POP is good, but here's how it could've been great

[AtomicBono]

The Monster Truck version is cool, but in no way is it better than the album version. It doesn't have the same dynamics and it feels like a remix, although a very good one. Interesting that Bono said it was more the original spirit of the song, especially since SATS ended up basically the complete opposite of that live.

 

[Snowlock]

Pop probably needed only three things:

That, and the Village People outfits.

Ha! Agreed. Discotheque shouldn't have been the lead off single; or even probably a single at all. If they had lead off with Gone or maybe even Do You Feel Loved they would've been better off. Most of Pop's faliure is attributed to how it did the US and we were way to "grungy and alternativey" for corny Disco.

Maybe

DYFL
SATS
Gone
Please
No more

And it may've done better. DYFL wouldn't have been a smash by any means, but would've set a better tone.

 

[Brian-C]

my point was that people often complain that POP was dismissed by the general public because it was misunderstood
I feel that if you want to reach an audience you have to at least need hand them something to hang on to
when you don't have appealing singles, butch up your opening shows and give them KMart it is a failure on the band's part to reach out, not on the audience's willingness to appreciate IMO
now you could argue that they don't need the big audience
fair enough, but go tell that to the band

After reading Bill Flanagan's book on U2, I had a much better insight into U2's thought-process, and it didn't surprise me one bit that they got into billboards, advertisements, mass-production, plasticity and kitsch. If they delivered a message that was vague or uninspired, that'd be one thing. But I have a hard time finding anything wishy-washy in the lyrics of "Mofo," "Miami" or "Please."

 

[ultraviolet7]

1. when it comes to comparing u2 to bands , i use thier 80's peers.the bands they came up with. thier "graduating class" so to speak. most of those bands, from any genre did not survive the 80's and tanked. only the strong survive. Huey lewis,twisted sister,George Micheal,cyndi lauper,warrent, etc WILL all sign up to have had a 5x, 2x, hit single of soundtrack, and a 1x platinum albums in the 90's. just show em where to fucking sign. ask them about a flop after the 80's. YOU COULDN'T FIND THESE ARTISTS WITH A TELESCOPE IN 1997! (much less now).

If you want to use their 80s peers, you can't take the likes of Twisted Sister or Huey Lewis i.e. a hard rock hair band or an ex fashion model doing blatant mainstream pop. U2 was a young alternative rock band in the 80s. If you want to compare them with some other artist you should use another band in similar conditions, for instance Simple Minds who, while being a great band, couldn't do anything significant after their huge success album "Once Upon A Time".

 

[Brian-C]

Depeche Mode and REM are about the biggest, besides U2, of '80s alternative bands in the present. Maybe the Flaming Lips too, who weren't actually very big at all in the '80s. I'm still not even sure how they got so big.

 

[ultraviolet7]

Ha! Agreed. Discotheque shouldn't have been the lead off single; or even probably a single at all. If they had lead off with Gone or maybe even Do You Feel Loved they would've been better off. Most of Pop's faliure is attributed to how it did the US and we were way to "grungy and alternativey" for corny Disco.

Maybe

DYFL
SATS
Gone
Please
No more

And it may've done better. DYFL wouldn't have been a smash by any means, but would've set a better tone.

I don't get all this stuff about Discotheque not being the right choice for lead single. Discotheque resumed the spirit of the idea behind Pop, so I can't think of a better lead single for this album. I agree that there are better songs on the album, but the choice of Discotheque and the hilarious VP getup for the video was pure logic. The concept was ambitious, the stakes were high, the problem is that the band ultimately decided not to fully go with the risks implied - i.e. did not believe in what they were doing. And that in the end translates to the audience who may not understand any number of things but clearly perceives if something/someone is believable or not.

As for grungy - in 97 I think grunge was already going downhill fast speed if it wasn't already out. As for corny disco - it clearly wasn't, but that's how it came across to the masses.

 

[lazarus]

^^ This.

The only other song that I could make a case for would be Last Night on Earth, which probably wouldn't have scared as many people away.

 

[Brian-C]

As for grungy - in 97 I think grunge was already going downhill fast speed if it wasn't already out. As for corny disco - it clearly wasn't, but that's how it came across to the masses.

Ha! Wasn't that finished by the end of 1992? Certainly by Woodstock, it was melding into Muscle-Rock. (e.g. Stone Temple Pilots).

 

[namkcuR]

And this brings me back to Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me. This has always been one of my very favorite U2 songs. I think it's catchy, I think it manages one of the best atmospheric/kick-ass balances I've ever heard, I think they lyrics are gold, I think Bono's vocal delivery is the most devilish of his career, and I think the riffs are 'monster' than any so-called 'monster' riffs from this decade.

But I've always been torn about where and when it should've been released. I think it was perfect for the Batman Forever soundtrack. But I also think it was way too amazing to be relegated to a soundtrack. I think it should've been on Pop, and I think it should've been the first single.

Honestly, is there any track on Pop that would've had the impact as a first single that HMTMKMKM would have?

I also think that if Mofo had been recorded like the live versions - more 'rock', a little more danceable, a little more catchy - it would've been a great single.

I would've done the following as singles:

1.Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me
2.Staring At The Sun(perhaps release the Monster Truck Mix as as a single version, because there's a certain freshness in it)
3.Discotheque
4.Mofo(either a recorded version more like the live version, or else just release the MTV European Video Awards performance as a single)
5.Do You Feel Loved

And I think the album would have fared better.

Please is an incredible song, but I don't know if its single material. There's no immediate hook. That's not what the song is about.

Gone is tremendous, and if it had Edge's 'do-ow-own's in the choruses, maybe I'd release it as a single, but without, it sounds more like an album track to me.

 

[namkcuR]

Ha! Wasn't that finished by the end of 1992? Certainly by Woodstock, it was melding into Muscle-Rock. (e.g. Stone Temple Pilots).

Its death started in 1994 when Kurt Cobain died. From there it withered away quickly over the next two or three years. Most of the big grunge bands were broken up by 1996/1997 - the only really big one that survived was Pearl Jam and they were already moving beyond grunge.. Alternative Rock took over in those years until the end of the decade(Smashing Pumpkins, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Nine Inch Nails, Green Day, Radiohead, Garbage, Foo Fighters, some truly great bands, plus there was a movement of 'lighter' alternative acts like Third Eye Blind, Matchbox 20, Everclear, Goo Goo Dolls, etc, a movement that produced some good albums but in hindsight was the start of the watered down modern rock genre of today) and female solo acts(Tori Amos, Alanis Morrisette, Fiona Apple).

 

[Brian-C]

Its death started in 1994 when Kurt Cobain died. From there it withered away quickly over the next two or three years. Most of the big grunge bands were broken up by 1996/1997 - the only really big one that survived was Pearl Jam and they were already moving beyond grunge.. Alternative Rock took over in those years until the end of the decade(Smashing Pumpkins, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Nine Inch Nails, Green Day, Radiohead, Garbage, Foo Fighters, some truly great bands, plus there was a movement of 'lighter' alternative acts like Third Eye Blind, Matchbox 20, Everclear, Goo Goo Dolls, etc, a movement that produced some good albums but in hindsight was the start of the watered down modern rock genre of today) and female solo acts(Tori Amos, Alanis Morrisette, Fiona Apple).

An alternative to what? By 1994, grunge and alt-rock were corporate rock. All of the bands you mentioned in that first list, with the exception of Garbage and Foo Fighters, had already been releasing quality material prior to 1992. And it's safe to say that most all of them never eclipsed their pre-Woodstock heights, sans Radiohead.

As far as I'm concerned, the second half of the '90s was a musical wasteland, an no, not just boy bands and bubblegum pop singers. Rock was the absolute pits. I cannot remember a worse time for music in my whole life. Pop felt like one of the only albums that could actually see the forest for the trees.

 

[ultraviolet7]

Ha! Wasn't that finished by the end of 1992? Certainly by Woodstock, it was melding into Muscle-Rock. (e.g. Stone Temple Pilots).

Strictly speaking, as for significant releases, yes indeed it was over by 92, but the bands remained around for a few more years.

 

[Brian-C]

Strictly speaking, as for significant releases, yes indeed it was over by 92, but the bands remained around for a few more years.

Yeah, even today, if I hear of an alternative band that released an album in 1989 and one in 1992, I'll almost always go for the 1989 one.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

those bands i listed,may not be bands in thier genre, but thier bands who made albums trying to sell records. and survive. and after the 80's. they didn't. didn't matter where they came from. and they have beaten rem , pearl jam etc. as far as selling records. if this is about just selling records, witch seems to get brought up alot, thier doing not too bad. pop is not a failure. its just not. dissapointing from expections? yes. but thats not a failure.

 

[bonoz]

Pop is just an average album by U2 standards for me. Half great, half forgettable.

I always put the 90's trio at AB>Zoo>Pop. So I'm actually relieved it wasn't popular because they could have reached even further and made something bleh. Their whole obsession with topping themselves and being ironically cool was getting out of hand, and I'm glad they took a step back and realised they needed to trim off the unnecessary fat or their music/message would get lost in it. They ended up bouncing back in a huge way though so maybe it was a blessing in disguise.

I disagree with you so much that if I disagreed more I'd quite possibly implode. U2 is at its best when they experiment, IMO.

 

[Brian-C]

Pop wasn't a failure. It was probably partially misunderstood by the public, and partially an album that just didn't have the songwriting chops of their biggest sellers. or maybe it didn't need to. Some suggest that U2 wanted it to be a masterpiece, but others might suggest that they were deliberately arty. Who knows? There's a variety of reasons why it wasn't as big as their previous albums, and also why it wasn't heralded as an instant masterpiece. But maybe it IS a forgotten masterpiece, after all. Sorta like Tusk.

 

[namkcuR]

An alternative to what? By 1994, grunge and alt-rock were corporate rock. All of the bands you mentioned in that first list, with the exception of Garbage and Foo Fighters, had already been releasing quality material prior to 1992. And it's safe to say that most all of them never eclipsed their pre-Woodstock heights, sans Radiohead.

As far as I'm concerned, the second half of the '90s was a musical wasteland, an no, not just boy bands and bubblegum pop singers. Rock was the absolute pits. I cannot remember a worse time for music in my whole life. Pop felt like one of the only albums that could actually see the forest for the trees.

You take the term 'alternative' too literally. Yes, by the mid-90s, alternative rock was mainstream, but it had been growing all throughout the 80s and early 90s in the indie scene and the underground. People use the word to describe a style - albeit a broad style - of music now rather than a categorization of the level of mass success it has achieved. Your use of the phrase 'corporate rock' makes you sound like a Pitchfork subscriber. I wasn't suggesting that those bands didn't start releasing quality material until the mid-90s, I was suggesting that when grunge died, those bands and that style of music became the #1 genre of the mainstream rock music for a few years, and it was a brilliant time for rock music. Mainstream rock music right now is worse than it was in the late 90s. There was nothing in the late 90s as bad as Daughtry, Hinder, etc, imo.

 

[bonoz]

YouTube - Mofo (live from Popmart Sao Paulo)

I'm sorry but, I have to say people saying this album was "the wrong direction" or "not as good as it could have been" don't know what they're talking about.

I want to relive the 90's and the three reasons why I want to do it is:

1) Achtung Baby
2) Zooropa
3) Pop

 

[bonoz]

I mean... "looking for my baby Jesus under the trash"

can you imagine lyrics like these appearing in U2 songs now???

There was a sense of rebellion, confidence (arrogance even), and cool about them back in the 90s. Now they're post mid-life crisis cool-wannabe dad rockers. Not to say they're still not cool, but compared to the 90's? nuh uh.

 

[Brian-C]

You take the term 'alternative' too literally. Yes, by the mid-90s, alternative rock was mainstream, but it had been growing all throughout the 80s and early 90s in the indie scene and the underground. People use the word to describe a style - albeit a broad style - of music now rather than a categorization of the level of mass success it has achieved. Your use of the phrase 'corporate rock' makes you sound like a Pitchfork subscriber. I wasn't suggesting that those bands didn't start releasing quality material until the mid-90s, I was suggesting that when grunge died, those bands and that style of music became the #1 genre of the mainstream rock music for a few years, and it was a brilliant time for rock music. Mainstream rock music right now is worse than it was in the late 90s. There was nothing in the late 90s as bad as Daughtry, Hinder, etc, imo.

I think the exact opposite. To me, music is so much better now than it was in the late '90s, but to each their own. I have no idea who Hinder is, and I assume Daughtry is the American Idol, right? But no one takes that very seriously. Bands like She Wants Revenge, White Lies, Joanna Newsom, Interpol, Arcade Fire, White Stripes, Of Montreal, Neko Case, the Decemberists, Mars Volta, the Kills, hell, even My Chemical Romance... these seem to eclipse most of what the mid-to-late '90s had to offer.

I'm not saying there weren't good underground bands in the late '90s, like Neutral Milk Hotel, Olivia Tremor Control, Stereolab, et al. There were some good mainstream albums too, like Soft Bulletin and OK Computer. But by and large, I just find today's music to be a lot more interesting than the late '90s. "Californication" was like the last straw for me. I felt like all the alternative bands that I was into in the '80s and '90s were about as interesting as Boston or Foreigner. Except, of course, U2 and Pop.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

thier purpose isn't to be cool in that way anymore. but i do wonder what the next pharse would be. tradtional irish music?

 

[Brian-C]

I mean... "looking for my baby Jesus under the trash"

can you imagine lyrics like these appearing in U2 songs now???

There was a sense of rebellion, confidence (arrogance even), and cool about them back in the 90s. Now they're post mid-life crisis cool-wannabe dad rockers. Not to say they're still not cool, but compared to the 90's? nuh uh.

God, they were the coolest then. There was an air of mystery and intelligence that set the standard in those days. Also, U2 being European was sort of exotic. It made me want to go to these far off lands. At least for a middle class Philly kid.

 

[drt4]

I wish I could hear some demos of those early takes on SATS. I wonder if we'll ever get to hear these early versions?

 

[ozeeko]

God, they were the coolest then. There was an air of mystery and intelligence that set the standard in those days. Also, U2 being European was sort of exotic. It made me want to go to these far off lands. At least for a middle class Philly kid.

Am i alone here in thinking that at that time, hell I'd say JT-POP, Bono's writing was a lot more mature? His lyrics read well on paper, and he sounded a lot more wise, a lot more experienced. And his lyrics sounded like he was writing for himself, not second guessing an audience or trying too hard to be optimistic and reassuring. He wasn't condescending to anyone at that time, just writing what he felt inside. I know the naysayers are going to say that Bono is doing just that now, writing what he feels. Fair enough, but I think he was probably a different person in those days, more of a poet, and less of a mouthpiece for whatever cause he was fighting for.

 

[Brian-C]

I'd say, almost everything from U2 Three through Pop was perfect, like scripture, man. There was the occasional clunker, but not too many.

And I love what you said about it not feeling condescending.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

lets face it. thier greatest song was baby i'm home for christmas. it was the balance between thier ironic cool, and 3 chords and truth beliefs. and delivered one of thier most poetic and hopeful lyrics ever.

 

[Brian-C]

Do you mean "Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)"? That was written by Ellie Greenwich, Jeff Barry and Phil Spector in 1963. I'm not so sure U2 were being ironic, either. But I think your post was funny. You make this craggy heart smile at the end of a long day!

 

[ultraviolet7]

Am i alone here in thinking that at that time, hell I'd say JT-POP, Bono's writing was a lot more mature? His lyrics read well on paper, and he sounded a lot more wise, a lot more experienced. And his lyrics sounded like he was writing for himself, not second guessing an audience or trying too hard to be optimistic and reassuring. He wasn't condescending to anyone at that time, just writing what he felt inside. I know the naysayers are going to say that Bono is doing just that now, writing what he feels. Fair enough, but I think he was probably a different person in those days, more of a poet, and less of a mouthpiece for whatever cause he was fighting for.

Indeed Bono wasn't condescending to anyone - in fact his lyrics of that time were quite pessimistic and especially on Pop were those of a tormented man. While I think U2 has traded non-complacence for massive relevance during this decade and their music fails to move me the way it used to because of this, I'm not so sure Bono is actually betraying his feelings when he writes. I think he is definitely a different person: he seems to be spiritually more ecstatic, more enlightened, that translates in his lyrics and then for some reason grief seems to inspire more outstanding poetry.

Despite the fact that Bono still is capable of coming up with some good lines, I agree that his poetry in the most part is lacking the lustre it used to have. In fact this decade has given us hideous lines like "It's a beautiful day, don't let it get away/ the air is heavy as a truck/restart and reboot yourself/the songs are in your eyes I see them when you smile/oh you look so beautiful tonight in the city of blinding lights" to name but a few. Maybe the change of mood, trying to be more direct and/or linear in his writing - something I believe detracts from his poetry - and some complacence added to the mix have contributed to make his writing less exciting.

 

[pcfitz80]

Indeed Bono wasn't condescending to anyone - in fact his lyrics of that time were quite pessimistic and especially on Pop were those of a tormented man. While I think U2 has traded non-complacence for massive relevance during this decade and their music fails to move me the way it used to because of this, I'm not so sure Bono is actually betraying his feelings when he writes. I think he is definitely a different person: he seems to be spiritually more ecstatic, more enlightened, that translates in his lyrics and then for some reason grief seems to inspire more outstanding poetry.

Despite the fact that Bono still is capable of coming up with some good lines, I agree that his poetry in the most part is lacking the lustre it used to have. In fact this decade has given us hideous lines like "It's a beautiful day, don't let it get away/ the air is heavy as a truck/restart and reboot yourself/the songs are in your eyes I see them when you smile/oh you look so beautiful tonight in the city of blinding lights" to name but a few. Maybe the change of mood, trying to be more direct and/or linear in his writing - something I believe detracts from his poetry - and some complacence added to the mix have contributed to make his writing less exciting.

It may be more hit and his this decade but when he's on, he's really on. "Unknown Caller", IMO, has some of his best lyrics ever. And then there's "New York" - the lyrics here basically read like its about 9/11 even though it was a year before it happened. POP has good lyrics though. This is one of the albums strong points

 

[lazarus]

I feel confident in saying I'd put POP's lyrics against those of any other album. No contest. Few, if any groaners (though I recognize detractors of The Playboy Mansion don't like the cultural references), light on the cliches (something even JT has in abundance), and the variety of subject matter is extremely impressive