SOI autopsy - what went wrong?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
No autopsy went needed. Nothing went wrong. The numbers speak for themselves.
 
No autopsy went needed. Nothing went wrong. The numbers speak for themselves.

Well this isn't true at all. In fact, if there was ever a case of the numbers not speaking for themselves, it's the numbers behind SOI, all of which are meaningless, or at best misleading, without context.

In terms of how many downloads, you have to separate the "automatic downloads" from the voluntary ones. With regards to the much-publisised number of listens, there are people who listened to the entire record, some who listened to only a few tracks, some one track, and some even only a few seconds of one track, all of which count as an SOI "listen".

Then there's the sales figures themselves, which are extremely misleading and deceptively low for a U2 record, unless you know the context...i.e. that the record had been given away for free.

So yeah, the numbers behind SOI may tell us a lot, but they certainly don't speak for themselves.
 
So yeah, the numbers behind SOI may tell us a lot, but they certainly don't speak for themselves.

The numbers don't speak for themselves because they don't have much to say to us. They'd probably be a bit more vocal if they were more flattering to U2. I have a feeling that a lot of those so-called plays are songs that were skipped as soon as they came on because the person didn't ask for U2 to be on their ithing.

The biggest measure of the success of an album is if people talk about it, and there was no buzz about the actual music. It made one year end list, the shows didn't sell as well as previous tours, there's nothing even approaching a hit...SOI is dead. But I don't think they could have done anything to prevent this. They're in their mid 50s and are 35 years into their career. That's what happens to pretty much everyone...except artists who aren't obsessed with being massively popular.
 
So what are Madonna fans and U2 fans gonna do when AC/DC, Garth Brooks and Taylor Swift have the 3 highest grossing tours of 2015? :wink:

Kick their butt in 2016 with the stadium dates ?

Or not much since they already mopped the floor with all of them with 360.

Take your pick.
 
As far as I can tell the tour is selling as well as Madonna's for about the same price point. Ill wait to judge the success and or failure of this record until after the tour is underway when the music is played live.
 
Well this isn't true at all. In fact, if there was ever a case of the numbers not speaking for themselves, it's the numbers behind SOI, all of which are meaningless, or at best misleading, without context.

In terms of how many downloads, you have to separate the "automatic downloads" from the voluntary ones. With regards to the much-publisised number of listens, there are people who listened to the entire record, some who listened to only a few tracks, some one track, and some even only a few seconds of one track, all of which count as an SOI "listen".

Then there's the sales figures themselves, which are extremely misleading and deceptively low for a U2 record, unless you know the context...i.e. that the record had been given away for free.

So yeah, the numbers behind SOI may tell us a lot, but they certainly don't speak for themselves.

How long do we have to sing this song?
 
Some folks are just in denial. If this album connected there would be more than 600,000 or so worldwide sales, since millions were exposed to it for free and the fact there's another disc and more music to hear when you buy the deluxe edition.

I love the album (sans cover artwork) but U2 and it's management jumped the shark on this one.

On a brighter note, these events could produce a more defiant U2, that will take risks in the studio and embrace the fan base again instead of wanting to get crazy tonight with the teens.

Time to go out '92 style and lose the pop kids...
 
Some folks are just in denial. If this album connected there would be more than 600,000 or so worldwide sales, since millions were exposed to it for free and the fact there's another disc and more music to hear when you buy the deluxe edition.


This is not how it works. Completests buy deluxe issues, average fans don't buy something they got for free for 2 songs.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Yup, and some completists that don't connect to the album still have to get a hardcopy but they cannot be arsed to since they don't really care about the music anyway. But the OCD to have a complete connection is still there. :wink: So eventually I'll buy it I guess, just don't know when.
 
Some folks are just in denial. If this album connected there would be more than 600,000 or so worldwide sales, since millions were exposed to it for free and the fact there's another disc and more music to hear when you buy the deluxe edition.

I love the album (sans cover artwork) but U2 and it's management jumped the shark on this one.

On a brighter note, these events could produce a more defiant U2, that will take risks in the studio and embrace the fan base again instead of wanting to get crazy tonight with the teens.

Time to go out '92 style and lose the pop kids...

I disagree completely with your first statement and agree/hope you're right with our last statement.

They gave away the entire album FOR FREE! That album that everyone had, still debuted at number 1 in around 10 countries, and in the top ten pretty much everywhere else. It went platinum in places like France, Spain, Netherlands, etc...
THAT is a huge deal. And whether you agree with the (download, experienced, exposed to) "numbers" provided by Apple or other independent entities, a HUGE amount of people heard this record, or at least some of it, that would have never ever given it one listen.
I just don't think that we can say that the band can be disappointed in sales figures for an album they gave away for free. I really don't think that was even a factor this time around.

Now I do agree that the public "backlash" and controversy with the Apple deal probably did throw them for a loop and i do whole-heartedly pray that it does stoke a defiant, I don't give a shit, attitude from the band. Free them up to really do some interesting stuff.

We shall see...
 
I'm not convinced this was all failure. Sure, they didn't have a big radio hit, but six months later it's the #1 most listened album on iTunes and, despite pandora and spotify making inroads with subscription services, itunes remains the worlds #1 music service......


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
 
8 billion people experienced Songs of Innocence in the past week.

11,000% more listens than every other artist combined.
 
The hardest part was deciding where to put this little gem.

"Dadrock: We get this a lot. Actually, Dadrock would be more accurately represented by groups who peaked in the Nineties like Nirvana, Guns N' Roses and Public Enemy. Of course, this kind of obtuse thinking is driven by tabloid journalism and America's obsession with novelty. Not to make a comparison, but is Charlie Parker any less relevant today than in 1948? Ellington? Bob Dylan? Or, for that matter, Bach? The devices of art — the chord progressions, the melodic patterns, etc. — might be characteristic of their time, but good music is timeless." -- Donald Fagen

Donald Fagen's Coachella Tour Diary, Pt. 2 | Rolling Stone
 
Yeah, I read that piece a little earlier today. Thought of the Blue Crack instantly. Loved Fagen's response. :up:

Haha, glad to know I wasn't the only one. I'm a huge Dan fan.

Wow, just realized. I've seen them on three different tours since the last time I've seen U2. Admittedly, they just do summer fling tours, but still.

(No TO tour dates announced yet for this summer's tour :( )
 
Steely Dan is grandpa rock at this point. But look over at rateyourmusic, which is full of twenty-somethings and you'll see how beloved they still are. Great music is great music.
 
Steely Dan is grandpa rock at this point. But look over at rateyourmusic, which is full of twenty-somethings and you'll see how beloved they still are. Great music is great music.

You give credit to rateyourmusic way too much. It's represents a very small niche, relatively speaking.
 
You give credit to rateyourmusic way too much. It's represents a very small niche, relatively speaking.

Do you have a bigger source to draw from for information like this? I mean, there's last.fm, I guess. But that only lists plays and unique listeners. Nothing there to quantify quality within the community.
 
Last edited:
Do you have a bigger source to draw from for information like this? I mean, there's last.fm, I guess. But that only lists plays and unique listeners. Nothing there to quantify quality within the community.

Nice edit. ;)

You have mentioned last.fm, but basically my main point is that I really don't care either way what the "masses" think or how beloved something is.

Unlike BONO
 
Nice edit. ;)

You have mentioned last.fm, but basically my main point is that I really don't care either way what the "masses" think or how beloved something is.

Unlike BONO

Bono is the WORST
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom