No Subject

[email protected]
Thu, 22 Oct 1998 01:55:21 EDT

With the proliferation of mp3 technology, where, with a little extra software,
hard drive space, and time, it is easy to get songs to listen to and keep as
one's own. These songs often sound excellent. Couple this with new and
improving technology in CD recording where, for a relatively small investment,
one can set up a little music factory at home. The end result is more music
circulating outside of the reach of the artist who produced the work. I would
like to say that this is not a tirade against either of these new media, for I
believe, as many others on this list do, that they can be used responsibly.

My purpose in writing this is to resurrect, and possibly add a new dimension
to, the old thread about why U2 chose to release a "Best of" album when many
(including myself) thought this would never happen. With the previously
mentioned technologies at many of our fingertips, it would be easy to put
together a nearly identical "Best of" album of our own. I think it is
possible that this reality is a motivational force behind the release of the
album. They are taking what they have created, making sure it is of the
highest quality (hopefully), packaging it (which I have always believed to be
an integral part of any album - for instance, the Joshua Tree was only
strengthened by the wonderful black and white photographs that accompanied
it), and, yes, making money from it. It boils down to creative control. In
this case they are not fighting for control from the record label, but rather,
hold your hats, from the fans. I would like to emphasize, however, that even
if my theory holds water, the actual decision to release a GH collection was
probably a complex affair with many other factors involved.

I'm curious what y'all think.

Bryan
Sacramento, California, USA

     

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Wed Oct 21 1998 - 22:59:21 PDT