Pop album - what went wrong..?

[Reggie Thee Dog]

I've already summarized my list of "what went wrong" earlier in the thread, but the #1 problem with Pop is that it wasn't that great of an album.

Zooropa/Passengers/Pop....that's a trifecta of experimentation...but they don't make for great U2 records. There are some very good songs on each of them, but nothing that makes them through-and-through masterpieces.

It's obvious the Edge was in his most experimental period, and he and Bono were REALLY INTO the club scene (music-wise). Pop is an interesting idea that just doesn't ever get to where they wanted it to go. The remixes of the singles are MUCH better (including the remixes on the Best of 90-00...save Discotheque which is one of those songs (like Boots) that they tried too hard to make into something viable and consumable but never gets there).

I don't mind the experimental side of U2 or incorporating dance rhythms, but mix in a string of songs that we can 'all' sink our teeth into...otherwise it's just pandering to yourself, and a small sect of your fan base...or just poor execution.

 

[Nick66]

I asked McGuinness once what he thought "went wrong" with Pop, and whether the stories about it not getting enough time were true. This is what he told me..."Well actually Nick, it got an awful lot of time. I think it suffered from too many cooks in the kitchen. There were so many people with a hand in that record it wasn't surprising to me that it didn't come through as clearly as it might have done. It was also the first time I started to think that technology was getting out of control."

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

I asked McGuinness once what he thought "went wrong" with Pop, and whether the stories about it not getting enough time were true. This is what he told me..."Well actually Nick, it got an awful lot of time. I think it suffered from too many cooks in the kitchen. There were so many people with a hand in that record it wasn't surprising to me that it didn't come through as clearly as it might have done. It was also the first time I started to think that technology was getting out of control."

LOL...but true

 

[mikal]

So...yeah. I totally disagree with the notion that "Pop" isn't a great album. It's one of my favorite albums of all time and I put it in my Top 3 U2 albums if not #1, but that's for a different debate that's been done way too many times here already.

One thing I found interesting, back in 1997 when the album came out (specifically the Discotheque single), a lot of people around me were rolling their eyes and stating that they wanted U2 to go back to how they sounded in the 80's. I almost got the feeling that they were over and done with the experimentation phase. It makes me wonder if the album had come out in 1995 or 1996 if the reaction had been different. But with 4 years in between albums, and considering most people didn't know that Passengers existed, maybe Pop just wasn't the album that the general public wanted.

Again, the above does not represent how I felt about the album. Pop connected with me personally maybe more than any other album in history and went a long way into shaping my musical preferences. But I definitely defended this album much more than I had to with Achtung Baby and Zooropa, and most of the complaints had nothing to do with the actual songs, it was the direction the band took.

 

[MrPryck2U]

The problem with your theory is that all of the above "problems" also apply to "The Fly" as first single from Achtung, Baby. In fact, that single -- in North America certainly, and to a lesser extent, worldwide -- was much less played on radio than "Discotheque", and flopped Stateside. Yet the album did rather well.

Likewise, "Numb" was hardly prime radio fodder, yet Zooropa did as well or better than expected.

I've already summarized my list of "what went wrong" earlier in the thread, but the #1 problem with Pop is that it wasn't that great of an album.

I thought The Fly was fine as the first single. It presented U2's new direction right from the get-go. Then they cranked it up a notch with Mysterious Ways. I wasn't a big fan of Numb when it first came out. Eventually it grew on me and set things up nicely for Lemon. I liked Discoteque when I first heard it, but most of my traditional U2 fans (80's) weren't into it as much. When the tickets for Popmart went on sale I bought ten of them because folks said they'd go. After hearing U2's new music, a few people bailed on me and I actually had to eat a couple of tickets. Lesson learned. Lol! Pop is a great album. There's more hits than misses and even those are entertaining. Miami and Playboy Mansion come to mind.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

Americans can't handle something different. Once they know something and get familiar with it, they don't like when it changes.

 

[mikal]

Americans can't handle something different. Once they know something and get familiar with it, they don't like when it changes.

I'm American and I like the album.

 

[digitize]

Americans can't handle something different. Once they know something and get familiar with it, they don't like when it changes.

That's a rather broad claim. So is the implied second claim: that people from other parts of the world are less this way than Americans.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

I'm a American. And I know I like far more then my other friends who like u2. Its a stereotype. Yes. But one that is earned by the majority. Just ask iron maiden. Their newer albums still produce minor hits for them around the world. Non USA audiences still will listen to their new music. Here in the us no body cares about the new stuff. It pisses the band off and they have said so. They played their 2006 album in its entirety on their tour that year. Us audiences did not appreciate it.

 

[The Panther]

So...yeah. I totally disagree with the notion that "Pop" isn't a great album.

That's fine. I like the album, too, but I certainly don't think it's anything great, and I think it's one of their weaker products. The question posed by this thread seems to suggest we're talking about the general indifference (this is relative, in U2's case) to the album by the wider public.

One thing I found interesting, back in 1997 when the album came out (specifically the Discotheque single), a lot of people around me were rolling their eyes and stating that they wanted U2 to go back to how they sounded in the 80's. I almost got the feeling that they were over and done with the experimentation phase. It makes me wonder if the album had come out in 1995 or 1996 if the reaction had been different. But with 4 years in between albums, and considering most people didn't know that Passengers existed, maybe Pop just wasn't the album that the general public wanted.

I think are you, exactly, 100% correct. Pop was stretching people's patience with U2's 'contemporary' sound too far. People weren't really bothered to go along with them anymore. What Joe-average wanted in 1997 from U2 was All That You Can't Leave Behind.

 

[Registered Dude]

I asked McGuinness once what he thought "went wrong" with Pop, and whether the stories about it not getting enough time were true. This is what he told me..."Well actually Nick, it got an awful lot of time. I think it suffered from too many cooks in the kitchen. There were so many people with a hand in that record it wasn't surprising to me that it didn't come through as clearly as it might have done. It was also the first time I started to think that technology was getting out of control."

I always wondered if Neil McCormick posted here. Thanks for confirming

 

[gvox]

 

[The_acrobat]

What went wrong with POP is the song "Discotheque" was released as the leadoff single, with U2 prancing around in Village People outfits. It was VERY out of touch and out of time with 1997. I was in high school at the time, and got made fun of for U2 being my favorite band. Most of the kids in my school were into that post-grunge, Bush, Green Day type of bands. As a teenager I was VERY in tune with what was and what wasn't popular (not because I was popular, I just watched a shitload of MTV and read Rolling Stone, etc), and U2 fell flat in 1997. I never would've thought their popularity of 2000-2006 would've been possible at that point.

I'm not sure anything on POP could've been a better lead single, though. "Last night on earth" is about the closest thing, but that song's not good enough. A gritty rocker would've been what the doctor ordered. Something like "Holy Joe", only with better lyrics and a catchy chorus. Something that still retained the rocking spirit of Achtung Baby, but without so many bells and whistles, and a little less polished.

Then the rest of the album could've remained largely unchanged. "Staring at the sun" would've had a larger audience for it's swoop as the 2nd single, and would've tied it together for the fans of older U2. IGWSHA should've been on Zooropa, before they had a chance to overthink it for POP. That song is the precursor to 00s U2.

 

[trevgreg]

IGWSHA should've been on Zooropa, before they had a chance to overthink it for POP. That song is the precursor to 00s U2.

If we've never heard the original version, it's pretty hard to determine which one was 'better' than the other.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

I have to disagree with the idea that the electronic stuff on pop was out of touch with the times. In us anyway. In fact they couldn't have been more "in touch". 1997 was the perfect year to release pop. What hasn't been brought up is that the chemical brothers and the prodigy had their only success they ever had in the us in 1997. 1997 is the year electronic music "almost happened" in the us. Disco is one of the few u2 singles to have gone gold or platinum in the us. The album did go platinum. Its really not the disaster its made out to be. A near 20 year old band releasing a album that's clearly being influenced by modern sounds still finding success on any major level. I think they even played a remix of disco on mtv's old amp show, that was popular in 1997. If they released a year later or earlier , it proly completely fails.

 

[The Panther]

I have to disagree with the idea that the electronic stuff on pop was out of touch with the times. In us anyway. In fact they couldn't have been more "in touch". 1997 was the perfect year to release pop.

You might be right (re: the US), but nevertheless Pop was not the album the "people" (i.e., the mindless herd) wanted from U2 in 1997. The style and image were not what established fans wanted, and the singles were not particularly striking.

I was 21 in 1997, which means I was probably as 'plugged in' to popular culture and music as it's possible for me to be. At the time, even having been a big U2 fan for years, I thought they were washed up after Pop. I was not alone. Many of my friends, who'd all respected and listened to them in 1993-94, were now totally disinterested. It wasn't so much that they were making bad music, it was more that they were out of step with the times (and they were, for the first time, perceived as "old" -- which still matters a bit when you're 21). We were listening to Radiohead, Oasis, Ani DiFranco, Ben Folds Five, Blur, Beck, etc. U2 were suddenly old fashioned, and looked like they were a bit desperate to try and be 'trendy' -- a bit like when your 40-ish uncle starts playing a new rock band's CD at a family party.

In retrospect, it's clear that 1997 marks the moment when U2 ceased being a 'contemporary' band. But it's also 3 years prior to their reinvention as established stadium gods who had done everything and had nothing left to prove. It just captured them in that awkward career transition phase.


Oh, and as far as the electronic thing goes, I thought they were about 6 years behind the times in 1997. Much earlier in the decade, I'd been listening to British electro-pop/rock groups, who basically did the same style U2 tried on Pop, but probably managed it more comfortably. The USA being a more conservative music market, you're probably right that U2 were attempting, in their way, to break it in via this style... but I think we have to say that they were not the band who was going to do this!

 

[Nick66]

This meme that Pop was somehow a smash hit in the rest of the world but failed in America b/c people there were too dumb to understand it has been repeated so many times it's almost reached urban legend status. If only it were true. Taken as a percentage of sales vs. JT and AB, Pop didn't do appreciably better in most countries than it did in the US. In most countries, it counts one of U2's least selling records. That doesn't make the record bad of course, and it may be that in some other countries people were more willing to accept new sounds from U2...but that didn't necessarily translate commercially (at least as far as selling records goes).

It is true that a lot of people were not willing to follow the direction U2 was going musically, and that the band just went "too far" with the electronics, loops, etc. on that record and at some point stopped sounding like U2. That there were just too many layers between the band and the listener. This is something I think the band ultimately ended up agreeing with...

"We finally realized on the PopMart tour that it was time for us to start stripping back again," says Bono, who recalls a telling moment during the PopMart U.S. tour.

We got into Washington, D.C., before all our equipment arrived and rehearsed with just guitar, bass and drums - none of the loops or samples that we had been attaching to the songs. Howie B. came in during the middle of the rehearsal and he said, `Wow, what a sound. What is this?' We told him it was us, it was what U2 sounds like. I think that's when we realized that it was time for us to get back to the essence of what we do."
-Bono, 2000

 

[cobl04]

That quote is a shame.

Nick I wonder what percentage of your posts has been dedicated to mentioning Pop's sales performance. I'd estimate at least 65.

 

[Nick66]

That quote is a shame.

Nick I wonder what percentage of your posts has been dedicated to mentioning Pop's sales performance. I'd estimate at least 65.

Not even close. Maybe .01%. That would be like me saying 65% of your post contain the "N" word.

And since we are talking about how Pop was received, you can't exactly separate that from how many records its sold can you? Many people have mentioned it...but nice that you still notice when I do Cobbler. I figure I must be doing something right if you have a problem with what Bono said and what I said in the same post.

 

[cobl04]

The quote's a shame because it seems to back up the idea we all have about the band being disillusioned with the album and thus hardly playing anything from it live. Which sucks, because it's an awesome album.

I have never even remotely cared about how many records they sell. Pop has a lot of great songs. Talking about how it didn't sell well bored me to tears.

 

[Nick66]

I have never even remotely cared about how many records they sell. Pop has a lot of great songs. Talking about how it didn't sell well bored me to tears.

Sure. And I don't think Pop selling relatively poorly (for U2) has anything to do with how good, or not good, it is. A lot of stuff that doesn't sell at all is great, and a lot of stuff that sells sucks.

Whether Pop is a great record or not, how much you like it, etc. is all a matter of opinion and there's no "right" answer. But in terms of how well the record was received, and the momentous impact that reception had on U2's career trajectory and musical direction...yeah, its sales are pretty relevant. Plus the meme that Pop flopped in the US and was a smash hit in the rest of the world is just flat out wrong.

Anyway talking about how much Pop's reception changed U2 (for good or bad) is more interesting to me than endless "Pop roxs/Pop suxs" debates.

 

[Irvine511]

i think this is the best Pop thread i've come across in a while.

as chart performance goes, they tried to replicate the AB formula -- shock them, then awe them. AB had the shock (the fly) and then a 1-2 punch of awe (MW and One). the problem with Pop, is that the shock was less disorienting (the fly) and more confusing (disco), and the awe (SATS) simply couldn't compete with all-time U2 classic MW and all-time-for-history classic One. U2 had the goods (and a consensus "best song ever written" candidate) on AB. on Pop, they simply didn't.

that's what people forget. JT and AB have a few songs that *everyone* loves -- only die-hard U2 fans dispute the greatness of Streets, WOWY, ISHF, MW, and One. everyone else knows these are staples of any collection of music.

i relistened to Pop the other day, and quite enjoyed it. i can see why they are so frustrated with SATS. there is something amazing there, the melody is incredible (i remember my mother humming it back in the day), the lyrics are good, it's awash in mysticism that seems ready to explode in revelation, but it doesn't quite get there ... had that song been on the level of MW, we might be having a very different conversation, at least in regards to album sales, but also likely album quality, since one classic song can change the conventional opinion on a single album.

also, IGWSHA seems like another near miss. some of it is so shimmering and lovely, the angel *woosh* is bracing, the "where is the hope / and where is the faith" verse gathers so much emotional momentum, and it's good that they fixed it and placed it later in the song for the single release (a much better mix, as opposed to Please, which i think is better on the album), its' a shame that it, like SATS, doesn't quite get to where it needs to go. it's not One, but it *is* a potential U2 classic ballad, just not fully realized.

i agree with the band -- if they had been able to "properly" finish SATS, and i'd add, IGWSHA, Pop would be remembered differently. there was also a long lag time between "disco" and SATS ... or so i remember. i wonder why?

it does come down to the songs. all the "great" U2 albums have songs that have become standards:

War - SBS and NYD
UF - Pride
JT - tracks 1-3
AB - MW and One
ATYCLB - Beautiful Day

if the songs had been there, U2 would have pulled off the beats.

as for the US ... people need to remember that there are 310m Americans. it's very difficult to achieve any sort of consensus on anything, and if an album, even by U2, isn't as good as others, it's going to disappear because there are so many other things competing for attention in the most crowded marketplace in the world. it's lovely that 17m Dutch people agree that most U2 songs should go to #1, but gosh, that's not even half the population of California alone. if you took just the tri-state market (NY, NJ and CT), which has a comparable population to many European countries, you'd see more U2 top 10 hits. but it's a big, diverse, unpredictable place -- U2 will never again achieve the mainstream success they garnered from '87-'93. it's a different world.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

Madonna's 1998 "ray of light" was received alot better. I got into the genre of electronic music because of u2s pop and Bowie's "earthling" .

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Pop is a failure, Bono and Edge say as much in U2 by U2:

Bono: We just couldn't get the fun onto the album. The songs "weren't" good enough. The themes were there. Some of the melodies were there. But it couldn't seem to get airborne.

Edge: The great synthesis between songwriting and dance didn't happen. It was like mixing oil and water. The two approaches were actually pulling us in opposing directions.

Edge later goes onto say that DYFL, SATS and LNOE should've been so much better, but were lacking that certain something. He also says that IGWSHA is lacking something in the chorus (agreed). He even states that Gone (the one song I love on Pop) should've been better too.

What they seem to be saying in the section about recording Pop is that they started out with drum loops and machines (because Larry was injured and unable to play) and when they got real drums and bass onto the tracks they changed to dynamics of the songs. Funny, trying to make a dance album without involving the rhythm section...recipe for failure.

Whether you love this album or not, it's is definitely not highly regarded by the band.

 

[ahittle]

At the time, even having been a big U2 fan for years, I thought they were washed up after Pop. I was not alone. Many of my friends, who'd all respected and listened to them in 1993-94, were now totally disinterested. It wasn't so much that they were making bad music, it was more that they were out of step with the times (and they were, for the first time, perceived as "old" -- which still matters a bit when you're 21).

I'm a bit older than you, but I felt this as well. A lot of my friends bailed after Rattle and Hum, and although AB is pretty much universally hailed now, a lot of my contemporaries saw the whole thing as a crafty bit of damage control.

I even perceived AB and ZOOTV as a flukey second wind. At Zooropa, I imagined U2 entering a who-gives-a-fucc phase of their career of making arty records with diminishing sales. I remember thinking to myself that they were entering a Bowie-like stage in their career of making respectable albums but not having a huge cultural impact.

When Pop rolled around, I dug it. By the time PopMart came around, most of my friends had bailed - U2 had become elder statesmen who were playing dress-up and playing with irony as a defensive technique.

The last thing I ever expected was another smash hit with BD. I never would have predicted a uptick after the Pop era.

 

[Nick66]

i agree with the band -- if they had been able to "properly" finish SATS, and i'd add, IGWSHA, Pop would be remembered differently. there was also a long lag time between "disco" and SATS ... or so i remember. i wonder why?

Your entire post is really excellent, and I agree with most of it. Though I happen to think that SATS the is perfect magic just they way it is...I think it has all the things you believe are missing.

Also, I never bought the whole "Pop sucks because we didn't have time to finish it because McG booked us on tour". Pop was finished. Is finished. They worked on those songs on and off for two years w/at least four different producers. Pop has 12 songs on it which, I believe, is tied for the most on any regular U2 release. There was a world tour in support of it. They even went back and redid/remixed/reworked/re-recorded at least half the songs on the album at various times...including the songs you mentioned.

And, lets say even if U2 did revist those songs, again, for the remaster (unlikely) they would of course sound nothing like if they had "finished" them in 1997. Any more than the 2000 versions would have. How many people who love Pop prefer those versions that U2 ostensibly had more time to "finish"? How many people who don't love Pop love the remixes? I just don't think another six weeks or six months in the studio would have made that much difference to that record's fortunes. Pop is what it is in its DNA, more time in the studio might have meant a bit more tweaking, but the substance of the record would basically be the same. And lot of people love it for what it is just fine anyway. Let's put it this way...those people who really love Pop don't want it changed, and don't think it needs to be changed. For those people who don't love it, no amount of tweaking those songs is going to change their view.

You could argue that that Pop is more "finished" than any other record U2 has made. And if Pop is "unfinished', then they all are.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

You could argue that that Pop is more "finished" than any other record U2 has made. And if Pop is "unfinished', then they all are.

No, I don't think you can argue that it is 'more finished' than any other record. U2 took a route that just didn't work for them, no matter how much they wanted it to, and in the end had to release it 'as is', because they were under a deadline they couldn't move (for logistic and financial reasons).

I specifically read the section, in U2 by U2, that go overs the 'band's' recollection of the writing and recording of that album. They all feel it was a misguided attempt to record an album. Way too many people trying to shift an album this way or that. For all their good intentions on taking the album to a club/dance/electronica sound, Bono and Edge relied too heavily on the drum loops/machines for the demos, which ended up alienating the rhythm section, Larry mostly because he was out due to injury. When the band came together the Edge says the songs were changed by the organic sound of a real band. They spent months trying to make that right, and then had to regroup and take a different approach. That's why Pop is unfinished they had limited time to organize the songs into something the whole band could play.

Bono and Edge both agree the songs didn't coalesce the way the were hoping and so they view the album as a failure. Traditionalists (like me) like bits and pieces, but feel like U2 was so far removed from who they were as a band, that they had lost their way.

New fans probably thought this 'is' U2, it's not. It's a version of them that we'll never see again, and while I appreciate what they were trying to achieve, it didn't work. It's not something I care to see them do again. NLOTH was sort of an attempt to be experimental, but some of it feels forced, as 'all' of Pop does, and so it doesn't resonate with most music fans, nor some U2 fans, much like Pop.

 

[Nick66]

I'm not sure you quite got what I was saying. To understand my last sentence, you have to put it in context of all the sentences that came before it.

Let's put it this way...I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything you've written.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Gotcha...I reread

 

[Thrillhouse]

How many people who love Pop prefer those versions that U2 ostensibly had more time to "finish"? How many people who don't love Pop love the remixes?

I was under the impression the Please single version and the Gone new mix were the preferred versions. They sure are over at the @U2 forums. Gone new is at least tied in popularity with Gone album version