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

[corianderstem]

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.

Ha ha haaaa! Excellent use of sarcasm.

I think I have to be done with this thread now. I know how I feel about it, I continue to be bemused at some of the drastic statements, and if it turns out we can't download only the new tracks on iTunes, I'll express my disappointment then.

But really, I'm just trying to tell myself more often that what matters most to me is how their music makes me feel. I get sucked into internet rowdiness too often ... I'm getting too old for this!

 

[Michael Griffiths]

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

The Beatles were only around for about eight years, weren't they? Conversely, U2 have been around for more than 27 years...so it's sort of hard to compare timelines.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

I'm following the twisted logic of a whiner.

Haha! You know, I am really not surprised I fell for it. It would have fit right into this thread! Scary!

 

[U2FanPeter]

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

Possibly the entire u2 catalogue could crack 200m this time next year.

I see this release in a positve and negative light. Negative in that I have to spend $10-12 for 2 new songs in a new package(I hope it has some kind of added twist for hardcore fans)

Positive in that the album is designed as a stocking stuffer, which is a good idea. It is also designed for some fans that might otherwise downoad a couple fav songs rather than paying $30-40 for a couple "best of" compilations.

What's missing in this thread are a couple facts:
-When mcguiness first got U2 signed to a label he put in a clause that they couldn't make a hits disc without his permission.
-In 1998 U2 signed a 3 "hits" disc deal with their record company for $50 mil
-This new compilation likely finishes off that contract and also leaves them open to collect on the predicted "2000-2010" disc.
-There is likely a stipulation in the 1998 deal that says the each release has to contain new material that is worthy of being a single.

In the big picture I think this is a smart business on their part. I just hope for something more interesting for the hardcore fans - even if it's all the songs in remastered quality(with HTDAAB tracks heard with proper compression)

u2fp

 

[nightninja56]

i...just want a brand new album, a new song is great, very HMTMKMKMish, but i want a completely new album!!

 

[mikal]

i can't wait for the complaining that Acrobat isn't included in the top 16.

 

[bono_man]

Silly silly move. Totally uncalled for. I never thought I would see the day that there was a U2 release that I wouldnt buy, or at least think twice about it. This is gonna have to have something very special for me to get this one!

 

[LemonMelon]

*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*

I'd just like to take this moment to say how much I despise the iPod.

A) You have a computer, which is why you're talking to me right now.

B) Burn it to a disc.

C) There is no principle. U2 are businessmen who aren't on some indie label and can do whatever they want. We don't have to like it, so, considering complaining won't fix anything, just enjoy what you have.

Is that so hard?

 

[Danny Boy]

i can't wait for the complaining that Acrobat isn't included in the top 16.

I will be disappointed if it's not 15 mixes of Acrobat, Mercy, and the two new tracks.

 

[dabiggestu2fan]

I Believe bitches!

 

[david]

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

Well, there was the Beatles 62-66 released in 1973, and Beatles 67-70 too.

Then in 1977 Capitol released a Beatles "Love Songs" album that was just a re-release of supposed love songs.


Then Past Masters volumes 1 and 2 was released in 1988.

Then yeah, in 2000 saw the release of "1"

 

[Danny Boy]

Then in 1977 Capitol released a Beatles "Love Songs" album that was just a re-release of supposed love songs.

U2 - Love Songs. Now I would definitely buy that.

 

[Danny Boy]

Then Past Masters volumes 1 and 2 was released in 1988.

Past Masters is a collection of songs that weren't on the British album releases, not a Best Of.

If U2 were to release two CDs of non-album tracks, I'd be all over that.

 

[phillyfan26]

U2: Best of the Joshua Tree

Where the Streets Have No Name
I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
With or Without You
Bullet the Blue Sky
Running to Stand Still
Red Hill Mining Town
In God's Country
One Tree Hill
Exit
Mothers of the Disappeared

 

[LemonMelon]

U2: Best of the Joshua Tree

Where the Streets Have No Name
I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
With or Without You
Bullet the Blue Sky
Running to Stand Still
Red Hill Mining Town
In God's Country
One Tree Hill
Exit
Mothers of the Disappeared

Best of Zoo TV: Live In Sydney (audio only)?

 

[dabiggestu2fan]

I cant say that I am thrilled about the idea of another best of right now because (yes we get 1 song) but this may mean an album is still very far away probably 2 years I'de say. And I think although smart busines wise, I think its a very dumb idea. An EP with say five new songs would be much nicer.

Either way I am praying to God that they put "I believe" as the other new song. The beach clips from this song are awsome. and sounds so much like hold me....... It would be the perfect song. If not that one I wouldn't mind them putting "can't you see" as well in there. I hope we get the song list soon!

Either way, there is atleast some new U2 song to look forward to!

Nico

"I believe" bitches!

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

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.

 

[Axver]

U2: Best of the Joshua Tree

Where the Streets Have No Name
I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
With or Without You
Bullet the Blue Sky
Running to Stand Still
Red Hill Mining Town
In God's Country
One Tree Hill
Exit
Mothers of the Disappeared

U2: Best Of Pop

[Tracklisting intentionally left blank]

 

[LemonMelon]

U2: Best Of Pop

[Tracklisting intentionally left blank]

You really make me sad, Axver.

First you claim UF as U2's best work and worthy x1,000,000, and then take a shot at Pop like that.

 

[martha]

Bono: Oh no! A few dozen fans on a fansite think we're sellouts and we've made the worst decision of our careers! Maybe we should reconsider this new record and go back and remake every other old album those fans want, and retour every old tour they wish they'd been old enough to see!

Edge: You're right! We don't know what we're doing musically or business-wise! Those few fans know so much more about music and marketing than we'll ever ever know!

Adam: (smokes quietly in the corner)

Larry: Fuck 'em!

Paul: Boys! I quit! I've led you astray for those past 30 years. We'll make every decision now based on fansite polls!



Get a grip people!

 

[Swan269]

Bono: Oh no! A few dozen fans on a fansite think we're sellouts and we've made the worst decision of our careers! Maybe we should reconsider this new record and go back and remake every other old album those fans want, and retour every old tour they wish they'd been old enough to see!

Edge: You're right! We don't know what we're doing musically or business-wise! Those few fans know so much more about music and marketing than we'll ever ever know!

Adam: (smokes quietly in the corner)

Larry: Fuck 'em!

Paul: Boys! I quit! I've led you astray for those past 30 years. We'll make every decision now based on fansite polls!



Get a grip people!

you forgot that they are going back to Joshua Tree Park to rerecord "POP"

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

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.

MrBrau1...you are my God!!!



You have wisdom and insight beyond yer years!!!

 

[LemonMelon]

Bono: Oh no! A few dozen fans on a fansite think we're sellouts and we've made the worst decision of our careers! Maybe we should reconsider this new record and go back and remake every other old album those fans want, and retour every old tour they wish they'd been old enough to see!

Edge: You're right! We don't know what we're doing musically or business-wise! Those few fans know so much more about music and marketing than we'll ever ever know!

Adam: (smokes quietly in the corner)

Larry: Fuck 'em!

Paul: Boys! I quit! I've led you astray for those past 30 years. We'll make every decision now based on fansite polls!



Get a grip people!

If I told U2 to jump off a bridge, would they do it?

If only Coldplay was that loyal to their fanbase...

 

[phanan]

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.

Priceless.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

This is a thread of the young and idealistic v.s. the adult and realistic.

U2 have been both

In 1990 they never would have released a 'Best Of' album. Seemed too soon and might have signaled a 'death knell' to their career. At 40+ they've seen it and done it all. Another 'Best Of' doesn't affect anything they've done in the past nor will it affect their future. It's a stop-gap, a Christmas stocking stuffer, a re-compilation of their biggest hits, a decision made by someone up high with a lot of influence.

The notion that U2 can really do a lot to stop this is both somewhat true and yet so farfetched you'd be amazed. If there is one thing that U2 have learned in 30 years it's how the music business works...it ain't pretty folks. It's very cutthroat and even though U2 is the name above names in the music industry they aren't immune to cash grabs by their label.

I'm just amazed that anyone, who knows anything about this band really thinks they are doing it for their own bank accounts. I mean really...

 

[angelordevil]

This might seem nasty, but I had an evil thought today when I heard about the great new CD

With the big book, the big Zoo redo, and now this, I'm thinking U2 (and especially management) are maybe scared of what's around the corner. Are they so afraid of losing popularity as they inch ever closer to 5-0, that they have to completely max it out now?

I love the music...it's in my blood, my pancreas, even my toenails. But, in a moment like this, the U2 Fall Bonanza, it all seems a bit bleh, and driven by a marketing monster or a boardroom decision, rather than the love of music.

Maybe I'm naive

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

This might seem nasty, but I had an evil thought today when I heard about the great new CD

With the big book, the big Zoo redo, and now this, I'm thinking U2 (and especially management) are maybe scared of what's around the corner. Are they so afraid of losing popularity as they inch ever closer to 5-0, that they have to completely max it out now?

I love the music...it's in my blood, my pancreas, even my toenails. But, in a moment like this, the U2 Fall Bonanza, it all seems a bit bleh, and driven by a marketing monster or a boardroom decision, rather than the love of music.

Maybe I'm naive

Naive only if you believe it's driven by and for U2 and U2 alone.

 

[Zoocoustic]

The recent release of ZooTV Sydney and now this news shows just how much U2 have changed in the past decade.

Call it a sign of maturity, selling out, or whatever, to me, they just aren't the same. I know that's supposed to be the beauty of U2 - always changing, always reinventing themselves, etc.

But since ATYCLB it just seems that the band has left the bold and daring at the door and focused only on those things that are sure to bring success and popularity. And hey, it has worked, so if that was their goal, they certainly achieved it.

Me, I'll still pop in anything from 1993 and earlier to see the U2 I fell in love with and still admire. Yeah, I still like what they've done since then, but it pales in comparison.

 

[Axver]

You really make me sad, Axver.

First you claim UF as U2's best work and worthy x1,000,000, and then take a shot at Pop like that.

Oh, no, that's not my opinion of Pop. We all just know how U2's disowned that album. Here's U2: Best Of October:

1. 77 minutes of silence
Hidden track: October

This is a thread of the young and idealistic v.s. the adult and realistic.

Really? Now, I naturally can't be 100% sure of this, but going by the implication of some posts, I think some of the people on this thread objecting to this Best Of would take being called 'young' as a compliment.

(Such as An Cat Gav, who, if I'm not mistaken, has mentioned being a U2 fan for 20+ years.)

It's a stop-gap, a Christmas stocking stuffer, a re-compilation of their biggest hits, a decision made by someone up high with a lot of influence.

And there is part of the problem. U2 means - meant? - something. Sunday Bloody Sunday, Gloria, The Unforgettable Fire, Like A Song, Mothers Of The Disappeared. This isn't just a band in it for laughs, riches, and girls. This isn't a "stocking stuffer" band.

Get a grip people!

Yeah, why actually participate in the discussion when you can just paint every opinion you dislike with the same brush and uncritically dismiss it all?

 

[Axver]

Though, to look on the bright side, at least we'll never have to guess a U2 setlist ever again!

Future tours:
1-16: Songs on the upcoming Best Of
17-22, 23, or maybe even 24: New songs

Disclaimer for the humourless: this post contains sarcasm.