Talk:U2/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Rattle and Hum

There has been some changes re Rattle and Hum's status as either a studio or live album and some talk behind the scenes. The (difficult?) reality is it is BOTH a studio and live album, not one or the other. Personally, i think it should also be categorised as both including listing it both a studio list and a live list. For me that is a practical solution to the "issue". But i know some "purists" will say it needs to go in one or the other. I refer to its listing both on this article and also on U2 discography.

Some background: R&H was released late 1988 approx 18months after the Joshua Tree’s release in Mar 1987. In that time the band went on the Joshua Tree Tour. ON the tour they wrote and recorded some new songs and in early 1988 lived in the states writing further material and recording material for the R&H album and film. The album and film were intended to simultaneously document parts of the Joshua Tree and U2's professed fascination and learning of American music (ie, Blues, Jazz, gospel, etc). It has 17 songs:

  • 9 previously unreleased U2 studio recordings all copyrighted 1988 (Joshua Tree was 1987)
  • 6 live U2 performances
  • 2 live performances by other artists

It has been suggested here in the past that because the live tracks are supposedly "only" outtakes from the Joshua Tree, then it is not a studio album. I say, even if they are only outtakes, but had never been released previously, then it is still a studio album.

But, the 9 studio tracks are released here for the first time and all recorded AFTER the Joshua Tree was released - in fact 6 out of the 9 I believe were written POST-Joshua Tree. Thus, the definition of outtakes is a stretch.

This is similar to Zooropa and Pop. Sure, they were all “completed” and recorded for the albums, but much (most?) of Zooropa were left overs from Achtung Baby, and the same thing for Pop which was largely Zoropa and Achtung outtakes too. Of course, they were incomplete, but heavily worked up for album inclusion.

The 9 studio songs...

  • Van Dieman's Land
  • written - (i don't know)
  • recorded - at The Point Depot (1988)
  • Desire
  • written: post Joshua Tree tour 1988
  • recorded - at The Point Depot (1988)
  • Hawkmoon 269
  • written - post Joshua Tree release on Joshua Tree tour. Bono quotes in Into The Heart about sexual frustration of being 28 "card carrying man" on the road. JT released when Bono was 26.
  • recorded - recorded in LA 1988 post Joshua Tree Tour
  • Angel of Harlem
  • written - unclear. sources refer to listening to American music on tour. thus the Joshua Tree tour?
  • recorded - recorded in sun studios during Joshua Tree Tour
  • Love Rescue Me
  • written - written in LA during JT tour
  • recorded - Sun Studios
  • When Love Comes to Town
  • written - not clear. Either 1986 pre-Joshua Tree when U2 first met BB King, or during 1987 Joshua Tree tour
  • recorded - during Joshua Tree tour
  • Heartland
  • written - basic form a confirmed outtake from Joshua Tree
  • recorded - reworked and recorded 1988 for R&H.
  • God Part II
  • written - post Joshua Tree release, about tour and celebrity "madness"
  • recorded - reworked and recorded 1988 for R&H.
  • All I Want is You
  • written - post Joshua Tree tour, same time as writing Desire (1988). Bono states it was a development on With or Without You
  • recorded - recorded 1988 for R&H.
I would probably classify it as a studio album because the majority of the songs are studio, while only a few are live, including two which aren't even U2 songs, one of which is less than a minute long... also, I agree with the statement that even if they are outtakes, they are still a studio album, look at "Unreleased and Rare" an album made entirely of outtakes, and still an official album. But, in relation to this album, I'm not sure if that's a good argument to use, as a lot of these songs are NOT outtakes; Desire, Angel of Harlem, When Love Comes to Town and Hawkmoon 269 were actually recorded when they went back into studio in between Joshua Tree and LoveTown Tours, though Hawkmoon was already an idea at the time of the Joshua Tree, and the rest of the studio songs are indeed outtakes. Finally, on a side note, Zooropa was definately made up almost entirely of outttakes from Achtung Baby recordings, but only "Wake Up Dead Man" and "If You Wear That Velvet Dress", both appearing on Pop were outtakes, but the rest of Pop was new recordings. --D//E

Moved from Island records to Mercury

Someone should add this info. -- rgawenda 02:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Be bold --Merbabu 02:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to, but hope a native English speaker does rewrite it if needed. Also thinking about the place I'd put it, or should be another place, section, or even its own? -- rgawenda 08:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Good article?

With all the fact tags, how can this article be called good? Jimcripps 05:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the references it does have? 41 so far. I have seen many GA's with a lot less references. at least they have been identified and are continually being filled. Bruce Springsteen, Marvin Gaye and Van Halen are all GA's with much less referenced material - and incidently less fact tags. Maybe the editors here have higher standards. I am sure those references will continue to be found. ;-) --Merbabu 05:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I do agree that there are may refs all ready, it's just that the article looks spotty. I spent some time looking for a few refs, but the Net must be drained; have to hit the books/mags now. Jimcripps 14:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. I know it looks a bit scrappy now, but it is for the best. At least it is a flag for others. I'd help out too, but it is not a priority for me now - other real life and wikipedia priorities. I'll see what I can do next week --Merbabu 22:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Current ratio of references to citations needed, 46:26. And some of those 26 I really don't think need to be referenced. For example: "Following the Popmart Tour, the band played a brief concert in Belfast in May 1998, three days before the public voted in favour of the Northern Ireland Peace Accord.[citation needed]" Why is a citation needed there??? We might as well have a citation for "The associated Unforgettable Fire Tour saw U2 playing indoor arenas for the first time." Wikipedia brown 01:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
You have a point. In theory, to have a reliable reference for everything would be great, but as you point out, it is a lot of work, and having a citation tag there that is never going to be filled can be distracting. Give me a week or two, when exams are over, and my job is quieter, and I will have a go. I might buy U2 by U2 soon, so there will be a heap of things that be quote from that. nice work so far with the references (and to others) --Merbabu 01:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks and don't worry this article is not going anywhere! Also, I added some more refs -- new ratio is 51:21. Wikipedia brown 05:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I was the one who added the fact tags. My goal was to get people's attention to the absence of references throughout the article - maybe I exaggerated a little, but it worked... we have many more references now. --Kristbg 13:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The tags needed to go in. IN my old wiki age (6 months?) I am becoming a citation nazi, but it is all for quality. I agree though the tags look bad. But they are a necessary evil. OK, basically i agree with everyone. --Merbabu 13:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Then we all agree to agree? (Sorry, just had to say it.) Jimcripps 13:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, lets all agree. But what are we agreeing on again? I think we all agree, this article is getting there, slowly but certainly surely. It's a lotta fun.--Merbabu 14:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. --Kristbg 15:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Only 10 "citations needed" left!!! Let's finish them off before Kristbg adds more! Wikipedia brown 04:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You better hurry, my fingers are itching... --Kristbg 12:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Added a few more references. We're almost ready for a peer review! --Kristbg 20:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Only two left. The one from Rolling Stone should be easy, but I'm not so sure about the other one... It actually sounds like original research. --Kristbg 21:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Ye-ah! I managed to put one in myself today. Under a Blood Red Sky was a very good concert, even if I did see it on MTV. Those were the days... Go-go Peer Review. Jimcripps 22:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
YEs, those were the days. Certainly quaint and no doubt good at the time, but now so much better. lol --Merbabu 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, we're down to one now. Does anyone have access to that RS magazine? --Kristbg 13:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
...and we're done! Thanks for adding the last one, Merbabu! --Kristbg 13:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Million Dollar Hotel

I think there should be one or two sentences about Ground Beneath Her Feet and songs off the soundtrack (Stateless mainly). I'm going to add something under the collaborations sections since I can't seem to figure out where to insert it into the main text (came out in 2000 before ATYCLB). Thoughts? Wikipedia brown 01:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

How to insert into text? Click "Edit this page". ;-) Seriously though, I think the "other projects" section is good. I'd keep it very limited IMO. Maybe just 1 or 2 sentences. --Merbabu 01:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion! That "Edit" button is a well-guarded secret :-O Seriously though, I managed to keep it to one sentence, despite my penchant for detail. I also added another "citation needed" so we're back up to 5. Wikipedia brown 01:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of collaborations, it dawned on me when I read this section, where is Duets, or Frank Sinatra mentioned? I didn't see anything over at Bono either, but that's another article that needs attention. So, does "I've Got You Under My Skin" fit in here or at Bono? Jimcripps 02:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Be Bold. Don't worry, we'll edit it if we don't like it - ;-) --Merbabu 03:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Window in the Skies

Hasn't one of U2's new singles 'Window in the Skies' to be released on their new Greatest Hits album just been leaked onto the internet? See xfm.co.uk for details.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pechark (talkcontribs)

  • it's out on u218.com, but haven't listened to determine if it's complete--4.246.203.17 02:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Passengers

With careful research, one finds that U2 wanted to release Passengers as a U2 album. Bono has stated that he had a marketing idea to make it work. The record label said no, but accepted releasing it under a different name. Don't put this in the article without sourcing.--4.246.203.17 02:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did you find this? Could be interesting. The source i quoted in the article (U2's own book) has the band and their manager deciding on Passengers and I paraphrased this in my edits a week or so ago. --Merbabu 02:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing references?

What's up with 30-odd references being removed? I as well as others worked hard to find many of those and put them in. What's the rationale? Wikipedia brown 18:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You're better off asking Painbearer personally, though if he's as enlightening as he is in his edit summaries, you'll probably still be in the dark afterwards. - Dudesleeper 22:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I've requested on his user page that he comment here. I can't see any logic to it. I clearly remember many of these references were put in their because it was the info was challenged, or people wanted to to put inconflicting versions. Even if the info was not up for dispute, having the references can only make it a better, more verifiable article. I am inclined to reinstate them until convincing explanation is given.--Merbabu 22:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I don't see how references can take anything away from an article, and many of these add depth to claims made in the article. Wikipedia brown 23:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Did some more investigation into this. Looks like Painbearer is a self-avowed exclusionist. He has removed substantial amounts of material from an article without discussing on the talk page before (see [1]). Maybe I don't fully understand the philosophy of "Be Bold", but it should not allow for wholesale removal of material without discussion should it? Wikipedia brown 02:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, i also agree that articles shoudln't ramble on - I'm always chopping out words from this summary article, [2] but it's never hard info, or if it is, it is only because I move it to another detailed article when it doesn't belong here. Remember we had something like 4 paragraphs and a whole section devoted to the U2 iPod and related cross promotion. There was a whole paragraph in this page on the differences between the first model and the re-release!
So while i agree that tightness of an article is good - particulary this main article, I am not sure how this apply to references. I don't think it does actually - as long as the refs are GOOD and not some bloke on a U2 forum. I particularly agree that Be Bold doesn't mean one chops a large amount of info without explanation - particularly when these citations were requested in the past as they were points of dispute.--Merbabu 02:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Why I removed? Well, there are a lot bunch of references that just are plain, useless. The article has a huge list of references, about things, that... do they really need to be refered really? Because, thinking about one statement of Bono or another, I cannot be convinced that the article needs so much references.

I realise I needed to ask beforehand. For this I apologize. However, I think that from this huge portion of references, not more than 1/3 of the references are needed. Thus I think the article will be better. With so much references, I don't think the article stands for it "Good Article" candidature.

Regards: Painbearer 09:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Er . . . the more references, the more adequately an article adheres to Good Article criteria. WesleyDodds 04:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me what good removing sources and references could possibly do. If anything, you WANT a comprehensive bibliography that backs up content in the article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 18:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reason to remove them would be if they were flimsy and poor quality sources. As long as they are reliable I think more can only be good. Although let's be sensible, we wouldn't need to reference, for example, that Bono is male or that Dublin is the capital of Ireland! --Merbabu 02:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

All I wanted to say is that there is an overload of references and that a portion of them is unnecessary. If you think that flaming me or calling me names will do any good to the article - that's your opinion and feel free to act in a corresponding manner. I expressed my opinion as best and as reasonably as possible. The decision is a collaborative matter.

Regards: Painbearer 13:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Who flamed you or called you names? --Merbabu 13:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Which references do you think are unnecessary? When it comes to removing citations on any article, it's best to explain why you are doing so first, either in the edit summary or (preferrably) on the talk page. Please keep this in mind in future. WesleyDodds 21:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone should consider removing the bit at the end of the next album section, with the band and crowd bit, it doesn't show when I go to edit it but its certainly there when your viewing the page.--137.186.148.131 04:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Which part do you mean? Band and crowd? Maybe you could paste in here the part that concerns you. regards --Merbabu 04:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry got taken out; it wasn't exactly a reference but this seemed the most appropriate section to put it in. It was a rather humourous and colourful remark about Bono, pandas, and intercourse. Oddly enough it didn't show up in the edit screen. 137.186.148.131 04:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Next Studio Album Recordings- Split Up

I think that we should split up the Next Studio Album Recordings section into a section that covers "The Saints Are Coming"'s performance and recordings together with the released of U218 Singles from the rest of that section, because now that "Saints" and "Window" have already been recorded and U218 released, why should they still be under the next album? Any one think differently?

Darkedge 03:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes [3]. Basically, neither of these topics deserve their own sections. They are in the news now, but are not major events in the greater scheme of 30 year history. This page is more a summary, and for example, doesn't need a description of the 3 different release versions of a particular current single. Although, that info can of course go on that single's own article. regards --Merbabu 22:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The Books about U2 must be done. Now We Have a Biography on Book written by them, but none in the entire page. Santiago2u 13:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

I removed the trivia (listed below). There are many reasons - fundamentally though, trivia comes from the word trivial which means unimportant. Most of these facts are - the ones that are important are already in the article!!! Remember, this is an encyclopedia. That Bono's favourite colour is (apprently) amber is of no consequence for an encyclopedia article on U2, no relelvance at all. You might want to put it into a pop magazine though.

  • Bono's favourite colour is amber.
  • His favourite publican (stated in a performance in Dublin in 1997) is Paddy from the Dockers, a pub in Dublin.
  • Bono is fluent in English, Italian and Spanish, and also knows some Irish.
  • Bono is the only person,who has been nominated for an Oscar, Grammy, Golden Globe,and a Nobel Prize. He won the Grammy (See below), Golden Globe (For The Song 'The Hands That Built America' from 'Gangs of New York'). He did not achieve success in the Oscars (nominated again for The Hands That Built America) or The Nobel Peace
  • The band has won 22 Grammy awards, the most for recording artists.
  • U2 made their first appearance on US television on The Tomorrow Show hosted by Tom Snyder. It aired on June 4, 1981, and the band performed I Will Follow and Twilight, followed by an interview.
  • The Hype performed a farewell show for Dik Evans (The Edge's brother and former Hype member) in March 1978 at the Community Centre in Howth. Dik walked offstage halfway through the set and later joined the Virgin Prunes, a fellow Dublin band. The remaining four members finished their performance as U2. In May of that year, Paul McGuinness became U2's manager.
  • The Edge is an admirer of the writer, Samuel Beckett.
  • U2 appeared on the Simpsons. It was on the 200th episode called Trash of the Titans which aired in April of 1998. In the episode the PopMart tour visited Springfield.
  • U2 are one of only 4 Bands to appear on the cover of Time Magazine. The others are The Who, The Beatles and The Band. Time proclaimed them 'Rock's Hottest Ticket' in 1987.
  • Reportedly, Bono actually wears his fashionable shades becuase he has an allergy to Salicylates.
  • U2 but especially Bono and The Edge, are huge horse racing fans and punters.
  • Bono and his wife Ali Hewson own a clothing named EDUN (spelled Nude backwards) together.

--Merbabu 22:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


Image fails fair use

I tagged the promotional photo from the infobox, Image:U2photo.jpg, as failing the fair use criteria. If you disagree, I encourage you to bring it up on the image's talk page. —ShadowHalo 17:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Themes

I'd like to start a section called "Themes and Style" perhaps before "Other projects and influences". This one will be a bit harder to write (don't want to include Original Research), but there is a need for it as suggested in the peer review. Here are some general notes:

Themes:

  • Emotional: lonliness, yearning/longing, regret, woe (lots of references available)
  • Religious/Spirtual: ubiquitous references to God, prayer, Christianity (see all of October album)
  • Social/Political/Humanitarian: The Troubles in Ireland (Sunday Bloody Sunday), MLK (Pride), Aung San Suu Kyi (Walk On), Africa (Crumbs from your Table), etc
  • Songs usually have deeper meanings [4] and work on multiple levels
  • Add links to U2 MoL (Meaning of Lyrics) site for more references at the individual song level

Style:

  • Edge's echo and delay effects, unique atmosphere and ambience
  • Bono's tenor range, "soaring" vocals
  • U2 usually sounds different than conventional music of the time - [5]
  • Lack of improvisation during concerts, although they do tend to vary the set lists (May be OR, but I definitely noticed this after going to five shows during the Vertigo tour in 2005)

Wikipedia brown 10:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea! Go for it! --Kristbg 13:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It is indeed excellent idea and I support it. BUT, it must be well sourced with no original research or personal musings. By well sourced, i don't mean flimsy blogs or advertising material, etc, but from respected sources such as Rolling Stones, even academic articles if they exist. if not, material should be removed. oh, also be careful of the language used - don't make the adjectives too colourful. Remember, this is a "boring" but factual and verifiable encyclopedia, not a rock mag. --Merbabu 22:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
On second thought I'm not sure if I'll have the time that this section deserves until early January, esp considering the importance of well-respected sources as you mention Merbabu, along with the fact that I don't want to make a half-assed effort. But thanks to you and Kristbg for the support, and I definitely think this section would help transform this article from a "history" article to a more general article (so feel free to start on it without me!). Looking forward to collaborating with both of you on this. Wikipedia brown 06:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia brown, in my opinion, it is better that you make your "half-arsed" effort and we can then polish that. Ie, that is what collaboration and hence wikipedia is about, right? Whether that effort is on the talk page or the article itlsef, we need to get the ideas flowing. We are band members, not solo artists, and we need to feed off each other for inspiration. What ideas do you have?--Merbabu 15:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, initially this section should go towards the end, but if it gets to be good, it could go right at the front before history. I will give it some thought - i hope other can too. --Merbabu 15:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This article definitely needs a "Musical style and influences" section. Conceivably this could be worked into the history in order to showcase their musical phases, but nevertheless there should be more on the band's roots in the post-punk movement (which pretty much explains why The Edge's guitar-playing sounds the way it does), the use of political and spiritual imagery, unique tics like The Edge's guitarwork and Bono's falsetto, the influence of Lillywhite and Eno on their sound, and the referencing of American (the 80s) and European music (the 90s) in distinct periods of their work. There's lots of places stuff like this can be referenced from. Pull out an issue of Guitar World or and interview in Rolling Stone. WesleyDodds 18:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The intro is awful

I got to say, the current intro is really poor. The first (!) paragraph lists minor instrumental assignments — it's utterly irrelevant in an overview that Bono sometimes plays harmonica or guitar, or that Larry sings once in a blue moon. The second and third paragraphs are okay by themselves, but give no sense for what U2 are or what their musical importance is. How about something about the group's initial signature sound, built around Edge's guitar? How about something about how they then radically changed this sound at least twice, first to the Eno-influenced soundscapes, then to the 1990s industrial/whatever influenced sound? How about something about U2's landmark concert tours, which are at least as important as their record sales figures? The goal of an intro is that if someone just reads it, and nothing else in the article, then they get an accurate (if abbreviated) idea of the nature and importance of the subject. This intro fails that test badly. Wasted Time R 21:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the first paragraph Do we still have larry and adam as key board players (Yahweh and COBL, respectively). A compromise - which was worse actually - was to say that Bono was an occassional harmonica player. GAAAH!!!
I also agree that the lead is a little dull and needs improvement and it is important to give, as you say, "an accurate (if abbreviated) idea of the nature and importance of the subject." We should be able to do this better than merely quoting the album sales. I don't think this should excuse free-reign to write what we want as if it was Rolling Stone mag (good to reference it though). It is afterall an encyclopedia, and this article has a lot of discipline (a good thing!) that are sorely lacking in The Joshua Tree and Zoo TV which I think most agree would be two of the most important U2 sub-articles. --Merbabu 23:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a quote I'd like to put in the intro from Simon Reynolds' book Rip it Up & Start Again: Postpunk 1978-1984 that says (paraphrased from memory), "U2 took the puritan post-punk guitar sound and made it huge" to sum up their musical importance. WesleyDodds 11:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dreadful Main Image

It's blurry, irrelevant, and doesn't do the band justice. Revert, SVP. William 00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The other image a 'Fair Use' image was deleted as it was deemed, in accordance with WP:FU, that because the band is still around it is theoretically possible to create 'Free' image (as is the case with the current poor image). The fact that it is in reality virtually impossible (as distinct from theoretically) to get a better 'Free' picture was completely irrelevant in the disucussions for deletion. The suggestion has been to take a photo at the upcoming Grammy awards in which it is understood U2 is attending. No, i have no idea how we are going to source a free image from the Grammys. It's another few years til the next tour, presuably, and extensive searches on Flikr show existing photos to be either poor quality or copyrighted. --Merbabu 00:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
PS, you can see the discussion here. [6].--Merbabu 01:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Which user felt the original image was incorrect just because it wasn't 'free'? It was a promotional photo meant to be used as far and wide as possible. After all, who minds getting publicity? If it had been replaced with something like [7] it would have been OK. Larry is playing keyboards! That is NOT his regular instrument. I vote for putting back the original pic.

Who changed the Main Photograph? Definitely moderators of this U2 entrie are not members neither U2.com or @atu2. Dissapointing. --SantiagoU2

Hopefully some fans out there would have a free image to hand over that at least shows the four members playing their actual instruments. If anyone has taken photos at a concert that is better than this please submit it as opposed to this one. Phillies26 01:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Musical artist Infobox

Finally. I feel vindicated; someone used to refer to it as 'childish'. Kguirnela 02:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you are talking about me, and I think I might have used the term Fisher Price. But you are close. Compared to the previous one it does indeed look "childish". Merbabu 17:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, but I can't recall who exactly said what... but if you ask me, 2.02 Billion USD (2005) revenue ain't so bad. (see Fisher-Price) Kguirnela 04:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove some info

I'd like to remove the following from the Popmart section. It's discussed in the Popmart article, and I feel that it's too much detail for this article:

"Although the extravagance of the tour was visually and technically impressive, in the early stages, Popmart was occasionally marred with less-than-par performances. The problem stemmed from the band booking their tour before the album was finished. Originally set to be released in November 1996, Pop was not in stores until March 1997. As a result, the band had to spend time recording that had originally been allocated for tour rehearsals."

Any objections? Wikipedia brown 03:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps it can be removed. As long as the article still clearly states that the album and tour weren't as well received as previous ones, particularly in American audiences.Merbabu 06:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)



The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.