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

[Axver]

This is just a small second product coming out like the chicago DVD, Zoo TV DVD, and U2 by U2. A product that we can either buy or choose not to buy.

I don't think they are comparable. The other "second products" are either 1. completely new live material or 2. re-releases of material that was previously only available on a medium that has become obsolete. This Best Of, if it repeats any songs (which, going by the tone of U2.com's article, it surely will), is therefore not comparable as it is repeating material already available on the very same medium.

And I've never called U2 a money-hungry monster. I just think this decision is really flawed.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

i do believe pearl jam put out a double CD greatest hits album, even though they didn't want to. but they had to... it was a contract obligation. what a whacky concept.

Headache, my point regarding Pearl Jam is that unlike U2, PJ does not want to be the 'biggest' band in the world. U2 wants to be and that's what you get if you're a U2 fan.

 

[corianderstem]

Axver, what do you think/say about the "contractual obligation" argument?

A lot of the arguments against the release seem to be completely ignoring that point.

I suppose they could wait until they had more material stacked up for a greatest hits instead of recycling what's already out, but it's hard to say without knowing details. Maybe they're wanting to renegotiate their contract? Or get out of their contract? I'm sure there's a reason for them doing it now and not five years from now. Maybe there was a timeline from the label regarding when they had to be released.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

And I've never called U2 a money-hungry monster. I just think this decision is really flawed.

A decision they made years ago when they signed their contract. The timing is most likely not their choice...

 

[corianderstem]

Ha! Reggie and I are sharing a brain at this moment in time.

 

[Axver]

That said Ax, whenever someone calls U2 a sellout or claims that everything they believed in about the band is thrown away because of one release it is a little hard to stomach. U2 are in a business and their product produces a lot of $$$ for their company. Whenever their company needs $$$ they put out their best product. They effectively own U2, no matter how independent U2 is.

And if you think that U2 is in a real position to fight that you don't understand the nature of business.

I hate the term 'sellout' and I avoid using it myself. It has become a silly word with ill-defined connotations and I'm not even going to touch it with a stick. However, I won't hide my disappointment with the band, as I think this last year has seen some bad releases. This isn't the U2 I like, but I guess a fan and the band have to diverge sometimes.

And regarding the business aspect, one of my first posts on this thread asked "what marketing fool" made this decision. I think this is a dreadful move, commercially speaking, for reasons I have already explained at length (and are supposedly ridiculous and not worth listening to, according to some here).

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Ha! Reggie and I are sharing a brain at this moment in time.

Scary isn't it? I always said you had the looks and I had the brains...but it looks like I was wrong!!

 

[Lancemc]

And I've never called U2 a money-hungry monster. I just think this decision is really flawed.

I never meant to imply you said that, but I do remember something along those lines earlier. And I definitely see what you're saying. So maybe it's more like a "tertiary" product then. I mean, the stuff on the previous 2 Best Of's was also available on other releases, their albums, and aside from a couple new mixes and new tracks (which this compilation also features), they didn't offer anything completely new. And I'm sure you will make the same point that yes we already DO have two Best Of releases, so this release is completely pointless. Well, I agree with that. It is pointless. But there's also the view that this offers an alternative to those who would rather have "all" the major hits on one disc then buy two seperate releases for them plus some stuff they may never listen to.

So, the two biggest drawbacks to fans like us are 1. Having to buy a new compilation soley for one new song. 2. A delay in releasing a new album/tour.

1. There are obvious ways around this. You could download the new track over iTunes for 99 cents, or just download it illegally, we've all done it, Bono's never gonna know.

2. I already made my argument about this earlier. I just don't see this release affecting a new album or tour in any negitive way. If anything I see good signs towards quick recording and release for future releases. Coolio.

 

[Axver]

Axver, what do you think/say about the "contractual obligation" argument?

A lot of the arguments against the release seem to be completely ignoring that point.

I've already addressed this issue in detail in the earlier pages of this thread. My argument, in a nutshell, is that a band of U2's influence and position has so much control over their material that if they wanted to re-interpret or re-negotiate their contract, it is likely that they could and incur little or no penalty. In other words, if they didn't want to release a Best Of this year, their hands aren't tied like lesser bands who are slaves to contractual obligations.

I certainly do not discount the arguments that U2 may just want to get rid of the contract and move on into the future, though. That would still not make this release a good one in my eyes, but at least give it some justification, which I feel it is presently starkly lacking.

 

[vaz02]

My major concern is u2's legacy , if they retired in a couple of years will they be remembered as great artists or a band that lost there way.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

I hate the term 'sellout' and I avoid using it myself. It has become a silly word with ill-defined connotations and I'm not even going to touch it with a stick. However, I won't hide my disappointment with the band, as I think this last year has seen some bad releases. This isn't the U2 I like, but I guess a fan and the band have to diverge sometimes.

And regarding the business aspect, one of my first posts on this thread asked "what marketing fool" made this decision. I think this is a dreadful move, commercially speaking, for reasons I have already explained at length (and are supposedly ridiculous and not worth listening to, according to some here).

Ax you're a huge fan, I know that, so I can understand your disappointment with this. Me, I've been through most of U2 changes and so I roll with the punches anymore.

From a diehard fan's standpoint it's another gouge into our pocketbooks. Those who don't have deep pockets are offended that we are being sold a bill of goods we already have.

I get that, but from the business side of things Universal says...profits margins are down...bigtime from last year. What do we have that millions upon millions will buy? Ah yes U2. Those guys have credibility, great songs and a HUGE fanbase!! Oh guess what they are also under contract to put ONE MORE compilation album out. So this is what we get. It's not Bono, Edge or even Paul McGuinness sitting down to decide this (though I suspect Mr. McGuinness didn't exactly express shock when this was brought to him), it's the business and Universal wins everytime (or just about).

 

[corianderstem]

Ah, okay. Thanks, Axver. I missed your earlier response, since I jumped in late and skimmed in a major way.

And Reggie, can't we both have both?

 

[Axver]

I mean, the stuff on the previous 2 Best Of's was also available on other releases, their albums, and aside from a couple new mixes and new tracks (which this compilation also features), they didn't offer anything completely new.

Yes, but I feel that for a band with a career as extensive as U2's, it does make some sense to have some compilation to introduce casual fans. However, that's already been done, so that's why I call this release 'unnecessary' and 'needless'.

But there's also the view that this offers an alternative to those who would rather have "all" the major hits on one disc then buy two seperate releases for them plus some stuff they may never listen to.

I actually addressed this in one of my first posts on the thread. I'm sure some marketing executive decided that it was a problem that sales were being split between two Best Ofs, so here's one comprehensive one to cover them all! Except I'm sure it will backfire and just divide sales between three rather than two Best Ofs and reduce the relative success of all three. (Almost a verbatim repeat of what I said last night. I feel many of my points have been ignored and just painted with the "ridiculous" brush.)

So, the two biggest drawbacks to fans like us are 1. Having to buy a new compilation soley for one new song. 2. A delay in releasing a new album/tour.

1. There are obvious ways around this. You could download the new track over iTunes for 99 cents, or just download it illegally, we've all done it, Bono's never gonna know.

2. I already made my argument about this earlier. I just don't see this release affecting a new album or tour in any negitive way. If anything I see good signs towards quick recording and release for future releases. Coolio.

I never argued #2, except in a joking sense with bono_man2002. I don't buy it either. And regarding #1, absolutely, I'm going to download the new material with no qualms at all. I just think U2 could have released that material more constructively, such as a digital only single or an EP or something like that with profits going to Music Rising. It doesn't need a Best Of.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

My major concern is u2's legacy , if they retired in a couple of years will they be remembered as great artists or a band that lost there way.

Oh...I think U2's legacy is secure. In 10 years, I guarantee you no one will even remember this release (unless the new song is huge).

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Ah, okay. Thanks, Axver. I missed your earlier response, since I jumped in late and skimmed in a major way.

And Reggie, can't we both have both?

Ah cori you have it both...but I'm not so lucky

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

Should we have a 3-way makeout session?

You're the only one that seems to be making any sense in this thread

100% totally agrees with ya!!


headache is the voice of reason!!


...and can I join ya.. and make it a 4-way makeout session?

 

[corianderstem]

My major concern is u2's legacy , if they retired in a couple of years will they be remembered as great artists or a band that lost there way.

I don't think this greatest hits release will affect their legacy in any way whatsoever.

As long as they keep putting out good music (and yes, that's subjective), no one will care about this release.

And those who already think U2 is past their prime ... well, this release won't affect their thinking either.

 

[phillyfan26]

For those making the positive arguement: Do you think the new song being a single would be better?

Personally, it would make much more sense and be easier.

 

[corianderstem]

Only if I could buy it as a CD single, and not be download only. I like having the physical CD.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The English language has rules to make communication effective and easy. Follow them. I have no time for people who consciously and deliberately choose to spell badly.

And instead of just throwing around silly accusations of ridiculousness, why don't you provide a well justified response to the criticisms? You are yet to do that. Your responses consist primarily of accusations and unjustified statements. Those of us who have problems with the release have taken the time to explain and justify our viewpoints in detail. You simply discard the lot of them by calling them ridiculous. That's a disrespectful generalisation. Why do all negative viewpoints lack merit? Surely not all of them are ridiculous?

i've made my reasons why i have absolutely no problem with this and am quite excited to hear the new material throughout the post. feel free to search for them, i really don't feel like wasting my time to go back and requote them for you.

as for the first part of your post... i had a nice, well thought out response to that one, but i've been told that it would be a bit of a violation of the FAQ's if i were to post it, so i'll refrain.

i spelled a word wrong. interference has no spell check. boo fucking hoo.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

For those making the positive arguement: Do you think the new song being a single would be better?

Personally, it would make much more sense and be easier.

i honestly don't care either way... i'm not buying the new greatest hits anyway, i don't need to, i have all the damn songs already.

 

[Lancemc]

I do think a new song as a single would be much better. But I'm also not upset about the Best Of. It just doesn't bother me one way or the other. I'm sure I'll buy it when it comes out for The Saints and the new song, and I'm just going to deal with it. U2 have already given me so much, changed my life even, that I can roll with the punches.

But totally, a stand-alone single would completely be a better thing.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Headache, my point regarding Pearl Jam is that unlike U2, PJ does not want to be the 'biggest' band in the world. U2 wants to be and that's what you get if you're a U2 fan.

oh i know. the point i was getting at was that pearl jam put out a greatest hits album that they didn't want to put out because it was a contract obligation. much like u2 has a contract obligation to do three greatest hits albums.

 

[Axver]

I get that, but from the business side of things Universal says...profits margins are down...bigtime from last year. What do we have that millions upon millions will buy? Ah yes U2. Those guys have credibility, great songs and a HUGE fanbase!! Oh guess what they are also under contract to put ONE MORE compilation album out. So this is what we get. It's not Bono, Edge or even Paul McGuinness sitting down to decide this (though I suspect Mr. McGuinness didn't exactly express shock when this was brought to him), it's the business and Universal wins everytime (or just about).

It seems to me that U2 have put their weight behind this, though, by contributing new material to this. Maybe there is a clause in the contract that requires a new recording (in which case I'll concede the inaccuracy of the following!), but the fact U2 are putting a new song on this speaks volumes as, if they had opposed the release but felt their hands were tied, they could have just said "look, release all these repeats if you must, but you're not getting new songs out of us".

And if Universal wanted to make some money out of U2, I really think this is one of the worst ways to do so as I think other options could have proved more profitable and beneficial. This just splits sales between three rather than two releases and thereby reduce their relative success, which Universal doubtlessly doesn't want!

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Axver, what do you think/say about the "contractual obligation" argument?

A lot of the arguments against the release seem to be completely ignoring that point.

I suppose they could wait until they had more material stacked up for a greatest hits instead of recycling what's already out, but it's hard to say without knowing details. Maybe they're wanting to renegotiate their contract? Or get out of their contract? I'm sure there's a reason for them doing it now and not five years from now. Maybe there was a timeline from the label regarding when they had to be released.

Of course there is a reason! A point hardly anyone is mentioning - it's their 30th anniversary! What better way to document their past 30 years than a career retrospective greatest hits album? I would have preferred a double album compilation, sure, but that's a side issue really.

 

[XHendrix24]

It seems to me that U2 have put their weight behind this, though, by contributing new material to this. Maybe there is a clause in the contract that requires a new recording (in which case I'll concede the inaccuracy of the following!), but the fact U2 are putting a new song on this speaks volumes as, if they had opposed the release but felt their hands were tied, they could have just said "look, release all these repeats if you must, but you're not getting new songs out of us".

Well, if you look at it the other way, what if they put a couple of new songs on there so that it wasn't just a mediocre mishmash of the last two Greatest Hits CDs? Would you rather have had a CD with 16 songs from previous CDs and no new material at all?

 

[MrBrau1]

Headache

 

[LemonMelon]

Everytime when a band release a "Greatest Hits" filled with the same songs again and again their credibility go to hell.

Once again, and I repeat:

WHO GIVES A FLYING FLIP ABOUT CREDIBILITY?

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Oh Ax, I think that U2 is behind this 'Best Of' sure. They will endorse it, provide new songs for it and promote it without a hint of discourse for a couple of reasons:

1. The new song promotes Music Rising project
2. It helps promotes both U2 by U2 and the last leg of the Vertigo Tour.

Everyone wins as far as Universal is concerned.

 

[MrBrau1]

Once again, and I repeat:

WHO GIVES A FLYING FLIP ABOUT CREDIBILITY?

The best thing about this GH cd is my list of idiots and maroons on interference gets longer and more certified.