u2 v oasis 20th Nov
- Thread starter andyuk
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I refer you to November 1998, where the Best of 1980-1990 was up against The Masterplan...
Now 8 years later tracks from those 2 albums go head to head ....again!!
p.s don't say U2 only got to No.1 then because of the 2nd disc, they got to No 1 because they are the better band!!
Now 8 years later tracks from those 2 albums go head to head ....again!!
p.s don't say U2 only got to No.1 then because of the 2nd disc, they got to No 1 because they are the better band!!
tonyhotland
The Fly
drinking to that
drinking to that.....
drinking to that.....
i agree that U2 are a far better band than Oasis but i think the masterplan was all b-sides and not there greatest hits i just feel that Oasis will sell more than U2 this time as lots of people will already have best of 80's and 90,s and this is Oasis first Greatest hits collection
vaz02
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Yeah u2 will great thrashed big time. I expect stop the clocks to hold on to the top for 2 maybe 3 weeks.
u2 must bring their release forward. btw isnt oasis's a double disc ?
u2 must bring their release forward. btw isnt oasis's a double disc ?
jimmmm
Refugee
andyuk said:
With you there AndyUK, Oasis' greatest hits will easily outsell U2's latest CASH IN, I still can't believe they're even thinking about releasing another compilation so soon, still, I guess Bono, & the boys must really need the cash.
jimmmm
Refugee
andyuk said:
Good, hope it totally bombs, really can't understand why anyone would buy it, it'll only encourage them to do it all the more. Before you know it there'll be more U2 compilations than Elvis comps.
mikeuk
War Child
I expect that iro worldwide sales then the U2 release will sell more first week and in total. The `better' songs from the Oasis collection are mainly on two albums that have sold loads in the UK already
Mike
Mike
adrball
Refugee
andyuk said:
bad press? where?
I've only seen it getting trashed in here.
mikeuk
War Child
adrball said:
me too
Mike
adrball
Refugee
So they think the last greatest hits came out only 2 years ago?
Mirror=Class paper
You're right - Can't wait
Mirror=Class paper
You're right - Can't wait
vaz02
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I hear the sunday sport did a review on beethoven too......
doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
andyuk said:
I've supported U2 on many things over the years. I "got" the need to alter their style of advertising. No longer were radio and MTV enough - U2 had to get out there and do talk shows and comedy shows and commercials, etc. That's the only way, sadly, that some music gets played these days.
I also "got" U2's other "Best Of" releases, even though years before U2 (possibly The Edge) stated that U2 would never do a "Best Of" (or Greatest Hits) release. I was proud of U2 for that, but as the years wore on, I accepted that a band of U2's longevity would almost need a "Best Of" release. Grouping by decade was a great move. While both releases had serious problems (chopping of songs on the a-side for the 80's release along with the lack of "Gloria", and a horrible b-side release for the 90's CD's), I enjoyed both releases. I accepted that plenty of fans would appreciate these releases. Based on how well the 80's "Best Of" has done in the catalog charts, it appears I was correct.
But this newest "Best Of the Best Of" (if you will) is nothing but corporate greed.
This is the type of release that U2 should do at their career's end. One nice compilation of their 16-18 best tracks with perhaps one new song thrown in to entire buyers. Releasing it now is ridiculous. It'll be out-of-date as soon as U2 release another album.
I get U2 wanting to release a song between albums. Bono has often said he likes that. Songs like "Celebration" and "Hold Me...Kill Me" were great for that reason. They gave fans a little something between albums and kept U2 in the "news".
If U2 wanted to do that here, I'd be thrilled. Release perhaps an EP with the Green Day song, a new song and maybe some live tracks from the "Vertigo" tour. Heck, release "Vertigo" live! Donate proceeds to Music Rising or other causes. This way, U2 comes across as putting their wallets where their mouths are (Elton John has donated the proceeds from ALL of his single releases to charities for years!) and it keeps them in the news. Fans get a little treat between albums and everyone is a winner.
But as it stands, another "Best Of" is not only superfluous, it'll be outdated soon and again, reeks of greed. If U2 released this type of album say in 2010 or so, after the release of their next studio work, then I'd be more accepting. It would have been a while since the release of the 90's "Best Of", and the "2010 Best Of" could have nicely showcased songs from the 00's more. Instead, we have this premature release. I'm not for it at all - and I think U2 deserves all the negative press they receive.
The only way I'd really support this is if U2 suddenly announced that the proceeds (or at least part of the proceeds) would go to charity (or charities). As it stands, U2, Paul McGuinness and U2's label look greedy. I'm very disappointed.
I'm honestly thinking of not buying this CD and just downloading the new song.
Last edited:
what happens if U2 release a new album in 2007 or 2008 and have there 2 biggest selling singles ever? would they then have to do a new greatest hits package to include these? i just think the 80's 90's and 00's best of is fine but U2 greatest hits collection should be released when they call it a day or decide that they will not release any more albums
jimmmm
Refugee
More bad news on the Best Of front, U2 have shelved plans for new material for the foreseeable future, & instead have announced plans to release U2 - The Love Songs in Nov. 2007, followed a year later by, U2 - The Best Of, Accoustic, in Nov 2008, then in Nov.2009, U2 The Best Of The Best Of, in Nov. 2010, obviously The Best Of '00-'10, & then when they've totally exhausted their own catalogue plan to follow in rod stewarts footsteps, by releasing their very own american songbook series, this will run until 2015, by which time a spokesman for the moneygra..sorry, band, said, U2 will finally have come up with some original new material, which they will release in 2018, closely followed by a new Best Of, Best Of, Very Best Of, Solid Golid, Platinum Collection, Greatest Hits Album, which will be available in 20 different formats, as we know how keen U2's fans are to keep pouring their hard earned down the drain.
OpperGoeroe
War Child
jimmmm said:
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
The Oasis compilation will definitely top U2 in the UK. No question.
But to be honest, it's a weak release. A ton of MIA hits, and despite the fact that it's on two discs, it's runtime is only like 86 minutes or something to that effect. A lot of wasted potential.
However, it is humorous that 14 of the 18 tracks on the Oasis compilation are from their first 2 albums and those albums' b-sides. Because let's face it, they certainly weren't much after that.
But to be honest, it's a weak release. A ton of MIA hits, and despite the fact that it's on two discs, it's runtime is only like 86 minutes or something to that effect. A lot of wasted potential.
However, it is humorous that 14 of the 18 tracks on the Oasis compilation are from their first 2 albums and those albums' b-sides. Because let's face it, they certainly weren't much after that.
rihannsu
Refugee
doctorwho said:
I've supported U2 on many things over the years. I "got" the need to alter their style of advertising. No longer were radio and MTV enough - U2 had to get out there and do talk shows and comedy shows and commercials, etc. That's the only way, sadly, that some music gets played these days.
I also "got" U2's other "Best Of" releases, even though years before U2 (possibly The Edge) stated that U2 would never do a "Best Of" (or Greatest Hits) release. I was proud of U2 for that, but as the years wore on, I accepted that a band of U2's longevity would almost need a "Best Of" release. Grouping by decade was a great move. While both releases had serious problems (chopping of songs on the a-side for the 80's release along with the lack of "Gloria", and a horrible b-side release for the 90's CD's), I enjoyed both releases. I accepted that plenty of fans would appreciate these releases. Based on how well the 80's "Best Of" has done in the catalog charts, it appears I was correct.
But this newest "Best Of the Best Of" (if you will) is nothing but corporate greed.
This is the type of release that U2 should do at their career's end. One nice compilation of their 16-18 best tracks with perhaps one new song thrown in to entire buyers. Releasing it now is ridiculous. It'll be out-of-date as soon as U2 release another album.
I get U2 wanting to release a song between albums. Bono has often said he likes that. Songs like "Celebration" and "Hold Me...Kill Me" were great for that reason. They gave fans a little something between albums and kept U2 in the "news".
If U2 wanted to do that here, I'd be thrilled. Release perhaps an EP with the Green Day song, a new song and maybe some live tracks from the "Vertigo" tour. Heck, release "Vertigo" live! Donate proceeds to Music Rising or other causes. This way, U2 comes across as putting their wallets where their mouths are (Elton John has donated the proceeds from ALL of his single releases to charities for years!) and it keeps them in the news. Fans get a little treat between albums and everyone is a winner.
But as it stands, another "Best Of" is not only superfluous, it'll be outdated soon and again, reeks of greed. If U2 released this type of album say in 2010 or so, after the release of their next studio work, then I'd be more accepting. It would have been a while since the release of the 90's "Best Of", and the "2010 Best Of" could have nicely showcased songs from the 00's more. Instead, we have this premature release. I'm not for it at all - and I think U2 deserves all the negative press they receive.
The only way I'd really support this is if U2 suddenly announced that the proceeds (or at least part of the proceeds) would go to charity (or charities). As it stands, U2, Paul McGuinness and U2's label look greedy. I'm very disappointed.
I don't understand why so many people are so quick to see this as greed on the part of U2. Stop and think a minute. Even though U2 have more independence and more control than most other bands out there they are still under contract to a record label. When it comes to big name acts record labels love Best of releases. I seem to remember at the time the first contract for Best of's was signed Bono said that they had been getting pressure from the record company for a long time and had finally decided it made sense to do the compilations. I remember he didn't really want to do them at all.
Also, in regards to the contract, does anyone know for sure that the contract is specifically with the label, because I was under the impression that the contract is with Universal Music Group because I remember Bono saying that they were able to choose Interscope as the label for US distribution which kept them dealing with Jimmy Iovine. If that is the case then this would be the 3rd for the contract because what label it's on wouldn't matter. Since nobody seems to have any diffinitive info on the details why can't we give them the benefit of the doubt. It gets really depressing to see how fast people turn on those they claim to love, just like with the pre-sale screw up, they were convicted before anyone knew what was really going on. It's amazing they remain so generous with their time for fans consisdering the type of loyalty being displayed in instances like this. Personally I think the Best of stuff is to keep the record company happy and off their backs so they don't get pressured on the release of new material. Also what the diehard fans need to remember is that Best of collections are really geared toward the casual fan who doesn't necessarily want to buy a bands back catalogue but want to have the hits. These often create new fans because someone decides to check out a Best of and then becomes a serious fan. So again it is a way of broadening the fanbase. Yes U2 wants to sell as many records as possible and they want new fans not just the old ones, but why is it so hard for everyone to believe that it is about communication not money. From the very beginning their goal has been to reach and touch as many people as possible. So there is nothing new about this.
Dana
jimmmm
Refugee
If they're against it, why are they recording new tracks to be included on it?
