New album: general discussion

[JamietheEdgefan]

This could be interesting!
I'd suppose if this article is real, we'll see it (and others) published toward the end of february, which would be about a month before the lead single? Maybe?

 

[BoMac]

This is the original post (in print screen) my friend :

Imageshack - 011achtung.png

Merci

 

[powerhour24]

I'll believe it when I see it in print

Agreed.

 

[U2387]

None since. The times? They are a changin'

Maybe the u2 danger mousey album can be the green album. Ya know... Cause they're irish and all.

Beautiful Day wasn't yesterday, but it certainly wasn't the stone ages either.

U2 had gone a lot more time without a hit in 2000 and unlike today, had actually had obituaries penned about them so to speak.

Of all the hits on the radio today, very few have some kind of endorsement behind them.

U2 won't need anything but the song itself to make another hit, just provided they pick the right song.

As 360 proves, they're still plenty relevant and are still paid attention to.

GOYB wouldn't have been a hit no matter what commercial it was used in.

 

[powerhour24]

Magnificent, Breathe or NLOTH could have broken through with an iTunes ad, and without being blacklisted by the radio.

Let's face it though, the radio is consolidated into very few companies controlling the airwaves and they play the same few songs which pander to the popkids that download iTunes singles and ringtones, that just isn't the rock demographic, rock is dead on the radio at the moment.

 

[nielsgov]

I'll believe it when I see it in print

This.

 

[NewKillerStar]

rock is dead on the radio at the moment.

then the folks at Absolute radio don't know about this - they even play Led Zeppelin

(and at least one U2 song a day)

 

[shart1780]

Why do we keep talking about how popular U2's music will be?

 

[mama cass]

translation:

À propos des informations divulgés sur le prochain album, je posterai les informations les plus fiables possibles (comme je l'ai toujours fait) dès que j'en trouverai plus ; j'ai été contacté par plusieurs personnes pour des informations supplémentaires sur le fameux "Project Zero One" ou alias "Song of Ascent", mais je n'ai pas plus d'informations que ce que j'ai écrit ici et selon les différents articles du web. Cependant, mes sources sont toujours fiables et sont basés sur de nombreuses interview et informations d'importances dans un article qui sera publier probablement bientôt dans un magazine. Je n'ai cependant pas d'informations privilègiés... il faudra attendre pour voir ce que sera réellement le prochain album


I will post the most reliable info possible revealed about the next album (like i've always done) as soon as i find out more; several people have asked me for more info on the notorious "Project Zero One" aka "Songs of Ascent", but the information i posted here is all i have, along with the different articles on the net. However, my sources have always been reliable and are based on numerous interviews and important information to be published in a magazine, probably in the not too distant future. However, I don't have any special information... we'll have to wait and see what the next album will actually turn out to be


i don't know... on the one hand he's saying he's got "sources" but then says he's not got any "special information"... who knows...

 

[Greatest Hits]

On the french forum, apparently the other members don't take him seriously, and from what I've read myself, he never had any informations before...

 

[solemole]

unless he's fake edge, of course

 

[mikal]

I'll believe it when I see it in print

yep. same here.

if we do get a magazing article with song names, first single, etc... then it's safe to say that the album is coming in the near future. i wouldn't be surprised if it's just another article saying that U2 is recording a new album and doesn't give away any details.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Beautiful Day wasn't yesterday, but it certainly wasn't the stone ages either.

U2 had gone a lot more time without a hit in 2000 and unlike today, had actually had obituaries penned about them so to speak.

Of all the hits on the radio today, very few have some kind of endorsement behind them.

U2 won't need anything but the song itself to make another hit, just provided they pick the right song.

As 360 proves, they're still plenty relevant and are still paid attention to.

GOYB wouldn't have been a hit no matter what commercial it was used in.

Beautiful day peeked at #21 on the billboard hot 100.

Vertigo peeked at #31.

Get in your boots peeked at #37.

The last u2 song to crack the billboard top ten was discotheque. I was 16. I'm now 30.


Having a hit these days has absolutely nothing to do with chart position, especially for bands like u2.

A "hit" for them will be if they have a song and or album that permeates the social conscious. A song that is heard often, in many different places, for an extended period of time. There's really no true way too tell if this has happened by looking at any one chart anymore... You kinda just know.

You would think that vertigo had done better than 31. It seemed massive. Boots seemed like a total flop, yet it came in just 6 spots behind vertigo.

Perception is more important than reality sometimes.

 

[MMP]

You would think that vertigo had done better than 31. It seemed massive. Boots seemed like a total flop, yet it came in just 6 spots behind vertigo.

Perception is more important than reality sometimes.

Actually not on this case. Vertigo was 31 because Billboard only started to count digital sales at the beginning of 2005. Had they started counting when Vertigo was released it would most probably been a top 10 hit, if not top 5. When they started couting, in Januray, Vertigo was already fading away but it got up something between 10-20 positions on the list, if I remember correctly.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Yep.

Charts = not important. They only reflect what some demographic segments are buying/listening to/tuning in to, and even then, not too accurately.

 

[BVS]

The Fly Video was a pretty stealth entry into 1991

I'm guessing this is suppose to be ironic?

 

[U2387]

Beautiful day peeked at #21 on the billboard hot 100.

Vertigo peeked at #31.

Get in your boots peeked at #37.

The last u2 song to crack the billboard top ten was discotheque. I was 16. I'm now 30.


Having a hit these days has absolutely nothing to do with chart position, especially for bands like u2.

A "hit" for them will be if they have a song and or album that permeates the social conscious. A song that is heard often, in many different places, for an extended period of time. There's really no true way too tell if this has happened by looking at any one chart anymore... You kinda just know.

You would think that vertigo had done better than 31. It seemed massive. Boots seemed like a total flop, yet it came in just 6 spots behind vertigo.

Perception is more important than reality sometimes.

Of course.

BD was much bigger than the charts suggest, and I never said just look at charts. I am well aware of the trend.

I was just saying it didn't have any kind of i-tunes/whatever promotion behind it.

And maybe it is true, in fact, it probably is true, as PowerHour suggests, that Breathe or Magnificent could have gained some steam with some kind of endorsement behind it. However, I don't think it's a vital component for U2 having a hit. It is one way to go for sure, and I am not against it in the least bit.

I think where PowerHour is spot on and has more of a point is the blacklisting issue. As was said, a few big companies control the airwaves entirely, and all it took was a decision among their higher-ups not to play Magnificent.

Actually not on this case. Vertigo was 31 because Billboard only started to count digital sales at the beginning of 2005. Had they started counting when Vertigo was released it would most probably been a top 10 hit, if not top 5. When they started couting, in Januray, Vertigo was already fading away but it got up something between 10-20 positions on the list, if I remember correctly.

I remember reading about how this affected the charting of Vertigo at the time.

Those of us who remember 2004(read, all of us) can attest to the fact that it seemed MUCH bigger than an outside- the- top 30 hit

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Actually not on this case. Vertigo was 31 because Billboard only started to count digital sales at the beginning of 2005. Had they started counting when Vertigo was released it would most probably been a top 10 hit, if not top 5. When they started couting, in Januray, Vertigo was already fading away but it got up something between 10-20 positions on the list, if I remember correctly.

and none of these lists take illegal downloads, youtube hits, ringtone downloads, etc. etc. etc. into effect...

so once again, on to the only point of what i posted, charts don't mean jack shit.

 

[subnet]

I'm guessing this is suppose to be ironic?

absolutely. i was guessing either you or mikal would catch on to that...

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

This is the original post (in print screen) my friend :

i clicked on this link and my NORTON antivirus went crazy with threats of viruses, etc.

I would advise people not to click on that....

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

Magnificent, Breathe or NLOTH could have broken through with an iTunes ad, and without being blacklisted by the radio.

i can see Magnificent being a "hit", Breathe or NLOTH (album version) not so much.

The more i think of the album NLOTH, the more i think it will become (in the minds of u2) what they had intended for SOA to be.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Going down the advertising route again would be very tricky for them.

It would have to be very clever, and they would have to be very careful. Very, very clever. And careful in part because they’re U2, but mostly because of Bono. You know the minute City of Blinding Whites pops up on a laundry detergent commercial, a million people will instantly discover that said petrochemical company manufactures the stuff in Kenya, pays their workers with malaria, and pollutes half of the continent with toxic run off and Bono will forever cop a shitstorm that will make the tax hypocrisy thing look like absolutely nothing. Being extreme, but there are very few companies out there – or parent companies, or links or whatever - that wouldn’t have something moderately dodgy to point to and throw back at Bono, forever.

Apple was a good one because it is almost universaly liked and respected, plus they were pushing a music product, and could rightly say that since forever music artists of all levels of cool/not cool were historically never accused of ‘sell out’ when loaning their image or talent to the pushing of radio stations, record stores etc, so whats the beef with the iPod/iTunes modern version of that kind of system?

But I can’t think of too many (any?) other corporate examples as near perfect as that.

Plus Vertigo was their most naff single. It pretty much is just a jingle anyway.

They did survive the Blackberry thing okay too.

 

[LPU2]

Why is U2 held to such an enormously high standard when it comes to this? No need to answer that; I already know. But Earnie, you're exactly right; U2 does have to be careful. Because they're U2. But yet no one criticizes young, hip bands like Black Keys and Vampire Weekend for selling everything from jewelry to underwear.

Times have changed. I understand the strategic value of avoiding commercial exploitation. When you hear Streets, you want it to conjure all the special moments you've had with that song. You don't want it to conjure the Chevy Malibu cruising down the road.

But whatever cred liability "selling out" represented in the 80s and 90s, just doesn't appear to exist anymore. Am I wrong?

 

[subnet]

U2 sold Pop Condoms....that was cool.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

But whatever cred liability "selling out" represented in the 80s and 90s, just doesn't appear to exist anymore. Am I wrong?

No it doesn't, really. I think most people of the 80s/90s generation understand the changed circumstances and realities and accept it, and those younger probably don't know anything other than commercial overload from everyone and everything, everywhere, eternally. But it is still different if you are a long established band like U2, with U2's history, and specifically their more unique musical connection and message. That doesn't mean they can't do it - at all - it just means that they need to be a lot more careful. There's a higher standard expected, in several different ways. Just selling a song to Pepsi to back up a commercial featuring a lot of frisky young things dancing on a beach whilst consuming cola beverages would almost certainly, and rightly, still be widely seen as "selling out". But a good connection done cleverly would and should be accepted.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

When you hear Streets, you want it to conjure all the special moments you've had with that song. You don't want it to conjure the Chevy Malibu cruising down the road.

And there would be zero chance of that happening. They're not to ever suddenly start licensing out either 'the classics' or songs with that would have a deeper emotional connection or meaning. I am sure it would only ever be something new and lightweight. Like Vertigo. To state the obvious - I don't think anyone would ever say that the iPod commercial 'ruined' Vertigo in any kind of sprititual-connection-to-song sense. No-one would have had that connection. It being everywhere maybe did ruin it in a different way for some, but it didn't ruin anything 'special' about it.

 

[bonocomet]

Do you guys remember those photos I think from 2009 where Edge was pretty obviously advertising some drink? They appeared on the company's site or maybe blog for maybe a day or so and then they were suddenly magically zapped from existence. Weird. Anyway, they obviously don't want themselves associated with advertising products so I doubt they'd let it happen with their music. The ipod was a fluke good timing great move I think. Even Bruce was jealous of that!

 

[nirniva]

But yet no one criticizes young, hip bands like Black Keys and Vampire Weekend for selling everything from jewelry to underwear.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-co...---dan-auerbach--patrick-carney---ezra-koenig

 

[Gonna Run 2 U]

Of course.

BD was much bigger than the charts suggest, and I never said just look at charts. I am well aware of the trend.

I was just saying it didn't have any kind of i-tunes/whatever promotion behind it.

And maybe it is true, in fact, it probably is true, as PowerHour suggests, that Breathe or Magnificent could have gained some steam with some kind of endorsement behind it. However, I don't think it's a vital component for U2 having a hit. It is one way to go for sure, and I am not against it in the least bit.

I think where PowerHour is spot on and has more of a point is the blacklisting issue. As was said, a few big companies control the airwaves entirely, and all it took was a decision among their higher-ups not to play Magnificent.



I remember reading about how this affected the charting of Vertigo at the time.

Those of us who remember 2004(read, all of us) can attest to the fact that it seemed MUCH bigger than an outside- the- top 30 hit

In regards to rock songs, Where did "Sex on fire" and "use somebody" chart because i still hear those songs everywhere

 

[powerhour24]

Use Somebody was probably the last rock song I can think of to crack the top 10 in the US, it reached #4, but that's pushing 2 years ago now. Sex on Fire only got to #56.