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

[Zoots]

^ Yeah I like that! So the record would end with the title song kinda summarising the whole mood of the album.

 

[U2girl]

You think I'm a review or critic?

Needless to say, I am in disagreement. Being a very artsy person myself, I am big into knowing the ideas and concepts behind art and generally deem it fact that to have a full understanding, appreciation, or lack of appreciation of art, you have to know the idea.

But we're not going to change each other's minds.

I don't know...are you?

Of course the opinion about a piece of art is more valid if you know the concept and ideas - that is why there are critics and reviewers.
I just meant that doesn't stop millions of other people from having an opinion about art, and to like it on a purely subjective level.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

i think this whole alternate title thing is a bit silly.

 

[Meghan]

I'm just glad this thread isn't quite as angry as it was a couple of pages ago!

'Pop''s a good title in my opinion. Same as Achtung Baby -- it's such a heavy record you need to lighten it up with a silly title.

Godzilla would have been pretty cool though.

 

[The_Edge89]

I just found this..haven't seen it before.
What's the story of that other title..."Expect nothing but the best"?!
Why just don't call it "POP-II" or simply "POP" ?
Why re-do the artwork?

Btw: they all look pretty silly in those skin colors, Edge's like: "what's happened to me?"

 

[one4u2]

I just found this..haven't seen it before.
What's the story of that other title..."Expect nothing but the best"?!
Why just don't call it "POP-II" or simply "POP" ?
Why re-do the artwork?

Btw: they all look pretty silly in those skin colors, Edge's like: "what's happened to me?"

 

[shart1780]

Wait, what's this remastering Pop business?

You'll probably hate me for saying this... but I want them to. Not because I disliked the original, but because I'm a sucker for new stuff and would be absolutely giddy to hear a remixed album.

What are the chances that they're gonna do this??

 

[namkcuR]

So I've just been listening to Pop again and I need to say three things:

#1: After listening to the original and new mix of Gone back-to-back, over and over again, and after much debate with myself, I still come to the conclusion that the original is better. Each version has its strengths, but those strengths are in volume and mixing. What I mean is, we can say the best of mix sounds better because it has the keyboards in the chorus...but the original has them too, they're just mixed in the background rather than the foreground and, as such, aren't so prevelant. And in the original, there's a gorgeous Yorke-esque Edge backing vocal that starts about 2/3 of the way into the song. On the original, it can be heard loud and clear, on the best of mix, it's there, but it's been relogated to 'need to be listening very intently or ideally with headphones to hear it in the background' status. The only things in the best of version that are really new are the addition of Edge's 'down's during the chorus, and Bono's vocal seems to be a new one throughout the song. For me, the original recording fits the Pop mood better, and it is more subtle in its execution, so I prefer it.

P.S.The other best of mixes aren't worth talking about.

#2: I go back and forth on this but right now I'm 'forth' in thinking that the single versions of IGWSHA, LNOE, and especially Please, are superior to their album counterparts.

With a tracklisting of

Discotheque(original)
Do You Feel Loved(original)
Mofo(original)
If God Will Send His Angels(single)
Staring At The Sun(original)
Last Night On Earth(single)
Gone(original)
Miami(original)
The Playboy Mansion(original)
If You Wear That Velvet Dress(original)
Please(single)
Wake Up Dead Man(original)

Pop doesn't NEED to be re-recorded...of course, like I said before, the artist has a much broader perspective on what could have been than you or I ever could.


#3:
Listening to Pop again, it has become more than obvious to me that the only reason this record was commercially unsuccessful was because it was a U2 record. There are a multitude of other bands from the mid-late 90s that, had they recorded and released this record, it would have been a massive commercial success. Because the music is superb. But people have expectations for a U2 record - namely that it sounds like a U2 record - and when the band dared to record an album of which a good portion of the songs were very un-U2, people didn't want to hear it. These are the same people that refer to ATYCLB as U2's third masterpiece. But that is it, because it was a U2 record, that is the only, or at least the biggest, reason it wasn't a commercial success. All this stuff about the presentation or the videos or the tour or the unfinishedness of some songs, none of that was as big a factor in the lack of commercial success for Pop as the fact that it was a U2 record was. A multitude of bands from the time period could have been very successful with that record.

 

[Zoots]

So I've just been listening to Pop again and I need to say three things:

#1: After listening to the original and new mix of Gone back-to-back, over and over again, and after much debate with myself, I still come to the conclusion that the original is better. Each version has its strengths, but those strengths are in volume and mixing. What I mean is, we can say the best of mix sounds better because it has the keyboards in the chorus...but the original has them too, they're just mixed in the background rather than the foreground and, as such, aren't so prevelant. And in the original, there's a gorgeous Yorke-esque Edge backing vocal that starts about 2/3 of the way into the song. On the original, it can be heard loud and clear, on the best of mix, it's there, but it's been relogated to 'need to be listening very intently or ideally with headphones to hear it in the background' status. The only things in the best of version that are really new are the addition of Edge's 'down's during the chorus, and Bono's vocal seems to be a new one throughout the song. For me, the original recording fits the Pop mood better, and it is more subtle in its execution, so I prefer it.

P.S.The other best of mixes aren't worth talking about.

I prefer the original mainly because the siren sounds sooo much cooler. Don't care much for the keyboards in the new mix. Keyboards are everywhere in pop/rock but very few artists experiment with sounds such as in the album version of Gone.

There's no doubt that the other mixes aren't even worth talking about.

With a tracklisting of

Discotheque(original)
Do You Feel Loved(original)
Mofo(original)
If God Will Send His Angels(single)
Staring At The Sun(original)
Last Night On Earth(single)
Gone(original)
Miami(original)
The Playboy Mansion(original)
If You Wear That Velvet Dress(original)
Please(single)
Wake Up Dead Man(original)

Pop doesn't NEED to be re-recorded...of course, like I said before, the artist has a much broader perspective on what could have been than you or I ever could.

I agree. I would like to listen to that version again but don't have those single versions on mp3.

#3:
Listening to Pop again, it has become more than obvious to me that the only reason this record was commercially unsuccessful was because it was a U2 record. There are a multitude of other bands from the mid-late 90s that, had they recorded and released this record, it would have been a massive commercial success. Because the music is superb. But people have expectations for a U2 record - namely that it sounds like a U2 record - and when the band dared to record an album of which a good portion of the songs were very un-U2, people didn't want to hear it. These are the same people that refer to ATYCLB as U2's third masterpiece. But that is it, because it was a U2 record, that is the only, or at least the biggest, reason it wasn't a commercial success. All this stuff about the presentation or the videos or the tour or the unfinishedness of some songs, none of that was as big a factor in the lack of commercial success for Pop as the fact that it was a U2 record was. A multitude of bands from the time period could have been very successful with that record.

So true!!! esp. the part about people expecting U2 to sound like U2 all the time, the same people who call ATYCLB the third masterpiece.

 

[ultraviolet7]

So I've just been listening to Pop again and I need to say three things:

#1: After listening to the original and new mix of Gone back-to-back, over and over again, and after much debate with myself, I still come to the conclusion that the original is better. Each version has its strengths, but those strengths are in volume and mixing. What I mean is, we can say the best of mix sounds better because it has the keyboards in the chorus...but the original has them too, they're just mixed in the background rather than the foreground and, as such, aren't so prevelant. And in the original, there's a gorgeous Yorke-esque Edge backing vocal that starts about 2/3 of the way into the song. On the original, it can be heard loud and clear, on the best of mix, it's there, but it's been relogated to 'need to be listening very intently or ideally with headphones to hear it in the background' status. The only things in the best of version that are really new are the addition of Edge's 'down's during the chorus, and Bono's vocal seems to be a new one throughout the song. For me, the original recording fits the Pop mood better, and it is more subtle in its execution, so I prefer it.

I didn't need to debate much with myself to reach the same conclusion. IMV with this new version Gone completely lost its spirit. No density, no fuzziness, no BASS (the very core of the original), no interesting sound layering, and a vocal line which despite being better performed as singing technique goes and better EQd by the engineering team fails to capture the groove the original conveyed, and worse still sounds jammed into a track in which it hardly fits in some parts (i.e. bridge). The real dimension of comparison stands out when A-B-ing both tracks adjusted in volume so that they sound equally loud - IMV in this stance the new mix can't in any possible way measure up to the original. However I can see why people who weren't too keen on Pop like this version better.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

The only 'new' version of a Pop song I've prefered over the original is If God Will Send His Angels, and simply because they let it go just that bit longer and you get the falsetto. For a while it bugged me that you could hear that kick in just as the song was fading on the album.

Otherwise - Album version all the way.

 

[Chizip]

i think U2 are kind of kidding themselves when they say the album was crap because they didnt have time to finish it or whatever

if they had the extra month like they said they needed, would they have fixed it so it would have sold millions of more records?

no, it would have sold the same amount of copies but they wouldnt have had the excuse of it "not being finished"

 

[Pero]

You know what?

POP FUCKING ROCKS

 

[Zoots]

You know what?

POP FUCKING ROCKS

AMEN. And it's very well written too.

Bono, don't be a homo... accept Pop as your own child.

 

[U2girl]

#3:
Listening to Pop again, it has become more than obvious to me that the only reason this record was commercially unsuccessful was because it was a U2 record. There are a multitude of other bands from the mid-late 90s that, had they recorded and released this record, it would have been a massive commercial success. Because the music is superb. But people have expectations for a U2 record - namely that it sounds like a U2 record - and when the band dared to record an album of which a good portion of the songs were very un-U2, people didn't want to hear it. These are the same people that refer to ATYCLB as U2's third masterpiece. But that is it, because it was a U2 record, that is the only, or at least the biggest, reason it wasn't a commercial success. All this stuff about the presentation or the videos or the tour or the unfinishedness of some songs, none of that was as big a factor in the lack of commercial success for Pop as the fact that it was a U2 record was. A multitude of bands from the time period could have been very successful with that record.

You know, I don't think it's ever been a crime to sound like yourself for a band. Pop, just like other U2 albums, has U2 sounding songs and for the "dance and daring" album it sure has lots of straightforward rock songs.

Presentation of it as a more "techno" than it really was, the first video and the first leg of the tour had everything to do why it failed.

 

[U2Kitten]

You know, I don't think it's ever been a crime to sound like yourself for a band.

Exactly! I remember reading one article from 2001 where Bono said he originally rejected the BD riff as 'too much like the Edge, too much like U2' Edge replied "But I AM THE EDGE! We ARE U2! What's wrong with that?" Sometimes running from yourself and trying to force yourself to be something you're not is not the best thing.

of it as a more "techno" than it really was, the first video and the first leg of the tour had everything to do why it failed.

Exactly right again, though few here will admit that The image in general, the Lemon, the stage set, the Halloween-eque costumes, also hurt their image and reputation and tainted the public's perception of the entire album. While some of you may say 'they were laughing at themselves', well, people were laughing at them, too, but not in a positive way It was a misstep, a bad move. We all make them.

I was watching my Hall of Fame DVD today (sent to me by a nice interferencer since I don't have cable) and I noticed, among many other things, that Pop was generally ignored in the history and clips of the band, as well as the songs played, either live or in clips. There was only one brief shot of Bono in the muscle shirt, other than that, it was avoided in favor of other eras, which were showed extensively.

BTW, he also dissed October, saying how there was a chance after it there could never have been a War, JT, or U2 as we know them today, and that record companies need to give bands a break if they make a mistake with an album and let them have another chance. So I think it's safe to say the band considers October and Pop to be the lowest moments. But that doesn't mean fans can't like them anyway, just don't try to deny it.

 

[bathiu]

Just to give some food for your minds... but maybe... just maybe this all talk from the band is a comercial move, to please american fans maybe...
Why?
That's why:
http://forum.interference.com/t129088.html

...so it's unfinished... needs rework... is not played in U.S.... but since it was a huge album in Europe (in my country even bigger than ATYCLB both in sales and on radio charts) so they will play some songs...
ehh... money...

 

[namkcuR]

You know, I don't think it's ever been a crime to sound like yourself for a band. Pop, just like other U2 albums, has U2 sounding songs and for the "dance and daring" album it sure has lots of straightforward rock songs.

Presentation of it as a more "techno" than it really was, the first video and the first leg of the tour had everything to do why it failed.

No. I'm telling you, there are literally a handful of bands from the mid-late 90s that could have released the same record and had more success with it simply because it wouldn't be a U2 record.

 

[namkcuR]

Exactly! I remember reading one article from 2001 where Bono said he originally rejected the BD riff as 'too much like the Edge, too much like U2' Edge replied "But I AM THE EDGE! We ARE U2! What's wrong with that?" Sometimes running from yourself and trying to force yourself to be something you're not is not the best thing.



Exactly right again, though few here will admit that The image in general, the Lemon, the stage set, the Halloween-eque costumes, also hurt their image and reputation and tainted the public's perception of the entire album. While some of you may say 'they were laughing at themselves', well, people were laughing at them, too, but not in a positive way It was a misstep, a bad move. We all make them.

I was watching my Hall of Fame DVD today (sent to me by a nice interferencer since I don't have cable) and I noticed, among many other things, that Pop was generally ignored in the history and clips of the band, as well as the songs played, either live or in clips. There was only one brief shot of Bono in the muscle shirt, other than that, it was avoided in favor of other eras, which were showed extensively.

BTW, he also dissed October, saying how there was a chance after it there could never have been a War, JT, or U2 as we know them today, and that record companies need to give bands a break if they make a mistake with an album and let them have another chance. So I think it's safe to say the band considers October and Pop to be the lowest moments. But that doesn't mean fans can't like them anyway, just don't try to deny it.

Pop > Every U2 record except for AB. And if the band really thought the music on the record was crap, why would they ever want to re-record it? They want to re-record it because they know the music is some of the best of their career and they hope beyond hope that if they can do whatever it is they consider to be 'finishing' to it, that maybe all the fans that think the record is such crap could be turned on to it.

 

[U2Kitten]

if the band really thought the music on the record was crap, why would they ever want to re-record it?

If they didn't think it was crap, they wouldn't bother considering re-recording it!

I don't think they hate it the way some fans do, I think they are disappointed in the way it turned out and wish there were things they could have done over (like ditching that lemon and wearing normal clothes!) I do think they want to change it to be something more people will like, or something they can be proud of. Sometimes an artist of any type will look back on something he did years ago and see what he 'shoulda' done, and what can be done now to improve it in his opinion. If Pop were redone, some of you who love it may not like it, the way you don't like the remixes. But others might like it. For example, I always hated Discotetheque and cringed at the ignorance and crappiness of the 'boomchas' and once the boomchas were gone, I was actually able to tolerate the song. However, if they do redo it, they should always still leave the original available for those who like it like it is.

Take George Lucas for example. When he put his movies on DVD, he changed things that fans had loved for years, like the ending of Return of the Jedi. When I first heard about this, I thought it was an outrage, never mess with art, never mess with our memories, I loved it like it was and didnn't want it changed. I know people who are mad at Lucas for doing that. But- once I saw the new versions, I was like, WOW! Yes, that's better, good move, George. He had a better idea in retrospect, and changed it. That's probably what U2 is thinking of doing.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

I just found this..haven't seen it before.
What's the story of that other title..."Expect nothing but the best"?!
Why just don't call it "POP-II" or simply "POP" ?
Why re-do the artwork?

Btw: they all look pretty silly in those skin colors, Edge's like: "what's happened to me?"

i'm confused. if you don't think it should be done why did you make a new album cover with the bad photoshop?

 

[U2girl]

No. I'm telling you, there are literally a handful of bands from the mid-late 90s that could have released the same record and had more success with it simply because it wouldn't be a U2 record.

See, I think the only reason it got as far as it did in sales was because of the name U2 on it.

 

[thrillme]

I've only been a U2 fan for 5 years, I got the hindsight that those who've been U2 fans for years, didn't.

I caught a VH1 special about U2 very early in 2001, and had U2's history up to that point, shown to me.

Maybe because of that, I was able to like Pop easier than say, those who were fans for years, who maybe had expectations.
I had no expectations when I first started getting in to U2.

I cracked up the first time I saw the "Discotheque" video though. I had seen where these guys came from, so I can only imagine the shock having "grown up" with them, but somehow I would think what happened with ZooTV/Achtung Baby would've prepared some people for Popmart.

I dunno, I say leave Pop alone, and put out new records. Pop should be reworked if U2 decide to pack it, so they've something to do in retirement, ye know. Golf is no-no for U2 (not sure why though) so they can go back and improve their work.

I do understand about wanting to improve it, there's things I've made in my art classes that I really wanted to do better, but I ran out of time, but fixing them won't change my grades now.

Fix it, improve it, sure, but only if it's for their own sense of improvement, not because it was considered a flop in the U.S.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

See, I think the only reason it got as far as it did in sales was because of the name U2 on it.

I disagree stongly. U2girl, were you following what was going on in the US music scene in 1997? There was nothing that could be more uncool than being a band the size of U2. No matter what they released then, no matter what sound it had, no matter how they toured it, they were facing a massive uphill battle from the start. If they released ATYCLB in 1997 you could instantly wipe 2-3 million sales off the total they eventually got with it in 2000.

Bono in virtually every interview then, as he still is now, was harassing the dull, introspective, navel gazing US music scene which in 1997 DOMINATED. The smaller and more unknown the band, the better. The more underground and indie cool, the better. The more they shunned the bright lights and fame and everything, the better.

If Pop were a debut release by some little band working the club scene and recording out of their basement in some otherwise unknown town in a decidedly un-rock state somewhere in the US, that thing would have been hailed as one of the single most outstanding breakout albums of the decade. It still would be today in 2005 and that band would no doubt be the Big New Thing.

Before the first note or lyric of Pop had ever been conceived in Bono and The Edge's heads, whatever shape it was to take, it was destined to be up for a huge fight on the US market simply because it would have the U2 name on the front of it. It was the big question mark hanging over the whole project way, way before anything was known about it, it's title, it's style, it's themes, anything, and it was a question publicly asked a million times during that period before it's release. How are U2 going to survive in a music scene that is against everything U2 are?

 

[U2girl]

Exactly, the size of U2.

Little bands don't get a top 10 hit and 7 million sales, and most definitely the promotion and media coverage a huge band like U2 gets with every release.

I thought it was about techno not being all that it was supposed to be US at the time.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Exactly, the size of U2.

Little bands don't get a top 10 hit and 7 million sales, and most definitely the promotion and media coverage a huge band like U2 gets with every release.

I thought it was about techno not being all that it was supposed to be US at the time.

Pffft....

We'll spell it out simply.

Were Pops sales in the US effected positively or negatively due to the U2 name on it? I say, in the climate of 1997, negatively. That doesn't mean they don't sell a truckload (Bono burping over an Edge fart solo will sell 2 -3 million). It just sold LESS.

Were Pops sales also effected negatively because it was categorised incorrectly in the US, thus leading many people to believe that it was somehow a 'techno' record? Yes, definitely.

 

[U2girl]

Pffft....

We'll spell it out simply.

Were Pops sales in the US effected positively or negatively due to the U2 name on it? I say, in the climate of 1997, negatively. That doesn't mean they don't sell a truckload (Bono burping over an Edge fart solo will sell 2 -3 million). It just sold LESS.

Were Pops sales also effected negatively because it was categorised incorrectly in the US, thus leading many people to believe that it was somehow a 'techno' record? Yes, definitely.

What hurt Pop is, like you said, wrong categorisation (and image IMO), Discotheque video and first leg with bad attendances and them having problems on tour.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

What hurt Pop is, like you said, wrong categorisation (and image IMO), Discotheque video and first leg with bad attendances and them having problems on tour.

Yes, I definitely think that did 95% of the damage. I still think that in 1997, no matter what image, no matter what sound or tour, a U2 album was entering the toughest market any U2 album had entered. Certainly tougher than 1993 or 2000. It was geared directly against what U2 were, and could not help being no matter what they did. I'm sure anyone who was paying close attention to the US music scene in and around 1997 would agree. Achtung Baby and Zoo TV narrowly missed it. There's a part in the book 'U2: At The End Of The World' where the band are in Italy, and have Pearl Jam as a support act for a few shows. There are comments there from Eddie Vedder about how he can't understand U2's need for the bigness, for the stadium show, for being the sheer size that they are. That was right as Pearl Jam were breaking in the US, right after Nirvana had. That sentiment was about to become the common feeling, and it severely effected all bands of such a big size (and I agree that Zooropa *just* missed it by piggy backing the Achtung/Zoo TV success).

But yes, I agree that what you wrote above are the main reasons.

The whole point of everything I write though is that I don't believe U2 needed to have their own mammoth negative reaction to it. I know the US makes up half of their sales. If they manufactured canned dog food, you'd say "Yes! Do whatever you have to to reclaim the market!!" And I do understand their needing to change if their single biggest market doesn't support their direction. They ARE U2 and always have been obsessed with US sales and relevance.

But I think Pop was a great album. I think what they did with it and the tour were huge risks in the US. Risks that ultimately failed there. However, the climate that Pop and Popmart were in has changed significantly. The music on Pop should make perfect sense to everyone now. The themes of Pop should make perfect sense to everyone now. I don't know how a mammoth stadium tour would go (and I would strongly advise against it), but certainly the boldness and brightness of Popmart should make sense to everyone now. Regardless of how you feel personaly about those songs - the musical style, and the goal they were reaching for should now in 2005 with 8 more years general musical history to use as hindsight, make a hell of a lot more sense. They were right, but they were way too early in the US and they underestimated the taste and musical maturity of the US market (in general) and the size of their competition.

U2 most definitely freaked out over that failure, and that's fine. I know how much the US market means to them. It physicaly makes up 50% of their sales, and seems to emotionaly make up 95% and they've never denied that, they've always proclaimed their want and need to scale the US charts and minds. But post-Pop there was a fundamental shift in the way U2 did things, and it was by far the largest shift of their career. That was kinda covered in another thread, and it's something that I think is a real, real shame. It wasn't a shift in sound, it wasn't a shift in influence. It wasn't a shift in attitude or a shift in style and image. These have all been done before and won some fans and lost some fans. This shift virtually stripped U2 of what made them U2.

 

[Chizip]

I agree that U2 freaked out over the failure, I don't think Bono's ego is good at handling something like that. (And thats not a dig at Bono) I think they use the convenient excuse of them not being able to "finish" the record a little too much. If they did have the extra month that Bono said they needed, would they have really turned the album into one that would have sold a couple million more records? Not likely, the songs would have just been tweaked a bit and the album would have sold the exact same amount. And then what would have been their excuse? Also, suppose that Pop released "as is" did sell a few million more records and was considered a commerical success. Would the band keep saying they were upset they didn't have time to finish it? Not likely again.

So I guess what I'm saying is that it's a shame that U2 does judge the success of a record based on the commercial success rather than the quality of the music.

Also it kind of disappointed me to see Adam say they would play some Pop songs in Europe because the record was more well received there. So basically he is saying U2 aren't playing the songs they think are their best musically throughout the tour, but they are letting commercial success dictate what songs are played where.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Yeah, I agree. A month more in the studio, or even 6 months more in the studio, wouldn't have changed Pops US fortunes at all. The same categorisation, the same market place, the same reaction to it all were still going to happen.

It is U2's reaction and shift that annoy me. Despite Bono still barking on and on about attacking the pop charts, it's simply not what they do now. They don't bring something in from the outside and fight it up the pop charts. They now ARE the pop charts, and the attack is on them. And it's going to be done straight from U2's traditional territory. It didn't have to be that way. I'm sure they still had it in them, but through it away for guaranteed commercial success.