Screwtape2
Blue Crack Addict
What is single material though? U2 has been making music for decades and they still don't have the science down. It is hard to predict how well a song will go over. NLOTH proved that.
what should have been the 1st single?
- Thread starter manu0872
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
What is single material though? U2 has been making music for decades and they still don't have the science down. It is hard to predict how well a song will go over. NLOTH proved that.
Honestly, I was sure Magnificent would have been a hit, but it wasn't. Maybe if it had been released first? But then again who knows. I mean look at what is topping the charts right now, stuff like Lady Gaga, rap, Katy Perry, Rihanna, rap, Taylor Swift, rap, etc. Coldplay had a hit with Viva La Vida, which I don't really understand because I like Coldplay but I really didn't like that song, but other than that the music people are listening to is about as far from U2 as you can get. Also sadly I think U2's age is working against them at this point, most people topping the charts are roughly half their age. I understand producing hits is very important to the band but I believe it will only get harder from this point out.
It's always a bad thing when a group is perceived as corporate and bloated (like U2 are, whether we like it or not) and then are way over-hyped in early promotion (Blackberry, Letterman, Grammies), and then to account for all of that they give us a not-very likeable or exciting single ('Boots'), which music fans are pretty much forced to hear even though they didn't really want to. This whole thing got the campaign off to a really bad start.
Despite the long gap between albums, I don't think U2 did themselves any favors by overhyping themselves earlier this year. I agree that "sneaking" out a restrained song like "Moment of Surrender" of whatever would have been a good thing.
Whatever happened to the days of records being released quietly, and then slowly having hype built up over them as they deserved (or no hype if they didn't)? Michael Jackson released Thriller in December of 1982, and it was number one in the summer of 84...
Anyway, U2 just don't seem to be able to resists any offered chance for promotion in the USA. When it works it works, but when it doesn't, it can really back-fire (see PopMart).
Despite the long gap between albums, I don't think U2 did themselves any favors by overhyping themselves earlier this year. I agree that "sneaking" out a restrained song like "Moment of Surrender" of whatever would have been a good thing.
Whatever happened to the days of records being released quietly, and then slowly having hype built up over them as they deserved (or no hype if they didn't)? Michael Jackson released Thriller in December of 1982, and it was number one in the summer of 84...
Anyway, U2 just don't seem to be able to resists any offered chance for promotion in the USA. When it works it works, but when it doesn't, it can really back-fire (see PopMart).
gweeps
War Child
NLOTH2
It's an exciting version.
Should have been the album version, too.
It's an exciting version.
Should have been the album version, too.
branwalls
The Fly
Good point. WOWY probably didn't seem like an obvious first single, either.
intedomine
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Magnifi
or
Moment Of Surrender - would have really enchanted a lot of folk.
or
Moment Of Surrender - would have really enchanted a lot of folk.
mirrorballman
Refugee
NLOTH would have been a decent first single, but then again who would have wanted another No.1 track as first single? 
It's weird thinking about GOYB not being the first single or no single at all for that matter. Wondering if people would appreciate it more or not if it'd just be a track in the middle of the album.
It's weird thinking about GOYB not being the first single or no single at all for that matter. Wondering if people would appreciate it more or not if it'd just be a track in the middle of the album.
cobl04
45:33
i think i agree with those who are saying moment of surrender, but i don't know. i really don't think anything was going to do all that well, really. live is where they live 
zoopop
Rock n' Roll Doggie
NLOTH would have been a decent first single, but then again who would have wanted another No.1 track as first single?
It's weird thinking about GOYB not being the first single or no single at all for that matter. Wondering if people would appreciate it more or not if it'd just be a track in the middle of the album.
GOYB was just U2 by the numbers. They gave us Elevation, then Vertigo, and then GOYB. Having it just as an album cut would have been less obvious.
U2 playing the Grammys took some heat because they weren't nominated for anything. The promotion of NLOTH got bigger than the album itself.
Grammys
Letterman (5 nights)
BBC takeover
US promo tour
I'm sure SOA will be more low key. Let the music do the talking.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
This makes no sense.
This term is being abused far too much...
GOYB, might be a lot of things, but it's not U2 by the numbers. I can understand those that think Vertigo and GOYB are too similar, I think most at that comes down to the quick delivery of the verses and the seemingly surface lyrics for really nothing else is all that similar between the two. But I can see in the setting of U2 songs how those can sound similar. But Elevation?
So even if Vertigo and GOYB are similar, two songs do not make U2 by the numbers.
If you really want to use the U2 by numbers tag, I would think COBL is probably the closest... although I still like the song, I can see where that tag fits.
Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
Agreed. If ANYTHING COBL and Magnificent are U2 by numbers. Yet I don't hear anyone complain about those songs.
I can see the similarity between these up tempo rockers, and yes, they're first singles... but U2 by numbers? No way.
Tim Wallach
The Fly
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2008
- Messages
- 267
The funny thing about all of this debate is that I'm not even sure it completely matters anymore. With each passing year, singles from U2 are less and less likely to have huge chart impacts since charts are driven mostly by teenagers and also by niche genres. There is no universal chart anymore that is dominated by anyone.
But more importantly, I think after 3 decades of Pride, WOWY, Mysterious Ways, BD, Vertigo, etc., etc., etc., I think the problem is with the name U2 itself.
What I mean is that if some new punk band releases the song "No Line on the Horizon" it probably gets picked up as a great new tune. Or if anyone other than U2 releases Moment of Surrender, it's held up as an outstanding song. But from them, no matter how strong their songs are now, it just comes across as more good stuff from them that doesn't quite shock based on what we've heard before.
For me, if this were 1985, Moment is a HUGE song. In 2009, probably not. And there's not much U2 can do about that. I'm sure they wouldn't trade their legacy.
But more importantly, I think after 3 decades of Pride, WOWY, Mysterious Ways, BD, Vertigo, etc., etc., etc., I think the problem is with the name U2 itself.
What I mean is that if some new punk band releases the song "No Line on the Horizon" it probably gets picked up as a great new tune. Or if anyone other than U2 releases Moment of Surrender, it's held up as an outstanding song. But from them, no matter how strong their songs are now, it just comes across as more good stuff from them that doesn't quite shock based on what we've heard before.
For me, if this were 1985, Moment is a HUGE song. In 2009, probably not. And there's not much U2 can do about that. I'm sure they wouldn't trade their legacy.
Gonna Run 2 U
New Yorker
Either NLOTH or SUC.
mirrorballman
Refugee
Of course they matter, if not to us then at least to the band. A good first single will sell you much more albums than a crap first single. The only interesting part speculating about this is how another single release would have changed the course of the albums' perception! That's what I find much more interesting.
Then again, the album really doesn't have THAT hit single like "Beautiful Day" and "Vertigo" on the last two. Questionable whether any other song would have pulled that effect off for them or not.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
i've been pretty quiet on this debate for a while, but i just can't understand how anyone could think NLOTH2 is better than NLOTH. i love both, but i think the album version is one of U2's top 10 studio songs of all time.
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
congratulations, you just summed up every thread in this forum.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I love them both. I think NLOTH is better for the album, but standing alone? NLOTH2 has really been growing on me. It would probably be a better single!
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I actually LIKE that it's such a sloppy take! makes it feel more genuine, less perfect and sterile...
I didn't know what to think of GOYB when I heard it the first time. I don't think it worked well as a first single because it was similar in many ways to Vertigo and people kept referencing Wild, Wild, West and Pump It Up. I would think that there were a lot of people thinking it lacked some originality. It took me a long time to get used to the song. After listening to NLOTH 2 when it was played by Dave Fanning I immediately liked the song. I think this would have been a better lead off single even though this version isn't on the album. I do like the album version better but NLOTH seems more radio friendly.
1. No Line on the Horizon 2
2. Moment of Surrender
3. I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight
4. Magnificent
5. Stand Up Comedy
1. No Line on the Horizon 2
2. Moment of Surrender
3. I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight
4. Magnificent
5. Stand Up Comedy
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
...says the biggest HTDAAB fan on these boards
Haha! I like NLOTH A LOT more than HTDAAB, so if I'm the biggest.........
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Magnificent is the only song which would have done what U2 wanted it to do, IMO.
And because it had to follow the song that played right into the U2 fatigue, we'll never know if it would have fared better or not, but I am guessing it would have.
The mainstream audience wants U2 to sound like U2 and be good at sounding like U2.
Beautiful Day, in so many ways, is just as 'by numbers' as Magnificent.
This is what the big audience wants from U2. And this is the audience U2 covets.
Anything that doesn't take this into consideration is just fantasy.
I would applaud U2 from the highest mountain if they had released Fez.
But I would also be able to fly to the top of that mountain, because it would be fantasy.
And because it had to follow the song that played right into the U2 fatigue, we'll never know if it would have fared better or not, but I am guessing it would have.
The mainstream audience wants U2 to sound like U2 and be good at sounding like U2.
Beautiful Day, in so many ways, is just as 'by numbers' as Magnificent.
This is what the big audience wants from U2. And this is the audience U2 covets.
Anything that doesn't take this into consideration is just fantasy.
I would applaud U2 from the highest mountain if they had released Fez.
But I would also be able to fly to the top of that mountain, because it would be fantasy.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
yes. even stand alone, i think NLOTH is waaaaay better than NLOTH2. i've always thought that NLOTH2 sounds like a drunk parady of NLOTH.
Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
In 2000 the public wanted U2 to sound like U2. I don't think that was true in 2009. That's probably why Magnificent was such a gigantic flop as the second single!
It was time for something new. On the album, they knew that and delivered it, but then they gave 2 lead singles that sounded like work U2 had done before. How many times can you sell the same thing to the same people?
Aygo
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Well, for U2's standards at the time, no one would ever guess that "Numb" or "Lemon" would've ever be single material. And I think that these two songs could've had very decent chart peaks if their releasement was "normal".
Aygo
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I agree. GOYB must have, at the first glance, a similar spirit to Vertigo or Elevation one but... GOYB is way less acessible than these two, starting on the song structure, for instance.
Do not forget that this song is like 3 different songs compressed and compiled in a 3:30 minute song, that has several interludes/middle-eights/stop-start's and I tend to think that this is not exactly what the radio is looking for, no matter if the riff is very catchy or not.
Do not forget that this song is like 3 different songs compressed and compiled in a 3:30 minute song, that has several interludes/middle-eights/stop-start's and I tend to think that this is not exactly what the radio is looking for, no matter if the riff is very catchy or not.
Mrs. Garrison
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
i think u2 was very different back then, as in they really didnt "appear" to give a flying fuck where as now they really seem to want that elusive hit single. So given that, i think, songs like Fez BB and WAS (which are both good songs btw) would never ever be released as singles. Just my thoughts...
believer75
War Child
Crazy thing, but, here in Middle GA of all places, NLOTH is the most played of U2's albums on one radio station. I hear Crazy Tonight all the time in this town. Hear Boots a good bit, too. And MOS on occasion. Bomb wasn't even played that much when it came out. Although this same station does mix in Vertigo and COBL, too.
Similar threads
