Jump to content
 

What would you prefer?


Low Value Boy

What version of Blink would you prefer?  

98 members have voted

  1. 1. What version of blink-182 would you prefer?

    • In it's current form with Skiba releasing the music they are now
    • In its previous state with Tom, maybe releasing an album every 4-5 years (if at all)


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Champ182 said:

Oh lord, California was a success guys. It just was! It wasn't the biggest album of the year or anything, but it went to #1, had a #1 single, and a #2 single. There is PLENTY to complain about with the current direction of the band and the album itself, there's no need to make up a narrative that it wasn't successful commercially. 

lol especially when they still have two singles to push off of it, with Sober being potentially the biggest one of them all.

 

6 minutes ago, Osgod said:

I forgot you believe everything the band tells us without critical thinking...good for you. 

Huh? You act like they're running a propaganda campaign. You're losing the plot man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Osgod said:

Nobody is "hating new Blink"...its simply underachieving that's it.

It's  just surprising that they didn't get Gold so far and releasing the Deluxe album is happening mainly to do just that...

What would make it more successful in your opinion? Just more album sales? Genuinely curious.

The acceptance of Skiba, and amount of radio play/publicity for California has completely exceeded my expectations. People could've boycotted Blink, but these shows are packed and full of people screaming every word to the new songs. (It seriously blew my mind how many people knew all these new songs at the 2 shows I went to last summer.) 

I expected some sort of niche Blink hybrid album that no one would ever hear, and I'd have to go on Reddit to discuss it with people. I would never have guessed they would have multiple hit singles with significant radio play, and that my friends/siblings were suddenly asking me if I wanted to go to see Blink, and knew all their new songs.

I just feel like they knocked it out of the park, I don't know what they could've done differently... (Other than sell more albums I guess? If that is how you define "success"?). I bet if you told the guys 2 years ago at Crossroads when they met with Matt that this would all happen, they would tell you that you were crazy.

If it's such an underachieving failure, no one would be at these shows or know these songs. Mark would be back in London, Matt in Alk3, Travis playing with whoever needs him. California in the clearance section, and never on the radio. 

I also really don't buy the narrative that this "deluxe" release was solely to get California to go gold. I believe what Travis said, which is they are still on the California album cycle by contract, had a bunch of new songs, and wanted to release them, so it was a compromise. Of course they will make money off of it, but I don't think Mark/Matt/Travis sat down and said "Hey guys we need California to go gold so let's write 11 songs real quick and release Deluxe and trick everyone!!!". 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Osgod said:

It's basic marketing 101. I mean they won't tell the public that they release a deluxe album to push sales/receive gold...pretty easy to understand, right?

The way to sell the most albums is to make it an entirely new release. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Patient #48273 said:

My argument is that various factors should be combined to gauge success. For example: #1 on Billboard = good, Grammy nomination = good, a couple of well-charting singles = good, slow-ish sales = not so good. I mean, if they had "only" gotten to #2 on Billboard, but sold way more, wouldn't you say the album was more successful overall? I think California is successful, I just don't think the Billboard #1 is the only measure that counts.

I agree with all this. 

Every measure is going to be pretty arbitrary so it's probably most fair to factor in everything. What I think speaks loudest though is how it stacks up to comparable releases, so things like being one of a handful of rock albums to reach #1, or being one of the highest selling rock albums of the year, says it was a success. 

 

I cant ant believe the Panic record sold that many copies though. It must have gotten serious air play on pop stations because my rock station here played blink way more. 

Or as some people suggest about the blink album, panics label must have purchased like 400,000 copies 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OliverTrump said:

The way to sell the most albums is to make it an entirely new release. 

But not if they wanna reach Gold status...

A big factor for success is for sure album sales. That would be the main thing I look at. This of course doesn't say if an album is "good" because that's an individual OPINION...

I never said that the only reason they release this deluxe album is to reach gold...it's cool that they have worked on new music already again. But they could have easily released it under a new album or wait for the California cycle to finish and go from there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RHCP included an album purchase with every concert ticket that was purchased to pad their album sales.

The only reason anyone cares about this right now is because there's a scramble to de-legitimize blink without Tom. It's pathetic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ghent said:

RHCP included an album purchase with every concert ticket that was purchased to pad their album sales.

The only reason anyone cares about this right now is because there's a scramble to de-legitimize blink without Tom. It's pathetic.

Talk about a band that has gone WAY down hill by the way...Their new music is trash. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha it's even sillier to go through all the reasons it WAS a success before then saying "but it didn't go Gold, so..." I doubt they really care that much to be honest, given the fact that they have all those other markers of success. Again, I'm not a fan of California, but I think in the band's mind and the general public's mind, it was a huge success for Blink.

Now about Panic At The Disco, I don't fucking get that at all. I have literally not heard a mention of their name, let alone a song of theirs, in like 7 years haha. Very strange that they sold so many albums.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Champ182 said:

Now about Panic At The Disco, I don't fucking get that at all. I have literally not heard a mention of their name, let alone a song of theirs, in like 7 years haha. Very strange that they sold so many albums.

Honestly, I too find this surprising. Panic was such a gimmick coming out, seeing them have success after 12 or so years at is kind of crazy. But also, It' just Brandon Urie who is left. Apparently this guy is the master of social media and getting girls wet in their pants. Somehow I guess that translates to album sales? Also, pop hits generate more buys than rock hits apparently.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ghent said:

I would be surprised if anyone here, besides those actively trying to discredit blink, would give a fuck about "Panic at the Disco" album sales in comparison to California.

Why is this shocking when you pull weird shit off the top of your head to try and make California seem better than it is?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...