Boots is a mediocre single. It works well live, but also, its an insubstantial fumble of a song.

Sales are low because... everyone's sales are low.

If Boots wasn't a single, and simply a deep album cut, everyone would be calling it one of their favorites off the album.

A hidden gem.

or people would say its one of their least favorite song, with the occasional person saying its amazing

Boots is a mediocre single. It works well live, but also, its an insubstantial fumble of a song.

Sales are low because... everyone's sales are low.

If Boots wasn't a single, and simply a deep album cut, everyone would be calling it one of their favorites off the album.

A hidden gem.

or people would say its one of their least favorite song, with the occasional person saying its amazing

Nah. Everyone would be lauding it as brave, funky, "different", etc. 

Boots is a mediocre single. It works well live, but also, its an insubstantial fumble of a song.

Sales are low because... everyone's sales are low.

If Boots wasn't a single, and simply a deep album cut, everyone would be calling it one of their favorites off the album.

A hidden gem.

or people would say its one of their least favorite song, with the occasional person saying its amazing

Nah. Everyone would be lauding it as brave, funky, "different", etc. 

i dont know, some people would still hate it, and rank it with Elvis Presley and America or Trip Through Your Wires

Boots is a mediocre single. It works well live, but also, its an insubstantial fumble of a song.

Sales are low because... everyone's sales are low.

If Boots wasn't a single, and simply a deep album cut, everyone would be calling it one of their favorites off the album.

A hidden gem.

or people would say its one of their least favorite song, with the occasional person saying its amazing

Nah. Everyone would be lauding it as brave, funky, "different", etc. 

i dont know, some people would still hate it, and rank it with Elvis Presley and America or Trip Through Your Wires

I love Elvis Presley and America - but think Boots is nonsense...

every once in awhile, someone loves a song...nothing wrong with that

8 months later, Boots gets a B- grade from me. The lack of a real chorus is what really does it in. Think "Vertigo", "Beautiful Day", etc etc...if they had "Let me in the sound" battling "Get on your boots" as a back and forth chorus, then it might have stuck. The lyrics on "Boots" are better than "Vertigo" and not quite as good as "Beautiful Day".

Boots is a mediocre single. It works well live, but also, its an insubstantial fumble of a song.

Sales are low because... everyone's sales are low.

If Boots wasn't a single, and simply a deep album cut, everyone would be calling it one of their favorites off the album.

A hidden gem.

or people would say its one of their least favorite song, with the occasional person saying its amazing

Nah. Everyone would be lauding it as brave, funky, "different", etc. 

No they wouldn't. A crap song is a crap song and boots is crap.

 
No they wouldn't. A crap song is a crap song and boots is crap.

They sure fooled this dude from the LA Times.  What was he thinking? 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2009/01/snap-judgment-u.html



"GOYB" is sharper-edged than "Mysterious Ways," faster than "Elevation" and more non-linear than "Vertigo." It's dance-rock with a few small, tricky changes: a very Eno-esque bridge to nowhere, based on the phrase "you don't know how beautiful you are" that drags out the beat like Silly Putty, and a break near the end that has Bono rapping "let me in the sound" over a muscular Larry Mullen Jr. drumbeat that yells "I love rock and roll!"

As usual, modern rock's beloved grand uncles have been absorbing the lessons taught by their progeny. "Get on Your Boots" is quick and multi-layered, more like the dance rock preferred by kids who grew up on electronic music than a baby-boomer boogie fest.

Though it's tempting to stir up a rivalry between the alt-rock era's most beloved British band and its iPod-era successor, "Get on Your Boots" sounds nothing like Radiohead. MGMT seems like a more relevant influence. This is happy stuff, almost hedonistic, with not a whiff of anxiety or paranoia or even sexual tension. "Get on Your Boots" is a song about letting loose and letting go.

And moving toward a brighter future. Bono's musings here do not read well on the page (peruse them here, if you must), with Bono cutting up phrases he's used before and free-associating like he's had a couple of pink cocktails. But the underlying message is relevant.

So what is sexy about donning boots, in a song whose cheerful tone and other lyrics about forming community and growing up hardly suggest a pair of stilettos? To turn a phrase that once belonged to the increasingly irrelevant Paris Hilton, it's hot right now to ponder cleaning up a mess. And that's what "Get on Your Boots" means to inspire us to do. This is U2's celebratory announcement of a new historical moment, one in which America and the world confront the catastrophes of the recent past and bust out some elbow grease to make things better.

its the only song i dont like on the album    u2 never did fast, good

 
No they wouldn't. A crap song is a crap song and boots is crap.

They sure fooled this dude from the LA Times.  What was he thinking? 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2009/01/snap-judgment-u.html



"GOYB" is sharper-edged than "Mysterious Ways," faster than "Elevation" and more non-linear than "Vertigo." It's dance-rock with a few small, tricky changes: a very Eno-esque bridge to nowhere, based on the phrase "you don't know how beautiful you are" that drags out the beat like Silly Putty, and a break near the end that has Bono rapping "let me in the sound" over a muscular Larry Mullen Jr. drumbeat that yells "I love rock and roll!"

As usual, modern rock's beloved grand uncles have been absorbing the lessons taught by their progeny. "Get on Your Boots" is quick and multi-layered, more like the dance rock preferred by kids who grew up on electronic music than a baby-boomer boogie fest.

Though it's tempting to stir up a rivalry between the alt-rock era's most beloved British band and its iPod-era successor, "Get on Your Boots" sounds nothing like Radiohead. MGMT seems like a more relevant influence. This is happy stuff, almost hedonistic, with not a whiff of anxiety or paranoia or even sexual tension. "Get on Your Boots" is a song about letting loose and letting go.

And moving toward a brighter future. Bono's musings here do not read well on the page (peruse them here, if you must), with Bono cutting up phrases he's used before and free-associating like he's had a couple of pink cocktails. But the underlying message is relevant.

So what is sexy about donning boots, in a song whose cheerful tone and other lyrics about forming community and growing up hardly suggest a pair of stilettos? To turn a phrase that once belonged to the increasingly irrelevant Paris Hilton, it's hot right now to ponder cleaning up a mess. And that's what "Get on Your Boots" means to inspire us to do. This is U2's celebratory announcement of a new historical moment, one in which America and the world confront the catastrophes of the recent past and bust out some elbow grease to make things better.

I actually think it's fairly accurate except for the MGMT connection. I don't hear too much of that except for perhaps a shared zaniness on Boots and some of MGMT's music. This song gets unfairly bashed by a lot of people. But, it seems most people are fine with the Rock elements of the song, but not the more Dance elements. With the exception of Mysterious Ways, many folks have a problem with the Dance side of U2. I think it's a pretty good track that's at least as good as Vertigo.

I wouldn't go as far as what Mr.T has said on this matter, but I think he makes a good point.

Whenever U2 is out and about now in front of a general audience, they play Beautiful Day. Sometimes also Vertigo. Those are going to be the two songs that are remembered from this decade (you can make a good case that Sometimes You Can't Make It is a fine song, but people can't sing it in the car.) There is nothing on NLOTH, Boots included, that has the staying power and the stadium rocking ability of those two songs.

Whenever U2 is out and about now in front of a general audience, they play Beautiful Day. Sometimes also Vertigo. Those are going to be the two songs that are remembered from this decade (you can make a good case that Sometimes You Can't Make It is a fine song, but people can't sing it in the car.) There is nothing on NLOTH, Boots included, that has the staying power and the stadium rocking ability of those two songs.

good argument...but was that their intention, to make similar songs in structure, and content? I think they tried to switch things up a bit and do something different. Perhaps you may be right in terms of a powerful hit single being remembered by everyone, meaning fans and non-fans alike. But, I do think that fans will remember the songs on NLOTH. I will. In a few years I bet there will be some fans complaining of the tried and true Greatest Hits Live set-list and they will be saying they want to hear something like GOYB, or Breathe, or the title song NLOTH. Most true fans (of course some exceptions) will want to hear some of the NLOTH tracks just like we are thrilled to hear more from The Unforgettable Fire (I'd like them to play wire or 4th of July!).

And where you might be wrong, from a different perspective, is that I think songs like Magnificent , Unknown Caller, Moment of Surrender, and Crazy will remain in their live set-list for years to come. maybe not at every show but I venture to think more often than some doubters believe they will be.

Where they lost some of the sales is partly because this really isn't a pop-rock record. the songs are more sophisticated for better-or-worse. There is more emphasis on dynamics and the building of the songs. Many of the songs have a more orchestral sensibility in how they build and the space around the instruments. U2 did experiment - but not how many people expected and that is also another reason for some of the public feeling let down.

NLOTH is very much a reaction to the previous album. The frustration U2 had with HTDAAB is that it felt like more of a Greatest Hits song collection and less like an album. Sales wise - that was a successful formula in these times. But, U2 wanted us to remember an album as an entity itself this time around. I think they succeeded in that, but they did kind of forget to add a big anthemic hit single. Great songs, great album but no 'HIT' as we all know.

To me, it's kind of like they made a modern Unforgettable Fire - but they left off 'Pride, In the name of Love". I guess that's the frustration this time around. I really like this album regardless.

To me, it's kind of like they made a modern Unforgettable Fire - but they left off 'Pride, In the name of Love". I guess that's the frustration this time around. I really like this album regardless.

I think it's more like they messed up the "Pride" of this album. I think they did the experimental pieces beautifully, as well as the sprawling epic live songs. What they lacked was an instant pop communicator that they tried to make with Stand Up Comedy and Crazy Tonight, but failed. This time round they forgot the old maxim: simplicity is best. 

To me, it's kind of like they made a modern Unforgettable Fire - but they left off 'Pride, In the name of Love". I guess that's the frustration this time around. I really like this album regardless.

I think it's more like they messed up the "Pride" of this album. I think they did the experimental pieces beautifully, as well as the sprawling epic live songs. What they lacked was an instant pop communicator that they tried to make with Stand Up Comedy and Crazy Tonight, but failed. This time round they forgot the old maxim: simplicity is best. 

Good points. I think Magnificent soars up to similar heights as Pride but perhaps it's a bit too sophisticated for top 40 radio. I do think however, that in another time and/or parallel universe, that GOYB, Crazy, and Magnificent would have been HUGE hits whether simple or not. Especially as they are U2 songs. Even in the early-mid 2000's just the mention of U2 created high anticipation for new singles. Rewind about 10-15 years and those songs would probably have been top 10 singles. Ah, the times they are a changin'!      I think Boots did well on Rock charts, but now Rock is just a very small fragment of what makes it on radio, at least in the U.S. For a real Rock band to make it in the top 40 these days, that's no longer a common occurrence.

To me, it's kind of like they made a modern Unforgettable Fire - but they left off 'Pride, In the name of Love". I guess that's the frustration this time around. I really like this album regardless.

I think it's more like they messed up the "Pride" of this album. I think they did the experimental pieces beautifully, as well as the sprawling epic live songs. What they lacked was an instant pop communicator that they tried to make with Stand Up Comedy and Crazy Tonight, but failed. This time round they forgot the old maxim: simplicity is best. 

Good points. I think Magnificent soars up to similar heights as Pride but perhaps it's a bit too sophisticated for top 40 radio. I do think however, that in another time and/or parallel universe, that GOYB, Crazy, and Magnificent would have been HUGE hits whether simple or not. Especially as they are U2 songs. Even in the early-mid 2000's just the mention of U2 created high anticipation for new singles. Rewind about 10-15 years and those songs would probably have been top 10 singles. Ah, the times they are a changin'!      I think Boots did well on Rock charts, but now Rock is just a very small fragment of what makes it on radio, at least in the U.S. For a real Rock band to make it in the top 40 these days, that's no longer a common occurrence.

Great points!