Stereogum article "Pop At 20"

[TheWanderer]

This article is long but a great read.

Pop Turns 20 - Stereogum

As a HUGE fan of their '90s material, and the shift post-2000 they made, I feel the author totally nails everything that was great then and less than great now. The last paragraph is harsh but true:

This is the version of U2 that’s missed after Pop. The guys who admitted this whole thing was a bit of a farce, but actually acted on it, too — the guys who were willing to take some chances. The “ridiculous” line is laughable because all U2 wants to be now is “U2,” and they make creative decisions — now always long-gestating and overcooked in an attempt to marry the idea of the band with their idea of what could make the band as vital as they were twenty and thirty years ago. None of that is coming back. For those of us still (somehow) this invested in this band, it’s easy to keep wishing that U2 has one more great adventure in them — that they’d really go for it. They hedge their bets now. The turning point of Pop was that U2 made an album that would end their time as a band that innovated, and reimagined themselves, surprising us over and over. Ever since, they’ve been U2 as we expected them.

 

[LemonMirrorSky]

That excerpt sounds pretty much aligned to my thoughts on the subject. Will read the article. Thanks for sharing!

 

[LemonMirrorSky]

Love this!

But try as U2 might — and this might be part of why people still have issues with their ’90s material — they could never fully go in that direction. They always had their earnestness, and these songs have more weight and bigger ideas than the intentional schlock of “Discothèque” or PopMart’s lemon spaceship would suggest, or than they’ve been credit for. That might be a failing in the eyes of some, but it’s also the exact thing that makes ’90s U2 so fascinating, and so rewarding to delve into.