NLOTH Singles Chart Watch

[hasin73]

''But the singles chart shows what people are buying and what people like, how can it not matter''said by Irishteen

People are buying garbage, so it does not matter.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Plus its alot easier for teenagers to go and buy a single for less than £1 than it is for them to go and buy a full album, not that they would want to because the young people of today dont have the time or patience to listen to an album right the way through, they skip songs that start anywhere near slow.

 

[Irishteen]

''But the singles chart shows what people are buying and what people like, how can it not matter''said by Irishteen

People are buying garbage, so it does not matter.

You see this is called an opinion, the majority of people like that kind of music. A lot of people think U2 are garbage. Opinions aren't fact they are opinions, if people buy music you think it crap then who cares? They like it, so it matters. This isn't the Crazy Frog or some novelty getting to number one, this is the song people wanted to pay for the most and apparently they like the "crap" more than U2

Plus its alot easier for teenagers to go and buy a single for less than £1 than it is for them to go and buy a full album, not that they would want to because the young people of today dont have the time or patience to listen to an album right the way through, they skip songs that start anywhere near slow.

Pop music done it to itself, if the only good songs you make are singles eventually people no longer want the album

 

[bram]

''But the singles chart shows what people are buying and what people like, how can it not matter''said by Irishteen

People are buying garbage, so it does not matter.

People have always bought garbage, and even so, U2 has had hits. The argument that mainstream music is any worse now then 10 years ago is completely false. In 1999, everyone was saying the exact same thing. Check the popular songs from any time in the past 20 years and its total shit, so that reasoning does not in any way explain why U2 is failing to get hits with this album.

Also, a change in formats from CD to digital isn't a legitimate excuse either. The music either excels in a format, be it airwaves or whatever, or it doesn't. But you can't start blaming crap music tastes now in 2009. U2 has always been battling against the current, and they are arguably the only real rock band that has successfully competed against pop music with any consistency in recent years.

 

[beLIEve]

To follow-up on Magnificent in the U.S., it does continue it's slow but steady rise on Adult Top 40, which is a critical format for the success of the song here, and as Dr. Who pointed out, it's the same format that Beautiful Day conquered with a long, successful stay.

Just 3 days ago, Magnificent was apparently "done" on U.S. charts and falling on all 5 radio play formats. Today it has turned around a bit, as it has after several stalls over the past few months. Specifically, on Adult Top 40, in the last day the song has been added to 5 more stations (from 57 to 62), and thus seen plays go from 640 to 680, moving it up one position from 26 to 25. It did reach 24 once already, but it is now on enough stations to make a push higher.

To recap Magnificent's performance in the U.S., radio play only, here are the stats as of today:

Adult Rock 40
#2 for the 2nd week; spent 5 weeks at #1

Alternative Top 40
#26, down from #18; peaked at #17 3 weeks ago

Mainstream Rock Top 40
#13, down from #9; peaked at #8 two weeks ago

Active Rock Top 40
#38, down from #33; peaked at #32 two weeks ago

Adult Top 40
#25, up from #26; peaked at #24 two weeks ago but still rising; went from 54 stations to 62 stations playlist in last few days.

 

[fedeu2]

People have always bought garbage, and even so, U2 has had hits. The argument that mainstream music is any worse now then 10 years ago is completely false. In 1999, everyone was saying the exact same thing. Check the popular songs from any time in the past 20 years and its total shit, so that reasoning does not in any way explain why U2 is failing to get hits with this album.

Also, a change in formats from CD to digital isn't a legitimate excuse either. The music either excels in a format, be it airwaves or whatever, or it doesn't. But you can't start blaming crap music tastes now in 2009. U2 has always been battling against the current, and they are arguably the only real rock band that has successfully competed against pop music with any consistency in recent years.

I tend to agree. The only reason why most of the recent U2 singles (I´m talking about the last three albums here) were regarded as highly successful in the UK was that only physical sales mattered to build the charts. This is no longer the case now. For example, how high Sometimes you can´t make it on your own or City of blinding lights had reached if downloads would have been counted in the UK back in 2004? We will never know but I guess it would have been much closer to #40 than to Top 5.
This has been the situation in Canada for nearly a decade now. Physical sales don´t matter at all. Up to NLOTH, U2 managed to debut every single song at the top of the sales chart but everyone knew that airplay was the important factor.

So, I don´t see the big deal now when Magnificent misses the Top 40. After all, the important aspect is NLOTH performance on the charts. Last time I checked the album continued to climb in the UK so it seems like Magnificent has done its job after all.

 

[Irishteen]

But every other artist had the problem of only having physical singles back then, it's a pretty weak excuse to say that that's the reason they're missing top 40 now. The only real reason is people don't want to buy the song

 

[bathiu]

But every other artist had the problem of only having physical singles back then, it's a pretty weak excuse to say that that's the reason they're missing top 40 now. The only real reason is people don't want to buy the song

not people, kids, I think the "singles" are too cheap right now (compared to CDS or a 7"),
"free gift card" here, pocket money there, parents' credit card, everyone at school talking about song A or song B and you have an army of kids, blind sheep, downloading mostly what's hip and cool.
A kid having 10$ won't "waste" it on an album, he/she will buy all top10 songs.

 

[Irishteen]

This has always been the way it is kids controlled the singles chart, if singles are cheaper people can buy more and everyone is better off. Nothing has really changed that much in the singles market

 

[bathiu]

This has always been the way it is kids controlled the singles chart

not on this scale,
IMO

 

[bram]

Yeah, I agree with Irishteen that you can't blame the format. The most popular songs are the most popular songs, no matter how they get purchased. I don't see why the age demographic for purchasing singles would have significantly changed from CD to digital.

 

[kpod]

Regardless of the change in chart tabulation methodologies, I suspect that when Bono hears it only went to 42 his cry will not be a joyful noise.....


From a commercial perspective, all that the band should be concerned with is album sales which, on a positive note, did increase (albeit modestly) with the release of Magnificent. Perhaps this is a sign the album may have legs.

 

[fedeu2]

But every other artist had the problem of only having physical singles back then, it's a pretty weak excuse to say that that's the reason they're missing top 40 now. The only real reason is people don't want to buy the song

So could you explain why artists who have had monster sales for their singles do not have the same success when it comes to sell albums?
For me, it´s a matter of $$$$. Kids and teenagers can afford to buy (download) a couple of singles but not entire albums. It´s also a matter of comfort. It´s not the same to download singles at home (everyone has internet connection nowadays) than going to the store to buy them. That´s why the incidence of the hardcore fans on the charts has been dwindling over the last few years.

 

[believer75]

^

Why download the single when you already have the album? High album sale=low single sales. It makes sense when you think about it that way.

 

[DarkAcrobat]

^

Why download the single when you already have the album? High album sale=low single sales. It makes sense when you think about it that way.

You are right, nowadays, the itunes singles are bought mostly by kids.

I and my friends buy albums, why to bother searching for the hip single of the week ?, that it's for high school kids.

 

[thelaj]

^

Why download the single when you already have the album? High album sale=low single sales. It makes sense when you think about it that way.

Yet that isn't the case with artists like U2. The single promotes the album... HTDAAB had 2 UK #1s and a #2 and it also sold loads. The argument to make there is that it was the singles charts format that was wrong.

 

[Irishteen]

So could you explain why artists who have had monster sales for their singles do not have the same success when it comes to sell albums?
For me, it´s a matter of $$$$. Kids and teenagers can afford to buy (download) a couple of singles but not entire albums. It´s also a matter of comfort. It´s not the same to download singles at home (everyone has internet connection nowadays) than going to the store to buy them. That´s why the incidence of the hardcore fans on the charts has been dwindling over the last few years.

Now did singles ever mean album sales all the time? You're aware of one hit wonders right? A single has never meant you always sell albums

^

Why download the single when you already have the album? High album sale=low single sales. It makes sense when you think about it that way.

But sales aren't high at all, so this argument isn't a good one

 

[believer75]

Now did singles ever mean album sales all the time? You're aware of one hit wonders right? A single has never meant you always sell albums



But sales aren't high at all, so this argument isn't a good one

Why not? How many hit singles did All That You Can't Leave Behind have in America? How many times platinum was it?
The exception to the rule for U2 was The Joshua Tree, but even so, only had 3 top 40 hits in America. Achtung had several hits, none of which was a huge #1 seller. Beautiful Day in America was not a #1. It took several months of airplay for it reach #21 on the hot 100. But U2 has never been a band that depends on their singles to sell their albums. That's the point many people here are trying to make. They are not going to live or die in the long run whether or not Magnificent or Boots or whatever other single they release is a "hit" in the eyes of our unreliable charts. I said unreliable because I do not think in the time of Atomic Bomb when Vertigo was so heavily downloaded that it was taken into consideration for our pop charts. Otherwise, it should have ended up much higher than it did. It was everywhere, just not on the pop charts here.
Some artists like Black Eyed Peas or Britney or whoever could have several top hits from an album, but their album might not necessarily sell well.
Relatively speaking, you have to admit U2's album is successful in today's market. Look at the numbers. And it's only been out two months. And while we are looking at the numbers of how many albums they have "sold", then take into account all the free copies we know everyone has and copies of that free copy that person burns for someone else. If you do not agree, then you have probably already made up your mind that it is a failure or a disappointment which it is not.

 

[Irishteen]

What? All I said was a hit single does not always mean album sales in regards to the claim that Kelly Clarkson is not selling huge numbers after a hit single

And then I said the claim that large number of sale were affecting downloads of the single was untrue because sales aren't that high at all. Kings of Leon are in the top 40 in the UK with two singles despite selling four times what u2 have. U2's album is successful so far but until Green Day and Eminem release there album we have nothing to compare it to yet

 

[believer75]

Yet that isn't the case with artists like U2. The single promotes the album... HTDAAB had 2 UK #1s and a #2 and it also sold loads. The argument to make there is that it was the singles charts format that was wrong.

In terms of America, I would say that high album sales=low singles sales, especially now. There are lots of U2 fans who would support the single Magnificent here in America, but why would they go out and buy a single if they have the album? I do not think they factor this in to the pop charts taking into consideration who has the album already and letting that carry some weight when the song is charting. If they did, it is my belief Stuck, Walk On, Elevation all would have charted higher as would Sometimes, OOTS and COBL here in America. In my opinion, most people have no idea really how their favorite song does on the pop charts anymore. Not even the people downloading Flo-Rida, TPain, Britney, whatever. Once American Bandstand and Casey Kasem went off the air, no one really tracks this. It hardly if ever comes up anymore in conversations about music. It does not carry the same weight that it used to because music is so fragmented, plus people do not listen to the same radio stations anymore, there are illegal downloads, and the fall of music stores, where people used to commune and talk about music and purchase music. Hard to do that at Wal-mart.

One example, Elvis had a ton of hit singles, but how many albums is he known for? He didn't have to worry about selling the albums because people were going to buy the records as they were released as singles. It was about Elvis next big song, not his next big album. The Beatles kind of changed all that, along with Bob Dylan, and so on.
U2 is not known for their singles. People think many things when they think of U2. It's not just the songs or how they charted on the pop charts. It's The Joshua Tree, ZooTV, Live Aid, Superbowl, etc., etc, etc. I wish people would get around the fact that the charts dictate what people listen to. It just is not true.
I remember being so surprised when I was first getting into U2 that Sunday Bloody Sunday, New Year's Day, Pride and all these other U2 songs that I loved were not these huge #1 hits in America. But, I discovered and loved the songs anyway. One and Mysterious Ways and Wild Horses were all everywhere when they were first released, but that wasn't even enough to get them to #1. People weren't clammoring to buy those singles because they already had the album.

 

[believer75]

What? All I said was a hit single does not always mean album sales in regards to the claim that Kelly Clarkson is not selling huge numbers after a hit single

And then I said the claim that large number of sale were affecting downloads of the single was untrue because sales aren't that high at all. Kings of Leon are in the top 40 in the UK with two singles despite selling four times what u2 have. U2's album is successful so far but until Green Day and Eminem release there album we have nothing to compare it to yet

Sory, Irishteen. Wasn't really responding to your first quote, only the quote about the album sales not being good for U2. I disagree with that, and I still believe U2's album sales will be consistent and singles successes or lack thereof, will not make or break the album.

 

[believer75]

What? All I said was a hit single does not always mean album sales in regards to the claim that Kelly Clarkson is not selling huge numbers after a hit single

And then I said the claim that large number of sale were affecting downloads of the single was untrue because sales aren't that high at all. Kings of Leon are in the top 40 in the UK with two singles despite selling four times what u2 have. U2's album is successful so far but until Green Day and Eminem release there album we have nothing to compare it to yet

does the UK chart take into account how many people have bought the album when charting the latest singles? That would make sense in terms of Kings of Leon. I have always wondered how accurate America was with this.

 

[Irishteen]

Sory, Irishteen. Wasn't really responding to your first quote, only the quote about the album sales not being good for U2. I disagree with that, and I still believe U2's album sales will be consistent and singles successes or lack thereof, will not make or break the album.

Well only time will let us know for sure how it does, at present it looks like it might be levelling off so we'll see. If the album hits 5 million I'd say it equalled Bomb's success

does the UK chart take into account how many people have bought the album when charting the latest singles? That would make sense in terms of Kings of Leon. I have always wondered how accurate America was with this.

nope, although that could be one draw back of it...also if someone downloads the entire album that counts as one album sales, but if I download the track individually that counts as one sale for every track. Maybe sales of whole album and EPs should count for the single chart too

 

[macawaca]

Yep, I think 5 million worldwide for No Line would be a great achievement, all things considered.

 

[Irishteen]

Yep, I think 5 million worldwide for No Line would be a great achievement, all things considered.

Coldplay are heading for 8 million, lower that to 7 for this year's standard and add in the fact they're had the biggest hit single in years. 5 million without a massive hit would be a really strong showing from U2

 

[fedeu2]

Now did singles ever mean album sales all the time? You're aware of one hit wonders right? A single has never meant you always sell albums

But think about teenybooper artists in the 90´s, for example: Britney, Christina, Backstreet boys, N'Sync or even, gasp, New Kids on the block.

All of them sold huge amounts of albums and singles. If things were the same nowadays Kelly Clarkson, for example, should have sold tons of copies of her latest album, not only her single. Back in the 80`s or 90`s one hit wonders, being artists who have a highly successful single without large album sales were the exception not the norm. Now, in the era of digital downloads the scenario is quite different, for reasons already mentioned elsewhere, and for me it kind of explain what is happening with U2.
The other factor, of course, is the outrageous marketing strategy of the band.

 

[Florence76]

I agree with you, 5 mln would be a great achievement, but I think it will be impossible to sell another 2,5 mln without a hit single.
Coldplay are at the top of their popularity (but nowhere close to u2's TJT standard) and they "only" sold 7,5 mln, so even 4 mln would be great.
My last hope is the third single (should be Crazy Tonight) has a great appeal for all the pop formats.

 

[Irishteen]

But think about teenybooper artists in the 90´s, for example: Britney, Christina, Backstreet boys, N'Sync or even, gasp, New Kids on the block.

All of them sold huge amounts of albums and singles. If things were the same nowadays Kelly Clarkson, for example, should have sold tons of copies of her latest album, not only her single. Back in the 80`s or 90`s one hit wonders, being artists who have a highly successful single without large album sales were the exception not the norm. Now, in the era of digital downloads the scenario is quite different, for reasons already mentioned elsewhere, and for me it kind of explain what is happening with U2.
The other factor, of course, is the outrageous marketing strategy of the band.

Maybe it has something to do with pop albums being all filler except singles, I've brought this up several times but if you release nothing decent on an album then no one will buy album any more. Pop music did that to itself

 

[cjboog]

Adult Rock 40
#2 for the 2nd week; spent 5 weeks at #1

Alternative Top 40
#26, down from #18; peaked at #17 3 weeks ago

Mainstream Rock Top 40
#13, down from #9; peaked at #8 two weeks ago

Active Rock Top 40
#38, down from #33; peaked at #32 two weeks ago

It doesn't really matter if it's moving up in one format if it's starting to drop rapidly on all the others...



This song appears to be dying on US radio. It's losing plays on 4 out of the 5 formats it's charted on. It's tumbling downwards on Alternative radio, which is quite a large format.

 

[u2search]

Coldplay has been touring for almost a year now, U2 isn't even on its way. Airplay, interest and sales will rise in every single country (and US city) they will play. 5 Million should be possible.