Pop appreciation thread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Utoo said:
That's why I don't like when people say "U2 needs to go back to how they were with Pop!"

I hate to drop names but... I've never ever said that U2 needs to go back to Pop or Achtung or Zooropa or the 90s... Earnie Shavers has never said that. namkcuR has never said it, ozeeko has never said it... Sorry for dropping names but I'm trying to make a point, which is... some of us see a dip in creativity with the 00s albums. Compared to not just the 90s but the whole freakin discography! Speaking for myself, I still like these albums.. just not as much as several that came before. And I don't know who you're talking about, that wants U2 to go back to the 90s. I certainly don't want that! :shrug:
 
Utoo said:
I'm glad to see that the Pop mentality didn't continue, that the Joshua Tree mentality didn't continue, that U2 is in constant flux as a band, continually expressing their own unique mentality/state/perception of the world and each unique present point in time. Pop is Pop--it's 1997 U2. War is War--it's 1983 U2. That's why I don't like when people say "U2 needs to go back to how they were with Pop!" What's the point? If any of their past individual thematic presentations were to continue on for numerous records, both the individual records and the band themselves would seem far less special to me.

SAID. This is what many don't want to believe... or maybe they were left in 1997 and didn't want to go on...
 
Zootlesque said:


I hate to drop names but... I've never ever said that U2 needs to go back to Pop or Achtung or Zooropa or the 90s... Earnie Shavers has never said that. namkcuR has never said it, ozeeko has never said it... Sorry for dropping names but I'm trying to make a point, which is... some of us see a dip in creativity with the 00s albums.

We're not telling names, mate... We're just stating a fact...:wink:
 
Aygo said:
We're just stating a fact...:wink:

And what is that fact???... that some here want U2 to go back to the 90s? Well, I don't see it. At least, I don't share that view and I'm pretty sure the people I mentioned don't either! We're all in the same camp. ;)
 
Zootlesque said:


And what is that fact???... that some here want U2 to go back to the 90s? Well, I don't see it. At least, I don't share that view and I'm pretty sure the people I mentioned don't either! We're all in the same camp. ;)

Again, I'm not telling names. I didn't mention either those names you referred earlier. Well, I guess you should pay more attention to what's in the threads, you'll find there what I said. That's why it's a fact, not something I want it to turn a fact (as many used to make too...):wink:
 
Zootlesque said:

I hate to drop names but... I've never ever said that U2 needs to go back to Pop or Achtung or Zooropa or the 90s... Earnie Shavers has never said that. namkcuR has never said it, ozeeko has never said it...

Because I was specifically talking about the 4 of you out of:

Registered Members: 48,155
There are currently 199 users online.
 
Utoo said:
Because I was specifically talking about the 4 of you out of:

No I'm not saying that. :wink: Just that I'm curious as to who you are referring to because I have not seen those comments here. Forget about the trolls that keep saying the same thing again and again without providing adequate reasons and good discussion. I'm not even considering them here. But take for example the 4 of us that I mentioned.. we do criticize the last 2 albums every now and then, esp. HTDAAB but we still don't say that U2 should go back to Pop. By the way, if the other 3 are reading this and think differently, feel free to correct me!

But Utoo... I hope you're not confusing these 2 things:

1. Saying "I wish U2 would be as brave as they were during Pop"

2. Saying "I wish U2 would go back to the Pop style. They were so awesome back then"

Those are 2 entirely different viewpoints. I agree with #1.
 
MOFO
Gone
Staring at the Sun
Last Night On Earth
Please
If God Will Send His Angels
Wake Up Dead Man (live)
If You Wear that Velvet Dress

just those...thats about 70% of the album...i really dont understand the bad reputation!
 
Zootlesque said:


No I'm not saying that. :wink: Just that I'm curious as to who you are referring to because I have not seen those comments here. Forget about the trolls that keep saying the same thing again and again without providing adequate reasons and good discussion. I'm not even considering them here. But take for example the 4 of us that I mentioned.. we do criticize the last 2 albums every now and then, esp. HTDAAB but we still don't say that U2 should go back to Pop. By the way, if the other 3 are reading this and think differently, feel free to correct me!

But Utoo... I hope you're not confusing these 2 things:

1. Saying "I wish U2 would be as brave as they were during Pop"

2. Saying "I wish U2 would go back to the Pop style. They were so awesome back then"

Those are 2 entirely different viewpoints. I agree with #1.

Again, I point out:

Registered Members: 48,155

Do I memorize every members' opinions? Nope. But if you really think that that opinion has never been expressed on this board, then you must not have read all the posts that I have. That's quite alright, I don't read every post either. :wink:

As for the rest, sure, I fully recognize that there is a difference between the two opinions that you posted. I also make no assumptions as to which you hold.

But when you say "bravery," Zoots... I hope you're not confusing these 2 things:

1. Creativity

2. Irony/Sarcasm/Darkness

I also hope you're not confusing these:

1. Creativity

2. Complexity

In each pair are two distinct qualities.

Anyway....Back to appreciating! :D
 
Last edited:
Pop is awesome: Discotheque, Mofo, Do You Feel Loved, If God Will Send..., Staring At The Sun, Last Night On Earth, Gone, I even like Miami these days for the guitar. They can't and shouldn't remake any of their past albums but U2 ought to be proud of Pop instead of worried about its effect. I think quite a large portion of their fans appreciate it and love it for the album it is and always was. The others don't have to feel the same!
 
chickadee said:
Pop is awesome: Discotheque, Mofo, Do You Feel Loved, If God Will Send..., Staring At The Sun, Last Night On Earth, Gone, I even like Miami these days for the guitar. They can't and shouldn't remake any of their past albums but U2 ought to be proud of Pop instead of worried about its effect. I think quite a large portion of their fans appreciate it and love it for the album it is and always was. The others don't have to feel the same!

Said! We like POP as it is.:heart:
 
Utoo said:
But when you say "bravery," Zoots... I hope you're not confusing these 2 things:

1. Creativity

2. Irony/Sarcasm/Darkness

Okay, I see what you're saying here. No, I don't think I'm confusing those because I'm simply comparing the lyrics of songs like Gone, Please, WUDM etc. with anything from the 00s.

Utoo said:
I also hope you're not confusing these:

1. Creativity

2. Complexity

In each pair are two distinct qualities.

I don't get what you're saying here. They've become less complex now? Not less creative? Is that what you mean?
 
Zootlesque said:

I don't get what you're saying here. They've become less complex now? Not less creative? Is that what you mean?

Yeah, that's it--I think that that's a real distinction. Compared to Zooropa and Pop, I would call the last two albums' songs less complex, but not less creative. If you listen to Mofo, it's fantastically complex, crowded with so much distortion and effect----like a "traffic jam," I think someone else said--just like the mind of the lost man who's lost his mother, looking for to save his save his soul. :wink: All of the layers add on to make the point of the song. On the other hand, a song like IALW is much more musically simple. Yet that simplicity, which also runs through most of the ATYCLB songs, gives the song and the album a distinct feel--the simplicity of the songs make the point, just like the complexity of Pop's songs help make the point that Pop was trying to make. I don't think that it's less creative. The message of Pop is more in-your-face and obvious, and perhaps cooler, but not necessarily better because of it. It's kind of like saying that a painting with only a few brush strokes is less creative than a painting with tons of extraordinary detail. Or, perhaps like saying that Edge is less "technical" than a guitar player like Ottmar Liebert or someone else who plays faster & with a billion more notes. I'd say that each in these pairs are making their own distinct point--one in a simple way, one in a complex way--but both are done creatively in that they're also achieving their point.

So, to get back on track ( :wink: ), one of the reasons I love Pop is that all of its qualities add up to make its point well. I think the same can be said for the newer stuff (perhaps more so ATYCLB than HTDAAB, though HTDAAB may be more fun because it's got more bite to it), even though it is less complex musically. Among other things, Pop is extraordinary for its heaviness, which I find to be executed superbly. :yes:
 
Utoo said:
Yeah, that's it--I think that that's a real distinction. Compared to Zooropa and Pop, I would call the last two albums' songs less complex, but not less creative. If you listen to Mofo, it's fantastically complex, crowded with so much distortion and effect----like a "traffic jam," I think someone else said--just like the mind of the lost man who's lost his mother, looking for to save his save his soul. :wink: All of the layers add on to make the point of the song. On the other hand, a song like IALW is much more musically simple. Yet that simplicity, which also runs through most of the ATYCLB songs, gives the song and the album a distinct feel--the simplicity of the songs make the point, just like the complexity of Pop's songs help make the point that Pop was trying to make. I don't think that it's less creative. The message of Pop is more in-your-face and obvious, and perhaps cooler, but not necessarily better because of it. It's kind of like saying that a painting with only a few brush strokes is less creative than a painting with tons of extraordinary detail. Or, perhaps like saying that Edge is less "technical" than a guitar player like Ottmar Liebert or someone else who plays faster & with a billion more notes. I'd say that each in these pairs are making their own distinct point--one in a simple way, one in a complex way--but both are done creatively in that they're also achieving their point.

So, to get back on track ( :wink: ), one of the reasons I love Pop is that all of its qualities add up to make its point well. I think the same can be said for the newer stuff (perhaps more so ATYCLB than HTDAAB, though HTDAAB may be more fun because it's got more bite to it), even though it is less complex musically. Among other things, Pop is extraordinary for its heaviness, which I find to be executed superbly. :yes:

I understand what you're saying here... believe me, I do. But that's not it. That's not why I feel a slight disappointment with ATYCLB & HTDAAB. A lot of the Beatles output was simplistic too but I don't feel that disappointment with their material! Anyway... back to Pop appreciation!
 
Love the album AND the tour that followed........."Mexico, Mexico, Mexico.........................." one of the best live performances. :up:


Btw, I know someone who HATES POP..and all it stands for..she HATES IT! :lol:
You know who you are.
 
Back
Top Bottom