Can't U2 Understand POP?

[jick]

Me too. I have a feeling if POP was a blockbuster saleswise it wouldn't receive as much backlash from the band. I know they say the album was unfinished & they ran out of time, but didn't they take longer working on POP than any other of their records? I guess the more technology you use, the more options you have.

I think you have really low regard for the band when you say they wouldn't backlash the album if it sold well. I think the band's opinion of their past work aren't swayed just by chart success and sales figures. In that same article, Edge said he wasn't too happy about The Fly after re-listening to it, but he uncovered a gem - The First Time - when he listened to it. The Fly was a single and did very well in all the charts, The First Time wasn't even a single and it came out in Zooropa - not exactly a monster seller. But Edge picked the latter over the former for inclusion in the Best Of. So I think the band's low regard for POP is just that they don't like it - period. But I don't really care what they think - it won't change what I think. What makes U2 great is their music, not their opinions about their albums anyway.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[elevation]

Re: C'mon U2!!!!

The more I read about U2 admitting Pop as a mistake, the more I get the feeling that the band has moved (read pussied out) to a safe, unadventurous and crowd-pleasing part of their career. I dont wanna think this. Hope I'm proven wrong by a mindblowing new album.

Exactly!! Are you a mind reader?

 

[Hawkmoon1021]

I think you have really low regard for the band when you say they wouldn't backlash the album if it sold well.

I'm just talking about POP, not U2's past catalog. POP failed to meet sales expectations, which was really a first for U2. IMO, I don't think they would they would put the unfinished spin on it as much if it sold like ATYCLB. I love the band & POP, and don't appreciate you saying I hold them in low regard because I express an opinion.

I think you hold the band in low regard when you compare them to Bon Jovi.

 

[Angela Harlem]

For gods sake Jick, get over it. If you think your opinion is so right and have this desire to constantly prove it, send that little reworking you did with that article to Q and ask them for a job.
Stop rehashing the same old thing over and over.
The only real point of interest from this derives from the comment made by unnamed_streets on whether their opinion of Pop will shape future albums.

This whole thing is like the proverbial fart in the shower. It just keeps coming back. What is the point of these continual threads bashing a particular album? Are you doing your civic duty to spread awareness that such an album might be shithouse? Cos lets face it, no one apart from your own self I think really gives 2 shits as to what you think of an album. Your opinion means as much to me, as mine does to you. Nobody here could be swayed by me posting endless threads on my views. I would't try and dont really care to.

We can all search and find articles of the band being critical and negative about all their albums. It means squat.

 

[Desire4Bono]

screw U2 , i like POP , if they got old and betray thier ideals

I see this as backwards, they didn't get old and betray their ideals, it was with POP that they betrayed their ideals! That's never what they were about, it was a phase they were going through, they did it and they came out of it. What we have now is the real U2 with their real ideals.

And please don't make light of Bono's 'boring political speeches'- he's saving lives.

 

[elevation]

I see this as backwards, they didn't get old and betray their ideals, it was with POP that they betrayed their ideals! That's never what they were about, it was a phase they were going through, they did it and they came out of it. What we have now is the real U2 with their real ideals.

Oh hopefully not. I don't hope you're right. And if you are, well then it's sadder than sad...., it's dreadful.

 

[ishkash]

I dont think that U2 regret what they did in the 90s.I think from the tone of the article they were just regretting some of the very tough times they had as a band in that era. So this obviously reflects back on what they have been doing.

But the good thing is Larry Mullen Jr cannot take back my copy POP

 

[Desire4Bono]

Oh hopefully not. I don't hope you're right. And if you are, well then it's sadder than sad.... it's dreadful.

NO, what happened to them during POP was 'sad and dreadful.' Thank goodness they were able to realize that and pull themselves out of it in time to save their career and salvage their place in history.

 

[jick]

What is the point of these continual threads bashing a particular album? Are you doing your civic duty to spread awareness that such an album might be shithouse? Cos lets face it, no one apart from your own self I think really gives 2 shits as to what you think of an album. Your opinion means as much to me, as mine does to you. Nobody here could be swayed by me posting endless threads on my views. I would't try and dont really care to.

We can all search and find articles of the band being critical and negative about all their albums. It means squat.

Let me ask back - what album did I bash? As far as I can read, all I did was bash the band's own quotes about their glorious masterpiece, POP. My civic duty is not spreading that POP is a shithouse, but to spread to people that POP can be a great album so one doesn't have to be swayed the the negative comments the band themselves have about POP. You are correct, your opinion is just as good as mine. The point I was trying to drive at is that at the end of the day, Mullen's comments and the rest of the band members' comments are just as good as yours and mine - and no better. By the way, good luck on your search in finding quotes about the band saying all their albums except POP are "unfinished", "not 100%" and "a mistake."

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[pinkfloyd]

NO, what happened to them during POP was 'sad and dreadful.' Thank goodness they were able to realize that and pull themselves out of it in time to save their career and salvage their place in history.

such high words .....salvage thier place in history ... bono saves lives .....makes me sick .... and yeah Live fucking Aid was a good commercial and promo - type gig for U2 , where is it now .. nowhere ...any results ....0 ......except $$$$$ sky-rocketing sales by U2 , Queen and Bob Geldof who did nothing except badly played Pink role

 

[The Wanderer]

sad but true pink, go read Edge's comments about "the fly" and listen to dreadful "hands" stroking america and their milk-tit "starring at the sun" remix, i'm not to cised about upcoming U2 music

 

[Michael Griffiths]

sad but true pink, go read Edge's comments about "the fly" and listen to dreadful "hands" stroking america and their milk-tit "starring at the sun" remix, i'm not to cised about upcoming U2 music

Oh good, then you'll be the first U2 fan ever to have low expectations. Sounds like a good strategy, actually.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Re: Re: Re: Re: And another thing ...

Well, I've certainly read a lot of negative album reviews of Rattle'n'Hum...

Well, I've certainly read a lot of negative reviews of Achtung Baby and The Joshua Tree, as well. So I must ask, what's your point? My point is - in *general* - neither Joshua Tree nor Achtung Baby, and not even Rattle & Hum (the album), was ever bashed by the critics.

I disagree with you that an album and a film can't be seperated. Why not? Rattle & Hum is part of the same era as the film, but is a totally different project. One is a record, the other a film. Put it this way: if you've never watched the film, you'd most likely get a totally different perspective of listening to the record. The film has coloured your perception of the record (despite it being black and white!)

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

NO, what happened to them during POP was 'sad and dreadful.' Thank goodness they were able to realize that and pull themselves out of it in time to save their career and salvage their place in history.

i don't think they lost their place in history with pop. they may have gotten more praise than ever before, or at least in a long, long time, though.

in 1997, i saw way more documentaries and such on the band than i did in 2000. that may not sound like a reason to believe this, but, for example, why would've vh1 had mad a "legends" show on the band after pop? if they'd lost all credibility and respect, or at least lost their career, they probably would've made a behind the music on them instead, with the "oh how the mighty have fallen" theme. (cuz btm always has one of three themes: drugs/alcohol/death, etc., some huge scandal, or the rise and fall of a star.)

just my two cents.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

just saw this, sorry for the double post.

Well, I've certainly read a lot of negative reviews of Achtung Baby and The Joshua Tree, as well. So I must ask, what's your point? My point is - in *general* - neither Joshua Tree nor Achtung Baby, and not even Rattle & Hum (the album), was ever bashed by the critics.

IIRC, critics did bash rattle and hum, at least to some extent. they saw the album as them putting themselves up with the likes of b.b. king and bob dylan, just because they collaborated with them on the album.

gee, i didn't see them saying the same thing when bono did a duet with ol' blue eyes.

 

[pinkfloyd]

Smile !

Oh good, then you'll be the first U2 fan ever to have low expectations. Sounds like a good strategy, actually.

no this is not a strategy , i had excellent expectations before ATYCLB , all them were based on MDH soundtrack , and U2 of the 90's , but next 2years of hardcore " new comeback " U2 on all chanels , i just didn't liked it , that's all , yeah some singles were good , the future of U2 as a rock'n'roll band is highly questionable , but we'll see , after all video for Elctric Storm was quite good and band looked great .

 

[The_acrobat]

Now, the thing to think about is, was Pop really that big of a flop?
It sold 8 million copies nationwide without a hit single, and the Popmart tour, inspite of what the media would let you think, was highly attended, even in the United States. It's simple to most people...a concert either sells out, or it doesn't. U2 didn't sell out half of the shows on Popmart, and yet they sold out every concert on Elevation. That's what most people think. However, in most cities, U2 played to more people during 1997 as opposed to 2001. Most people don't consider that these venues were anywhere from 2-5 times larger than the venues they played during Elevation.

I blame the media failure of Pop partially on the Discotheque video, village people segment. I know that Pop is full of good music, and that Discotheque isn't even an essential track on the album, and I agree. But the public saw an aging U2 acting like the village people. Adam in the sailor outfit, Larry in the cowboy hat. The village people were gay (literally), and by U2 associating themselves with that, left a bad taste in most people's mouths. (I am in no way prejudice against gays, but it makes people feel weird.)

And I accept the fact that the band is not happy with it, and that they wish they could do more with it, and they have. Discotheque, Staring at the sun, Mofo, If God will send his angels, Last night on earth, Gone, and Please have all been reworked at some point or another. That's over half the album with alternate versions. I think the album is great, and Larry can't take my copy either. Whatever U2 decide to release in the future, you can bet I'll be interested.

 

[Salome]

I'm slightly amused

 

[Saracene]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And another thing ...

Well, I've certainly read a lot of negative reviews of Achtung Baby and The Joshua Tree, as well. So I must ask, what's your point? My point is - in *general* - neither Joshua Tree nor Achtung Baby, and not even Rattle & Hum (the album), was ever bashed by the critics.

I disagree with you that an album and a film can't be seperated. Why not? Rattle & Hum is part of the same era as the film, but is a totally different project. One is a record, the other a film. Put it this way: if you've never watched the film, you'd most likely get a totally different perspective of listening to the record. The film has coloured your perception of the record (despite it being black and white!)

Of course, every album gets its share of bad reviews, but I was talking more of an overall, commonly accepted view of Rattle'n'Hum which is pretty much negative (just as the commonly accepted view on JT and AB is that they are two of U2's most essential records and masterpieces). Bill Flannagan's book mentions that R'n'H was seen by the critics as a pretentious and pompous attempt to place U2 in the company of Bob Dylan, the Beatles, BB King and all the other musical seraphim the album celebrated.

I agree that the film and the record were two different projects, but these two two projects were so closely linked that it's pretty hard to think of them separately (IIRC, the whole album was conceived to accompany their live film). R'n'H the album shares most if not all of the aspects of the movie that became the points of critics' bashing.

 

[GypsyHeartgirl]

Re: And another thing ...

Why isn't it possible for U2 to just not like Pop artistically, regardless of sales?

Because on this website, you are not permitted not to like this album. Apparently that extends now to the people who made it.

Of course I'm sure most of you think that they don't mean this, they are only saying this because of the negative media response and the 'bad' fans who didn't 'get it'

 

[HelloAngel]

Re: Re: And another thing ...

Because on this website, you are not permitted not to like this album. Apparently that extends now to the people who made it.

Of course I'm sure most of you think that they don't mean this, they are only saying this because of the negative media response and the 'bad' fans who didn't 'get it'

Gypsy,

On this website, you are permitted to like whatever you want to like. You are also permitted to dislike at your free will as well.

What you are not permitted to do is be rude about it.

You might want to draw a correlation to the fact that POP draws a passionate response from either side of the aisle and it often drives people to be rude or beat a dead horse. Thus, an increase in mod activity in those threads, because some are not able to discuss things in a mature, non-combative manner.

Sometimes, posters are asked to simmer down on their attacks, be it personal or regarding an album because it clogs up otherwise mature and thoughtful threads and ruins them. POP threads produce most of these ruined threads.

I felt that ATYCLB thread a few days back went well until some couldn't let the sleeping dogs lie. I can't speak for any majority, but it is clearly evident what several posters feel regarding POP - and this can get aggravating when it is repeated ad nauseum thread after thread after thread. This kind of unnecessary repitition does get annoying because it obstructs newer POP discussions from happening and following a polite and mature course. Launching spin-off threads creates more congestion because some really feel the need to be heard, irregardless if they have been heard again and again.

Bottom line, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. And sometimes, you should pick your battles and realize "POINT TAKEN, Let's move on" is a viable way to go.

 

[melon]

It sold 8 million copies nationwide without a hit single, and the Popmart tour, inspite of what the media would let you think, was highly attended, even in the United States. It's simple to most people...a concert either sells out, or it doesn't. U2 didn't sell out half of the shows on Popmart, and yet they sold out every concert on Elevation. That's what most people think. However, in most cities, U2 played to more people during 1997 as opposed to 2001. Most people don't consider that these venues were anywhere from 2-5 times larger than the venues they played during Elevation.

This is the truth, after all. The "Elevation" tour was perfect media manipulation, after all. Play in venues that are microscopic compared to the stadiums you used to play and, of course, you're going to sell out.

What has definitely left a bad taste in my mouth was the nature of this tour, despite the fact that it was, musically, very good. But the manipulation of General Admission ($45), Reserved ($85), and the arbitarily expensive Golden Circle ($130) showed the reality that was different in the past tours: this one was more about division in the name of profit and media attention than unity for the sake of musical advancement. Of course, you can't blame it all on U2; welcome to the reality of large conglomerate concert promoters (SFX). I have a hunch that the next U2 tour will be more expensive than ever...

Melon

 

[The Wanderer]

take it to the bank, melon

in the name of love, or elevation or something

 

[Michael Griffiths]

This is the truth, after all. The "Elevation" tour was perfect media manipulation, after all. Play in venues that are microscopic compared to the stadiums you used to play and, of course, you're going to sell out.

What has definitely left a bad taste in my mouth was the nature of this tour, despite the fact that it was, musically, very good. But the manipulation of General Admission ($45), Reserved ($85), and the arbitarily expensive Golden Circle ($130) showed the reality that was different in the past tours: this one was more about division in the name of profit and media attention than unity for the sake of musical advancement. Of course, you can't blame it all on U2; welcome to the reality of large conglomerate concert promoters (SFX). I have a hunch that the next U2 tour will be more expensive than ever...

Melon

...like a preacher stealing [$] at a travelling show...

 

[Salome]

I thought the "unity for the sake of musical advancement" was a bit too much, but I pretty much agree with most things Lemon posted