U2's choices for lead singles

[mj3600]

I'm not sure who makes these decisions and what they are thinking - but I'm guessing the band would have a strong say. If you take the position that the purpose of a lead single is to create some excitement in the marketplace, attract new fans, satisfy existing fans and drive sales of a new CD release - then I have to really question what the band is thinking with their choices over the past number of years. Beautiful Day being the exception. But when you go back as far The Fly on AB, Numb on Zooropa, Discotheque on Pop and now Boots on NLOTH - these were not ideal choices for lead singles and did hurt CD sales considerably. Zooropa,Pop and NLOTH would have faired much better commercially had they picked better lead singles. AB succeeded despite of the The Fly. But even the band admitted when The Fly wasn't on the Best of '90's CD- that it hadn't stood the test of time all that well.

I know the band still feel it is important to be commercially successful - otherwise they wouldn't be doing the type of media blitzes that accompany each release. I had thought the band figured this out with BD and Vertigo as the lead singles on ATYCLB and HTDAAB. So it baffles me when they pick something like Boots to lead off NLOTH. It was a buzz killer. Could you imagine the hype had Magnificent been the lead single? It would have been unreal. The CD would still be at the top of the charts. Boots isn't even representive of the album. It kind of stands alone. Same with Discotheque and Numb. Instead Magnificent gets released later and the buzz is gone.

U2 are in uncharted waters. No other band has been around 30 plus years, still making great, relevant music; attracting new, younger fans; keeping older fans happy; playing sold-out tours with a set-list that comprises 30-40% of songs from their last couple of releases (remarkable really) and the fans actually wanting to hear the new stuff live!

I just hope when it's time for the lead single on SOA early next year - they think about that instead of 'Hey- let's put something out that'll really mess people up, schock them - especially our critics ... '

MJ

 

[SethVincent]

I can't say I disagree with you but look at it this way

If they thought they needed a single that was

1. Something younger people may like....more of a rockier kinda song

2. That was not to long so as to be played on the radio

Right or wrong GOYB may have been what they thought would work

Hindsight is always 20/20

 

[bigjohn2441]

U2 are in uncharted waters. No other band has been around 30 plus years, still making great, relevant music; attracting new, younger fans; keeping older fans happy; playing sold-out tours with a set-list that comprises 30-40% of songs from their last couple of releases (remarkable really) and the fans actually wanting to hear the new stuff live!

 

[jphelmet]

I'm not sure who makes these decisions and what they are thinking - but I'm guessing the band would have a strong say. If you take the position that the purpose of a lead single is to create some excitement in the marketplace, attract new fans, satisfy existing fans and drive sales of a new CD release - then I have to really question what the band is thinking with their choices over the past number of years. Beautiful Day being the exception. But when you go back as far The Fly on AB, Numb on Zooropa, Discotheque on Pop and now Boots on NLOTH - these were not ideal choices for lead singles and did hurt CD sales considerably. Zooropa,Pop and NLOTH would have faired much better commercially had they picked better lead singles. AB succeeded despite of the The Fly. But even the band admitted when The Fly wasn't on the Best of '90's CD- that it hadn't stood the test of time all that well.

I know the band still feel it is important to be commercially successful - otherwise they wouldn't be doing the type of media blitzes that accompany each release. I had thought the band figured this out with BD and Vertigo as the lead singles on ATYCLB and HTDAAB. So it baffles me when they pick something like Boots to lead off NLOTH. It was a buzz killer. Could you imagine the hype had Magnificent been the lead single? It would have been unreal. The CD would still be at the top of the charts. Boots isn't even representive of the album. It kind of stands alone. Same with Discotheque and Numb. Instead Magnificent gets released later and the buzz is gone.

MJ

As far as the fly this is just wrong. i get your point with their first singles, but it doesn't hold true for AB or Pop. Numb, and Boots make since. Numb is different because I don't think they ever thought it would be a hit, nor was it trying to be.

The Fly was #1 in the UK, # 1 in Modern Rock in US, #2 in Mainstream rock in US, and was all over MTV. Those were very different times, but The Fly was a well received hit and it was everywhere. It was in no way a bad choice and to say AB "succeeded despite of the Fly" is flat out wrong.

I don't know why it wasn't on the best of the 90's, but to say it hasn't stood the test of time, when its been a played a lot of live and as recently as vertigo, is a little silly. The Fly was a big hit, and really a great first single. I also think it was a great change of direction and in a lot ways very representative of the album.

As for Discotheque, maybe it wasn't the best choice who knows? I think personally Pop didn't fair as well because of the beginning of the tour, and the whole marketing of POPMart, went over people's heads. (There are still loads of people that think it was sponsored by KMart).

You can say what you want, but Discotheque was a cool song (with a terrible video- which hurt it), that actually did very well on the charts. It was not a bomb, it actually was very successful.

The pattern you are trying to show, isn't really there. Boots is different, and the times are very different now. I really don't think boots is a very good song or choice for first single. I also don't think magnificent would have drastically changed the sales of the album. Maybe it would have helped, I doubt it though.

 

[mj3600]

JP,

It was actually Edge who made the 'hasn't stood the test of time' comment re The Fly when he was asked why it wasn't on the Best of release. Now I love The Fly. I love AB. I'm also a huge fan of Pop. But my point is about The Fly and Discotheque as 'lead singles'. They could have worked much better as second or third singles - maybe even Boots would have worked better as a later single - though I still can't get around to liking it that much-. I think the songs would have been viewed in a different light had they been released later - instead of them being initially indentified as the first release and the hype that goes with that - Discotheque -if it had been released later - would have been 'hey, and there's this cool song called Discotheque that's a great change of pace on the CD, shows great humour from the band, etc ....' The casual fan wouldn't identify Pop with Discotheque ...and I think that was the problem in it not doing as well .... typically the tour happens months after the CD is initially released so don't think Popmart was the reason for weaker sales

 

[jphelmet]

so my question is how was The Fly not a good 1st single? It did very well on the charts, it seemed to be fairly indicative of the album, and then the album was a huge success? Not sure how its not a good choice. The "not aging well" comment really has nothing to do with how it did / was received as a 1st single.

As far as Pop, I still think there is some weird theories about it that get thrown around that are very much revisionist history. Discotheque charted well all over the world. It was a fairly well received first single. I do think the video hurt it somewhat. It made it look like a joke.

As far as album sales, it was #1 all over the world (35 countires). It was released March 3, with the tour starting April 25th. The tour started much sooner than normally because of the release date being pushed back. You can say it wasn't because of the tour, but with the sales and reception of the album that makes sense. I remember very vividly the early reviews were very positive of the album. It wasn't until many months later that any backlash started (after the tour announcement in KMart, and the God-awful first shows of Popmart had been played). The stage, the set-up, and the costumes were over a lot of people's heads.

So since initial sales were great, and discotheque charted very well how is it a bad first single? I think the only major mistake there was the video, which drew some of the scorn and ridicule. I think it would have been fine if they made a half way decent video for it. Remember when Discotheque came out, the video was the world premiere of the song.

Just out of curiosity what would have made a great first impression from Pop? Which song is more radio friendly and indicative of the the album?

 

[mj3600]

I think its degree of success I'm talking about. I was in my late 20's when AB came out - a huge fan of the band and couldn't wait for what was next after the 'we need to go away and dream it all again' comment from Bono. There was so much hype and excitement surrounding AB that I think it was going to do well regardless. Plus it comes out and is a brilliant piece of work. Surprises (pleasantly) even the harshest critics of the band. 5 star reviews everywhere. I think Zoo Station could have charted just as well as The Fly. So the point - as with Discotheque on Pop - is that there were better choices.The band were going to initially chart well just on their reputation. And they earned that. But the band seemed to change their approach to lead singles from Boy, October, War, UF and JT. I too recall Pop having very good initial critical and commercial response. Remember the prime time TV special hosted by Dennis Hopper? There was so much momentum and then it just sort of faded away with Pop. Perhaps it was the video or the tour or the lead single or a combination of all three.

What would have been a better choice for lead single? Great question! and I'm sure everyone has their own theory. Personally I love Gone. Last Night on Earth as a lead single would have been better I think than Discotheque. So would've Please I think.

 

[rastacruz]

Right on, Big John! Rush has been kicking ass and taking names for almost 35 years! Snakes and Arrows is their best album in a great long time. They also play for longer than 2 hours!

Do singles matter anymore? I haven't been really excited about a lead single since Pride, but I still bought every album the day it was released. Some of those lead singles grew on me with time but at first listen I wasn't turned on.

I know music radio stations are really struggling in the U.S. and I don't listen to music stations around here, I listen to talk radio mostly or plug my iPod into my car stereo and listen to what I want to listen to.

The only time I see a music video is online.

As far as album sales are concerned, people aren't buying albums like we used to. Everything is available online. I downloaded No Line before it was released but still bought the deluxe boxed album when it was released. Many, I'm sure, were just happy with their illegal downloads.

Bands make their money by touring and selling merchandise. U2 doesn't have any problems with either of those two!

 

[jphelmet]

But the band seemed to change their approach to lead singles from Boy, October, War, UF and JT.

Wasn't with or without you a pretty risky choice for a 1st single? it is a brilliant song, but it sure was different when it first came out. It certainly wasn't a made for radio song. it succeeded because it was a great song, but certainly not the obvious choice.

What would have been a better choice for lead single? Great question! and I'm sure everyone has their own theory. Personally I love Gone. Last Night on Earth as a lead single would have been better I think than Discotheque. So would've Please I think.

Please bombed badly as a single later on. would have been interesting if it was first. Gone is my favorite song from the album, and maybe it would have worked better. I still think it wouldn't have really mattered, b/c it was the tour that killed the momentum. Again, I think the video for Disco hurt a lot.

 

[last unicorn]

They seem to have a tendency to release the not so great songs as first singles and the good songs as follow up singles.

But overall, U2 simply isn't a singles band. I always feel they have a hard time even chosing singles for release from their albums. I honestly think they don't care much about singles, otherwise they'd put more efforts into it. Most of their songs come to life for me when played live on a stage, I don't care much about hearing them on radio.

It's a certain irony that in this very moment one of our bigger radio stations is playing the only no. 1 single U2 has had in my country - One in the version with MJB.

 

[65980]

Pretty much agree with JPHelmet and lastunicorn on this.

I think lead-off singles were extremely important for all rock groups that had penetrated the mainstream up to and including the late-80s. After that, they became less important because (a) nobody bought singles anymore, (b) radio programming became so strictly diversified that any group that challenged itself to play in different styles (ie., the best groups) were handicapped on radio by the fact that their material wouldn't fit into whatever strict genre each station played, and (c) things like cable TV, mass media, the Internet and of course MTV/music video made radio less influential.

For groups that had survived the 80s, radio hits would be kind of a bonus in the 90s but not really necessary to maintain a high profile. I mean, "Numb" and "Discotheque" both missed the overall US top 40, but their respective albums went straight in at No.1 in the overall album lists.

I also take issue with the suggestion that "The Fly" was anything but a perfect comeback single. It was a time when U2 needed to make a statement that they were still hungry and relevant in the changing music scene, and they did it. And no, I don't think "Numb" was intended to be a smash hit -- obviously not. And I agree that "Discotheque" was a horrible video.

You mean PopMart actually wasn't sponsored by K-Mart??

 

[Popmartijn]

From what I gathered from quotes over the years, the band knows what they are doing with their lead singles. Yes, it is the band who chooses what to release as a single (I think the record company has more a say in when to release the single). So The Fly, Numb, Beautiful Day, etc. are all picked by the band to be the lead single.

Ever since the release of The Joshua Tree their way of thinking is that, because the band is so big (maybe before the release of The Joshua Tree not yet The Biggest Band In The World, but still pretty big) and as their is high anticipation for their new single, radio will play anything they give them. For The Joshua Tree this was mainly college rock, but later on also mainstream radio. So they decide to offer them a leftfield choice, a song that stands out, not the same as everything else on the radio. This to indicate to the fanbase that U2 is back with a new album. I mean With Or Without You (a slow dirge) is very different from what else was on the radio at that time. The same with Desire, a sixties rock 'n' roll song, complete with a Bo Diddley beat. Not standard eighties radio stuff.
I think that their lead singles are mainly aimed at their fanbase and not the general public. For them they'll release a second single (maybe quite shortly after the first one), one which will (hopefully) be picked up by mainstream radio.

This worked a couple of times. Like with The Fly, a (decent) hit with their fanbase, but not in general (it peaked in the sixties on the Billboard chart), quickly followed by Mysterious Ways (which went top ten on the Billboard chart). Other times that first single already did its job with the mainstream public, like with With Or Without You and Desire, both huge hits and leading people to buy the album.
However, this approach seemed to backfire with Discothèque. Although that was also a big hit initially, it seemed to turn off people from buying the album, apart maybe from the fanbase. And the second single, Staring At The Sun, could not regain the momentum. And now also with Get On Your Boots. It was a decent hit, but it took too long for the second single to be released. And once released, it didn't catch the momentum.

I leave out Beautiful Day and Vertigo, as I feel that those two lead singles were chosen because they were very radio friendly. After the strategy backfired with the Pop singles, U2 probably wanted to fight back and secure its spot on the radio playlists. They thought it probably wasn't a given that their new single would get blanket airplay. And while it might've been a bit more true for Vertigo, they maybe didn't want to test the goodwill so soon (plus there was the tie-in with the iPod campaign).

So while it's always difficult to predict how successful a strategy will be, I do think that U2 have been quite aware what the effect would be of choosing a certain song as their lead single.

 

[doctorwho]

As far as the fly this is just wrong. i get your point with their first singles, but it doesn't hold true for AB or Pop. Numb, and Boots make since. Numb is different because I don't think they ever thought it would be a hit, nor was it trying to be.

The Fly was #1 in the UK, # 1 in Modern Rock in US, #2 in Mainstream rock in US, and was all over MTV. Those were very different times, but The Fly was a well received hit and it was everywhere. It was in no way a bad choice and to say AB "succeeded despite of the Fly" is flat out wrong.

I don't know why it wasn't on the best of the 90's, but to say it hasn't stood the test of time, when its been a played a lot of live and as recently as vertigo, is a little silly. The Fly was a big hit, and really a great first single. I also think it was a great change of direction and in a lot ways very representative of the album.

As for Discotheque, maybe it wasn't the best choice who knows? I think personally Pop didn't fair as well because of the beginning of the tour, and the whole marketing of POPMart, went over people's heads. (There are still loads of people that think it was sponsored by KMart).

You can say what you want, but Discotheque was a cool song (with a terrible video- which hurt it), that actually did very well on the charts. It was not a bomb, it actually was very successful.

The pattern you are trying to show, isn't really there. Boots is different, and the times are very different now. I really don't think boots is a very good song or choice for first single. I also don't think magnificent would have drastically changed the sales of the album. Maybe it would have helped, I doubt it though.

This is one way to present the information.

Let me present an alternative.

"The Fly" was not a big hit in the U.S., peaking in the 60's on the Hot 100. Yes, it did well on the rock charts, but for the song to only peak in the 60's on the mainstream chart shows it did not cross over.

I will also counter that the song did well on the rock charts simply because it was U2. U2 just came off the monster JT and R&H (backlash on the movie, but the album still sold tons and produced several big hits). U2 were still in their prime, so music stations naturally went to play "new U2". These days, it's not as true.

In the U.K., "The Fly" soared to #1 for two reasons: new U2 coupled with a promotion stating the single was available for a very short time.

In essence, I think U2 knew "The Fly" wasn't true single material. But, as you wrote, it showcased their new style and sound very well. It was a way for them to say, "this isn't the U2 you knew". This is also why more radio-friendly songs were released shortly thereafter.

"Numb" was similar. Given it wasn't even released as a CD single, it really didn't do much for "Zooropa". By the time an actual CD single was available in the U.S. (for "Stay"), "Zooropa" was already well on its way off the charts.

"Discotheque" had that "new U2" factor again. AB and ZOO TV were such huge hits, and even "Zooropa" was #1 for several weeks (again, playing off of AB and ZOO TV), that it naturally drew attention.

But that attention was short-lived. It peaked at #10 on the U.S. charts - where it also debuted. It fell fast after that. The initial burst was due to strong sales (for new U2), multiple formats of release (I think I have at least 10 different versions of this release) and the fact it was the first new U2 since 1993. But the less than inspiring lyrics and the silly video (fun, but not necessarily for U2) caused fans to rebel. Fans who loved JT era U2 had accepted AB because it was just good music. But "Discotheque" went too far. People were actually calling stations asking them NOT to play "Discotheque". By the time the album was released, the damage was done.

"Vertigo" was a risk, but the iPod commercial did it's job. Had U2 done a similar commercial for GOYB, we might have seen that song become a hit too. "Vertigo", though, while rocking, had some mystery behind the song. They lyrics were well done and purposely vague - leading to multiple interpretations. This reminded fans of other rocking U2 songs. Yet, "Vertigo" was also fresh and different. GOYB, though, sounded like "Vertigo Part 2". It had the same Bono "rap" style singing, followed by the refrain. Unlike the catchy "Vertigo" refrain, this one was about boots. While clearly there's a double meaning in the lyrics, most saw this song as another "Discotheque".

Given what U2 saw with "Discotheque", I don't think they needed hindsight to see that this would not be a good lead single. But perhaps they felt the similarity to "Vertigo" and the fact that it came across as one of the catchier rocking tunes on the album suggested otherwise.

It's easy to state that "Staring at the Sun" or "Magnificent" might have been bigger first singles, but there's no proof there. Both might have done better than they did, but would that have had any impact on the album?

Basically, U2 have taken their chances with the lead single. JT even was tough - after all, nothing from that album leaps out as an "instant hit". We all hear the hits now, but if this were early 1987, would you be so sure "I Still Haven't Found..." would be a good single? Would you have made "With or Without You" the lead single? Slow love songs tend to be hits, but this was almost an anti-love song. And U2 had never released a slow song as a lead single before.

My guess is that GOYB or not, the world has changed to the point where U2 almost need to do commercials and TV spots just to get their music sold. MTV means nothing (I haven't watched it in years). Radio had their set formats and one has to work hard to get into it. Radio would rather play Beyonce or Clarkson or Timberlake - even if their new song is crap - than an "oldie" like Springsteen or U2. With that in mind, perhaps GOYB was a good first choice. It didn't work, but had U2 released "Magnificent" first, they might have been seen as the band turning into Barry Manilow.

 

[mj3600]

It's true they're not a great 'singles' band or put much of a focus on having radio friendly singles versus just great songs. But the choice of the lead single does impact whether the casual fan will buy the CD, the amount of radio play it gets on different formatted stations, and how long the CD remains on the charts. When JT came out nothing sounded like it. It's a timeless sound really - not dated as other stuff from that era. I think some of those songs could come out today and still chart! Radio was definitley different then. But one of the things JT accomplished was it couldn't be pigeon holed as a type of record. It was the #1 album of 1987 on our local Alternative/College station, Adult Pop/Mix station and Classic Rock station. Not sure if that has ever happened before or will ever again. With or Without You was and is a great song- but not as risky a lead single as perhaps Bullet or even Trip Through Your Wires would have been. And that's what I think Boots was. Something not representative of the rest of the record. Something that the casual fan would hear and say,' so that's the new sound? - don't like it much and not going to buy it' ... or radio stations initially play - because it's new U2 and they have to- but then stop playing it as much because of lack of requests and soon the buzz around the new CD is gone and probably not recoverable.

My friends who are casual U2 fans have not got into this release - in the same way they didn't get into Pop or Zooropa. Because they related the whole CD to the lead single. And that's their loss - because I'm still immersed in NLOTH. But choosing Boots as a lead single did hurt the momentum I think. Who knows if Magnificent or Breathe or Crazy would have faired better - but I think each of those is much more representative of the CD than Boots is - and that's my point.

 

[Edge_Orchestra]

In reference to "Discotheque" being a leadoff single...

...Discotheque" didn't kill Pop or the albums chances for huge sales. The single and the album got a lot of great reviews at first.

Opening night of Popmart killed Pop and Popmart. The backlash of a bad opening night. Next thing you know, the music press is saying "The Kings are Dead" and other such headlines in their magazines.

As those who saw U2 after the first 1/2 dozen Popmart shows can attest, they were soon firing on all cylinders. But that one night in Vegas and the horrible reviews from the world music press is one of the things that killed the album, it's singles and reputation of the tour.

Proof the tour was far better than the press states? Watch the Mexico City DVD. Proof is right there. Great show. Well received by the fans.

 

[Edge_Orchestra]

"The Fly wasn't on the Best of '90's CD- that it hadn't stood the test of time all that well."

Really? So bad that even while the band may have felt that at times, they played it extensively on the tour before and after The Edge made that comment. And The Fly is on the UK (and other versions) of Best of 1990-2000. So it must have held up to some extent for the band.

"Boots to lead off NLOTH. It was a buzz killer."

Some like it and some do not. But a buzz killer? The tune has a similar tone to Beautiful Day and Vertigo, which you said were great lead off singles. U2 may have thought 3rd time is a charm. Again, some like it and some do not.

Could you imagine the hype had Magnificent been the lead single? It would have been unreal.

Magnificent is a great song. But as a single, it hasn't done so well. I love the song but I don't know that it being the leadoff single would have increased album sales. Achtung Baby really took off when "One" (3rd single) was released. So perhaps the 3rd single release will gather more votes/buyers than the first two? Time will tell.

 

[rastacruz]

In reference to "Discotheque" being a leadoff single...

...Discotheque" didn't kill Pop or the albums chances for huge sales. The single and the album got a lot of great reviews at first.

Opening night of Popmart killed Pop and Popmart. The backlash of a bad opening night. Next thing you know, the music press is saying "The Kings are Dead" and other such headlines in their magazines.

As those who saw U2 after the first 1/2 dozen Popmart shows can attest, they were soon firing on all cylinders. But that one night in Vegas and the horrible reviews from the world music press is one of the things that killed the album, it's singles and reputation of the tour.

Proof the tour was far better than the press states? Watch the Mexico City DVD. Proof is right there. Great show. Well received by the fans.

it was more than the first six shows. I was at show #7 and it sucked big donkey balls!

don't blame the media for U2's poor performance, the band has only itself to blame for not being ready to tour.

 

[FitzChivalry]

JP,

It was actually Edge who made the 'hasn't stood the test of time' comment re The Fly when he was asked why it wasn't on the Best of release.

Yes, he did say that and then he has also, since then, responded to fans/interviewers who cried out about his comments, by stating something to the tune of: "We've put it on our last two tours set lists, haven't we? Obviously, it's a song we love." Or something similar to that effect.

Irregardless, whether Edge wanted it on the "Best Of' or not, has nothing to do with why it was at the time chosen as the lead single for Achtung Baby. It's very well documented in U2 books and interviews that the reason they chose 'The Fly' is that they didn't want a HUGE, OVER THE TOP lead off single like 'With Or Without You' or 'Desire'. They said that they wanted a low-key, alternative rocker which would show off the dirty, industrial sound of the "new" U2. For those reasons and motivations of the band at the time of AB's release, I personally don't think they could've picked a better first single than 'The Fly'.

 

[Scorpionac]

I always thought Edge was just referring to the production on the studio version when he said it hadn't aged well.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

i feel this way. pop sold over 1 million in the us BECAUSE of discotheque. if NLOTH sells ONLY 1 million copys , its because of boots being the first single. just didn't connect with enough people. disco i feel carried to POP, to at least getting to the platinum mark. and then they couldn;t carry it any further. boots has killed some of the buzz for the album. and i don;t dislike boots. in fact the live version is way better then the studio. too bad that couldn;'t have been used.

 

[An Cat Gav]

The Fly was a great choice of lead single from AB. The shift in style and how U2 portrayed themselves from Rattle and Hum to AB was incredibly huge and the band wanted to show this in the best possible way, they wanted to sound totally unlike U2, chopping down the joshua tree etc, and no song from AB sounded less like U2 than The Fly. It was a perfect choice, and in my humble opinion it's the greatest single they ever released. It was their second number 1 in the Uk, and all the U2 haters that I know still really like the fly.

 

[An Cat Gav]

I actually think that Boots is a great song, I much prefer it to Vertigo. Obviously not many others agreed with me..

 

[jphelmet]

I actually think that Boots is a great song, I much prefer it to Vertigo. Obviously not many others agreed with me..

i do. vertigo>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>boots

 

[eviltwin]

The Fly [..] is the greatest single they ever released..

seconded.

and Boots is the closest thing to a Fly type song on NLOTH; releasing Boots as a single is the equivalent of releasing BTBS, LAPOE, Wire, God pt.II or Elco.

I'm not saying boots is as good as any of those, but it was a risky move you can only admire.

Boots grew on me quickly as a single, and it's starting to grow as part of the album's flow as well. Note that BTBS, Fly and LAPOE are flowbreakers too (in their respective albums' line-up)

 

[An Cat Gav]

QUOTE=eviltwin;6182345]seconded.

and Boots is the closest thing to a Fly type song on NLOTH; releasing Boots as a single is the equivalent of releasing BTBS, LAPOE, Wire, God pt.II or Elco.

I'm not saying boots is as good as any of those, but it was a risky move you can only admire.

Boots grew on me quickly as a single, and it's starting to grow as part of the album's flow as well. Note that BTBS, Fly and LAPOE are flowbreakers too (in their respective albums' line-up)[/QUOTE]

 

[U2girl]

Fine, except this last one.

If they genuinely believed Boots has the chart power of Vertigo or BD...yikes. If they meant is as a curveball like the Fly...less yikes, but too bad for NLOTH.

 

[MMP]

If you're gonna judge by sucess then whatever charted well was a good choice and what didn't was a bad one.

On personal opinion:
A Day Without Me: bad song / poor choice
Fire: average song / poor choice
New Year's Day: average song / good choice
Pride: average song / great choice
WOWY: amazing song / perfect choice
Desire: amazing song / perfect choice
The Fly: good song / poor choice
Numb: great song / good choice
Discothèque: good song / poor choice
Beautiful Day: good song / good choice
Vertigo: average song / great choice
Get on Your Boots: amazing song / perfect and their best choice yet.

 

[Niceman]

The Fly is the best song on Achtung Baby. It was also the best to communicate what the band wanted to communicate: That this was NOT the same sound they had before. (The sound of 4 men chopping down the Joshua Tree.)

How could it possibly have been a better choice for lead single?

I mean, we are talking about one of the top 5 songs the band has ever written!!!!

(IMHO)

As far as Get On Your Boots goes: It's a good song, certainly a better song than Vertigo, but Americans have a problem whenever they see signs that U2 has a sense of humor.......

 

[MMP]

Oh, sorry... I made a mistake:
The Fly: good song / great choice

 

[OrARoundabout]

Vertigo: average song / great choice
Get on Your Boots: amazing song / perfect and their best choice yet.

Again Mac, I agree with all ur other choices except for the last one:

Vertigo: Average song/Excellent choice (Radio friendly, even if the iPod commericals got annoying after a while, you have to admit it was a brilliant move on U2's part to team up with Apple)

Get on Your Boots: Not a "bad song", but certainly NOT their best work/Horrible choice