Talk:Pop (U2 album)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Fair use rationale for Image:U2-Pop-cover.png

Image:U2-Pop-cover.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Work

In order to present a more fair and balanced view of the album, and in part because it really needed more work, I have added a whole bunch of stuff and moved certain things around to more appropriate places. like for example the whole bit at the beginning regarding the album sales and such which should go down to the actual section on that subject per, almost every other U2 album page apart from JT and AB,which were really big and successful so for some reason people feel the need to shout about it when thats not really appropriate. I have sourced probably the best source of information on the making of the album via a Sound on Sound (an industry magazine for musicians) interview with Flood and Howie B among other sources. I recommend the SOS article ( http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1997_articles/jul97/flood_u2.html ) for anyone interested in the facts about the album and how it was actually created because as most of you probably know, there is, compared to Achtung Baby, for example, an almost total lack of decent source material for POP, btu after some searching on the net I discovered that article. which is not only "from the horses mouth" asit were but also fromonly a few months after the album was released in 1997! Have fun! :) Also I am going to add bits here and there over the next wee while, I just basically got the main big bits out the way. Man I am tiiiiiired. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 23:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

wow. U certainly added a lot. Nice work. The rest of us will get in soon and refine, trim, copyedit as is the wiki way. Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah cool, thanks :) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 13:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest that anyone making large or large amounts of small edits to this or any other page on the wiki talk about what they are doing and what they've done in this Discussion page. As there are a few people (naming no names as yet) who seem to be contributing alot of small things (which add up, obviously) and not describing what they are doing, Not even in the box you have for such a purpose when editing! lol Anyway lets start using THIS page shall we... ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 13:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the edit summaries and page diffs have been fairly clear. What's not to understand? --Merbabu (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yours and a few others have and I always endeavor to do it but for example user Y2kcrazyjoker4 (maybe his name is a clue of some sort) seems to be making loads of different edits without explaining what he / she is doing at all. Anyway anyone making to a particular article really should be looking to discuss editing the article in the Discussion page after all, thats why its here. Like to getting everyone round for a kind of group discussion about the page, or something. lolΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 16:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Not all edits require explanations on the talk page. If there's a debate or disagreement, it's a great place to vet those issues. But if all we need to do is copy-edit some of your contributions, I don't see the point in trying to have a discussion. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

References

As I explained in my first post above, there is an unusual lack of any hard sources for information on the album and how it was made, then along comes (or rather I discovered) this old interview / review with Sound on Sound, and industry magazine, which gets down to the facts without any other crap with the albums two main producers and its all about the making of the album, again like I said it is probably the single best source out there anywhere on Pop. There are a bunch more already in the page but the use of the Sound on Sound source is so obviously justified that having to explain it here for user Y2kcrazyjoker4 is a bit sad. Incidentally, Y2kcrazyjoker4, can you please stop making about 50 individual, different edits and start using editing time to do a whole bunch at once, so everyone else can keep track of whats going on and crucially please explain and Discuss(ion page!) what your doing as well thanks, not trying to single you out its just some people need reminding thats all. Thanks ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 17:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's hard to follow about my edits - I'm doing large-scale copy-editing, Wikilinking, and reorganization of things, as well as removing uncited material that is original research. You can compare your last edit to the most recent one to compare all the changes we've made - you don't have to compare each individual edit to each other, which seems to be what you are indicating. Also try to not to get anxious because we're editing the article faster than you can keep up - that's what happens when you add a whole slew of material to an article. Lastly, I recommend you start using other sources besides the Sound on Sound article because if the entire article relies on one single reference, it is in danger of becoming a rewrite of the article or not getting broad enough coverage beyond the scope of that single reference. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

For an article to be really considered comprehensive and well-written (in short, to meet the criterion for Good article and Featured article statuses), it needs to really on many sources that are independent of the subject matter. While the Sound on Sound article is undoubtedly a wealth of information, it's unwise to rely on it for everything. But, we can easily find more information. I'd say that the problem isn't that there is no information available, it's just that not as much work has been put into it as some of the other album articles. For instance, if we look at this archive of U2-related news stories from 1996, there should be some information on the recording process in there. Ditto this archive from 1997. For instance, after taking a quick glance down at the '96 archive, I found this NME story which mentions a previously undiscussed song called "Super City Mania", which was one out of 30 tracks that the band had done by September, as well as Mofo's previous working title of "MFRR". Now that's the kind of thing worth putting into a "Development" section. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree the article is too reliant on a single source. --Merbabu (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I imagine this concern will clear up when the Pop remastered album comes out eventually, though in the meantime, I will try to find reference material for the information where I can. U21980 (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Intro

Does no-one else think that this intro...

"Pop is the ninth studio album by Irish rock band U2, released in March 1997. The album was a continuation of the band's 1990s reinvention, as they pursued a new musical direction by combining alternative rock, techno, dance, and electronica influences. The album employs a variety of production techniques relatively new to U2, including sampling, loops, programmed drum machines, and sequencing. Recording sessions began in 1995 with various record producers, including Nellee Hooper, Flood, Howie B, and Steve Osborne, who were introducing the band to various electronica influences. At the time, drummer Larry Mullen, Jr. was inactive due to a back injury, prompting the other band members to take different approaches to songwriting. Upon Mullen's return, the band began re-working much of their material but ultimately struggled to complete songs. After the band allowed manager Paul McGuinness to book their upcoming 1997 PopMart Tour before the album was completed, U2 were rushed into completing the album. Even after delaying the album's release date from the 1996 Christmas and holiday season to March 1997, U2 ran out of time in the studio and the final product was not to their liking. Since the album's release, many of its songs have been re-recorded and remixed. Although it reached #1 in 32 countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States, Pop's lifetime sales are among the lowest in U2's catalogue, and critical reaction was mixed. It was certified RIAA platinum once, the lowest since the band's 1982 album October."

...is a bit too negative for the start of the article and that alot of that info would be better placed elsewhere in the article. A good chunk of that is actually in the article at another place. Please do something about this if you agree, I'm busy IRL at the moment. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 22:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily negative; everything is simply a description of how the recording sessions went. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the most important parts of the article, and I think that it does this adequately. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pop (U2 album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091030022617/http://www.bpfallon.com/bp_books.html to http://www.bpfallon.com/bp_books.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)