed this on Nightline. The man has a lot of musical and personal integrity-one reason I admire him so much.

Bruce fans have a strong attachment to him, and it's re-energized when he releases a new CD/goes on tour-ditto for U2. And if the '80's all over again' means Bruce taking over the charts, I'm all for it :up:


Well said. I agree 100% Furthermore, U2 and Bruce and the E-Street Band are all friends. Each pulls for the other to be successful. I think this exploitation talk is nonsense. Hell, you can't come from New Jersey and not have feelings about the Big Apple, the WTC, and a whole bunch of stuff New York. I have sisters who've lived in both New Jersey and NYC. The first time I talked to them after the attack I got the creeps. It's in the air...... if you're an artist you're going to express yourself about that kind of horror.
 
I cannot understand why Springsteen is above reproach. I agree that his album is far inferior to ATYCLB and that today's music scene generally SUCKS.
 
Last edited:
I wish people would stop trying to compare artists on the basis of how many records they sell because it's pretty meaningless. Sometimes quality work does sell, but we all know there have been plenty of crappy albums at the top of the charts because there will always be lots of people in the world who don't care about music having depth - they just want something to dance to or bang their head to or whatever.

OK, on to my next point - WHAT IS IT WITH YOU PEOPLE TALKING TRASH ABOUT THE BOSS? (Sorry, I can't help it, I'm a big fan. I was into his music before I even knew who U2 were). All right, not everyone has to be his biggest fan, I can accept that. But can't you at least respect him for having integrity - the same kind of integrity U2 has?
 
I'll have to say that ATYCLB doesn't measure up to the Rising, as good as it is. I love U2, far more than Bruce, but the Boss is the man of the year in my music scene.
 
Hell, some of my favorite albums have *never* been on the damn charts. I don't give a damn about sales figures. But people are going to have diverse opinions about various albums based on the merits of the songs. I really dig Springsteen; some don't. There are diverse opinions here on him, and on how "The Rising" stacks up against ATYCLB. So what? What's wrong with differing opinions? Opinions are like noses; everyone has one.
 
As far as why Bruce opened at #1 on the charts, while U2 didn't, this is the main reason that came up in my mind:

Bruce is American. All-American, tried and true, stripes and bars proud-of-my-country American. Which is what a lot of people are looking for right now, and Bruce is delivering. Not that I'm saying he's using 9/11 as a marketing tool, but he's an all-American artist who is musically responding to that time in an open, honest, heartfelt, spiritual and uplifting way. I'm glad to see him topping the charts, he deserves it.

If U2 and Bruce released the exact same album, I bet Bruce would chart higher in the US, simply because he's from the US. Simple patriotism.
 
wolfwill23 said:


So the question is, why didn't U2 hit #1 in the states?
Very simply, ATYCLB was released at the same time as a couple of albums (Britney and some rap act I think) that were very hot with the younger audience, and the largest demographic for music purchases is teenagers.
 
The only reason U2 didn't debut at #1 with ATYCLB is because they faced strong competition that week. I know the exact total of copies Springsteen sold this week and even if ATYCLB sold as many, it still wouldn't have hit #1. U2 just had their album released in a very competitive week. Had they released it one week earlier (and assuming the sales were the same), they would have been #1.

ATYCLB had the best SoundScan era debut week in U2's career - and this coming off of "Pop" - U2's poorest selling album over a decade (at the time). Therefore, it's not like ATYCLB/U2 performed poorly in their debut week. What is more important is how the album holds up AFTER its debute. While having a #1 album gives one some "bragging rights" - it truly is the long-term sales that measure success. For example, I've seen #1 albums with sales of just 125,000 copies. Which is better - a #1 album that struggles to hit Platinum or a 4x Platinum album? Ideally, one wants both, but there have been other top-selling albums that just never hit the top of the chart. Madonna's "Ray of Light", the Chili Peppers' "Californication" and now U2's ATYCLB are all albums that did not hit #1 but have been - or soon will be - certified as 4x Platinum in the U.S.

Comparing artists is always silly. I admit, there are times I fall into this trap as well. However, let's not get carried away on this sales/chart issue. As a person who has watched the charts for years, I can assure you that it's not that important. Therefore, while I have never been a huge Springsteen fan (some great songs, some I really don't like), I congratulate him on hitting #1. Anything that keeps the likes of some of the artists of today from hitting the top is a worthwhile achievement. ;)
 
Actually, the largest music buying demographic is the Baby Boom generation(Those born from 1946 to 1963).
 
STING2 said:
Actually, the largest music buying demographic is the Baby Boom generation(Those born from 1946 to 1963).

It is? That's news to me. I thought it was Gen Y. Well, if the Baby Boomers really are the biggest record-buying demographic that would certainly help explain why The Rising is doing so well. After all, the Boss has been around since the early to mid-70s.
 
Baby Boomers #1? Well if that's the case, they may overall buy the most, but as for new music sales, especially right after release, I think you'll find its the younger crowd who heads to the stores asap to buy the hot new thing.
 
The baby boomers may be the larger potential market but most music buyers fall in to the 18-24 year-old demographic. Adults tend to buy based on proven talent [Bruce] but don't buy often. Teenagers buy anything [Britney, Limp Bizkit] with their extra disposable income [they don't have bills and rent to pay].

I would suggest you dig in to the U2 music charts forum where this is all explained. U2 debuted at #2, behind a Jay Z album. As late as March/April/May of this year, ATYCLB was selling more copies per week than the Jay Z album that hit #1 and a Jay Z album released in 2001 COMBINED. Yes, they didn't hit #1 but ATYCLB has been a somewhat consistant performer on the charts since its release and was hit either #11 or #10 in February of this year-- a year and a half after its release.
 
sharky said:
I would suggest you dig in to the U2 music charts forum where this is all explained. U2 debuted at #2, behind a Jay Z album.

A small correction here, U2 debuted at #3, as Outkast also sold more of Stankonia in their first week than U2 did of ATYCLB.

As late as March/April/May of this year, ATYCLB was selling more copies per week than the Jay Z album that hit #1 and a Jay Z album released in 2001 COMBINED. Yes, they didn't hit #1 but ATYCLB has been a somewhat consistant performer on the charts since its release and was hit either #11 or #10 in February of this year-- a year and a half after its release.

And this also held true for the sales of ATYCLB and Outkast's Stankonia and their follow up Big Boi And Dre Present... ATYCLB also outsold those two.
In February/March U2 had a second Grammy surge with ATYCLB and the album had a second week in the Top 10 (in total that is) when they hit #10. Unfortunately, things are not looking that good now. Last week ATYCLB was #187 and I don't know if U2 will be in the Billboard 200 this week. :(

C ya!

Marty
 
Popmartijn said:


In February/March U2 had a second Grammy surge with ATYCLB and the album had a second week in the Top 10 (in total that is) when they hit #10. Unfortunately, things are not looking that good now. Last week ATYCLB was #187 and I don't know if U2 will be in the Billboard 200 this week. :(

C ya!

Marty

A small correction here... With U2's Grammy wins earlier this year, they scored a THIRD week in the top 10 (total). ATYCLB debuted at #3 and dropped to #5 its second week.

Oh, and while I haven't posted chart info yet, ATYCLB does survive another week in the U.S. Top 200. :D I'll post that news hopefully later today (Sat. Aug. 10th).
 
Back
Top Bottom