GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by EyesWithPrideB3:[..]

    Though i agree with your other points, this just simply doesn't hold as much water. I agree wholeheartedly that the album lacks a "huge" song, but I would never say that- as a complete, running album- HTDAAB is better than NLOTH.

    Huge songs don't make albums- huge songs make singles.


    They should have written a hit single like BD or Vertigo to draw people's attention and increase album sales.This would have greatly increased the bands image and introduced the album to a wider audience than the U2 faithful.

    I'm afraid they shot themselves in the foot with Boots, they needed a far better lead single than that, hopefully they learn their lesson with SOA
  2. Originally posted by vanquish:[..]

    They should have written a hit single like BD or Vertigo to draw people's attention and increase album sales.This would have greatly increased the bands image and introduced the album to a wider audience than the U2 faithful.

    I'm afraid they shot themselves in the foot with Boots, they needed a far better lead single than that, hopefully they learn their lesson with SOA


    Yeah true. I think if they had released NLOTH 2 as their first single (and had it as the version on the actual album) it would've done well. But that's just me.
  3. Originally posted by vanquish:[..]

    They should have written a hit single like BD or Vertigo to draw people's attention and increase album sales.This would have greatly increased the bands image and introduced the album to a wider audience than the U2 faithful.

    I'm afraid they shot themselves in the foot with Boots, they needed a far better lead single than that, hopefully they learn their lesson with SOA


    Again, I have to disagree...I don't think writing a single just to make the album sell better/gain popularity is right if it doesn't fit on the album. And if they deemed that whatever wasn't on that album had no reason to be, then that's their decision. Just including songs like that to draw people's attention isn't really being very faithful to yourself if you don't believe in it. It's like cheating to get ahead.

    I fully agree with Boots. I just don't think that their failure to release a great single is a fault of the album. It certainly didn't help them have a great year- but I'm not going to knock NLOTH because it didn't produce an anthem. I love the album.
  4. Originally posted by EyesWithPrideB3:[..]

    Again, I have to disagree...I don't think writing a single just to make the album sell better/gain popularity is right if it doesn't fit on the album. And if they deemed that whatever wasn't on that album had no reason to be, then that's their decision. Just including songs like that to draw people's attention isn't really being very faithful to yourself if you don't believe in it. It's like cheating to get ahead.

    I fully agree with Boots. I just don't think that their failure to release a great single is a fault of the album. It certainly didn't help them have a great year- but I'm not going to knock NLOTH because it didn't produce an anthem. I love the album.


    I think there could have been an "antehm" written to fit the mood/tracks of NLOTH. Something could have easily fit in. But either way, I love the album and I loved the singles... I just wish it had gotten out there more to more people.
  5. Originally posted by kris_smith87:[..]

    I think there could have been an "antehm" written to fit the mood/tracks of NLOTH. Something could have easily fit in. But either way, I love the album and I loved the singles... I just wish it had gotten out there more to more people.


    I can settle on that. Well said.
  6. Originally posted by EyesWithPrideB3:[..]

    Again, I have to disagree...I don't think writing a single just to make the album sell better/gain popularity is right if it doesn't fit on the album. And if they deemed that whatever wasn't on that album had no reason to be, then that's their decision. Just including songs like that to draw people's attention isn't really being very faithful to yourself if you don't believe in it. It's like cheating to get ahead.

    I fully agree with Boots. I just don't think that their failure to release a great single is a fault of the album. It certainly didn't help them have a great year- but I'm not going to knock NLOTH because it didn't produce an anthem. I love the album.


    Err, how does stuff like Boots (which wasnt a good single) fit on the album?
    The album is pretty much a mish mash of styles and genres as it is, so it wouldn't have been a problem.

    This is U2, they want to keep the mantle of biggest band in the world, you need hit singles if you're going to want that title. So I don't think being faithful to their artistic vision etc. has anything to do with it.
  7. For me - yes; very happy. For them? Not in the way they wanted. It belonged to Kings of Leon and Take That (at least in the UK) far more.
  8. Originally posted by djrlewis:For me - yes; very happy. For them? Not in the way they wanted. It belonged to Kings of Leon and Take That (at least in the UK) far more.


    Whose Take That, I haven't heard of them over here, it was probably more like Kings of Leon and Lady Gaga and Taylor Swift
  9. 2009 was a good year for U2 but probably because of 360 as opposed to NLOTH.

    I love the album, dont get me wrong but it did not reach the expected levels of popularity that the B-Man hoped for and the reasons for that have been discussed already.

    Songs of Ascent will now be released later in 2010 than was originally planned as the initial 'meditative approach' will not translate into sales. As Bono has already suggested, the band want a big hit and I think this will change the dynamic of the new album...ol' Rick Rubin might be getting dusted down sooner than expected!

    The tour (as always) was tremendous and Im sure this will continue into 2010 although more variation is needed in the set-list. They looked stuck in a rut by the time the Rose Bowl came round and if they are touring the same concept in the same places over 2 years then more variety is essential.

    With a more kick ass album and more surprises in the live show, 2010 could be the year...one year later than originally planned!!!

  11. Originally posted by PEDRO67:They looked stuck in a rut by the time the Rose Bowl came round and if they are touring the same concept in the same places over 2 years then more variety is essential.



    I'm sure this will occur as it did on Vertigo. That tour evolved immensely after first two legs, even started to after first leg.
  12. they can still claim 09 if they release the new version of winter NOW, i love it sooo much
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.