Axver made a point that people dismissing the criticism of U2 for releasing the new album should contribute to the discussion, and state why these criticisms are invalid. Point taken. So, I'm throwing my hat into the ring.
To claim that the release of a greatest hits album invalidates an entire career spanning 30 years *is* ridiculous, no matter how you spell it.
Many are claiming that this is just a pathetic cash grab on the part of the band. Let's say for the sake of argument that it is. Don't buy it, then. Yes, it's as simple as that. Don't contribute to their greed by spending your hard-earned dollars. Download the new material for free, if you want, and listen to your heart's content. It's not like any of them are going to starve if you do this, and I'm sure that many of you, like myself, have spent thousands of your dollars on them over the years, so what's a freebie here and there? Many of you naysayers sound as if you feel that the band are victimizing you by releasing this material. We all have free will. Use yours to not buy it. Then, sit back and watch the sales numbers over the holiday season. It's all about supply and demand, folks. If this recording should flop, garnering low sales, then you'll be fully entitled to point and laugh and mock and say "told you so, U2, you greedy, money-grubbing idiots." However, I suspect that sales will be just fine. All U2 fans are not like us. Some are more casual, and will appreciate a release like this.
Let's move on now to the morality of releasing extraneous, redundant material. How could they (gasp) compromise themselves like that? Here's a newsflash - idealism is passe. Even in the 80's, pre-Africa, when U2 were at their most pure, politically ranting, idealistic best, I can't ever recall hearing them say that they didn't intend to make a profit off of this venture. While U2 do raise the bar on social consciousness and are probably much more moral, on average, than other bands, I've never expected perfection or complete altruism from them. That's a little unrealistic. Make all the money you want, boys. Roll around naked in it, while guzzling the finest champagne and smoking insanely expensive cigars that were lit with hundred dollar bills, in the most decadant way imaginable, for all I care. I fully understand that it's my choice whether or not to contribute to it.
Another line of argument has seen people making comparisons to other bands who have released multiple greatest hits packages that have rendered them irrelevant. Again, this argument doesn't wash. If bands become irrelevant after greatest hits packages, it's not because of the greatest hits packages, it's because their original material has become crap (read: Aerosmith, Rolling Stones). Correlation does not imply causation, people. While many around here have their favourite eras, and think that the '00 material is irrelevant crap, it appears that much of the music-consuming public is in strong disagreement, given their massive popularity over the whole HTDAAB/Vertigo tour era. "Oh, but now they're pandering to the masses, and forgetting longtime fans," some of you might whine. Get over yourself. You're not their audience of one. If you truly feel this way, lock yourself in your room with the music from your favourite era, and pretend that the band called it quits just after that. Fantasize that in your perfect world, they didn't put out anything after JT/AB/insert era of choice here. A lot of people do like their later material, as evidenced by their insane popularity. Logically speaking, this release will have no impact on their future popularity. It might gain them a few fans, but I suspect that any they lose because of it are just highly critical people who were probably on their way out, anyway. Personally, I prefer to judge their future relevance on new material (while realizing, of course, that this is highly subjective). This greatest hits package is just a minor blip in the radar. Practically meaningless.
The one point I will concede, and what I'd be most concerned about if I were a member of U2's management or marketing team is oversaturation of the market, given all the new product they have released in the last year and a bit. However, even if this oversaturation does come to pass, I think it'll be a temporary issue, and will have little to no lasting effect. Also, given that I'm not a member of their management or marketing team, if this does indeed prove to be a bad decision, it won't affect me personally. I won't be losing any sleep over it.
Much of this discussion has reminded me of Chicken Little (the sky is falling! the sky is falling! Do any of you remember that story from childhood, or am I showing my age? lol). This release is not a disaster. It does not mean that their careers are winding down. It does not mean that they have nothing new or original or relevant left in them. It's just an album they're releasing. That's all. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I honestly don't get the panic mode that some people are in. Ultimately, it's just entertainment. If you're so vehemently opposed to this...I don't know. If it were me, I'd be rethinking my priorities, or my allegience to a band that clearly makes such horrific, repulsive decisions. Myself, while I'm anxious to hear the new song, I'm finding it hard to get worked up, one way or the other. Like those irrelevant dinosaurs, The Stones have stated, "it's only rock'n'roll (but I like it)." It's nothing to stress about, people. Just my take on things, for what it's worth.
"" wat if dey put dat shite version of "WON" wiv Mary j bilge on da album!??!??!??!!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!
the thought never crossed my mine now but .......
Most of fans are agree that the "Greatest Hits" was just a pointless move, a stupid and disposable compilation missing most of the greatest Cure songs ever. That compilation was reviewed as s***, as contractual crap, etc, etc, and the reviews were right: What was the point in releasing a single disc "Greatest Hits" while the fans already have 2 excellent singles compilations?. It was just for damn money.
