John J. Hlavaty ([email protected])
Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:33:27 -0500
Calling one a "sheep" just because one dares to like
the notion of a "Best Of" CD is not only debasing
but a cop-out. Abe asserts that U2 have violated their
"integrity" (whatever that means) with this release,
but I would consider his reaction "sheep-like" behavior
as well. In a way, he is no better than the "I like
the old U2" crowd who feel that anything other than
absolute brilliance on each album - as long
as it sounds like "The Joshua Tree" - is a "sell out".
> 2.) << If youwere true fans you would support the guys in everything
> they do!
> >>
>
> Yeah just like the Democrats and President Clinton !! Can you say that
> this is the most mindless statement you've ever heard ?? Baaaaabbaaaabbaaaa...
> I think this guy would have followed Hitler...
I do agree with this, although I disagree with Abe's analogies.
I have been a U2 follower since 1983. During that time,
there have been many things that U2 have done that have
disappointed me. One does not have to support everything
to be a fan.
> Well.. in a word - no. U2 owes it to themselves and to us the fans,
> who believed in them, supported them and made them gazillionaires to keep
> it going.
And indeed U2 are. They are in the studios now creating
what I anticipate will be a Nov. 1999 release (100% speculation
on my part).
This "Best Of" collection is not in lieu of an album - it's
in addition to the new album.
Additionally, we are getting a new version of "The Sweetest
Thing" (indicating that U2 at least put *some* work into
this project) as well as the R&H version of "Bad" (which
was not available on CD in general release). Already,
I have 2 good reasons to get the CD.
> complaining that the GH or Best Of ( Which are the same thing baaa
> baaaa baaa)
Your self-proclaimed shepherd tendencies aside, a GH and a "Best Of"
are NOT the same thing. Typically a GH is indeed a collection
of Top 40 hits; whereas, a "Best Of" is a collection of hits
as well as songs that the artist feels are reflective of their
best work. For example, "Bad" was never released as a single,
ergo, it was not a hit. However, most fans would readily
agree that "Bad" is one of U2's "best" songs. It's inclusion
on this "Best Of" CD is appropriate and distinguishes the
CD from the more generic "Greatest Hits" album.
> This has nothing to do with creating good music ,
> just a corporate sell out.
Alternatively, one could look at this CD as a reflection
of an artist's career and both the volume and quality of
their work. Bob Dylan has 3 greatest hits type of albums,
yet I would never venture to say that he has ever "sold out".
U2 have been together for 20 years. These CDs offer
the casual or new fan a chance to hear part of U2's best
material. The albums also offer U2 a chance to reflect upon
and close this part of their career.
> What do they care about money when it comes to their integrity???
This is the part of Abe's post where I have the most
difficulty comprehending. As I wrote above, U2 are not releasing
this album in lieu of a new album, but rather in addition
to it. The fact that U2 may have profited nicely from
these "Best Of" albums is irrelevant. If anything, it provides U2
even more financial freedom to explore other sounds.
This notion of "lost integrity" brings about the very
defintion of integrity. Is it constantly making new music?
If so, then U2 have failed to do this several prior times,
when they released "Under a Blood Red Sky", "Wide Awake
in America" and "Rattle & Hum", which each contained
songs previously released (albeit in a live format).
Similarly, U2 have given permission for their studio
tracks to be used in movies. These tracks were unaltered
and previously released (e.g., in the movie "Blown Away").
Additionally, U2 are not trying to "hide" anything with this
release. They are not calling it "new U2", but rather defining it
for what it is, a "Best Of" collection. I see no
integrity lost. Rather, I see a band reflecting upon
their work for the past 20 years.
> Gay Power ! You go guy !
Comments like these weaken your overall point and should be
avoided.
> However, Megan makes a great point about about fans that dont have the
> money or tenacity to track down all the B-sides... That is a valid point -
> UNLESS you already own all of them... Its cool that she isnt as ticked off as
> I was about the GH album, but some of us just want a band to be a champion
> for music and creativity amongst the puff-daddy's and Marilyn Manson's of the
> MTV generation....
I think it is quite clear that this "Best Of" collection is
not for collectors. For as you correctly point out,
a collector will have this material. However, most U2
fans I know are NOT collectors. Some have one or two albums
at most. This "Best Of" gives them a chance to add to
their collections. It gives them a chance to learn about
older U2 songs - which may be "new" to them (perverting
NBC's summer rerun slogan). Furthermore, most casual fans probably
never heard the b-sides. I had only heard a few come 1989.
It wasn't until I started collecting that I was able to hear
these wonderful tracks. But as any collector will state,
obtaining these singles is costly and difficult. This b-side
collection is a wonderful idea.
As a collector, I also like the notion of having several
CDs that contain U2's "best". I can buy this for other
people as a gift, I can play U2's best without carrying
around 10 CDs and I don't have to make my own CDs - in other
words, I truly like this idea.
> Yeah , but what if we became fans of theirs BECAUSE of their so called
> 'integrity' , or the way they act as well as their great music ??
There's that word again. Integrity.
If U2 released an album full of covers, I would
question their integrity. If U2 went on tour, but played
5 songs per concert and left, I would question their integrity.
In these overly exaggerated examples, U2 are neither
being creative or concerned for their fans.
But to release an album of their own music (discouting the
b-side CD) is not a loss of integrity. Yes, money
is involved, but is accepting money for one's work a
loss of integrity? If so, then U2 lost that on day 1.
U2 are not "forcing" you to buy this CD. It's something
they are making available IN ADDITION to the rest of
their CDs. They are not disguising the CD in order
to "trick" fans into buying it. I see no
loss of integrity here.
> FACE IT, people...this is a marketing ploy, plain and simple. What
> does it say about what the record label thinks of what your band is doing
> today when all they are excited about pushing is the past?
Contrastingly, it could also suggest that the label
considers all of U2's work to be SO good that
they want all of today's music fans to hear it. An 18
year old was born in 1980 - the same year "Boy"
was released. There's a good chance this person might
not be familiar with "I Will Follow", "October" or
"Sunday Bloody Sunday". This "Best Of" CD gives that person
a chance to spend a reasonable amount of money on
one CD (as opposed to buying "Boy" - R&H) and to hear
some great rock music. At a later point, when U2's
"Best of the 90's" CD comes out, this will give both
fans and U2 a chance to reflect upon U2's more recent work.
Both CDs dive into the past - but out of respect.
This does not imply stagnation of the future.
> Meanwhile, I am going to listen to MY Best of...the U2 catalogue of
> albums.
And this is certainly an acceptable solution. But
if you weren't that familiar with U2, would you
rather spend $100 or $15 learning of some of their
music?
I adore many bands besides U2. I own every Beatles' album
(vinyl), many Mamas and the Papas albums, the Monkees (yes,
you read correctly), Led Zeppelin, R.E.M., etc. But I also
own the "Best Of" frome these artists because I enjoyed
the opportunity to hear all of their "best" songs
on one CD.
There's no doubt a "Best Of" is a marketing plot. Even I raised
the question of whether this "Best Of" was really a way to
attract the fickle U.S. audience. But is this so wrong?
U2 has been a very inspirational band. One can hear their
sound in many new bands. But the recent success of
Puff Daddy, the Spice Girls, etc. may cause future
artists to follow that path instead. If U2's "Best Of" CD ultimately
attracts a new audience thus propelling U2's next studio release
to mega-success, this may discourage future artists from imitating
the Puff Daddy's out there and follow U2's path. So
while there is a marketing aspect, I feel the benefits
outweigh all of the negative points Abe mentioned.
> No way you just said that !!! AEROSMITH ??? You're comparing U2 to
> AEROSMITH?
> Im as astounded as Darth Vader when he found out Luke had a twin
> Sister !!
If one is going to use an analogy, at least get it correct.
Luke as well as Vader were stunned to discover Luke had a twin sister.
Nevertheless, while Aerosmith may be an inferior band in
Abe's eyes, this analogy stands. Aerosmith has
been around for a considerable time. They released a
"Greatest Hits" of their 70's work as a compilation
of that time in their career. Aerosmith has continued
to have success to this day. So notions of U2 being
"washed up" because of this "Best Of" release should
be dismissed.
> Actually I own about every Beatles CD as well as the truly awful 'Star
> Club Tapes' (if your a fan , you know what im talking about) I saw the
> Anthology for what it was - A grasp at the past - also a lot of unfinished, not
> releasable music. Sure it has historical value and its funny, but its
> not music, just the creation of it. Do you really need all those takes of
> 'No Reply?' Also , in this case , once again , I had heard all of those
> songs before - except for the 'Sweetest Thing' like new verisions of 'Real
> Love' and 'Free as a Bird'... Sound familiar ??
Yes and no. The Beatles have had official greatest hits
albums released long before this anthology series was releaset.
Therefore, one could argue that the anthology series was a grasp at
past glory. That said, fans were able to enjoy alternative versions of
songs and experience some of the Beatles' more raw moments.
This is what ultimately made the anthology albums such
a success. U2's "Best Of" does not contain this. Perhaps
a new version of a song, but not numerous takes of one song.
Additionally, the new version of "The Sweetest Thing"
was created to compensate for the fact that U2 never
completed this song to their satisfaction. These are
the same 4 members re-recording a track the way they
wanted it to originally appear. Is this a grasp at the
past or a way to complete that era of their careers?
It has been said that U2 will "retire" their older songs. What
this ultimately means remains unknown. But I do feel
this "Best Of" collection is a good start towards that goal.
> Hey there- was anyone offended ? I hope so , because if you're
> steaming mad right now and itching to write me back and flame me then GOOD !
> Thats how I felt after I wrote a truly SINCERE letter to you so called fans and
> you all torched me !
Most of the posts I seen from you Abe are sarcastic and
done tongue-in-cheek. I can appreciate this humor.
I replied sincerely now though because I felt that humor
aside, you were just "off" in your observations. This
does not mean to say your interpretations are wrong,
it's just that I don't agree with them.
Ciao,
John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Thu Sep 17 1998 - 12:37:19 PDT