Magnificent delivered to the radio

[Irishteen]

NLOTH is still very popular on torrent sites, Eminem's new album is less popular

Eminem's album is in crappy quality

 

[bram]

so can they finally release breathe now? or is it too late...


the bombing of their single choices combined with the success of their ticket sales makes u2 more and more like the rolling stones every day.

not saying that's a bad thing... i still love the stones and think they were fantastic live... but fans on this board like to take shots at the stones so it's funny to see u2 become more and more like them and watching the same people who bash the stones and consider them to be some sort of a joke, which is really unfair, all have to back peddle and make excuses for u2.

It could indeed be the beginning of the end. It won't bother me too much, but it will sure as hell piss the band off.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Again when was the last time the stones had a number 1 album in 31 different countries?, when was the last time a stones album climbed from #27 to #19 on the UK album chart?, talk about U2 becoming the stones is a little silly imo,

 

[Danny Boy]

It could indeed be the beginning of the end. It won't bother me too much, but it will sure as hell piss the band off.

Good, if the band is pissed off we should get at least one more great album out of them.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Seeing as NLOTH is the best selling album of the year by far, how could it be a mediocre selling album? And U2 are not gonna become more like the Stones they might approach Bruce's level but not the stones

what exactly does "bruce's level" mean?

in terms of touring u2 and springsteen are nothing alike. they are very similar to the stones... big stages, lots of fireworks, lots of hits, not a lot of setlist rotation.

springsteen plays 3 hour shows with a basic stage, where he'll play a song that's never been released that's only been played one other time 30 years ago if he feels like it, and followed up his big succesful commercial comeback album with a CD of folk banjo music.

i don't understand why comparing somebody to the stones is considered to be such an insult. the bigger bang tour was great.

 

[Catman]

I think a major difference in U2 and the Stones right now is that there is a considerable amount of hype concerning U2 album releases - sure, NLOTH may not have had any hit singles, but the record itself was a high-profile delivery. I think U2 are not becoming more like the Rolling Stones, but Bruce Springsteen - fans and the public still anxiously await the release, even though, in this particular era of U2's career, there may not be any "smash" single.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

do you think rolling stone fans don't anxiously await new albums anymore? really? would you like to see the mass exodous of fans to the pisser when "kingdom of days" is played on tour now?


i think many of you in here think the stones are a joke, which is sad 'cause they really are still a great live act, and that's why you're trying to come up with this springsteen comparison 'cause bruce is cooler or something. i love both u2 and springsteen, but the two are nothing alike in anything they do, other than that they're artists who care about the world.

 

[Catman]

do you think rolling stone fans don't anxiously await new albums anymore? really? would you like to see the mass exodous of fans to the pisser when "kingdom of days" is played on tour now?


i think many of you in here think the stones are a joke, which is sad 'cause they really are still a great live act, and that's why you're trying to come up with this springsteen comparison 'cause bruce is cooler or something. i love both u2 and springsteen, but the two are nothing alike in anything they do, other than that they're artists who care about the world.

To be perfectly honest, I think you're kidding yourself in thinking The Rolling Stones get the same amount of acknowledgment with their most recent output as U2 and Springsteen. Sure, the diehard fans of RS may still anxiously await the latest release, but the general public? Not so much...

U2 and Springsteen still have music videos, the record companies still bank on their latest material to sell, sell, sell, there are pushes for the latest single on various radio stations... generally when the Stones put out their latest disc, it's more just a signal that a tour is coming up as opposed to material that I'd want to listen to (and if you look at the band's respective set lists, you'd be hard-pressed to find a Rolling Stone show that plays nearly as much new material as U2 and Springsteen).

 

[Shawn Bonneau]

U2 needa release "Breathe" very soon

SMB

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

To be perfectly honest, I think you're kidding yourself in thinking The Rolling Stones get the same amount of acknowledgment with their most recent output as U2 and Springsteen. Sure, the diehard fans of RS may still anxiously await the latest release, but the general public? Not so much...

U2 and Springsteen still have music videos, the record companies still bank on their latest material to sell, sell, sell, there are pushes for the latest single on various radio stations... generally when the Stones put out their latest disc, it's more just a signal that a tour is coming up as opposed to material that I'd want to listen to (and if you look at the band's respective set lists, you'd be hard-pressed to find a Rolling Stone show that plays nearly as much new material as U2 and Springsteen).

YouTube - THE ROLLING STONES - "THE RAIN FALLS DOWN "

YouTube - Rolling Stones - Streets Of Love

The first single, "Streets of Love/Rough Justice" reached #15 in the UK singles chart, while A Bigger Bang entered the UK charts at #2 and #3 in the U.S. However, like all of The Rolling Stones' studio albums since Tattoo You, its commercial performance was not enormous, as its singles failed to become major hits and the record made only a transient impact on the charts. Nevertheless, A Bigger Bang went platinum and sold about as well as its predecessor, Bridges to Babylon (perceived as a considerably more commercial record), indicative of the Stones' enshrinement as a ceaselessly popular rock band rather than immediate pop contenders, and of a commercial security derived from a huge, devoted fan base (which may have been one of the band's realizations in recording this less calculated, rawer, and fairly uncommercial record).

As of March 31, 2006, the album had sold over 2.4 million copies worldwide according to EMI. [1]

In August 2005 the Rolling Stones embarked on the A Bigger Bang Tour in support of the album. The 90-show phenomenon is the largest tour in North American history and was met with sold-out tickets at every destination, usually within minutes of opening. The tour was extended into 2007, not because always of selling every ticket, but because Keith Richards fell out of a tree in Fiji. It concluded in August 2007 at the O2 Arena in London.

The album is the first on which Jagger also plays bass on some tracks. This results from Ronnie Wood's lesser participation.

This album was chosen as one of Amazon.com's Top 100 Editor's Picks of 2005. It was ranked the second-best album of the year by Rolling Stone magazine, behind rapper Kanye West's Late Registration.[2]

By January 2009, Magic had sold one million copies in the U.S

who's kidding who?

again... i love bruce springsteen and u2 a heck of a lot more than i do the stones... but there is this perception about the stones that is incredibly unfair that just because they are old that they're some sort of novelty act that don't matter in the grand scheme of things.

and now that u2 are getting up there in age and they have an album that isn't hitting off as well as they'd like and singles that are bombing and not relevant but a huge multimedia shitshow of a tour that's selling regardless... well, that's the stones.

i'm not trying to bash u2 by saying they're getting closer to what the stones are... i consider that to be an honor, considering as the rolling stones are one of the greatest rock and roll bands of all time, in the pantheon of rock bands. you can't get much higher than the stones... that u2 are approaching their territory, where they can sell out stadiums despite not having an album that has grasped america and the world means that they, too, are at their peak of peaks, where there isn't much higher they can go in the all time grand scheme of things.

that last parapgraph in that wikipedia article can be used to describe no line on the horizon... just change the words.

Nevertheless, No Line On The Horizon went platinum and sold about as well as its predecessor, How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb (perceived as a considerably more commercial record), indicative of U2's enshrinement as a ceaselessly popular rock band rather than immediate pop contenders, and of a commercial security derived from a huge, devoted fan base (which may have been one of the band's realizations in recording this less calculated, rawer, and fairly uncommercial record).

in 1997 as huge as u2 were after the zootv era... when pop popped, the sales of the tour reflected it. they were not yet at that ultimate level. now they are.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

U2 needa release "Breathe" very soon

SMB

they shoulda released it already...

 

[Utoo]

Breathe will appeal more to classic rock listeners than the demographic that determines the Top 40. It's not going to do anything to boost U2's radio facetime. Magnificent is the one song on the album that had the best shot of doing that, and I'm not entirely sure why it didn't.

 

[TonyH]

Am I missing something, wasn't Magnificent just released? How can people be writing if off already?

 

[bathiu]

As of March 31, 2006, the album had sold over 2.4 million copies worldwide according to EMI.

Just one thing.
IF NLOTH was released in September 2005 it would be around 5 to 6 mln copies sold around March 2006 (50% decline of album sales + holiday boost)
You can't compare an album released in March 2009 to an album released in September 2005.
The Stones didn't even hit #1 with ABB in US and UK, it was a small album, NLOTH is the biggest of the year.

(...and I agree, calling or comparing U2 to The Stones should not be an insult to U2 )

 

[clipper699]

Breathe will appeal more to classic rock listeners than the demographic that determines the Top 40. It's not going to do anything to boost U2's radio facetime. Magnificent is the one song on the album that had the best shot of doing that, and I'm not entirely sure why it didn't.

I think Crazy Tonight has Top 40 written all over it.

 

[Irishteen]

Am I missing something, wasn't Magnificent just released? How can people be writing if off already?

Because it was released and missed the top 40 completely, it' already being dropped from radio stations in the UK, and seems to have peaked on most formats in the US.

 

[U2FloridaFan]

Imagine my surprise upon entering the gym for a workout this morning, and being greeted by the Fred Faulke version fo Magnificent. Definitely got me in the mood to work out. First time I've heard any version of Magnificent on the radio...I think it was on XM.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Breathe will appeal more to classic rock listeners than the demographic that determines the Top 40. It's not going to do anything to boost U2's radio facetime. Magnificent is the one song on the album that had the best shot of doing that, and I'm not entirely sure why it didn't.

magnificent and boots aren't even getting major play time on classic rock stations anymore . breathe will appeal to classic rock and modern rock listeners, crazy tonight will appeal to top 40.

u2 have released two singles with cheesey titles and no catchy chorus or hook and a strange song structure.

epic failure.

doesn't mean they're bad songs... just means that in today's ADD society they'll never fly. this was my argument when the thread first started, unfortunatly it turns out to be true.

breathe and crazy tonight were the obvious single choices... they should have released one (or both). then, once you hook the audience in with the catchy sing along song... THEN you can release a song like magnificent or even boots. unfortunatly it might be too late.

this is not the early 90s where you can release The Fly and let it build. those days are long gone.

the only thing that could be worse is to now release moment of surrender. and i like moment of surrender, but it will never be a hit single.

 

[TonyH]

Because it was released and missed the top 40 completely, it' already being dropped from radio stations in the UK, and seems to have peaked on most formats in the US.

Wow, I guess Boots did more damage than I thought.

 

[U2girl]

I hope U2 calls it quits before they ever become the Stones.

And it's been years since U2's had a chorus as big as Magnificent.

 

[Zoocoustic]

magnificent and boots aren't even getting major play time on classic rock stations anymore . breathe will appeal to classic rock and modern rock listeners, crazy tonight will appeal to top 40.

u2 have released two singles with cheesey titles and no catchy chorus or hook and a strange song structure.

epic failure.

doesn't mean they're bad songs... just means that in today's ADD society they'll never fly. this was my argument when the thread first started, unfortunatly it turns out to be true.

breathe and crazy tonight were the obvious single choices... they should have released one (or both). then, once you hook the audience in with the catchy sing along song... THEN you can release a song like magnificent or even boots. unfortunatly it might be too late.

this is not the early 90s where you can release The Fly and let it build. those days are long gone.

the only thing that could be worse is to now release moment of surrender. and i like moment of surrender, but it will never be a hit single.

Agreed with everything here. Regardless of the songs I like and/or dislike, Breathe and Crazy Tonight are the only 2 songs on this album that could make any dent in Top 40 radio. Crazy Tonight actually is probably the most likely "mainstream" hit that the band could have used from this album.

U2 screwed this one up big time and they probably won't ever recover from it. The tour will still be a mega-success. And the grammies might help them too. But choosing Boots as a lead-off and Magnificent second is a death sentence for NLOTH, from a commercial standpoint.

 

[mikal]

U2 screwed this one up big time and they probably won't ever recover from it. The tour will still be a mega-success. And the grammies might help them too. But choosing Boots as a lead-off and Magnificent second is a death sentence for NLOTH, from a commercial standpoint.

i guess i'm not sure what you mean by "they probably won't ever recover from it." it's not like lack of chart success is going to kill their career. they still have the highest selling album this year.

 

[Irvine511]

it's hard to see what's going on with U2 right now.

it could be that they are taking a conscious step back from being too exposed like they were with Vertigo and the iPod commercial. they did a good week of promotion for NLOTH back in March and played some great sets where the new stuff sounded great. but since then, they've disappeared. if they wanted NLOTH to be colossal then what would have stopped them from doing another commercial? Blackberry is sponsoring the tour, why not do a commercial with them like they did in 2004? unless the point, here, is to be more Radiohead/Pearl Jam about all that stuff.

but then that begs the question as to why we have the so-called "middle 3" songs, all of which seem like obvious singles. i like them, don't get me wrong, but it seems like they were shoehorned into the album in order to give U2 a way to market the album. but then they haven't followed through on that, and if they really think about it, WTF is up with the titles? i'm embarrassed to even say the title, "I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight," despite the fact that i love the song. but then, based on the failure of Boots, it seems they retreated and tried to do the classic thing, and though "Magnificent" is a superlative song, the marketing and promotion and video all seem half-assed.

it's like we're seeing two U2's here -- the pop-minded Vertigo guys, and the guys who want to be more like Radiohead. and i can see that being a good, creative tension that results in the Achtung Baby era, but it can also expose you as having had no real plan at all to begin with and it confuses people.

maybe it will all make sense when the tour begins?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I hope U2 calls it quits before they ever become the Stones.

And it's been years since U2's had a chorus as big as Magnificent.

that's my point exactly.

first off your statement on magnificent is an opinion. secondly, they already are and what in god's name is wrong with being one of the biggest rock bands in the history of the planet, who can sell out a stadium simply by showing up?

the bigger bang tour was much more innovative than anything U2 has done since Popmart.

i just really want to know... why the hell do so many u2 fans on this board have a problem with the rolling stones?

 

[corianderstem]

u2 have released two singles with cheesey titles and no catchy chorus or hook and a strange song structure.

Boots definitely - but what about Magnificent is a "strange song structure"? Also, I think the chorus for Magnificent is catchy.

The truth probably falls somewhere between your opinion on the song and U2girl's.

 

[Flaming Friar Sr]

headache: thank you very much for your insightful take on the stones.

it's unbelievable how they are regarded by many on this forum.

 

[schnumi]

U2 just totally messed up the promotion off this album compared to HTDAAB. The last one was promoted so well that it became a hit, this one has to do without any kind of promotion really.

Not that it makes a difference to actual U2 fans but it just means it won't get top40 number hits etc with this album if they continue like this.

 

[ahittle]

headache: thank you very much for your insightful take on the stones.

it's unbelievable how they are regarded by many on this forum.

I've only recently let go of my stupid punk rock-fed dislike of the Stones, so I'm starting at the beginning of their career and appreciating them a lot these days. Remarkable songs. And I always assumed that their later albums are the suck, but a lot of people assume that the last several U2 albums are the suck.


It's only rock and roll...

 

[Layton]

i just really want to know... why the hell do so many u2 fans on this board have a problem with the rolling stones?

Speaking for myself, I don't believe the Stones have released an album that competes with their best work in 35 years. The tours feel like trips down memory lane. They don't push the newest albums. They know their fans primarily want '60's and '70's Stones.

Say what you want about recent U2, but they truly believe in their recent albums. The make their newest songs the centerpiece of their shows. A Stones album has become something you might pick up at a show if you have money leftover after buying a couple of tongue t-shirts. Trust me, if U2 ever get to that place I'll be the first one to bitch.

 

[U2girl]

that's my point exactly.

first off your statement on magnificent is an opinion. secondly, they already are and what in god's name is wrong with being one of the biggest rock bands in the history of the planet, who can sell out a stadium simply by showing up?

the bigger bang tour was much more innovative than anything U2 has done since Popmart.

i just really want to know... why the hell do so many u2 fans on this board have a problem with the rolling stones?

Magnificent has a chorus (and a conventional song structure). It's huge. U2 on ATYCLB and Bomb that wanted to write singles would kill for a chorus like that.

U2=Stones is a topic that keeps popping up. It just doesn't add up.