(10-02-2006) Definitive 'Best Of' on the Way -- U2.com*

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
We want a new album, not this dammit! I'm guessing 'Mercy' or whatever the new song is will be a single sweetest thing/Electrical storm esque so it'll have to be available on i-tunes.

Otherwise, an illegal download will just have to suffice - U2 have garnered more than enough money off myself and everyone else that loves their music.
 
OMG I HAIT U2 DEY DONT HAFF ENUFF GUD SONGZ 4 A BEST OV

SELLOWTS

I'd rather have a new album too, but who gives a fuck? if you don't want another Best of, don't buy it. I'm curious to hear what the new song will be.
 
Ya know, after skimming through these threads, I can totally hear Larry muttering to himself something along the lines of "if they think we're trying to jip them on purpose, why are they even fans to begin with."


As some people seem to be finding themselves disillusioned with the band as the years go by, after 20 years, I seem to find myself more and more disillusioned with the "fans" of the band. I'm not sure why people are taking this greatest hits thing so personally. Some people are sounding like spoiled brats who are upset that the band isn't catering to their desires. I'm reminded of a quote by Bono during the ZooTv era "We may lose some of the 'pop' kids, but we don't need them."


Anyway, as was mentioned in one of the other dozen threads about this, I'm scarfing down turkey and pie and listening to new U2 music on Thanksgiving. I think that's pretty damn nice.
 
Zoomerang96 said:
i don't care how much they put out

i care if it blows or not

and by in large, it's of my opinion that their post 2000 work isn't good.
Click to expand...

I don't care about how much they put out either. I was just commenting that one can't complain about U2's 2000-2006 productivity being lacking, when 1986-1999 wasn't exactly dominated with U2 items. During that time, there was only four full studio albums, one half-live/half-studio album, an odd collaboration album, some tour videos, 4 tours and a Best Of. From 2000-2006, there have been 2 full studio albums, two tours, and now two Best Of albums, along with various tour videos. In other words, it's on par or even surpasses U2's prior level of productivity.

As for your opinion of U2's post-2000 work, I think EVERYONE knows. And I also feel many, myself included, disagree. While AB was a great album (although ask Axver about that), there were oceans of problems with "Zooroopa" and "Pop". I'm not going to turn this into yet another debate of the 90's vs. 00's work - it's pointless and redundant. And really, your or my views here are meaningless for the topic of discussion.

What I do feel is "odd" is this release of yet another "Best Of". If U2 hadn't already released a 90's "Best Of", I would understand. But having yet another "Best Of" now, while working on another album and potential world tour seems ridiculous. The 80's and 90's "Best Of" releases were logical. This one is not. For the first time ever, I am truly disappointed that the studio or U2 are going ahead with this release. It seems like nothing more than an attept to get more $$ from fans. There's no need for a "Best Of the Best Ofs" at this point.

The only thing I can think of is that U2 wanted to release a single between albums. Bono's often stated how he enjoys doing this. I'm positive this is why we often see more charity release work done between albums as it gives U2 a chance to be "out there" without a full album and tour. We also see U2 more on soundtracks between albums as well. However, perhaps this time U2 had no soundtrack for this particular release. So they coupled it with the Green Day collaboration and put it on yet another "Best Of". There's some logic there, but I - stunningly - agree with Ponkine in that this type of CD should have been included in the "U2 by U2" book.
 
Last edited:
doctorwho said:
There's some logic there, but I - stunningly - agree with Ponkine in that this type of CD should have been included in the "U2 by U2" book.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what would be the point of that, though - surely anyone who buys the book will already have the hits.

I'd be more interested in the book containing another "Unreleased & Rare" compilation, or a live compilation - something that would be more appealing to the people who would be buying the book anyway.

Regardless, that part (bundling it with the book) is not happening, so this conversation is moot.
 
amen to that!


U2dork said:
Ya know, after skimming through these threads, I can totally hear Larry muttering to himself something along the lines of "if they think we're trying to jip them on purpose, why are they even fans to begin with."


As some people seem to be finding themselves disillusioned with the band as the years go by, after 20 years, I seem to find myself more and more disillusioned with the "fans" of the band. I'm not sure why people are taking this greatest hits thing so personally. Some people are sounding like spoiled brats who are upset that the band isn't catering to their desires. I'm reminded of a quote by Bono during the ZooTv era "We may lose some of the 'pop' kids, but we don't need them."


Anyway, as was mentioned in one of the other dozen threads about this, I'm scarfing down turkey and pie and listening to new U2 music on Thanksgiving. I think that's pretty damn nice.
Click to expand...
 
doctorwho said:



What I do feel is "odd" is this release of yet another "Best Of". If U2 hadn't already released a 90's "Best Of", I would understand. But having yet another "Best Of" now, while working on another album and potential world tour seems ridiculous. The 80's and 90's "Best Of" releases were logical. This one is not. For the first time ever, I am truly disappointed that the studio or U2 are going ahead with this release. It seems like nothing more than an attept to get more $$ from fans. There's no need for a "Best Of the Best Ofs" at this point.

The only thing I can think of is that U2 wanted to release a single between albums. Bono's often stated how he enjoys doing this. I'm positive this is why we often see more charity release work done between albums as it gives U2 a chance to be "out there" without a full album and tour. We also see U2 more on soundtracks between albums as well. However, perhaps this time U2 had no soundtrack for this particular release. So they coupled it with the Green Day collaboration and put it on yet another "Best Of". There's some logic there, but I - stunningly - agree with Ponkine in that this type of CD should have been included in the "U2 by U2" book.
Click to expand...
Last part, first: There would be no point of releasing this type of greatest hits album for the diehard U2 fans (who are the majority buying the book), since this release is for the casual fan who doesn't want to have to choose anymore between two different best of albums.

First part, last: This best of is simply designed to fill a hole for the casual fan who would love to have U2's early hits on the same disc as their later hits. It's for the type of fan who loved 'Beautiful Day' when they heard it on the radio but also loves singing along to 'Pride' - but doesn't want to buy two best of albums to get them both. This is just an example, but it's that type of fan. And this fan certainly exists, make no mistake. Just look at the sales figures for the 1990s Best Of compared to the 1980s Best Of. The 2nd one didn't sell too well in comparison. This new one is the solution from a marketing perspective - and from a practical one, too. There is a demand for this, and now Island Records shall simply supply it - who, I might add, are the ones who have the power to decide on the timing of this release since they were given full control of 3 Best Of releases.
 
cover for the album

u2bestof.jpg
 
If this delays the new albumto 2008 I'll be pissed, otherwise I can just write it off as Universal looking for cash in a slow music year.

-New Year's Day
-Sunday Bloody Sunday
-Pride
-Streets
-WOWY
-Still haven't...
-One
-Mysterious Ways
-Sweetest Thing
-Stay
-Beautiful Day
-Walk On
-Elevation
-Vertigo
-Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own
-City of Blinding Lights
-Saints are Coming (the secret version recorded w/o Green Day haha, one can dream)
-New song (which unfortunately with the label produced by Rick Rubin means no Mercy)

Both Sometimes and COBL will be there, like someone said they'll want to create residual sales of Bomb which I'm sue they will. Both won big Grammys Sometimes with Song of the Year and COBL with Rock Song.

Bad, and anything from Boy, Pop and October didn't chart high enough to make this release.
 
I wonder if they'll base the 16 songs off of the best sellers on iTunes. At this point they'd be -

01. Vertigo
02. Beautiful Day
03. One
04. With or Without You
05. I Still Haven't Found
06. Where the Streets
07. City of Blinding Lights
08. Sometimes You Can't Make It
09. New Year's Day
10. Sunday Bloody Sunday
11. Mysterious Ways
12. Elevation
13. Stuck in a Moment
14. All I Want Is You
15. Walk On
16. Pride (In the Name Of Love)

That to me pretty much covers the most popular 16 U2 songs, representing each album in the following way -

Boy - 0
October - 0
War - 2
The Unforgettable Fire - 1
The Joshua Tree - 3
Rattle and Hum - 1
Achtung Baby - 2
Zooropa - 0
Pop - 0
All That You Can't - 4
How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb - 3

Not that bad of representation. But let's face it, the typical U2 fan does not know any songs from Boy, October, Zooropa or Pop. This to me, screams of a "Definitive Best Of". Not my personal favorite of the TRUE 16 Best of U2 tracks, but definitely the most popular.
 
Last edited:
i'll say it again no one seemed to want to listen, but edge said on a irish radio station that there will be a brand new U2 album next year
 
this is shit... won't buy it.....first time in 16 years being a U2 fan that I really have enough of those Best of this and best of that.... at the end we'll have the same song in 10 different CD's.... this is sad for a band like U2.... it smells the end.....
 
Michael Griffiths said:

Last part, first: There would be no point of releasing this type of greatest hits album for the diehard U2 fans (who are the majority buying the book), since this release is for the casual fan who doesn't want to have to choose anymore between two different best of albums.

First part, last: This best of is simply designed to fill a hole for the casual fan who would love to have U2's early hits on the same disc as their later hits. It's for the type of fan who loved 'Beautiful Day' when they heard it on the radio but also loves singing along to 'Pride' - but doesn't want to buy two best of albums to get them both. This is just an example, but it's that type of fan. And this fan certainly exists, make no mistake. Just look at the sales figures for the 1990s Best Of compared to the 1980s Best Of. The 2nd one didn't sell too well in comparison. This new one is the solution from a marketing perspective - and from a practical one, too. There is a demand for this, and now Island Records shall simply supply it - who, I might add, are the ones who have the power to decide on the timing of this release since they were given full control of 3 Best Of releases.
Click to expand...

Your points are valid, of course. And I always tend to write a bit "tongue in cheek" (as I know some of our other infamous members do :sexywink: ), but I still feel both could be done.

This type of "Best Of" is perhaps a nice idea for the very reasons you stated. But why NOW is the question. Why not wait a few more years until 2010 or so? Why not wait until the next album at least?

I recall U2 (perhaps it was The Edge) stating that they would never release a "Best Of" or "Greatest Hits" album. I was proud of U2 for that. However, when news came of these "Best Of" releases, I accepted it. After all, for a band of U2's longevity, it's only fair to have some of these "Best Of" albums. Grouping by decade was a nice touch and I really enjoyed the albums.

But this particular release seems premature. It also stinks of corporate greed. Yes, there is a market for it - perhaps a very nice market. And given how many Elvis or Beatles "Best Of" (or Greatest Hits or "One") albums there are, it's tough to criticize U2 when some other famous artists have done the same. After all, even though John Lennon had all these high moral views, he certainly benefitted - handsomely - from the Beatles' "Greatest Hits" releases. So why can't Bono? Why do we hold Bono/U2 up to an even higher standard?

As for me, I know I'll buy it. There's new songs, it'll have a special edition CD and it will also make for a nice gift. I'll probably buy quite a few. ;-) I just wish that U2 either also included this with their book (or perhaps a special package - book and CD) or waited a few more years.
 
Yahweh_OMG said:
this is shit... won't buy it.....first time in 16 years being a U2 fan that I really have enough of those Best of this and best of that.... at the end we'll have the same song in 10 different CD's.... this is sad for a band like U2.... it smells the end.....
Click to expand...

I just posted, but wanted to reply to this separately.

It does "smell of the end" a bit, and perhaps this is why the album is coming out. Perhaps U2 does only have one or two more full studio albums in them. Perhaps they do only have one more world tour in them. If the new U2 album doesn't come out until 2008, that puts Bono at 48. U2 and fans - tons of fans - have stated that they don't want U2 to follow the path of the Rolling Stones. So how much more can they do? It may be time for Las Vegas Bono or just soundtracks or periodic studio releases (when the mood strikes them). Suddenly we might hear more U2 songs in commercials. One never knows.

The point is, you may be right and perhaps we need to prepare. I don't think U2 are at that point yet - I think they have a few more albums in them. But I'm not sure we will see another rocking U2 when they are 55. Do I even want to see them when they are 55 ('cause I'll be in my 50's then as well!)? Hmmm... :hmm:
 
KUEFC09U2 said:
i'll say it again no one seemed to want to listen, but edge said on a irish radio station that there will be a brand new U2 album next year
Click to expand...

He did? When did he say this? That's good news. After the comment from Bono and Larry about no album in 2007, I was a little "afraid". This sounds good. What more did he say?
 
doctorwho said:


Your points are valid, of course. And I always tend to write a bit "tongue in cheek" (as I know some of our other infamous members do :sexywink: ), but I still feel both could be done.

This type of "Best Of" is perhaps a nice idea for the very reasons you stated. But why NOW is the question. Why not wait a few more years until 2010 or so? Why not wait until the next album at least?

I recall U2 (perhaps it was The Edge) stating that they would never release a "Best Of" or "Greatest Hits" album. I was proud of U2 for that. However, when news came of these "Best Of" releases, I accepted it. After all, for a band of U2's longevity, it's only fair to have some of these "Best Of" albums. Grouping by decade was a nice touch and I really enjoyed the albums.

But this particular release seems premature. It also stinks of corporate greed. Yes, there is a market for it - perhaps a very nice market. And given how many Elvis or Beatles "Best Of" (or Greatest Hits or "One") albums there are, it's tough to criticize U2 when some other famous artists have done the same. After all, even though John Lennon had all these high moral views, he certainly benefitted - handsomely - from the Beatles' "Greatest Hits" releases. So why can't Bono? Why do we hold Bono/U2 up to an even higher standard?

As for me, I know I'll buy it. There's new songs, it'll have a special edition CD and it will also make for a nice gift. I'll probably buy quite a few. ;-) I just wish that U2 either also included this with their book (or perhaps a special package - book and CD) or waited a few more years.
Click to expand...
I agree with you Doctorwho - the timing of this release does sound odd from a non-corporate point of view (which we are obviously coming from). As someone else said, this new Best Of will go obsolete as soon as a new U2 album gets released (unless there aren't going to be any great songs on it, of course). And this is why it screams like the end of U2 for some people, as bands usually only release a full career best of album at the end of their career for the very reason it would go obsolete otherwise. I have a different take: I believe U2 want to close a door. With the release of their book, with it being their 30 year anniversary, and now with Island coming to them wanting to make a scary amount of money with a full Best Of, U2 probably think now is the best time to "go away and dream it all up again - again." As Larry said recently, he doesn't like looking at the past, that they are indeed looking to the future, but sometimes, he said, you need to look at the past to see how you got here. And I believe that's part of this release. I strongly feel that you and I willl see a very different U2 on the next record. As Edge stated, "it will have a different spirit." They could simply be bookending one part of their career - part 1 seems to be over with the release of a career spanning Best Of and their first band autobiography - bookended with a book.

And I can understand why U2 fans are disappointed. The band they believed in had all kinds of ideals. Even during U2's most plastic and shiny pant wearing phases, we felt U2 were making a mockery of their corporate stature - all done with irony and a twist (an an olive, no less). This was a band that we felt could go up against anything. They had the attitude to storm into a new world - the digital age, the blending of morality and media and commerce - with their heads held high. Now the rules have all been bent of of shape, if not totally obliterated. Now we expect our old U2. But they adapted. And so it's natural we feel bent out of shape, a little. We didn't adapt as well, did we? To us, we see U2 as the very thing they despised. To U2, they are striving to be relevant in an ever changing corporate and artistic world. We forget it was during the height of Popmart that they signed the Best Of deal with Island Records - in 1998. This is a time that many U2 fans deem U2 to be infallible, but this is when it happened. They were paid 50 million up front for that deal! That's before anything was even put on the shelves.

At the end of the day, U2 are now reeping all the rewards that they have been putting off for a long time. They have paid their dues like no other successful band. They barely broke even during the most extravagent tour in history - only because of the T-shirt sales! They now want to take some of it back. I can't really blame them too much.

What is most important for me is the music. If the music suffers, then they have completely lost the plot. They may as well quit. But as long as I still get excited to hear new U2 music, that tells me I still believe in the band - and that their heart is still in the right place.
 
I hope that Please will be on it. I missed that on the "best of"
 
Michael Griffiths said:

I agree with you Doctorwho - the timing of this release does sound odd from a non-corporate point of view (which we are obviously coming from). As someone else said, this new Best Of will go obsolete as soon as a new U2 album gets released (unless there aren't going to be any great songs on it, of course). And this is why it screams like the end of U2 for some people, as bands usually only release a full career best of album at the end of their career for the very reason it would go obsolete otherwise. I have a different take: I believe U2 want to close a door. With the release of their book, with it being their 30 year anniversary, and now with Island coming to them wanting to make a scary amount of money with a full Best Of, U2 probably think now is the best time to "go away and dream it all up again - again." As Larry said recently, he doesn't like looking at the past, that they are indeed looking to the future, but sometimes, he said, you need to look at the past to see how you got here. And I believe that's part of this release. I strongly feel that you and I willl see a very different U2 on the next record. As Edge stated, "it will have a different spirit." They could simply be bookending one part of their career - part 1 seems to be over with the release of a career spanning Best Of and their first band autobiography - bookended with a book.

And I can understand why U2 fans are disappointed. The band they believed in had all kinds of ideals. Even during U2's most plastic and shiny pant wearing phases, we felt U2 were making a mockery of their corporate stature - all done with irony and a twist (an an olive, no less). This was a band that we felt could go up against anything. They had the attitude to storm into a new world - the digital age, the blending of morality and media and commerce - with their heads held high. Now the rules have all been bent of of shape, if not totally obliterated. Now we expect our old U2. But they adapted. And so it's natural we feel bent out of shape, a little. We didn't adapt as well, did we? To us, we see U2 as the very thing they despised. To U2, they are striving to be relevant in an ever changing corporate and artistic world. We forget it was during the height of Popmart that they signed the Best Of deal with Island Records - in 1998. This is a time that many U2 fans deem U2 to be infallible, but this is when it happened. They were paid 50 million up front for that deal! That's before anything was even put on the shelves.

At the end of the day, U2 are now reeping all the rewards that they have been putting off for a long time. They have paid their dues like no other successful band. They barely broke even during the most extravagent tour in history - only because of the T-shirt sales! They now want to take some of it back. I can't really blame them too much.

What is most important for me is the music. If the music suffers, then they have completely lost the plot. They may as well quit. But as long as I still get excited to hear new U2 music, that tells me I still believe in the band - and that their heart is still in the right place.
Click to expand...


As you and I have been long time fans and have been on this and other U2 message boards, we know a bit about how each other thinks. And as such, you probably know that I am a supporter of many of U2's actions.

I recognize the "failure" of "Pop". And I recognize using the word "failure" is also harsh. But by U2's standards, "Pop" did not sell well in the U.S. In fact, we'd have to go a LONG way back to find a studio album not go at least Double Platinum in the U.S.! I know this came as a bit of surprise to the U2 camp (as did the criticisms of the tour).

Also, the world is changing. Years ago, radio was enough. Then if a band got a bit of MTV exposure, like U2 did in the 80's, that was enough to create huge hits and top-selling albums. But by the mid-90's, that had changed. Corporations owned the top radio stations and they dictated - from a very narrow list - of what songs could be played. MTV played more silly shows than videos. No longer could an artist rely on radio or MTV to get any exposure.

So U2 adapted. That meant appearances on Letterman, SNL, the Grammies and the Super Bowl. That meant allowing songs to be used for some sporting events. That meant allowing U2-themed products. That meant advertising albums on TV.

R.E.M. haven't done this and they faded. And it's clear U2 weren't ready to fade.

Some question the quality of music on the recent releases, but I find they are as good OR as bad as all of U2's work. That's all I'll say on that as I will not turn this thread into yet another 80's vs. 90's vs. 00's topic.

Bottom line - I think you're right. U2 learned to change. Some of us went along with that change. We realized how useless MTV was. We hear the crap on the radio. We recognize that for an artist to get on the radio or sell albums these days, they need to do promotion - different and perhaps more than before.

But some fans disagree. They have that "the music should sell itself" mentality. And clearly that doesn't work well.

All that said, I still feel this particular "Best Of" is premature. Wait until the next album (in '07 or '08) then release this new "Best Of" with 2 CD's or whatever. I'd get that - I might even appreciate that. Or, have this new "Best Of" tossed in with the book. As it stands, I just feel a bit let down. I felt I defended U2 for a long time. I got why they had to do what they did and I not only respected it, I supported it and encouraged it!. But now they went too far. This album is superfluous and stinks of greed.
 
I don't buy the greed theory. U2 have more money than they know what to do with. If anything, blame the record company, as they have full control on this deal. There again, U2 handed that control to them many years ago (in 1998 to be exact), but in exchange U2 also got full ownership of all their songs, past, present, and future. This sort of autonomy is unheard of in the record business, but U2 pulled it of. But with anything, it came with a price. They may now have to pay for that a little (as we see in the form of fan backlash), but in the big picture, I don't think it will hurt their legacy or anything like that. In conclusion, I agree with you: this "complete" Best Of is premature from a career standpoint (U2's career is still in full swing). However, I don't think it is being released because U2 is greedy, but rather because the record company (along with the rest of the music business), had a bad year. Of course, that doesn't mean U2 isn't going to support the release - they are loyal and contractually bound to Island Records, afterall - but somehow I doubt they came up with the idea to release it right now. Of course I don't know, but for the reasons I mentioned, I believe it is the record company's decision.
 
i don't know why so many people see this as a bad thing, especially all those ATYCLB and HTDAAB haters.

this is very obviously a throwaway title. many bands do it. U2 just held off longer than most. A successful band of their caliber today would have a best of after every four albums or so. It is the way things happen.

but it is also a very obvious closing point. a bookend. It would be stupid NOT to release a cd like this right now, with the book in stores (they even have the book at target, and non fans are talking about U2 again, which is prime time to hook new fans... who aren't going to put out the effort to seek out older releases that aren't "on the new release wall")

but mostly, given all the talk from the band over the last year, this bookend means they are ready for something new.

They picked a producer they've never worked with before who is notorious for helping bands reinvent their sound (and with a harder edge for the most part, if you don't include singer songwriters like Johnny Cash)

Given that they still have something like 2 more studio albums required of them under their current contract and that they are building a multi million dollar studio in Dublin and THEY ARE RECORDING AN ALBUM AS WE SPEAK, I really don't understand people suggesting that this is a sign of the end of the band. That makes no sense whatsoever.

And since when do greatest hits equal the end of a career? Sure, if you compare U2 to artists like Britney Spears. But if you look at real artists, this theory almost never holds true. Not even in the case of a pop artist like Madonna.

Many many of the most influential and viable artists in rock history have released SEVERAL greatest hits throughout their career and have continued to release many more hits afterward.

Bob Dylan has more greatest hits album than anyone, all released throughout his career. Several of them were "representative of his whole career up to that point" even after previous best of releases, and he continued making important music. They even sell his most recent "all encompassing" greatest hits at Starbucks for God's sake.

And yet this year he released one of the most important records of his career, and probably the best album all year. So this "greatest hits signifies the end" doesn't hold water.

and everything U2 is up to at the moment completely refutes this belief.

So why aren't POP lovers and ATYCLB haters alike embracing this bookending to their career up to this point and focusing on the future (which is most likely less than a year away) to a release that will no doubt change the way modern U2 sounds. Working with Rubin alone ensures that they won't be making so called "adult contemporary" music that the ATYCLB haters suggest U2 has been making since 2000.

I can't believe so many people are upset that the biggest band in the world is releasing a comprehensive greatest hits record. Seriously, what did we expect? They aren't some indie band from down the street. They sell out stadiums worldwide. They play at american football games and appear on blockbuster soundtracks and iPod commercials. They own hotels and stock in video game companies.

This debate is silly.
 
Clawgrabber said:
i don't know why so many people see this as a bad thing, especially all those ATYCLB and HTDAAB haters.

this is very obviously a throwaway title. many bands do it. U2 just held off longer than most. A successful band of their caliber today would have a best of after every four albums or so. It is the way things happen.

but it is also a very obvious closing point. a bookend. It would be stupid NOT to release a cd like this right now, with the book in stores (they even have the book at target, and non fans are talking about U2 again, which is prime time to hook new fans... who aren't going to put out the effort to seek out older releases that aren't "on the new release wall")

but mostly, given all the talk from the band over the last year, this bookend means they are ready for something new.

They picked a producer they've never worked with before who is notorious for helping bands reinvent their sound (and with a harder edge for the most part, if you don't include singer songwriters like Johnny Cash)

Given that they still have something like 2 more studio albums required of them under their current contract and that they are building a multi million dollar studio in Dublin and THEY ARE RECORDING AN ALBUM AS WE SPEAK, I really don't understand people suggesting that this is a sign of the end of the band. That makes no sense whatsoever.

And since when do greatest hits equal the end of a career? Sure, if you compare U2 to artists like Britney Spears. But if you look at real artists, this theory almost never holds true. Not even in the case of a pop artist like Madonna.

Many many of the most influential and viable artists in rock history have released SEVERAL greatest hits throughout their career and have continued to release many more hits afterward.

Bob Dylan has more greatest hits album than anyone, all released throughout his career. Several of them were "representative of his whole career up to that point" even after previous best of releases, and he continued making important music. They even sell his most recent "all encompassing" greatest hits at Starbucks for God's sake.

And yet this year he released one of the most important records of his career, and probably the best album all year. So this "greatest hits signifies the end" doesn't hold water.

and everything U2 is up to at the moment completely refutes this belief.

So why aren't POP lovers and ATYCLB haters alike embracing this bookending to their career up to this point and focusing on the future (which is most likely less than a year away) to a release that will no doubt change the way modern U2 sounds. Working with Rubin alone ensures that they won't be making so called "adult contemporary" music that the ATYCLB haters suggest U2 has been making since 2000.

I can't believe so many people are upset that the biggest band in the world is releasing a comprehensive greatest hits record. Seriously, what did we expect? They aren't some indie band from down the street. They sell out stadiums worldwide. They play at american football games and appear on blockbuster soundtracks and iPod commercials. They own hotels and stock in video game companies.

This debate is silly.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree with you more. People should be excited about what this means. I can't wait till the next U2 album. :up:
 
Clawgrabber said:
i don't know why so many people see this as a bad thing, especially all those ATYCLB and HTDAAB haters.

this is very obviously a throwaway title. many bands do it. U2 just held off longer than most. A successful band of their caliber today would have a best of after every four albums or so. It is the way things happen.

but it is also a very obvious closing point. a bookend. It would be stupid NOT to release a cd like this right now, with the book in stores (they even have the book at target, and non fans are talking about U2 again, which is prime time to hook new fans... who aren't going to put out the effort to seek out older releases that aren't "on the new release wall")

but mostly, given all the talk from the band over the last year, this bookend means they are ready for something new.

They picked a producer they've never worked with before who is notorious for helping bands reinvent their sound (and with a harder edge for the most part, if you don't include singer songwriters like Johnny Cash)

Given that they still have something like 2 more studio albums required of them under their current contract and that they are building a multi million dollar studio in Dublin and THEY ARE RECORDING AN ALBUM AS WE SPEAK, I really don't understand people suggesting that this is a sign of the end of the band. That makes no sense whatsoever.

And since when do greatest hits equal the end of a career? Sure, if you compare U2 to artists like Britney Spears. But if you look at real artists, this theory almost never holds true. Not even in the case of a pop artist like Madonna.

Many many of the most influential and viable artists in rock history have released SEVERAL greatest hits throughout their career and have continued to release many more hits afterward.

Bob Dylan has more greatest hits album than anyone, all released throughout his career. Several of them were "representative of his whole career up to that point" even after previous best of releases, and he continued making important music. They even sell his most recent "all encompassing" greatest hits at Starbucks for God's sake.

And yet this year he released one of the most important records of his career, and probably the best album all year. So this "greatest hits signifies the end" doesn't hold water.

and everything U2 is up to at the moment completely refutes this belief.

So why aren't POP lovers and ATYCLB haters alike embracing this bookending to their career up to this point and focusing on the future (which is most likely less than a year away) to a release that will no doubt change the way modern U2 sounds. Working with Rubin alone ensures that they won't be making so called "adult contemporary" music that the ATYCLB haters suggest U2 has been making since 2000.

I can't believe so many people are upset that the biggest band in the world is releasing a comprehensive greatest hits record. Seriously, what did we expect? They aren't some indie band from down the street. They sell out stadiums worldwide. They play at american football games and appear on blockbuster soundtracks and iPod commercials. They own hotels and stock in video game companies.

This debate is silly.
Click to expand...

Bob Dylan can do what he wants I suppose. Same with the Beatles, I mean, was releasing '1' not a cash grab.

I suppose U2 thought if 'greats' like Bob Dylan and the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, etc could pull that off, after 30 years as a band they could?

If this is just a contractual thing, well sorry folks, that's how a contract works. You sign it agreeing to certain terms. Sure they could've renegotiated again to get out of releasing 'greatest hits' albums but they didn't.

Going by a lot of opinions from Interference.com, a majority it seems, they couldn't[i/] release a best of 2001-2010 because ATYCLB and Atomic Bomb have no "best" quality to them. If (big if) they released 2 more albums before 2010, it'd just be a best of 2 albums but if those are 'mediocre' as well, more whinging.

Perhaps they just looked at alot of comments about their 2 prior albums here and figured the contractually obligated best of would have to be representative of their whole career, not the best of the current decade because a lot of fans don't like those 2 albums.

Is it too soon?

4 years too early? Well there might only be 1 more album released in 4 years time, and if the last 2 albums were such crap, as some suggest/imply then a "best of our current album" would get them even more sh*t.

It IS about time for a live disc for sure.

It's been 23 years since their last fully live album.

A live compilation is long overdue.

I've more important things to complain about.

Like I got a street sweeping violation ticket, there is no sign on my street that says which day is street sweeping, and they switched the days but I couldn't find the stupid flyer with the day change. Supposed to be sign every 200 or so feet, I walked down the street, crossed a small intersection, and found a sign, that was hidden by tree branches.

$30 I had to pay. I'd rather pay $30 for some songs I have and 2 I don't then that lousy 'violation.'
 
Last edited:
:yes: Live best of or non-singles, hopefully. (the U2.com story said "16 of the band's best known songs" so...)

I wonder how they will pack 11 albums and 24 years of music into 16 songs.
 
My earlier comments weren't really considered. As a fan, I probably would have preferred a 2000-2010 best of, thus making a nice 'trilogy'. this release seems heavily premature.

But, fair point - There's alot of casual fans out there and maybe I shouldn't knock U2 for being part business. Perhaps it isn't down to the four musicians so much and more the record company and it's not like political parties aren't ten times worse. At least the proceeds are going somewhere awesome - if you founded a charity and had a u2 release at your disposal... I think we'd all do the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
Looking for the best storyteller of U2 - Garage to Stadius
Replies
0
Views
111
Dave A
D
dan_smee
I listened to No Line on the Horizon right through tonight for the first time in about 10 years…
2 3
Replies
83
Views
2K
lazarus
lazarus
H
Filming ?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
rosephile
R
MrsSpringsteen
Atomic City
Replies
11
Views
1K
HeartlandGirl
HeartlandGirl
W
A Boy Falls From the Sky is some U2's best work
Replies
3
Views
2K
zoocarolina
Z

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom