After new album,will U2 have enough for Best of 2000-10

[LastEdgeOnEarth]

3 albums to play with...not much else. Think they would use "What's Going On?"

Here's how my tentative Best Of shapes up....

1. Elevation
2. Vertigo
3. SYCMIOYO
4. 2008
5. A new song(perhaps one they finished from the Rick Rubin sessions)
6. 2008
7. COBL
8. Kite
9. 2008
10. 2008
11. OOTS
12. ABOY
13. 2008
14. Walk On

 

[BVS]

They are no longer any contract to do 'best of', so I doubt they are thinking about that now...

 

[Hoodlem]

The simple answer is NO, they don't have enough. If they even do continue with the decade best of's, they will have to do "2000-2015" or something. Anything they would try to throw together from just those 10 years (and not including BD or SIAMYCGOO) would be a bit silly.

Of course, there is always the hope that they could squeek out another album shortly after the new one like they always threaten to do. Maybe they will finally come through on those threats and they would have 4 albums to pull material from.

IMO they screwed themselves by putting the ATYCLB songs on a 90's compilation. They obviously didn't belong there and important songs were left out to make room for them. Seriously, no "The Fly"...no "Lemon"...no "Please"???!!! Those songs WERE U2 in the 90's!!!!! I'm still a little upset about that, but that is a debate for another thread. Or maybe it's for this thread?

 

[Aardvark747]

Anymore Best Of packages would be an appauling move.

 

[LastEdgeOnEarth]

I love them, and I think my list is quite simply the TRUTH!

 

[topplehatU2]

I thought U218 got them out of that whole "Best Of" contract thing.

 

[BVS]

It did...

 

[Roland of Gilead]

With all of these remasters hitting soon, I wouldn't think so. In 2010, they'll be getting their Achtung Baby! boxset cd/dvd edition ready for a 20th anniversary in 2011. That is how I see it.

 

[Zoots]

IMO they screwed themselves by putting the ATYCLB songs on a 90's compilation. They obviously didn't belong there and important songs were left out to make room for them. Seriously, no "The Fly"...no "Lemon"...no "Please"???!!! Those songs WERE U2 in the 90's!!!!! I'm still a little upset about that, but that is a debate for another thread. Or maybe it's for this thread?

Yeah that is such a baffling move by them. ATYCLB had a completely different sound and had no business being featured in a 90s Best Of. I think they somehow felt that the collection will sell more if it featured 2 recent songs. Oh well.

 

[U2girl]

BD and Stuck are from an album released in 2000, they just went by chronological logic.
I would prefer using GBHF and Stateless instead.

I don't think we're getting a Best of for a long while now.

 

[Zoots]

BD and Stuck are from an album released in 2000, they just went by chronological logic.

Understood but IMO, 80s = 1980-89. 90s = 1990-99

 

[lazarus]

BD and Stuck are from an album released in 2000, they just went by chronological logic.
I would prefer using GBHF and Stateless instead.

I like that idea, though you could have included only the M$H songs and still called a potential third set 2000-2010 and included BD and Stuck, as the first and second compliations both included the year 1990.

It's clear that putting the ATYCLB songs on there was part of the continuation of disowning Pop, and to generate sales. I mean, it wouldn't have made more money with The Fly and Lemon on there, even it they were more representative of the collected period.

 

[Zoots]

It's clear that putting the ATYCLB songs on there was part of the continuation of disowning Pop, and to generate sales. I mean, it wouldn't have made more money with The Fly and Lemon on there, even it they were more representative of the collected period.

Exactly! I think so too.

It's a shame. Because what is more important? A good well representative compilation or maximum profits??? U2 seems to be only concerned with the business side these days with little or no concern to the artistic side. Everything is made for maximum return, be it U2:18 or the perfectly timed Fall album releases. Sure, it's a business... they are there to make money I understand that but not at the cost of excluding 2 essential songs on a Best Of or including 2 that don't belong there!

 

[tomtom]

Not to defend the band (I abhorred the compilation), but lets face it, if they had Lemon, Fly, and Please instead of the ATYCLB songs, that album wouldn't have sold half as well. And what other reason is there to release compilations?

 

[lazarus]

Maybe to give people a primer and representation of that band's work for that decade, if you want to find a non-money-grubbing excuse for it. Like it or not, a 1990-2000 compilation implies a collection of the 90's, and that is NOT what BD and Stuck illustrate.

It's disingenuous.

 

[Zoots]

lets face it, if they had Lemon, Fly, and Please instead of the ATYCLB songs, that album wouldn't have sold half as well.

So that is the objective then?! To sell as much as possible. What happened to the objective of accurately capturing an era?

And what other reason is there to release compilations?

How about making a compilation that is accurately representative of an era or decade? One cannot have any 90s songs in a 00s compilation either for the same reason!

 

[last unicorn]

Since the compilation was called The Best of 1990-2000 I guess it's fair to put Beautiful Day and Stuck on it. I'm not a fan of Best of compilations, but I can see why they were doing those and the U218 singles thing. But I don't think they'll have enough for a new Best Of by 2010. And with U218 and all the remastered stuff I doubt there will be one.

 

[U2DMfan]

There is no doubt they fouled up the 2nd Best Of track selection. In every way.
They didn't represent their creative output and they didnt even sell as many as they should have. Just putting 3 songs from Zooropa makes that thing worth buying for a ton of people who wouldn't otherwise be interested in buying Zooropa. Same effect with POP, essentially.

That said, I don't begrudge big bands like U2 for putting out compilations.
There could be an argument that not releasing them actually generates more dollars becase it essentially forces people to buy entire albums (or entire back catalogs) to go and get songs X, Y and Z (or whatever). Perhaps it's a weaker argument but it's there to be made. Led Zeppelin didn't do it until years and years and years after they had split up and I'm not sure one can argue that the lack of a compilation hurt their pocketbooks. So the opposite effect (compilations for monetary gain only), might not exactly be true.

Just saying, if you want a taste of a back catalog from some artist that has released (whatever number) of albums, what better way of getting a good slice in one purchase?

That's assuming you still purchase albums from a retail store as dinosaurs like me still do.
If you're going to hijack a back catalog on a torrent and then proceed to bitch about compilations, then I don't understand the consistency in that at all.

 

[vaz02]

I know it was in their clause for u2:18 singles, but i literally had a shit ( not in a good way ) when i heard they were to release it, i thought it was a joke.

If they were to release a 2010 hopefully they would include material from the new album + additional single releases.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

since the second best of argument has come up, i might as well say my piece

i can honestly see both sides of it. however, it's my personal opinion that when i see 90-00, i think "1990 TO 2000" as in like...not including it. if it were to include it, it'd be through. the dash, to me, implies to, meaning up to, not including. but again, that's just my opinion. and of course, there's the whole continuity issue. no matter what your opinion of the albums is, their 90s output sounds nothing like atyclb. it just makes it sound a bit odd.

however, when the new album comes out, i could sit here saying atyclb's material sounds out of place on a best of with that! so we'll see.

 

[rihannsu]

Well, I think the band would disagree about The Fly. Or at least Edge would. He said around the release of the Best of that he did not include The Fly because he felt the song did not hold up well. Yes, I know us die hard fans like it but he didn't feel it had the goods to be included.

Dana

 

[lazarus]

Artists can never be trusted on opinions of their own work.

 

[LemonMelon]

U2 seems to be only concerned with the business side these days with little or no concern to the artistic side.

Is this referring to albums or best ofs? If the former, this remark is foolish. If the latter, you have a point, but most compilations are cash-grabs.

 

[U2girl]

I liked the choices they had on the 90's Best of, I only missed Please (single version preferrably). 4 songs off AB, 3 off Zooropa, 3 off Pop, 2 Passengers, and that superb single from the Batman movie. The B-sides disc was bad, all those remixes.

Maybe BD did help sales, but I think it makes sense if you call it Best of 1990-2000 to have something from 2000.

 

[U2girl]

Artists can never be trusted on opinions of their own work.

Fans have their own preferences when it comes to their favourite band, as can official music critics. Is the test of time the ultimate measure, then ?

 

[U2girl]

I know it was in their clause for u2:18 singles, but i literally had a shit ( not in a good way ) when i heard they were to release it, i thought it was a joke.

If they were to release a 2010 hopefully they would include material from the new album + additional single releases.

I think U2 18 (truly a mess of a compilation, especially since it boasted to be the "ultimate U2 Best of disc" yet it missed representing 4 U2 albums) pretty much closed the possibility on any 2000-2010 Best of.

 

[Zoots]

Is this referring to albums or best ofs? If the former, this remark is foolish. If the latter, you have a point, but most compilations are cash-grabs.

I was mainly referring to Best Ofs. But even with albums they are so stubborn about a Fall/Christmas release date. Granted, it brings them more money cos of higher sales from not just die-hards but new fans but geez, does everything have to be driven by money? Don't they have enough of our money already? Take a chance, grow some balls and put something out with no hype in the middle of say, March! It would be like a nice surprise to your loyal long term fans who you don't seem to care much about!

 

[U2girl]

It's not like the Fall album releases started in 2000.

 

[Zoots]

But wasn't Pop released in March?

 

[U2girl]

Yes, one of the 3 albums not released in autumn (actually they tried for autumn 1996 but ran out of time).