?

Log in

No account? Create an account

U2 LiveJournal

Hello Hello!!


April 1st, 2006

(no subject) @ 02:11 pm

youreanidiom:
I picked up the Please single this afternoon. It was one of those discs that was always hard for me to find so when I saw it today I had to grab it. I've always thought that CD singles are far too expensive. I remember picking up a used copy of the Vertigo single for a couple bucks and then seeing a new copy for seven dollars. Seven dollars for a two-track disc is way too much, considering most albums are ten or twelve bucks.

This one, however, the Please single (which cost eight bucks) is completely worth the money. For one thing the version of the song is not the one found on the album, but a new "single" version (which is pretty good, but I prefer the album version). Then you have, instead of b-sides, four live tracks from the PopMart tour. Well well well well well worth the money.

Why aren't more singles like this?
 
Share  |  Flag |

Comments

 
[User Picture Icon]
From:canadanne
Date:April 1st, 2006 11:14 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I actually think some of the recent singles have leaned way too heavily on using live tracks as B-sides. It's kind of lazy, I prefer getting original songs as extras on a single.

Agreed on the two-track discs being a rip-off, though - more is always better!
[User Picture Icon]
From:rockingthemike
Date:April 2nd, 2006 02:25 am (UTC)
(Link)
Agreed. There's enough unfinished tracks per album to throw them on the singles; it's not like many of them get revisited by the artists anyway.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the U.K. single purchasing trends indicate that only fans seem to go out in droves for singles. So typically, only Kylie fans purchase her singles, U2 fans purchase their singles, unless it's a big hit such as "Can't Get You Out of My Head" or "Vertigo".
From:youreanidiom
Date:April 2nd, 2006 04:02 am (UTC)
(Link)
See I don't mind live tracks—especially if they're good ones—because it's a soundboard recording. My thoughts are give me something, give me anything that justifies my paying $7 for this disc. If you don't have enough b-sides (which is extremely rare that a band comes out of a session with a small number of b-sides) then give me some live tracks.

This is part of the reason why I think the Complete U2 box set on iTunes was a bad idea. They could have taken all the alternate versions and Smile and put them on the singles, along with some killer live tracks. Hell, they could have taken Mercy and mastered it and thrown it on one of the singles (unless, of course, they plan on finishing that song for their next album).

The one thing I really hate seeing on singles are remixes. Just hate them.
[User Picture Icon]
From:canadanne
Date:April 2nd, 2006 06:17 am (UTC)
(Link)
Yeah, I thought the same thing about that unreleased stuff in the iTunes package. Why the hell was this not used as B-side material?

I prefer getting remixes to Yet More Live Tracks, but lately it hasn't been much of an alternative as the majority of the remixes have been piss poor. If they were still giving us quality dance tracks like the numerous ones released during the 90s, I'd be quite happy with that.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rockingthemike
Date:April 2nd, 2006 03:57 pm (UTC)
(Link)
As a self-professed remix whore, the remixes recently (ie since 2000) have been piss-poor at best. There is usually one good remix (if we're lucky), and the others are crap.

It's really disappointing, because U2 translates very well onto the dancefloor, if done right (Achtung Baby and Pop remixes specifically).
[User Picture Icon]
From:rockingthemike
Date:April 2nd, 2006 02:27 am (UTC)
(Link)
Why aren't more singles like this?

They are though. Typically in the U.K., Australia and Europe there are two format releases: 2-track singles, and Maxi-Singles. The Maxi's are where you typically find more tracks (though usually remixes of the title track and sometimes one b-side due to complicated U.K. chart rules).
From:youreanidiom
Date:April 2nd, 2006 03:54 am (UTC)
(Link)
We're lucky if we even get singles in the US. Mostly you have to rely on imports that cost as much as a normal album, if not more. Most of the singles I see for bands that I like (if I can even find them) are pretty crap. At least that's how it is in my part of the country.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rockingthemike
Date:April 2nd, 2006 03:59 am (UTC)
(Link)
Well, the US isn't considered a cd singles market (I originally wrote just singles *heh*). The market is spotty at best in the U.S., and not much better in Canada. It's usually restricted to the major urban centres. I usually try to make a roadtrip to Montreal couple times a year: I can normally find some gems, but it's never what I'm really 'looking for'.
From:youreanidiom
Date:April 2nd, 2006 04:08 am (UTC)
(Link)
It is quite a terrible market. Maybe it's because there's no real value to the singles most of the time, especailly the two-tracks singles. I remember the singles that Dave Matthews Band put out had the album version, the radio edit, and a live version. Not worth $7.

Or maybe no ones gives a shit about them. :P
[User Picture Icon]
From:rockingthemike
Date:April 2nd, 2006 03:58 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Or maybe no ones gives a shit about them. :P

Not so much that (but that is a valid point), but it's a question of who buys singles. Predominately the hardcore fans, and occasionally the casual buyer when it is a BIG song. In either case, the hardcore fans aren't purchasing singles to get the title track and yet ANOTHER live rendition, and there's equally nothing enticing to the casual purchaser.
From:youreanidiom
Date:April 2nd, 2006 06:44 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I think we're well past the point where the casual buyer will purchase a single, even if it is a big song. They've got the album, so they have the song. No need to buy the single.

U2 LiveJournal

Hello Hello!!