With Time...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I dont think they were sure on what they wanted to make, just like Achtung Baby and Zooropa, just becuase there is uncertainty about something doesn't mean it's crap, U2 always crap there way through the recordings it's something all fans know. I don't know how many of us fans have heard them say 'we just play for a few hours and sometimes we hear about 5 mins on tape and we go with that and add some lyrics to it' Pop actually is a great one. Bono likes it, that's why he is going to do a 'rockier version of Mofo on the upcoming tour but shoosh no one told you that' LOL
 
TheFly84138 said:
I honestly believe that with time more and more people will see the beauty of Pop. In my opinion it's much better than their last two albums.

so you love pop, eh? that's just fantastic.
why do you care if other people do or don't? put the record on and turn it up and don't worry about anyeone else.:tongue:
peace
 
this thread is hilarious, mainly because you've got two people arguing over how many albums have sold. not too big of a deal until you notice they're albums not even related to this argument! does it matter how many millions boy has sold? it's irrelevant.
 
KhanadaRhodes said:
this thread is hilarious, mainly because you've got two people arguing over how many albums have sold. not too big of a deal until you notice they're albums not even related to this argument! does it matter how many millions boy has sold? it's irrelevant.

:scratch: I thought the original point of this thread was to open up (yet another) arguement about the "beauty" of Pop, relative to other U2 albums?
Of course, the verdict is ultimately down to each individual but in terms of overall popularity and appreciation, why would 'no. of albums' sold be irrelevant? Seems to me like a pretty good indicator...:shrug:
 
I wouldn't bring in the sales if it wasn't for bathiu's false stories - as usual - how only JT and AB make Pop look bad in sales, and that Pop sold as much as War. Note how he carefully selected the album sales that are less or equal to Pop, and JT and AB.
 
Last edited:
i like pop the best because its spelled the same way forward as backward
 
I like pop the best because it's what I call those carbonated, sugary drinks :sexywink:
 
but glenn, doesnt the palindromitic feature of the name pop intrigue you??

A man, a plan, a canal, Panama!

palindromes forever!
 
U2girl said:
I wouldn't bring in the sales if it wasn't for bathiu's false stories - as usual - how only JT and AB make Pop look bad in sales, and that Pop sold as much as War. Note how he carefully selected the album sales that are less or equal to Pop, and JT and AB.

That's called "proving a point", but you probably have no idea what it is.

I love how you're always saying that in the 90's U2 lost majority of their 80's fans... giving POP as an example.
If you didn't notice only 2, I repeat only 2 (out of 6) albums from the 80's sold more than POP (JT and R&H) and - from the words of the band or Poul McG (and I'll alway believe them, not to some anonymous person from PODDB forum) - around the same as another 2 from the 80's (War and UF), not to mention that it sold more than the last two remaining albums (Boy, October)...
That's how 80's vs POP looks like.
What's left? JT, R&H, AB, ATYCLB and HTDAAB... but so what? That still doesn't make POP U2's "worst selling album", a "mistake", or "commercial failure".
Both in sales and fans' favorites list (last survivor) its in the middle of all U2 albums. Those are simple, true facts; not false theories wich is your speciality.
 
Last edited:
KhanadaRhodes said:
this thread is hilarious, mainly because you've got two people arguing over how many albums have sold.

You're right, especialy since it is band's/Poul McG.'s words VS a gues from anonymous user of the forum.
That's realy hilarious...
 
Last edited:
You didn't prove anything except selected and twisted parts of reality - your speciality.

October and Boy (and the first Best of, but that could change in the future) are the only ones selling less than Pop and UF possibly about the same (after 13 years, they are back to those sales. yup, that is a good sign).

War (oops I mean that doesn't matter), Joshua Tree, Rattle and Hum, Achtung Baby, Zooropa, All that... (since you love "official" data so much: did you know in a radio show the record company said All that... is at 14 million copies?), Bomb, first Best of outsell Pop, by both lists.
So no, it isn't on the middle when it comes to sales; 7 albums plus the Best of beat it, 1 equals it and it wins over 2 albums plus the second Best of - what does Survivor have to do with album sales?
 
Last edited:
Here are my thoughts : i believe that if you are a faithful fan and you have followed them since the beginning or quite the beginning, like i think i have, then you have to keep in mind that the previous albums have been released at these old good days. I mean you cannot listen to these songs now with the same ear as it was when they were released, even if it's only a few years. The landscape wasn't the same.
But i am not in the shoes of new fans who maybe can't see that, i don't know.
Maybe my post isn't fair also, because i have always love everything they have done. No best one for me...
I think some of you will say that i have no will, or put whatever word you want here.
I see and i like U2 as a whole with each album as a brick to the wall.
And look at the height of the wall today !
It's all about Faithfulness.
Their music is also miscellaneous that it can attract so many different kinds of people at once who will be maybe disappointed in the end if they are stuck to an only kind of music.
Now that i think of it, i don't know how all of what i have written will be seen.
Maybe that kind of posts have already been done before, but i have no will, fore sure, to read all the pop posts !
 
Album sales don't mean shit about how good an album is. Justin Timberlake and 50 Cent sell a lot too. All that matters is each person's own opinion.
 
unnamed_streets said:
Album sales don't mean shit about how good an album is. Justin Timberlake and 50 Cent sell a lot too. All that matters is each person's own opinion.

:yes: Yep, I'd go with that...just how "good" an album is, can only be measured at the level of an individual person.
If you want an overall consensus of how good something is though, I don't see anything wrong with using 'album sales' as an indicator. Can you think of anything better?
 
corner said:


:yes: Yep, I'd go with that...just how "good" an album is, can only be measured at the level of an individual person.
If you want an overall consensus of how good something is though, I don't see anything wrong with using 'album sales' as an indicator. Can you think of anything better?

The only time I seriously consider other people's opinions is when I have to shell out $15 for a new CD that I don't know anything about. Then, I go to www.allmusic.com and read the critic review and make up my mind. I don't do that for a U2 release, of course. :wink:
 
For overall consensus, either critical acclaim or album sales plus long-lasting critical acclaim. It really depends on each individual artist - those who don't generally sell millions and are not expected to sell millions are mainly judged on the "critical" barometer. But if there are expectations attached to an album, then lack of sales can really turn against it.
 
(Desperately tries to get thread back on topic)

I think it's possible that the general public's opinion of Pop might change for the better someday. When Pop first came out, I hated it. But now I think it has some fantastic music on it.
 
Back
Top Bottom