1. I really hope Songs Of Experience has some commercial success U2's last 2 albums haven't been very well received by the wider audience and probably didnt get them a massive amount of new "fans"( not that I care about commercial success)I know commercial success for a band like U2 is very hard in this day and age with all the crap music that hits the charts for some reason but I really do believe they have one more Massive hit like Pride, With Or Without You, New Years day ect. what do you guys think have they got one more big hit
  2. Originally posted by u2_michaelc:I really hope Songs Of Experience has some commercial success U2's last 2 albums haven't been very well received by the wider audience and probably didnt get them a massive amount of new "fans"( not that I care about commercial success)I know commercial success for a band like U2 is very hard in this day and age with all the crap music that hits the charts for some reason but I really do believe they have one more Massive hit like Pride, With Or Without You, New Years day ect. what do you guys think have they got one more big hit
    I'd like the album to go number 1 which I think is possible if it gets a normal release and isn't given away. (That's not a criticism of the SOI free give away). I do believe as well if they can have that one hit that you mentioned then that might be enough to really put them back in the headlines and appeal to the wider public. People are quick nowadays to give praise to artists who only have one successful single regardless of what's on the album. But ideally if we can get an album that we all love (we the fans) and a single in amongst it that appeal to a wider audience then that's a pretty decent recipe for success I feel. Again though it's not the be all and end all to have a big single but would be a nice bonus.
  3. Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
    I'd like the album to go number 1 which I think is possible if it gets a normal release and isn't given away. (That's not a criticism of the SOI free give away). I do believe as well if they can have that one hit that you mentioned then that might be enough to really put them back in the headlines and appeal to the wider public. People are quick nowadays to give praise to artists who only have one successful single regardless of what's on the album. But ideally if we can get an album that we all love (we the fans) and a single in amongst it that appeal to a wider audience then that's a pretty decent recipe for success I feel. Again though it's not the be all and end all to have a big single but would be a nice bonus.
    It's much easier for an album to go #1 these days. Everything is so disposable you see much more turnover. Staying at #1 is the challenge. It's not unusual for big acts to come in at #1 on release day, until the following week when the next big act releases. #1 doesn't carry as much weight as used to for anybody but the record label...
  4. Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
    It's much easier for an album to go #1 these days. Everything is so disposable you see much more turnover. Staying at #1 is the challenge. It's not unusual for big acts to come in at #1 on release day, until the following week when the next big act releases. #1 doesn't carry as much weight as used to for anybody but the record label...
    Yeah I don't think them scoring a number 1 album is particularly significant and certainly isn't an indicator as to how good the album is. Likewise the chart success of a single isn't always a good measure of how good a song is but I do think that would be of more significance as u2 have struggled to have much success with singles lately. If they had a song that was really radio friendly and it was getting played every day after its release that would do a lot for the band short term at least and would probably lead to the kind of recognition on a wider scale they've been wanting for some years.
  5. I think it's both that U2 don't really have a number 1 record in them anymore, and that the number one record they and we would like them to have, isn't what would get them to number 1 anyway. Not to mention there's just no way it could be done based on who they are anymore. Think there's enough people who listen to music who don't hate Bono for them to have that level of mainstream appeal? Think again. Think there are that many people who don't consider U2 "dad-rock" and would actually buy their album? Think again. They're four old dudes who could be the grandfather's of the people who decide what the #1 will be, and there's no avoiding that.

    Vertigo was a miracle (no pun intended) and it worked because rock was still relevant in the early 2000s. Green Day, The Killers, Franz Ferdinand, Muse, the fact that popular but alternative music was still largely rock, Pop-Punk was still a thing, etc. Compare that to now. How many rock bands are left that still get onto the charts? That are still a part of the conversation when it comes to popular music? Maybe Foo Fighters? Alternative music/indie has become littered with folky acts, electronic acts who perform a laptop, and mainstream is all about dance-inspired pop or "R&B", or rap. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with these genres (though many of them are certainly NOT my cup of tea) - U2 don't really fit in. Do they still have a ton of fans and is what they have to say (oh God) relevant? Sure. Will they have a #1 record? I'd eat a shoe.

    I said it earlier in this thread and I'll say it again though. The ONLY way they manage to pull it off is to have a song that divides the fan base between people who can accept a new, modern sounding U2, and those who prefer U2 as they were and are. It would be The Fly all over again. U2 will never have another #1 if they keep putting out singles like Invisible or The Miracle. It's just not going to happen.

    All that being said, who gives a rat's ass about being #1 these days anyway? Have you seen the "artists" they'd be grouped with? If getting #1 means beating people like Bieber, Ariana Grande and the Chainsmokers, they've done that in terms of quality with Grace and Wild Honey.
  6. SOE will probably get to number 1 on the (UK, at least) album charts. SOI got to number 4 on the UK album charts and it was given away for free!

    U2 won't get a number 1 single again though. Not going to happen.

    Yet they still fill stadiums all over the world. That's amazing. I'd rather that over a number 1 single any day.
  7. Originally posted by Welsh_Edge:SOE will probably get to number 1 on the (UK, at least) album charts. SOI got to number 4 on the UK album charts and it was given away for free!

    U2 won't get a number 1 single again though. Not going to happen.

    Yet they still fill stadiums all over the world. That's amazing. I'd rather that over a number 1 single any day.
    How about the songs being any good for a start before Number 1 in anything.
  8. SOE will probably get to number as long as they dont release the same day as Foo Fighters, Taylor Swift, or Kanye West. This is how the game works today people. #1 these days is all about the current week and labels are well aware of release schedules. Trust me on this. They'd rather not compete when they can release their artist the following week to a lesser competitor for the coveted and brief weekly #1 spot...
  9. Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:I think it's both that U2 don't really have a number 1 record in them anymore, and that the number one record they and we would like them to have, isn't what would get them to number 1 anyway. Not to mention there's just no way it could be done based on who they are anymore. Think there's enough people who listen to music who don't hate Bono for them to have that level of mainstream appeal? Think again. Think there are that many people who don't consider U2 "dad-rock" and would actually buy their album? Think again. They're four old dudes who could be the grandfather's of the people who decide what the #1 will be, and there's no avoiding that.

    Vertigo was a miracle (no pun intended) and it worked because rock was still relevant in the early 2000s. Green Day, The Killers, Franz Ferdinand, Muse, the fact that popular but alternative music was still largely rock, Pop-Punk was still a thing, etc. Compare that to now. How many rock bands are left that still get onto the charts? That are still a part of the conversation when it comes to popular music? Maybe Foo Fighters? Alternative music/indie has become littered with folky acts, electronic acts who perform a laptop, and mainstream is all about dance-inspired pop or "R&B", or rap. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with these genres (though many of them are certainly NOT my cup of tea) - U2 don't really fit in. Do they still have a ton of fans and is what they have to say (oh God) relevant? Sure. Will they have a #1 record? I'd eat a shoe.

    I said it earlier in this thread and I'll say it again though. The ONLY way they manage to pull it off is to have a song that divides the fan base between people who can accept a new, modern sounding U2, and those who prefer U2 as they were and are. It would be The Fly all over again. U2 will never have another #1 if they keep putting out singles like Invisible or The Miracle. It's just not going to happen.

    All that being said, who gives a rat's ass about being #1 these days anyway? Have you seen the "artists" they'd be grouped with? If getting #1 means beating people like Bieber, Ariana Grande and the Chainsmokers, they've done that in terms of quality with Grace and Wild Honey.
    Yes to all of this. Here's hoping we see a divisive single release in September!
  10. Agreed. Invisible or miracle wouldnt have got anywhere near number 1 back in 2000/2005. The likes of Fly and Discotheque got to number 1 because they were released before their respective albums- and those u2 fans which bought them probably dont buy singles anymore and anyhow they will be leaked before. How many singles have got them to no1 since the 90's which have been released after the album? I can only think of SYCMIOYO
  11. Originally posted by AllBeacauseOfZoo:[..]
    Agreed. Invisible or miracle wouldnt have got anywhere near number 1 back in 2000/2005. The likes of Fly and Discotheque got to number 1 because they were released before their respective albums- and those u2 fans which bought them probably dont buy singles anymore and anyhow they will be leaked before. How many singles have got them to no1 since the 90's which have been released after the album? I can only think of SYCMIOYO
    There are so many charts though. I don't think they have been #1 on Billboard in forever? But in Canada (at least according to Wikipedia) Saints, Windows and a few more from that era were all number one.
  12. With all the talking about hits.. Ordinary Love was a pretty big hit in the Netherlands! Not massive, but I heard it everywhere and all my friends knew it without being interested in U2.

    But then U2 decided to not play that song once in the Netherlands