$150 for 25 songs?

[iota]

No, I am pointing this out for your own good. i do a lot of work in south central Africa and your "plight" for a U2 beside is not in the same universe as trying to care for an aids orphan.

The 150.00 if someone chooses to buy it will be somewhere between .00125 and .0045 of their annual income. Not to mention that fact that these same songs are available already on p2p networks and will more than likely be released individually after the holiday.

When you have lived with real pain and real suffering you can hop back on and preach, but until then you sound like the oppressor to me.

You've missed my point entirely. I haven't drawn any comparisons to giving to Africa relief and buying a U2 collection. You are trying to erect an emotional strawman that has absolutely nothing to do with what's being discussed.

The topic is: a band that claims to be so charitible that it can CRITICIZE greedy people on albums is now revealed to be (gasp!) just as greedy. That has been my point. No more, no less. I am not responsible for what you subjectively read into it, and I applaud you for the work you do. To call me an oppressor may be taking the over-emotional rhetoric too far, but then again, it appears like over-emotional rhetoric is all U2 amounts to after this pathetic move to screw their own fans.

 

[OwnershipIsALie]

I don't think he or she meant that Crumbs was written for Corporate America, but that the band is involved highly with Corporate America. Crumbs is in my mind for everyone.

 

[iota]

In an earlier post you said that you thought Bono wrote Crumbs for Evangelicals and now it is Corporate America? Let us know when you make up your mind.


Can you feel it slipping away from you?

They routinely denounce both. Been paying attention the last 25 years?

 

[kobayashi]

U2 appear to be sleeping with corporate America while denouncing it. So why denounce it if you ARE it?

well this could all be considered a central paradox of U2s music in this age.

similar arguments are made regarding bono's issues motivated work and 6 figure vehicles.

this, too , is a contradiction.

but im sure you will understand that bonos experiential lyrical influences have little to do with the chequing accounts of joe six pack, for want of a better term. his is more of a geopolitical perspective.

but yes a contradiction does exist. to me, it is an acceptable and reasonable one.

thank you for keeping this thread civil.

 

[Dalton]

You've missed my point entirely. I haven't drawn any comparisons to giving to Africa relief and buying a U2 collection. You are trying to erect an emotional strawman that has absolutely nothing to do with what's being discussed.

The topic is: a band that claims to be so charitible that it can CRITICIZE greedy people on albums is now revealed to be (gasp!) just as greedy. That has been my point. No more, no less. I am not responsible for what you subjectively read into it, and I applaud you for the work you do. To call me an oppressor may be taking the over-emotional rhetoric too far, but then again, it appears like over-emotional rhetoric is all U2 amounts to after this pathetic move to screw their own fans.

Then explain to me again how you can use the rhetoric of charity about unreleased U2 b-sides? Its not greed, its business.

There is nothing wrong with making money. Nothing at all. In fact, I encourage it. Do you mean to argue that the money that fans would save if U2 released these songs individually would be put to some social good? You're a moron.

I'm drunk and making more sense than you. Sad.

 

[iota]

well this could all be considered a central paradox of U2s music in this age.

similar arguments are made regarding bono's issues motivated work and 6 figure vehicles.

this, too , is a contradiction.

but im sure you will understand that bonos experiential lyrical influences have little to do with the chequing accounts of joe six pack, for want of a better term. his is more of a geopolitical perspective.

but yes a contradiction does exist. to me, it is an acceptable and reasonable one.

thank you for keeping this thread civil.

I'm going to remain civil. I'm bringing up this subject for love of the fans.

And yes, that quite the contradiction, and I LOVED U2's 90's albums that explored that contradiction. They were honest albums. Now, we're back to the bleeding heart stuff. It doesn't work anymore.

 

[OwnershipIsALie]

Please, people, can we avoid squabbling here? I mean, we all like U2, let's just be civil and understanding. Opinions are subjective, not facts. The point is not that money saved by fans will be immediately sent to Africa (which is unfortunate) it is that U2 seems to be seeking large amounts of money for themselves while simultaneously (and quite correctly) pointing out that the world needs to change and that all human beings have human rights that must not be denied.

 

[Dalton]

I'm going to remain civil. I'm bringing up this subject for love of the fans.

And yes, that quite the contradiction, and I LOVED U2's 90's albums that explored that contradiction. They were honest albums. Now, we're back to the bleeding heart stuff. It doesn't work anymore.

Ahhh to be young, naive and complacent. The world was a lot simpler and happier then .......

 

[Dalton]

Please, people, can we avoid squabbling here? I mean, we all like U2, let's just be civil and understanding. Opinions are subjective, not facts. The point is not that money saved by fans will be immediately sent to Africa (which is unfortunate) it is that U2 seems to be seeking large amounts of money for themselves while simultaneously (and quite correctly) pointing out that the world needs to change and that all human beings have human rights that must not be denied.

My apologies Ownership. I blame it on the wine. That and the use this charitable argument. Absurd.

 

[tkramer]

I'm sorry, but what is wrong with you people? It's just a friggin' digital box set. If you are missing a lot of the songs its a great deal. If you aren't, you don't need it. The end. Leave it to a bunch of crusty obnoxious fans to see evil in every move the band makes.

Here's an illustration:

Lets say I own ten of the 11 tracks on some U2 new album, and then U2 releases a CD that has the whole shooting match on it. What sense does it make to cry foul that the band released a CD with all the tracks on it except the one I don't own? It's rediculous! You think the band knows what every U2 fan owns? You think they sit around going, hey, some fan out there will buy this box set because of X number of songs they don't have, so lets put X number of songs on the digital box set that they don't have to rip them off.
Honestly, not every fan will even agree which ones are rare. Some will say 25, others 10, etc. None of them are really that hard to find anyway. Let it be what it is. A big box set that makes sense for some to own and not others.
I know everyone is entitled to an opinion, but calling a digital boxset a cheap shot cause there's one track you don't own and can't get elsewhere is borderline neurotic.

 

[iota]

Then explain to me again how you can use the rhetoric of charity about unreleased U2 b-sides? Its not greed, its business.

There is nothing wrong with making money. Nothing at all. In fact, I encourage it. Do you mean to argue that the money that fans would save if U2 released these songs individually would be put to some social good? You're a moron.

I'm drunk and making more sense than you. Sad.

The only reason charity is brought up is because U2 is denouncing those who have money but don't give it to Africa on their new album. Their last album was about stripping away needless distractions and getting back to the purity of life.

People take what they say and write about literally. This latest marketing move proves it is all just an act.

I have no problem with a band making money. If they released these songs individually, they would make money. They just stand to make MORE money selling their catalogue to loyal fans TWICE.

And if being drunk makes you feel like you are making more sense than me, so be it

 

[iota]

Please, people, can we avoid squabbling here? I mean, we all like U2, let's just be civil and understanding. Opinions are subjective, not facts. The point is not that money saved by fans will be immediately sent to Africa (which is unfortunate) it is that U2 seems to be seeking large amounts of money for themselves while simultaneously (and quite correctly) pointing out that the world needs to change and that all human beings have human rights that must not be denied.

VERY well said.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

I have no problem with the way the digital box set is priced. I also don't have a problem with them not allowing the unreleased songs to be sold separately or alone as a group. U2 is a business as everyone has mentioned. They have bills to pay, the desire to maximize their earnings potential, and an agenda. Not only does U2 have associates in their "machine to support" they probably have other investments as well from record labels, music related entertpises, businesses, etc... They don't sit on their ass with the money they take in as a band.

If they had let the unreleased tracks go as music that could be purchased separately or as a group in itself, the U2 IPOD might not sell as well nor the digital boxset. They want to put out a product that sells to all people, not just casual fans. If there were no unreleased tracks, the whole Apple venture would have been a failure IMO (outside of the commercial). As someone who works in retail, I respect their right/ desire to be maximize their earnings. They're not socialists nor are probably most of you out there.

As a fan, I'll groan and moan, but I don't begrudge them. Hell, IMO, I bet sometime in the future, those songs will be allowed to be purchased separately.

 

[Dalton]

The only reason charity is brought up is because U2 is denouncing those who have money but don't give it to Africa on their new album. Their last album was about stripping away needless distractions and getting back to the purity of life.

People take what they say and write about literally. This latest marketing move proves it is all just an act.

I have no problem with a band making money. If they released these songs individually, they would make money. They just stand to make MORE money selling their catalogue to loyal fans TWICE.

And if being drunk makes you feel like you are making more sense than me, so be it

"People take what they say and write about literally. This latest marketing move proves it is all just an act. "

Have you seen actual cost and profit analysis to show how much more money they will make this way than in individual releases? No, you are speculating.

You are also speculating that the band does not give back to charitable donations. Lets run this by the colective mind here. what are the odds that the percentage of money that U2 gives to charities are higher than it would be if this money was saved by the average U2 fan giving on his own. If this is the case, wouldn't it be that U2 are actually being MORE charitable by trying to get money away from people who don't give. Ahhhh.... I feel that the light is about to click on.

I spend a lot of my life raising money, my guess is that the amount that U2 give (collectively or individually) is much greater than what the average fans give. THis is usually the case.

 

[iota]

Okay, here's a scenerio:

U2 releases HTDAAB on the 23rd.

Say in 5 months they release an ULTRA DELUXE version of HTDAAB with 5 new songs just to boost sales later.

People who already bought it would have to buy it again. Smart people would just download the songs to avoid being ripped off, having already paid for the album.

What would be more ethical. Doing what I just described above or releasing a 5 song EP seperately for those who already have the album and want the new songs.

If a band, any band, did the former but not the latter and they WEREN'T U2, what would you think about them?

 

[tkramer]

Okay, here's a scenerio:

U2 releases HTDAAB on the 23rd.

Say in 5 months they release an ULTRA DELUXE version of HTDAAB with 5 new songs just to boost sales later.

People who already bought it would have to buy it again. Smart people would just download the songs to avoid being ripped off, having already paid for the album.

What would be more ethical. Doing what I just described above or releasing a 5 song EP seperately for those who already have the album and want the new songs.

If a band, any band, did the former but not the latter and they WEREN'T U2, what would you think about them?

This isn't the same thing. Not even close. There aren't any new songs on it. And its not the second time the digital box set has been released. Good grief what happened to common sense?!

Here's an illustration:

Lets say I download ten of the 11 tracks on some U2 new album, and then U2 releases a CD that has the whole shooting match on it. What sense does it make to cry foul that the band released a CD with all the tracks on it except the one I don't own? It's rediculous! You think the band knows what every U2 fan owns? You think they sit around going, hey, some fan out there will buy this box set because of X number of songs they don't have, so lets put X number of songs on the digital box set that they don't have to rip them off.
Honestly, not every fan will even agree which ones are rare. Some will say 25, others 10, etc. None of them are really that hard to find anyway. Let it be what it is. A big box set that makes sense for some to own and not others.
I know everyone is entitled to an opinion, but calling a digital boxset a cheap shot cause there's one track you don't own and can't get elsewhere is borderline neurotic.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Okay, here's a scenerio:

U2 releases HTDAAB on the 23rd.

Say in 5 months they release an ULTRA DELUXE version of HTDAAB with 5 new songs just to boost sales later.

People who already bought it would have to buy it again. Smart people would just download the songs to avoid being ripped off, having already paid for the album.

What would be more ethical. Doing what I just described above or releasing a 5 song EP seperately for those who already have the album and want the new songs.

If a band, any band, did the former but not the latter and they WEREN'T U2, what would you think about them?

Interesting hypothetical but U2 would never do it b/c they actually believe in album consistency and track order stuff...

 

[Dalton]

Okay, here's a scenerio:

U2 releases HTDAAB on the 23rd.

Say in 5 months they release an ULTRA DELUXE version of HTDAAB with 5 new songs just to boost sales later.

People who already bought it would have to buy it again. Smart people would just download the songs to avoid being ripped off, having already paid for the album.

What would be more ethical. Doing what I just described above or releasing a 5 song EP seperately for those who already have the album and want the new songs.

If a band, any band, did the former but not the latter and they WEREN'T U2, what would you think about them?

Like when bands rerelease their albums with enhanced sound and a few extra tracks after a few years? Happens all the time.

Try again.

 

[iota]

"People take what they say and write about literally. This latest marketing move proves it is all just an act. "

Have you seen actual cost and profit analysis to show how much more money they will make this way than in individual releases? No, you are speculating.

You are also speculating that the band does not give back to charitable donations. Lets run this by the colective mind here. what are the odds that the percentage of money that U2 gives to charities are higher than it would be if this money was saved by the average U2 fan giving on his own. If this is the case, wouldn't it be that U2 are actually being MORE charitable by trying to get money away from people who don't give. Ahhhh.... I feel that the light is about to click on.

I spend a lot of my life raising money, my guess is that the amount that U2 give (collectively or individually) is much greater than what the average fans give. THis is usually the case.

Unfortunately none of this matters. Why gouge from one source so you can give to another? "Where's the glory in that???"

 

[Dalton]

Tonight I have decided that not everyone deserves an opinion. Some of your opinions make baby jesus cry.

 

[iota]

Interesting hypothetical but U2 would never do it b/c they actually believe in album consistency and track order stuff...

They HAVE done it....on a larger scale.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

This isn't the same thing. Not even close. There aren't any new songs on it. And its not the second time the digital box set has been released. Good grief what happened to common sense?!

Here's an illustration:

Lets say I download ten of the 11 tracks on some U2 new album, and then U2 releases a CD that has the whole shooting match on it. What sense does it make to cry foul that the band released a CD with all the tracks on it except the one I don't own? It's rediculous! You think the band knows what every U2 fan owns? You think they sit around going, hey, some fan out there will buy this box set because of X number of songs they don't have, so lets put X number of songs on the digital box set that they don't have to rip them off.
Honestly, not every fan will even agree which ones are rare. Some will say 25, others 10, etc. None of them are really that hard to find anyway. Let it be what it is. A big box set that makes sense for some to own and not others.
I know everyone is entitled to an opinion, but calling a digital boxset a cheap shot cause there's one track you don't own and can't get elsewhere is borderline neurotic.

Actually agree with that sentiment... I'm sure for a lot of fans, the number of songs they already have varies... The Boston "81 concert are songs that I don't have outside of the unreleased stuff. I'm sure people don't even own Passengers considering its relatively hard to find or even remember. I never got the Mexico concert (to lazy). Like I said, I have no problem with it and I'm sure people will still find a way to download illegally so it all balances out IMO.

 

[iota]

Tonight I have decided that not everyone deserves an opinion. Some of your opinions make baby jesus cry.

C'mon, getting indignant on the internet is the last bastian of sanity for disgruntled fans. DON'T TAKE IT AWAY FROM ME!!!!

 

[Dalton]

Unfortunately none of this matters. Why gouge from one source so you can give to another? "Where's the glory in that???"

Are you KIDDING? You really are naive. Of course it matters. If Zambia gets more money .... no lets make this more real .... if 100 4 year old orphans get to eat because U2 raise their prices - so be it.


But of course that is not what this is all about. This is about you whining because you can't have exactly what you want.

 

[iota]

This isn't the same thing. Not even close. There aren't any new songs on it. And its not the second time the digital box set has been released. Good grief what happened to common sense?!

Here's an illustration:

Lets say I download ten of the 11 tracks on some U2 new album, and then U2 releases a CD that has the whole shooting match on it. What sense does it make to cry foul that the band released a CD with all the tracks on it except the one I don't own? It's rediculous! You think the band knows what every U2 fan owns? You think they sit around going, hey, some fan out there will buy this box set because of X number of songs they don't have, so lets put X number of songs on the digital box set that they don't have to rip them off.
Honestly, not every fan will even agree which ones are rare. Some will say 25, others 10, etc. None of them are really that hard to find anyway. Let it be what it is. A big box set that makes sense for some to own and not others.
I know everyone is entitled to an opinion, but calling a digital boxset a cheap shot cause there's one track you don't own and can't get elsewhere is borderline neurotic.

Then why not release the previously unreleased stuff separately? Come on, actually showing your fans you appreciate them before gouging them for concert tickets might be a well-recieved gesture.

 

[Dalton]

ok I am off.

I don't even have anything witty to say. Very sad right now.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

They HAVE done it....on a larger scale.

You mean the digital boxset...

 

[iota]

Are you KIDDING? You really are naive. Of course it matters. If Zambia gets more money .... no lets make this more real .... if 100 4 year old orphans get to eat because U2 raise their prices - so be it.


But of course that is not what this is all about. This is about you whining because you can't have exactly what you want.

Oh please. Talk about naive. You actually think a band who is proving themselves to be as greedy as they are will be doing it all for Zambia?

Look, none of this would be an issue if U2 weren't so damn preachy.

 

[iota]

You mean the digital boxset...

Obviously! What's this thread about anyway? Future speculations for future U2 conspiracies? One conspiracy at a time....

 

[petethechopp]

what a strange, sad thread this is for a U2 forum. Who woulda guessed back in '87 that people would one day be talking about U2 becoming green and greedy. But that's the case, isn't it? If your going to get in bed with corp. America and Itunes aren't you expecting to get scr*wed? And if you do a digital box set that excludes most of the world and rips off everyone who buys it, doesn't that say something about what your looking for? I miss the days of Three Chords and the truth. I also think its a bit ironic that duringthe DESIRE perfromance at Point Depot (one of the shows, maybe the 12-31 (not sure) Bono makes a comment about greed making the world go round, then adds "Not my world" Not so sure about thi anymore?