Best Of 1990-2000: Officially A Commercial Failure?

[Popmartijn]

Originally posted by womanfish
I also have to mention that although The Stones have been certified triple platinum, I think 40 Licks is a 3 CD set, which would equate to only 1 million shipped. I may be wrong, it might only be a 2 CD, but I think it's 3.

Womanfish...

You are wrong!
Forty Licks is a 2CD set and a great set it is, I might add. I got it at a discount and I have to say I'm not disappointed with it (many great songs from the 60's and early 70's and all their great songs from '75-02). Anyway, that still means that, yes, The Rolling Stones only had to sell 1.5 million copies to have it certified as 3x platinum.

(The same goes with Shania Twain. Her new album is actually a double album, one CD with the songs in a pop arrangement, the other with the same songs in a 'country' arrangement. This will probably increase her chances of having the best selling album in the USA ever (didn't her last, Come On Over, sell 19 million copies in the USA?) as the RIAA counts every copy sold as 2 copies shipped)

Anyway, womanfish, you were wrong



C ya!

Marty (who still cannot find out the certifications of U2's albums in the Netherlands, yuck!)

[womanfish]

There's no way Shania will sell enough copies of this album to surpass Come On Over. Even if it is counted twice on certification. I would say that she will probably sell around 5 million copies, which would put her certification at 10 million - about half of the absolutely enormous sales of Come On Over.

But hey, I've been wrong before. Right Popmartijn

[verte76]

Originally posted by Nate Dogg
I could care less how many other people buy U2's CDs.....as long as I still can!!

I feel the same. But the last time I checked U2 had sold more albums in 2002 than any other band in the British Isles. I'll be damned if they need to fret over their sales figures.

[doctorwho]

I doubt U2 "fret" over their sales... but I do think it's something they at least consider.

An actor will make a film. He/she hopes it does well both commercially, and ideally critically as well. One never wants to hear how their latest film was "the flop of the year" or "under-performed". It does take a toll on the ego.

Likewise, I think U2 feel the same. To see an album not do well suggests many things. Are they in decline? Is the "hey-day" over? Was the album just that poor? Was it too experimental for mainstream? Was it not experimental enough? All of this creates doubt and I think most artists, despite egos that superficially suggest otherwise, do have considerable doubt.

That said, I do believe this is a moot point. U2's back catalog and current releases have sold very well. After 20+ years, U2 continue to be a force in the music world. Are they as dominant? No... but few bands can hold dominance for long. Still, as I wrote above, in an age of downloads and piracy, U2 still managed to release an album of new songs that sold over 4M copies in the U.S. Most artists would LOVE half of those sales! Therefore, I agree - no "fretting" on U2's part.

[STING2]

Honestly,

Worldwide, U2 is the most popular band on the planet. Nearly 12 million in sales of their last studio album of origional material and concert attendance and Gross higher than any other artist except maybe the Rolling Stones. These two factors combined make them the hottest artist commericially in the world.

[verte76]

I agree, sales of 12 million is nothing to sneeze at, especially in a weak economy and market. I also agree about giving a damn about sales figures when I can buy a U2 album myself. I'm just curious and I'm not a cat.

[Hawkmoon1021]

Originally posted by STING2
I predicted early on that the best of 1990-2000 would do about 50% of the business of the 1980-1990. The chief reason is that half of the material from the best of 1990-2000 comes from albums (POP and Zooropa) that are only of interest to hardcore fans and not the general population. Only Achtung Baby songs and two songs from an album just released two years ago (ATYCLB) are of interest to casual fans. Most casual U2 fans already have Achtung Baby.

So far, I would say the best of 1990-2000 has generally done as well or better than I expected. As long as it ends up at 50% or more of the sales of 1980-1990, I would definitely consider it a success.

The Rolling Stones and Nirvana compulations contain ALL of their most popular songs, while U2s best of 1990-2000 is simply just their 90s material with only two mega popular albums represented in any way. I'd like to see how well a Rolling Stones 1980-2000 would sell!

Well put.

ATYCLB was also still selling pretty well at the time of the BO's release. Some casual fans (and possibly some bigger fans) may have had enough of U2 for a while after so much media exposure for the 2 years leading up to the BO. On the other hand, there was little promotion in the US for the BO. Perhaps playing ES on Letterman or Leno may have sparked sales a bit. THTBA on the Oscars may help if people realize it's on the BO.

[Strato Edge]

Didn't the thing hit number 1 over Eminem's "8 Mile" soundtrack?

[Bunbury]

Sales don't matter......

[TheDaddy]

In a way U2's 1990-2000 best of is similar to Madonna's Greatest Hits Volume 2.

Both haven't sold anywhere near as well as the previous one and both are based on part of their careers in which their sales were lower.

e.g. Madonna's GHV2 was based on the low selling Erotica and Bedtime Stories albums and everyone already had the higher selling Ray of Light and Music albums.

U2's Best of 1990-2000 is likewise based on 2 lower selling albums - Zooropa and Pop - and 2 big selling albums - ATYCLB and AB - which most casual fans already own.

So IMHO there isn't really much for U2 to worry about.

[smileplease1974]

Greatest Hits compilations are not primarily for hardcore fans but 'floating' fans who may buy the odd album or two, hence the reason why they are usually released before Christmas. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but it's a fact.

Bearing that in mind, as good as the 1990-2000 compilation was, I think the song selection was bad with many of the band's hit singles from the period left off for tunes that (although great in their own right) are not familiar enough to these floating fans.

It seemed strange to me that the band chose to put tracks such as Gone, Until The End of The World, The First Time, Numb, Electrical Storm and The Hands That Built America onto their 'Greatest Hits', when none of them were hits in the major music charts (apart from Electrical Storm of course which was popular in Europe, but released obviously to promote the album. And in the case of Hands, this tune was bolted onto the end of a film just at the moment when everyone is leaving the cinema.).

Quite why they left off Elevation, Walk On, Last Night On Earth, Please, Who's Gonna Ride..., If God Will Send, Lemon and in the US, The Fly, when they all charted relatively well (and thus will have a recognisable factor about them) is beyond me. And the B-side selection is strange as well with many of the band's finest B-side moments (Summer Rain, Holy Joe, Two Shots of Happy and Slow Dancing) left off for several relatively weak remixes.

I can understand the band's reasons for choosing the tracks that they did, but greatest hits compilations are exactly that, the greatest hits, not a selection of personal favourites. I know lots of people who would have bought the album but didn't because they didn't know that many of the tunes.

There was (here in the UK anyway) a fair amount of negative publicity around the album stating that the tracks were from the band's weakest decade. I think that's unfair and wrong. But the fact that the band re-recorded many of the tracks giving them a more traditional sound (and undermining everything that their experimental adventures stood for during the 90s) completely devalued the original recordings, the albums in which they came from, the Greatest Hits compilation itself and enhanced the negative publicity. If Achtung Baby was the sound of four men chopping down the Joshua tree, then Greatest Hits 1990-2000 was the sound of four men rebuilding it.

U2 are still one of the biggest bands in the world, have no doubt about that. I love their music dearly, but that doesn't mean that we can't be crticial of them when we feel it's due.

The sales figures for the greatest hits are relatively low because of the album's content. It could have and should have been better, charted better and sold better.

[STING2]

U2 is currently the most popular band in the world since they are still the #2 touring act worldwide behind the Stones, plus their latest studio album ATYCLB has sold nearly 12 million copies, more than any other album since 2000 except for around a dozen that have sold in the same range(10-15 million).

I'd agree the Greatest Hits 1990-2000 is not very strong from a commercial standpoint. But I doubt there is much the band could have done to really improve it commercially. Lets take a look at the songs they could have put on there that they did not that might of boosted the albums sales.

Elevation - did good on the rock charts, but was unable to break onto other charts like top 40 and adult top 40. In the end, this song did not chart on the National US Chart, the HOT 100, which accounts for all airplay regardless of style or programming on various stations. But it was a Grammy winner.

Walk On - same boat as Elevation, but it was even a bigger Grammy winner, winning RECORD OF THE YEAR. Although the Grammy's are a high profile event that can change the sales status of any album or single, strong radio airplay is still a greater priority in terms of business.

Last Night On Earth - No Grammy, but it recieved more airplay than Walk On or Elevation, making it on to the HOT 100 and peaking at #54.

Please - this song almost did not chart on anything. It cracked the Modern Rock charts for a few weeks, that was it. Most casual music listners would not know it.

Who's Gonna Ride - A top 40 hit from Achtung Baby. Definitely could help except that the person thinking about buying GH 1990-2000 probably already owns Achtung Baby.

The Fly - Charted briefly on the HOT 100, buyer may already own it though. If they don't own Achtung, they are unlikely to recognize the song title.

If God Will Send and Lemon -
These songs did not chart on the HOT 100. If God Will Send did not chart anywhere, on any chart in the USA.


I really think there are only three songs that could have boosted sales of GH 1990-2000 and they are Elevation, Walk On, and Who's Gonna Ride. The problem is, they come from albums the person is likely to already have. But for the person that has no post 1990 U2 output, those three could seal the deal.

[smileplease1974]

You make good points but your arguments are too US focused. Remember, all of these tunes charted well in music charts across Europe.

They were all singles and each made their mark on the band's career. Irrespective of how they charted in the US, they are all stronger than a collection of selected album tracks that most casual fans wouldn't have heard of.

[mikeuk]

The fact that Best Of charts at 29 in the World 2003 chart illustrates that it hasn't done too badly !

Mike

[Axver]

Originally posted by smileplease1974
I can understand the band's reasons for choosing the tracks that they did, but greatest hits compilations are exactly that, the greatest hits, not a selection of personal favourites.

And there is the flaw in your argument. This was a Best Of, not a Greatest Hits.

[smileplease1974]

greatest hits, best of, whatever.

the fact remains that the band didn't select their strongest hits/records/tunes/material from 90-2000 and thus it suffered commercially as a result.

Casual fans, of which best of/greatest hits compilations are targeted at would not have heard of HTBAmerica, Gone, Until The End..., The First Time etc.

The compilation wasn't a commercial failure, but as I said in my previous note, it failed to sell as many as it should have thanks to the strange song selection.

[BigMacPhisto]

Until the End of the World is pretty popular.......I've heard many, many times on the radio, even recently..........First Time is there to have something from the Million Dollar Hotel Soundtrack.......Hands is on it so we wouldn't have to wait until the next compilation to own it.........Gone is a live staple and while not an instant hit it will grow in popularity in the way Bad did......Walk On and Elevation are being saved for the next compilation, while none of the other pop singles were really anything amazing that would have helped the album........Fly is on the European release.......The only real case you can make is for "Horses" but it's really the sixth best song from Baby, and there's no point in pointing half of the album on a Best Of.......

[Axver]

Originally posted by smileplease1974
greatest hits, best of, whatever.

You obviously don't get what I'm saying. Greatest Hits compilations are exactly that - the songs by the band that have done the greatest. A Best Of isn't necessarily that - Bad would miss out on a Greatest Hits simply because it's not a single, but we know just how brilliant it is and hence it ends up on a Best Of. A Best Of is the best, not necessarily the highest-achieving.

the fact remains that the band didn't select their strongest hits/records/tunes/material from 90-2000

In your opinion. I feel there were only a couple of erroneous choices and it had every song I recognised from the era on it (I was only a casual fan until I got the Best Of for Christmas 2002).

[smileplease1974]

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, and fans being fans will never agree on the tracklistings for best of compilations as we love so much of their music.

it's still a great album, that's not in question. it's just that i, along with many others, feel it could have been a lot better. and the re-recording of so many of the tunes undermined so much of what the band stood for during the mid-t-late 90s.

[Popmartijn]

At least we have fun in this thread for at least one year. Thankfully this forum does not have a big growth of threads.