FANS ANGRY ABOUT G.H. ALBUM?
[email protected]
Wed, 4 Nov 1998 00:14:24 EST
I can't help but become a little amused at those who have expressed anger
or disappointment directed at U2 for released a "best of" album. This has
almost been a tradition for them depending on how one looks at it. Every
since the War album U2 has put out what I describe as an "in between album
project". Something to tide the fans over until the next major studio
release. For example, after War came "Under a Blood Red Sky" (which
incidentally was a kind of "greatest hits" at the time--and a live album at
the same time!). After Unforgettable Fire came the EP "Wide Awake In
America", which again was two cuts off the previous album--live, and two b
cuts. A little new material and some "old". After Joshua Tree came "Rattle
and Hum". Once again, a mix of previous cuts live, a couple of new cuts,
and--something new--some cover tunes mixed in. Now at this point some of you
might think that "Zooropa", which came after Achtung Baby defeats my theory.
An album with no live cuts and all original material. Nothing could be
further from the truth. Those of you who follow U2 know that they threw the
album together quickly (not something they do when they are ready to release a
major album), and besides, do you really think that a major U2 release would
have Johnny Cash singing on it? U2 has released seven major studio releases
in my opinion: Boy, October, War, UF, JT, AB, POP. The rest is some
extraneous fun for the fans. Whether in conjunction with a movie (i.e. Rattle
and Hum) or as an add-on to a current tour (i.e. Zooropa). The latest "best
of" release probably had several reasons behind its being made, but the most
obvious to me is that U2 has given us something fun to listen to while we wait
to see what new and wonderful thing they come up with next. Peace out.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2
on Tue Nov 03 1998 - 21:17:17 PST