MERGED ->U2 to re-record Pop!+ Bono talking out of his arse!+Wait,what's this remast

[Zoomerang96]

yes, but at least u2kitten gets russia.

she understands the brilliance of that, at least.

u2girl, well...i'm not sure what her thoughts are on russia. but at this point, i'm extremely curious...

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I just wrote a really long winded reply about why I think Pop/Popmart failed in the US, but long winded is the key phrase there and so I scrapped it and I'll leave it at this -

Pop was a massive success everywhere in the world outside the US. It was highly regarded, well received, great sales. The music and the themes were also completely understood. I think if we did a poll here of the anti & pro Pop people, 90%+ of the anti Pop's would come from the US. Outside the US there is no belief that Pop was a stumble, or a mistake, or taking it too far. It is really very important to understand that. Popmart as well - have you ever heard anything to suggest that Popmart was anything but incredibly well received on the European or South American legs? I think from U2's point of view Popmart was a global stumble simply for financial reasons - taking a $250,000 a day show on the road is crazy and seriously risky, even if every single show sells out - but it was only a critical/emotional failure in the US. These points are really, really important.

Now, I may well be wrong on this, but I haven't heard any member of U2 bag Pop or any of their 90's work (and in that Larry interview he virtually apologises not just for Pop, but the entire 90's) outside of the US media. I may be wrong, but I certainly haven't seen it (if anyone has an example, feel free to post it).

Pop and Popmart were ONLY A FAILURE IN THE UNITED STATES. Why do you think that was? I have a theory, but I really want to hear others. You can't say it's simply a crap album full of crap music, or that Popmart was a crap show, because the vast majority of the world didn't think so. Only one country did. Why did that one country think it was a crap album and a crap show?

 

[The Disciple]

Every song except Staring At the Sun benifited from the remix. All the singles:

Last Night On Earth
Please (Single = A+++++)
God Will Send His Angels

were all better than the album versions. I think Playboy Mansion and Miami could use some work. For the love of god, they were recording vocals for the Playboy Mansion the day it was due to be mastered. Pop is a great album as is, but could have been a masterpiece if they had a little more time.

Wholeheartedly agree...

 

[MrBrau1]

I just wrote a really long winded reply about why I think Pop/Popmart failed in the US, but long winded is the key phrase there and so I scrapped it and I'll leave it at this -

Pop was a massive success everywhere in the world outside the US. It was highly regarded, well received, great sales. The music and the themes were also completely understood. I think if we did a poll here of the anti & pro Pop people, 90%+ of the anti Pop's would come from the US. Outside the US there is no belief that Pop was a stumble, or a mistake, or taking it too far. It is really very important to understand that. Popmart as well - have you ever heard anything to suggest that Popmart was anything but incredibly well received on the European or South American legs? I think from U2's point of view Popmart was a global stumble simply for financial reasons - taking a $250,000 a day show on the road is crazy and seriously risky, even if every single show sells out - but it was only a critical/emotional failure in the US. These points are really, really important.

Now, I may well be wrong on this, but I haven't heard any member of U2 bag Pop or any of their 90's work (and in that Larry interview he virtually apologises not just for Pop, but the entire 90's) outside of the US media. I may be wrong, but I certainly haven't seen it (if anyone has an example, feel free to post it).

Pop and Popmart were ONLY A FAILURE IN THE UNITED STATES. Why do you think that was? I have a theory, but I really want to hear others. You can't say it's simply a crap album full of crap music, or that Popmart was a crap show, because the vast majority of the world didn't think so. Only one country did. Why did that one country think it was a crap album and a crap show?

Very simple. Discotheque, and it's video. I also think Zooropa should shoulder some of the blame.

I also have a quote from Bono on Pop (taken from U2 : Uncut Legends #3, a UK music magazine:

"The material on that record is up there with our best. It's just that we didn't finish it."

Here's another interesting quote from Q Magazine, summer 2001:

When their singles collection Best of 80-90 came out, Edge had to force a reluctant Bono to sit down and listen to it. After running away from their past for most of the 90's, U2 realised it was time to appreciate it again, at least in small doses. The key moment came when Edge hit upon Beautiful Day's widescreen guitar chords, and after some initial cold feet, the group agreed that such a classic U2-ism was nothing to be ashamed of.

"It was saying, Fuck It, we ARE U2, and this is one of the things we're known for doing well" assertd Edge. "It was kind of a nice feeling to reclaim the past."


I also have a quote from Spin( a US magazine ) from March 1997 (Before Pop was released, thus there were no bad sales yet to do spin control for):

Bono "Right up to the last month of making this record I had this feeling that it could go either way. It could be extraordinary, or such crap."

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Very simple. Discotheque, and it's video. I also think Zooropa should shoulder some of the blame.

10 POINTS!!!

And yeah, I don't know about shouldering the blame, but Zooropa is part of the story.

I know I'm asking here to have my arse royaly flamed for heading down this path, but I am speaking from some experience, not just a personal opinion, but as someone who has been involved in projects to break bands in both the US and UK markets, and so I know what is seen as the pros and cons of each market and why some things will never work in the US.....

I believe Pop (and as an extension - Popmart) failed in the US not because of what the album actually was, but what it was perceived to be from the get go. Still to this day monkeys even here in this forum will call it a 'techno' album, or 'dance' album. I mean, there was a guy in a thread a couple of days ago who bagged Mofo because it was 'dance crap'. Mofo? Dance? That song is entirely planted smack in the middle of rock'n'fuckin'roll. If Mofo and Vertigo met in a dark alley, Mofo would have punched out Vertigo in two blows, stolen it's wallet and taken off while Vertigo was still trying to fix it's hair to look the part. Somewhere in the build up to it's release, all the hype was "U2 are making a dance record". I don't know if that came from off the mark rumours, seriously bad publicity or from the mouth of the lead singer who's pre-album comments - as much great fun as they are to listen to and get excited over - are never, ever, ever close to what the album actually turns out to be. That's where Zooropa comes in as well. I think because of a couple of tracks off Zooropa - namely the funk of Lemon or the buzzing and whirring of Numb - it didn't seem like such a stretch that U2 would go down that path either. U2's music suddenly had hips to it, and they were not just taking it to the charts and taking it to the rock world, but were also actively engaging in remixing and working with DJ's etc to take it to the nightclubs and into the dance world. If "U2 are making a dance record" was the word on the street immediately post Rattle & Hum, it would have been very, very hard to believe, but post Zooropa it wasn't such a stretch. Of course, the finished product was anything but - lightyears from it - but the damage had been done. In reality, Pop was the most ambitious of their 90's records, but it was the least experimental. It was their new found heavier, darker, sonicaly adventurous rock of Achtung Baby mixed with their new found ability to whiz and whir with the electronics of Zooropa. Those are the two experimental albums. The guitar, and rock, are the centrepiece of Pop. The electronics are the sprinklings around the outside. The Achtung Baby got drunk and slept with the Babyfaced Zooropa, and some time later they conceived a child called Pop. It was not as left field as people seem to think.

U2 however compounded the image problem by releasing Discotheque as the first single. It's not so much the sound of the song itself, but the fact that along with the rumours of Pop being a dance record, here they are releasing a song that on the surface seems to be about a dance club, and then there's that video clip..... Again, I don't know if any of this was intentional, but it happened, and it's what let U2 down in the US. HOWEVER, the same thing, the same rumours, the same Discotheque and the same video clip are what launched Pop all around the world. I know Discotheque was a # 1 single in Australia & the UK, and Pop shortly after debuted at # 1 in both countries - and I suspect the same happened for both in many other countries as well. It was a shaky way to kick it off, but it was pulled off everywhere else in the world. Only in the US did it sink.

Why?

I also have a quote from Bono on Pop (taken from U2 : Uncut Legends #3, a UK music magazine:

"The material on that record is up there with our best. It's just that we didn't finish it."

And I don't think anyone would disagree with that. It certainly is up there with their best work, and it's definitely not finished. And that's what I mean about the difference between a UK interview and a US interview. There's Bono, on Pop, proudly calling it among there best, but it's not finished. That's different to his "We're so, so, so sorry we fucked up and took you too far and we promise to make it up to you and never do that again, and I can't believe we did it and I'd love to go back and change it" that he pulls in US interviews. They barely bother defending it in the US anymore, let alone proudly hold it up as "among their best".

Here's another interesting quote from Q Magazine, summer 2001:

When their singles collection Best of 80-90 came out, Edge had to force a reluctant Bono to sit down and listen to it. After running away from their past for most of the 90's, U2 realised it was time to appreciate it again, at least in small doses. The key moment came when Edge hit upon Beautiful Day's widescreen guitar chords, and after some initial cold feet, the group agreed that such a classic U2-ism was nothing to be ashamed of.

"It was saying, Fuck It, we ARE U2, and this is one of the things we're known for doing well" assertd Edge. "It was kind of a nice feeling to reclaim the past."

I've never said I have any issue with Edge going back on an old sound, in this case pulling that old 80's atmospheric/twinkling guitar back out of the bag. I love it as much as the next person here, and it will never stop sending those chills down my spine. But... what is 'classic' U2? Is it simply the twinkly sound Edge made on a few albums in the 80's? Does that mean that in 10 years U2 will 'reclaim their past' by going back on Edge's Achtung sounds? Those to me are just as 'classic' and I'm one of those people who see U2 as an ever evolving bigger sonic picture, not a band that is routed in their sound from a particular period, with everything else they do being a distraction waiting to be reigned in.

I also have a quote from Spin( a US magazine ) from March 1997 (Before Pop was released, thus there were no bad sales yet to do spin control for):

Bono "Right up to the last month of making this record I had this feeling that it could go either way. It could be extraordinary, or such crap."

That's fair enough, but I suspect that's a feeling thats not limited to Pop. I think each 'leap of faith' album (and that's not limited to the 90's at all) has given them that feeling, judging by interviews and stories from the time. Achtung Baby and The Unforgettable Fire are two examples of albums that they seemed to really shit themselves over.

 

[Zoots]

If Mofo and Vertigo met in a dark alley, Mofo would have punched out Vertigo in two blows, stolen it's wallet and taken off while Vertigo was still trying to fix it's hair to look the part.

couldn't agree more! MOFO

 

[packcrush]

Clunk clunk Wweeeeeerrrrrrrrruuuuuuuuuuuu. . . .

I'll get my coat.

 

[WinnieThePoo]

Very simple. Discotheque, and it's video. I also think Zooropa should shoulder some of the blame.



When their singles collection Best of 80-90 came out, Edge had to force a reluctant Bono to sit down and listen to it. After running away from their past for most of the 90's, U2 realised it was time to appreciate it again, at least in small doses. The key moment came when Edge hit upon Beautiful Day's widescreen guitar chords, and after some initial cold feet, the group agreed that such a classic U2-ism was nothing to be ashamed of.

"It was saying, Fuck It, we ARE U2, and this is one of the things we're known for doing well" assertd Edge. "It was kind of a nice feeling to reclaim the past."

the downhill started right there

 

[RobH]

Earnie...you are so prolific on this topic that I must give you props...though I agree with much of what you say, I must respond to a few points.

First of all, you are right on when you say that Pop scared the hell out of some of us longtime fans even before the album was released. It is a very important point to make, and something that the younger fans on here cannot truly appreciate. It cannot be overstated just how annoyed some of us were even before hearing a single note. And again, you are right to say that the video, along with the title "Discotheque" was as alienating as can be. It stopped a lot of us dead in our tracks---I didn't even CONSIDER buying that album when it first came out. And this is coming from a hard-core U2 fan, a guy who bought the albums the day they were released up to and including Zooropa. And I dig Zooropa. So I was not anti-90's U2 up until then.

But here's where we appear to have a difference of opinion: I think U2 did consciously try and sell Pop as a dance/electronica album---it was not just the press and pre-release rumours. They have to take responsibility for their own image. No matter how many people come on here and say, "Mofo? A dance track? You've never heard a Chemical Brothers' album!", to the general public, that's dance/electronica. To U2's longtime fans, that's dance/electronica. To Americans, that's dance/electronica. And it was not what most of us wanted to hear. For the first time, it didn't seem like U2 was creating its own sound. It seemed like it was glomming onto the current trend of the moment. And it turned millions of us off. The have to take responsibility for that too.

Ok...so when I finally got around to listening to it...and I won't even say when that was, except to say many YEARS later....you're right. It's not as left field as one would think. But you know how one sour taste of something can turn you off to that thing for years to come, sometimes even forever? That's how I feel about Pop. I'll never truly dig that album because of the afforementioned reasons, fairly or not. Having said that, the other major problem with Pop is still the music. It just does not stack up with the rest of the catalog, pre-1997. (I won't even get into the two most recent albums).

So here's another theory of mine that I've been considering...I think I fall right into that age range of what would be considered "Prototypical U2 Fan". I'm almost 38 now, which means I was a teenager when they first broke, in my early twenties for the Josh/Hum/Baby era, and almost 26 for Zooropa.
So othen FOUR years go by before I hear another peep out of my favorite band. In the meantime, there's Nirvana, Pearl Jam, lots of other hard rocking stuff. And the next time I see them they're wearing leather chaps and police hats and shit. And I'm almost thirty now, right? And it's like, "What the f?" And then someone says "Oh, they're being IRONIC!" And I'm thinking, "Haven't I seen them be ironic before? Are they still into this 'look, we're silly rock stars' crap four years later? What the hell have they been doing?" While these other bands are capturing my imagination, U2 is playing dress-up.

I can't help but wonder if ANYTHING U2 did at that point would have fascinated me again like it did before that. Perhaps I was just reaching that point in my life where my youthful feelings about U2 would never quite be the same. But they sure as hell did a great job of shoving me out the door. I wonder if there are many other fans who fall into my age range who feel the same way. Anybody?

 

[MrBrau1]

the downhill started right there

No, the "downhill" as you say, started here:

Revolver (US Magazine, Winter 2000)

Intriguingly, U2's move toward simplicity began during the Popmart tour, inspired by an unlikely figure. "It was a DJ that may have sent us down this road" Bono says. "When we weren't tight enough at the start of the last tour, we had to find time to rehearse. So we ended up at one point in the basement of a hotel in Washington DC. Howie B, whom we'd worked with on Pop, was DJing the tour, also helping out front during the shows with effects and mixing with our own sound guy. Howie was at this rehearsal, acting as a kind of producer.

"We couldn't get all the gear in, because it was all in the trucks on the road. We had a rented bass, drums, Vox AC30 and a PA at this rehearsal-nothing else. Howie walks into the room as we're playing, a 3 piece, and a singer, and he just starts going 'What's going on here? What is that sound you're making?' And we just go 'Howie, this is rock music.' And he's like 'Wow, the sound of the bass and drums is so incredible.' So he started removing effects at the live shows, and by the end of the tour there were very few loops or treatments. He said 'It's really odd, the more I'm taking out, the bigger the sound is getting.' And then he said 'That's the kind of record you should make next."

 

[Zoots]

Wow.. no way do I fall into your category, RobH but your post was a great read!

 

[RobH]

Wow.. no way do I fall into your category, RobH but your post was a great read!

Thank you for the civil disagreement!

 

[MrBrau1]

Earnie...you are so prolific on this topic that I must give you props...though I agree with much of what you say, I must respond to a few points.

First of all, you are right on when you say that Pop scared the hell out of some of us longtime fans even before the album was released. It is a very important point to make, and something that the younger fans on here cannot truly appreciate. It cannot be overstated just how annoyed some of us were even before hearing a single note. And again, you are right to say that the video, along with the title "Discotheque" was as alienating as can be. It stopped a lot of us dead in our tracks---I didn't even CONSIDER buying that album when it first came out. And this is coming from a hard-core U2 fan, a guy who bought the albums the day they were released up to and including Zooropa. And I dig Zooropa. So I was not anti-90's U2 up until then.

But here's where we appear to have a difference of opinion: I think U2 did consciously try and sell Pop as a dance/electronica album---it was not just the press and pre-release rumours. They have to take responsibility for their own image. No matter how many people come on here and say, "Mofo? A dance track? You've never heard a Chemical Brothers' album!", to the general public, that's dance/electronica. To U2's longtime fans, that's dance/electronica. To Americans, that's dance/electronica. And it was not what most of us wanted to hear. For the first time, it didn't seem like U2 was creating its own sound. It seemed like it was glomming onto the current trend of the moment. And it turned millions of us off. The have to take responsibility for that too.

Ok...so when I finally got around to listening to it...and I won't even say when that was, except to say many YEARS later....you're right. It's not as left field as one would think. But you know how one sour taste of something can turn you off to that thing for years to come, sometimes even forever? That's how I feel about Pop. I'll never truly dig that album because of the afforementioned reasons, fairly or not. Having said that, the other major problem with Pop is still the music. It just does not stack up with the rest of the catalog, pre-1997. (I won't even get into the two most recent albums).

So here's another theory of mine that I've been considering...I think I fall right into that age range of what would be considered "Prototypical U2 Fan". I'm almost 38 now, which means I was a teenager when they first broke, in my early twenties for the Josh/Hum/Baby era, and almost 26 for Zooropa.
So othen FOUR years go by before I hear another peep out of my favorite band. In the meantime, there's Nirvana, Pearl Jam, lots of other hard rocking stuff. And the next time I see them they're wearing leather chaps and police hats and shit. And I'm almost thirty now, right? And it's like, "What the f?" And then someone says "Oh, they're being IRONIC!" And I'm thinking, "Haven't I seen them be ironic before? Are they still into this 'look, we're silly rock stars' crap four years later? What the hell have they been doing?" While these other bands are capturing my imagination, U2 is playing dress-up.

I can't help but wonder if ANYTHING U2 did at that point would have fascinated me again like it did before that. Perhaps I was just reaching that point in my life where my youthful feelings about U2 would never quite be the same. But they sure as hell did a great job of shoving me out the door. I wonder if there are many other fans who fall into my age range who feel the same way. Anybody?

I remember having a party at my apartment in the spring of 97. I was talking with some friends about the new U2 album (Pop). 3 or 4 of them were U2 fans, who had heard Discotheque and seen the video, and had no interest. They felt the same way you did. I had to force them to listen to "Gone" and "Staring At The Sun." They loved both tunes, and were surprised because their impression of the record was really bad. But I had to force their attention, they'd already formed their opinion, based on word of mouth and that damn video.

 

[RobH]

It happened REAL quickly in my circle of friends too...

 

[starvinmarvin]

So here's another theory of mine that I've been considering...I think I fall right into that age range of what would be considered "Prototypical U2 Fan". I'm almost 38 now, which means I was a teenager when they first broke, in my early twenties for the Josh/Hum/Baby era, and almost 26 for Zooropa.
So othen FOUR years go by before I hear another peep out of my favorite band. In the meantime, there's Nirvana, Pearl Jam, lots of other hard rocking stuff. And the next time I see them they're wearing leather chaps and police hats and shit. And I'm almost thirty now, right? And it's like, "What the f?" And then someone says "Oh, they're being IRONIC!" And I'm thinking, "Haven't I seen them be ironic before? Are they still into this 'look, we're silly rock stars' crap four years later? What the hell have they been doing?" While these other bands are capturing my imagination, U2 is playing dress-up.

I can't help but wonder if ANYTHING U2 did at that point would have fascinated me again like it did before that. Perhaps I was just reaching that point in my life where my youthful feelings about U2 would never quite be the same. But they sure as hell did a great job of shoving me out the door. I wonder if there are many other fans who fall into my age range who feel the same way. Anybody?

I absolutely agree with you. I too have been a longtime U2 fan, and found Pop to be an extremely alienating experience - and I'm not an American either. I also happen to like electronic music, and loved Zooropa more than most U2 fans did. It had nothing to do with the "dance music" aspect as far as I was concerned.

I don't think that U2 was being "ironic" with Pop. I think they were actually ironic during Zoo TV, but they somehow got all wrapped up in their make-believe roles that they lost sight of who they were during the tour - just like actors sometimes do when they assume the role of a new character, and have difficulty dropping it after the film is finished. This delusion grew and grew over the next 4 years, reaching a climax during Pop. The video for Discotheque was and still is appallingly stupid. It is not ironic. It is not even amusing. What it is is the greatest band in the world giving themselves a self-congradulatory hand job. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think that the fact that Pop was billed as a "dance" album did hurt sales in the US, but what actually killed the album was the fact that the Americans - for all of their cultural neanderthalism - were the only ones to see U2's Pop for what it was: a load of horseshit. While Europe ate it up without blinking, America saw that the band had no clothes on - despite the stupid outfits.

Pop is a good album. There are some great songs. I think America would have embraced the traces of electronica in Pop had U2 not chosen to dress up like clowns, put on a ridiculously overblown show, and then tried to pretend that it was a joke.

 

[bathiu]

I think that the fact that Pop was billed as a "dance" album did hurt sales in the US, but what actually killed the album was the fact that the Americans - for all of their cultural neanderthalism - were the only ones to see U2's Pop for what it was: a load of horseshit. While Europe ate it up without blinking, America saw that the band had no clothes on - despite the stupid outfits.

Hi jick, we missed you... realy...

Well, you're wrong here... we didn't "ate it up"... we just like to laugh at americans (just as americans like to laugh at us)...
...believe it or not but that's what POP is... believe it or not there are parts of the worlds where people don't "live" in .marts or malls, it's american way only... and the deeper you'll go into POP era, the more, hmm, lets say "sarcasm" at america/americans you'll find.
It's not the "dance" word that hurt the sales in America. The fact that they can't swallow any criticism was the nail to POP's coffin in America.

 

[starvinmarvin]

Hi jick, we missed you... realy...

Well, you're wrong here... we didn't "ate it up"... we just like to laugh at americans (just as americans like to laugh at us)...
...believe it or not but that's what POP is... believe it or not there are parts of the worlds where people don't "live" in .marts or malls, it's american way only... and the deeper you'll go into POP era, the more, hmm, lets say "sarcasm" at america/americans you'll find.
It's not the "dance" word that hurt the sales in America. The fact that they can't swallow any criticism was the nail to POP's coffin in America.

I think that's your interpretation of it. That's fine.

I missed you too. Can we be friends?

 

[bathiu]

I think that's your interpretation of it. That's fine.

I missed you too. Can we be friends?

...sure...

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Excellent! This is really getting somewhere.

I agree with pretty much everything you guys are saying. I can't be bothered trying to quote the last few posts properly, but....

I have no doubt that the "dance record" thing could or did come from the band themselves, and I said I couldn't remember whether it was the band, the publicity or simply rumours. It's probably all of the above overall, and honestly, Bono should be gagged for a few months before every release, because he's always way off.... I'm not saying that U2 didn't set themselves up for the fall, I think they did. I just think it's interesting that (of course there are individuals who will disagree and say they didn't like it) Pop/Popmart didn't fall over outside of the US, despite the bands best efforts. The same pre-publicity, the same Discotheque, the same completely shit video clip went worldwide.

"Mofo? A dance track?" - It's not. The Chemical Brothers are considered dance/electronica in the US, the UK and every other corner of the globe. The Chemical Brothers and their 'big beat' family are a heavy influence on Pop, most notably on the barnstorming Mofo (Chemical Brothers "Block Rockin' Beats") & Do You Feel Loved. But Mofo is not a dance track. U2 took what those groups do and simply applied it to their bottom end. BIG bass and beat run the song at front and centre, with the guitar filling in and around it. It's rock all the way through though. It's simply taking their electronic tricks to beef up their own rock. That to me isn't U2 trying to jump on a bandwagon of the time, but U2 simply doing what they've always done and soaked up the new and interesting of the time and applied it to what is fundamentally U2. Just as they took the industrial/electronic sounds coming out of Germany and applied them to Achtung Baby - but it is certainly not a Kraftwerk record.

So why did it fall over in the US? I'm not going to go as far as saying that the US has "cultural neanderthalism", but the US market certainly seems to need to know exactly what it is they are hearing before they hear it, and it's really hard to do sometimes. Like in movies where you see a guy trying to pitch a film idea to a studio, and they say "It's Top Gun meets Miss Congeniality", the American market needs it kept simple in terms that they understand. So it either must fit into an easily understandable & simple genre definition ("It's rock" "It's dance") or needs something previous that can be pointed to easily ("It's just like Nirvana!" or "It's The Strokes meets Mariah Carey!") That's not being offensive to Americans, it's just the way it is, from when a new band is being pitched to a record label, to that band being introduced to the music media, to the music media 'introducing' that band to the public. At every stage the person receiving the pitch wants it simplified before they've even digested the artist or the album, song etc itself. Here in Australia, at the major US record label that I worked for, we would have 6 or 7 Australian acts a year that we'd push to try and break overseas. If it was even a remotely complicated proposition, it was off to the UK for that artist. If it was a simple and easy package ("its surf/skate punk - think GreenDay!!!") it was off to the US. It would never, ever work in reverse. Even internally within our own company.

That, particularly for rock, was a lot worse in the 90's than it is now. Again, no offence to the US, but we know in the 90's that the US coughed up the grunge movement at the start of the decade, then handed the reigns over to the UK to be the dominant and innovative nation for music through the rest of the 90's. The rock coming out of the US remained gloomy, navel gazing, trapped in a sense of 'remain underground to stay cool' and uninterested in innovation, big bold ideas etc while over in the UK bands like Oasis were happily yelling at everyone that they were the biggest and best and aiming for the stadiums, while it was the electronic scene that was making the big leaps forward in musical and sonic innovation. U2 - as they always do - took that on board. This is of course making sweeping generalisations of the music scene at the time, and I'm sure any number of artists could be named that go against this, but in a nutshell, that's where we were.

So.... my belief is that Pop fell over in the US, while was lapped up elsewhere, from a combo of...

- U2 and their people were sloppy with their categorisation of the album. The electronica thing didn't hit the US like it did elsewhere, at least not by 1997. It was dominating in Europe - "DJ's are the new rock stars" etc. For the UK, Europe and here in Australia "U2 are flirting further with electronica" brought a reaction of mostly "Hmmm, sounds interesting". In the US, with it's rigid labelling and categorising, that became "U2 are making a dance record" and the reaction was "That sounds crap". I think that the kind of music that was buzzing in U2's ears at that time was well and truly alive in Europe, but was still a couple of years away from really breaking in the US. Strike 1

- Once the album actually dropped, Discotheque wasn't the best choice of lead single, but it still shot straight into # 1 in many parts of the globe. But with the US attitude even before a note being heard of "It's going to be crap" mixed with it's sounds and themes, and 'that' video, it completely sunk. As some of the above posts say, many people didn't even want to give the rest of the album a chance. Strike 2

- Without the fear and misunderstanding of what the album was meant to be, and being a couple of years ahead of the US in musical understanding (in regards to what were the influences on this record) the rest of the world were happy to listen on, and happily lapped it all up. It was instantly understood. In a nutshell, Europe etc 'got' it, the US didn't (I'm not being condescending and saying that if you didn't like Pop it's simply because you are dumb and didn't 'get it', I'm summarising a whole musical environment).

- In 1997 it was still decidedly uncool in the US to proclaim yourselves as a large and commercial rock band. To be cool you had to sulk and moan and act as if being on stage and famous and everything was the worst ever and you didn't want to know about it, you were only doing it because you really, really had to. You were decidedly not cool if you played even in arenas, it must be only to a thousand people at once in a dirty club for that all important credibility. The US liked their rock stars to be dark and brooding and grumpy. U2 come bounding over to the US, sit there in a KMart and announce they are putting on the worlds biggest, brightest, most showy stadium show. So, so, so not cool in the US rock climate of the time. U2 are ridiculed for it. It seems a lot of the rock community are wishing it to fail before it's begun. .
Strike 3 Pop & Popmart are dead before they've really gotten off the ground.

- Pop and Popmart were not meant to be ironic. Bono then, as he still is today, was calling out those brooding rockers and trying to kick their butts up into the spotlight. Popmart was a spectacle. The biggest. The brightest. The boldest. The screen. The outfits. The ridiculousness of the stage set and the lemon. It was a pie in the face of all those Kurt Cobain wannabes standing there with their hair in their face, staring at their torn up All Stars, telling anyone who listen that they hate what they do. It was a challenge aimed squarely at them. THIS is what rock should do. In this interview from a few days ago he's talking about how pop music and hip hop in the US are taking away from rock because of their brightness and boldness and unabashed need to succeed, versus rocks stale gloominess and denial of itself. That's exactly what Popmart was about. Again the UK was a few steps ahead of the US, and pop music was starting to tear into rocks domain. Remember a small act called the Spice Girls? There were many others and the US was soon to follow with the Backstreet Boys/NSync/Britney Spears and then the floodgates opened. Bono's message today is the same as then. Pop and Popmart was U2 taking the new and creative, mixing it with what was distinctly U2, and make it big and bold and bright on a mammoth scale. Again, it went down a treat around the world. In the US however, it was not communicated well at all, and the point went over most peoples heads. Here was U2 - silly, arrogant U2 - with this silly dance record and this stupid big attention seeking show. What about the music... man?!?

- There is absolutely no doubt that U2 were actually on the money back in 1997. The following 5 or 6 years in rock will be pretty much passed over. Pop music and hip-hop went massive, often backed by slick electronica influenced production and gimmicks. Ridiculously massive. Rock over the past couple of years is starting to inch back, and it's doing that on the backs of bright, colourful, bold bands. It's not doom and gloom music. It's snappy. It's rockin' in a powerful, energetic way. And, what I was getting to in another thread, check the music out - a lot of it has a very, very strong electronic backing. You can see The Killers up there on the Popmart stage can't you? Fast, bright pulsing songs with both feet firmly planted in rock, but with the boundaries filled out by electronica wizardry. And where did U2 choose as the ultimate kick off to Popmart? Where are The Killers from? It all does tie together. U2 knew exactly what rock needed to do to fight the musical climate that was just hitting, and everyone else is onto it now.

- U2 were dead right on Pop. The execution and timing in the US was dead wrong. The rest of the world were musically a couple of steps ahead of the US in 1997 and they lapped it up. If Pop and Popmart hit in about 2002, making only slight adjustments for the 5 year difference, I think it would have been a mammoth success in the US.

I'm could continue on from here and kinda merge these thoughts with the other thread on U2's current direction right into the heart of pop music, but won't.....

 

[ultraviolet7]

But here's where we appear to have a difference of opinion: I think U2 did consciously try and sell Pop as a dance/electronica album---it was not just the press and pre-release rumours. They have to take responsibility for their own image. No matter how many people come on here and say, "Mofo? A dance track? You've never heard a Chemical Brothers' album!", to the general public, that's dance/electronica. To U2's longtime fans, that's dance/electronica. To Americans, that's dance/electronica. And it was not what most of us wanted to hear.

While I agree with Earnie that Pop is anything but a dance/electronica album, I can see that people might have seen it as such. The imagery, the sonic frills, the title Discotheque did help to convey that image. However it is rather surprising that so many people cringed at it as if it couldn't be expected after something like Zooropa which in parts is more extreme than Pop. But then IMV Zooropa wasn't viewed at the time as a full fledged release (it was intended as an EP originally) and I have the impression that many fans didn't take it seriously but rather as a whim on the band's part, something like the need to reflect the Zoo TV spirit, which would be long gone by the time of the next release.

For the first time, it didn't seem like U2 was creating its own sound. It seemed like it was glomming onto the current trend of the moment. And it turned millions of us off. The have to take responsibility for that too.

Pop never struck me as that U2 was not creating its own sound - on the very contrary, it always gave me the impression that U2 managed to tweak rock 'n roll one step further. It sounded (and yet does) very new and unique. It's not clear to me what you mean by "they have to take responsibility for that (the fact that it turned millions of fans off)".
Do they have to apologise for not coming up with what fans expected?

Ok...so when I finally got around to listening to it...and I won't even say when that was, except to say many YEARS later....you're right. It's not as left field as one would think. But you know how one sour taste of something can turn you off to that thing for years to come, sometimes even forever? That's how I feel about Pop. I'll never truly dig that album because of the afforementioned reasons, fairly or not. Having said that, the other major problem with Pop is still the music. It just does not stack up with the rest of the catalog, pre-1997. (I won't even get into the two most recent albums).

I can understand this - bias is tricky to deal with. Something similar happened to me with Beautiful Day. The first time I heard the song on a u2.com preview I almost threw up. I couldn't believe that such an inane pop song was the follow-up to the monumental glory of Pop. BD isn't probably as bad as I heard it - but I still can't stand it.

So here's another theory of mine that I've been considering...I think I fall right into that age range of what would be considered "Prototypical U2 Fan". I'm almost 38 now, which means I was a teenager when they first broke, in my early twenties for the Josh/Hum/Baby era, and almost 26 for Zooropa.
So othen FOUR years go by before I hear another peep out of my favorite band. In the meantime, there's Nirvana, Pearl Jam, lots of other hard rocking stuff. And the next time I see them they're wearing leather chaps and police hats and shit. And I'm almost thirty now, right? And it's like, "What the f?" And then someone says "Oh, they're being IRONIC!" And I'm thinking, "Haven't I seen them be ironic before? Are they still into this 'look, we're silly rock stars' crap four years later? What the hell have they been doing?" While these other bands are capturing my imagination, U2 is playing dress-up.

Whilst older fans may tend to cling to what made them fans in the first place, I don't think age is the primary reason for a negative reaction to album like Pop. I believe that the sort of music you are listening to at the moment, how you perceive music at a certain stage of your personal life experience and what you expect to listen from your fave band are reasons to be given more weight. Contrarily to what you felt and having myself indulged profusely in grunge (STP and Soundgarden are among my fave bands - though they never "captured my imagination" - they rather satisfied my thirst for power rock) I did see an evolution in U2 after Zooropa. Pop is an extremely interesting album to me, in the theme, in the sonics, in the way new tools could be used in a rock album and make it work.

I can't help but wonder if ANYTHING U2 did at that point would have fascinated me again like it did before that. Perhaps I was just reaching that point in my life where my youthful feelings about U2 would never quite be the same. But they sure as hell did a great job of shoving me out the door. I wonder if there are many other fans who fall into my age range who feel the same way. Anybody?

Well, it was probably time to part with U2. I understand you may feel pissed of after so many years but you can hardly hold the band responsible for not making the sort of music you expected them to make. I happen to fall in your age group - roughly U2-old lol, but my experience is somewhat different. I've been following this band for 22 years now and I'm still here albeit the last two albums because they are the only band that managed to keep me interested for so long. My youthful feelings about U2 were undoubtedly not the same during the 90s, but then I was 10+ years older! I feel that the band's musical changes have punctuated my own personal life changes and the themes tackled at each stage have been in sync with my personal experience at the same time. That is one of the main reasons this band is so special to me. However, as from ATYCLB onwards this has changed and U2's music isn't at this point speaking to me as it was. However I can hardly blame the band for making music I don't find as inspiring as before.

 

[U2DMfan]

-

- There is absolutely no doubt that U2 were actually on the money back in 1997. The following 5 or 6 years in rock will be pretty much passed over. Pop music and hip-hop went massive, often backed by slick electronica influenced production and gimmicks. Ridiculously massive. Rock over the past couple of years is starting to inch back, and it's doing that on the backs of bright, colourful, bold bands. It's not doom and gloom music. It's snappy. It's rockin' in a powerful, energetic way. And, what I was getting to in another thread, check the music out - a lot of it has a very, very strong electronic backing. You can see The Killers up there on the Popmart stage can't you? Fast, bright pulsing songs with both feet firmly planted in rock, but with the boundaries filled out by electronica wizardry. And where did U2 choose as the ultimate kick off to Popmart? Where are The Killers from? It all does tie together. U2 knew exactly what rock needed to do to fight the musical climate that was just hitting, and everyone else is onto it now.

I didn't know which part of your post to comment on, you and I seem to be on the same page about everything.

This above quote about current music scene and POP being ahead of it's time are spot on.

There is still some residual irony about POP satirizing pop culture, and mass consumerism, and the whole idea U2 turned away from it was because the mass consumers and pop culture shunned it.

I mean weren't they basically poking fun at it all? Maybe Americans were just put off by it. Maybe they "got it" and said "you can fuck off, U2." I think it's in between the murky middle somewhere. I don't see it as the failure many people see it, I think it sold well, the tour sold well relatively speaking.
I am not sure U2 understood the American audience then, and I don't think they do now. I am not sure they ever did, maybe that's why they were so popular for so long.

One more thing to clarify what I mean, by them not understanding the American audience:

The whole concept of the "relavance" they covet here.
I've gone on and on about it in other posts, you get the idea by now.

Also, taking a rock opera to the American public that basically says "mass consumerism is swallowing up God and your soul" and then being surprised when the consumers didn't get it on a large wide basis. If they got it in the first place (in large part) they would either be laughing along with you, or pointing an accusing finger at you. If they didn't get it, well it's just not gonna work is it? I think more than anything U2 like to fly in the face of what is normal and accepted, and they are naturally European, probably are a lot more in touch with them than us.

I think a good number of Americans got it, including me. Half of them say the music still sucks, half of them say it is brilliant, maybe that was the whole idea. "You are going to buy into this fully, or you are going to drop it like yesterday's news" Doesn't seem to be a lot of the in-between around here in "die-hard fan land".

I guess POP was a bold abberation in U2's history. If it worked or didn't work, it was at least big and bold, and the fact that the band thinks it didn't work, means it's doomed for the future, and we won't be seeing a mirror balled lemon anytime soon.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Can I just add my little prediction for the future....

I believe most of the 'new' rock around here is pretty formulative and deriviative. It's burst it's way back into the charts, and it's done so with a 'real' feeling. ie Nickleback with their pop grunge or Linkin Park with their "we rock hard with a DJ" aren't what I'm talking about. The Killers, The White Stripes & Franz Ferdinand are (and lot's of others). But still, it's not 'really' anything new. It started with The Strokes and is currently The Killers.

The big break out is yet to come.

My prediction?

It will be lyricaly and thematicaly dark, heavy and deep. People will be able to swim in it and dream with it and relate it to their lives, but escape with it to some place else at the same time. It will be first and foremost rock. But it will incorporate the most innovative points of the moment. The hip swinging beat will be there, and the guitar will play around it. 'Electronica' and all the technology available will fill out it's edges. It will be ambitious. It will want to make you get up and shake your ass in a club and it will tear you apart and change your life in a stadium at the same time. It will scale and dominate the charts without compromising a millimetre of it's soul.

It will sound a lot like U2 circa 1997.

But it won't come from U2. They've jumped ship.

 

[bathiu]

the tour sold well relatively speaking.

I'd say more than "well":

http://www.u2world.com/news/article.php3?id_article=306

Source : USA Today

Condensed from USA Today:

Top-grossing tours of ’97 (in millions)

U2 $138.5
Rolling Stones $89.4
Micheal Jackson $83.5

 

[ultraviolet7]

- There is absolutely no doubt that U2 were actually on the money back in 1997. The following 5 or 6 years in rock will be pretty much passed over. Pop music and hip-hop went massive, often backed by slick electronica influenced production and gimmicks. Ridiculously massive. Rock over the past couple of years is starting to inch back, and it's doing that on the backs of bright, colourful, bold bands. It's not doom and gloom music. It's snappy. It's rockin' in a powerful, energetic way. And, what I was getting to in another thread, check the music out - a lot of it has a very, very strong electronic backing. You can see The Killers up there on the Popmart stage can't you? Fast, bright pulsing songs with both feet firmly planted in rock, but with the boundaries filled out by electronica wizardry. And where did U2 choose as the ultimate kick off to Popmart? Where are The Killers from? It all does tie together. U2 knew exactly what rock needed to do to fight the musical climate that was just hitting, and everyone else is onto it now.

- U2 were dead right on Pop. The execution and timing in the US was dead wrong. The rest of the world were musically a couple of steps ahead of the US in 1997 and they lapped it up. If Pop and Popmart hit in about 2002, making only slight adjustments for the 5 year difference, I think it would have been a mammoth success in the US.

I'm could continue on from here and kinda merge these thoughts with the other thread on U2's current direction right into the heart of pop music, but won't.....

Interesting analysis. Which brings us back to present day U2. Based on this theory (which seems logical), I guess the band which envisioned so clearly this panorama and led the way for new bands to follow up some years later (yes, I agree Pop was well ahead of its time) should be more aware than anybody else that they hit right on the nail with Pop/Popmart. Why do think they chose to move away from this ideal panorama? Because the US audience didn't get it? But US audience is now getting bands like The Killers. What about the rest of the world who apparently did get it? Don't they count at all? Why are U2 still fiddling with the idea of reworking Pop a la 2000+? Why does the band, which led this phenomenom leave the repositioning of rock 'n roll into the big picture to acts which aren't half as popular as they are? If U2 is interested in this "cause", as Bono seems to suggest, why aren't they embracing it themselves? Or do they think they are? Are they relaying to the new bands? Or could it be that they see things differently?
I wonder.

 

[bathiu]

It will sound a lot like U2 circa 1997.

But it won't come from U2. They've jumped ship.

Some places of the new Gorillaz album come to mind for example...

 

[JOFO]

the American market needs it kept simple in terms that they understand.

not all of us.

I didn't consider pop a dance record, wasn't turned off discotecque, thought the video was funny, and listened to the record non stop for the summer of 97. it was a sparkling record.

the one thing I agree with is that they took the "we're being ironic" bit too far. I had had enough of that by 97....because it was a 6 year old idea for them by then.

 

[U2girl]

I think u2girl and U2Kitten don't get Pop.

*runs away before the flames come in*

This is not for you Zootlesque, but for the person you quoted:

It's a good thing Ignore button helps avoiding reading broken records type of opinions of arrrogant people who obviously need an ego check if they seriously think they're the chosen ones who can "enlighten" everyone else.

the not getting it argument is too pathetic - and old - it's not even worth replying.

 

[bathiu]

Maybe I'll be the first one to ask this question to this kind of empty post... yes U2girl I'm talking to you, you're one of the laudest about that "people didn't get it" argument is stupid and lame...
Why don't you tell us then... how will you explain POP... how did you "get it"... and we'll tell if you're right.

 

[RobH]

Good stuff going on in here....

More thoughts...

Ok, so I understand about how U2 wanted to embrace being rock stars, be BIG while other bands were trying to remain 'credible' and all. But they did that on Zoo TV already. I was weirded out by Acthung Baby at first---I'll admit it---but then I totally understood---and I loved it. I 'got' it! Then Zooropa comes out---I love the post that in essence says, 'people gave it a free pass because it was supposed to be an EP, an extension of Achtung'. That's right on. Sort of like the free pass given to Rattle & Hum being an extension of Josh.

Ok, now I, like many savy U2 fans, know that the band always does everything in three's. I know that they still have one more album coming that 'fits in' with the other two. What will it be like? What challenging new direction will it take me? I know it's not going to be a return to 'basic rock-n-roll'. But I'm wondering, "How can they push this further, being that they already gave us the 'wrap-up, leftovers, things that didn't fit on Acthung' album (Zooropa) (Hell, the title alone was so reminiscent of the last opening track and tour that it seemed dangerously close to self-parody at that point). But ok, I'm still down with the band.

And then--and I stressed this in the original post--4 years go by. I've seen the 70's parody videos by Spike Jonez(?) and the Beastie Boys. I know all about trance and raves and DJ"s as rock stars. (Though it's not my thing) So I'm thinking, there's no way THAT"S what the new U2 album will incorporate. After all they're innovators, not followers. They won't parody a 70's video. They won't sublimate the vocals under some electronica noise. Leave that to the other guys.

Now I know what you're saying Earnie---Pop is not primarily a dance album. It's 'rock' with some dance influences. Strip it down and you've got guitars and bass lines and all. And that's what I meant when I previously agreed that it's not as left field as some people think. But I still feel it was an appropriation of what was 'currently cool'. I saw no hint of U2 steering the ship. It seemed like the ship was steering them And I'd never felt that way before. Mind you, I would have felt just as annoyed if they had shown up in flannel shirts while Edge crunched his power chords. And I LIKED that at the time, so it's not the fact that I perceived them as latching on to the WRONG trend, it's that I perceived thm as latching on to ANY trend.

I thought U2 got lazy with Pop. And I know that is the polar opposite of what many other people think. They think they got ultra-creative. I just couldn't shake that sense of 'been there, seen that'. This coming from a guy who held a 1970's party in 1988. Who saw Moby at a rave in 1992. I just didn't see the progression. I'll state---for myself and a lot of others on here who get pigeonholed in to the "well, you wanted the OLD U2 back". No. I just wanted a new U2 that sounded, looked, and acted fresher.

For the record, the 'old U2' is back, and I'm not that much happier for it. In my opinion, ATYCLB was terrible--in some ways as bad as Pop. "Beautiful Day" fits right in with the music I get my teeth drilled to. The new album has it's moments. I guess I feel the way a lot of people do--it's their 'best' album in years. But that's not saying much.

I thought about this last night. If we compare U2 to the Stones right now, I guess you'd have to say that Achtung, Zoo, and Pop are like their Some Girls and Emotional Rescue--polarizing albums in the catalog that some feel are brilliant, others feel are weak. (Though Acthung is probably much more highly regarded than either of those two Stones albums) Then Tatoo You comes along and tries to reclaim the 'kings of rock-n-roll' status, a la All and Bomb. Let's just hope U2 doesn't have a "Steel Wheels" or a "Vodoo Lounge" still left in them.

 

[JOFO]

let's not forget these elements in this mix:

1. the association with batman and the cartoon video for HMTMKMKM.

2. passengers.

3. adam and larry doing mission impossible.

I think alot of people just wanted u2 to come out with a more rootsy record at that point (97). it had been since the fall of 91 since they put out a real rock album. zooropa, while great, is not a rock album; it's an experimental sort of EP wannbe with a ton of electronics.