Yeah, in terms of the current market the album's doing well. The singles are a different matter however ...

do they still sell singles where you live ?

Very few, but you can still download them from a thing called itunes  :

OK, so you're wondering why people don't re-pay to re-download the same song they've already downloaded as part of the album  ?

No, when did I say that? I was just stating that the singles have done pretty poorly compared to the album sales. The singles haven't made much impact on the radio or the singles charts; that is irrefutable. I was expecting Magnificent & Crazy Tonight to be hits for them but it hasn't transpired that way.

oh well. most of the so called 'singles' i hear are crap anyway. if that's what is selling then U2 are better off concentrating on albums and concerts. Would be nice to hear radio embrace them again however.

i just can't dig why many consider GOYB sucks. gosh, it's just so beautiful! so unique! the meaning per se of "Get On Your Boots" is much more relevant compared to other songs where the literal meaning of "boots" is explicitly stated.

"the future needs a big kiss" - from who else and where else can we get that very important line from? no one but U2 and Bono!!!

i really just feel so upset why even most U2 fans today don't want to expand their horizons...Bono says there's "no line on the horizon"... and i believe it.

My problem with boots is that large sections of it sound like a remake of Vertigo.  The part with harmonies, however is new and I did find it interesting, if for no other reason than it seemed like a throwback to the mid-60s.

The album is decent, but not great, IMO.  With that said, Pop was only considered their worst album as an afterthought.  When it came out, the reviews were largely positive.  It was only after it became clear that the public wasn't buying it that it was suddenly a disaster.

You might not know it from reading RS or Spin today, but at the time, they loved the album.  I believe that RS said that it contained some of the best music U2 had ever made.

U2 have every right to be upset.

The album was promoted more than all of the other albums in that list combined.  Guest appearances everywhere including a 1 week stand in Letterman topped it all.  Let's not forget the album was released in 5 different formats to drive up the sales, especially among the completists who would buy an album twice.

They have also been selling the albums in all of their tour gigs, which probably averages 50,000 or more people a night.

Yet, among all the top sellers this year, U2 probably is the band who has seen the biggest decline from first week sales, and up to now, first week sales account for a big percentage of the albums over-all sales, much more than the ratio of other artists in the list.

Let's face it, first week sales are based on promotion, hype and the first single.  After that, it will slowly come down to word-of-mouth and album quality.

NLOTH isn't at par with the previous two albums and that is why it has sold poorly.  U2 have every right to be upset.

On a side note, I do feel that if U2 released Magnificent as the first single and Crazy Tonight as the second, sales could have been marginally better.

Cheers,,

J

[DON'T FIX IT IF IT AIN'T BROKEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

i just can't dig why many consider GOYB sucks. gosh, it's just so beautiful! so unique! the meaning per se of "Get On Your Boots" is much more relevant compared to other songs where the literal meaning of "boots" is explicitly stated.

"the future needs a big kiss" - from who else and where else can we get that very important line from? no one but U2 and Bono!!!

i really just feel so upset why even most U2 fans today don't want to expand their horizons...Bono says there's "no line on the horizon"... and i believe it.

My problem with boots is that large sections of it sound like a remake of Vertigo.  The part with harmonies, however is new and I did find it interesting, if for no other reason than it seemed like a throwback to the mid-60s.

The album is decent, but not great, IMO.  With that said, Pop was only considered their worst album as an afterthought.  When it came out, the reviews were largely positive.  It was only after it became clear that the public wasn't buying it that it was suddenly a disaster.

You might not know it from reading RS or Spin today, but at the time, they loved the album.  I believe that RS said that it contained some of the best music U2 had ever made.

Boots has its moments. The fact that it sounds like Vertigo in some parts is the no.1 reasons for its failure and its crappiness. I really liked the lyrical idea- U2 need to get more out there with their music: stop over producing, and take a finished idea. IMO, ATYCLB was the album where they pushed an idea to it's limits without going overboard. Bomb was similar. NLOTH is where they tried to experiment: if you want a change don't over develop a style into what you did before!
DON'T FIX IT IF IT AIN'T BROKEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think the following reasons help explain sales:

1) The singles - Boots was/is very poor. Magnificent and Crazy are also weak - but, u2 aren't really a singles band.

2) The obvious problems with the economy. Although people seem to be able to spend good money on expensive gigs so maybe that isn't so relevant.

3) U2 are no longer seen as a cool band - there was a time up to and including ATYCLB when u2 were seen as happening.

4) BONO - this man has done a lot to alienate people. I was a die heard fan, I loved them for years and saw them perform in many different countries. Now, every time I hear bono or see his smug face, I want to punch it. If he's having that affect on a die hard like me, he's really going to pi*s off other people.

5) The album - People on here will either love it or hate it. I hate it. For the casual fan (the majority of people who buy cd's and go to gigs), I think a lot of people will be indifferent to the record. No good singles and a patchy rest of album.

Remember kids, people on this forum are in a minority. Most people don't follow u2 like we do. The u2 mafia may say 'but what about the thousands of people who go to each gig?'. Most of these, again, are casual fans. They may go to a gig twice a year and buy cd's occasionally.

If what they hear on the album on the radio doesn't grab them, they won't bother buying the cd - simple as that.

I guess it easier to be upset with the sales then it is to be with themselves.

I guess it easier to be upset with the sales then it is to be with themselves.

o.0

makes sense actually...

Personally, it is just my opinion, I think that they went a little overboard with the Spaceship /Claw stage, without the gigantic setup  their costs would have been way down , and they still would pack big stadiums. I don't think it has a lot to do with the sales of the record. They have a guaranteed fan base ( us people) who will pay and go to any length to see them , renew memberships, buy whatever they come out with, so right there that's a lot of income. I truly believe the colossal stage setup is what's  costing them ( crew, trucks, gas, hotels etc etc)  at the end of the day it's like $750,000 for each show.( from what I have read I think it's around that much  for each show, I could be wrong) That's a lot of money to put on one show . That's my opinion . Thier music is what it's all about .

Personally, it is just my opinion, I think that they went a little overboard with the Spaceship /Claw stage, without the gigantic setup  their costs would have been way down , and they still would pack big stadiums. I don't think it has a lot to do with the sales of the record. They have a guaranteed fan base ( us people) who will pay and go to any length to see them , renew memberships, buy whatever they come out with, so right there that's a lot of income. I truly believe the colossal stage setup is what's  costing them ( crew, trucks, gas, hotels etc etc)  at the end of the day it's like $750,000 for each show.( from what I have read I think it's around that much  for each show, I could be wrong) That's a lot of money to put on one show . That's my opinion . Thier music is what it's all about .

you're right...on the music. but the spaceship claw thing looks fun and wild. I will be going to the 2010 spectacle once it comes to my town! The music is #1 no doubt. I'd see U2 no matter if they were performing at Kmart  or the biggest of stadiums, but it might as well be something interesting and new to showcase new music. And if you're U2 you can afford the best. At least they are putting towards what they are doing.

Absolutely, I seen them in Toronto in September, there is no doubt about it the Claw /Spaceship is awesome , but  for me, my opinion,  if they played in the middle of the stadium or arena with some background visuals , I ' m fine with that too. From a cost point of view, very expensive to travel with a stage that size.They could play in a back alley , and it would still be great.

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.

[ANYthing]

Unfortunately it seems some people are put off by Bono and ANYthing he does, says or sings! 
I think Boots was not the best choice as the first single in hindsight.
IMO No Line or Magnificent would have been a better lead off single for this album and might have helped to increase sales in teh USA.
Maybe or maybe not you say, we will never know. I do know that the US music has drastically changed since U2 first came on the scene, and they will have to change their future marketing strategy for the US market if they want to up their sales

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.

It's grown on me. I think Boots is a pretty darn good and devilishly fun tune. But, it's not their best for certain. It's a great fun piece of music that rounds out their song cannon. *The extreme variance of opinion on this song is a big reason why the sales have been mediocre. Someone in the U2 camp clearly thought Boots was another Vertigo. And while that person or group were right on a certain level...it's easier to see now that there are no guarantees on what constitutes a 'hit' single. Besides what an artist does have control over, there are many external factors, outside the band/artist's influence that should be examined and considered if the goal is to gain wide appeal, recognition, and profits.

Especially, in these current times where there is no real valid, and interestingly progressive rock scene to support a massive Rock band/artist that typically dominates the mainstream consumers'  conscious  - The 1st single to a new album means more now than ever, to the success of album sales. No matter what type of album U2 wants to make, they have always positioned themselves to have at least 1 major hit single on an album. They always wanted this and are attracted to it, and it's been a part of their survival strategy as a major band. But the world is a much different place now where so much information and types of media compete for our attention. I think albums will always exist and there will be people (like me and many of you) that at times still want to sit down with an album and internalize it, much like a book. But, for many this experience is not only changing - the album experience within popular culture is outdated for many people or...really, it's like the idea of listening to an album as a complete work doesn't even exist now for many people. We live in times with so many options, and experience a world that is more intricate and fractured...much more of a collage where pieces can work together, than a simplistic wholly unified experience or environment.

U2 are safe for the most part. Although they wouldn't be content as a Veteran Legacy band in the mould of The Stones, U2 are and will remain a very popular band. Their music and legend will outlive us all. But, if they want to try and stay on top as a vital, progressive act then they will have to not only adapt to the idea that Mono-culture is pretty much dead, but they themselves as an entity may also have to be more fractured. I don't know what that will fully entail besides creative and diligent marketing on every level and facet of society....but perhaps U2 should consider releasing 2 to 4 very different albums at the same time! Or perhaps interactive songs that allow us to play along with the songs or a sort of 'choose your own adventure song' where if you click on the visuals for the song on your computer, the song structure and instrumentation changes depending on where you click. Or perhaps they could have lol, sensors that you attach that monitor your heart rate pulse, etc...and that somehow changes the songs intensity and triggers tangents within the structure and instrumentation, etc.

It seems that a more interactive experience is where it's at for most people. The trick is making the experience easy to use for all people, and still have enough depth and content for people to enjoy at different levels..depending on whether or not they want a more traditional or more interactive experience, how much time they have, their mood, etc.!      whew! sorry for the amount of verbosity! i just enjoy thinking about this stuff!

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.