Release Date Speculation

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
gvox said:
Not sure I get what you're saying here. "Wailing in the desert about MLK" (?) worked quite well for them.


Up until it didn't in 1989. They changed when they needed to.

The reason PopMart sold well in the first leg was because of Zoo TV. And because tickets were sold before Pop was released.

The reason the tour didn't sell well in the fall was because they played 2nd Tier U2 markets and because Pop had been released.

Anyone who thinks that the general public loved the album needs to ask themselves why U2 re-recorded LNOE, Please, and IGWSHA. They knew the album was tanking and damage control was already in effect.
 
The entire Popmart Tour was actually announced and put on sale before the album came out. At the February K-Mart setlist, they announced the shows all the way up to the Seattle show, with the 98 ROW shows being announced later.

The first leg had plenty of duds in second tier markets (Eugene, Clemson, Madison, Memphis, Raleigh- never happened, but heard fewer than 20,000 tickets were sold). The reason the markets for the 2nd US leg were chosen was because they had indoor stadiums, or were still warm in November/December (Florida and Mexico). Japan and Australia were also very disapointing in terms of sales.

I saw one of these first leg shows (Columbus), and I thought it was great, but clearly they didn't have all the bugs worked out yet. However, from the European leg on, it seems like they really hit their stride with the show.
 
When in doubt about numbers, go to "Peeling Off the Dollar Bills" forum. :up:

PopMart info.:

The first leg in the U.S. averaged over 38,000 fans and $1.9 million in ticket sales per show with sold-out performances in Las Vegas, L.A., Chicago, Boston, Salt Lake City and New York. The third leg in the U.S. averaged over a little over 34,000 per show.
By the third leg of the tour, POP had fallen out of the U.S. Top 200 Billboard charts and U2 were playing in much smaller cities. Even the Rolling Stones failed to sell out in some of the same cities where U2 had difficulty.
 
I saw Popmart in Oct 97- not sure which leg it was, but I know they had to play in a larger venue that what they would normally (Metrodome vs. Target Center), I think because the stage wouldn't fit in the smaller arena. I don't think the Metrodome hosted many concerts. Wonder if that didn't help matters?
 
LadySpinHead said:
I saw Popmart in Oct 97- not sure which leg it was, but I know they had to play in a larger venue that what they would normally (Metrodome vs. Target Center), I think because the stage wouldn't fit in the smaller arena. I don't think the Metrodome hosted many concerts. Wonder if that didn't help matters?

Yeah, literally the entire tour (save for one show, in Perth) was in stadiums instead of arenas.
 
That makes sense then- for most of the 90s and 00s, stadium tours really didn't come to MN that I know of, because of the lack of stadiums. The Metrodome was a weird venue- its small and has a goofy inflatable roof.
 
You guys are forgetting the most obvious element - whenever Bono has short hair, U2 tanks.

It is kind of remarkably part of the U2 brand that Bono have long hair.

Quick tangent, when did the Rolling Stones stop making albums?
 
It amazes me how every discussion around here comes back to if/why/when/where Pop/Popmart was a failure.

Blame Discotheque. Blame the 40' lemon. Blame the bad show in Vegas. Whatever. It was 1997.

Should have blamed it on the boogie.

Sorry, was funnier in my head:)
 
Up until it didn't in 1989. They changed when they needed to.

The reason PopMart sold well in the first leg was because of Zoo TV. And because tickets were sold before Pop was released.

The reason the tour didn't sell well in the fall was because they played 2nd Tier U2 markets and because Pop had been released.

Anyone who thinks that the general public loved the album needs to ask themselves why U2 re-recorded LNOE, Please, and IGWSHA. They knew the album was tanking and damage control was already in effect.

I think the damage had been lesser had they not insisted on those wacko outfits. Discotheque video was probably bad enough for most casual fans, but try it on tour...
despite otherwise having a good idea for the tour stage and theme, worthy of successing Zoo TV. And unfortunately the vocals were never really the same with the post Zoo TV tours...
 
Please tell me that while you didn't actually type the wink, you typed at least the first sentence with a wink implied.

Because while the statement may be coincidentally correct, if you made that statement in full seriousness, you might want to step away from the internet for a while and go take some deep breaths outside.
 
then why didn't the popmart tour sell well in the US? you remember those shows with about 26 people at them, right? not everything U2 put on the shelves sold.

at the end of the day, U2 chose to not (publicly) take themselves - or the presentation of their music - seriously, and the public obliged them.

U2 can argue "irony" all they want, but at the end of the day they let the musical pendulum swing too far in one direction and the casual fans said, "see ya later." (incidentally, the same thing probably happened with NLOTH). and for casual fans, all it takes is the appearance of "uncool" and there they go. and U2 got a heaping dose of "uncool" during the popmart tour - but not before it. it wasn't until casual fans (and let's face it, most U2 fans are casual U2 fans) "saw" that U2 were in over their heads (relatively speaking) that they decided to move on to third eye blind, or the goo goo dolls, or live, or any other "band of the moment".

at the end of the day, U2 presented themselves poorly in 97 and 98. edge wore a cowboy hat and adam had a "drug mask" on his face, for crying out loud. they walked out of a giant lemon and they quoted spinal tap as an influence on the tour!!!

and eventually the band realized this. this was made so abundantly clear that they effectively produced the "safest" record and tour they had ever done to that point as a follow-up. but discotheque wasn't the problem. it wasn't even close to the problem. and to suggest that it was is nothing more than revisionist history.

I think you've done a good job of getting to the meat of the issue in the U.S. (incidentally I see you're in Dallas, I saw POPmart at the Cotton Bowl with RATM. Horrid venue for a concert).

Discotheque wasn't the problem (they could have survived that video if not for the insincere tour itself). Bono just like to say Discotheque was the problem (and he is attempting to do the same with Boots and NLOTH).

And that's why this issue with POP/POPmart is still relevant. As long as U2 remain deluded about their revisionist history with POP and POPmart, they won't be able to truly move forward and be the best they can be.

And that's the issue. How it affects U2's future music/tours. Every creative step since 1997/98 has been marred by the cloud of POP and POPmart. Until U2 understand that it was the insincerity that people rejected, they are libel to make some of the same 'bloated' mistakes over and over again. Meanwhile, they are so fixated on "hits" Bono can't even see that Discotheque was a big hit in and of itself.

I mean, really...the whole last decade and a half has been relative to the so called failure and mistake of POP and POPmart.

I think U2 need to find those kind of balls again, or they might not want to continue as is. Until they can be comfortable enough with that kind of risk (in the music) I don't know if it can happen.
 
Well, Bono did say fairly recently that PopMart was their biggest achievement I think. However that affects his opinion of Pop/what went wrong etc., I don't know and nobody here will know, but it seemed as if he looked upon more kindly than he would have in 2002 or 2008.
 
Please tell me that while you didn't actually type the wink, you typed at least the first sentence with a wink implied.

Because while the statement may be coincidentally correct, if you made that statement in full seriousness, you might want to step away from the internet for a while and go take some deep breaths outside.

I totally believe it, just like the more flesh Prince shows the less his albums sell. I also think he looks better with more hair.
 
This is really not an argument you want to engage in without at least a slight wink of self-awareness that you are talking about hair as an impact on album sales, which is a completely silly thing to be discussing with any seriousness.

I just want to make sure you realize this, because my concern is growing.

This is my concerned face, Niceman.
 
This is really not an argument you want to engage in without at least a slight wink of self-awareness that you are talking about hair as an impact on album sales, which is a completely silly thing to be discussing with any seriousness.

I just want to make sure you realize this, because my concern is growing.

This is my concerned face, Niceman.

No.... that's not what I want to do at all. Music has as much to do with style as substance. The substance often flows from the style. There's an attitude to long hair which is different from when he makes it short. I don't think it's an utter coincidence. I think it helps put him and the band in the right place.
 
I don't wanna change,
And I don't wanna be ashamed
I'm the spirit of my Hair
It's all the glory that I bare
I am my Hair!

I’ve had enough
This is my prayer
That I’ll die living just as free as my hair

I'm my hair, I am my hair
It's all the glory that I bare
I'm my hair-am my hair
I'm my hair-am my hair yeah!

:dance:
 
This is my concerned face, Niceman.

:lol: Always love Corie's quirky comments.


Discotheque wasn't the problem (they could have survived that video if not for the insincere tour itself).

But wasn't insincerity kind of a hallmark of ZOO TV as much as it was Popmart? We all know that a major motivating force behind the bands thinking in the early 90's was about trying to dismantle that overly-earnest image they'd got saddled with and proving to the audience that everything they knew was wrong. All of Bono's characters; The Fly, Mirrorball Man and MacPhisto were all performed with one giant wink weren't they? People knew the band had lightened up and enjoyed the ride.

As strange as this may sound I still feel that Popmart was actually a lot less frivolous than ZOO TV. The latter was more about the shiny surface, whereas the former had far more substance. Popmart also felt warmer, not as aloof or smart-arse as ZOO TV had been. For me, those performances of Please in particular, had far more emotional weight and dramatic punch than practically the whole of the ZOOTV set, even surpassing something like Love is Blindness.


I agree with JamesU2 though in that visually Popmart had all sorts of problems.

For one, the set-design just left people perplexed. They saw that massive yellow arch and the lemon and rapidly (and quite understandably) drew the conclusion that U2 had simply fallen victim to overblown whimsy. The whole concept just didn't really chime with the times either. The frenetic, multi-media onslaught of ZOOTV caught the mood of the moment perfectly, people immediately got what they were trying to do. Popmart by contrast had a much blunter point, it appeared to be reaching for a number of themes without saying anything definitive about any of them.

As mentioned above, the band looked very odd during this period too, and not in a good way. The U2 of AB/ZOOTV looked a hell of a lot cooler, they were leaner, sleeker and, crucially, sexier than they'd ever been before. The Popmart get-up saw a complete reversal in all this, those outfits just did not complement the guys at all, only Larry emerged with any dignity (by looking pretty much exactly the same as he does every tour).

Say what you will about ATYCLB/Elevation, but the band rediscovered some of their sex appeal in the early 00's, out when the gaudy costumes and in came something a lot simpler but also much sharper.


Incidentally, although I've criticised the look of the band in the late 90's, I do appreciate their willingess to try out something new. It backfired sure, but I'd rather them attempt to keep evolving rather than stick rigidly to the same visual style in the way that they've done throughout this decade. Apart from Bono's changing haircut, there's pretty much no development at all in the bands look from 2000-2010. This could be another reason for NLOTH's lack of impact. Not only do the band sound the same, they look exactly the same too. This is certainly something the band of the 90's would have avoided doing.
 
Zoo TV had substance, not just humour.

The audiences understood the theme of mocking consumerism, they just disliked the music/tour outfits.
 
Back
Top Bottom