Not sure if all of this is true.
what? you disagree with me? LEAVE ME ALONE!
They created PopMart with their initial belief in "Pop". That alone says something. Sure, when an album fails to sell big or generates so-so hits and has a backlash, one is bound to lose some confidence (this, despite the album still selling 6-7M copies worldwide, a sum most artists only dream about).
i'm sure U2 believed in the album while it was being made, but the fact remains that they had a big stadium tour booked before the album was complete. the idea for the big, wrap-around screen was in the works since the end of Zoo TV, and my guess is they were able to construct a theme (consumerism) around this new piece of technology. however, the album wasn't finished, the tour was booked, and they sold tickets before the album was even out. if anything, this is probably the best example of U2 relying on nostalgia -- there was no album at the time, but hey, buy a ticket anyway, we are U2.
as everyone attests, the album was rushed, came out half-baked, SATS wasn't "properly" finished, and as seen by the *extensive* re-recordings and reworkings of many of the Pop singles -- LNOE, Please, IGWSHA -- this is indeed evidence that U2 didn't believe in the songs on the album in the way that they believed in them on JT, AB, and all the subsequent tours.
I briefly spoke to the Edge (my one stalker moment) after U2 performed in Chicago on the PopMart tour. He stated that they always play well in Chicago and it seemed people in Chicago "got it". Later (the Elevation tour), Bono also stated how people in Chicago "got" PopMart as well. So if they lost faith in their audience, it may be the reception. Look at 360 - the show has sold out everywhere across the globe for an album that has enjoyed about the same amount of success. PopMart did have a few hiccups (mostly second leg through the U.S.).
i think the reception of the Pop songs was indeed one of the things that caused them to loose faith in them and to rerecord them for single release. we agree. we aren't as "groovy" as they'd like sometimes.
Lastly, I always thought U2 followed "Mofo" with "I Will Follow" for several reasons. Both are thematically about the same topic. One represents the current perspective (at the time) and the other represented a young man's perspective. The two songs rock and kept the audience going. and it was nice putting the new with the old. Basically the songs just flowed well together - and U2 tend to do that on their tours. So I doubt it was a lack of confidence in "Mofo" that created this setlist.
i thought the Mofo/IWF 1-2 opening worked brilliantly, and said so several times, and they played perfectly off one another, and i think they believed in Mofo in the context of PopMart.
the point i have been trying to make ALL ALONG is that ALL stadium tours rely on nostalgia to keep an audience engaged, from 360 to the Joshua Tree tour, so there's nothing really to freak out about when it comes to 360 setlists. it's more the nature of the beast rather than indication that U2 are now over and have turned into the Rolling Stones. new songs are a gamble in a stadium, always have been, and the only time U2 didn't rely on old songs to couch the new songs was on Zoo TV, the exception that proves the rule of stadium shows. yes, they played old songs on Zoo TV, but what made that tour unique was that the relied
exclusively on back-to-back-to-back new songs for the first hour of the show.
how a small defense of 360 became evidence that i don't like Mofo, i don't quite know.
i will say that it does say something that they are still playing IWF, but not still playing Mofo. though it would be fun if they did play it again.
P.S. Should I leave you alone?
should i leave you alone? have i been unpleasant and bigoted?
you certainly haven't. you are always smart and engaging and informed, and for that reason, i don't ever want to be left alone, i enjoy engaging in discussions which is why i spend most of my time in here on FYM. at least there, people don't take things personally and don't dismiss entire academic fields simply because they don't know anything about them, and they don't run away when presented with ample evidence that reveals that they are simply uninformed on certain subjects. Boy really DOES have queer subtext -- and it was explored, thoroughly, in said thread from several years ago. just because someone doesn't want to hear it or know anything about it doesn't make it any less true. the evidence presented was further supported by several posters and Bono has talked at length about gay fans who gravitated to the album precisely because of the subject matter in "twilight" and "stories for boys," among others.
there are times when we can learn things from one another, as i've learned extensive amounts in FYM and in here, and while my opinions on U2 are no more informed than anyone else's (certainly lots of people disagree with what i've posted in this thread), my knowledge of certain academic subjects isn't as up for debate because that's a measurable, quantifiable thing that can be formally argued. so the worst thing we can do on a forum like this is to leave each other alone.
