Pop Did Not Fail Because Of The Music, It Failed Because...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I can't stand the fact that all of these Pop threads automatically turn into POP-vs-ATYCLB threads.

That said, I agree with the original post, though I'm still not sure on the music front. While there is some good stuff on Pop, there is some stuff that is, in my opinion, the worst "music" U2 has ever made. I cannot STAND Miami, The Playboy Mansion, and If You Wear That Velvet Dress. The fact that those three songs are concentrated in the same area on the album makes it even worse for me. It's just one crap song going into another crap song going into another crap song! :huh:
 
GibsonGirl said:
I can't stand the fact that all of these Pop threads automatically turn into POP-vs-ATYCLB threads.

That is precisely why I never reply to any posts about either album. I hate that it always turns into this, and I refuse to be a part of it.
 
GibsonGirl said:
I can't stand the fact that all of these Pop threads automatically turn into POP-vs-ATYCLB threads.

That said, I agree with the original post, though I'm still not sure on the music front. While there is some good stuff on Pop, there is some stuff that is, in my opinion, the worst "music" U2 has ever made. I cannot STAND Miami, The Playboy Mansion, and If You Wear That Velvet Dress. The fact that those three songs are concentrated in the same area on the album makes it even worse for me. It's just one crap song going into another crap song going into another crap song! :huh:

I actually like Playboy Mansion (it's ok to me), Miami (soso), Velvet Dress (I love this song) but I have to agree... the way the songs were arranged... the last middle half to end is pretty dead in the sense of it being SOOOOOOOOO mid-tempo to slow and I like the songs to boot! Discotheque IMO created expectations. Unfortunately, the album didn't deliver what Discotheque wrought. Maybe it was the track order as the band theorizes.
 
Flying FuManchu said:
I haven't mentioned ATYCLB in any of my prior posts. Can I get a cookie?

You can have two. :wink:

Bonocookies.jpg
 
You people have nothing else to do in your life, huh?
I am a bit lazy, but not too much and still i have no will to write all those letters you wrote.
You could have easily said:-I agree
-I disagree because...
And not repeating all Miggy said with just 2 different words.

I personally agree with what Miggy said but i don't give a damn if old fans/casual fans/critics have hated/disliked it because....

I love it, Village people are funny, Lemon is great, Arch is great, U2 ARE GREAT

I rest my case
 
how did u2 go the way of peral jam? pearl jam hasn't sold records since 1994's vitilogy! they had a brief comeback in 1998. and not since then. hey, i like pearl jam they have a awesome live show. but u2 is not pearl jam. however, if u2 was pearl jam, thier live show would include rare stuff. some hits, and covers, no one would care if they didn't play all the hits.
 
Re: Re: Pop Did Not Fail Because Of The Music, It Failed Because...

U2girl said:


The problem with Pop is
- the obvious jump on the dance/techno bandwagon with the image and first three songs on the album. middle-age crisis.
- missing the U2 magic. The only album - apart from Rattle and Hum - that doesn't have Lanois, Eno or Lillywhite in any form and the only album that doesn't have a memorable song (even Rattle and Hum has Desire, even Zooropa has Stay)
- uncertainty. there's 6 experimental songs and 6 straight-forward rock songs. the "quickie" album Zooropa is more tight as an album.
- uneven-ness. Some good songs, but overall not convincing.
- lyrically, Achtung Baby and Zooropa who have very similar themes are better. I guess the same joke 3rd time around isn't funny anymore.

Zootlesque: posts like MrBrau's happen to ATYCLB and HTDAAB all the time, and a lot more often too.

To say U2 should have gone the way of Pearl Jam and Radiohead is a bit odd. I don't think they want that, and I'm not sure most of the fans do either. Leave obscurity and fear of success to other bands. I don't think some people not liking U2's current era is the band's problem, either.

As for U2 and money, funny how no one disses Zoo TV tour and Popmart who cost a ton of money (guess who payed for that?), and how everything was ok when U2 made an album, plus a book, plus a movie in 1987.

It's even funnier how everything was cool when U2 went against the wishes of the 80's fans in the 90's, and now that they're comfortable sounding like a band and *gasp* U2, it's a problem.
I guess experimentation is only okay when YOU like it.

First off, I disagree with pretty much everything you said about Pop. I respect your opinion but 'missing the U2 magic', 'not enough memorable songs', 'not as tight as an album', 'un-evenness'??? I disagree and these things are very subjective.

Oh.. and I never said that U2 should've gone the way of Pearl Jam or Radiohead. As much as I like Pearl Jam, I think their experimental tracks suck. Foxyhandlemama? Whatever that is. I was just wondering aloud what might've happened if Pop had been a huge success. I don't have any issue with U2 making money. They've always wanted to be the biggest in the world. And Pop sales (SALES, not the MUSIC itself) were dragging them down from that position. And I have to say I found bathiu's rebuttal using ATYCLB pretty dead on. :wink: Don't get me wrong, I like ATYCLB for what it is but I agree that it is boring compared to their 90s stuff. :uhoh: :reject:
 
Re: Re: Pop Did Not Fail Because Of The Music, It Failed Because...

U2girl said:


Agreed.

Weak first single, not too bad a video (were it not for those ridicioulus outfits and dance at the end), lame clothing and megalomaniac, pretentious tour.
(yup, let's put out 40 foot lemon and the biggest screen in the world just because we can )

Also, add the fiasco of opening night of the tour and reworked single versions of 3 songs (and additional 3 later on). Clearly U2 was not 100% happy with the song versions on the album.

The problem with Pop is
- the obvious jump on the dance/techno bandwagon with the image and first three songs on the album. middle-age crisis.
- missing the U2 magic. The only album - apart from Rattle and Hum - that doesn't have Lanois, Eno or Lillywhite in any form and the only album that doesn't have a memorable song (even Rattle and Hum has Desire, even Zooropa has Stay)
- uncertainty. there's 6 experimental songs and 6 straight-forward rock songs. the "quickie" album Zooropa is more tight as an album.
- uneven-ness. Some good songs, but overall not convincing.
- lyrically, Achtung Baby and Zooropa who have very similar themes are better. I guess the same joke 3rd time around isn't funny anymore.

Zootlesque: posts like MrBrau's happen to ATYCLB and HTDAAB all the time, and a lot more often too.

To say U2 should have gone the way of Pearl Jam and Radiohead is a bit odd. I don't think they want that, and I'm not sure most of the fans do either. Leave obscurity and fear of success to other bands. I don't think some people not liking U2's current era is the band's problem, either.

As for U2 and money, funny how no one disses Zoo TV tour and Popmart who cost a ton of money (guess who payed for that?), and how everything was ok when U2 made an album, plus a book, plus a movie in 1987.

It's even funnier how everything was cool when U2 went against the wishes of the 80's fans in the 90's, and now that they're comfortable sounding like a band and *gasp* U2, it's a problem.
I guess experimentation is only okay when YOU like it.

lame.

you simply do not understand it, and while it's not complicated, i also realize it's not 1+1 either.

you do realize discoteque was a bigger hit than anything they've released since? and it's STILL a bad choice for a single?

keep up the good work. :up:
 
The main reasons Pop is considered a failure are:

-The Tour's first leg in the U.S. bombed because of lame reviews of the first nights which were true, the band was unprepared for the new songs.

-Except for Discotheque (which was a huge single all over the world) and Staring at the Sun (the band had big expectations for this song) the rest of the album is not exactly radio friendly but that doesn't mean it lacked in quality musically or lyrically.

-Last Night on Earth and Please weren't exactly the best choices as singles, that doesn't mean they are not good Please should've remained a hidden gem like Kite did for ATYCLB and Acrobat did for AB. Gone and Mofo (which was released in Mexico and was a huge hit) would've worked better.

And we can go on and on, I think a lot of the reasons mentioned in this thread are quite valid, except for those lame opinions of how Pop is shit. This album is what really got me into into U2, we can't change the past but I sure hate the fact that the band dismisses this album as a mistake, lyrically it's right up there with Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree, musically it's a matter of opinion.
 
Fair enough, zootlesque. We agree to disagree. (I don't see much ATYCLB talk in this thread)

Zoomerang:
There was nothing to understand except they made a weak effort.
Um, singles were doing a lot better sales-wise back in 1997 than they are now and the charts weren't so influenced by pop/r&b/rap/hip hop like they are now. Also, Discotheque was helped by having the hype and expectation of being the first single.
(yes it was weak, there are plenty of better songs on the album, and again, that ridicoulus outfit didn't help them)

Outside of US, U2 has had plenty of hits since Discotheque. (US, depending on the chart. Walk on was no. 10 on Modern Rock chart, for example)
Also, define "hit". In terms of radio airplay and MTV, Beautiful day was huge.
More recently, Vertigo broke download records in US - if Billboard had included downloads then, it would be in the Top 10 so fast it wouldn't even be funny (given the success of the albums, I'd say Beautiful day and Vertigo did very good as first singles). Sometimes has just been the second UK no.1 from an album, which U2 never managed in 24 years prior.

Selective memory :up:
 
Last edited:
Mofo said:
Please should've remained a hidden gem like Kite did for ATYCLB and Acrobat did for AB.

Yes, I agree!

Mofo said:

I think a lot of the reasons mentioned in this thread are quite valid, except for those lame opinions of how Pop is shit. This album is what really got me into into U2, we can't change the past but I sure hate the fact that the band dismisses this album as a mistake, lyrically it's right up there with Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree, musically it's a matter of opinion.

I just had an awesome idea. I don't know if this has been brought up on this website before but... What if there was a fully acoustic version of Pop, kinda like Pop Unplugged. I'll bet the lyrics would then really shine and the haters would get it. Maybe. :)
 
Zootlesque said:




I just had an awesome idea. I don't know if this has been brought up on this website before but... What if there was a fully acoustic version of Pop, kinda like Pop Unplugged. I'll bet the lyrics would then really shine and the haters would get it. Maybe. :)

Ok, now you are just making fun of me :madspit: :wink:
 
namkcuR said:


I did read your post...I wasn't responding just your post to all of things I've read over the years about people saying that Pop was weak musically, which just isn't true.

You keep using the phrase 'grave misstep'...a grave misstep on the road to what? Commercial success? Public acceptance? This is the point I'm tryin gto make; that was a time when U2 were more willing to compromise sales for art. Granted, I fully expect that if U2 knew ahead of time that Pop would sell the way it did, they may not have taken so many risks, but still.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to attack you or anything, my post was more of a reply to all of the things I've heard said about Pop and Popmart. It's all good.

You pointed out some of "Pop's" best lyrics. But many fans only heard the worst - such as "chewing bubblegum" or "Cartoon Network turns into the news" or "Miami - my mammy". And, the truth is, both views are right. For every brilliant item Bono has written on any album, he also wrote something that is highly questionable on every album. "Pop" is no exception.

Also, while you argue how strong the music is, oddly enough, you attempt to illustrate your point with lyrics. In my opinion, musically "Pop" wasn't nearly as experimental as most claim. Sure, some additional beats were in "Do You Feel Loved" but nothing too extreme. "Discotheque" was a straight-forward rock song - ala "The Fly" or "Vertigo". "Mofo" was the most techno-oriented song on the album. After that, most songs fell into the classic U2 pattern of pop-rock. Therefore, I just don't see why "Pop" receives so much praise for being so "experimental". I hear that type of experimentation on every U2 album, including the latest (with L&PorE and "Fast Cars").

Miggy D wrote it best in her post - even though I *strongly* disagree with the selection of first single. U2 really released the wrong first single.

In 1991, "The Fly" was not really a hit in the U.S., peaking at only #61 on the Hot 100. This was U2's first new song since 1988 and yet the song couldn't even crack the Top 40! U2 almost wanted to "shock" fans - and in many ways they did. U2 "got away" with it because "The Fly" was a strong song and, more importantly, U2 quickly followed it with back-to-back super radio friendly songs (namely, "Mysterious Ways" and "One"). "The Fly" also served the purpose of showing U2's new look and direction - both incredibly important for AB and the subsequent tour.

However, by "Zooropa" that "shock" aspect was starting to fade. People "got it" on AB, they didn't need to be hit with it again on "Zooropa". Unfortunately, U2 tried it a third time with "Discotheque" and while the song performed well initially, this "shock" feature ultimately killed the song and the album. Fans were truly sick of U2 trying to shove irony down their throats and shock them with their image changes. I recall people coming up to me stating how much they hate the new U2 song ("Disoctheque") as if I had anything to do with it. But this goes beyond my personal world - even when the song was played on Boston radio stations - U2's "home away from home" - people called in complaining!! :ohmy:

I always felt that a better first single would have been SATS. It's different enough from previous U2, yet not so shocking or ironic. U2 could have introduced their new look in the video without overwhelming the public. I think this song would have been the perfect way to launch "Pop". "Discotheque" could've still been a single, but perhaps a second or third release.

Also, had U2 been able to get "Pop" out in Nov. 1996 as originally planned, they would've had the huge holiday sales boost. That alone would have helped the album hit 2x Platinum in the U.S. Even if "Pop" never went on to sell much more than that, it wouldn't have been viewed as such a "failure". Had "Pop" received strong initial and sustained sales - like HTDAAB and ATYCLB did in Nov. and Dec. upon their releases - it would have created the feeling of a huge hit album that people must have. Instead, seeing "Pop" fall down the charts hurt as it was viewed as a failure and stopped others from buying it (no one wants to buy a "flop").

The tour was a bit much, but was in-line with what the feeling U2 was trying to create with the album. However, what really hurt wasn't the size, but the fact that it was all stadiums. Clearly the giant screen and arch and lemon, etc. forced U2 to use stadiums. However, when every stadium failed to sell out, it once again created the illusion that the tour was failing. The truth is that PopMart remains U2's best selling tour to date, but again, since every stadium failed to sell out, it was a "flop".

This is why the Elevation Tour and Vertigo Tour are arenas in the U.S. U2 can easily sell out U.S. arenas - as evidenced by the fast sales we've seen. The thing is, U2 could probably sell out stadiums in certain U.S. cities as well. But U2 won't go that route again - far better to do 2, 3 or even 4 sold-out arena shows in a city than have one huge stadium show that fails to sell every ticket. Doing three sold-out arena shows says "hot ticket". Doing one stadium show that fails to completely sell out - even if it sold more than the three arena shows together - says "flop". It's not fair, but not many in the media are intelligent.

As a result, U2 have released more straight-forward rock songs from their last two albums. They introduce their new looks while not shocking their audiences too much. Also, they do arena shows that instantly sell out. U2 are still experimental and Bono still writes some excellent lyrics, but they keep these a bit more subdued - something fans can discover as they listen to the album.
 
Last edited:
U2girl said:
Fair enough, zootlesque. We agree to disagree. (I don't see much ATYCLB talk in this thread)

Zoomerang:
There was nothing to understand except they made a weak effort.
Um, singles were doing a lot better sales-wise back in 1997 than they are now and the charts weren't so influenced by pop/r&b/rap/hip hop like they are now. Also, Discotheque was helped by having the hype and expectation of being the first single.
(yes it was weak, there are plenty of better songs on the album, and again, that ridicoulus outfit didn't help them)

Outside of US, U2 has had plenty of hits since Discotheque. (US, depending on the chart. Walk on was no. 10 on Modern Rock chart, for example)
Also, define "hit". In terms of radio airplay and MTV, Beautiful day was huge.
More recently, Vertigo broke download records in US - if Billboard had included downloads then, it would be in the Top 10 so fast it wouldn't even be funny (given the success of the albums, I'd say Beautiful day and Vertigo did very good as first singles). Sometimes has just been the second UK no.1 from an album, which U2 never managed in 24 years prior.

Selective memory :up:

auch....

brutal.

disco was a TOP TEN HIT on the BILLBOARD 100. that's ALL airplay. not just modern rock, or adult top 40.

no u2 song has come closer than 21 since then, and i don't think vertigo even broke the top 30.

there's no doubt beautiful day and vertigo were big singles for the band. but you go on and on about how discoteque wasn't any good for them, well all the evidence goes against it.

when it comes to pop, you've made it quite clear you have a bias against it that clouds your judgement.

the same can be said about me when it comes to their material post 1998.

but you won't ever hear me say atyclb and bomb were marketed poorly. the marketing BOTHERED me, but their team did a great job of getting the word out there whether i agreed with the way they did it or not.
 
Zoomerang96 said:


auch....

brutal.

disco was a TOP TEN HIT on the BILLBOARD 100. that's ALL airplay. not just modern rock, or adult top 40.

no u2 song has come closer than 21 since then, and i don't think vertigo even broke the top 30.

there's no doubt beautiful day and vertigo were big singles for the band. but you go on and on about how discoteque wasn't any good for them, well all the evidence goes against it.



Sorry, but you are completely wrong.

Back in 1997, Billboard would NOT chart a song on the Hot 100 until the CD single was released. Due to pent-up demand for new U2, "Discotheque" debuted at an amazing #10 on the Hot 100. This was due to radio success ("Discotheque" did top the Modern Rock charts), but also because it was a huge hit single for U2 (went Gold). In an era where CD single sales were already starting to fade fast, U2 had a strong selling CD single, which helped it gain its chart position. But it only sold well as people hadn't heard from U2 for a while.

These days, a song can chart on airplay alone. "Beautiful Day" reached #21 on air play alone. It was able to cross genres and chart on many formats. "Discotheque" did not do this - in fact, I'm not even sure "Discotheque" would have cracked the Top 40 based on air play alone. Likewise, "Vertigo" hit #31 based on airplay alone. Sadly, shortly after "Vertigo's" peak, Billboard changed their format again and are now including legal downloads as part of a song's success. "Vertigo" sold over 200,000 downloads. Those are huge sales for a single and would have most likely propelled "Vertigo" into the Top 10 had Billboard counted sales.

So the success of "Discotheque" is a bit of an illusion. Demand caused huge CD single sales that caused the song to debut high on the charts. It fell quickly thereafter. In contrast, "Beautiful Day" lingered for months and months - which helped ATYCLB considerably.
 
I love how these threads become huge games of 'telephone' and get completely off topic.

And to respond to something doctorwho said:

I'm actually a guy. Take a look at my profile picture.


-Miggy D
 
One part of me tells me not to bother responding here because no one's mind is going to be changed, but the other part of me just can't stand it when so many people are talking trash about a record that I think is so brilliant. The latter side wins.

First of all, can we please can this garbage about U2 not being happy with Pop themselves? That is a LIE. For starters, I have heard from multiple people here and on other U2 forums, that were at Popmart shows, that in the Popmart programme everybody got on the way in, there were quotes from the band about how proud they were of the record, and how much they liked it. It seems that, on the outset, U2 had no problem with Pop except that a few of the tracks were not as 'finished' as they would have liked. All these quotes from the band about how Pop was a mistake or how they weren't happy with it - those are all within the last five years. Some people need to at least open their minds to the idea that maybe, just maybe, U2 'changed' their minds about Pop to concur with the opinion of the large chunk of U2 fans and music fans that were about to salivate over ATYCLB and later on HTDAAB. Perhaps it was a move to sell more records.

And what about those 'new' mixes on the Best of 1990-2000? Contrary to what many think, I don't think these are the 'finished' versions U2 wanted. I say this because, if you listened to new mixes of Gone, Staring At The Sun, and Discotheque, they all have some very recognizable similarities to the live versions of said songs from Popmart and even Elevation. I think the band remixed these songs to sound more like their live counterparts. However, when Pop was being recorded, at the time when U2, evidentally, wanted to 'finish' those tracks, those live versions didn't exist yet. Remember, they didn't even know the live arrangements of them yet when Popmart started, the first Popmart shows weren't so good form what I hear. No, I think those songs, along with Zooropa's 'Numb', were remixed to sound more commercial, to help the Best of 1990-2000 sell more records. And, to mimic what has been said many times before, the Hedges mixes are inferior. Gone has the addition of Edge's backing vocals, but everything else got worse. Staring At The Sun see's Edge's awesome electric guitar in the chorus get shoved to the background for a more acoustic feel similar to the live versions. Live it works, here it doesn't. Discotheque is fine but I prefer the album version. At first I prefered the new Numb mix, but soon changed my mind. It lost the essence of the original Zooropa version.

Back on topic...I just think, to think that U2 are legitimately as unhappy with this record and tour as some fans would like to think, is naive. The band members may not even be in agreement about it, so I don't see the point in making these generalizations that some of you are making. For example...remember in the making of featurette on the Elevation Boston DVD, that clip of the end of Gone when Edge throws his guitar down angerly? I have read multiple accounts from people saying that he was upset because just before the song was played, Bono talked about Popmart and said something mocking about it or something like that, and Edge didn't like the diss at their past work. Just food for thought.
 
namkcuR said:


First of all, can we please can this garbage about U2 not being happy with Pop themselves? That is a LIE.

I have read a few quotes mainly from Larry saying they weren't entirely happy with the record that went out because they felt some songs were unfinished. But as you've implied some people on this thread are blowing those quotes out of all proportion.

I've also read quotes from Bono slagging off the earlier albums, particularly War, but that isn't going to stop me loving some of the tracks on War.

Pop is only my third favourite of the 1990's trio of albums (leaving out Passengers because that was not released as a U2 record) but I still like it.

The people in this thread talking about Pop being a failure seem to have an extremely American centric view of the world - i.e. if Pop's sales were slightly disappointing in the US that must make the record a failure full stop!
 
Miggy D said:
I love how these threads become huge games of 'telephone' and get completely off topic.

And to respond to something doctorwho said:

I'm actually a guy. Take a look at my profile picture.


-Miggy D

Sorry - I had a feeling typing "her" instead of "his" was incorrect. ;) But to look at your profile before I make that decision? Ach! Too much work. :lol: Seriously, it's too late for me to change - I won't make that mistake again.


And Zoomerang - yes, it was a Top 10 hit. My point is that the charts have changed twice since then. That's the main problem with Billboard's Hot 100 - it keeps changing. That's good in one way as the goal of this chart is to most accurately reflect a song's popularity in the public. But it's also bad as it now becomes nearly impossible to compare charts from different years, let alone different eras. As I wrote, "Vertigo" easily would've been another Top 10 hit for U2 had Billboard counted online legal downloads. Billboard started doing this a few months after "Vertigo" peaked - and the song still jumped 20 places on the charts! So at its peak, "Vertigo" easily would've cracked the Top 10 had downloads been counted. But what's really important here is that both "Beautiful Day" and "Vertigo" lingered on the charts. "Discotheque" may have hit the Top 10, but that was its first week and it plummeted thereafter. As such, the single did not have the desire effect (to help propel album sales).
 
Last edited:
doctorwho said:


You pointed out some of "Pop's" best lyrics. But many fans only heard the worst - such as "chewing bubblegum" or "Cartoon Network turns into the news" or "Miami - my mammy". And, the truth is, both views are right. For every brilliant item Bono has written on any album, he also wrote something that is highly questionable on every album. "Pop" is no exception.

Also, while you argue how strong the music is, oddly enough, you attempt to illustrate your point with lyrics. In my opinion, musically "Pop" wasn't nearly as experimental as most claim. Sure, some additional beats were in "Do You Feel Loved" but nothing too extreme. "Discotheque" was a straight-forward rock song - ala "The Fly" or "Vertigo". "Mofo" was the most techno-oriented song on the album. After that, most songs fell into the classic U2 pattern of pop-rock. Therefore, I just don't see why "Pop" receives so much praise for being so "experimental". I hear that type of experimentation on every U2 album, including the latest (with L&PorE and "Fast Cars").

Miggy D wrote it best in her post - even though I *strongly* disagree with the selection of first single. U2 really released the wrong first single.

In 1991, "The Fly" was not really a hit in the U.S., peaking at only #61 on the Hot 100. This was U2's first new song since 1988 and yet the song couldn't even crack the Top 40! U2 almost wanted to "shock" fans - and in many ways they did. U2 "got away" with it because "The Fly" was a strong song and, more importantly, U2 quickly followed it with back-to-back super radio friendly songs (namely, "Mysterious Ways" and "One"). "The Fly" also served the purpose of showing U2's new look and direction - both incredibly important for AB and the subsequent tour.

However, by "Zooropa" that "shock" aspect was starting to fade. People "got it" on AB, they didn't need to be hit with it again on "Zooropa". Unfortunately, U2 tried it a third time with "Discotheque" and while the song performed well initially, this "shock" feature ultimately killed the song and the album. Fans were truly sick of U2 trying to shove irony down their throats and shock them with their image changes. I recall people coming up to me stating how much they hate the new U2 song ("Disoctheque") as if I had anything to do with it. But this goes beyond my personal world - even when the song was played on Boston radio stations - U2's "home away from home" - people called in complaining!! :ohmy:

I always felt that a better first single would have been SATS. It's different enough from previous U2, yet not so shocking or ironic. U2 could have introduced their new look in the video without overwhelming the public. I think this song would have been the perfect way to launch "Pop". "Discotheque" could've still been a single, but perhaps a second or third release.

Also, had U2 been able to get "Pop" out in Nov. 1996 as originally planned, they would've had the huge holiday sales boost. That alone would have helped the album hit 2x Platinum in the U.S. Even if "Pop" never went on to sell much more than that, it wouldn't have been viewed as such a "failure". Had "Pop" received strong initial and sustained sales - like HTDAAB and ATYCLB did in Nov. and Dec. upon their releases - it would have created the feeling of a huge hit album that people must have. Instead, seeing "Pop" fall down the charts hurt as it was viewed as a failure and stopped others from buying it (no one wants to buy a "flop").

The tour was a bit much, but was in-line with what the feeling U2 was trying to create with the album. However, what really hurt wasn't the size, but the fact that it was all stadiums. Clearly the giant screen and arch and lemon, etc. forced U2 to use stadiums. However, when every stadium failed to sell out, it once again created the illusion that the tour was failing. The truth is that PopMart remains U2's best selling tour to date, but again, since every stadium failed to sell out, it was a "flop".

This is why the Elevation Tour and Vertigo Tour are arenas in the U.S. U2 can easily sell out U.S. arenas - as evidenced by the fast sales we've seen. The thing is, U2 could probably sell out stadiums in certain U.S. cities as well. But U2 won't go that route again - far better to do 2, 3 or even 4 sold-out arena shows in a city than have one huge stadium show that fails to sell every ticket. Doing three sold-out arena shows says "hot ticket". Doing one stadium show that fails to completely sell out - even if it sold more than the three arena shows together - says "flop". It's not fair, but not many in the media are intelligent.

As a result, U2 have released more straight-forward rock songs from their last two albums. They introduce their new looks while not shocking their audiences too much. Also, they do arena shows that instantly sell out. U2 are still experimental and Bono still writes some excellent lyrics, but they keep these a bit more subdued - something fans can discover as they listen to the album.

Great post el Doctor. :up: :up:
 
namkcuR said:
One part of me tells me not to bother responding here because no one's mind is going to be changed, but the other part of me just can't stand it when so many people are talking trash about a record that I think is so brilliant. The latter side wins.

First of all, can we please can this garbage about U2 not being happy with Pop themselves? That is a LIE...

(shortened for brevity)

...I just think, to think that U2 are legitimately as unhappy with this record and tour as some fans would like to think, is naive. The band members may not even be in agreement about it, so I don't see the point in making these generalizations that some of you are making. For example...remember in the making of featurette on the Elevation Boston DVD, that clip of the end of Gone when Edge throws his guitar down angerly? I have read multiple accounts from people saying that he was upset because just before the song was played, Bono talked about Popmart and said something mocking about it or something like that, and Edge didn't like the diss at their past work. Just food for thought.

:up: Good post! Echoes my feelings more or less.
 
doctorwho said:


Sorry - I had a feeling typing "her" instead of "his" was incorrect. ;) But to look at your profile before I make that decision? Ach! Too much work. :lol: Seriously, it's too late for me to change - I won't make that mistake again.


And Zoomerang - yes, it was a Top 10 hit. My point is that the charts have changed twice since then. That's the main problem with Billboard's Hot 100 - it keeps changing. That's good in one way as the goal of this chart is to most accurately reflect a song's popularity in the public. But it's also bad as it now becomes nearly impossible to compare charts from different years, let alone different eras. As I wrote, "Vertigo" easily would've been another Top 10 hit for U2 had Billboard counted online legal downloads. Billboard started doing this a few months after "Vertigo" peaked - and the song still jumped 20 places on the charts! So at its peak, "Vertigo" easily would've cracked the Top 10 had downloads been counted. But what's really important here is that both "Beautiful Day" and "Vertigo" lingered on the charts. "Discotheque" may have hit the Top 10, but that was its first week and it plummeted thereafter. As such, the single did not have the desire effect (to help propel album sales).

you are certainly correct.

and so was i.

it's just that technically, you're a bit more correct than i am. :sexywink:
 
Back
Top Bottom