MERGED--> new album 20th november! +New Best Of on November 20th

[LemonMelon]

i agree in theory, but it's not that simple.

i want the new song.

if, god forbid, it's an "Album Only" download then i am going to be quite pissed that i have to fork over all that cash for a single song. so, if this does come to pass, some of us are going to have to buy the album just so we can get the new song.

and i think that's shitty.

it was like when i watched the final episode of "Six Feet Under" and, after the tears and existential crisis, i ran over to the computer so that i could download the song "Breath Me" -- and guess what?

Album Only track.

*cough* Download it *cough*

 

[MrBrau1]

*cough* Download it *cough*

Yeah. I have no problem stealing a song or 2 from u2.

 

[Lancemc]

Knowing U2 though I bet the new song will be released as a single like Electrical Storm was. And looking at the Best Of albums on the iTunes music store, you can download electrical storm, and all the songs even, without having to pay for the whole album. I'd predict no worries for those who just want to buy the song.

 

[Axver]

Firstly, to Headache: I don't really feel like picking a fight, so I'm just going to drop our conversation as it seems to be heading in a bad direction.

Of course there is a reason! A point hardly anyone is mentioning - it's their 30th anniversary! What better way to document their past 30 years than a career retrospective greatest hits album? I would have preferred a double album compilation, sure, but that's a side issue really.

See, I think this could have made sense. It will be interesting to see if later marketing ties it all in together. But because of the two prior Best Ofs, I don't think the 30th anniversary should be celebrated with a repetitious release. Why not some "30 years of being the live best"? We always hear that "live is where we live", and celebrating the band's career by highlighting them at their best would be a great idea - SBS and 11OTT from the War Tour, Bad and WOWY from the JT Tour, Streets and God Part II from Lovetown, UTEOTW and Dirty Day from ZooTV! Not only would us diehards love it, but it's the kind of stuff that might just knock the socks off casual fans too.

Well, if you look at it the other way, what if they put a couple of new songs on there so that it wasn't just a mediocre mishmash of the last two Greatest Hits CDs? Would you rather have had a CD with 16 songs from previous CDs and no new material at all?

See, I don't really buy that perspective. I think adding the material makes it even more mundane because it's saying to the most loyal fans "ha ha we want you to spend money on songs you already have to get a couple you don't!" (like the iTunes Unreleased and Rare fiasco ...)

I would respect that intention more if it were "we acknowledge our long-term fans have no need for this compilation, so we're going to release a separate disc [EP, digital single, whatever] with the new material", or, hell, even just give us a second disc of unreleased material. I'd be more likely to buy this and be less opposed to it if it came with a bonus CD full of demos and whatnot (the iTunes stuff, pre-Boy demos, Wild Irish Rose, She's A Mystery To Me, etc.).

So yes, I would rather 16 previously released songs with nothing new. Then there's no material I want and I don't feel like the band or some executive is trying to suck money out of the dedicated fans.

 

[Bug]

A single would have been a much better idea.
Maybe if the Best Of was a box set or even a two disk that wouldnt be the case, but it is.

 

[LemonMelon]

Yeah. I have no problem stealing a song or 2 from u2.

Well, technically just one. Saints will be availble via iTunes, so...

 

[Axver]

Knowing U2 though I bet the new song will be released as a single like Electrical Storm was.

I hope so, but I'm honestly not so confident they will, because The Saints Is Coming is already being released as a single around the time period that would be the optimum time for a single promoting the Best Of.

 

[MrBrau1]

Having a real hard time understanding why people are getting their panties in a bunch over this. It's already happened. Twice. For Christ's sake.

 

[Axver]

Having a real hard time understanding why people are getting their panties in a bunch over this. It's already happened. Twice. For Christ's sake.

Well, I'm certainly not "getting my panties in a bunch". I just think this is a flawed decision. At the end of the day, I'll ignore the compilation unless its profits go to charity, and I'll download the new song. But I think this release is not a good idea commercially and would have been much better in a different format.

I've also explained why I think the previous Best Ofs can be justified and this one can't (unless, by some miracle, its tracklisting does not repeat the two prior compilations).

 

[Michael Griffiths]

I actually addressed this in one of my first posts on the thread. I'm sure some marketing executive decided that it was a problem that sales were being split between two Best Ofs, so here's one comprehensive one to cover them all! Except I'm sure it will backfire and just divide sales between three rather than two Best Ofs and reduce the relative success of all three. (Almost a verbatim repeat of what I said last night. I feel many of my points have been ignored and just painted with the "ridiculous" brush.)

Think about it from the casual fan's perspective, though. If I didn't know much about U2, but I wanted to get to know them better, I know that I would rather buy a compilation album featuring the best songs of a band's entire career than buying one of two albums - or having to decide between the two and feeling I'm missing out, or having to buy both albums just to make sure I'm not missing out. Now the casual fan can buy all the biggest hits on one album if he or she chooses. That's the paradigm U2 is working with here.

And I'm sure Universal's marketing executives have had people do all kinds of studies on whether this sort of release would work in a business sense or not. I would venture to say they have a much better idea than you or I would. My guess is that U2 will make millions out of this release. This will probably hurt the sales of the other two best ofs, sure, but sales have teetered off on those by now anyway. This new Best Of is going to be the album all the casual fans will be buying from now on when you consider it from their perspective.

 

[LemonMelon]

Having a real hard time understanding why people are getting their panties in a bunch over this. It's already happened. Twice. For Christ's sake.

Oh yeah, but this one wasn't because of a contractual issue...they just felt like screwing with us.

 

[J_NP]

Am I the only wondering that they are doin this to get rid of the old contract ?

 

[sue4u2]

OH MY GOD, they have so fucked it all up.
PM & U2 - They know nothing..

What will they do now..


Everyone has told you what to do. So why aren't you the biggest/best band in the world?


Oh wait you are..

 

[Axver]

Think about it from the casual fan's perspective, though. If I didn't know much about U2, but I wanted to get to know them better, I know that I would rather buy a compilation album featuring the best songs of a band's entire career than buying one of two albums - or having to decide between the two and feeling I'm missing out, or having to buy both albums just to make sure I'm not missing out. Now the casual fan can buy all the biggest hits on one album if he or she chooses. That's the paradigm U2 is working with here.

You make a good case - I just don't agree. See, I think it makes the decision harder for the casual fan and now they will feel like they have to buy all three rather than just two. Now, of course, we don't know this third Best Of's tracklisting, but if it's anything like what I suggested earlier in this thread, I can imagine a casual fan at the music shop:

"Hmm ... this 'definitive' Best Of has a lot of great songs ... but the Best Of 1980-1990 has that amazing Angel Of Harlem song that I love, and I do enjoy all the eighties songs on the classic rock station, so maybe this would be the best choice ... oh, wait, here's the Best Of 1990-2000, it's got Stuck In A Moment and EBTTRT and the 'definitive' one doesn't, I love hearing those too, so maybe it will be a better option ..."

So like I said, I think this just divides sales even more than having two already did.

And I'm sure Universal's marketing executives have had people do all kinds of studies on whether this sort of release would work in a business sense or not. I would venture to say they have a much better idea than you or I would.

You would think so, wouldn't you? I'm not so sure though. If you go to the Peeling Off The Dollar Bills sales forum, it was amazing to read the complete confusion many of the regulars there had with U2's marketing team; there was a general consensus that after Vertigo, the marketing people totally dropped the ball with promoting HTDAAB. I have no confidence in U2's/Universal's marketing people. The best band on the planet deserves a better team.

I agree this compilation will make millions straight out of the gates though, just because it's U2. What will happen down the track is harder to tell, though. I think my split sales scenario is probable unless the two prior Best Ofs are taken off the market.

 

[cobl04]

Why would they even do this??? Release a best of just to put the GD collaboatrion on it?

 

[Aygo]

I only think that if a new compilation is coming out, it should include ONLY the 2000's hits - not counting with BD, ES and SIAMYCGOO, this decade has already produced other 6 hits - and the hits or popular/important songs that were excludes from the past Best Of's...

Something like:

The saints are coming
MoFo (new version) *
11 o'clock tick tock
Gloria
The fly
All because of you (single v.)
* New track *
Sometimes you can't make it on your own
Who's gonna ride your wild horses (Temple bar mix)
Last night on Earth
City of blindng lights
Bullet the blue sky
Vertigo
Elevation
Lemon (edit)
If God will send His angels (single v.)
Walk on
Please (single v.)

*a studio version that tries to bring the feeling of the live version

 

[Michael Griffiths]

You make a good case - I just don't agree. See, I think it makes the decision harder for the casual fan and now they will feel like they have to buy all three rather than just two. Now, of course, we don't know this third Best Of's tracklisting, but if it's anything like what I suggested earlier in this thread, I can imagine a casual fan at the music shop:

"Hmm ... this 'definitive' Best Of has a lot of great songs ... but the Best Of 1980-1990 has that amazing Angel Of Harlem song that I love, and I do enjoy all the eighties songs on the classic rock station, so maybe this would be the best choice ... oh, wait, here's the Best Of 1990-2000, it's got Stuck In A Moment and EBTTRT and the 'definitive' one doesn't, I love hearing those too, so maybe it will be a better option ..."

So like I said, I think this just divides sales even more than having two already did.



You would think so, wouldn't you? I'm not so sure though. If you go to the Peeling Off The Dollar Bills sales forum, it was amazing to read the complete confusion many of the regulars there had with U2's marketing team; there was a general consensus that after Vertigo, the marketing people totally dropped the ball with promoting HTDAAB. I have no confidence in U2's/Universal's marketing people. The best band on the planet deserves a better team.

I agree this compilation will make millions straight out of the gates though, just because it's U2. What will happen down the track is harder to tell, though. I think my split sales scenario is probable unless the two prior Best Ofs are taken off the market.

I think what may happen - and I'm speaking from experience, as I've done this with other artists' best of albums - is once the casual fan sinks his or her teeth into any one of the best of albums, they will return and finally end up buying all of them (if they enjoyed the first one of course). In this regard, this will only help sales with the other two best of albums. Now a fan will be more likely to buy the album with all the eras, which will propel them to come back to get the songs they missed.

So you're right: the decision may be harder, but they will still be more likely to buy the album with all eras included to begin with.

 

[david]

I just hope they don't tweak and alter their older songs.

Like when they shortened Streets intro, changed a line in Mysterious Ways..

Uhm completely redid the POP songs because they had issues with those recordings anyway.

But yeah.

The least they could do was remaster the older recordings.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

I didn't mind them giving us the other version of 'Mysterious Ways' since I had never heard it before. It was a minor difference, but it wasn't like they re-recorded it. It had already been recorded. I like it when U2 digs into the vaults and shows us something old that we haven't heard before. I already had the old version of 'Mysterious Ways' anyway.

And as much as I prefer the original version of 'Gone', I also appreciated them digging into the vaults and find the new drum groove which they added to the remake. If only the old version had that same drum groove.

 

[Swan269]

I think if they truely wanted a CD that kind of mirrored what U2 by U2 is about, they would release their favorite songs not their greatest hits ( i know from a marketing perspective this would be shite but cool anyway.) You would get a really diverse collection from Acrobat to Bad to Stay to Zooropa and you would get to know songs they adore from their extensive catalog.

 

[corianderstem]

I agree with Axver's point about making it a harder choice for a casual fan looking for a "best of," but then again, they're never going to be able to please everyone. Many people will likely end up having a real favorite that's not available on one hits CD or the other.

 

[Irvine511]

*cough* Download it *cough*

*cough* it's the principle of the thing *cough*
*cough* not everyone has a computer and an iPod and might have to buy the whole cd if there is no single *cough*

 

[Dorian Gray]

I only think that if a new compilation is coming out, it should include ONLY the 2000's hits - not counting with BD, ES and SIAMYCGOO, this decade has already produced other 6 hits - and the hits or popular/important songs that were excludes from the past Best Of's...

I see what you are saying, but this, or any sort of "best of the rest" isn't going to happen. U2.com already stated it's going to include 16 of their "best known songs." I guess this means we can expect a combo of the last two best ofs...

my guess as to their 16 "best known":

SBS
New Years Day
Pride
Streets
WOWY
Still Haven't Found
Desire
Mysterious Ways
EBTTRT
One
Sweetest Thing
Discotheque
Beautiful Day
Elevation
Walk On
Vertigo

 

[JCOSTER]

1 The Fly
2 Love Is Blindness
3 Zoo Station
4 Lemon
5 Stay (Faraway, So Close!)
6 Some Days Are Better Than Others
7 The First Time
8 The Ground Beneath Her Feet
9 Kite
10 Elevation
11 Staring At The Sun
12 Gone
13 The Saint are Coming
14 Discotheque
15 Do You Feel Loved
16 Mercy or a new song from the most recent beach clips

 

[Clawgrabber]

Let's not forget that the BEATLES 1 album was a HUGE success.

 

[MrBrau1]

Let's not forget that the BEATLES 1 album was a HUGE success.

Yes, but it destroyed their legacy.

Does anyone actually think of The Beatles as great artistic songwriters anymore?

No.

Any merit in their old melodies and tunes was DESTROYED that fateful day in 2000.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Let's not forget that the BEATLES 1 album was a HUGE success.

Yes, exactly, and that was only their #1 hits. Their other two Best Ofs, the Blue and Red albums, continue to sell, too. That's quite a parallel, actually.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Yes, but it destroyed their legacy.

Does anyone actually think of The Beatles as great artistic songwriters anymore?

No.

Any merit in their old melodies and tunes was DESTROYED that fateful day in 2000.

It destroyed their legacy?

 

[Danny Boy]

Let's not forget that the BEATLES 1 album was a HUGE success.

Yes, but there was also a 27 year gap between the release of "The Beatles 1967-1970" and "1."

 

[MrBrau1]

It destroyed their legacy?

I'm following the twisted logic of a whiner.