Uber-pop!

[Moser]

If only POP were to be finished.....

On the side note, the POPMART concert DVD is by far a tremendous show. The encores were especially powerful, which is amazing since they are at the end of the show.

 

[BVS]

The encores were especially powerful, which is amazing since they are at the end of the show.

U2 should really change it up sometime and place the encore at the beginning of the show...

 

[Nick66]

If only POP were to be finished.....

Ugh.

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. 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 even if U2 did revist those songs, again, they would of course sound nothing like if they had "finished" them in 1997. Any more than the 2000 versions would have.

And, BTW, a lot of people love that record just as it is.

Yeah, I think they've had plenty of time with Pop. This mythical "finally finished Pop" is a fanboy dream.

 

[djerdap]

I'm gonna pull out again that old quote of Edge's that all U2 albums don't get finished, they just get released. That's the mindset those 4 guys have. Since Pop was a "failure" and it was by no means made from smooth recording sessions, it was a perfect excuse.

Pop is a finished product. Fuck 'em for being apologetic after the fact. The "finally finished Pop" of 2012 or 2013 or whenever is my nightmare, not a dream, considering their mindset for the past 10 years and how they already butchered some songs on that best of.

And it's a great finished product!

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

^ i just want to say i agree with the two previous posts completely. this whole "it wasn't finished" thing didn't start coming from them until after it "flopped". i won't argue semantics or anything but if it wasn't finished by then, when would it be? had they had six more months it could've sounded overproduced.

 

[trevgreg]

^ i just want to say i agree with the two previous posts completely. this whole "it wasn't finished" thing didn't start coming from them until after it "flopped". i won't argue semantics or anything but if it wasn't finished by then, when would it be? had they had six more months it could've sounded overproduced.

I remember reading a comment somewhere that they removed a lot of the instruments and layers off "Gone" too before they had the final version. Not sure what an extra few months would've done for that and other songs as a result.

 

[doctorwho]

A lot of people rip the "Pop" songs on the 90's "Best Of", but I actually like some of them. And I'm NOT going to put the in either!

I like the more rocking sound of "Discotheque". And really, the only true thing missing was the "boom chas". Eh/ "Gone" sounds more analogous to how the song is performed in concert - which is better. Plus, Bono's vocals are better (he sounds strained on "Pop"). The only one I did not like is "Staring at the Sun". Larry felt that if this song were "finished", it would have been #1. Well, if this "Best Of" version of "Staring..." is what they now consider "finished", it wouldn't have charted any better (and maybe worse).

I don't have a problem with artists changing their songs - either in concert of in another release. It's their work and sometimes their mindset changes over time. Jimi Hendrix even stated something similar once when asked why his songs sound different.

But this "finished vs. not finished" crap does get annoying. They can release alternative versions of their songs - it's their right and sometimes subtle changes can make a big difference. But they should not pretend like these versions are what they wanted all along. Bono was quite proud of those "boom chas" back in '97. The fact that the single - while a hit - wound up hurting the album should not be the reason to revise history.

 

[Muldfeld]

I was thinking. Next year is the POP 15th anniversary. That might be a good time for the deluxe treatment. How many of you would be able and willing to drop money on an uber version of POP? And what should be on it?

disc 1 - Original album tweaked.
disc 2 - B-sides. (including the live B-sides.)
disc 3 - Remixes
Disc 4 - remixes and Michael Hedges mixes.
disc 5 - "GrandPOP" demos of the unfinished songs from the era. They didn't leak, but they still existed.
disc 6 - The original album "finished" - re-recorded in 2012.

Video:
Pop TV special.
POPMART live DVD - A different show than is already available.
K-Mart performance.


Bonus:
Inflatable pop-lemon
POP-Cube


What else?

As much as I had a problem with "Pop", the band's post-millennial attempts at redoing those songs are even worse. I was never a fan of "Discotheque", but the only stuff I liked was the experimental texture the band took out of the 2002 remix. Until the band finds itself again (pre-2000), it shouldn't do anymore remixing.

 

[Muldfeld]

But this "finished vs. not finished" crap does get annoying. They can release alternative versions of their songs - it's their right and sometimes subtle changes can make a big difference. But they should not pretend like these versions are what they wanted all along. Bono was quite proud of those "boom chas" back in '97. The fact that the single - while a hit - wound up hurting the album should not be the reason to revise history.

True.

 

[zitherglow]

my only hope is that mcguiness doesnt see this and decide to price it similarly... Rolling Stones Brussels Affair Box Sets | Shop Ticketmaster Merchandise

 

[The Sad Punk]

Boy, imagine how many people would get beat up if U2 watches became a thing.

 

[The Panther]

In my opinion, the main problem facing U2 recordings since Pop is the band's taking too long to finish things, and overcooking tracks that were already done (case in point: the current 17-year break between albums). Even Eno complains about this, and he's their producer! I actually think Pop would have been better if they'd had about four months less to work on it.

It's just my speculating of course, but what seems to be happening in the last 15 years of U2 records is that the band has a vision for what they want to do with a new studio session, then they go in and do it, and then they decide they have to have more 'hits' or something and so they go back and re-work things to death, killing much of the initial inspiration for the project.

This is in contrast to the 80s, when they had strict deadlines to follow and, as a result, never produced an album that sounded compromised. There is the rare case of artistic inspiration being balanced with long, long studio craft, but I think more often than not the band benefits from capturing things refresh.

So, no, they should not re-do anything from Pop now!

 

[Danny Boy]

my only hope is that mcguiness doesnt see this and decide to price it similarly... Rolling Stones Brussels Affair Box Sets | Shop Ticketmaster Merchandise

I bought that from Google Play when they first launched. Don't remember how much I paid but it seems like a real bargain now.

 

[An Cat Gav]

In my opinion, the main problem facing U2 recordings since Pop is the band's taking too long to finish things, and overcooking tracks that were already done (case in point: the current 17-year break between albums). Even Eno complains about this, and he's their producer! I actually think Pop would have been better if they'd had about four months less to work on it.

It's just my speculating of course, but what seems to be happening in the last 15 years of U2 records is that the band has a vision for what they want to do with a new studio session, then they go in and do it, and then they decide they have to have more 'hits' or something and so they go back and re-work things to death, killing much of the initial inspiration for the project.

This is in contrast to the 80s, when they had strict deadlines to follow and, as a result, never produced an album that sounded compromised. There is the rare case of artistic inspiration being balanced with long, long studio craft, but I think more often than not the band benefits from capturing things refresh.

So, no, they should not re-do anything from Pop now!

I was thinking this too, maybe Pop would have sounded that bit better if they'd spent less time on it, less agonizing every nuance, who knows now?

Possibly some tracks could have been improved with a bit more time, Last Night On Earth for instance, but others like Wake Up Dead Man, Please, Gone and Mofo sound pretty complete to me, but you could say that about most U2 albums. Even my all time fave Achtung Baby has a track that to my ears anyway needed a tiny bit more work, WGRYWH. But thank God they didn't spend longer on it, if they had they may have said"well, while we're here let's have another look at the guitar solo on The Fly

I still like the album but I think it would have benefited from having a greater input from Nellie Hooper, have him as the main producer with Flood along side. howie B could have made the tea or whatever.

 

[Salome]

4 months less tinkering and 4 new songs to replace some of the mediocre ones would indeed have made POP a better album

 

[lemonfly]

Discotheque has always sounded overcooked to me (though nowhere near as overcooked as, say, GOYB...). LNOE is clearly unfinished (I believe they laid down the vocals on the very last day.) Velvet Dress has the beginnings of something great but has too much of a demo feel. Miami should have been relegated to a B side and replaced with Holy Joe garage mix. Every other track is pretty much perfect and thank god they didn't have another six months to ruin them (the latter incarnations are atrocious - particularly Gone.)

 

[The Panther]

But thank God they didn't spend longer on it, if they had they may have said"well, while we're here let's have another look at the guitar solo on The Fly

See, although you're joking about it, I think this is exactly what U2 has been doing for 10 or 15 years. If they had recorded 'The Fly' in late 2009, for example, there's no way it would be released now. They'd probably have taken the song to 12 different studios and four producers, overworked it to death, had a meeting about how the guitar solo was too weird to make it on radio with Justin Bieber, finally given it to Steve Lillywhite to mix, and the track would have come out, in 2015, sounding like a Bon Jovi single.

(Okay, I indulged in hyperbole, but you get my point.)

 

[An Cat Gav]

See, although you're joking about it, I think this is exactly what U2 has been doing for 10 or 15 years. If they had recorded 'The Fly' in late 2009, for example, there's no way it would be released now. They'd probably have taken the song to 12 different studios and four producers, overworked it to death, had a meeting about how the guitar solo was too weird to make it on radio with Justin Bieber, finally given it to Steve Lillywhite to mix, and the track would have come out, in 2015, sounding like a Bon Jovi single.

(Okay, I indulged in hyperbole, but you get my point.)

I was sort of joking, but not really, that is exactly what they would have done. The reason The Fly sounds like it does is because they simply didn't have enough to re-do the parts they weren't happy with. Even Bowie said to them that it wasn't finished, evidence enough that he'd begun to lose the plot But no, I completely agree with you.,