Pop themes

[Blue Room]

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

ALL of their albums are unfinished according to the band. They would work them all to death and never release anything if they did not put a deadline on it.

My take on POP is that it is a very good album. I thought the tour was great as well, takes a lot of crap a lot of the time that it does not deserve. I would argue though that it was one of the most unfinished albums in that they actually did go past their original deadline for release. So much so they did not have time to rehearse for the tour properly. That is pretty much a fact that is confirmed by the band, their crew, Paul G, and by listening to the Popmart rehearsals and the first week of Popmart shows and soundchecks. In particular the first Vegas show and the soundcheck that day. They were clearly pressed and Edge was not a happy camper in particular.

 

[Nick66]

ALL of their albums are unfinished according to the band. They would work them all to death and never release anything if they did not put a deadline on it.

Oh, I agree completely. Such as it is with most works of art. But they're the ones who blamed Pop's problems on not having time to "finish" it.

I would argue though that it was one of the most unfinished albums in that they actually did go past their original deadline for release. So much so they did not have time to rehearse for the tour properly. That is pretty much a fact that is confirmed by the band, their crew, Paul G, and by listening to the Popmart rehearsals and the first week of Popmart shows and soundchecks. In particular the first Vegas show and the soundcheck that day. They were clearly pressed and Edge was not a happy camper in particular.

Well, I agree that they weren't ready for the tour (I experienced the San Diego debacle first hand), that's another matter. And they needed more time to prepare for that tour in particular what with all the ridiculous loops and sequencers and everything else that separated the audience from the band. I just don't buy the excuse that Pop's problems (whatever they were) was because it wasn't "finished", and McG in fact said just that, as quoted in McCormick's book:

"It [Pop] got an awful lot of time, actually. 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."
-Paul McGuinness

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"? 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.

 

[Rhiannon64]

Pop is a very difficult record for me to listen to. I have a tough time getting my head around the music and the lyrics. So when this thead was posted I had to go back and relisten to it before I made any sort of comment. If AB had thrown me off course, Pop left me thinking what happened to the band that brought the inspirational and uplifting themes of JT? This was the band that wanted to have nothing to do with commercialism, materialism and/or consumerism back in the 80's. For me, it represented the search for spirituality. Seeing them do the mart thing was a turn off. Was that for the tour or for the album release? At the time--on the surface--it 'appeared' to me they had sold out. Seeing the Discotheque video didn't help. I couldn't relate to or make that personal connection with the music.

So, after listening to the album for the first time in its entirety since it was released (sorry) this is what I came away with on the themes. I found the vocals are so buried underneath the music that the lyrics cannot be heard. Even when listening through earphones they still sound muffled. Does anyone know why the vocals are so buried in the mix? Was that a deliberate choice?

I agree that addiction, hedonism and loss of faith/absence of spirituality/God are common themes throughout the record. But, for me, the theme of loss of faith seems a bit deeper and darker. The phrase "dark night of the soul" comes to mind. Aren't the themes of superficial behaviors really just masking some sort of inner pain that isn't ready to be confronted? We don't really know Bono's personal experience however, with that said, there's a heartbreaking yearning in those songs. Hearing Bono sing "Mother am I still your son" and "Show me Mother" tears my heart out.

By the end of the record we hear the cry for divine intervention with WUDM "Jesus, help me, I'm alone in this world." The vocals are clear, raw and emotional not perfect but authentic.

So I guess in the end the absence of God/faith/spirituality is really the continuation of seeking/searching for God. There's a paradox in there somewhere.

 

[lov12113]

So I guess in the end the absence of God/faith/spirituality is really the continuation of seeking/searching for God. There's a paradox in there somewhere.

Bingo. A profound, but true paradox. Bono is not the first to have found this paradox, but I'm glad he expressed it.

 

[Von Schloopen]

Anybody that's said this is a fucking idiot.

That's a good way to start a discussion.

"Anyone who thinks different than I do, is an idiot."

Really fostering the open, every opinion matters, community spirit.

Let me balance you out:

Anyone who thinks the lyrics on 'Pop' are good is a fucking idiot.

 

[OpenG180]

That's a good way to start a discussion.

"Anyone who thinks different than I do, is an idiot."

Really fostering the open, every opinion matters, community spirit.

Let me balance you out:

Anyone who thinks the lyrics on 'Pop' are good is a fucking idiot.

Reading your posts, i really don't get the vibe of someone who's "all for progress and exploration".

 

[U2DMfan]

The live version of Mofo is probably the single best thing U2 has done since the end of ZooTv. On the album, it's great but I think it really developed live.

That song is a fucking monster. And U2 not having performed it in 15 years is a heinous offense. Hopefully to be rectified by Spring of next year.

POP is a bit of a musical Frankenstein but in the continuous DNA buried in there, and even with all the spots where it didn't 'hit the mark', I think it accomplished something that band hasn't been able to do since.

It's a fucking admirable album. 100%. I am proud that U2 made that album, even if I don't think it's necessarily great front to back.

There's a famous anecdote about (now deceased) noted New York Times film critic Pauline Kael. When Kael was asked how she felt about Richard Nixon becoming president, she reportedly expressed bemusement, saying "How could he win, no one I know voted for him"? And if you just polled the members of Kael's small, progressive Upper West side community about their political preferences, you'd be forgiven for wondering how Nixon indeed could have ever won. Naturally, the views of her small, insular community were in no way a reflection of the majority of the outside world.

The same goes for Pop on Interference.

I think that's true about Interference.

I'd also add this...

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”

-Bertrand Russell.

Especially in entertainment. See: just about any mainstream music chart, box office result or TV ratings over the last 50 years.

The insular community doesn't have to be wrong in its 'minority consensus'.

 

[Aygo]

Great post...as I've said before, I love hearing well-articulated arguments about why people love (or don't love) X album/song by U2. Especially on records I disagree on or don't "get". Anyway, I'm not sure that we disagree, but that we just have different tastes and a different take on Pop. I'd never say someone had "shitty taste" if the disagreed with me on Pop (or any U2 record). That would be pretty stupid.

I will say this...I've 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. As you point out, then they even went back and redid/remixed/reworked/re-recorded at least half the songs on the album at various times.

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

Well, I think that some songs on Pop are clearly unfinished or were roughly finished because on the latter albums I don't listen to songs that sound like demos.
Could've "Smile" (or some of the alternate versions of the Bomb tracks) been included in the HTDAAB final tracklist? Well, "Smile" still sounds like a demo or at least b-side material compared to the other tracks (some of which I'm not a fan, but they sound finished - sometimes too much).
To me, for instance "Velvet Dress", "Please" or "Miami" sound like rough sketches. And the way they were played live (or "corrected" in the singles) only a couple of months after shows to me that they're demos who had to be rushed to include the album.
I cannot say the same about DYFL, "Discotheque", "Mofo" or "Gone" which always sounded pretty much clear to me. Again, unlike some of the latter material, these sounds still sound fresh to me in 2013.

 

[jeevey]

That song is a fucking monster. And U2 not having performed it in 15 years is a heinous offense. Hopefully to be rectified by Spring of next year.

Exhibit A

U2 performing Mofo at Mtv Europe Music Awards 1997 - YouTube

 

[Blue Room]

Oh, I agree completely. Such as it is with most works of art. But they're the ones who blamed Pop's problems on not having time to "finish" it.



Well, I agree that they weren't ready for the tour (I experienced the San Diego debacle first hand), that's another matter. And they needed more time to prepare for that tour in particular what with all the ridiculous loops and sequencers and everything else that separated the audience from the band. I just don't buy the excuse that Pop's problems (whatever they were) was because it wasn't "finished", and McG in fact said just that, as quoted in McCormick's book:



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"? 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.

I would not say being ready for the tour is simply another matter. The fact is they have a set pattern. They finish the album, do some promotional stuff and at the start of the next year they begin rehearsing for the tour. That did not happen with POP because they felt it was not far enough long to stop. They worked on it into the new year taking away time they would normally be rehearsing for the tour. I think it was pretty clear at the time they were more pressed for time than usual both with the album and the tour. Maybe "unfinished" is the wrong word. How about the album was more "rushed" than their normal album. I think aspects of it suffer as a result of that. Like any U2 album it still has great moments and like I said I think it is a good album. Once the tour got going (about 2 or 3 weeks in) it was a great tour also.

 

[Nick66]

The insular community doesn't have to be wrong in its 'minority consensus'.

Well, we're talking about opinion in art here, there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Just because a record (or book, or movie) is a commercial disappointment doesn't mean it's a bad work of art; similarly a record's commercial success doesn't make it good art (a glance at the pop charts is proof enough of that, IMO). Anyone who likes, or dislikes, a work of art based solely on its popularity (or lack thereof) is, IMO, behaving foolishly. The Russell quote is fine as far as it goes, but the fact that the "majority" liked (at least based on record sales) TUF, TJT and AB (and most other U2 records frankly) much better than Pop doesn't make them foolish or wrong by definition, saying that would be silly.

My observation about the divide between Pop's popularity here vs. the "outside world" was just that, an observation, not an attempt to buttress an argument regarding Pop's artistic merits one way or the other. Pop's (relative) "failure" commercially and among wider U2 fandom doesn't make it a bad record, any more than its popularity on Interference makes it a good one.

The live version of Mofo is probably the single best thing U2 has done since the end of ZooTv. On the album, it's great but I think it really developed live.

I don't think the song ever really worked in any incarnation.

That song is a fucking monster. And U2 not having performed it in 15 years is a heinous offense. Hopefully to be rectified by Spring of next year.

I wouldn't count on it. Though I do suppose they have to fill the "Crazy Tonight" slot with something.

It's a fucking admirable album.

Yes, yes. Very, very admirable.

 

[mama cass]

i think POP was perfect for the time, and where the band were at back then, and as a listener where i was at back then... listening to the album takes me back to a certain time in my life, when i was in my mid-20s, and i loved the album... and i still do because it takes me somewhere, on a journey, and i'm just really fond of it...

but if they tried to pull something like that nowadays at their stage in life, and where i am right now, all grown up (lol) nearly 20 years on, i don't think i'd manage to relate, and i would be worried it would seem a bit forced, and might not gel - they have to be true to where they're at, i mean the guys are in their 50s now, so lounge suits and zimmers it is then LOL

 

[gvox]

I think Pop is a coherent narrative about trying to fill a spiritual void through material hedonism. Really the ramshackle/unfinished feel of some of the songs complements that theme perfectly, as though the sheen on top is not enough to conceal the unraveling underneath.

Who are you, and what have you done with the Cobbler?

Spot on post.

 

[gvox]

Exhibit A

U2 performing Mofo at Mtv Europe Music Awards 1997 - YouTube

Anybody who can listen to that and not hear the dance music inherent in it probably wasn't even in the clubs pre-Pop. That's dance music, folks.

Whether or not it was dance music that got played in clubs is another matter altogether. But at it's core, it's got heavy dance influence quite obviously.

With respect to it being successful dance music or not, I always thought that they were a bit late to the party. 1997 was when my clubbing had reached the zenith of a crazy decade, and I was coming down a bit (a 2 year old will do that to ya, but for me I just slowed down a bit ) I had spent the previous 9 years out every Friday to Sunday of almost every single weekend (and alot of Mondays and Thursdays) in underground house, hip hop and reggae clubs/raves, so I'd heard (and dj'd) quite a bit of dance music.

It wasn't what I wanted or was ready for, from U2, and I didn't immediately embrace it - that would come a couple of years later - but that was mainly because, as I said, at the time being so thoroughly ingrained in house/dance music myself, I felt they were a bit late to the party. Re-listening a couple of years later, outside of the dance music context, as just an album, I came to appreciate it as a pretty fucking solid album. There's a couple of stinkers, but every U2 album has them except JT and AB.

Song for song...there's probably more songs on Pop that I like over songs like I like on say Zooropa or October or - shocker! - maybe even War..and definitely NLOTH, HTDAAB. The problem for me is, it lacks a few really huge tunes that make those stinkers forgiveable. It doesn't have a Zooropa. It doesn't have a Gloria. It doesn't have a Sunday Bloody Sunday. If that makes any sense.

 

[Nick66]

Of course Pop has dance music influences. The first song has the word Disco in it for crying out loud.

 

[OpenG180]

"I fail to see any bigger traces of "dance" music in Pop. I guess ppl who claim that Pop is anything close to a dance album really have no clue about dance music."

My english must be worst than i already think it is.

Key words: bigger traces, dance album

 

[gvox]

"I fail to see any bigger traces of "dance" music in Pop. I guess ppl who claim that Pop is anything close to a dance album really have no clue about dance music."

My english must be worst than i already think it is.

I understood what you said perfectly fine, even if English isn't your first language.

Grammatically correct or not, your statement that you don't see the traces doesn't mean that they aren't quite obviously there, or that you have a hard time communicating in written English.

It just means that you apparently know shit-all about dance music.

 

[OpenG180]

I understood what you said perfectly fine, even if English isn't your first language.

Grammatically correct or not, your statement that you don't see the traces doesn't mean that they aren't there, or that you have a hard time communicating in written English.

It just means you apparently know shit-all about dance music.

I'll rethink my activities as an amateur DJ. Thanks for the tip, old boy.

 

[gvox]

I'll rethink my activities as an amateur DJ.

You probably should!

 

[OpenG180]

You probably should!

Let me guess: american, approaching 50?

That combo screams understanding of dance music to a latin guy, ya know.

 

[gvox]

Let me guess: american, approaching 50?

Wrong on both counts.

But keep grasping, it's fun to watch.

 

[OpenG180]

Wrong.

But keep grasping, it's fun to watch.

Were you a baby in 1982 when you became a U2 fan?

And it's fun pulling your leg. You go and try catch the ball every single time.

 

[gvox]

Were you a baby in 1982 when you became a U2 fan?

Yes. Yes, I was. That's it. You've got me.

Keep going, this is getting good.

 

[OpenG180]

Yes. Yes, I was. That's it. You've got me.

Keep going, this is getting good.

Well, i guess someone who loves Bob Marley can't be that much clueless or even a flatulent pain...

 

[gvox]

Well, i guess someone who loves Bob Marley can't be that much clueless or even a flatulent pain...

Do you realize how utterly stupid you sound? Honestly?

 

[OpenG180]

Do you realize how utterly stupid you sound? Honestly?

Don't lose your cool, old boy. Not yet, anyway. The fun's just beggining, as you said.

 

[gvox]

Don't lose your cool, old boy. Not yet, anyway. The fun's just beggining, as you said.

I'm perfectly calm. You just keep saying things that make you look like an utter jackass. There's not much to get excited about in that, I'm afraid.

 

[OpenG180]

I'm perfectly calm. You just keep saying things that make you look like an utter jackass. There's not much to get excited about in that, I'm afraid.

Now you know how i feel reading 90% of your posts here...

 

[gvox]

Now you know how i feel reading 90% of your posts here...

 

[OpenG180]

So, how was the dance music scene like in the early 70's, oops, 80's, when you went clubbing? Depeche Mode, Linear Movement and Soft Cell were all the rage?