Release Date Speculation

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I'm tired :( I hope the band or someone for them tells us what it's happening with the new album
 
What is this "other artists" of which you speak? Such a concept is foreign to me.
 
Yeah, The Fly pretty much bombed in the US (only reached #50). They followed it with MW and had a big hit. Magnificent as a single was weaksauce. It failed to reverse the fortunes of NLOTH. Pinning everything on Boots is over-simplifying things.

The Fly was massive everywhere else though and was undeniably the perfect lead single from Achtung Baby.
 
I listen other artists in fact...but nobody gives me the feelings I have with U2 :sad:

I hear ya. I feel the same way. Pearl Jam are my second favorite band and they haven't had a new album out since 2009 as well. Madonna's new album came out 2 months ago, so I've been listening to that.
 
U2 will have plenty of hits over the course of the next decade. Just because they got treated a little more harshly than they deserved with NLOTH doesn't mean the party is over. We're talking about the best band of the last 30 years. They have all the talent and fire needed to write a song which forces the world to take notice.

I think in terms of lack of hits, NLOTH is a correct indication of what we can expect in America - even if you want to argue there were due a letdown after ATYCLB/Bomb success. This isn't to say they can't have excellent albums though. Next to total lack of lead single - which they avoided until NLOTH - the main issue with NLOTH was no direction.
 
Yeah, The Fly pretty much bombed in the US (only reached #50). They followed it with MW and had a big hit. Magnificent as a single was weaksauce. It failed to reverse the fortunes of NLOTH. Pinning everything on Boots is over-simplifying things.

"The Fly" did not chart that high (only #61). But U2, the studio, radiol, MTV, etc. all pushed MW. "The Fly" was almost meant to be an introduction to the "new U2". U2 or the label quickly followed it with two very radio-friendly tracks (MW and "One").

In contrast, U2 pushed GOYB as the next BD or "Vertigo". This was the single that was meant to carry the album. "The Fly" was not given that task. And when GOYB failed to take off anywhere (including in Europe), the album was in trouble.

Fortunately, NLOTH still sold pretty well (latest results had it at 1.2M in the U.S in terms of actual copies sold) and was in the Top 10 for albums released in 2009. So the album did reasonably well inspite of GOYB. But I would put quite a bit of blame on that single (just as I would for "Discotheque" and "Pop").
 
Fortunately, NLOTH still sold pretty well (latest results had it at 1.2M in the U.S in terms of actual copies sold) and was in the Top 10 for albums released in 2009.

It sounds like NLOTH had no problem with sales. Top 10 for the year's releases is about as good as it gets.
 
No, #1 for the years releases is as good as it gets.

By U2 standards, NLOTH was a disappointment, at least commercially.

They've never done been #1 seller for the year. AB wasn't, JT wasn't, ATYCLB wasn't.

It sounds like NLOTH had no problem with sales. Top 10 for the year's releases is about as good as it gets.
 
That video is quite funny, Bono the eternal optimist, hard to say what would have happened had they released SOA, the combo of the 2 might have been great, SOA might have given them better singles, more cohesiveness. fun to play the what if game.

I have a feeling that not releasing it might have saved the band from their own silly 2 crap albums and you're out and that's why they are being so picky right now. What a treasure trove of stuff they are sitting on, songs from SOA, Rubin, the work with Danger Mouse and who knows what else. Based on what they have released that has not been released, I trust them and nothing has really blown me away except for mercy and ebw which should be on a record someday and were experiments for reaction and possibly which way to go in the future or maybe they were just for pacification. :)
 
"The Fly" did not chart that high (only #61). But U2, the studio, radiol, MTV, etc. all pushed MW. "The Fly" was almost meant to be an introduction to the "new U2". U2 or the label quickly followed it with two very radio-friendly tracks (MW and "One").

In contrast, U2 pushed GOYB as the next BD or "Vertigo". This was the single that was meant to carry the album. "The Fly" was not given that task. And when GOYB failed to take off anywhere (including in Europe), the album was in trouble.

Fortunately, NLOTH still sold pretty well (latest results had it at 1.2M in the U.S in terms of actual copies sold) and was in the Top 10 for albums released in 2009. So the album did reasonably well inspite of GOYB. But I would put quite a bit of blame on that single (just as I would for "Discotheque" and "Pop").

You make some cogent points. However, a strong second single could/should have propelled NLOTH out of "trouble". Staring At The Sun failed to lift Pop out of the commercial quagmire, and Magnificent failed to lift NLOTH. A little too much emphasis is being placed on the leadsingles imo. U2 are far too big a b(r)and to have their albums be condemned to success or failure by a lead single.
 
Uh, let's compare apples to apples here. No way NLOTH would have been #1 in 87, 91, or maybe even 2001. Totally different landscape now.

I'm confused by this - what apples are you comparing?

NLOTH had 1.2M in U.S. sales (per SoundScan). This occurred despite no big hits, despite people "cherry picking" their favorite songs on iTunes (meaning lower album sales) and despite rampant illegal downloading. In contrast, "Pop" at least produced two Top 40 hits in the U.S., yet only saw 1.5M in U.S. sales. Back then, there was no worry of illegal downloads or iTunes.

Barring the token one or two exceptions every year that may break out, typically an album selling 1M copies in the U.S. is considered fantastic now. Go back to 2000 and people like Britney Spears and N'Sync were selling 1M or more in a week! Top selling albums for the year would hit 10M copies sold, not 1M. U2's ATYCLB didn't even come close to the Top 10 in the U.S. in terms of copies sold in 2000 or 2001.

So we can't compare the performance of NLOTH to other albums or other years. It's impossible. Maybe that was the point of your post - forgive me if I misinterpreted.

Essentially, if U2 want another Top 10 hit, they need a big track that will be happily downloaded by the iTunes masses. And if they want the album to stick around and sell close to 2M copies in the U.S. (and maybe more), they need that lead single to also be a strong track (not GOYB or "Discotheque"). Some of those more "unique" tracks could serve well as second or third singles.

But if U2 are happy putting out an album that has outstanding songs like MOS, but that aren't radio-friendly, then they need to market that accordingly. U2 marketed NLOTH like another hit-factory, and it clearly wasn't. But it is a very strong album.
 
But I would put quite a bit of blame on that single (just as I would for "Discotheque" and "Pop").
I don't recall 'Discotheque' being an issue. The single went gold (selling more than 500,000 copies) and the song went to #1 in many places, including the UK and the modern rock listing in the US. it was on the radio CONSTANTLY for weeks after its release, MTV showed the video non-stop (including having a 24 hour U2 video day upon its release). Discotheque was hardly a problem for POP. What hurt POP more than anything else was the really poor press the tour received following the opening night. if any single hurt POP, it was the choice to release Last Night On Earth as the third single. not to mention the album opened at #1 in 35 countries. Discotheque was hardly Pop's problem.
 
I don't recall 'Discotheque' being an issue. The single went gold (selling more than 500,000 copies) and the song went to #1 in many places, including the UK and the modern rock listing in the US. it was on the radio CONSTANTLY for weeks after its release, MTV showed the video non-stop (including having a 24 hour U2 video day upon its release). Discotheque was hardly a problem for POP. What hurt POP more than anything else was the really poor press the tour received following the opening night. if any single hurt POP, it was the choice to release Last Night On Earth as the third single. not to mention the album opened at #1 in 35 countries. Discotheque was hardly Pop's problem.

The voice of reason! :ohmy:
 
it sold because back then any U2 would sell
(quite ironic since generally you are accused of liking any fart Bono records if you like any of their singles post POP)
for the general public it was the big 'real' follow up to Achtung Baby
and the media played along

don't get me wrong, I really liked Discotheque a lot
(it's one of the few songs on POP that really work for me)
but it didn't set the world on fire
no matter what sales figures say

tour reviews don't cost album sales
people not relating to music cost album sales
and when people stopped caring, so did the media
 
it sold because back then any U2 would sell
(quite ironic since generally you are accused of liking any fart Bono records if you like any of their singles post POP)
for the general public it was the big 'real' follow up to Achtung Baby
and the media played along

don't get me wrong, I really liked Discotheque a lot
(it's one of the few songs on POP that really work for me)
but it didn't set the world on fire
no matter what sales figures say

tour reviews don't cost album sales
people not relating to music cost album sales
and when people stopped caring, so did the media

The media did care. They wrote story after story exaggerating the ticket sales problem. It had an effect on the public's perception of POP which continues to this day.

In a sense, POP was the follow-up to Achtung. U2 referred to Zooropa as an Ep again and again, despite the 10 tracks. And Zooropa wasn't meant to stand on it's own. Passengers was a stealth release. POP was the next mega-release after AB.
 
Back
Top Bottom