New U2 Album "Songs of Innocence"* (Part 2)

Same here, I don't see it as screwing the record stores at all since the actual releases will contain plenty to warrant a purchase, it's not as if people bought some pre-release and are being asked to buy another version. Currently, I have a digital version of IMO one of the best U2 albums I've heard and I paid nothing for it and now I can choose to pick up what looks like a very worthwhile cd bundle with quite a few more songs on them and celebrate another great day of new U2 music. I don't even feel like I'm being unreasonably bubbly about this either, just a fair evaluation.

 

I pronounce it like it's spelled.

 

IIRC, the Johnny Cash album from 2000 or 2002 used the same Grammy trick. Vinyl just before the cut off date and wide cd release a couple weeks after.

 

They frequently write dozens and dozens of songs per album. Most of them suck if you've ever heard the unofficial outtakes from R&H or Achtung sessions.

 

Some of the Achtung Baby b-sides were very good. Lady With The Spinning Head is a great song even if obviously they couldn't use it on the album as it is a sort of pre-release version of The Fly.

 

I will say one thing: no band is better at generating mainstream publicity and advertising co-ops.

None.

U2 has had two Top-40 hits in the US in the last 17 years. (Beautiful Day peaked at #21 in 2000, Vertigo at #31 in 2004)

Yet their stature as significant artists here is still unquestioned.

That's how you make positive use of PR, folks.

 

The Who had one U.S. Top Ten hit in their entire career ("I Can See For Miles"), yet they were still regarded as significant artists. U.S. Top 40 radio simply doesn't play older artists such as U2 or Paul McCartney. U2 still have #1 albums in the U.S., still have top-grossing tours in the U.S., and still feature new and recent material on those tours to a greater extent than other legacy artists such as McCartney and the Stones, which is why they are regarded as significant, despite the reality that U.S. Top 40 radio doesn't play them, or Pearl Jam, or Tom Petty, or any other legacy rock band. Unlike a band such as Pearl Jam, who have given up on appealing to anyone outside of their hardcore fanbase, U2 do seek to reach new fans through partnerships such as their new iTunes commercial, with Apple serving the role that MTV used to play of putting the band's music video on TV for new fans to discover. Which is another reason why U2 remain significant.

 

I agree, but U2 has continued to solicit the mainstream, buy one-album-a-year fans by releasing singles to radio and releasing new albums fairly constantly.

The Who have released one album of new material in the last 30 years and have mostly cemented their legacy through touring and placement of songs in commercials/TV shows. The Stones have had successful commercial partnerships in terms of big dollar tour sponsorship, but that's pretty much it.

I guess I'm still a bit incredulous that a band with a relatively small commercial impact in terms of album sales/charting can convince a major corporation to throw $20-$50M in ad buys at them. Shrewd businessmen, Paul McGuinness and Bono are certainly tied into the Silicon Valley money train.

 

My point was that, during the height of the Who's success and relevance, their U.S. Top 40 chart placings weren't the most accurate reflection of their success and relevance. But if you want to judge bands such as the Who, Led Zeppelin, and U2 by their Top 40 hits, then I guess it's fair to say that none of them were all that successful.

Every U2 album since The Joshua Tree has hit #1 in the U.S., with the exception of All That You Can't Leave Behind, which peaked at #3. So I'm not sure where you're getting the notion that they have "relatively small album sales"?

Paul McGuiness of course no longer manages the band, so I'm not sure what he had to do with this latest deal with Apple.

 

150 million albums sold world wide.

 

Their last album, , NLOTH, sold a little over 5 million worldwide. They debuted at number one in 30 countries. They debuted on the Billboard 200 Chart with first-week sales of 484,000. For a band of this age and for an album that didn't go over as well as previous ones, those sales are indicative of the clout U2 still has as far as the music-buying public.

 

And it was 7th biggest seller worldwide in 2009. Has any other U2 album managed to do better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_in_music

 

Simple Minds have a new album out soon. I think it's better. Threadcrap over.

 

Starting with "Beautiful Day," I think, U2's record label stopped releasing physical CD singles in the U.S. market. Because U.S. pop radio generally doesn't play rock artists over age 40, U2's singles over the past fifteen years haven't performed well on the U.S. charts, that is undeniable. But a track like "Vertigo" hit #1 in the UK, and went top 5 in around a dozen other countries. Regardless of its chart position on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100, the song achieved mass exposure through the iTunes campaign surrounding its release, which got the song into the public consciousness the way that radio or MTV would have in earlier eras. But even at the height of their career, U2 had singles such as "The Fly" and "Even Better Than The Real Thing" stall out at #61 and #32 in the U.S., respectively. My point remains that U2 have much in common with iconic rock bands such as the Who and Led Zeppelin, in that, in the U.S. market, their albums have out-performed their singles. Over U2's entire career in the United States, they've had 6 top ten singles, and 2 number one singles (both from The Joshua Tree). By contrast, in the UK, they've had 34 total top ten singles, and 7 UK number ones. But if you want to continue to insist that "they have a relatively small commercial impact" because they're not having Top 40 hits in a U.S. market where no rock bands, young or old, are having Top 40 hits, that's an argument you're free to make.

When you compare the sales of U2's last "flop" album to those of Taylor Swift's album that was released around the same time, you see that No Line on the Horizon has sold around five million copies worldwide, while, Swift, arguably the biggest pop star in the world today, has sold around seven million copies worldwide of Speak Now. So I would say that U2 are hanging in there as a relevant commercial force around the world, not to mention that their last tour was the highest-grossing tour of all time.

 

Agree 100%. SOI has already run its course here. Already tired of the songs we liked- that was not long!
Looking forward to "Big Music" by Simple Minds, and hopefully we will see new stuff from Big Country soon.

Hopefully the next U2 album will be better.
Hopefully no more Danger Mouse Droppings this time.

 

Personally, I tired of Simple Minds and Big Country about 30 years ago or more...

 

A friend of mine told me Simple Minds were playing in the Marquee night club last month.. It turned out to be Jedward.

 

I think he means that even though people perceive U2's sales of their last album to be somewhat of a failure, when you stack it up to what IS selling now, it's still impressive.
People do still care about them.
This U2 thread alone has been on fire like it was a Beatles thread or somethin'....

(Swifties, Katycats and Little Monsters...? We are all in hell...)

 

Canada got many of the cd single but there's only been 3 in the US since Beautiful Day.

Target EP with all the ATYCLB b-sides in 2002.
http://www.discogs.com/U2-7/release/27731

Crazy Tonight/Magnificent got cd single releases in the US stacked with remixes
http://www.discogs.com/U2-Magnificent/release/1808597
http://www.discogs.com/U2-Ill-Go-Crazy-If-I-Dont-Go-Crazy-Tonight/release/1944035

 

I had deleted it because I realized I completely misread his comment. I guess you responded before I deleted it.

I know. We are in hell. But keep on Beliebing.

 

Well, have you heard anything they've done since you got tired? I got tired of SM in the 90s and re-discovered them about 8 years ago.

 

I've always been convinced that Simple Minds chose their name judiciously.

 

Listened to this record yesterday. Ehh, it just sounds tired. The first tune was pretty cool, than it just slid into mediocrity. Maybe I've just had enough of this band.

 

I listened to the clips of the new Simple Minds and have heard every album they have done. My opinion is still the same. They haven't put out a decent album since Street Fighting Years.