Magnificent single - video and single discussion

Originally posted by drewhiggins:[..]

No Line 2 is a bloody awesome remix. For once a remix stands up well to a proper song.

You obviously haven't heard of Magnificent 50? 50 remixes of the same song on 50 individual discs, with 50 additional interviews by each DJ who remixed the songs, at, you guessed it, 50 minutes each. If the DJ talks for even one second over 50 minutes - they've been warned - it's cut off - even if they left the interesting bits for the 51st minute. And possibly if it gets the go-ahead, we'll have Magnificent 99.9. You wait for that...you know what it's got.

After that, there'll be a few re-issues of Magnificent Remixes, and depending on which region you're in, you get a selection of those remixes, plus five videos, all the same, remixed with never-before scenes and stretched out to make the song a bit longer, and give you better value, all at the same time - and to be released on every format you can think of. With a subscription service to receive one new remix for the remainder of the year.

Originally posted by drewhiggins:I know...I shouldn't be divulging their grand plans. But I do have an insider, who tells me the next single will be Crazy Tonight, with 20 remixes.


I think charts do matter - maybe not to us as the general public (if you've got the album, then you've done your bit). If an artist isn't charting too well, they're not going to keep at the same style of song for their next records...so possibly nothing along the lines of Get On Your Boots, Moment of Surrender, Being Born or White As Snow. Pop was a great example of chart success and not keeping at the same styles in the future.

But look at the other rubbish on the ARIA charts, too. It goes to show if you use plenty of auto tune, have little to no talent whatsoever and happen to be a good looker, you're guaranteed to be right up there. I enjoy R&B and pop, but not what happens to be up there. The kind of styles I'm into (Motown, New Jack Swing R&B...) aren't gonna be played on the radio, because they're seen as 'old' and 'boring'.

I see exactly four artists up there with decent music and using none of the above. 46 of them have the qualities of one or more of my initial statement. It just annoys me that something like Magnificent, which admittedly isn't my favorite song of the last two years, isn't being played more. Though if it was played more, chances are it would be overplayed...and that's not what we want. It's nice to hear it, but if it's overplayed, people become bored of it.

No Line is great, because it's hardly been exposed to the public.


Cough cough *Beautiful Day*.

Well, at least Black Ice is up there, so there's some decent music still being played. Actually, I'm not seeing any U2 up there whatsoever. No past albums, singles, greatest hits, singles, DVDs or digital downloads...so maybe U2 are losing their touch with the general public.

Originally posted by vanquish:[..]

Yeah, but even disregarding public exposure, Beautiful Day was a better song that Magnificent.

The funny thing is all the critics and radio DJs were raving about Magnificent before its release, saying things like "you never see today's bands write songs like this etc". And the consensus seemed to be that Magnificent would be the hit that GOYB failed to provide.

But it seems U2's standing in music has been artifically inflated by the opinions of critics and DJs etc. and does not reflect the attitude of todays listeners, which is why NLOTH and its singles are faring poorly in the charts.

I kinda parallel it to a, uh, you know... It's like the gestation process of, uh, birth. You know, it's a... You know, it's like having children, and having to raise them and bring them out into the world, and once they get into the world they're on their own. So, it's, it's, very exciting. I mean, you never get too used to it, ever. It's, uh, an incredible process. But you leave it in the hands of God, like you do when you're having a child.

Originally posted by drewhiggins:[..]

Lemon and Mysterious Ways (and those remixes sucked too, so nothing's changed)

Magnificent (UK and US Edit) - I'm still wondering what the differences are. Why not the full song?

Originally posted by germcevoy:why do the edits matter? The album version is the best of a bad bunch and everybody has it. Stick with that

Originally posted by germcevoy:why do the edits matter? The album version is the best of a bad bunch and everybody has it. Stick with that

U2 have lost their edge and should quietly fade away
June 4, 2009
The legendary rockers are in danger of becoming golden oldies, writes John Harris.

POETICALLY, as the era of New Labour, the old British Labour party repackaged by Tony Blair in the 1990s, draws to an inglorious close under Gordon Brown, that regime's rock band of choice, the supposedly godlike U2, are having a just about comparable career wobble. In both cases, power and influence are ebbing away, and once loyal admirers are suddenly restive and disconnected.

In U2's case, this isn't necessarily the stuff of a terminal crisis, but you never know. Their last single, the unfortunately titled Magnificent, sold a mere 4000 copies in its first week and crept into the British charts at a miserable No. 42, their worst performance since 1982. No Line On The Horizon has reportedly sold fewer copies than the latest effort by those popular but not exactly titanic dance music veterans the Prodigy. U2's run of British concerts has largely sold out, and will doubtless be feverishly received, but that isn't really the point: these are proud men, and a life as an oldies act is surely no life at all.

U2 have long been so ubiquitous that their music has threatened to lose all meaning - for me, it happened around 1988 - but of late, they have truly excelled themselves. Some questions: when Bono is photographed going to church in New York with Blair, what does that do the idea of rock as The Other? Is their slide heartening proof that, after years of handwringing about music becoming so pan-generational and pro-establishment it had lost all meaning, there may actually be a point where the great unwashed realise a group stands for absolutely nothing, and recoil? If so, watch out Coldplay.

So what next? Should they wish, the three members of the group of whom the public may only be dimly aware surely have enough money to retire, or start new projects. In Bono's case, though his halo deservedly slipped when they were caught shifting money to the Netherlands to avoid Irish taxes, his brand of heavily compromised philanthropy would surely fill up his diary from now to the next century.

Here, for what it's worth, is my advice, based on a career option cruelly denied to politicians: breaking up, letting the dust clear, and then announcing your reformation. They should pencil it in for 2019, prepare the offshore accounts, and plan for the mother of all nostalgic celebrations; Gordon and Tony will surely be down the front.

Originally posted by vanquish:Dunno if this warrants a separate thread, so I'll put it here. Mods feel free to move it elsewhere.

It seems even the mainstream media are picking up on U2's recent dismal performance in the charts. This article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald today
[..]

Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]Exactly.
Has Magnificent clicked on you already Gerard?