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

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.
lol this thread is laughable....Whether this album sells well or it doesnt people will complain on either side of the coin so what does it matter. Most of the market is not thinking about how many Best Ofs that U2 has put out they just want what are considered to be U2s best material so they will probably want this recording. I dunno doesnt sound very far feached to me...and I remember reading in the original article when the Best Of contract was signed it stated that there would be 3 best of that cover the first 2 decades of U2s career and that was the exact wording for it. So actually they have went beyond that already. None the less it is your money if you dont want it dont buy it. Its the same people that go to 50 shows per tour...well no wonder you cant afford 20 bucks, you already have it spent.
 
Re: Who cares?

The Beatles had at least three major retrospectives. All were massive sellers. It's hard to compare the two groups as U2 have been together as a fully functioning band for almost three times longer, but the point is, nobody talks about The Beatles' greatest hits when they assess their legacy, even though almost everybody has them. We'll still all be discussing the merits of Achtung Baby, The Joshua Tree and The Unforgettable Fire and so on long after the very last Greatest Hits is released. After all, they have released two-and-a-half albums since the first Best Of was released.
 
The decade best-of's made sense and looked like a definite long range plan, so I think folks are upset that this appears to be a crass toss-off, something U2 fans are not that accustomed to.

You look back on some artists' careers and you see these greatest hits packages eventually go out of print only to be replaced with a newer, shinier version with only slight variations in the song selection (greatest hits, the best of, ultimate collection). This collection just seems like a cheap-o holiday trinket that could be hocked on an info-mercial or sold on the counter at a convenience store. It is obviously not made for the good people on this board.

Download the new songs or copy them from a friend and mail U2 two bucks. If you buy it, you'll only encourage this kind of low-rent behavior.

"Never mind what they're selling; it's what you're buying."
- Ian McKaye
 
VintagePunk said:
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.
Click to expand...

:love:

Marry me NOW VP...that was excellent.

I can't wait for someone to take it and misquote it to match their own personal :rant:.
 
Yahweh said:
l...and I remember reading in the original article when the Best Of contract was signed it stated that there would be 3 best of that cover the first 2 decades of U2s career and that was the exact wording for it. So actually they have went beyond that already.
Click to expand...


Thanks, glad to see I'm not making that up. :wink:
 
VintagePunk said:
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.
Click to expand...


:heart:


btw, marry me and not Regg. :lol:
 
I think there are a couple, semi-original points still to make about this greatest hits album:

1) The Edge is known to want to remix/remaster all their older material. We are likely going to get better-sounding, more pristine versions of the usual crowd of "best" U2 songs. And this is a great thing. Listen to the difference bw the Achtung Baby! album and the Best of 90-00 AB songs. Big sound improvement. This also goes for ALL the 80s songs. If you can't tell, get new equipment or pay more attention. With this in mind, we are likely going to get better sounding versions of these songs, which is still something (and in my opinion, something great).

2) Everyone will be able to get the new song via this forum, and you all know that. The question is, would you rather they did or did not release a new song to the public? Personally, I like to have any new U2 material on official CD. I'd rather spend 11.99 on this to get better quality old songs and one new song (which, of course, is precious considering their output in terms of quantity and quality) than spend .99 for a download (or in reality 0.00).
 
VintagePunk said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can I marry you and have your babies? :love:
 
And to anyone worried about how critics will respond to this move, I ask this (at least to Americans): where have you been the last 10 years? There are few bands more reviled/laughed at/accused of selling out than U2 by indie people, hipsters, critics, and many people who consider themselves "serious" music fans. Honestly, all the people I know who are really into music despise U2. So you're really just joining the elitist bandwagon by accusing them of selling out here (whether or not they deserve it). U2 has not been an underdog for 2 decades. Anyone who fell in love with them since 1987 joined the mega-popularity machine that is U2...so if you were into them before that, then go ahead and pine for the old days. For those who became fans in the last 20 years, you should have had your eyes open. U2 are big and want to stay that way. The unthinkably vast majority of people who buy their albums are "casual" or "new" fans. They like that they've picked up so many new fans this decade (look at the sales). I think U2 (I say "think" but they've basically admitted as much) is MUCH MORE CONCERNED with winning over casual fans and non-fans at this point in their career. That's how you stay relevant...not by endlessly attempting to please the dwindling die-hards.
 
martha said:


I agree with this, so I'm quoting it.

Mediocre music is more dangerous to their career than too many Best Ofs.
Click to expand...

Obviously you mean mediocre to your ears, not that they are actually mediocre ?
 
2233 said:


Obviously you mean mediocre to your ears, not that they are actually mediocre ?
Click to expand...


hahaha---i think it's a rare breed around these parts that thinks that Electrical Storm is lame....
 
Last edited:
To the diehards who are disgusted by this move:
Your ideas of integrity and U2's ideas of integrity are simply DIFFERENT. How many more times will Bono have to say that they are trying to be the biggest band in the world or say that they want to stay on top before you get it? That's their goal right now. They are out to prove everyone wrong who thinks that you can't be the biggest band in the world at this age and at this stage in their career. To do this, they need to avoid being "forgotten" by the public and (this is the key part) make tons and tons of new fans. A 1-disc best of spanning their career gives non-fans and casual fans a chance to see what they're all about. I got into U2 through the Best of 80-90. And now I'm a die-hard. This is essentially the same thing. They are NOT worried about how 457 frantic posters are going to feel betrayed and accuse them of double-dipping. So be angry. But understand that U2 seriously doesn't give a *&%*! about what you think about what they are doing.
 
By the way Headache...I am a HUGE Giants fan, but am a Yankees fan rather than Mets. Subway Series?
 
This melodrama has become quite ridiculous.
For the love of god, it is just a best of and that´s it.
If people would step back and really take a look at U2 in this decade, it all makes sense.
ATYCLB was absolutely necessary after Pop and the 90´s. Both a great albums, but it was time to come up for air.
I do have a gripe with the best of 90-00. This is my one beef I have with U2 playing it way too safe. I wish they wouldn´t diss their late 90´s work so much.
HTTAAB makes perfect sense too. 25 years of recording, going into the hall of fame, they made their "Man" with an album that sounded like they threw all their music from the last 25 years into a blender and this was what became the bomb. At the same point, a modern and current sound for them.
I think this book and the best of is the absolute bookend of their 30 year career.
I really believe that you are going to see a new U2 coming in the future and this is just the band wrapping everything up.

They have more money than god. Do you really think they sit around and cook up these ideas to fuck their fans out of money? What bullshit!
Like it was said earlier, this best of will mean something to some fans. Just as the last 2 albums have. Who has the right to say what some fans should or shouldn´t like? If this best of gives new fans the chance to have a great taste of U2 and stimulate their curiosity to try out more, then all the better.
 
bram said:
THow many more times will Bono have to say that they are trying to be the biggest band in the world or say that they want to stay on top before you get it? That's their goal right now.
Click to expand...


In fact, if one were to read current and past quotes from the band about their original intentions, you'll see that they've wanted to be the biggest band in the world since the start.
 
Utoo said:



In fact, if one were to read current and past quotes from the band about their original intentions, you'll see that they've wanted to be the biggest band in the world since the start.
Click to expand...

Definitely true. It seems like so many fans want U2 to be Radiohead. I love Radiohead, but I want U2 to be U2.
 
Animaux47.gif
 
bram said:
I think there are a couple, semi-original points still to make about this greatest hits album:

1) The Edge is known to want to remix/remaster all their older material. We are likely going to get better-sounding, more pristine versions of the usual crowd of "best" U2 songs. And this is a great thing. Listen to the difference bw the Achtung Baby! album and the Best of 90-00 AB songs. Big sound improvement. This also goes for ALL the 80s songs. If you can't tell, get new equipment or pay more attention. With this in mind, we are likely going to get better sounding versions of these songs, which is still something (and in my opinion, something great).

2) Everyone will be able to get the new song via this forum, and you all know that. The question is, would you rather they did or did not release a new song to the public? Personally, I like to have any new U2 material on official CD. I'd rather spend 11.99 on this to get better quality old songs and one new song (which, of course, is precious considering their output in terms of quantity and quality) than spend .99 for a download (or in reality 0.00).
Click to expand...

great point about the sound enhancement. i'm always game for New Year's Day sounding a little better on my car stereo.
 
Lancemc said:
I want U2 to keep being U2. I want Radiohead to record a new fucking album.
Click to expand...

Haha. True. At least they play their new songs live long before they record them. This is a practice that is good and bad, though. You don't get the surprise when you first play the album, but you also get more fleshed-out songs and you get to hear them evolve live.
 
bram said:
At least they play their new songs live long before they record them. This is a practice that is good and bad, though. You don't get the surprise when you first play the album, but you also get more fleshed-out songs and you get to hear them evolve live.
Click to expand...

Bono once said that U2'd like to try that.



:hyper:

Just a few more posts and this thread can be closed! :hyper:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Janet H
  • Sticky
Forum Update - We're back! Ask your questions here.
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Popmartijn
Popmartijn
Registered Dude
  • Locked
Songs of _________________; New album discussion #7
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
53K
U2387
U2387
O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
305
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
prbiker15
U2:UV Boxscore Discussion
Replies
20
Views
1K
DeVaul
DeVaul
N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
13 14 15
Replies
431
Views
12K
Hewson
Hewson

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom