HeartlandGirl said:
The POP tour wasn't that bad!
jick said:Normally, when new albums are released, you can doubt Rolling Stone's integrity since they could be influenced and swayed by album promoters and advertisers who give them revenues. But when RollingStone looks back on the past, they are usually straight shooting and no holds barred. They are just telling it the way it should be. We U2 fans should count ourselves lucky it was only 18th. The Pop debacle could have been ranked worse.
Cheers,
J
jick said:Normally, when new albums are released, you can doubt Rolling Stone's integrity since they could be influenced and swayed by album promoters and advertisers who give them revenues. But when RollingStone looks back on the past, they are usually straight shooting and no holds barred. They are just telling it the way it should be. We U2 fans should count ourselves lucky it was only 18th. The Pop debacle could have been ranked worse.
Cheers,
J
jick said:
Cheers,
J
GypsyHeartgirl said:
Exactly! I think the four stars came from U2's name and past rep alone, but once it was out in the open, it was seen differently. I agree it could have been higher than 18. This is no surprise. It's the general consensus everywhere but on this site and a mailing list that Pop really was a debacle, and a bad thing for the band's career. Even if lots of you here like it that doesn't change anything. I even read an article in a fall 2000 issue of Revolver where Adam and Larry called it 'a mistake.' That is what most fans and reviewers think, and I think now even the band knows it.
The Wanderer said:you nailed it SkeeK, and it's true there was a lot of chaos surrounding the early part of the tour, which Bubba noted in his post, and that's what Larry was referring to, the whole band has said that -- they lost millions of dollars and weren't ready to start the tour and made asses out of themselves on opening night, live on US television
and they quickly recovered a month or two into the tour and started playing some of the best shows of their life
btw, putting Mariah Carey at #31 makes this entire thing null and void, how anyone can say PopMart was worse than Glitter needs to ask themselves which artist had their $30 million contract bought out by their record label shortly after
The Wanderer said:ok, PopMart sucked because Pop didn't sell as many copies as ATYCLB
man, you're right, let's put on ATYCLB or Bon Jovi and hug and kiss, and talk about how much money it's made for our sweet boys
jick said:
Well Glitter flopped and no one even watched it. But as for Pop, it sold so well initially in its first week (#1 in 33 countries) just because of the U2 name alone. Just because of anticiaption. Most of the sales of Pop were not because the people heard it, as the chart nosedive all over the world can attest to that. People bought it unheard, and Pop hit 6 million copies that year (and I think it still remains at 6 million now). So in short, 6 million people got ripped off and short changed with Pop. As for Glitter, well no one really cared. So Pop was a more massive failure. As I mentioned, I am even surprised it is only 18th, it could have been ranked much worse.
Cheers,
J
The Wanderer said:ok, PopMart sucked because Pop didn't sell as many copies as ATYCLB
Originally posted by SkeekA lot of people here are totally missing the point.
The point is that the article is not bashing the album specifically, but rather the tour. And the fact of the matter is that the Popmart tour was not bad. [?B]
ummm, let's not hijack this thread and make it some anti-pop thread, okay?jick said:People bought it unheard, and Pop hit 6 million copies that year (and I think it still remains at 6 million now). So in short, 6 million people got ripped off and short changed with Pop.
KhanadaRhodes said:
ummm, let's not hijack this thread and make it some anti-pop thread, okay?
GypsyHeartgirl said:
Well, this IS a thread to discuss RS's recent negative comments on PopMart, what are people only allowed to come here and say how much Rolling Stone sucks and how terrible they are? This is a discussion, and both sides should be welcome. Jinks has made very intelligent, excellent and valid points. They are accurate, regardless of if anyone wants to hear them or believe them.
Khanada, I think you just want to shout down everyone who says things you don't hear about Pop until they shut up and go away. That's just not right.
jick said:Normally, when new albums are released, you can doubt Rolling Stone's integrity since they could be influenced and swayed by album promoters and advertisers who give them revenues. But when RollingStone looks back on the past, they are usually straight shooting and no holds barred. They are just telling it the way it should be. We U2 fans should count ourselves lucky it was only 18th. The Pop debacle could have been ranked worse.
Cheers,
J
exactly.Hallelujah Here She Comes said:I think what Khanada took was that Jinks stated what was clearly opinion as irrefutable fact. He claimed that the six million people who bought Pop got ripped off. As one of that six million, I think I have a right to say that no, that was not a valid and accurate statement.
your obsession with spreading your already well-known hatred of pop is getting kinda tired. just because i made a statement you misinterpreted isn't my fault. oh, and by the way, opinions aren't fact, mmmkay?GypsyHeartGirl said:Khanada, I think you just want to shout down everyone who says things you don't hear about Pop until they shut up and go away. That's just not right.