Best of album Nov 20th discussion Pt 2

[VintagePunk]

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***."

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?

Greedy, sunglass-needing bastard.

 

[Blue Room]

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.

But what about a greatest hits live? Wouldnt that serve both purposes and not be a complete rehash of what they have basically done twice already? U2 are known to the masses as one of the great live bands out there.

 

[Chizip]

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?

bono dribbling a basketball around the heart during a live broadcast of a concert for a halftime show of an NBA game should have been a clue that their integrity was slipping

 

[Aygo]

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]

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.

This is still a new compilation for the masses. I know several people, my brother included, who didn't buy either 1980-1990 or 1990-2000 because of 1). their favorite songs were split between two different sets & they weren't about to spend $30-40 to get them all, and 2). they weren't about to spend $10-20 on 1990-2000 to get messed up versions of their favorite songs. This compilation fixes that.

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.

I agree, it wouldn't be hard. And yet there would still be complaints that someone's favorite show wasn't included, or that AIWIY from Sarajevo is amazing and should've been in there instead of Slane, etc. There is no win-win.

 

[Aygo]

This is still a new compilation for the masses. I know several people, my brother included, who didn't buy either 1980-1990 or 1990-2000 because of 1). their favorite songs were split between two different sets & they weren't about to spend $30-40 to get them all, and 2). they weren't about to spend $10-20 on 1990-2000 to get messed up versions of their favorite songs. This compilation fixes that.

Yes, you are right here... In fact, many people wonder why WOWY, ISHFWILF, One and Stay are not on the same disc... they don't remember that.
But if that was the problem... still why to release several compilations (in a short timespace) from different eras? It could all be simplified with an only compilation including that all.
Plus, a compilation with (only) the main hits will contribute to polarize the preferences and the attention to the 1987-1994 era (or even the post-Pop era too) drowning other hits and albums in the darkness for the common listener or the casual fan. That's not a great tactic to attract fans in the case of U2.

 

[VintagePunk]

But what about a greatest hits live? Wouldnt that serve both purposes and not be a complete rehash of what they have basically done twice already? U2 are known to the masses as one of the great live bands out there.

I do agree with that, that would probably appeal to both casual and rabid fans. However, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until we hear the circumstances surrounding the release, and the decision-making process.

Honestly, some people (not you, specifically) are talking as though the band is out to completely screw them over, and it's just really tiresome to listen to.

 

[bram]

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.

I gave you in my post my exact reasoning why I don't think it's a cash grab. And I think that even if you disagree with it (which obviously most people here do), it's still a valid belief. I'm sorry if I think too highly of the 4 guys for the rest of you. It's really not even thinking highly of them. All I'm doing is not thinking very very very poorly of them. I think it can be looked at as a money-grab, but that's a cynical move and it's a weighty accusation. From everything I've ever seen/read/heard/watched of these guys, I don't believe them to be greedy assholes. So if that's a blind sheep opinion, fine. But if the Edge is an asshole, than I don't know who isn't.

 

[VintagePunk]

This is still a new compilation for the masses. I know several people, my brother included, who didn't buy either 1980-1990 or 1990-2000 because of 1). their favorite songs were split between two different sets & they weren't about to spend $30-40 to get them all, and 2). they weren't about to spend $10-20 on 1990-2000 to get messed up versions of their favorite songs. This compilation fixes that.

Excellent point.

 

[ntalwar]

This is still a new compilation for the masses. I know several people, my brother included, who didn't buy either 1980-1990 or 1990-2000 because of 1). their favorite songs were split between two different sets & they weren't about to spend $30-40 to get them all, and 2). they weren't about to spend $10-20 on 1990-2000 to get messed up versions of their favorite songs. This compilation fixes that.

Good point - it fixes the "marketing mistake" (IMO) that was the best of 80s and 90s.

 

[bram]

This is still a new compilation for the masses. I know several people, my brother included, who didn't buy either 1980-1990 or 1990-2000 because of 1). their favorite songs were split between two different sets & they weren't about to spend $30-40 to get them all, and 2). they weren't about to spend $10-20 on 1990-2000 to get messed up versions of their favorite songs. This compilation fixes that.



This is exactly right, and incidentally something I've mentioned before in one part of this thread. We make up a tiny tiny fraction of U2's audience, and they are constantly looking to expand that audience to literally a new generation of fans. In their words, its staying relevant, which is the only reason theyre still making music. They want new fans, they want the casual fans. They want the poor fans and the frugal fans and the singalong fans who want streets and BD rubbing up on each other.

 

[Chizip]

This is still a new compilation for the masses. I know several people, my brother included, who didn't buy either 1980-1990 or 1990-2000 because of 1). their favorite songs were split between two different sets & they weren't about to spend $30-40 to get them all, and 2). they weren't about to spend $10-20 on 1990-2000 to get messed up versions of their favorite songs. This compilation fixes that.

*cough* itunes *cough*

 

[corianderstem]

A few hundred (or a few thousand, even) online fanatics are not a major part of their market.

DING DING DING!

 

[gherman]

Guys guys guys...
Instead of feeling betrayed about the
best-of, just watch this video instead!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lpoT7W5-66c

My My My is better:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=z60S1bcrwA4&mode=related&search=

 

[Salome]

I agree with Mr. Brau

 

[ponkine]

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?

The truth comes out

 

[Aygo]

I gave you in my post my exact reasoning why I don't think it's a cash grab. And I think that even if you disagree with it (which obviously most people here do), it's still a valid belief. I'm sorry if I think too highly of the 4 guys for the rest of you. It's really not even thinking highly of them. All I'm doing is not thinking very very very poorly of them. I think it can be looked at as a money-grab, but that's a cynical move and it's a weighty accusation. From everything I've ever seen/read/heard/watched of these guys, I don't believe them to be greedy assholes. So if that's a blind sheep opinion, fine. But if the Edge is an asshole, than I don't know who isn't.

I didn't say there that it was U2's totally fault. It could possibly be a decision from the publisher against U2's wishes.
Don't be so arrogant about my point of views, I'm not accusing anyone, I'm just expressing myself as a disilusioned fan, but as a critical person too.

 

[Salome]

disilusioned

I think you misspelled it












it's "delusional"

 

[Salome]

and this entire discussion is insane

if U2 would release an album of 80s + 90s outtakes they could just as easily being accused of being sell outs
"they are putting songs on a disk that they didn't think were good enough the first time around and the only people buying it would be us diehard fans and we already own just about all of these songs!"

it's a frickin compilation album
the record company hopres they will make some money
U2 hope some more people will hear their music and maybe as a result buy POP some day so that they can join Interference and moan about Acrobat not being played live

 

[Utoo]

*cough* itunes *cough*

*cough* cd-quality *cough*

OR

*cough* noting the number of people here who seem to think you need an ipod in order to use itunes, a cd goes out to more than the computer-literate masses who know better *cough*

OR

*cough* gee, last time they went to itunes, they were accused of selling out to Apple *cough*

 

[Aygo]

and this entire discussion is insane

if U2 would release an album of 80s + 90s outtakes they could just as easily being accused of being sell outs
"they are putting songs on a disk that they didn't think were good enough the first time around and the only people buying it would be us diehard fans and we already own just about all of these songs!"

it's a frickin compilation album
the record company hopres they will make some money
U2 hope some more people will hear their music and maybe as a result buy POP some day so that they can join Interference and moan about Acrobat not being played live

Not always a song don't get in the final tracklist because of not being good, sometimes it's because it doesn't fit in the album.
Plus, a compilation of rare and unreleased tracks it's worthy because is something that nobody knows yet (well, never been comercialized and nobody has made money with them yet).
A compilation like this is seen as something new (despite not being recent) and IMO it's miles more worthy than having a compilation of songs that I can find in other albums or other compilations.

 

[VintagePunk]

Salome, Utoo, let's face it, there are some people around here who would complain no matter what the band does. It honestly makes me wonder why they would be willing participants in something that brings them so much negativity, when there are so many other entertainment choices out there.

Could it be (gasp) that they enjoy complaining and arguing?

 

[guill]

Salome, Utoo, let's face it, there are some people around here who would complain no matter what the band does. It honestly makes me wonder why they would be willing participants in something that brings them so much negativity, when there are so many other entertainment choices out there.

Could it be (gasp) that they enjoy complaining and arguing?

People expected some new songs, they are very disappointed, it's normal.
The "good suprise" announced by McGuiness, the new producer, Abbey Road, etc.... and finally it's going to be a Best Of, it's frustrating.

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

The guys from the record company didn't sign a $50M deal to release Beautiful Ghost or Treasure. (imo)

 

[ponkine]

and this entire discussion is insane

if U2 would release an album of 80s + 90s outtakes they could just as easily being accused of being sell outs
"they are putting songs on a disk that they didn't think were good enough the first time around and the only people buying it would be us diehard fans and we already own just about all of these songs!"

it's a frickin compilation album

That's far from being true

Usually Greatest Hits album are easy fish hooks for the bucks, but Demos, B-sides & Outtakes compilations are far more risky projects and sell considerably less copies than Greatest Hits of Best ofs

Anyway, compilations about lesser known stuff normally are reviewed highly both for critics and fans. Take a look, for example, to Bob Dylan Bootleg Series collection and compare them with The Essential. The difference is obvious both for fans and critics.

Also Singles & Promos compilations are much better reviewed than Greatest Hits or Best Ofs. That's what happened with The Cure Singles (Starting At The Sea and Galore) compared to their crappy Greatest Hits. Depeche Mode Singles 81-85 and 86-98 are a delight for the fans, but I bet you the upcoming Best Of Vol 1 and 2 won't be that good.


What I'm trying to say it's pretty simple: Not all kind of compilations are the same.

 

[martha]

I'm a sell-out. I saw the thread title "U2: 18" below this one, and my pulse quickened ever so slightly at the thought of new U2 music in about six weeks.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

People expected some new songs, they are very disappointed, it's normal.
The "good suprise" announced by McGuiness, the new producer, Abbey Road, etc.... and finally it's going to be a Best Of, it's frustrating.

You hit one of the nails on the head: People had completely unrealistic expectations of a new album this year. And for that, they're pissed off with U2. Does that make any sense? Sadly, it does in this age when we don't take responsiblity for ourselves. Let's blame U2 for not meeting our unrealistic expectations!

The weird thing is, U2 have been saying the entire time they have just begun working on new material. Even Paul McGuinness said there would be a download of a new song (not album). If they hadn't released this Best Of, we would be getting nothing this year. Isn't one brand new song better than nothing at all? You'd think people would be excited about such a bonus....but no.

The way I look at this upcoming best of:

* We get one brand new Rick Rubin produced song. A song we've never heard before!!!

* We get to hear what U2 sounds like with Rick Rubin (minus Green Day).

* We could get some interesting B-sides (imagine if one of them is 'Mercy' *gasp*? ) or a bonus DVD.

* We should be getting better sound quality recordings

In all, instead of nothing to look forward to until 2007 or 2008 (remember, realistic expectations!), we now have all of this. Why get our knickers in a knot over it? I''m actually pretty excited.

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

U2 fans are probably the biggest bunch of whiners around. There's more interest in having some vague "street cred' than music from a good chunk of the posters here. Some of you really need to get a grip

U2 are fulfilling a contract they signed, PERIOD. From what I've read the contract read that the timing of the Best ofs is the record companies-Perhaps they think that 10 months after sweeping the grammies might be a good time for a compilation?

Could U2 convince them to wait? Likely, but for a band as big as U2 they've always been very respectful of their business partners

Anyway I'm not gonna buy the CD unless the bonus disc has something decent on it. I'm looking forward to the new song though.

If I had more time I'd go through Pokines posts and correct
some of the errors-There are many....

Anyway that's all I'm gonna say in these threads. They're nuts and I'm getting dumber just reading them

 

[Utoo]

You hit one of the nails on the head: People had completely unrealistic expectations of a new album this year. And for that, they're pissed off with U2. Does that make any sense? Sadly, it does in this age when we don't take responsiblity for ourselves. Let's blame U2 for not meeting our unrealistic expectations!

The weird thing is, U2 have been saying the entire time they have just begun working on new material. Even Paul McGuinness said there would be a download of a new song (not album). If they hadn't released this Best Of, we would be getting nothing this year. Isn't one brand new song better than nothing at all? You'd think people would be excited about such a bonus....but no.

The way I look at this upcoming best of:

* We get one brand new Rick Rubin produced song. A song we've never heard before!!!

* We get to hear what U2 sounds like with Rick Rubin (minus Green Day).

* We could get some interesting B-sides (imagine if one of them is 'Mercy' *gasp*? ) or a bonus DVD.

* We should be getting better sound quality recordings

In all, instead of nothing to look forward to until 2007 or 2008 (remember, realistic expectations!), we now have all of this. Why get our knickers in a knot over it? I''m actually pretty excited.

Michael, keep posting.

 

[Peterrrrr]

03.10.06 : U2 ANNOUNCE DETAILS OF DEFINITIVE BEST OF KEEP AN EYE ON THE WEBSITE FOR AN UPCOMING U2 COMPETITION

The full track listing and the album title will be announced shortly. Watch This Space

http://scripts.digicc.com/universalireland/news.php?id=1298251111

 

[Greenlight]

U2 fans are probably the biggest bunch of whiners around. There's more interest in having some vague "street cred' than music from a good chunk of the posters here. Some of you really need to get a grip

For the umpteenth time, Greatest Hits are aimed at the casual fan market not the serious fans. I know loads of casual U2 fans in their 30s/40s who got JT /AB when they came out, maybe a couple of other albums and like a lot of the singles but aren't bothered about extending their collection. Those I've spoken to think it's a great idea that a Greatest Hits is coming out with the best singles on one CD and say they'll put it on their Xmas list for sure. Same goes for the Oasis Greatest Hits which is due out the same time as part of another contract commitment. I think it's hilarious that the casual fans don't have a problem with this but the hard line fans do. You know what, we don't have to buy the album, if we want the new single we can download just that and sit back and look forward to a brand new album next year.