U2 Unorganized on the Horizon / The U2 Machinery

[BoyOnTheHorizon]

Which is why the iTunes charts are pointless. People who like U2 buy U2 albums. Fact. The iTunes top 10 & top 100 consist of individual songs purchased teenyboppers and people who wish to fill up their collection of individual one-hit wonder or big hits. Can anyone really explain away the fact that "Eye of the Tiger" is on that list in any other way?

If U2 and Britney Spears released an album the same week, U2 may potentially hold a higher spot for a week or two, but Britney would probably smack U2 in staying power--especially in terms of singles. Big deal.

Please don't mention U2 and Britney Spears on the same sentence here. Or we will be forced to find your adress and have a not-so-friendly chat with you.

 

[lancerla]

Excuse me while I get all this out --

It's odd to me that some U2 fans over at atU2.com are going apeshit over the fact that other fans hate Boots. Perhaps it's because i'm lukewarm on the song, but just like it wasn't un-American to criticize the President, it's not wrong to call out a song if it's a stinker. Folks over here are much better.

A lot of folks over here believe that the lack of a campaign is confidence, and I hope so but I have no idea. I have a feeling that they're surprised by the tepid response and they're starting to figure out Plan B. That said, part of me would love an album that tanks (especially if it also happens to be great). It would save me hundreds of dollars once the tour starts. Of course, that tour did pretty well in big cities even though people didn't care for Discotheque either.

After the beach clips and Boots, I believe that I'm headed for disappointment. I also wonder if I'm like one of those 30-year-olds that dumped U2 after AB. Then again, I'm still listening to mostly indie stuff like The National and Arcade Fire, so it's not like I'm moving on to country. U2 will always be my favorite band... I just hope that they outgrow me before I outgrow them.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

ajcro is right. It was #21 (I think) the first week and dropped out fast.

Well, it went at least Top 5 here and the same or higher in many, many, many other countries around the globe. And it used to be on the radio all the time. Same thing can't be said for a certain single circa 2009 that I am yet to hear - one week in - even once.

It either has to be deliberate, or they had to get it out there earlier than they expected. The plan was either a soft landing on the fairly average single, hard landing on the outstanding album (which would be great, because you can't promote a whole album via an iTunes commercial - you do that with gigs), or the plan is all set in place for a week away from now and once they saw the cracks starting to show, they realised the full leak was inevitable and they flew it out there early, prematurely, when no-one was ready for it.

I'd have $5 each way on those two.

 

[UKTan]

Well, it went at least Top 5 here and the same or higher in many, many, many other countries around the globe. And it used to be on the radio all the time. Same thing can't be said for a certain single circa 2009 that I am yet to hear - one week in - even once.

It either has to be deliberate, or they had to get it out there earlier than they expected. The plan was either a soft landing on the fairly average single, hard landing on the outstanding album (which would be great, because you can't promote a whole album via an iTunes commercial - you do that with gigs), or the plan is all set in place for a week away from now and once they saw the cracks starting to show, they realised the full leak was inevitable and they flew it out there early, prematurely, when no-one was ready for it.

I'd have $5 each way on those two.

What I don't get though is if they were worried about leaks (or should I say, worried about the subsequent illegal downloading of the leaked song) why would they rush to stream the track on u2.com for free? Before the song had been released to iTunes in the majority of countries? It seems such a weird move to me

I wonder if the band had originally intended for the single to be a "freebie" but someone else had other ideas?

 

[Irishteen]

What I don't get though is if they were worried about leaks (or should I say, worried about the subsequent illegal downloading of the leaked song) why would they rush to stream the track on u2.com for free? Before the song had been released to iTunes in the majority of countries? It seems such a weird move to me

I wonder if the band had originally intended for the single to be a "freebie" but someone else had other ideas?

The majority of bands though will stream their tracks for free, even stream their albums on Myspace or their websites. It's hardly like U2 are the first. A crappy quality stream is hardly taking the place of a better quality file

 

[PowerSurge]

Until the band starts playing the songs live at music awards or late night shows or whatever, then I wouldn't put too much weight into numbers right now.

If after a month or so of promoting the single on whatever TV show, music awards, SNL, etc. the single still doesn't crack top 10 then maybe we can talk. But in all honesty, this single has been one of the only first singles that I can remember them releasing without any major pre-release promotion, radio blitzes, adverts, etc. And its still hitting high on the charts.

I would hazard to guess that the band and their music company have some idea of what they are doing.

 

[mrex]

As far as the lukewarm response goes...many people don't even know it's out. I think tha the ipod commercial was great advertising for Vertigo, and we're not seeing that this time.

One of the guys I work with is a big, but not huge fan of U2. He doesn't follow the websites, doesn't listen to radio, and doesn't watch MTV/VH1. So how is he supposed to even know about it?

 

[MrPryck2U]

The song was promoted on the radio here in the US.

If you're from Brooklyn, 92.3 K-Rock debuted the song on 1/19. Out on the Island, the song debuted on 1/20. K-Rock had an exclusive premiere.

 

[ajcro]

"It either has to be deliberate, or they had to get it out there earlier than they expected. The plan was either a soft landing on the fairly average single, hard landing on the outstanding album (which would be great, because you can't promote a whole album via an iTunes commercial - you do that with gigs), or the plan is all set in place for a week away from now and once they saw the cracks starting to show, they realised the full leak was inevitable and they flew it out there early, prematurely, when no-one was ready for it. "

Earnie - I think there is a third possibility - the song is a clunker, they thought it would be a hit, and they overestimated its appeal.

In fact, I think that's what happened. I don't think any amount of marketing or promotion would have a significant effect. As they say, you can't polish a turd.

 

[PowerSurge]

Excuse me while I get all this out --

It's odd to me that some U2 fans over at atU2.com are going apeshit over the fact that other fans hate Boots. Perhaps it's because i'm lukewarm on the song, but just like it wasn't un-American to criticize the President, it's not wrong to call out a song if it's a stinker. Folks over here are much better.

If you are referring to those posters who express their dissapproval of the song by berating and putting down others as if they are sheep or blind followers of U2 then I'd hardly find it odd.

Expressing one's opinion is one thing, but forcing it down someone's throat and berating them in the process is another.

 

[zoopop]

One of the guys I work with is a big, but not huge fan of U2. He doesn't follow the websites, doesn't listen to radio, and doesn't watch MTV/VH1. So how is he supposed to even know about it?

The Force

 

[PowerSurge]

"It either has to be deliberate, or they had to get it out there earlier than they expected. The plan was either a soft landing on the fairly average single, hard landing on the outstanding album (which would be great, because you can't promote a whole album via an iTunes commercial - you do that with gigs), or the plan is all set in place for a week away from now and once they saw the cracks starting to show, they realised the full leak was inevitable and they flew it out there early, prematurely, when no-one was ready for it. "

Earnie - I think there is a third possibility - the song is a clunker, they thought it would be a hit, and they overestimated its appeal.

In fact, I think that's what happened. I don't think any amount of marketing or promotion would have a significant effect. As they say, you can't polish a turd.

WOW!


Its been about a WEEK.

So now its a "clunker"? Have you seen the official radio charts worldwide? Obviously not, because the evidence doesn't support your claim. I can only imagine what will happen when they actually start to promote the song and play it live. As it stands, with little to no promo the song is doing quite well.

 

[PowerSurge]

The Force

I fuckin love Star Wars references!!!

 

[Popmartijn]

"It either has to be deliberate, or they had to get it out there earlier than they expected. The plan was either a soft landing on the fairly average single, hard landing on the outstanding album (which would be great, because you can't promote a whole album via an iTunes commercial - you do that with gigs), or the plan is all set in place for a week away from now and once they saw the cracks starting to show, they realised the full leak was inevitable and they flew it out there early, prematurely, when no-one was ready for it. "

Earnie - I think there is a third possibility - the song is a clunker, they thought it would be a hit, and they overestimated its appeal.

In fact, I think that's what happened. I don't think any amount of marketing or promotion would have a significant effect. As they say, you can't polish a turd.

From Billboard: Romance And Indie Rock Hit The Billboard 200

PROGRESS REPORTS

• U2's "Get On Your Boots" blasts onto the Modern Rock and Triple A radio charts as it arrives at Nos. 8 and 1 on the respective lists. It's the band's highest bow on the Modern Rock chart since 1997, when "Discotheque" opened at No. 3. On the Triple A list, it's the chart's first No. 1 debut. U2's new album, "No Line on the Horizon," will be released March 3 . . . "Boots" is U2's 36th Modern Rock hit, dating back to when "Jesus Christ" debuted at No. 11 on Sept. 17, 1988, the second week of the chart's existence. U2 also continues to reign as the act with the most overall Modern Rock hits, ahead of Pearl Jam's 32.

Yep, it's a clunker...

 

[ramblin rose]

I knew it!! They might as well as not even release the album.

 

[roy]

From Billboard: Romance And Indie Rock Hit The Billboard 200



Yep, it's a clunker...

 

[sony]

Who really cares if GYBO blows up? I'm glad U2 has gone the out fashion route to distribute the new single. U2 would have taken alot of crap from the diehards (us) & media if they put out another commercial style campaign for the new single like "Vertigo". These guys don't like repeating themselves. Another thing, this song is very different from whats played on Top 40 radio. "GYBO" has no business being played next to Nickelwhack or Shitty Spears.

Thing to consider everyone. Real rock n roll music has a hard time busting through the mainstream these days. If its not manufactured or commercial rap it won't make it big in the US. I mean some people think American Idol is real music.

The album will be big and just wait for the tour. U2 will be huge for the right reason and not the commercial ones.

 

[MrPryck2U]

Chicken Little better watch out. Somebody's gunning for his job.

 

[mikal]

I knew it!! They might as well as not even release the album.

i agree. if anything, my inner-sheep will end up forcing me to like such junk.

 

[PowerSurge]

i agree. if anything, my inner-sheep will end up forcing me to like such junk.

I think you've successfully coined a new phrase (at least its new to me)

 

[asr]

I, for one, am very glad that U2 have apparently gotten out of the mentality of trying to please EVERYONE ALL THE TIME. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being inaccessable for alot of people's conservative ears. I hope U2 go back to being a creative and interesting band and get back to the brilliant niche they had for themselves back in the 90's. The band should stop feeling so naked without all the money, Grammeys, and heavy rotation and we fans have to stop thinking along the lines of 'if it does not put a dent in the charts, then it's no good.' And to whoever said "they might as well not release this album," I say that this "decline" in popularity makes me even more psyched for 'No Line....'

 

[Needle_Chill]

I don't understand why the simple act of U2 releasing an average song as a first single - that seems to have gone under everyone's radar in its averageness - is somehow linked to a conscious act by U2 to ignore the urge to be commercial.

Maybe the song just isn't going to catch on like they wanted it to... maybe it still will, but I think we're giving U2 way too much creddit for the amount of control they have over the industry. They aren't going to release a dud single to be more artistically fulfilled, or to somehow abandon commercial greed... they're just trying to release singles and albums to be successful and trying to tour to be succesful, and no one says every single has to be God's gift OR a conscious effort on U2's part to not release a commercially succesful song.

If the song doesn't succeed, maybe it's just not that great. It's allowed to happen... and no one here has to force themselves to like an average song... but to each his own.

 

[buzzkill27]

Who really cares if GYBO blows up? I'm glad U2 has gone the out fashion route to distribute the new single. U2 would have taken alot of crap from the diehards (us) & media if they put out another commercial style campaign for the new single like "Vertigo". These guys don't like repeating themselves. Another thing, this song is very different from whats played on Top 40 radio. "GYBO" has no business being played next to Nickelwhack or Shitty Spears.

Thing to consider everyone. Real rock n roll music has a hard time busting through the mainstream these days. If its not manufactured or commercial rap it won't make it big in the US. I mean some people think American Idol is real music.

The album will be big and just wait for the tour. U2 will be huge for the right reason and not the commercial ones.

Who cares?? Universal Music - the group's label cares..that's who...maybe not you or I...the label doesn't care how it happens...but they want it to happen,believe it.

 

[LemonMelon]

I don't understand why the simple act of U2 releasing an average song as a first single - that seems to have gone under everyone's radar in its averageness - is somehow linked to a conscious act by U2 to ignore the urge to be commercial.

Maybe the song just isn't going to catch on like they wanted it to... maybe it still will, but I think we're giving U2 way too much creddit for the amount of control they have over the industry. They aren't going to release a dud single to be more artistically fulfilled, or to somehow abandon commercial greed... they're just trying to release singles and albums to be successful and trying to tour to be succesful, and no one says every single has to be God's gift OR a conscious effort on U2's part to not release a commercially succesful song.

If the song doesn't succeed, maybe it's just not that great. It's allowed to happen... and no one here has to force themselves to like an average song... but to each his own.

You can't use success to measure quality. A song that tanks may or may not be awful. A song that succeeds commercially may or may not be worth your time or mine. It has nothing to do with anything.

 

[BWU2Buffs]

The machine, at least as far as the website goes, continues to suck.

Unbelievable that two different images of the cover art are STILL on the official U2.com site.

One has an = sign, the other does not.

Lousy screen print to Picasa editor, but you get the idea.

Me and the local Junior Achievement class could do better.

 

[BVS]

The machine, at least as far as the website goes, continues to suck.

Unbelievable that two different images of the cover art are STILL on the official U2.com site.

How do you know it's not both?

A slip cover or a Lenticular?

Let's keep an open mind...

 

[dan_smee]

I think you've successfully coined a new phrase (at least its new to me)

you've obviously never met a Niw-Zullundr (kiwi)... they love being "inner-sheep, ay"

 

[BWU2Buffs]

How do you know it's not both?

A slip cover or a Lenticular?

Let's keep an open mind...

How about this then -- if album art is similar to marketing where graphics, logos and fonts have consistency, and should be portrayed consistently to achieve maxium impact in the long run, then U2's website, regardless of who does it, and who is accountable, continues to suffer in the short term from a fundamental flaw which is multiple graphic versions without explanation or reason.

While I applaud your willingness to keep an open mind, and I don't know WTF a Lenticular is, it still is rather astonishing, to me, that the graphics are inconsistent at this point in the journey.

Therefore, you and others can certainly keep your mind wide open on this specific issue, but mine's shut on this one and we can agree to disagree, but IMO it is stoooooopid to have multiple images regardless if they are sleaves, Lenticulars, Binoculars, jewel cases, box sets, liner notes, stickers, price tags or anything else possibly related to CD/DVD/BLURAY/MP3 packaging on a fargin website.

 

[BVS]

How about this then -- if album art is similar to marketing where graphics, logos and fonts have consistency, and should be portrayed consistently to achieve maxium impact in the long run, then U2's website, regardless of who does it, and who is accountable, continues to suffer in the short term from a fundamental flaw which is multiple graphic versions without explanation or reason.

While I applaud your willingness to keep an open mind, and I don't know WTF a Lenticular is, it still is rather astonishing, to me, that the graphics are inconsistent at this point in the journey.

Therefore, you and others can certainly keep your mind wide open on this specific issue, but mine's shut on this one and we can agree to disagree, but IMO it is stoooooopid to have multiple images regardless if they are sleaves, Lenticulars, Binoculars, jewel cases, box sets, liner notes, stickers, price tags or anything else possibly related to CD/DVD/BLURAY/MP3 packaging on a fargin website.

To be honest, I understand... I don't know if they are purposely fucking with us, they haven't decided yet or there is some crazy artwork that just can't be shown with one photograph, I don't know.

A lenticular is one of those images you would find on a toy ring or in a crackerjack box that if you tilted it back and forth quickly it would create an animation. If that's the case it would make sense to show both since you can't actually photograph the changes...

It's just a theory.

I actually like the confusion of this whole thing...

 

[last unicorn]

The machine, at least as far as the website goes, continues to suck.

Unbelievable that two different images of the cover art are STILL on the official U2.com site.

One has an = sign, the other does not.

Lousy screen print to Picasa editor, but you get the idea.

Me and the local Junior Achievement class could do better.

Ummm, because the artwork will have BOTH?

Amazon has the same covers, there will be a slipcase with = and a cover without it, wait and see.