LP15 - We're due for a break from the norm

[Axver]

U2 feat. Ariana Grande is about all that will do it.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

There are currently 2 country artists and a Christian artist in the 30 to 40 range. There's also, ya know, Baby Shark.

The only thing below 30 that isn't hip hop or pop is imagine dragons, panic at the disco and maroon 5. Which, ok, is basically all pop that tries to tell themselves they're pop rock (although maroon 5 stopped trying a while ago). And Bradley Cooper.

So yea... it wouldn't be impossible for them to get in that 30 to 50 range, which would be considered a smash hit for them at this point in their careers.

Anything higher than that would require some sort of extraordinary circumstance.

 

[Gonna Run 2 U]

I remember when Best Thing first premiered on Q 104.3. The response from the hosts was pretty much along the lines of “well, that was the new U2 song, moving on”.

 

[The_acrobat]

EBW had a chance to become a hit. Then they released it as a single... and did absolutely nothing. NOTHING to promote it! I know that Bono was recovering from his accident, but that doesn’t mean the entire U2 organization had to go into shutdown.

They could’ve pushed BOTH versions of the song, and gotten traction with both. It would’ve had mass appeal, crossover into multiple formats, had they made the effort to push it to the masses.

Yes, the way they’ve handled their singles since NLOTH is extremely frustrating! They employ smart people, some of the best in the biz... so why do songs like Boots and American Soul get pushed as singles, while a song like RFD or Little Things remains buried in the deep cuts.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

EBW had a chance to become a hit. Then they released it as a single... and did absolutely nothing. NOTHING to promote it! I know that Bono was recovering from his accident, but that doesn’t mean the entire U2 organization had to go into shutdown.

They could’ve pushed BOTH versions of the song, and gotten traction with both. It would’ve had mass appeal, crossover into multiple formats, had they made the effort to push it to the masses.

Yes, the way they’ve handled their singles since NLOTH is extremely frustrating! They employ smart people, some of the best in the biz... so why do songs like Boots and American Soul get pushed as singles, while a song like RFD or Little Things remains buried in the deep cuts.

Nope.

Everything in Innocence was DOA the second they released the album in the way that they did.

 

[lazarus]

Yeah, I kind of feel the same way.

They could have used the Apple event to put just the single (either California or Volcano) in everyone's iTunes account after playing it live on stage, which probably wouldn't have been as offensive as an entire album. Then at the same event they announce the immediate availability of the whole album to anyone who wants to ACTIVELY purchase it (no charge for a limited time).

I know they had already given away a free single with Invisible but that whole teasing event was a misfire unless you're counting the charity money it raised for RED.

Then you have an album campaign with proper single releases of:

California or Volcano (whichever one wasn't the lead single)
Every Breaking Wave
Crystal Ballroom
Song For Someone

The band might be in a different place right now.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Yeah, I kind of feel the same way.

They could have used the Apple event to put just the single (either California or Volcano) in everyone's iTunes account after playing it live on stage, which probably wouldn't have been as offensive as an entire album. Then at the same event they announce the immediate availability of the whole album to anyone who wants to ACTIVELY purchase it (no charge for a limited time).

I know they had already given away a free single with Invisible but that whole teasing event was a misfire unless you're counting the charity money it raised for RED.

Then you have an album campaign with proper single releases of:

California or Volcano (whichever one wasn't the lead single)
Every Breaking Wave
Crystal Ballroom
Song For Someone

The band might be in a different place right now.

Or they could have, ya know, offered the album for free but made people actually have to go and download it... which is exactly what they did for Invisible.

That one difference would have changed everything. Innocence would have been looked at on merit alone. The tour would have been celebrated as a technological marvel. Bono wouldn't have gone out for a mind clearing bike ride. Trump wouldn't be president. American Soul wouldn't exist. And i wouldn't have to beat Axver's ass.

 

[lazarus]

Bernie would have won!

 

[The_acrobat]

Or they could have, ya know, offered the album for free but made people actually have to go and download it... which is exactly what they did for Invisible.

That one difference would have changed everything. Innocence would have been looked at on merit alone. The tour would have been celebrated as a technological marvel. Bono wouldn't have gone out for a mind clearing bike ride. Trump wouldn't be president. American Soul wouldn't exist. And i wouldn't have to beat Axver's ass.

Yep. Just a simple "click here for your free download of Songs of Innocence" would've changed the entire course of SOI's legacy. There would've been virtually NO negativity surrounding the release. Apple could've used it as a tie in to launch their "Apple Music" streaming service. Everybody would've been buzzing.

Ultimately, I don't think U2's overall legacy has suffered too much. A sold out stadium tour showcasing the Joshua Tree really helped them regain their footing to an extent. SOE, while not as big of a deal overall, was able perform decent on it's own merit. Still, for a large chunk of millennials, THEIR version of U2 will always be the ass-clowns that forced their album into their iTunes account.

 

[kabigon]

Then you have some bands like New Order and Simple Minds which have their legacies cemented in the 80s and early 90s, but have continued to release music since then with very little public attention. U2 really did well to have ATYCLB as successful as it was.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

You also have bands like new order and simple minds who are content with their stature and otherwise release music without worrying about whether or not they’re relevant.

 

[DaveC]

yes but is there an internet message board in 2019 dedicated to discussion of new order or simple minds

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I mean in all honesty any surviving forums in 2019 survived not because of their topic but because of their community/members.

 

[Axver]

Yeah, there's still a bloody Dream Theater forum active out there, for fuck's sake.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Is there a blind wanker on the Dream Theater forum who tracks their setlists?

 

[Axver]

If he's tracking Dream Theater setlists, he's presumably a deaf wanker.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Touche'

 

[Mac_Fly]

Or they could have, ya know, offered the album for free but made people actually have to go and download it... which is exactly what they did for Invisible.

That one difference would have changed everything.

Well, it MIGHT have changed "everything." If you mean by "everything" preventing a backlash. If you mean in terms of album sales . . . well, depends.

They sold quite a chunk of back catalog after giving SOI away for free you'll remember.

Offering it for free but not forcing onto phones might seem like a good idea but the market they were aiming for wouldn't have bothered. Virtually no one under 30 cares about U2 for the most part. Getting the word out that it's free and available for download would be met with a shrug. But if people find it on their phone they will at least sample it. And a percentage of people that never would have bothered downloading it themselves will like what they hear and maybe consider U2's other music (granted, a small percentage).

And who knows? Maybe the results for offerings Invisible for free were so poor that that was why they went the direction they did for SOI.

Post hoc reasoning about what would have worked makes for a lazy pastime for U2 acolytes. But we'll never know.

The simple fact is that the album had no major hit. End of story.

For the record, I think the backlash itself is overblown. If anything, U2 still gets mentioned for that stunt. Where otherwise they would not be in any conversation at all.

Point for U2.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Well, it MIGHT have changed "everything." If you mean by "everything" preventing a backlash. If you mean in terms of album sales . . . well, depends.



They sold quite a chunk of back catalog after giving SOI away for free you'll remember.



Offering it for free but not forcing onto phones might seem like a good idea but the market they were aiming for wouldn't have bothered. Virtually no one under 30 cares about U2 for the most part. Getting the word out that it's free and available for download would be met with a shrug. But if people find it on their phone they will at least sample it. And a percentage of people that never would have bothered downloading it themselves will like what they hear and maybe consider U2's other music (granted, a small percentage).



And who knows? Maybe the results for offerings Invisible for free were so poor that that was why they went the direction they did for SOI.



Post hoc reasoning about what would have worked makes for a lazy pastime for U2 acolytes. But we'll never know.



The simple fact is that the album had no major hit. End of story.



For the record, I think the backlash itself is overblown. If anything, U2 still gets mentioned for that stunt. Where otherwise they would not be in any conversation at all.



Point for U2.

Invisible was downloaded 3 million times.

Songs of Innocence was considered spam.

So, yea, Invisible release method for the win.

 

[CosmoKramer]

I remember when Best Thing first premiered on Q 104.3. The response from the hosts was pretty much along the lines of “well, that was the new U2 song, moving on”.

Lol....so I remember that as I waited in my car before going into work to listen and when it was done, Jim Kerr goes something like “well, there it is. The new one from U2” and there was a pause between where him and Shelli didn’t say anything for a couple of seconds (seconds usually reserved for the “wow, they still got it” type comments) and it was so awkward. It was as if both were thinking “what the fuck was that and why did we play it on our rock station”.

Not a good moment for a U2 fan.

 

[Mac_Fly]

Invisible was downloaded 3 million times.

Songs of Innocence was considered spam.

So, yea, Invisible release method for the win.

Of course we'll never know.

The Invisible download thing was also tied to a charity. That would go a long way in influencing downloads.

I'll say it again: There were no hits on SOI.

Pretty simple.

 

[Hewson]

Of course we'll never know.

The Invisible download thing was also tied to a charity. That would go a long way in influencing downloads.

.

It was free and advertised as such during the Super Bowl, that accounts for the 3 million downloads, not folks doing it to help charity, that was just an added bonus for most.

 

[Mac_Fly]

It was free and advertised as such during the Super Bowl, that accounts for the 3 million downloads, not folks doing it to help charity, that was just an added bonus for most.

Added bonus for "most?"

Then that implies "most" folks downloaded it in support of the charity.

It was a package deal to be sure. Point is . .during the SB . . different song . .charity. . etc., all of those things were unique to that particular release, making it hard to say if the method alone would have made a difference for SOI.

Maybe yes. Maybe no.

Amusing to see people presume to know though. So keep it going.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Added bonus for "most?"

Then that implies "most" folks downloaded it in support of the charity.

It was a package deal to be sure. Point is . .during the SB . . different song . .charity. . etc., all of those things were unique to that particular release, making it hard to say if the method alone would have made a difference for SOI.

Maybe yes. Maybe no.

Amusing to see people presume to know though. So keep it going.

Look - if you don't think that the release would have gone better if they didn't automatically spam everyone's iTunes account then I really don't know what to tell you.

Would people have liked it? Maybe, maybe not. But it would have been judged on its own merit, vs being considered a joke by people who never even heard it

 

[Mac_Fly]

Look - if you don't think that the release would have gone better if they didn't automatically spam everyone's iTunes account then I really don't know what to tell you.

Would people have liked it? Maybe, maybe not. But it would have been judged on its own merit, vs being considered a joke by people who never even heard it

I honestly don't. But what do I know? Sure, it would have sold more copies. But without any real hits . . . .

The SOI release choice gave people who didn't like U2 something new to bitch about. But I suspect the band picked up some new fans that weren't there before. Which was the goal. But that isn't the kind of thing you hear. What you will hear are the complainers because that's what people enjoy doing -- complaining about something they don't like. Like U2.

The one thing I will question is the lead single. Maybe a different choice would have helped in that regard. Though doubtful. SOI just didn't have that stand-out cut.

 

[lazarus]

The thought that someone would go through the trouble of downloading a U2 song if they weren't interested in the band just so they could get $1 donated to RED is a pretty ridiculous one.

We could get into demographics about those type of altruistic people even watching the Super Bowl or being frequent iTunes/Internet users, but even without that it doesn't hold much water for me.

 

[CosmoKramer]

I know nothing about the music business but here is something that I find odd. We know U2 wants a “hit” song(I would argue every artist would want that but how they go about it varies) but they way they promoted SOI and SOE even more so defied logic.

Take SOE...you start out with a video of The Blackout, going out of their way to have a raffle to get fans to attend the “secret” performance and they spent a day doing multiple takes and seemingly put a lot of effort into it. It gets attention on Facebook (not a lot but it grabbed some headlines). Some stations started playing the crappy rip of it because it’s new U2 and it’s a fairly rocking song(IMO). The song is then played in part during the end of innings of the World Series and U2 announce it will be released for RSD. Fast forward 7 or 10 days later and they release the much more poppy sounding Best Thing and we literally get no more promo for The BlackOut.

Now maybe you think Blackout sucks and Best Thing is better or maybe you think both suck but I am of the strong opinion that Blackout is a very good song that has a very catchy chorus and is one of the most “rocking” songs U2 has had since HTDAAB. I don’t think it’s the best thing on the album (yeah, I went their with that pun!) but it’s easily one of the top 3 radio friendly songs on the album. I’m more irritated that they started with some promo for it and then just moved on, which I believe 100% was the plan the whole time but it was a stupid fucking plan.

Why not release Blackout as a single to radio, then put it in iTunes shortly after with a b-side of the “live performance”(not 5 shit show remixes of it like they did for all the other singles on this album)? It would have gotten some airplay (all first U2 songs do to some extent) and it would at the very least have sales from us hard core fans that would love to have the song and the live cut.

Then, and bare with me here, you play Blackout on SNL, the Grammies and for all the other promo performances? Would it have been a hit? Probably not but fuck it would have been so much more rocking, exciting and energetic during the promo tour than the meek live performances of Best Thing, Get Out of Your Own Way and American Soul...all of which made one of the greatest live bands ever appear to be a hotel cover band(point me to one kick ass performance of any of those 3 songs during the promo tour).

It’s almost as if they didn’t care and just wanted to get the as many songs out into the pubic as possible.

 

[DaveC]

It’s almost as if they didn’t care and just wanted to get the as many songs out into the pubic as possible.

and people thought the apple promo was invasive...

 

[mikal]

I know nothing about the music business but here is something that I find odd. We know U2 wants a “hit” song(I would argue every artist would want that but how they go about it varies) but they way they promoted SOI and SOE even more so defied logic.

Take SOE...you start out with a video of The Blackout, going out of their way to have a raffle to get fans to attend the “secret” performance and they spent a day doing multiple takes and seemingly put a lot of effort into it. It gets attention on Facebook (not a lot but it grabbed some headlines). Some stations started playing the crappy rip of it because it’s new U2 and it’s a fairly rocking song(IMO). The song is then played in part during the end of innings of the World Series and U2 announce it will be released for RSD. Fast forward 7 or 10 days later and they release the much more poppy sounding Best Thing and we literally get no more promo for The BlackOut.

Now maybe you think Blackout sucks and Best Thing is better or maybe you think both suck but I am of the strong opinion that Blackout is a very good song that has a very catchy chorus and is one of the most “rocking” songs U2 has had since HTDAAB. I don’t think it’s the best thing on the album (yeah, I went their with that pun!) but it’s easily one of the top 3 radio friendly songs on the album. I’m more irritated that they started with some promo for it and then just moved on, which I believe 100% was the plan the whole time but it was a stupid fucking plan.

Why not release Blackout as a single to radio, then put it in iTunes shortly after with a b-side of the “live performance”(not 5 shit show remixes of it like they did for all the other singles on this album)? It would have gotten some airplay (all first U2 songs do to some extent) and it would at the very least have sales from us hard core fans that would love to have the song and the live cut.

Then, and bare with me here, you play Blackout on SNL, the Grammies and for all the other promo performances? Would it have been a hit? Probably not but fuck it would have been so much more rocking, exciting and energetic during the promo tour than the meek live performances of Best Thing, Get Out of Your Own Way and American Soul...all of which made one of the greatest live bands ever appear to be a hotel cover band(point me to one kick ass performance of any of those 3 songs during the promo tour).

It’s almost as if they didn’t care and just wanted to get the as many songs out into the pubic as possible.

Agreed and one other point is that I had a good number of friends who wouldn’t normally give a shit about U2 say that they were impressed by The Blackout. I think it could have actually broken through a bit.

 

[Mac_Fly]

The thought that someone would go through the trouble of downloading a U2 song if they weren't interested in the band just so they could get $1 donated to RED is a pretty ridiculous one.

We could get into demographics about those type of altruistic people even watching the Super Bowl or being frequent iTunes/Internet users, but even without that it doesn't hold much water for me.

That someone not interested in the band would download the song just for charity purposes, no, mostly likely not.

But I can envision people who are casual U2 fans from JT and/or AB days -- people who have not paid much attention to them since -- throwing in for the download because it is augmented by a charity cause.

Isolating the charity aspect isn't the point. The idea that offering SOI for free ala Invisible would have made "everything" different for the band is what I question.

Yes, they would have avoided the backlash. But no,, they would not have reached as many people (in a positive way).

I keep harping on the fact that SOI had no hit single. But really, it's because it had no hit single that the band did what they did. They had on their hands a decidedly good album (I'd give it a 4 out of 5), but not enough to get anyone's attention, other than the die-hards.