Best of album Nov 20th discussion Pt 2

[bram]

Very strange responses to this new Greatest Hits. It's not intended as a box set. It's not intended for hardcore fans. It's not intended as a singles collection. It's intended for casual fans and those looking to give U2 a shot for the first time, obviously. And hardcore fans get the [incidental] bonus of better quality versions of some of their classic songs, and 2 as-yet unreleased songs on disc. And if you don't want to pay the relatively little amount for the CD (considering how much $ you've already given the band), then the singles will be READILY available from other interference posters on you send it etc. This is a situation where fans' true colors come out...because it is a release that is NOT intended for us. If this bothers you, then stop being so selfish and ignore this release. U2 is not a band for the couple hundred people who post on this forum. If they were, they wouldn't be U2. They weren't expected to have any new material available until their next proper album. But we're getting it. Bonus.

 

[bram]

U2 are way more interested in getting a new generation of fans interested in their back catalogue than money-grabbing. They're rich...filthy rich. And if you believe they are basing their release decisions on money, than I feel sorry for you and the image of U2 that you've created in your head. Are we talking about the same 4 people?

 

[ponkine]

U2 are way more interested in getting a new generation of fans interested in their back catalogue than money-grabbing.

I strongly disagree with this

Any best of, greatest hits or whatever is just intended for money-grabbing.

If they want new fans interested in their back catalogue, why not releasing their remastered catalog instead or at least a decent box set of their entire career?

Of course any single greatest hits CD is the easiest and cheapest way to go, far more comfortable than the hard work needed for remastering 10 studio albums (Boy - ATYCLB) and Under A Blood Red Sky

Just listen to the sound of Peter Gabriel SACD catalog
U2 engineers would need months and months to set that benchmark of perfection

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Ponkine are you saying that "Greatest Hits" collections in general are bad? I mean, let's say you love the Wham! singles, but you're not interested in their albums. Are you saying you'd rather buy ALL the Wham! albums instead of a 'Best of' or a retrospective of their biggest and best songs?

Greatest Hits CDs serve their purpose. I sure as hell didn't want to go out and buy all of the Offspring's albums, but I love their biggest hits. Thank gawd for their Greatest Hits album..

 

[martha]

Reggie... Offspring?

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Ponkine are you saying that "Greatest Hits" collections in general are bad? I mean, let's say you love the Wham! singles, but you're not interested in their albums. Are you saying you'd rather buy ALL the Wham! albums instead of a 'Best of' or a retrospective of their biggest and best songs?

Greatest Hits CDs serve their purpose. I sure as hell didn't want to go out and buy all of the Offspring's albums, but I love their biggest hits. Thank gawd for their Greatest Hits album..

Ah, Reggie, whether you know it or not, I think you just hit the nail on the head here. I think at the crux of this issue is the fact that many hardcore U2 fans don't want to admit a rather awful truth (in their minds): not all music fans want to, or are even remotely interested in delving into U2's back catalogue, but they may like a few of their songs. Us U2 fans can be a sensitive bunch! This almost boils down to fan ego on some level.

 

[Salome]

these threads alone have enough entertainment value to justify this compilation

 

[Utoo]

Ah, Reggie, whether you know it or not, I think you just hit the nail on the head here. I think at the crux of this issue is the fact that many hardcore U2 fans don't want to admit a rather awful truth (in their minds): not all music fans want to, or are even remotely interested in delving into U2's back catalogue, but they may like a few of their songs. Us U2 fans can be a sensitive bunch! This almost boils down to fan ego on some level.

But how can anyone live without Boomerang II????



Right on, MG & RTD

 

[J_NP]

Label Mercury ???????????????

 

[Blue Room]

Personally I dont have a problem with a greatest hits package. My problem with this one is that they have already released two packages previously pretty much covering the same period except the last album and a half. The timing of it makes it look like a money grab. Its too soon for ANOTHER greatest hits. They could be trying to get out of their contract. Which is actually a good business move if that is the intent. I just think they could have come up with something better to release if they needed to put out some type of album. At least do something different, maybe as some people have mentioned a LIVE greatest hits. I think a release of the Apple IPOD demos would have also been better. Would be new material for the non die hard U2 fans and the diehards would finally get those songs in full CD quality.

 

[waynetravis]

Label Mercury ???????????????

oh yes, i just noticed that.

 

[bram]

I think the market is there for those who like BD and Vertigo and also like WOWY, Streets, etc. and would rather just buy one disc. It is helpful to put this into perspective by thinking about a band where you only have (or only would want) their greatest hits or singles (like Reggie said above). I think it takes a pretty cynical mind to think that all greatest hits are money-grabbing. And accusing U2 of money-grabbing is just too simplistic at this point in their career. Do they want to be even "bigger" as a band? Absolutely. The money is going to be flowing in so fast for the rest of their lives (and their kids and grandkids lives). So if you accuse them of money-grabbing, you are essentially accusing Bono, Adam, Larry, and the Edge of being unthinkably greedly, terrible people. And maybe you think that.

Ponkine, I do VERY much share your love for the remastering of all of Peter Gabriel's albums. The Edge has stated he wants to do this, but doesn't want to release a box set until after their career is completely over. So that's the main reason they won't release one now. They're U2, not George Lucas. I think a live greatest hits would be a better idea as well, but like I said before, the diehards are not who they're aiming at. Also, with 4 such strong personalities, I cannot see them all agreeing on any "best" live versions.

 

[Aygo]

I think the market is there for those who like BD and Vertigo and also like WOWY, Streets, etc. and would rather just buy one disc. It is helpful to put this into perspective by thinking about a band where you only have (or only would want) their greatest hits or singles (like Reggie said above). I think it takes a pretty cynical mind to think that all greatest hits are money-grabbing. And accusing U2 of money-grabbing is just too simplistic at this point in their career. Do they want to be even "bigger" as a band? Absolutely. The money is going to be flowing in so fast for the rest of their lives (and their kids and grandkids lives). So if you accuse them of money-grabbing, you are essentially accusing Bono, Adam, Larry, and the Edge of being unthinkably greedly, terrible people. And maybe you think that.

Come on bram, I understand your point of view, but this is totally blindsheep thought. Even I - yeah, ME, the real and eternal 2000's/ATYCLB/HTDAAB defender from the "bad" bashers - think that it's exactily a cashgrab only. There was no need of this.

 

[Aygo]

Personally I dont have a problem with a greatest hits package. My problem with this one is that they have already released two packages previously pretty much covering the same period except the last album and a half. The timing of it makes it look like a money grab. Its too soon for ANOTHER greatest hits. They could be trying to get out of their contract. Which is actually a good business move if that is the intent. I just think they could have come up with something better to release if they needed to put out some type of album. At least do something different, maybe as some people have mentioned a LIVE greatest hits. I think a release of the Apple IPOD demos would have also been better. Would be new material for the non die hard U2 fans and the diehards would finally get those songs in full CD quality.

Exactly! If the contract said "a compilation of whatever Island Records wanted", why not a compilation of rare tracks, demo versions and unknown songs?
Why not a best of live performances... even if the tracks were only the biggest hits?
This choice step only goes ahead with the grossing lockcases theory.

 

[VintagePunk]

Exactly! If the contract said "a compilation of whatever Island Records wanted", why not a compilation of rare tracks, demo versions and unknown songs?
Why not a best of live performances... even if the tracks were only the biggest hits?
This choice step only goes ahead with the grossing lockcases theory.

Uhhh, because a straight-on best of will have a wider audience, not just U2 fanatics buying it? If this is how it read contractually, of course the record company is going to want to make money.

 

[Blue Room]

Uhhh, because a straight-on best of will have a wider audience, not just U2 fanatics buying it? If this is how it read contractually, of course the record company is going to want to make money.

So you think a disc full of previously unreleased material wont make money? I would have to disagree.

 

[Utoo]

Uhhh, because a straight-on best of will have a wider audience, not just U2 fanatics buying it? If this is how it read contractually, of course the record company is going to want to make money.

Don't bother. Some people just can't get the fact that the world doesn't revolve around their own wishes.

Can you imagine what it would take to sift through every single live recording that U2 has---knowing that they've recorded such a high percentage of shows---and pick out one or two dozen "best" live tracks? Holy crap! Sure, it'd be fun for one of us...but what a massive undertaking for a Principle employee (or someone else in the camp). So not worth it---not even money-wise, but everything-wise.

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

Uhhh, because a straight-on best of will have a wider audience, not just U2 fanatics buying it? If this is how it read contractually, of course the record company is going to want to make money.

But for $20 you can get the first 2 Best Of's.

This whole thing is odd.

 

[Blue Room]

Don't bother. Some people just can't get the fact that the world doesn't revolve around their own wishes.

Can you imagine what it would take to sift through every single live recording that U2 has---knowing that they've recorded such a high percentage of shows---and pick out one or two dozen "best" live tracks? Holy crap! Sure, it'd be fun for one of us...but what a massive undertaking for a Principle employee (or someone else in the camp). So not worth it---not even money-wise, but everything-wise.

Oh come on, they could pick out tracks from the limited shows that were completely professionally mixed from the last 3 tours, wouldnt take long. They wouldnt go through all of their shows. The performances in those mixed/broadcast shows are very good anyway.

I'm not saying the world revolves around me??? You have to realize though U2 ultimately are a business. This is a pure business move. Even Vintage Punk's post that you linked eludes to a cash grab by the record company. So clearly you think money is the driving factor for this compilation. I just think they could have come up with a better type of compilation if they felt so compelled to release another one so quickly. I dont think that is a stretch or unreasonable thing to think. Sorry you think that is somehow wrong.

 

[MrBrau1]

idiots.

 

[Aygo]

Blue Room is right. They could throw away another kind of compilation, if they wanted to. Remember that U2 are not the type of artist that is enslaved by its recording company, they (almost) do what theywant with it, and I believe that they have more power - comparing to other artists - no manipulate the publishers.
As said, U2 is not a band, U2 of today it's a brand, a business thing.
Nobody's claiming that we want U2 to make everything we wish as hardcore fans, it just didn't have to happen this way, and in our position (so close we are!), we have to right to say what seems right or wrong. And now, this step is dangerous.

Look out to other artists that (counting on their history and artistic journeys) are in the same pedestal (some higher, some lower) than U2. How many of them have been taking steps like these? You can see that those that started to take actions like this are artists that started their decline as a commercial business and started not to be that relevant as artists (eg: Michael Jackson, Queen, George Michael). On the other hand, others prefer to mantain and not to release a compilation, only when it's necessary to "put some order in the room" and when they feel forced to (eg: Pearl Jam, Mariah Carey, Madonna, Bon Jovi).

This just reminds me of Depeche Mode's atitude... the same fucking one! Why did we need a new series of Best Of's, when we have "Singles 81-85" and "Singles 86-98"? With their sucess this decade, they could easily release a "Singles 99-09" (for instance) after their next album and with a bunch of new tracks. Don't tell me that it's just because of attracting new fans... Nobody takes it that is no more than cashgrab.

 

[martha]

So all of you know how and what U2 is thinking, how they make creative and business decisions and can confidently state it's a money-grab, it's a contractual obligation, it's a pitch for casual fans.

None of us knows a fucking thing about the album, the reasons it's being released, or the decision-making behind it.

jesus.

 

[Blue Room]

None of us knows a fucking thing about the album, the reasons it's being released, or the decision-making behind it.

jesus.

Exactly, so how do you know if were wrong on the cash grab thing? I didnt say U2 were doing that for sure, I said it gives off that appearence. Clearly the label at least are going for a cash grab. Honestly, I dont have a problem with it. Like I have said though I think they could have come up with a more creative way to fullfill the contractual obligation over basically rehashing a release they have done twice already. I'm not saying U2 are bad, crap, or anything like that. I just think this move is a little disappointing regardless of whose decision it was ultimately. I dont think there is anything wrong with feeling that way or thinking that.

 

[Utoo]

Oh come on, they could pick out tracks from the limited shows that were completely professionally mixed from the last 3 tours, wouldnt take long. They wouldnt go through all of their shows. The performances in those mixed/broadcast shows are very good anyway.

But then we'd get complaints that we already have that-----Hasta La Vista, U2.Communication----and that it was so easy for U2 to put together a collection of live tracks from the last three tours when what would have been really worthwhile is to give us the rarities from their 1981 performances, the best UF Tour version of Pride, etc. etc. Ponkine would complain that there are no songs from a Chile performance and that the crowd noise from any other country's track is "bulls***." People would bitch about songs from particular shows not being on there. Essentially, everything that U2 puts out will be heavily criticized, no matter what it is. It's fine to not agree with all decisions made by the band; it's also fine if one is not terribly upset by every decision the band makes. I do think it's reasonable to recognize that everything will get bitched about, no matter what. If they went with your idea, somebody will bitch about it. If they went with my idea, somebody would bitch about it. It's all the same.


Oh, I can just see it now....

Bono: "Gee, guys, I need new sunglasses before the next leg. I already own a billion businesses outside of our U2 earnings, and, well, I don't want to put a dent in the millions I've accumulated over the last 30 years, so let's make a cash grab and put out a greatest hits!"

Seriously?

 

[Chizip]

Exactly, so how do you know if were wrong on the cash grab thing? I didnt say U2 were doing that for sure, I said it gives off that appearence. Clearly the label at least are going for a cash grab. Honestly, I dont have a problem with it. Like I have said though I think they could have come up with a more creative way to fullfill the contractual obligation over basically rehashing a release they have done twice already. I'm not saying U2 are bad, crap, or anything like that. I just think this move is a little disappointing regardless of whose decision it was ultimately. I dont think there is anything wrong with feeling that way or thinking that.

ive been agreeing with you way too much lately, i feel dirty

 

[Utoo]

I'm not saying U2 are bad, crap, or anything like that. I just think this move is a little disappointing regardless of whose decision it was ultimately. I dont think there is anything wrong with feeling that way or thinking that.

Just so you know, I don't disagree-----I just think that a good bit of the alternatives proposed, plus the negative claims made, are either 1). thought through just as little as this compilation, or 2). a little disappointing in their own right. But in terms of being disappointed with it in general, there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[VintagePunk]

So you think a disc full of previously unreleased material wont make money? I would have to disagree.

Not nearly as much as a standard greatest hits would. It's only logical. Casual fans wouldn't buy it, only people like us would. As much as we'd like to think everyone is like us, they're not. We're much smaller in number than they are. A few hundred (or a few thousand, even) online fanatics are not a major part of their market.

 

[VintagePunk]

Don't bother. Some people just can't get the fact that the world doesn't revolve around their own wishes.

Can you imagine what it would take to sift through every single live recording that U2 has---knowing that they've recorded such a high percentage of shows---and pick out one or two dozen "best" live tracks? Holy crap! Sure, it'd be fun for one of us...but what a massive undertaking for a Principle employee (or someone else in the camp). So not worth it---not even money-wise, but everything-wise.

So all of you know how and what U2 is thinking, how they make creative and business decisions and can confidently state it's a money-grab, it's a contractual obligation, it's a pitch for casual fans.

None of us knows a fucking thing about the album, the reasons it's being released, or the decision-making behind it.

jesus.

 

[Zoots]

Did it take this long for people in this forum to realize that the new U2 is all about sales and doesn't really care much for artistic integrity?

 

[Blue Room]

But then we'd get complaints that we already have that-----Hasta La Vista, U2.Communication----
Oh, I can just see it now....


Seriously?

Those are not technically official releases. Fan club only, not the same thing as we are talking about an official release that can be purchased in a retail store by anyone. You are missing the point also. You yourself have said this is for the masses. My point is, at the very least it would be a new type of compilation for them. Even if diehards had most if not all of the live tracks anyway on bootleg or fan club cd's it would not be a rehash album.

Here is an example of the professionally mixed shows they could pick from with minimal effort which are all good performances:

Dublin 93
Sydney 93
Rotterdam 97
Mexico City 97
Sao Paolo 98
Santiago 98
Johanessburg 98
Boston 1, 2 01
Slane 2 01
Chicago 2,3 05
Milan 1,2 05
Buenos Aires 05


I think they could pick out 16 good versions of their hits out of those shows with minimal to no effort.