One last single off SOI or not ?

[U2girl]

With the recent rumour of no Europe dates and work on SOE instead...should U2 choose one last single off SOI to keep the focus on the album until the autumn tour dates happen or not ?

If so, what should it be ?

 

[Galeongirl]

Iris.

 

[Desert Dog]

Crystal Ballroom

 

[Kieran McConville]

Sleep Like A Baby Tonight

 

[wolbersu2]

Cedarwood Road

Sent from my GT-I9505 using U2 Interference mobile app

 

[prbiker15]

California

 

[digitize]

Highly doubt there will be another single.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[gweeps]

Raised By Wolves

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

No.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

Raised By Wolves

If they were to do one, this would be a killer song, but i highly doubt they release another single.

 

[Mack_Again]

Lucifer's Hands, you fool

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Well if they're not going to worry about touring and being able to perform the single live then they should go ahead and release The Troubles.

A remixed Raised By Wolves to fit more into how it's performed live wouldn't be terrible.

But they're not releasing another one, so it's a moot point.

 

[domo-kun]

Reach around

 

[chocky]

The Troubles.
As an EP with live versions of Sunday Bloody Sunday->Raised By Wolves


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Mack_Again]

#reacharound

 

[MrPryck2U]

Reach around

My favorite track. Maybe an ambitious DJ could take a chance and play it on their own. We can dream, right?

 

[Catman]

I suppose since they're at the tail end of the tour before the big break, if U2 were to release a new single with any intention for a modicum of commercial success, they might as well go with the song that has the best shot of achieving that goal--The Crystal Ballroom!

So the song isn't on the official album release, nor has it been anywhere near a part of the regular song rotation during the tour--it's a strong tune with solid lyrics and an infectious melody (not to mention Brian Burton's producing prowess providing a powerful, percolating pulse (totally got carried away with the alliteration on that one; i apologize)! So what the heck, why not release Crystal Ballroom... if the band were to release another single--which, as another user has already mentioned, will in all likelihood not occur. But that doesn't mean it's not fun to speculate (and as a U2 can, there's certainly a lot of that )!

Sent from my SCH-I435 using U2 Interference mobile app

 

[Hollow Island]

What's the point? It won't get radio play,everyone on earth was given the album...unless they release a standalone 45 it would be meaningless to release a single.
All they'd be doing would be saying to the irrelevant institution of corporate radio " here's a song you've had access to for over a year and had no interest in playing because you already have 3 of our songs in the permanent rotation of your strict, stagnant continent-striding empire."
U2 should abandon singles. They'll never have another hit single. Just release albums and EPs.

Sent from my XT1034 using U2 Interference mobile app

 

[An Cat Gav]

The only songs they should consider releasing are The Troubles or Reach, it's not like they're going to have to worry about playing them live now and both are interesting and different enough to perhaps spark some public interest. I have long thought that The Troubles would be a great single, seeing the Walking Dead advert only heightened this feeling.
That said, I doubt very much that they'll bother releasing anything else from SoI.

 

[lemonfly]

What's the point? It won't get radio play,everyone on earth was given the album...unless they release a standalone 45 it would be meaningless to release a single.
All they'd be doing would be saying to the irrelevant institution of corporate radio " here's a song you've had access to for over a year and had no interest in playing because you already have 3 of our songs in the permanent rotation of your strict, stagnant continent-striding empire."
U2 should abandon singles. They'll never have another hit single. Just release albums and EPs.

Sent from my XT1034 using U2 Interference mobile app

Absolutely. For vintage acts like U2, releasing singles is really an exercise in futility. The days when U2 could release three or four singles from the same album and reasonably expect them all to do well are long, long gone.

 

[YBORCITY]

Cover of Adele's Hello

 

[Desert Dog]

Song for Someone (Redanka Remix)

 

[womanfish]

Absolutely. For vintage acts like U2, releasing singles is really an exercise in futility. The days when U2 could release three or four singles from the same album and reasonably expect them all to do well are long, long gone.

It's not even vintage acts. At this point, Rock bands in general need not apply. Even the Foo Fighters who were the most talked up rock act of last year, with praise out the ass from NME, Consequence of Sound, Stereogum, etc... (All the ones that trashed U2) and they had what? Maybe one song I heard on Alternative Radio for about a month? Nothing after that. And that corresponded with a emmy winning HBO program.

Actually Song for Someone and EBW probably got more spins on radio than they did.

I don't see the harm in releasing singles. The Troubles would be fantastic. But it's not just a U2 problem. It's how the industry is at the moment

 

[Oregoropa]

Troubles


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The Troubles.
As an EP with live versions of Sunday Bloody Sunday->Raised By Wolves


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I could get behind this.

 

[Hollow Island]

It would be cool if they released a real single, a non-album track and b-side on 45 and digital just for the hell of it. It's not uncommon. It would be good for them to do so they can still release good songs that don't fit SOE. They could put out stranger, less commercial stuff that way because it would be lower profile.

Sent from my XT1034 using U2 Interference mobile app

 

[JamietheEdgefan]

It would be cool if they released a real single, a non-album track and b-side on 45 and digital just for the hell of it. It's not uncommon. It would be good for them to do so they can still release good songs that don't fit SOE. They could put out stranger, less commercial stuff that way because it would be lower profile.

Sent from my XT1034 using U2 Interference mobile app

I think that if the band are still after hits, relevance etc, they wouldn't want to 'waste' their publicity on something that they don't think will be very popular.

I mean, if I were in their shoes (and still wanted hit singles), at this point after 2 albums that failed to produce popular songs on the scale of vertigo, beautiful day (let alone their older stuff), I'd be worried that the more I put out unpopular stuff, the less people would pay attention, because they'd come to expect sub-par material/ no longer expect something 'big' and great the way the past hits were.

So it's likely a question of keeping people's attention going. "We messed up last time, but don't worry, now we have THIS!!!" Otherwise the public will end up thinking "well, they used to be good, but they've had a string of duds, there's little chance this will be any different, why should we bother?"

 

[Hollow Island]

Otherwise the public will end up thinking "well, they used to be good, but they've had a string of duds, there's little chance this will be any different, why should we bother?"

The public, including critics, pretty much already thinks this. SOI and NLOTH were duds, and got mediocre reviews.

I'm not suggesting that U2 put out sub-par material, only that they could release songs that don't fit the preconceived concept of the SOE as singles.

U2 need to know they're not going to have hits. Rock bands generally don't get hits, and old artists definitely don't get hits.

If you were in their shoes, your thinking would be dangerously close to "let's give the fans what they want," which is an artistic death sentence (I think your reaction to their shoes would be pretty similar to what theirs is).

John Frusciante sent out a message to subscribers yesterday, and I'll quote it:

I don’t think people know what they want, except that the general public thinks that artists should sound as their audience expects them to. The general public did not “want” Jimi Hendrix’s music before 1967. They did not know that such sounds were possible. How could they have wanted it before they heard it? Did the public “want” Sgt. Pepper before it came out? That would have been impossible, because no album had ever sounded remotely like that. Yet musicians who aim at becoming or remaining popular have gotten into this stupid habit of attempting to give the public “what it wants”.

This statistic might be indicative of something too:

David Bowie's new song, Blackstar, is 10 minutes long and arguably the strangest, most uncommercial thing he's ever done. It has 2.9 million views on youtube in a week.

Get On Your Boots, the official video, has 3.2 million hits in six years, and it was designed to be a hit.

Give the people what they want...

 

[aMansAman]

I'd be worried that the more I put out unpopular stuff, the less people would pay attention, because they'd come to expect sub-par material/ no longer expect something 'big' and great the way the past hits were.

You cannot really predict what will be "popular" with the masses .. I go crazy if I don't go crazy tonight --> what about that? Popular in the sense of "pop music"? Hell yes ... popular with many people? I doubt it ..

A musically strong song can get a massive hit , even if it is not "pop music".

So you can't really plan a hit .. sometimes hits with the masses happen out of nowhere ... of course 90% of that is musically bullsh*t ... but I would love the idea that U2 put out some interesting piece of music they are working on .. and that grows and grows and gets hyped all over the place ..

which won't happen of course

 

[BEAL]

They talk about hits, but they don't really try for them aside from the lead single.

Last two albums the lead single tanked and they pretty much gave up promoting the album (Bono had his accident which didn't help).

But didn't NLOTH supposed to have 4-5 singles as they came in little sleeves and they didn't bother releasing the last one?

The odds of U2 having a top 10 single are slim to none. They need to let it go and be content with their music, not the reaction to it


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference