Most Monumental Album Flops...

[phillyfan26]

Pop defenders? You make it sound like people don't have a right to believe that the album is in anyway good. I find it interesting that you believe Popmart finished the songs because very few people would say that the live versions of Angels, Staring At The Sun, Do You Feel Loved and Wake Up Dead Man were better than they were on the album. Then you have songs like Mofo, Please and Gone where very little changed from the album versions to the live versions. Keeping in mind that Playboy Mansion wasn't played live, only four songs on the album really changed for the better on Popmart. That's not exactly "finishing" the album.

The songs they finished:

Discotheque
Mofo
Last Night on Earth
Gone
Miami
If You Wear that Velvet Dress
Please

That's 7 of 12 songs. I should also note that WUDM and SATS were, IMO, finished on the album.

DYFL, Playboy Mansion, and IGWSHA were terrible all the way around.

If you think Mofo, Gone, and Please didn't change on tour, you missed something. Mofo especially changed drastically.

 

[toscano]

the album didnt sell.

and we all know that the best albums are the ones that sell the most........

 

[BVS]

I agree that Pop doesn't have much silver lining and it seems to rest more on interpretation as to how much silver lining ATYCLB has. Uplifting is encouragement and inspiration which I don't think the songs really provide. The songs on ATYCLB are thematically dark with just a little dab of hope. A little dab of hope does not equal inspiration.

Fair enough.

It's also up to the listener. I know some people who find some of the saddest songs to be uplifting, to each it's own.

 

[LemonMelon]

DYFL, Playboy Mansion, and IGWSHA were terrible all the way around.

Sorry, man...this post fails at life.

 

[U2Man]

and we all know that the best albums are the ones that sell the most........

dude, do yourself a favour and read the entire thread before you post. it would make you look so much better.

 

[LemonMelon]

dude, do yourself a favour and read the entire thread before you post. it would make you look so much better.

Exactly. He was just repeating what I've already said several times.

 

[ultraviolet92]

Really? With the exception of POE and WILATW it's a pretty uplifting album. They explore darker themes but with silver lining outcomes.

Stuck is a song about suicide but it's someone reaching out to help someone. BD is about someone who's lost everything but they see the light at the end of the tunnel. Walk On is about finding a way to overcome oppression of sorts. Kite is about some passing but in a life will go on without you'll be alright outlook.

Whereas Pop was dark without much silver lining...

bono said about 5 of the songs on ATYCLB were about a close mate of his michael hutchene.

they both made a promise to each other never to commit suicide and Bono was very hurt when he commited suicide.

i found this out in the special u2 rolling stone magazine

 

[Axver]

but denying that pop was a commercial flop is denying empirical facts.

That is entirely dependent on your standard. By most standards, Pop was a raging success. By the standard of JT/AB, it was a commercial flop, but hell, almost every U2 album is a commercial flop in comparison to those two.

 

[LemonMelon]

You're all ignoring a simple fact:

NOBODY GIVES A DAMN WHETHER OR NOT POP SOLD ENOUGH TO COVER THE COST OF THE SHINY LEMON.

 

[U2Man]

That is entirely dependent on your standard. By most standards, Pop was a raging success. By the standard of JT/AB, it was a commercial flop, but hell, almost every U2 album is a commercial flop in comparison to those two.

i'd say it depends on what the record company and the band expect at the time of release. i can assure you, they had not expected it to only sell around 1/3 of achtung baby and less than zooropa, an extended ep.

 

[Screwtape2]

The songs they finished:

Discotheque
Mofo
Last Night on Earth
Gone
Miami
If You Wear that Velvet Dress
Please

I'm only going to address these. I agree with 3 of the 7.

Mofo's album version has that sense of confusion, anger, loss, desperation and uncertainty that would be associated with losing a loved one. The live version doesn't add anything to that.

The only big difference between the album and live version are Edge's singing of 'down' during the chorus.

Please is the same way. The only major difference is a more militaristic march towards the last verse.

That gives you only 4 songs that improved live. Again that's not "finishing" an album.

 

[BVS]

bono said about 5 of the songs on ATYCLB were about a close mate of his michael hutchene.

they both made a promise to each other never to commit suicide and Bono was very hurt when he commited suicide.

i found this out in the special u2 rolling stone magazine

I never heard him say 5 songs were about him, I can't imagine what the others were. I know there was a lot of speculation if Stuck was about Michael, but he never admitted it until after Michael's wife pasted away in order not to offend her, for she was still clinging to the belief it was an accident.

 

[Axver]

i'd say it depends on what the record company and the band expect at the time of release. i can assure you, they had not expected it to only sell around 1/3 of achtung baby and less than zooropa, an extended ep.

Sure, that's one standard. But how about some others?

In comparison to most bands: raging success.
Making money for the band: raging success.
International chart performance: raging success.

All I'm saying is that there's more than one way to view this, and I'm sick of how stifled this discussion is, especially outside of Interference where you almost never hear anything in praise of Pop. It seems to me that in many cases, the facts are twisted in the service of arguments rather than the facts dictating what the arguments can reasonably be.

 

[LMP]

You can relate Pop to what might happen to Pirates 3:

Pop was expected to be as huge as Achtung or The Joshua Tree, like Pirates 3 is to be as successful as Pirates 2. Analysts predicted it to make 168 this weekend, but because of a "poor" 40 mil on Friday, it might only make 125.

They were expecting the biggest opening weekend ever, now it might only be 7th, 6th at the most if the estimates hold. Does that make it a failure? No, it's still making 125 million at the least it's opening weekend, but Pop was exactly the same way.

It was expected to sell around 10-12 million, but it only sold 6 million. Still 6x platinum, but not as much as expected. I really think that's what the poster was saying. Plus, like Phillyfan said, the album was just not finished. Sure, people can argue all they want that they love the album as is, which is perfectly cool, but most people don't want to listen to an obviously unfinished album. I know I wouldn't.

 

[U2Man]

Sure, that's one standard. But how about some others?

In comparison to most bands: raging success.
Making money for the band: raging success.
International chart performance: raging success.

All I'm saying is that there's more than one way to view this, and I'm sick of how stifled this discussion is, especially outside of Interference where you almost never hear anything in praise of Pop. It seems to me that in many cases, the facts are twisted in the service of arguments rather than the facts dictating what the arguments can reasonably be.

yes, but the thing is:

1) u2 should not be compared to "most" bands. they had been on top of the business since around 1987.

2) they made on money on pop - but only about 1/3 of what they made on ab, according to sale figures.

3) if the competition is very weak at the time of release, a huge name like u2 HAS to go number 1 almost on the entire globe. again, march isnt exactly known for its popularity as an album release month among artists.


if keane sells 6 million copies of an album, then it would be regarded as a huge succes. but u2 1997 was far from keane.

my point is that considering u2's status at the time and history of album sales, pop's sales were a disappointment, and made the album look like, if you wish, a flop.

 

[BVS]

Making money for the band: raging success.

This is slightly off topic but I'm curious and never seen it discussed in here, but does anyone know what U2 or their record company spend on recording an album?

I remember hearing a story how Korn spent(actually their company) some ridiculous several million dollars on recording an album and then shelved the whole fucking thing. Then that same year White Stripes recorded a whole album for $10,000.

So I'd be curious as to what an average U2 album cost to record...

 

[Axver]

my point is that considering u2's status at the time and history of album sales, pop's sales were a disappointment, and made the album look like, if you wish, a flop.

Yeah, you could see it that way. All I'm really saying is that whether or not Pop is considered a commercial flop depends entirely on the criteria.

Ultimately, I don't give a shit. Besides LNOE, Gone, Velvet Dress, Please, and WUDM, I really don't care much about the album, and only Gone and WUDM are truly great. I'm just a bit tired of seeing the same criteria used over and over again as if they are the only criteria that can be used to assess Pop's performance.

 

[Screwtape2]

I think Pop is a commercial flop due to the expectations the band and record company put on the album. The band should have recognized that the drop in sales between Zooropa and Achtung Baby would continue as long they continued in the techno/experimental vein.

I don't think it is a matter of how you interpret the figures as much as it is about the impossible bar being set for the album. It was a flop as soon as the band decided on the album's sound.

 

[MrBrau1]

This is slightly off topic but I'm curious and never seen it discussed in here, but does anyone know what U2 or their record company spend on recording an album?

I remember hearing a story how Korn spent(actually their company) some ridiculous several million dollars on recording an album and then shelved the whole fucking thing. Then that same year White Stripes recorded a whole album for $10,000.

So I'd be curious as to what an average U2 album cost to record...

That's a good question.

There's the producers pay, the production teams pay, studio time. We can leave marketing cost out of the question for now.

What else would their be?

Or do Eno and the like work for points?

 

[LemonMelon]

I think Pop is a commercial flop due to the expectations the band and record company put on the album. The band should have recognized that the drop in sales between Zooropa and Achtung Baby would continue as long they continued in the techno/experimental vein.

Indeed. Pop didn't kill Pop; Zooropa and Passengers killed Pop.

 

[BVS]

Indeed. Pop didn't kill Pop; Zooropa and Passengers killed Pop.

I don't buy that at all. Zooropa did pretty well for being a quick album released during a tour. And winning a grammy probably didn't hurt. I don't think enough people outside diehards knew Passengers was even a U2 project enough to effect anything.

Besides being rushed, it was poor picking of singles that killed Pop. People weren't ready to see U2 dressed like the Village People.

Mofo, Gone, even Please or SATS(although probably too mellow for a lead off single) would have been better choices as lead off singles.

 

[Zoots]

Pop = Flop; They rhyme and everything.

What intelligent reasoning!

Thankfully U2 got it back in gear.

Yeah... got back in gear to turn into U2-lite, a mediocre version of their former selves!

 

[Screwtape2]

Anyone else amazed that we are on the fourth page of a thread about Pop being a flop and haven't descended into a state of insults and personal attacks? This is a beautiful moment.

 

[MrBrau1]

Yeah, look at the knuckle head above your post. He's asking for it.

 

[LemonMelon]

I don't buy that at all. Zooropa did pretty well for being a quick album released during a tour. And winning a grammy probably didn't hurt. I don't think enough people outside diehards knew Passengers was even a U2 project enough to effect anything.

I adore Zooropa. Everyone here knows this, but even I must admit that it really wasn't much less of a flop than Pop was. Again, if you look at the sales (not that anyone should, IMO, because they're irrelevant), the dropoff after AB was immense. This had to have hurt their reputations a bit, and to follow that up with an album that was considerably less than commercial was the final nail in the coffin.

I'll concede that Zooropa wasn't the main cause of Pop's commercial failure, but you can't deny that it was a factor.

 

[MrBrau1]

I adore Zooropa. Everyone here knows this, but even I must admit that it really wasn't much less of a flop than Pop was. Again, if you look at the sales (not that anyone should, IMO, because they're irrelevant), the dropoff after AB was immense. This had to have hurt their reputations a bit, and to follow that up with an album that was considerably less than commercial was the final nail in the coffin.

I'll concede that Zooropa wasn't the main cause of Pop's commercial failure, but you can't deny that it was a factor.

Truth. I knew many people who bought Zooropa, and hated it. Actually, most hated it. There was no "leak" to preview. If you wanted to hear it, ya had to buy it. So it sold.

 

[Zoots]

Yeah, look at the knuckle head above your post. He's asking for it.

This coming from the king of shit starters!

 

[U2Man]

Yeah... got back in gear to turn into U2-lite, a mediocre version of their former selves!

this is off topic, but are you sure you mean this?

while it's fair if someone just doesnt like the more poppy style on atyclb and htdaab, i have a hard time finding previous u2 albums that resemble them.

 

[Yahweh]

Pop was a great record, and I would say its probably in U2s top 5 albums. U2 were not in the position to suceed at the time they released POP as the last record that the US heard in the mainstream was Zooropa 4 long years earlier and the reality is that most people into the music scene have about a 2 minute attention span....4 years is an eternity.

Plus even back in 1997 U2 was seen as a band of old men, now they are just seen as ancient. A rock band in their late 30s dabbling in experiment was set up to fail in the mainstream masses. Having said that, their is many bands in the world that would love to sell 1.5 million albums in the US, especially at U2s age at that time even. Which makes what they are doing now even more impressive in the sales department.

 

[BVS]

Plus even back in 1997 U2 was seen as a band of old men, now they are just seen as ancient. A rock band in their late 30s dabbling in experiment was set up to fail in the mainstream masses. Having said that, their is many bands in the world that would love to sell 1.5 million albums in the US, especially at U2s age at that time even. Which makes what they are doing now even more impressive in the sales department.

Bullshit. I was in college when U2 released Pop. They were considered the top of their "fucking with the mainstream" status. People were expecting something big, but they weren't expecting Village People. Even the "alternative" kids respected U2.

Their age is a factor now, but believe me it wasn't then.

They killed Pop themselves, nothing else.