Convince me that POP is a great album!

[Moser]

Add to that they were having trouble filling seats for the tour in a lot of North American markets even with deeply discounted ticketing (the radio station where I lived in San Diego at the time, and saw the show, was giving them away to anyone who showed up), it's hard to call this record a success by U2's standards.

Sigh, not every city can be Chicago.

 

[Nick66]

October slaps Pop around, in my opinion.

Indeed. U2's most under-rated record.

 

[U2girl]

Pop is on par with October...

True...2 out of 3 of their worst efforts. And Liam Howlett rumour true or not, they did end up with a DJ anyway...

I also think with Rattle and Hum and Pop, U2 was just up for a failure after the massive sucess of both JT and AB. (with Zooropa being buried in the mega tour and avoiding the black sheep label)
Just like NLOTH failed to follow up the sucess of ATYCLB and Bomb.

 

[mama cass]

Perhaps. But it certainly doesn't help the argument that they weren't.

And then there's the fact that, as simple Google search will show, almost every article written about Pop at the time mentions Prodigy (or their contemporaries).

Well, they did try to get Liam Howlett to produce the record. Why try to hire him if they weren't influenced by his music? And then they made a record (particularly Mofo) that a lot of people thought was influenced by Prodigy.

i'm sorry but it's "the prodigy" not just prodigy! anyone who was truly familiar with the band would know that!

it would be like calling U2 "the U2" or Nirvana "the Nirvana" or the who "who"

so, i think you're bullshitting

 

[Vlaco]

So, all you diehard POP fans, let me hear your thoughts on why POP actually is brilliant.

I don't think Pop is brilliant, I think the rhythm section is brilliant (best they've ever done). And most of the songs are very good too.

 

[U2girl]

AB had the best rhythm section. U2 gets the groove...and actually does it without samples or loops.

 

[Nick66]

True...2 out of 3 of their worst efforts. And Liam Howlett rumour true or not, they did end up with a DJ anyway...

I also think with Rattle and Hum and Pop, U2 was just up for a failure after the massive sucess of both JT and AB. (with Zooropa being buried in the mega tour and avoiding the black sheep label)
Just like NLOTH failed to follow up the sucess of ATYCLB and Bomb.

There was a difference in the perceived "failures" of R&H and Pop.

R&H sold 13 million records...not up to JT standards, but it was after all just a collection of hasitly recorded songs and live cuts. I don't think they expected it to sell nearly as well as JT just as they probably knew Zooropa wouldn't do as well as AB. Nonetheless, U2 has never distanced themselves from the music in R&H...only the image they boxed themselves into at that time (hence AB). And most of the so-called backlash at the time was directed towards that image, not so much the music. Indeed, R&H songs have been in continuous rotation live since its release, and to my knowledge U2 has never said anything disparaging about those songs. The critical backlash was largely in the press, not from the fans, and was directed more at the self-importance of the movie than the music.

Pop, on the other hand, was a major studio release they worked on for quite some time, and "only" sold 8 million records, a disappointment by U2 standards at the time. And those songs have only appeared sporadically, and in snippets, in subsequent tours. Their comments on Pop since its release show U2 distancing themselves from the music on that record...which is very different than what happened with R&H. Ironically, most of the press of the day loved Pop. It was the fans (no, not all of them) who ultimately left them on that record.

I do think, to a lesser extent, U2 now regards NLOTH much as they did Pop...which is a pity, and it makes me wonder which, if any of those songs we'll hear on the next tour.

 

[Galeongirl]

AB had the best rhythm section. U2 gets the groove...and actually does it without samples or loops.

No way. Not in terms of the basslines. Pop and NLOTH are Adam's best works by a mile. So much variation, so many interesting riffs, rather than the standard 4th notes. THat's what I love about them. As much as I love AB as a complete work, for a bassplayer, Pop and NLOTH are my two favourites.

 

[LemonMelon]

Why are we still discussing the album's perceived/very real commercial failures when the OP asked for reasons why the album is so beloved by fans?

Sometimes I hate being a fan of a band whose sales figures are relevant enough to be entangled with the quality of the music. In 99% of cases, I would never bring them up. Who cares how many people bought the thing? What matters is what you thought of it when you did.

 

[mama cass]

No way. Not in terms of the basslines. Pop and NLOTH are Adam's best works by a mile. So much variation, so many interesting riffs, rather than the standard 4th notes.

that's one of the reasons i love Pop! it's like the band went all out there and stretched themselves and were really creative... maybe that's why they had trouble reproducing the songs live??

 

[Nick66]

Why are we still discussing the album's perceived/very real commercial failures when the OP asked for reasons why the album is so beloved by fans?

Sometimes I hate being a fan of a band whose sales figures are relevant enough to be entangled with the quality of the music. In 99% of cases, I would never bring them up. Who cares how many people bought the thing? What matters is what you thought of it when you did.

Any discussion of Pop is going to invariably lead to talk about its perceived failure...and the fact that it is not, after all, so beloved by all fans.

And, like it or not, we all know that for U2 artistic and commercial success are very intertwined, and each record is almost always a direct response to the one before it, for good or bad. We're not talking about Radiohead or even Rush who don't care what people think of their records or how well they sell. Very much the opposite. The most dramatic examples of this of course are AB and later ATYCLB. For similar reasons, I'm pretty sure most of us (at least I do) expect some significant changes for the next record.

But, artistically speaking, I do agree with those who say Pop (and AB) represent some of Adam's best work.

 

[mikal]

I would also say that Pop had some of Bono's greatest lyrics as well.

 

[Nick66]

I would also say that Pop had some of Bono's greatest lyrics as well.

Can't argue with that either, I've always said I like most of Pop's lyrics. In fact, to me the some of those lyrics are so incongruous from some of that music that I have trouble reconciling them.

 

[mama cass]

I would also say that Pop had some of Bono's greatest lyrics as well.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Why are we still discussing the album's perceived/very real commercial failures when the OP asked for reasons why the album is so beloved by fans?

Sometimes I hate being a fan of a band whose sales figures are relevant enough to be entangled with the quality of the music. In 99% of cases, I would never bring them up. Who cares how many people bought the thing? What matters is what you thought of it when you did.

My post had nothing to do with sales figures...I don't like it musically...I think it was U2 overreaching to be relevant...which left a bad taste in my mouth.

I find it ironic that people react to ATYCLB as an unabashed stab at relevance or a regression, when that's exactly what I felt about Pop when it came out in '97.

 

[mama cass]

is it ok to love both Pop and ATYCLB? because i seriously love both those albums!

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

is it ok to love both Pop and ATYCLB? because i seriously love both those albums!

Yes it is...no shame in loving any U2 album...

 

[Galeongirl]

*rubs eyes* Reg?

 

[Nick66]

I find it ironic that people react to ATYCLB as an unabashed stab at relevance or a regression, when that's exactly what I felt about Pop when it came out in '97.

This comment is actually very insightful, goes against conventional wisdom, and has the added virtue of being 100% right.

Pop was U2 trying to do what others were doing (only better) in an attempt to stay relevant. ATYCLB (love it or hate it) was just U2 doing what they do best, which of course made them relevant all over again.

 

[LemonMelon]

My post had nothing to do with sales figures...I don't like it musically...I think it was U2 overreaching to be relevant...which left a bad taste in my mouth.

I find it ironic that people react to ATYCLB as an unabashed stab at relevance or a regression, when that's exactly what I felt about Pop when it came out in '97.

I've never understood this line of thinking. While I personally do hear the Prodigy-inspired moments, to consider it a conscious cashgrab is laughable, considering the nature of the material. WUDM was written to achieve relevance? Miami? Playboy Mansion? Velvet Dress? Hell, even Please is too murky to pass as a single, yet they tried it.

Judging by U2 by U2, the band spent a couple months getting fat and high on a beach somewhere and went to some raves and decided it would be fun to make an album that reflected what they were listening to. Any relevance they attained because of it would be coincidental. They did the same thing with Achtung: Larry is listening to Cream, Edge is listening to Nine Inch Nails, so where do we meet in the middle? Pop showed a band with a history and fan expectations and a fresh passion for beats. The result is evident.

But no, they didn't turn on some early Prodigy and think "oh gee, this is going to go diamond all over the world, we should cop this."

It's telling that the only ones willing to spin the story so cynically are those who don't care for the album, but there's no reason to expect otherwise.

 

[LemonMelon]

And oh, hey! "Relevance!" Music's most abstract/meaningless term.

Let's spend three pages trying to define it. I doubt we'll get anywhere. We never have before.

 

[Nick66]

I've never understood this line of thinking. While I personally do hear the Prodigy-inspired moments, to consider it a conscious cashgrab is laughable, considering the nature of the material. WUDM was written to achieve relevance? Miami? Playboy Mansion? Velvet Dress? Hell, even Please is too murky to pass as a single, yet they tried it.

Judging by U2 by U2, the band spent a couple months getting fat and high on a beach somewhere and went to some raves and decided it would be fun to make an album that reflected what they were listening to. Any relevance they attained because of it would be coincidental. They did the same thing with Achtung: Larry is listening to Cream, Edge is listening to Nine Inch Nails, so where do we meet in the middle? Pop showed a band with a history and fan expectations and a fresh passion for beats. The result is evident.

But no, they didn't turn on some early Prodigy and think "oh gee, this is going to go diamond all over the world, we should cop this."

It's telling that the only ones willing to spin the story so cynically are those who don't care for the album, but there's no reason to expect otherwise.

It's telling that the only ones spinning this complete fantasy that you have here (entertaining as it is) as those who love the album. Luckily, there are so few of you (almost all of whom post on here) that we don't have to hear it that often.

 

[Nick66]

I've never understood this line of thinking. While I personally do hear the Prodigy-inspired moments, to consider it a conscious cashgrab is laughable, considering the nature of the material. WUDM was written to achieve relevance? Miami? Playboy Mansion? Velvet Dress? Hell, even Please is too murky to pass as a single, yet they tried it.

Judging by U2 by U2, the band spent a couple months getting fat and high on a beach somewhere and went to some raves and decided it would be fun to make an album that reflected what they were listening to. Any relevance they attained because of it would be coincidental. They did the same thing with Achtung: Larry is listening to Cream, Edge is listening to Nine Inch Nails, so where do we meet in the middle? Pop showed a band with a history and fan expectations and a fresh passion for beats. The result is evident.

But no, they didn't turn on some early Prodigy and think "oh gee, this is going to go diamond all over the world, we should cop this."

It's telling that the only ones willing to spin the story so cynically are those who don't care for the album, but there's no reason to expect otherwise.

It's telling that the only ones spinning this complete fantasy that you have here (entertaining as it is) as those who love the album. Luckily, there are so few of you (almost all post on here) that we don't have to hear it that often.

Any relevance they attained because of it would be coincidental.

The Radiohead forum is up the road.

 

[LemonMelon]

I'm just going by the band's own words; the way that they've described the narrative themselves over the years. This is concrete, usable information. Fantasy would more likely lie in a subjective fan's impression of the situation.

 

[namkcuR]

I feel, to a certain extent, every U2 record is a stab at relevance. They want to be relevant, they want to be commercially successful. They always have. They were disappointed that Pride didn't chart higher on the top 40 in 1984. This isn't a band that would be content releasing records that they were proud of, that got great critical reception, and sold 5,000 copies each. Pop and ATYCLB sound very different from each other, but they both want to be relevant. It's just that they felt that Pop ended up not being relevant(as has been said, it was relevant outside the U.S., but relevance in the U.S. market is very important to them), so they tried something else. The reason ATYCLB is perceived a certain way is that U2 always tried to see how far they could go, how deep their exploration could go, how far they could push their own boundaries, while still remaining commercially successful, but ATYCLB was seen as an attempt to be commercially successful by going back to their roots(I personally feel HTDAAB fits that perception better). As far as a regression...the only record that I think you could use that label on is HTDAAB. I don't the label fits ATYCLB all that well. It's not like Stuck In A Moment or In A Little While are the most U2-sounding things ever.

My own personal feelings are that I love Pop, it's in the top 5 for me, if I'm listening live. I also love a lot of the tracks on ATYCLB - Stuck In A Moment, Kite, In A Little While, Wild Honey, When I Look At The World, New York(the live coda really gets me), The Ground Beneath Her Feet(it was the 12th track in some places, the music was written in the same general time period as the others, and it was played on Elevation, so I consider it a part of the record). I don't dislike Beautiful Day, but it's just played out at this point, and I'm a little bored of it. Still, as much as I love those tracks, the record as whole doesn't create a universe like Pop(and so many other U2 records) does, and it doesn't pack the punch, so it's still probably in the lower half of my rankings.

As an aside, I often wonder what might have happened if U2 had held on to HMTMKMKM, put it on Pop instead of giving it to Batman Forever, and released it as the first single. It was a successful single when it was released in 1995, it probably still would've been successful in 1997 and, maybe, just maybe, would've been the initial punch the record needed to sell in the U.S. Also if Gone and DYFL had been released as singles instead of IGWSHA and Mofo(love them both, but they weren't the right choices for singles). Imagine if the singles had been:

HMTMKMKM
Gone
DYFL
LNOE
Discotheque(without the pressure of being a lead-off, maybe it would've fared better later on)
SATS

Maybe things would've been different...

 

[Nick66]

I'm just going by the band's own words; the way that they've described the narrative themselves over the years. This is concrete, usable information. Fantasy would more likely lie in a subjective fan's impression of the situation.

Your recollection of what the band has said about this record is very different than what I've been reading the past 15 years...including in the book you mentioned and numerous interviews. I'll just say that the notion that this band...especially at that stage of their careers...would just do something because they thought it was fun without thinking about relevance is just so laughable I almost have to believe you were taking the piss, because no one who knows the first thing about U2 would ever say such a thing.

 

[LemonMelon]

Your recollection of what the band has said about this record is very different than what I've been reading the past 15 years...including in the book you mentioned and numerous interviews. I'll just say that the notion that this band...especially at that stage of their careers...would just do something because they thought it was fun without thinking about relevance is just so laughable I almost have to believe you were taking the piss, because no one who knows the first thing about U2 would ever say such a thing.

If one were to go so far as to suggest that U2 created Pop as a cashgrab (relevance is too abstract a term to be useful here, so I'll be blunt about it), it begs the question: why breakbeat? If you were to go down the charts in 1996, you would find that it was not dominating the charts the way that, say, dubstep is today (which has integrated itself into most dance songs on pop radio), nor was its influence as wide, at least not as early as 1996. Surely they could have chosen a truly fail-safe option for achieving relevance if their careers depended on it.

Or perhaps they simply liked the sound.

Or perhaps it's a little of both.

But it's patently absurd to think that U2 chose the Prodigy of all bands to increase their profit margin.

As an aside, if U2 was hurting for cash, what the hell was Zooropa and Passengers for? Do you think Numb was a stab at relevance as well? U2 is capable of creating music because they think it's good. They have done so in the past. As a matter of fact, a short few years before they recorded Pop!

Pop was a compromised product, but it was because of IGWSHA, not Mofo.

 

[Nick66]

If one were to go so far as to suggest that U2 created Pop as a cashgrab (relevance is too abstract a term to be useful here, so I'll be blunt about it), it begs the question: why breakbeat? If you were to go down the charts in 1996, you would find that it was not dominating the charts the way that, say, dubstep is today (which has integrated itself into most dance songs on pop radio), nor was its influence as wide, at least not as early as 1996. Surely they could have chosen a fail-safe option for achieving relevance.

Or perhaps they simply liked the sound.

Or perhaps it's a little of both.

It's patently absurd to think that U2 chose the Prodigy of all bands to increase their profit margin.

Oh, I don't think it was a cash grab...I certainly never said that. I do think they have too much artistic integrity for that, and they weren't short of cash as far as I know. I've never really believe U2 was motivated by money..but they are motivated by relevance, and being the biggest band in the world. This isn't a new thing for them, they were saying that stuff back when they were The Hype.

And I think they were genuine in trying to expand their horizons, as artists, and do something new.

But I also think, absolutely, that they were tying to expand into a new market, and thought that they could reinvent themselves again, trying to capture lightening in a bottle twice, ala Achtung Baby. And the way they saw to do that was put their own spin on the type of music you correctly point out they were listening to at the time. And which just happened to be very popular at the time and was being played at dance clubs all across the world, particulalry Europe. They wanted to be played in those clubs, and all over the radio, that summer. The record was designed specifically for that, Bono has said as much, multiple times.

So yeah, it was a calculated decision, based on both art and business, in an attempt to stay on top by staying "fresh". The problem with Pop is that they just strayed too far from doing what "they do" (not my sentiment, theirs). For AB, the fans accepted it and it worked; for Pop, it didn't (at least commercially).

 

[LemonMelon]

Two things:

1. Please define relevance. If not you, then somebody. Because when you use the term, I don't know what it means. Are you referring to airplay? If so, then you immediately refer to the album as a cashgrab. Each play increases royalty figures. They help sell the album. Are you referring to artistic achievement? If so, I fail to see the harm in seeking that out. The way I see it often used, "relevance" is a mix of both and is therefore impossible to measure. The term is also becoming increasingly useless as mega-acts like The Beatles and Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd have died off, leaving universal relevance an equally extinct term. Acts that could achieve both with every album. Does Carly Rae Jepson sell loads of records? Of course. Is she relevant to those who don't listen to pop radio? No. Does a new Tom Waits album thrill a contingent of dedicated music listeners? Certainly. Is he relevant to those who DO listen to pop radio? No. What is U2, then, seeking to achieve when they say that they wish to be relevant? If they were seeking to create music that could be respected as well as commercially successful, I fail to see where they went astray. Many classic albums managed to achieve that.

2. I believe there are tracks on Pop that were created for the clubs. Certainly, the Mofo Remix Disc is proof enough of that (though U2 has had interest in the club scene since at least the Achtung Baby recording sessions; this development was not new for U2 circa 1996). Of course, many tracks (SATS, LNOE, Gone, Please, WUDM) do not resemble anything that would be played in a club. It's entirely fair to say that U2 hoped to be played in clubs. Bono said as much with the release of Discotheque. It is, however, incorrect to say that Pop was created with the sole purpose of getting U2 played in clubs. One listen is all it takes to prove that. There are too many concessions made to other facets of U2's sound for it to be U2's "club record." The title was, after all, ironic, as was the tour.

 

[Nick66]

Two things:

1. Please define relevance. If not you, then somebody. Because when you use the term, I don't know what it means. Are you referring to airplay? If so, then you immediately refer to the album as a cashgrab. Each play increases royalty figures. They help sell the album. Are you referring to artistic achievement? If so, I fail to see the harm in seeking that out. The way I see it often used, "relevance" is a mix of both and is therefore impossible to measure. The term is also becoming increasingly useless as mega-acts like The Beatles and Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd have died off. Acts that could achieve both with every album. Does Carly Rae Jepson sell loads of records? Of course. Is she relevant to those who don't listen to pop radio? No. Does a new Tom Waits album thrill a contingent of dedicated music listeners? Certainly. Is he relevant to those who DO listen to pop radio? No. What is U2 seeking to achieve when they say that they wish to be relevant?

2. I believe there are tracks on Pop that were created for the clubs. Certainly, the Mofo Remix Disc is proof enough of that (though U2 has had interest in the club scene since at least the Achtung Baby recording sessions; this development was not new for U2 circa 1996). Of course, many tracks (SATS, LNOE, Gone, Please, WUDM) do not resemble anything that would be played in a club. It's entirely fair to say that U2 hoped to be played in clubs. Bono said as much with the release of Discotheque. It is, however, incorrect to say that Pop was created with the sole purpose of getting U2 played in clubs. One listen is all it takes to prove that.

Well, U2 uses the term "relevance" all the time, not me. So ask them (see below). I think it's probably about getting on the radio, being all over the media, and people talking about you like you matter. But who knows.

And I never said Pop's "sole" purpose was to get U2 played in clubs...I said that was one of the goals (which it was)...I also said they wanted it all over the radio. Which they did.

U2 has made a lot of comments about Pop over the years, from how it strayed too far from their own sound, to how it just never achieved greatness. But I think this may be the most relevant to what were discussing now:

Imagine if "Discotheque" was a No. 1 pop song? Now that record makes sense. We didn't have the discipline to screw the thing down, and turn it into a magic pop song. We didn't have the discipline to make "Mo Fo" into a loud concoction of rock 'n' roll, trance crossover. We learned from that album. We'd become progressive rock! Ahhh! It's on us!

It (POP) didn't communicate the way it was intended to...it was supposed to change the mood of that summer [1997]. An album changes the mood of a summer when you walk out of a pub and you have those songs in your head. And you hear them coming from a car, an open window. It changes the mood of the season. Instead it became a niche record...but that's not what it was intended to be.
-Bono (2005)

Cue "Bono lies" mem in 5...4...3...