Pop themes

[Nick66]

I don't have the answers either. It just seems odd to blame the music for being too dancy or weird or un-U2 or unfinished when the previous album was just as much if not more so in all those departments (and on that last point, lets substitute "rushed" for unfinished). And I'll reiterate that people didn't have a chance to hear the album before buying it by and large; it's all about the songs heard on the radio that determined if an album would make a huge splash or not.

And it's also odd to say the public's taste changes, be said Zooropa was ahead of its time, and Pop in a way very much of its time, if not a little behind the curb by the time it came out. It's possible that the pre-release rumors of this being a dance/techno combined with the clubby Discotheque people just kept people away. It doesn't explain why Numb didn't have the same effect, but there wasn't as much press (positive or negative) back then, and people probably just saw/heard there was a new U2 album and bought it. I mean, just because a few million people in the U.S. owned it doesn't mean they necessarily liked it!

Well, I think we might be overstating Zooropa's performance (7 mil) to Pop's (6 mil). It's not as if Zooropa was this massive seller in the first place…both records are off significantly vs. AB's 18 million. If you look at sales figures, you can argue that the further away U2 got from the JT (25 mil) and their "traditional" sound, the further their sales fell. Setting aside R&H (14 mil) their numbers didn't really recover somewhat until they got back to a more stripped-down sound with ATYCLB.

Really, looking at this data you can't conclude that Pop's relative failure was largely because people just weren't receptive of the music. As much as a reinvention as AB was stylistically, it was still very much a rock record that most fans at the time could embrace. Zooropa by comparison, is a lot further removed musically from JT than AB…and Pop further still. Neither are traditional rock records, and don't sound that way. As a consequence, those records sold less and less. Again, once U2 got back to their more "traditional" sound, their sales made a recovery. There's just no other way to explain a drop from 18 million to 6 or 7 million. Not first singles, not costumes, and certainly not irony in Popmart. Zooropa sold less than half of what AB did despite being released in the middle of the ZOOTV tour and at the height of U2's popularity; Pop had a HUGE promotional push. This isn't some start up band; no one can say U2 didn't have every opportunity to get their music in front of listeners. The listeners just didn't like what they were hearing (relatively speaking). Perhaps all this tells us is that, when you add NLOTH in the mix, U2's hard core fan base, the one's who will buy anything with their name on it, is around 5-7 million. But not even all the U2 fans who bought those records like them; I bought Pop the day it came out and my feelings on it are well known. The gaudy sales figures from the more "popular" records come from the general public, who prefer a more mainstream sound.

Again, this isn't a commentary on how good Pop's (or Zooropa's) music is, that's completely subjective. I'm not saying U2 made a mistake reinventing themselves in the 90's, I don't believe they did and think if they'd continue to put out JT's they would have faded away. But in terms of how much public accepted the music in Pop (and to a lesser extent Zooropa), as reflected by record sales, the data is pretty clear.

 

[djerdap]

Just a couple more comments.

First, you state a bootleg is not an indicator, then site shows that you did not appear to attend but heard the bootleg as examples of great peformances? Or did you attend Popmart Sarajevo, Leeds and Santiago? Maybe you did? Otherwise you seem to contradict your prior statements with that one.

I stated Popmart was NOT the failure it was perceived to be. I stated some of the very low attendance in some of the U.S. Markets is why this FALSE perception is conveyed a lot of the time. You then stated that maybe it did not connect in the U.S. but it did in the rest of the world as your response. I then explained how the attendance problems were not just a U.S. thing that there were some problems in Europe as well. Then you state you do not care about the attendance. There is clearly a "disconnect" between your responses and what I'm saying. The point is that there was less demand to see U2 in a lot of markets they typically performed strong in and have done so in tours after Popmart and it was not just the U.S. Why would that be? POP did not connect with as many consumers accross the board would be my guess. It did somewhat with me, but there is something to it that simply cannot be arbitrarily dismissed.

I guess I just think/thought your statement that U2 have not even come close to the level of shows on Popmart over the last three tours is way over the top. I guess there is no way for any of us to know unless we attended every single show. But I would say the odds are against you overall on that statement. Yes, I realize it is all opinion. I guess in the end I think you are going to find yourself in the severe minority on that statement with people that have been to all the tours discussed. I guess, why bother going to futher U2 shows if they have not come close since 1997/98 ever? I'm really not trying to argue here, but your point of view and reasoning for it does not register with me. Maybe it is me!

Yeah, I think it is you. You seem to misunderstand me altogether. Band's performance is one thing, concert experience is another. I think that from listening to a high-quality bootleg, one has a better impression as to how the band sounded and performed. A concert experience consists of gazillion factors (friends you go with, mood you're in, sound quality, people around you, audience participation, venue, energy factor...), where the performance of the band is only one of these. A crucial and probably the most important one indeed, but a concert experience can be a shitty one for some people even if the band played their best gig of all time. However, when I'm listening to the bootleg - I'm focused on the band and just the band 100 per cent. Based on this criteria, in every single moment I'd choose Leeds or Santiago or Stockholm 1992 or Dublin 1993 prior to choosing anything after the year 2000.

Now why is that? Since I'm not a big fan of 00s U2, it is logical that I prefer the tours that came before it. In terms of Bono's vocals especially, but also in terms of song selection (since I don't like many of the songs they have played from the new records) and the freshness factor of the older classics, that seems to exponentially fall with every tour. I do think it is silly that you seem to imply that we have to attend every show to have an opinion about which tour we prefer. I think a lot of people that had attended the concerts in 1987 or 1992 or 1997 have lost their interest in U2 at some point, so I don't even think I'm in the severe minority. I however have not lost complete interest and I do think there were some great concerts on these last three tours. But none of those greats compare to the greats of the three tours that came before those - IMO. Again, it's all relative. Why you think is way over the top that somebody would simply prefer one era of a 35-year-old band to another is a bit weird to me.

 

[Blue Room]

Again, it's all relative. Why you think is way over the top that somebody would simply prefer one era of a 35-year-old band to another is a bit weird to me.

It is all relative. Preference is one thing, but you seemed to imply that there has not been a show or shows since 1997/98 that stack up to Popmart or even come close. That IS an over the top type of statement IMO. That is a HUGE difference from saying you prefer the Popmart tour to others.

I will end it with that.

 

[lov12113]

The spectacle of 360 tour was bland and backed up by mostly uninspired, tired performances and setlists, backing up an album that for the first time in their history never really worked live for the majority of the songs. Easily the worst U2 concerts I've seen.

Wow, really? I was at the Rosebowl show on the 360 tour, and was completely blown away by it! Lots of energy from the band. Edge was in top form. Bono was running all over the stage. Just lots of energy and spot on performances.

I also attended one of the Anaheim shows on the 360 tour, and although the band was not as energetic as the Rosebowl show, the video/claw part of the show was even more spectacular with added interesting video/lighting stuff and just more over the top. The set list was also amazing at that show (Zooropa, HMTMKMKM, Even Better Than the Real Thing).

I also think NLOTH, Breathe, Boots, Moment of Surrender, and Unknown Caller worked just fine live. The only song from NLOTH that I didn't think worked live was Magnificent, because Edge's guitar seemed really low in the mix on that one.

I would describe those shows as being pretty spectacular. Bono's voice was the best it had been since the early 90s on the album/tour as well. And that wasn't my first U2 tour so I do have other shows to compare to.

 

[lov12113]

Just stating my opinion here. Not wanting to get involved in any debate about which tour is better. But I did think the 360 tour rocked!

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

I can't go to sleep if I watch that one too close to bedtime. Holy adrenaline.

There's really no point in sleeping anymore as you might wake up someday to find you'd missed out on the Apocalypse.

 

[last unicorn]

I thought this was a discussion of POP themes and not a "Let's bash the 360 tour" topic. It's sad that more serious and profound discussion on some more philosophical topics behind U2 songs can't really happen because some people are always turning them into a place for negativity.

Maybe this subject should be discussed in the very abandoned lyrics forum.

 

[U2girl]

There was nothing to agree with, it was my opinion. I try not to state irrevocably, that Pop is 'this or that'...I don't find it particularly exciting, but it is a tremendous album to some and blah to others. Just like ATYCLB is to some here.

The difference when it comes to discussing those albums is that those who love Pop find nothing good about ATYCLB. To each his own...I just find it frustrating how one album can be held to such high esteem, described as innovative and experimental, and the other torn to shreds as derivative and a sellout.

The Popmart shows were interesting and different, and when U2 found its feet the shows were solid and spectacular. The album just didn't translate live (I mean really, how many Pop songs have they broken out live in the past 15 years?). So they not longer play them live.

U2 lives in the live setting. Pop, as different and musically diverse as it can seem on CD, does not leave the band anything hang their hat on live. MOFO...energetic tune live...how many more times have they played it since the Popmart Tour? Pop is not a true snapshot of who U2 'really' is as a band. It's U2 stepping out and trying on new shoes...great...they out grew the shoes fairly quickly.

As generic as the sound is on ATYCLB there is continuity to the sound, and it's basically the band playing together, without so many outside sounds incorporated (Eno and Lanois use their ambient, even modern sounds, but nothing like Howie B. did on Pop). It translates better live because it's back to basics, and truly representative of the band U2 is.

Call ATYCLB boring or sellout, or a cash grab or whatever negative monitor you want to put on it (and I'm not referring to you djerdap) but it sold, it produced some classic U2 songs that they continually showcase in concert and it brought U2 back from the abyss that Pop and Popmart left them in.

It's funny though the "innovative" one is the one time they really snug up to the mainstream. And after 20 years an album that sounds like nothing they've done before (minus Walk on, and maybe Elevation) is the sellout and cash grab move...

As for live, some songs improved on Pop (not the robocop army of sounds type like Mofo where no live version matches the studio version, but more along the lines of Please, SATS, Gone, LNOE and Discotheque) as well as ATYCLB. Then again, Bomb has been the best live U2 album since AB. UF and Zooropa are the ones that never really took off live.

Popmart had the best setlists, but nowhere near the best performances (too uneven after Zoo TV, Bono in particular but the rest of the band were never as tight as well), and especially the vocals. (the last three tours are easily better)

 

[Nick66]

There's really no point in sleeping anymore as you might wake up someday to find you'd missed out on the Apocalypse.

6.5

You've done better.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

It is all relative. Preference is one thing, but you seemed to imply that there has not been a show or shows since 1997/98 that stack up to Popmart or even come close. That IS an over the top type of statement IMO. That is a HUGE difference from saying you prefer the Popmart tour to others.

I will end it with that.

That was my point...

 

[lazarus]

UF and Zooropa are the ones that never really took off live.

?? The live version of Bad only became one of their most iconic works. A Sort Of Homecoming also killed back when they were still playing it.

Also, Lemon was BRILLIANT on the final legs of the Zoo-TV tour, and Dirty Day was a much more raucous affair than on the record, as was Daddy's Gonna Pay.

 

[popacrobat]

yeah, and though abbreviated, zooropa live was one of the highlights on 360°.

 

[trevgreg]

yeah, and though abbreviated, zooropa live was one of the highlights on 360°.

Seeing it live... front-row... in the freakin' rain was probably one of my most memorable live experiences as a concertgoer!

 

[jeevey]

The Popmart shows were interesting and different, and when U2 found its feet the shows were solid and spectacular. The album just didn't translate live (I mean really, how many Pop songs have they broken out live in the past 15 years?). So they not longer play them live.

U2 lives in the live setting. Pop, as different and musically diverse as it can seem on CD, does not leave the band anything hang their hat on live. MOFO...energetic tune live...how many more times have they played it since the Popmart Tour? Pop is not a true snapshot of who U2 'really' is as a band. It's U2 stepping out and trying on new shoes...great...they out grew the shoes fairly quickly.

You make some good points about growing out of the Pop shoes. It may have been a style that couldn't be sustained. But I think it may not have just been a stylistic growing. The record deals with a ton of raw, heavy stuff, and looking back at interviews from the time, it seems like Bono was kind of an emotional mess. Admittedly, that may have all been character play like The Fly, it's hard to tell. But he seems deeply wired and uncomfortable a lot of the time.

Mofo in particular is a seriously cathartic song. He's talked about that experience of standing on the stage screaming for his mother and how emotional it was for him. Maybe once he had sort of exorcised that demon, he hasn't needed or wanted to revisit it on another tour. I think that's the reason that we won't see Lemon live either, and also maybe why we have not seen Acrobat ever. Maybe some songs, once you get past the initial need to sing them, are too difficult to revisit or the performance becomes redundant.

 

[LemonMirrorSky]

It's funny though the "innovative" one is the one time they really snug up to the mainstream. And after 20 years an album that sounds like nothing they've done before (minus Walk on, and maybe Elevation) is the sellout and cash grab move...

Okay forget about what was mainstream in 1997. Forget about the Chemical Brothers or The Prodigy. Forget about selling out and cash grabs. Talking strictly about the songs themselves, I enjoy the ones on Pop much more than the ones on ATYCLB. I come back to reminiscing Pop far more times than I come back to ATYCLB or HTDAAB. To me, the songs speak for themselves. That is all.

Can't believe we are still having the Pop vs. ATYCLB argument in 2013.

 

[The Panther]

Can't believe we are still having the Pop vs. ATYCLB argument in 2013.

Give it another ten years to really heat up!

In 2023, we'll finally get to the bottom of it!

 

[The Panther]

What really excites me are the threads about whether or not Pop was a good album! (Which, of necessity, includes debate over whether the marketing strategy and choice of singles worked or not.)

There just haven't been enough threads about that... If enough pointless opinions are bantered around on another, say, 546 threads, we will surely determine a final answer!

 

[LemonMirrorSky]

What really excites me are the threads about whether or not Pop was a good album! (Which, of necessity, includes debate over whether the marketing strategy and choice of singles worked or not.)

lol yeah 2 completely different things!

 

[djerdap]

It is all relative. Preference is one thing, but you seemed to imply that there has not been a show or shows since 1997/98 that stack up to Popmart or even come close. That IS an over the top type of statement IMO. That is a HUGE difference from saying you prefer the Popmart tour to others.

I will end it with that.

How is this a HUGE difference? In my very humble opinion, nothing in the last three tours comes close to the best Popmart shows. Were there great 360 shows that were likely better than some of the inferior Popmart ones? Yeah, sure (although, if I had a choice, I might have even chosen to see a mediocre Popmart performance than a great 360 one - for many reasons I have already mentioned, if only just to experience stuff like Mofo and Last Night on Earth live). But I don't nearly get as much enjoyment from my favourite 360 or Elevation concerts as I do from the aforementioned favourite Popmart ones.

Where is exactly the confusion here?

 

[OpenG180]

How can anyone with at least one half functioning ear and a heart can dislike Pop and Popmart?

 

[Blue Room]

How is this a HUGE difference? In my very humble opinion, nothing in the last three tours comes close to the best Popmart shows. Were there great 360 shows that were likely better than some of the inferior Popmart ones? Yeah, sure (although, if I had a choice, I might have even chosen to see a mediocre Popmart performance than a great 360 one - for many reasons I have already mentioned, if only just to experience stuff like Mofo and Last Night on Earth live). But I don't nearly get as much enjoyment from my favourite 360 or Elevation concerts as I do from the aforementioned favourite Popmart ones.

Where is exactly the confusion here?

How about just dropping it. You clearly do not get where I'm coming from nor do you want to. At least someone else got what I was saying about your "original" statement which is now quite toned down in comparison IMO.

I think I will go post some new album demo samples now................... I think we all need a new album. Except it will not top POP. Which I actually like. Popmart was great as well, like I have said all along.

 

[Nick66]

How is this a HUGE difference?

I will end it with that.

 

[djerdap]

How about just dropping it. You clearly do not get where I'm coming from nor do you want to. At least someone else got what I was saying about your "original" statement which is now quite toned down in comparison IMO.

Dude. I'm sorry to keep pushing, but what is now quite toned down? I actually looked back and the "original" statement was this: "Nothing post-2000 comes close to the power of the Leeds, Sarajevo and Santiago performances for me." Which is basically exactly what I said in the latest post. Where is this dramatically huge difference?

You're looking at it more from a concert-going perspective and I'm looking it more from a bootleg collector point of view. So I do think I get what you're getting at. I think both views are perfectly legitimate at how we look at tours and different eras of the band. And I think both have their pros and cons as to how we can evaluate whether one tour or performance was better than the other. You believe that every tour had its great moments and its ups and downs and it seems you've been a witness to a lot of them, which is why you think it would be unfair to discard any particular tour or era of the band in favour of the other one. Which is cool and I respect where you're coming from. But rarely do people have this opportunity to have as much experience as you seem to do.

However, I simply like U2 of the 20th century much more than I do now, for numerous reasons - better music being the key factor. As I'm a big fan of live U2;this is nowhere clearer than me being far more receptive to pre-2000 tours (bootlegs and official live releases) than to post-2000 ones. My only question to you is - why is that so amazingly over the top? I know far more people who are into music and into bands who have been out there a long time who simply prefer certain eras of those bands to other ones. Fans who would immediately switch their 20 Rolling Stones concerts they've seen in the past 10 years for one gig from the Mick Taylor era. I actually think that fans of 20+-year-old bands who are not dismissive to at least one particular era of the said band are in the minority. And I believe we both are in that minority, since I am not entirely dismissive of the last three tours, but where we differ is that I feel that I would take a great Popmart concert over any of the last three in a heartbeat.

 

[trevgreg]

Mofo in particular is a seriously cathartic song. He's talked about that experience of standing on the stage screaming for his mother and how emotional it was for him. Maybe once he had sort of exorcised that demon, he hasn't needed or wanted to revisit it on another tour. I think that's the reason that we won't see Lemon live either, and also maybe why we have not seen Acrobat ever. Maybe some songs, once you get past the initial need to sing them, are too difficult to revisit or the performance becomes redundant.

Interesting perspective, although it's worth pointing out that they did rehearse Mofo at some point on the Vertigo tour (or am I wrong here?). So maybe he is willing to head back there if the need to play something calls for it...

 

[Blue Room]

 

[Blue Room]

Dude. I'm sorry to keep pushing, but what is now quite toned down? I actually looked back and the "original" statement was this: "Nothing post-2000 comes close to the power of the Leeds, Sarajevo and Santiago performances for me." Which is basically exactly what I said in the latest post. Where is this dramatically huge difference?

You're looking at it more from a concert-going perspective and I'm looking it more from a bootleg collector point of view. So I do think I get what you're getting at. I think both views are perfectly legitimate at how we look at tours and different eras of the band. And I think both have their pros and cons as to how we can evaluate whether one tour or performance was better than the other. You believe that every tour had its great moments and its ups and downs and it seems you've been a witness to a lot of them, which is why you think it would be unfair to discard any particular tour or era of the band in favour of the other one. Which is cool and I respect where you're coming from. But rarely do people have this opportunity to have as much experience as you seem to do.

However, I simply like U2 of the 20th century much more than I do now, for numerous reasons - better music being the key factor. As I'm a big fan of live U2;this is nowhere clearer than me being far more receptive to pre-2000 tours (bootlegs and official live releases) than to post-2000 ones. My only question to you is - why is that so amazingly over the top? I know far more people who are into music and into bands who have been out there a long time who simply prefer certain eras of those bands to other ones. Fans who would immediately switch their 20 Rolling Stones concerts they've seen in the past 10 years for one gig from the Mick Taylor era. I actually think that fans of 20+-year-old bands who are not dismissive to at least one particular era of the said band are in the minority. And I believe we both are in that minority, since I am not entirely dismissive of the last three tours, but where we differ is that I feel that I would take a great Popmart concert over any of the last three in a heartbeat.

Like I said, how about just dropping it. I do not agree on your perspective or way of looking at it and I thought your original statement was over the top. You disagree. Great. Leave it at that. I tried to end it twice now, lets let this be it. Or N66 will feel the need to butt in again and offer the usual.............

 

[jeevey]

Interesting perspective, although it's worth pointing out that they did rehearse Mofo at some point on the Vertigo tour (or am I wrong here?). So maybe he is willing to head back there if the need to play something calls for it...

That is interesting, considering that they were dealing with Edge's daughter being very seriously ill at the time. Thoughts of mortality may have brought the song back to mind?

 

[Blue Room]

Interesting perspective, although it's worth pointing out that they did rehearse Mofo at some point on the Vertigo tour (or am I wrong here?). So maybe he is willing to head back there if the need to play something calls for it...

They did rehearse Mofo many times during the Vertigo tour. Bono called it the punk rock version. The original intent though was for the semi planned U.S. stadium tour for the Spring of 2006. They were thinking they might employ what they called a Popcore, starting with Mofo, Discotheque and Velvet Dress as the first encore. That leg obviously never happened so it was all dropped once it was determined they were not going to do that stadium tour.

 

[Vlaco]

I read something very shocking in this thread; it's all about opinions. I'm still recovering from that statement.

 

[YBORCITY]

I started liking U2 in the War era, in fact first U2 concert was that tour. POP was such a long way away from the early records in my estimation but I have evolved with the band over the years unlike many of my "back in the day" buddies who saw this album as the final straw and left the bandwagon. POP was the first U2 album that I didn't love at first listen but as I listened to it more and more I really started to "get it". The music was very catchy with many layers - as Bono would say describing something else - it was dense sounding to me. But what was so impressive to me was the lyrics, it was that last strong album lyrically that Bono excelled. There have been glimpses during ATYCLB, Bomb and NLOTH but throughout that album had great lyrics. Although there was few lyrics in there (Miami, Staring). So the album has weathered quite well with me.

POP Mart Tour was my least favorite tour and I only saw them twice that go around which is down from the multiples I've seen them since UF Tour. I guess I really din't get the whole Kmart/kitsch thing and thought they din't sound so great, while there were glimpses of great shows as discussed earlier by and large didn't think they played all that well that tour.