U2 "POP" : "U2 By U2"

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
BVS said:
You know why I love your posts? Because I'm a huge fan of irony.

Maybe you should stick to giving factually incorrect lectures about what makes acoustic music or not :shrug:
Click to expand...

See, you're not "getting it". But someday, if you read enough of my ultra-insightful posts nitpicking everyone else's minor points ad nauseum, you might.
 
Salome said:
I think U2 will always be proud of No line as they achieved on the album what they set out to achieve
Click to expand...
Not so sure about this. While I do believe U2 are proud of the record now, I know Edge seems to have back-peddled a bit (something about how, in retrospect, he wished they would have stayed the course of their original intentions). Unless the record is popular with the masses, I don't think U2 will be completely satisfied, and even then, they've expressed reservations (Bono talks about his dissatisfaction with HTDAAB not being a complete work).
 
the strange thing for me about Pop is, I loved it when I first bought it. i was 14 or something and getting every U2 album one by one, I'd fallen in love with this band and wanted to hear EVERYTHING by them. And it was great! A little weird to hear the studio versions after knowing the songs from the Popmart video which I had before but still great.

Then I started going off it and whenever people here started gushing about how it was their best it genuinely pissed me off and i felt like I wasn't "getting" it or people were just trying to be different.

Fast forward to last year and I put it on for the first time in AGES and I listen to it with almost 'fresh' ears and I have to say that album is fucking incredible. Do You Feel Loved even pushed its way up into my top 10-15 U2 songs, I fucking love it. But after giving it a huge break and hearing it against albums like HTDAAB and NLOTH and stuff, even Achtung Baby, it is SO different to what you'd expect from them in places and that's what I love about it. There's really no "typical" U2 sounding track on it and I don't think they ever wrote songs like that since, not with that dark edge to them. For it's "non-U2" sound I think it's also one of the FEW (with Achtung Baby and Zooropa) that I could copy for a friend who hates that 'classic' U2 sound and avoids them to see what they make of it.

So yeah, for any attack I've made on any of that album's DIE-HARD FANS i apologise unreservedly and say I can fully understand why it's loved the way it is here. Fucking great album. I won't say top 5 because I can never make that list but very VERY close.


.....Last Night On Earth in Mexico City and Mofo at the MTV Europe awards are still the best versions though.
 
I love Pop through and through, in all its glory and weakness. I think they definitely reached their "cool" pinnacle with that tour as well, the Mexico DVD I own is the only one I watch extensively. Love everything from the "Pop Era".... still can't understand why they don't. Whatever.
 
DoctorMacPhisto said:
Love everything from the "Pop Era".... still can't understand why they don't. Whatever.
Click to expand...
What bothers me most is that the band is more than willing to stick up for the past decade's output (which I enjoy, don't get me wrong, but it leaves something to be desired), but won't give POP another listen... :tsk:
 
Pop was the 1st U2 album that I waited in anticipation for months in advance. It was the first U2 album that I really followed every bit of news and analyzed everything I heard/read on it. It was the first U2 album to build excitement for me. Not because I didnt like the others but because this was the first U2 album to come out when I started to follow U2 (I always liked them and loved a lot of their songs but this is the time when it really hit me). All albums that followed POP had the same intense build up and the excitement of hearing the songs on the first day of release (with the exception of Bomb, which you guys provided the tracks in advance and I couldnt wait for the official release date) but POP was the first.

With that said, I wanted to love this album but I never did/could. I liked it a lot for sometime but in the end, I just kind of like it and dont love it. My reasons are because there are songs that I like (not love) and then there are songs that I cant stand at all. My thoughts(keep in mind these are just my opinions):

Disco, Do you Feel Loved (best tune on the album BTW), Playboy Mansion & Staring at the sun are all good/very good songs.

Last Night on Earth, Gone, If God will send his Angels, Please are average songs at best with LNOE being the strongest in this group.

Wake Up Deadman, Velvet Dress, Mofo and Miami are just terrible songs!

See, the album has too many terrible songs IMO. Miami, WUDM and MOFO I dont think I have listened to since 97/98. I do like the live cut of Velevet Dress but the album is too soft and low for me to get into, perhaps its just poor production.

My last point that I always make with this album is that if they used the single version of If God will Send his Angles and the string version of Please then this album would have been better. The album cuts of both those songs are weak and IGWSHA is too soft/low just like Velvet Dress. Its a good song that was just mixed poorly (the single version is much better).

Now I fully understand that some of you probably love the 4 songs that I hate and I respect that but I just dont like them at all (so dont kill me for it). However, POP had the coolest CD of all U2 CD's (not the album cover with their faces but rather the art on the actual CD itself was very cool).

In the end, there were some really good gems on this album (would have been some more had they used the single versions I mentioned) but I just never "loved" this album like I do most of their albums.

Cosmo-Out!:wave:
 
gareth brown I just want to add I think "Magnificent" is the closest thing U2 have written that resembles POP. I find that song as DYFL 2.0

And "Mofo" is top 10 U2 for me. Lyric is amazing.

Just want to add I finished reading the "ATYCLB/Elevation" section......................yeah I don't think we'll hear many POP songs anytime soon :doh:
 
It's all about "accessibility".

GOYB wasn't a big hit from NLOTH. Some said it was the worst leading single from U2 since "Discotheque". The difference is, even though people didn't love GOYB, they did enjoy NLOTH (even some critics who normally tear apart U2).

NLOTH and "Pop" had somewhat similar sales (at least in the U.S.), but the eras have changed. In '97, artists could still have huge albums. Now, perhaps one artist crosses the 3M barrier in a year (in the U.S.). In fact, in 2008, no artist sold over 3M copies! Therefore, one can't really say NLOTH sold that poorly - it sold well compared to everyone else.

But NLOTH, like "Pop", suffered with that first single. "Discotheque" was a bit too out there. GOYB felt like a weaker version of "Vertigo". People rejected them and they hurt the respective albums.

However, the tour is what really stands out. 360 and PopMart are stadium tours. While PopMart sold very well in the bigger markets, U2 struggled in the smaller ones (at least in the U.S.). In contrast, people are eating up 360 - and this in the midst of the world's biggest recession since the Great Depression!

So what gives?

I think PopMart, much like "Discotheque", was too out there - too inaccessible for people. Fans had fun with the "irony" of ZOO TV. The music was great and the videos were much needed after U2's enormously stripped down JT and LoveTown tours. PopMart felt a bit like a retread of the irony and consumerism ideas. People already got that back in '92 and '93. It wasn't fresh.

In contrast, 360 is a fun, even fantastic idea. U2 are a bit swallowed by the stage, but they still remain accessible. We didn't really get that with PopMart.

Hindsight is always reflective, but it is easier to see what didn't quite work with "Pop" and PopMart - inaccessibility. Note that ATYCLB was very accessible and the tour was in arenas (also accessible) with a "heart" shaped stage design (extreme accessibility). Accessibility is one of U2's biggest strengths. They can do stadium shows, but they have to find a way to be accessible. The strongest part of PopMart was Edge's fun karaoke or the acoustic SATS - and this is because they were accessible. The rest of the show may have come off a bit removed for some (a complaint some even feel about 360, but then, that could just be the nature of stadium shows).

If U2 creates a super-experimental album next, that'll be fun for us die-hards, but U2 have to be prepared for some backlash from the mainstream media as it won't be as accessible. At this point in U2's career, I think this is the perfect time to release a highly experimental album. Not so inaccessible that even Larry feels it was indulgents (as with OS1), but something that pushes U2 yet still makes great music. If it's not a huge hit, it's fine - U2 and fans will know that they can still produce great music.

Some say that U2's focus on charts and such is a bit much. There is truth to this as often charts and sales serve as a measure of how relevant an artist is. But there are limitations with that too. If an album only has mild success, but critics, die-hards and, perhaps most importantly, new bands are falling all over it, then I'd say that too is a sign of relevance.

NLOTH's decent, if not outstanding sales combined with 360's success indicates that U2 don't have much to worry about now. They remain relevant. However, back in 1997, I'm sure some were worried. And this may be what is being reflected in "U2 by U2".
 
DoctorMacPhisto said:
I love Pop through and through, in all its glory and weakness. I think they definitely reached their "cool" pinnacle with that tour as well, the Mexico DVD I own is the only one I watch extensively. Love everything from the "Pop Era".... still can't understand why they don't. Whatever.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "cool"?

I love Pop the album, but as far as Popmart goes, it sometimes hits me as almost cringeworthy. All that glitz and flashiness and...its overdone nature.
Compare it to something like JT, where it was just them on stage. Don't get me wrong, Popmart had its charms and the DVD is fun to watch. I just think it's good that they didn't continue in that direction :shrug:
But as far as the album goes, I don't know why they see it as "unfinished". They've said that the songs didn't translate well live, which I don't personally think is true of all the songs...but hey, it's their creative vision.

Still wish they'd play something from that album though.
 
I love Pop. it has a conviction and a purpose that has been lacking since then. NLOTH could have perhaps recaptured this, however they adopted a safety first approach again.

Pop was the last of the safety first albums and I'll always appreciate it for that.
 
My two cents:

I feel Pop's inaccessibility was a direct consequence of its release during the era of grunge. Grunge was the rock n' roll weapon of choice back then. POP was alien. It was really out of place.
 
Moser said:
My two cents:

I feel Pop's inaccessibility was a direct consequence of its release during the era of grunge. Grunge was the rock n' roll weapon of choice back then. POP was alien. It was really out of place.
Click to expand...

Actually by 97 grunge was dying off, Cobain had been dead for three years, AIC did their last ever performance on MTV plugged in 96, and both Soundgarden and Screaming Trees were breaking up. Nu Metal and the grunge copycats were left.

Electronica was becoming very big, especially in Europe, but even in the States it was taking off. If you remember in 97 the movie the Saint came out and had a very heavy electronica sountrack which sold very well.
 
BVS is quite right (for once) -- Grunge was declared dead by a lot of people, at least in North America, where it originated, in about 1995. Certainly, it was long gone by 1997. Of course, some of the groups were still hanging around but the cultural/commercial significance of it had almost totally faded.

I personally remember 1997 as the specific year when boy-bands and silly pop music made a huge comeback. Hanson had the biggest single and album, and that was also the first year I heard of the Backstreet Boys, who -- along with the rest of their ilk -- took over pop music sales in 1998 to 2001 or so.

Into this American music market -- a time when Joe/Jane casual radio-listening-music-fan really wanted some easy-on-the-ears tunes, U2 released their most dissonant and least tuneful album. Throw on heavy layers of irony and Village-People outfits and you've got a package to turn off mainstream America.
 
I think POP was too subtle for casual fans of U2. Hell, it was too subtle for me at the time! And I was the biggest U2 fan I knew! I was disappointed with the album because it didn't hit me on first listen. Or 2nd listen. Or 3rd listen. I'd say by the 5th unsuccessful listen, I gave up on it.

Fast forward to when HTDAAB was released. I was so disgusted in that album, I wanted something else by U2 to listen to that wasn't too familiar. So naturally I popped in POP (haha) and I've been loving it ever since. Call it what you want to call it. Perhaps my ears had matured. Anyway, it is now my 5th fave U2 album, behind Zooropa, UF, AB and JT.

I think subtlety is what killed POP. For how "experimental" AB was, it was still majorly accessible and easy to get on first listen. It had instant classics. POP has no instant classics. It's subtle, thoughtful music with a lot of weird shit totally foreign to U2. Too subtle. Too foreign. No instant classics. But hey, that's what I love about the album.
 
ozeeko said:
I think POP was too subtle for casual fans of U2. .
Click to expand...

u2-village-people-discotheque.jpg


Subtle is not the word I would use. They came out like this ^

They had MOFO, they had Gone, they went way over the top with Popmart.

The only thing subtle about Pop was maybe the last 3 or 4 songs, but no more subtle than previous album endings.
 
I don't think POP was more exotic-sounding, subtle, or challenging than Zooropa. As BVS points out above, it was all in the marketing. You can't continue to stray from an established sound AND go camp at the same time, not right out of the gate. Some fans (like myself) will appreciate and "get" it, but many won't. The Numb video was amusing, but it wasn't the band sticking their asses up in the air, either.
 
BVS said:
u2-village-people-discotheque.jpg


Subtle is not the word I would use. They came out like this ^

They had MOFO, they had Gone, they went way over the top with Popmart.

The only thing subtle about Pop was maybe the last 3 or 4 songs, but no more subtle than previous album endings.
Click to expand...


I'm just speaking about the music. Even Discoteque was a song I had to hear plenty of times before I started appreciating certain hooks. For instance, the "looking for the one, but you know you're somewhere else instead" hook. MOFO might be loud, but there's really no clear hook in the song, nothing that people would walk around humming throughout the day. Do You Feel Loved had an amazing hook, but Bono's voice at the time prevented him from hitting those notes that would've ultimately sold it. The tunes that were radiofriendly were SATS, which, let's face it, was pleasing to the ear but nothing earthshattering, and Gone, which came alive in concerts but on the record is a bit dark for U2 (which i love, regardless). Throw in weird shit like Miami, the last 4 subtle songs you referenced, and even If God Will Send sort of just drifted by without making much of a first impression. Last Night On Earth had a hazy chorus that was just kinda thrown together without much focus (once again, i happen to love that song). But when putting these songs up against their AB hits, they are clearly less effective as singles.

Yea, I'm sure the Village People tribute turned off as many people as did the music, but the music itself can really go a long way. I think if listeners got past the visuals and the new sounds and actually focused on the songwriting, they would be rewarded with some of the most effective songs of U2's career. However, most people were either too turned off or lazy to appreciate what was under the layers. Hence, I think a lot of it also had to do with the music itself.
 
And I agree that POP isn't that much more challenging than Zooropa, but that album wasn't as well received either. While Zooropa's experiments came across as warm and inviting to me, POP just sounded "different". It was a different side to U2, and it took me a while to really get to the essence of the music, the songs. Maybe I'm just talking about my own experience, and maybe it was 80 percent the marketing, but for me the music itself was pretty subtle.
 
I think ultimately what hurt Pop was that it was trying too much at one time.

It was completely disjointed, I think it's very much like NLOTH in that aspect, in fact I think both albums have a lot in common.

They were just going in too many directions, I remember Billy Corgan interviewing them at the time of it's release and he said it almost sounds like a U2 greatest hits. It sounded like a compilation from many different eras of U2.

And then not only musically were they trying too much, tourwise they were trying to be ironic, earnest, cartoony, and relevant all at the same time.
 
ozeeko said:
And I agree that POP isn't that much more challenging than Zooropa, but that album wasn't as well received either. While Zooropa's experiments came across as warm and inviting to me, POP just sounded "different". It was a different side to U2, and it took me a while to really get to the essence of the music, the songs. Maybe I'm just talking about my own experience, and maybe it was 80 percent the marketing, but for me the music itself was pretty subtle.
Click to expand...

I say 9 million copies sold is pretty well-received. And it did well on the critical front as well.

I love Zooropa, but I find POP a warmer, more personal album. From a lyrical standpoint Zooropa is also more oblique, as creative as the writing is.

BVS said:
I think ultimately what hurt Pop was that it was trying too much at one time.

It was completely disjointed, I think it's very much like NLOTH in that aspect, in fact I think both albums have a lot in common.

They were just going in too many directions, I remember Billy Corgan interviewing them at the time of it's release and he said it almost sounds like a U2 greatest hits. It sounded like a compilation from many different eras of U2.

And then not only musically were they trying too much, tourwise they were trying to be ironic, earnest, cartoony, and relevant all at the same time.
Click to expand...

As Bono himself put it, a "mixed-up kid of a record". He knew they were putting out something not easily packaged. Which is why the in-your-face way they DID package and promote it did not work.
 
lazarus said:
I say 9 million copies sold is pretty well-received. And it did well on the critical front as well.

I love Zooropa, but I find POP a warmer, more personal album. From a lyrical standpoint Zooropa is also more oblique, as creative as the writing is.
Click to expand...

What was jarring about hearing POP the first time was the overall pessimism and darkness of the songs, lyrics, and sound. Zooropa always had a very fun kind of energy to it, and an easier on the ears production. POP, on the other hand, had some really LOUD sounds, and just sounded a lot more threatening, agressive, menacing. And then there's the lyrics...Bono cussing! lol

At the end of the day, different strokes. I personally find POP to be one of U2's most subtle albums. Village People costumes aside, how many of you saw the genius in If You Wear That Velvet Dress the first time you heard it? Me, I was like "speak up Bono!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Have U2's 21st century releases done irreparable damage to their legacy?
18 19 20
Replies
598
Views
44K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
D
Has U2's 21st century releases done irreparable damage to their legacy?
Replies
3
Views
796
ChurchBay
C
D
Paul Epworth provides some interesting insight into U2's songwriting process.
Replies
24
Views
2K
An Cat Gav
An Cat Gav
M
Have U2 Pissed It All Up Against The Wall?
Replies
1
Views
1K
pacemaker
pacemaker
MrsSpringsteen
New U2 Stamps
Replies
7
Views
711
david
david

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom