F the charts!! - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong > Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-07-2002, 11:23 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Hell, some of my favorite albums have *never* been on the damn charts. I don't give a damn about sales figures. But people are going to have diverse opinions about various albums based on the merits of the songs. I really dig Springsteen; some don't. There are diverse opinions here on him, and on how "The Rising" stacks up against ATYCLB. So what? What's wrong with differing opinions? Opinions are like noses; everyone has one.
__________________

verte76 is offline  
Old 08-07-2002, 11:45 PM   #22
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,601
Local Time: 07:17 PM
As far as why Bruce opened at #1 on the charts, while U2 didn't, this is the main reason that came up in my mind:

Bruce is American. All-American, tried and true, stripes and bars proud-of-my-country American. Which is what a lot of people are looking for right now, and Bruce is delivering. Not that I'm saying he's using 9/11 as a marketing tool, but he's an all-American artist who is musically responding to that time in an open, honest, heartfelt, spiritual and uplifting way. I'm glad to see him topping the charts, he deserves it.

If U2 and Bruce released the exact same album, I bet Bruce would chart higher in the US, simply because he's from the US. Simple patriotism.
__________________

Diemen is offline  
Old 08-08-2002, 07:18 AM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Hewson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your own private Idaho
Posts: 30,466
Local Time: 08:17 PM
Re: F the charts!!

Quote:
Originally posted by wolfwill23


So the question is, why didn't U2 hit #1 in the states?
Very simply, ATYCLB was released at the same time as a couple of albums (Britney and some rap act I think) that were very hot with the younger audience, and the largest demographic for music purchases is teenagers.
Hewson is offline  
Old 08-08-2002, 07:39 AM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in Valparaiso, IN
Posts: 6,361
Local Time: 04:17 PM
The only reason U2 didn't debut at #1 with ATYCLB is because they faced strong competition that week. I know the exact total of copies Springsteen sold this week and even if ATYCLB sold as many, it still wouldn't have hit #1. U2 just had their album released in a very competitive week. Had they released it one week earlier (and assuming the sales were the same), they would have been #1.

ATYCLB had the best SoundScan era debut week in U2's career - and this coming off of "Pop" - U2's poorest selling album over a decade (at the time). Therefore, it's not like ATYCLB/U2 performed poorly in their debut week. What is more important is how the album holds up AFTER its debute. While having a #1 album gives one some "bragging rights" - it truly is the long-term sales that measure success. For example, I've seen #1 albums with sales of just 125,000 copies. Which is better - a #1 album that struggles to hit Platinum or a 4x Platinum album? Ideally, one wants both, but there have been other top-selling albums that just never hit the top of the chart. Madonna's "Ray of Light", the Chili Peppers' "Californication" and now U2's ATYCLB are all albums that did not hit #1 but have been - or soon will be - certified as 4x Platinum in the U.S.

Comparing artists is always silly. I admit, there are times I fall into this trap as well. However, let's not get carried away on this sales/chart issue. As a person who has watched the charts for years, I can assure you that it's not that important. Therefore, while I have never been a huge Springsteen fan (some great songs, some I really don't like), I congratulate him on hitting #1. Anything that keeps the likes of some of the artists of today from hitting the top is a worthwhile achievement.
__________________
https://u2.interference.com/attachments/forums/signaturepics/sigpic11661_2.gifI always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific.
doctorwho is offline  
Old 08-08-2002, 10:47 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Actually, the largest music buying demographic is the Baby Boom generation(Those born from 1946 to 1963).
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-08-2002, 07:22 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Bono's shades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 5,038
Local Time: 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Actually, the largest music buying demographic is the Baby Boom generation(Those born from 1946 to 1963).
It is? That's news to me. I thought it was Gen Y. Well, if the Baby Boomers really are the biggest record-buying demographic that would certainly help explain why The Rising is doing so well. After all, the Boss has been around since the early to mid-70s.
Bono's shades is offline  
Old 08-09-2002, 07:03 AM   #27
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Hewson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your own private Idaho
Posts: 30,466
Local Time: 08:17 PM
Baby Boomers #1? Well if that's the case, they may overall buy the most, but as for new music sales, especially right after release, I think you'll find its the younger crowd who heads to the stores asap to buy the hot new thing.
Hewson is offline  
Old 08-09-2002, 09:07 AM   #28
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 08:17 PM
The baby boomers may be the larger potential market but most music buyers fall in to the 18-24 year-old demographic. Adults tend to buy based on proven talent [Bruce] but don't buy often. Teenagers buy anything [Britney, Limp Bizkit] with their extra disposable income [they don't have bills and rent to pay].

I would suggest you dig in to the U2 music charts forum where this is all explained. U2 debuted at #2, behind a Jay Z album. As late as March/April/May of this year, ATYCLB was selling more copies per week than the Jay Z album that hit #1 and a Jay Z album released in 2001 COMBINED. Yes, they didn't hit #1 but ATYCLB has been a somewhat consistant performer on the charts since its release and was hit either #11 or #10 in February of this year-- a year and a half after its release.
sharky is offline  
Old 08-09-2002, 09:30 AM   #29
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,798
Local Time: 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sharky
I would suggest you dig in to the U2 music charts forum where this is all explained. U2 debuted at #2, behind a Jay Z album.
A small correction here, U2 debuted at #3, as Outkast also sold more of Stankonia in their first week than U2 did of ATYCLB.

Quote:
As late as March/April/May of this year, ATYCLB was selling more copies per week than the Jay Z album that hit #1 and a Jay Z album released in 2001 COMBINED. Yes, they didn't hit #1 but ATYCLB has been a somewhat consistant performer on the charts since its release and was hit either #11 or #10 in February of this year-- a year and a half after its release.
And this also held true for the sales of ATYCLB and Outkast's Stankonia and their follow up Big Boi And Dre Present... ATYCLB also outsold those two.
In February/March U2 had a second Grammy surge with ATYCLB and the album had a second week in the Top 10 (in total that is) when they hit #10. Unfortunately, things are not looking that good now. Last week ATYCLB was #187 and I don't know if U2 will be in the Billboard 200 this week.

C ya!

Marty
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 08-10-2002, 07:23 AM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in Valparaiso, IN
Posts: 6,361
Local Time: 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn


In February/March U2 had a second Grammy surge with ATYCLB and the album had a second week in the Top 10 (in total that is) when they hit #10. Unfortunately, things are not looking that good now. Last week ATYCLB was #187 and I don't know if U2 will be in the Billboard 200 this week.

C ya!

Marty
A small correction here... With U2's Grammy wins earlier this year, they scored a THIRD week in the top 10 (total). ATYCLB debuted at #3 and dropped to #5 its second week.

Oh, and while I haven't posted chart info yet, ATYCLB does survive another week in the U.S. Top 200. I'll post that news hopefully later today (Sat. Aug. 10th).
__________________
https://u2.interference.com/attachments/forums/signaturepics/sigpic11661_2.gifI always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific.
doctorwho is offline  
Old 08-10-2002, 02:43 PM   #31
War Child
 
jezebel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: down the road from the Harmony Motel
Posts: 712
Local Time: 05:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Gina Marie


Bruce fans have a strong attachment to him, and it's re-energized when he releases a new CD/goes on tour-ditto for U2. And if the '80's all over again' means Bruce taking over the charts, I'm all for it

thanks, Gina Marie

tkramer, you said Bruce's competition was Nickelback. Actually it was Linkin Park. Same difference.

Unforgettable Lemon, I agree with you 100%

I have developed a very strong attachment to The Rising. It is similar to ATYCLB in that it is better with each listen, and yet I find more inspiring than ATYCLB ever was. Just listen to Worlds Apart or Paradise. Only Bruce could write a song about a sucide bomber that is absolutely heartbreaking in its lyrics and melody.

**jezebel runs back to the Springsteen message boards**
jezebel is offline  
Old 08-10-2002, 04:18 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:17 AM
I know that the 18 to 24 demographic is probably the largest buying 6 years bracket. But the babyboom generation is massive, were talking everyone from the age of 39 to 56! That age bracket itself is 3 times as large, plus the numbers per age are also larger. They may have bills to pay, but they also make more money and buy a lot of stuff, remember the average saving rate is less than 1% and a lot of people are in debt(not simply because of the electric bill).

They may not buy the record the first week, but that really doesn't matter because true success on the album charts is about longevity. Far better to have album peak at #10 and eventually sell 4 million copies than to have album debut at #1, but fall quickly and run out of steam with sales of only 1.5 million.

There is one band in this world that can sell more concert tickets in the USA than U2. That band is the Rolling Stones. The Rolling Stones have the highest attended US tour in history! Attending concerts involves money and time, things which some hear say that BOOMERS don't have. Given that the average age of a Rolling Stone fan is 48, that claim is utterly false. Most of these teen acts and college acts are lucky to fill an arena at bargain basement prices and would never think of playing a stadium. Most U2 fans are between the ages of 25 to 39. I'd say the average age for a U2 fan is 32.

ATYCLB sold over 4 million copies in the USA and 11 million worldwide. Most people who bought the album and went to the shows were over 25! ATYCLB is one of the 10 best selling albums worldwide since Jan. 2000, and not because of 18-24 music buyers.
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-10-2002, 06:27 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
david's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: southern california
Posts: 10,478
Local Time: 05:17 PM
I would have to say that the Boss hardly has any competition right now, so just maybe, that is why his album went to #1. Think about the mainstream music scene now, as opposed to the fall of 2000. More than likely Bruce will fall out of the top spot anyway, just like Jackson did. That is unless Bruce does some tv shows, and basically works his ass off promoting the album, much like U2 did. Had U2 not done that, I doubt they would have had great chart sucess (the rise and fall and rise of ATYCLB over the course of 2001). Another thing, I think The Rising shot to #1 simply because that this is the first album Bruce has made with the E. Street Band since 1984. A lot of die hard fans were probably anxiously awaiting this album. Another thing to take into consideration is MAX WEINBERG! HE IS THE MAN!!

Sorry, that was the Late Night With Conan O'Brien fan in me.
david is offline  
Old 08-11-2002, 02:41 PM   #34
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 637
Local Time: 12:17 AM
All right all you Boss fans, chill out.

I was not saying that Springsteen sucks or anything like that, I was making a point about how bad the new music is. I did say that The Rising is inferior to ATYCLB and I stand behind that. However, I did not diss the Boss. I respect an artist who creates because something touches them deeply.

As for people saying they would shoot me if I dissed the Boss again, well, let me just say this. It would be nice for Bruce to experiement with a different sound. While listening to The Rising, I felt like I was listening to some of his 80's music. It had a very similar sound.

Also, for me, the hardest thing about writing is saying it without saying it. Bono does that brilliantly (So Cruel, One). However, Bruce's lyrics on The Rising are just about as on the nose as you can get.

So load up your guns and come to NYC and get me suckas! This thread should give all you Boss fans with no life something to do for a while.
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 08-11-2002, 03:15 PM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by wolfwill23
All right all you Boss fans, chill out.

I was not saying that Springsteen sucks or anything like that, I was making a point about how bad the new music is. I did say that The Rising is inferior to ATYCLB and I stand behind that. However, I did not diss the Boss. I respect an artist who creates because something touches them deeply.

As for people saying they would shoot me if I dissed the Boss again, well, let me just say this. It would be nice for Bruce to experiement with a different sound. While listening to The Rising, I felt like I was listening to some of his 80's music. It had a very similar sound.

Also, for me, the hardest thing about writing is saying it without saying it. Bono does that brilliantly (So Cruel, One). However, Bruce's lyrics on The Rising are just about as on the nose as you can get.

So load up your guns and come to NYC and get me suckas! This thread should give all you Boss fans with no life something to do for a while.

I'm a Boss fan but don't worry I'm chilled out already. I think rock 'n roll would be boring as hell if we all liked the same people. And it is only rock 'n roll, so I'm just going to enjoy it. I really do think that's the important thing. Whatever turns you on.........
verte76 is offline  
Old 08-12-2002, 07:01 AM   #36
War Child
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 21 Duke Street Dublin eating a gorgonzola sandwich!
Posts: 604
Local Time: 12:17 AM
I personally think that "The Rising"is a great record ,one of the best released this year.I don't think it is as good as ATYCTB but Bruce is a man of intergrity and he wrote a record full of his true feelings!Lets face it there is too little true feeling music happening right now.I say ride the wave Bruce!
__________________

u2sangel is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×