nirvanayoda Posted May 7, 2009 Posted May 7, 2009 I didn't have time to check for another topic because I'm at work, but here you go:http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/char...ern+Rock+TracksAdditionally, unless Papa Roach shows extraordinary resistance, I doubt it will hold up much longer against Green Day on the Mainstream Rock Tracks (Papa Roach has 16 weeks on the chart and Green Day only has 3 at this point):http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/char...eam+Rock+TracksTo make a dent on Mainstream America and the Pop Charts, they'll really have to release something like "21 Guns" as a single, so as for now they seem to have topped off what they can do with "Know Your Enemy."
Katarina. Posted May 7, 2009 Posted May 7, 2009 Yeah, I've seen Know Your Enemy was at number one on that chart..Don't care a lot about charts though
Sara Armstrong Posted May 7, 2009 Posted May 7, 2009 woot, that's cool.i totally agree about "21 guns" though.
Tiffx Posted May 7, 2009 Posted May 7, 2009 Although I like 21 Guns I think East Jesus Nowhere would be a good single. But I havn't heard all the songs yet.
emmaILGD! Posted May 7, 2009 Posted May 7, 2009 I think 21 Guns or even American Eulogy would have been better first single choices. Well, maybe not American Eulogy 'cause it's a bit too similar to American Idiot (the name not the actual song ). But it's good to know they're number one in at least one chart.
Daughter.of.Rage.and.Love Posted May 7, 2009 Posted May 7, 2009 That's cool! Even though I don't really care for charts :]
nirvanayoda Posted May 7, 2009 Author Posted May 7, 2009 Yeah, I've never really understood Green Day's philosophy about the order of their singles. It seems really hit and miss. Longview was a good, but not great, idea to launch Dookie, but Geek Stink Breath was a poor choice (a better choice would have been to save J.A.R. for Insomniac and lead off with that, though it didn't have the same production sound).Similarly, Hitchin' a Ride was a terrible, terrible song to lead off Nimrod with. There were probably 5 better songs off that record to start with. I understand that leading off with Good Riddance wouldn't have been a good idea (you have to shore up the base fans with the first single or two then expand with the next couple), but they could have easily led off with Scattered or something similar.I have no complaints about leading off Warning or American Idiot. They made the correct choices there. But then, just when you think they've learned their lesson, they lead off with the ok, but not particularly amazing, "Know Your Enemy." I haven't even heard all of the album yet, but I can think of at least 2 songs that would have been better off lead singles (East Jesus Nowhere or Viva La Gloria). I understand why "21 Guns" wasn't the lead single (the same reason Good Riddance is a poor lead single), but I'm still baffled by the KYE choice.
NickD Posted May 7, 2009 Posted May 7, 2009 i understand the reasoning for know your enemy. it's an anthem. once you hear the beat your foot taps or head bobs. that's how you get a listener. i think of know your enemy has the same affect as minority did.i think static age could have been/would have been a nice first single though
Rob Posted May 7, 2009 Posted May 7, 2009 Know Your Enemy can't be as horrible as you are all making it out to be. It's not their best, but certainly up there, and deserves a lot more credit. It's number one for the second week in the row on the Modern Rock Charts, and increased to number two on the mainstream rock charts. Not bad for such a dreadful song. If this is the worst from their album, I can only imagine the chart postions for their "better" singles.
HoneyDo666 Posted May 7, 2009 Posted May 7, 2009 I love KYE! This is so exciting!*goes and does fangirl squeal*
nirvanayoda Posted May 7, 2009 Author Posted May 7, 2009 Know Your Enemy can't be as horrible as you are all making it out to be. It's not their best, but certainly up there, and deserves a lot more credit. It's number one for the second week in the row on the Modern Rock Charts, and increased to number two on the mainstream rock charts. Not bad for such a dreadful song. If this is the worst from their album, I can only imagine the chart postions for their "better" singles.I didn't say it was horrible. It's an average Green Day song, which, in my book, makes it better than everything else out there. It's my favorite song that's in regular radio rotation, and it's better than almost everything off Nimrod and Warning. I doubt it will be worse than the 5th best song on the album. However, I also doubt it will be better than the 5th best song on the album. With that being said, it's doing well, and I don't personally care what they decide should be singles as long as I get to listen to what I want from the cd. I just think another song might have had more impact.I don' t know if you've heard any of the songs off the new album, but I'd argue that 21 Guns is probably actually objectively better and that East Jesus Nowhere and Viva La Gloria would have probably been bigger singles. Being number 1 doesn't mean much when there's virtually no competition out there. Remember, Good Riddance never hit #1 because it had to contend with Marcy Playground's "Sex and Candy." I've been around for a long time (listening to rock music since '95) and I work in intellectual property law, so while my opinion might not always be right, it's a pretty educated opinion nonetheless.
JAS0N Posted May 7, 2009 Posted May 7, 2009 As i've said before - why do you guys care what they pick as singles? They aren't picking them for the hardcore fans, the singles are picked to attract those to the band that aren't already buying the album. The song was obviously an excellent choice as the first single given its current chart performance in a very short time.
forget_me_nots Posted May 7, 2009 Posted May 7, 2009 As i've said before - why do you guys care what they pick as singles? They aren't picking them for the hardcore fans, the singles are picked to attract those to the band that aren't already buying the album. The song was obviously an excellent choice as the first single given its current chart performance in a very short time.touche.
nirvanayoda Posted May 7, 2009 Author Posted May 7, 2009 American Idiot**Posts: 160Age: 29 / MaleFrom: Sault Ste Marie, ONJoined: February 14, 2006 As i've said before - why do you guys care what they pick as singles? They aren't picking them for the hardcore fans, the singles are picked to attract those to the band that aren't already buying the album. The song was obviously an excellent choice as the first single given its current chart performance in a very short time.Because other songs would have been better suited for the same job. Just because it's number 1 doesn't mean it will stay number 1 as long as other songs would have given the same opportunity nor does it mean it would have been number 1 against stiffer competition (or is garnering as much attention as other previous number 1s). As I said above, I personally don't care all that much because I get to listen to any of the songs any time, but I am curious from a business perspective why they chose a weaker song than they could have to lead off.
Hermione Posted May 7, 2009 Posted May 7, 2009 Hooray Green Day are the best They better release East Jesus Nowhere or I will have to have words with them.
amy_runs Posted May 7, 2009 Posted May 7, 2009 21 Guns will definitely be a hit to Green Day fans and Green Day haters alike
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.