Contract's End

[Reggie Thee Dog]

There are about 3 or 4 of you.

No, there are about 10 - 20 who don't want this album, the rest could either careless or are eagerly awaiting it.

It's all good in the end.

 

[Chizip]

Hopefully some people can be a little less harsh now. All of these "super fans" who think they know everything about the band, but apparently haven't seen this info that so many others have.

As for U2 somehow magically being able to alter their contract "if they really didn't want to release this Best Of"...... Yeah, a contract's a contract. Suddenly this band who sucks ass because they're releasing a Best Of..we now love so much to believe that they have the power to just alter contracts because they feel like it and because we think they can. Are we forgetting that in just about every piece of literature about the band, someone comments on how U2 are such an extraordinarily loyal band, so loyal to all the people that got them where they are? Island's among those people. I doubt U2 would diss Island and break a contract like that.

I can't believe people have so little faith in these guys.

um you do know they ripped up their previous contract in order to negotiate their current one?

if they wanted to do something similiar again, im guessing it wouldnt be too hard

 

[thrillme]

Am I the only person even slightly looking forward to this Best Of album?

I'm hoping for a live compilation myself.

Best of 1980-2006 Live!

Though that would have to be a double disk.

///////////

That's true. And you're certainly right -- there have been things like Wide Awake in America, but it just comes up every now and then that there is not one full concert, from start to finish, available as an album.

Well, you know what? They record everything. They film everything. Their archive is impeccable. I know it. I've seen it -- impeccable. It'll happen! It's just that I think they've got other things on their agenda, y'know

I wanna see it!

 

[DreamOutLoud13]

Are they contemplating creating their own megalithic production/distribution force based out of the imposing and sorta evil-looking U2 Tower?

I've just had a great mental image of U2 as a bunch of evil insane masterminds, up in their tower, striking fear into the hearts of Dubliners. Only Batman can save the music undustry from them now!

 

[Utoo]

um you do know they ripped up their previous contract in order to negotiate their current one?

if they wanted to do something similiar again, im guessing it wouldnt be too hard

Forget it. There's one friggin' Best Of album left in the contract. To screw around with that deal with Island, who was there from the start---when you created the contract as a show of thanks to Island, and when there's only one little compilation album left in it----that's a dick move. U2 are doing the right thing and putting out the album. Instead of fucking with the whole thing, they're putting out one measly little compilation album. Big deal.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Forget it. There's one friggin' Best Of album left in the contract. To screw around with that deal with Island, who was there from the start---when you created the contract as a show of thanks to Island, and when there's only one little compilation album left in it----that's a dick move. U2 are doing the right thing and putting out the album. Instead of fucking with the whole thing, they're putting out one measly little compilation album. Big deal.

Agreed. I remember reading somewhere that the Best Of deal was basically a thank-you to Island Records for being there for U2 since the beginning. This goes to show U2 are loyal to those who have supported them. But screw loyalty! It's far easier to label U2 sellouts.

 

[TheBrazilianFly]

i guarantee you if u2 didnt want to be releasing a best of right now, then they wouldnt be

i dont buy the record label is forcing them to do it argument, u2 has all the power in the relationship

I agree. The label wouldn't want to piss off the biggest band in the world, I mean their contract is going to end at some point and I think they would want U2 to stay with them and renew the contract. U2 is one of those rare few bands that probably have more control over their work and future decisions than the label. They do whatever they want.

 

[afuse]

I remember reading somewhere that the Best Of deal was basically a thank-you to Island Records for being there for U2 since the beginning. This goes to show U2 are loyal to those who have supported them.

That's a good point. I hadn't thought about that as a motivation.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

I agree. The label wouldn't want to piss off the biggest band in the world, I mean their contract is going to end at some point and I think they would want U2 to stay with them and renew the contract. U2 is one of those rare few bands that probably have more control over their work and future decisions than the label. They do whatever they want.

Not true: U2 is no longer with Island Records. The Best Of deal was a thank you to Island Records for all the good years. U2 are now with Interscope. If memory serves me correct, U2 also got ALL their publishing rights from Island in exchange for the Best Of deal. Quite the opposite of selling out, if you look at it in context. What other band has full control of their songs (minus a few Best Of collections) like U2 does? I think it's a pretty amazing trade off - one that most bands with any sense of artistic integrity would practically die for.

 

[U2girl]

Isn't U2 still with Island ROW, and only with Interscope in US? (I'm guessing this has to do with the extra promotion and the increasing number of U2 releases since 2000)

(didn't U2 get publishing rights in that 84 contract...or were that the royalties? Or did I remember it wrong?)

 

[Michael Griffiths]

All I know is that they now own EVERYTHING - publishing rights, songs, everything. Island Records no longer own it. In exchange, they got the Best Of deal - and Island is free to excercise those releases at any time. It's not U2's call. And nor it should be, considering how well Island treated them throughout their career.

 

[U2girl]

I'm asking because when I bought ATYCLB and Bomb, the side of the album cover still says "Island" and not "Interscope".

I know the band had a say in the tracklist on the Best ofs, it might be the deal said "release three Best of's in 4 years' time span" - so Best of no. 1 in 1998, Best of no. 2 in 2002 and last Best of in 2006.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Yes that's right, Island Records still releases the albums in the UK (and in Canada, too, and probably other countries in Europe as well), while in the US it is Interscope - both are divisions of Universal Music Group, if I remember. But Island no longer owns the rights to U2 songs, and it doesn't distribute in the US. They do have the rights to the 3 Best Ofs, as part of the deal. But U2's current contract is with Universal, the parent company. I don't think it's technically Interscope. Someone correct me on this if I have it wrong.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

From: http://www.u2wanderer.org/disco/alb017.html

"Under the terms of the contract for the Best Of albums, which is separate from U2's album contract, these compilations have to be released under the Island label worldwide. This is the case even in the US, where the band is signed to Interscope."

Anyway, I think there's a bit of a grey area. U2 has another few studio albums left on their contract with Island Records as well, but it runs out (I believe in 2015). I don't see them renewing that contract in anycase, now that they are also with Universal/Interscope.

I wish there was someone knowledgeable enough about the music industry, the way record companies work, and how U2 fits into them, that could explain the whole mess to us! I'm sure there is. This is interference, afterall!

But regardless, the main point here is that U2 have signed off on those 3 Best Ofs quite some time ago, and it's up to Island Records to do what they want with them (when to release them, etc).

 

[U2DMfan]

I'm not an expert on the business side of things but I love to read about it and try and understand it.

The one thing I do know is that the contracts for material yet to be recorded are promisary, obviously. U2 could have 37 albums 'left' on their current contract and break up tomorrow. They wouldn't be obligated to go into the studio and record.

So really those album contracts aren't that important to a discussion of U2's future in terms of what they will do, other than we know what label the new music will be on, for whatever duration the contract is.

The Best Of deal is different as would other deals concerning Box Sets etc. There are certain ownership rights that Polygram/Island/Interscope/Universal would have that I don't fully understand. U2 does own their own shit, basically. So any Best Of, Box Set or song that appears in a commercial, all of that is granted from and through U2.

It's a complicated issue but the least of which, it's not important how many albums U2 have left on their current deal to a fan. The issues of material being repackaged and sold as compliations or future live releases, all that is probably in a contract somewhere with language that I'd never understand.

I think what's important to note is that U2 have just built their own studio, they own their own masters, most if not all of their publishing rights (I'd guess all, but I don't know) and all of their digital rights. They've just ended their last contractual obligation that seems to be tied to Island (though maybe the Box Set deal is in that as well)...

anyhow, the point is, I wouldn't be surprised if U2 had their own division of Interscope/Universal and just cut out the B.S. and started their own label, which would be distributed by Universal. They'd basically call their own shots, as they do anyways (pretty much) and Universal would help them distribute and promote the album etc. and take a slice of the pie while U2 basically would be able to dictate their own time tables and releases. I don't understand how it would all work out, but it does seem like a next logical step. There is no reason why they wouldn't be able or want to do so. Then again, maybe they like the comfort of having a label that will bend over backwards for them.

 

[Rachel D.]

I'm excited for the compilation. I'm hoping that it will have some of their earliest songs that aren't on any album and that I haven't even heard yet. Plus, it's a new U2 product! That means I get to go buy something new, unwrap it, and listen to it. Awesome. Call me a sheep, but I'm thrilled.

U2 can't always drop everything and release some old concert footage or something just to plese the hardcore fans. There are less hardcore people out there that haven't heard all of U2's best songs. I remember when I was like that. The first time I heard some of U2's most popular songs was when I got the Best Of 80-90 (along with The Joshua Tree) for Christmas one year. And here I am now.

 

[doctorwho]

Am I the only person even slightly looking forward to this Best Of album?

I am and am not.

Obviously, I have all the songs. From that perspective, I'm not interested.

However, if U2 "jazz up" the songs, as they did on the 90's "Best Of", then I am more interested.

I'm also interested to see which songs they chose (and I know this will lead to oceans of bickering about how U2 left off song "X" while including song "Y").

I'm interested in the new song(s).

And I'm interested in the bonus CD.

 

[Salome]

Was it milking the cash cow in 97 when they signed the deal or just now when they are fulfilling the contract?

 

[Salome]

Agreed. I remember reading somewhere that the Best Of deal was basically a thank-you to Island Records for being there for U2 since the beginning. This goes to show U2 are loyal to those who have supported them. But screw loyalty! It's far easier to label U2 sellouts.

I think the term "sellouts" is actually quite flattering compared to some of the things the band is called in here