$150 for 25 songs?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

iota

War Child
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
848
Location
the rugged southwest
That's obscene.

If U2 wasn't so $$$ hungry, what would they lose by charging 20 or 30 for the unreleased tracks? Hell, if they want to release them, what's wrong with a hard copy too?

I would have gladly bought that. But the way they are doing it makes me wonder. I won't throw HTDAAB away or anything but I've definitely lost quite a bit of respect for them.


Am I the only one?
 
Yeah right.

Forcing people to buy hundreds of songs they already have just for these unreleased songs is a questionable move.

I still love their music, but I'm beginning to realize how important the $$$ is to them. Kind of colors Bono's preachiness in crumbs and others in a negative light.
 
i dont know what you guys are talking about but i can buy the songs seperately on my comp. :shrug:
 
Indeed. This leaves many fans out of luck. It is quite ridiculous. What would the harm be in letting long-time fans buy only the individual songs? They'd still be getting money. Ah, yes, they wouldn't be getting as much money. I love U2, and I am big into social justice, but you bring up good points. One can only defend the band so long before it starts to get ridiculous. The reason the songs aren't available individually is MONEY. THat's it. I wonder what the people in Africa dying of AIDS think of this U2 move- that is, if they had the media systems to be able to hear about it. Don't get me wrong, i love U2 and still respect them a great deal, but why don't their words match with their actions? As Dylan said, "All the money you made will never buy back your soul."
 
the unreleased/rare songs aren't what you're paying $150 for.. its just a nice bonus so you don't feel like you're getting ripped off
 
bcrt2000 said:
the unreleased/rare songs aren't what you're paying $150 for.. its just a nice bonus so you don't feel like you're getting ripped off

No, you're paying $150 for songs you already have bought, more than likely if you are a fan. If you are not a fan and are buying the music for the first time, great. But to punish fans who don't want to buy their entire catalogue twice over is bizarre to say the least.
 
I'm just saying, Bono likes to write songs that point the finger at everyone else who isn't as charitable is he would like them to be (i.e. crumbs) but some corny marketing gimmick like this is okay? At the rate he's going, he'll have to write a song about his own greed for the next album called "crumbs from MY table."
 
well then this box set obviously isn't meant for the hardcore fans then. It's not hard to find these unreleased songs on the net so I guess we can just make do.
 
Lancemc said:
well then this box set obviously isn't meant for the hardcore fans then. It's not hard to find these unreleased songs on the net so I guess we can just make do.

If it was just the albums, I'd believe you. But the 25 unreleased tracks won't make the casual fan salivate and everyone knows it. The reason they are included is to tempt loyal fans that U2 should appreciate to buy their entire catalogue AGAIN just to get these songs. How can anyone who isn't a groupie defend that???
 
U2 are but 1 brand, albeit one of the most lucrative, of a much larger media content firm. the bottom line is important.

maybe they did determine the inclusion of tracks and the price points. maybe they didnt.

maybe if they didnt, they would have anyway.

so far as i know, none of us know.

care to enlighten me?
 
Last edited:
iota said:
Yeah right.

Forcing people to buy hundreds of songs they already have just for these unreleased songs is a questionable move.

I still love their music, but I'm beginning to realize how important the $$$ is to them. Kind of colors Bono's preachiness in crumbs and others in a negative light.


Do you really believe U2 had a lot to do with how this was set up? My guess would be no. Apple would want to hold those songs off, because they know that most of their target consumers would be long term U2 fans. Not many casual fans are going to buy anything for $150. So Apple will want to make these tracks the hardest to get until Christmas and then they will release them as individual tracks. U2 and Apple aren't charities. Nor is donating a song charitable.


Being a bit dramatic aren't we?
 
who would have thought reason(lightning?) would have swung into this thread twice in the same moment?
 
iota said:


No, you're paying $150 for songs you already have bought, more than likely if you are a fan. If you are not a fan and are buying the music for the first time, great. But to punish fans who don't want to buy their entire catalogue twice over is bizarre to say the least.

im a huge u2 fan and i dont own all of the u2 albums
 
Dalton said:



Do you really believe U2 had a lot to do with how this was set up? My guess would be no. Apple would want to hold those songs off, because they know that most of their target consumers would be long term U2 fans. Not many casual fans are going to buy anything for $150. So Apple will want to make these tracks the hardest to get until Christmas and then they will release them as individual tracks. U2 and Apple aren't charities. Nor is donating a song charitable.


Being a bit dramatic aren't we?

U2 had nothing to do with how this was set up? Apple tells them how to release their own material? I'm starting to wonder about their sudden affinity for corporate sponsorship now that you bring up that point.

U2 is not a charity, you are correct. So when Bono whines on crumbs about the greediness of OTHER people, and laments that they won't give freely to the charity HE supports, while using these kinds of money-grubbing tactics to gouge the loyal fanbase; it just makes him look like a hypocrite, that's all.

I'm not being dramatic, because I probably am the least surprised that U2 would pull something like this. But when they try to pose as social crusaders and screw their adoring throngs in this manner, someone needs to point it out.
 
I bought the ipod and the whole box set. I didn't buy it for the 25 rare tracks nor did I buy it for the 100 re-mixes. I bought it because so many of my CD's were scratched and skip and are bulky in my car and it is a pain in the ass to keep changing albums all the time. Now I have my little Ipod with everything in it. I can set up play lists of each individual album, my favorite songs, rare songs etc. If I had to re-buy every album that U2 ever put out it would cost a lot more than $150.00. So I don't think it is stupid of them. I think it is a great way to grab new fans. They could buy there whole collection for $150.00 get the rare tracks and own everything.

A CD costs $14.99-$16.99 each. U2 has 14 CD's you do the math. I spent a $100.00 years ago on a box set of rare versions of U2 songs and singles that I never saw before. Everyone of those albums are included in the digital box set.
 
iota said:


U2 had nothing to do with how this was set up? Apple tells them how to release their own material? I'm starting to wonder about their sudden affinity for corporate sponsorship now that you bring up that point.

U2 is not a charity, you are correct. So when Bono whines on crumbs about the greediness of OTHER people, and laments that they won't give freely to the charity HE supports, while using these kinds of money-grubbing tactics to gouge the loyal fanbase; it just makes him look like a hypocrite, that's all.

I'm not being dramatic, because I probably am the least surprised that U2 would pull something like this. But when they try to pose as social crusaders and screw their adoring throngs in this manner, someone needs to point it out.


GIVING YOU A SONG FOR CHEAP ISN'T A CHARITY YOU SELF ABSORBED PRICK.

HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE STARVING, SICK, AND OPPRESSED IS A CHARITY.

1-2-3 Throw your shoulders back really fast and maybe your head will pop out of your ass.

I love it when rich people talk of charity.....
 
As Bono himself said, making sure people have what they need to survive is justice, not charity. But I find it hard to believe taht anyone can see this move by U2 and not call it greedy. And yes, Bono has the right to criticize even if he's not perfect, as no one is perfect, and we all need to call for change, but there's a difference between imperfection and sleeping with corporate America while denouncing it.
 
Last edited:
david said:
The collection is called "The Complete U2." Not "Songs that didn't make it on a couple albums."

Then why include those songs or advertise them as a selling point? To entice the fans, obviously. Petty marketing tactics you'd think U2 would be above, the way their hearts supposedly bleed and all.

My point: however you get these songs, who cares. U2 is just trying to rip you off anyway, might as well get them however you can.
 
iota said:


I'm not being dramatic, because I probably am the least surprised that U2 would pull something like this. But when they try to pose as social crusaders and screw their adoring throngs in this manner, someone needs to point it out.

the point being made is that many many many people have their hands in the pot on this and other music releases aside from U2.

the image is 4 guys in a band but the reality is much different. universal will maximize their profit. apple will maximize their profit. and last but not least, U2 are free to ask whatever they want of their product. i wont venture down the road of the differences between 'whining' and distribution of the bands music...
 
Dalton said:



GIVING YOU A SONG FOR CHEAP ISN'T A CHARITY YOU SELF ABSORBED PRICK.

HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE STARVING, SICK, AND OPPRESSED IS A CHARITY.

1-2-3 Throw your shoulders back really fast and maybe your head will pop out of your ass.

I love it when rich people talk of charity.....

no personal attacks folks or this thread will be promptly closed.

we have been down this road often and if it turns sour again, well the road will end the way it usually does-unfortunately.
 
No offense but U2 isn't in this business for the pure devotion to the fans. It is a business and they make money. They are spending 10 million dollars to market their new album and I am more than willing to bet their bottom line after all expenses (including the $10 million) will be substanially more than that. You can't expect them to not be in it for the money.

Bono has been quoted as saying he wouldn't run for a Political seat because it would mean he'd have to move to a smaller house. Yes it was a joke but still. U2 is also a business and like any other business they are in it to make money.
 
Dalton said:



GIVING YOU A SONG FOR CHEAP ISN'T A CHARITY YOU SELF ABSORBED PRICK.

HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE STARVING, SICK, AND OPPRESSED IS A CHARITY.

1-2-3 Throw your shoulders back really fast and maybe your head will pop out of your ass.

I love it when rich people talk of charity.....


Gouging you for a song then chastising you for not giving to charity is something a hypocrite would do, though.

As for all the other names you called me, I'm sorry I struck a nerve. I'm just pointing this out for your own good. You'll thank me in time.

Not comparing selling a song for cheap to charity, never did. Just wondering aloud why someone who angrily rants on a song like crumbs over evangelicals not donating to charity and then GOUGING for music would allow himself to be sucked into that sort of unflattering paradox.
 
Alright, you all have no clue apparently what all goes into music distributing on iTunes. Have you ever seen the breakdowns with how much of each track goes to RIAA, Apple, and then finally the band?

Apple makes 4 cents from every .99 cent track. The recording companies (RIAA) make 62 cents. The actual band makes 8 cents (I realize it doesn't add up to .99 cents, but the RIAA usually takes more than 62 cents from each track). Now, in the case of the Complete U2... Each track in the set costs less than the .99 when the whole set is bought. I don't know how much the cuts are with this box set, but it's safe to say that apple and U2 are not making the most out of this deal.

I think U2 would have a say in what songs go into the box set, but definitely not how much the set costs. The RIAA is going to get their share... trust me. So to blame them for the price, and for some songs as album only, isn't really fair. I'm sure Apple and the RIAA had most to do with that. I'm sure apple told U2 about the tracks being album only... and whether U2 cared or not, who knows, but I don't think they had anything to do with it.
 
Last edited:
iota said:



Gouging you for a song then chastising you for not giving to charity is something a hypocrite would do, though.

As for all the other names you called me, I'm sorry I struck a nerve. I'm just pointing this out for your own good. You'll thank me in time.

Not comparing selling a song for cheap to charity, never did. Just wondering aloud why someone who angrily rants on a song like crumbs over evangelicals not donating to charity and then GOUGING for music would allow himself to be sucked into that sort of unflattering paradox.


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.
 
kobayashi said:


the point being made is that many many many people have their hands in the pot on this and other music releases aside from U2.

the image is 4 guys in a band but the reality is much different. universal will maximize their profit. apple will maximize their profit. and last but not least, U2 are free to ask whatever they want of their product. i wont venture down the road of the differences between 'whining' and distribution of the bands music...

I understand all of that and you are absolutely correct, but like Ownership pointed out, U2 appear to be sleeping with corporate America while denouncing it. So why denounce it if you ARE it?
 
iota said:


I understand all of that and you are absolutely correct, but like Ownership pointed out, U2 appear to be sleeping with corporate America while denouncing it. So why denounce it if you ARE it?


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?
 
Back
Top Bottom