POP - the forgotten masterpeice

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
RobH said:


Sorry to single you out bonocomet, but this is exactly why this topic is so hard to discuss rationally on here. Some people can't get themselves to admit that U2 has ever even remotely done anything crappy. They're my favorite band too. But Pop was not, is not, and never will be a masterpiece.

Joshua Tree was crap (Just trying to shake things up) :)
 
Re: Re: last post on this topic for me

RobH said:


Very well said U2 Girl. Especially about the magic. It's like for this album, the curtain was pulled away and the wizard was revealed. It was like, oh shit---U2 CAN make a crappy album. I've never been one to give U2 a free pass on anything---Bono needs to be called on his sillyness as much as anyone---(The God I blah blah....we know the rap)and this was one giant misfire.

The "you just don't get it!" theory? See previous comments about belonging to a "special club".

The "something bad must have happened to you at that time!" theory? See previous comments about "special time in your life does not equal great album", only in reverse.

And yes, I'd also rank the post Zooropa albums as all pretty weak. The 'magic' factor has been missing--big time.

Questions for Pop defenders: Why do you think so many people who were still on board for AB and Zooropa were disillusioned with Pop? We were ok with the experimentation on those efforts. We were not longing for the 80's sound. We just wanted more good music. But didn't get it. So you are not allowed to answer that we just 'didn't understand it' or that we 'wanted the old sound'. Also, if Pop is so good, what would you consider their worst album and why?


"This is definitely not K Mart underwear. Definitely not K Mart underwear." (Dustin Hoffman's character protesting about Tom Cruise buying him underwear from the wrong store). We get it. We're not supposed to like Pop. But I do anyway. And I will be the first to admit that I am not cool or hip in any way. I am as dorky as they come. 40 year old virgin dorky. It's laughable that rooting for anything that U2 has ever done could be confused for something cool. They are not cool. That's what I like about the band is their uncoolness.

We are every bit as much allowed to say that you don't get it or that you want the old sound as you are allowed to say that everyone who likes Pop is trying to be hip.

"Yeah I like the Pop album. (I am sooooo gonna get laid tonight!)"

WORST ALBUMS:
UNFORGETABLE FIRE. Sissified post War album ramblings and broad paintbrush feel good stuff. It's U2 on an ovedose of Oprah Winfrey, the 80's version of ALL THAT YOU CAN't LEAVE BEHIND...without the seasoning and maturity. Can't stand it. (So much for the theory of me liking everything that U2 has done.)

OCTOBER: Pop is oft accused of being an incomplete and incoherent mess. Right description. Wrong Album.

RATTLE AND HUM: "Hey. People really liked the Joshua Tree. Let's do it again."
 
Re: Re: Re: last post on this topic for me

dietcokeofevil said:


WORST ALBUMS:
UNFORGETABLE FIRE. Sissified post War album ramblings and broad paintbrush feel good stuff. It's U2 on an ovedose of Oprah Winfrey, the 80's version of ALL THAT YOU CAN't LEAVE BEHIND...without the seasoning and maturity. Can't stand it. (So much for the theory of me liking everything that U2 has done.)

OCTOBER: Pop is oft accused of being an incomplete and incoherent mess. Right description. Wrong Album.

RATTLE AND HUM: "Hey. People really liked the Joshua Tree. Let's do it again."
Cooie???! Rattle and Hum is the same as The Joshua Tree????

I want that version to add to my collection! :drool:
 
im a pop lover...the music is amazing...but i think that u2 went about it completely wrong.... imagine this....


the album hits stores....they release discoteque and staring at the sun as singles....BUT they dont call it pop...adam loses the gas mask, edge drops the gay cowboy look, they dont do a video like the village people, they dont call it "popmart"....instead they rock out with those same songs, on a grand scale (like they did), keep the arch and the screen for the sheer spectacle that it was...

i guess what im trying to say is they went about it the wrong way...pop's failure IMO wasnt its music...it was how they brought the music to the people

i think people were weirded out, i know when pop came out i was 14 yrs old and i was like wtf happened to them in 2 years :huh:

people were just caught off guard, the die hard fans will eventually get the musc ( i did but not at 1st) but it wont reach the masses....
 
^ ^ ^ That's a good theory, but it wasn't true for me. I got the album the day it came out without forumulating any conceptions based on their marketing. I listened to it with the excitement of any diehard U2 fan. But it just didn't hit me the way I was hoping. It was the music, for me, not the marketing that didn't grab me. Over the years, it has grown on me....and I really appreciate a few of the songs ('Please', 'Gone', 'Velvet Dress'), but to this day 'Discotheque' (the whiny refrain, "Let's gooo, go gooo, discohtheque... ah ah ah....") can leave me feeling a tad nauseous.
 
Re: Re: Re: last post on this topic for me

dietcokeofevil said:



It's laughable that rooting for anything that U2 has ever done could be confused for something cool. They are not cool. That's what I like about the band is their uncoolness.


By the way, some good stuff on here since I last posted.

As for the above quote, not sure how old you are diet coke, but it's way off base. U2 was THE COOLEST BAND for a sizeable stretch there in the 80's and early nineties. We're talking mucically, image-wise, just the whole vibe. As for the 'special club' theory, I never said it was gonna get anybody laid or that it made you "hip". Those are your words. All I ever said is that Pop defenders like to wage their little war as if they are somehow part of a club that 'gets it' while the rest of us don't. That's not "hip", it's elitist. No other album on here ever gets defended with as much zeal because of its "unacessability" or "complexity". To me those are just code words for "bad" and "jumbled".

And by the way, Unforgettable Fire = Oprah feel good shit? WTF?
 
Z00rop@83 said:
im a pop lover...the music is amazing...but i think that u2 went about it completely wrong.... imagine this....


the album hits stores....they release discoteque and staring at the sun as singles....BUT they dont call it pop...adam loses the gas mask, edge drops the gay cowboy look, they dont do a video like the village people, they dont call it "popmart"....instead they rock out with those same songs, on a grand scale (like they did), keep the arch and the screen for the sheer spectacle that it was...

i guess what im trying to say is they went about it the wrong way...pop's failure IMO wasnt its music...it was how they brought the music to the people

i think people were weirded out, i know when pop came out i was 14 yrs old and i was like wtf happened to them in 2 years :huh:

people were just caught off guard, the die hard fans will eventually get the musc ( i did but not at 1st) but it wont reach the masses....

I will definitely admit that some of this is true. Terrible choices in all regards of marketing. But that's what they wanted at the time, so they have to live with it. However, if the music stood up strongly enough to overcome that bs, it wouldn't have mattered. But the music was weak too. And then the whole thing just went to shite. Plenty of 'die hards' still don't like it.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: last post on this topic for me

RobH said:


By the way, some good stuff on here since I last posted.

As for the above quote, not sure how old you are diet coke, but it's way off base. U2 was THE COOLEST BAND for a sizeable stretch there in the 80's and early nineties. We're talking mucically, image-wise, just the whole vibe. As for the 'special club' theory, I never said it was gonna get anybody laid or that it made you "hip". Those are your words. All I ever said is that Pop defenders like to wage their little war as if they are somehow part of a club that 'gets it' while the rest of us don't. That's not "hip", it's elitist. No other album on here ever gets defended with as much zeal because of its "unacessability" or "complexity". To me those are just code words for "bad" and "jumbled".

And by the way, Unforgettable Fire = Oprah feel good shit? WTF?

I can't speak for anyone else... but think that if you met me in person you would find that I am not much of an elitist. As far as "complexity" or inaccessability...I don't know what to say. I just really loved the album. It worked for me. It reached me the way most other albums hadn't. It was dark and gloomy by U2 standards, and yes had its imperfections. But man, I could really relate to its desperation lyrically and musically. I know that other fans find that hard to believe but that album came from an angle that worked for me on every level. Sorry if that makes me an elitist.

As for the "Cool" image thing. I guess that I just never "got it" as to how cool it was. Bono always has been and always will be a wanker to me. And I love him for it. There has never been an era where I didn't simultaneously beg for more and at the same time wish they would shut up. An oxymoron of cool and anticool I suppose.

I know, I know. I do get heat for not liking Unforgetable Fire. Does it help that I do at least like Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: last post on this topic for me

The Slow Loris said:

Cooie???! Rattle and Hum is the same as The Joshua Tree????

I want that version to add to my collection! :drool:

It's not the same. It's a bad attempt at a sequel.:wink:
 
^ ^ ^ I don't know about that. R&H has far more variety in style than JT. You have the blues, classic soul, classic rock, pyshedelic rock, 60s pop, 60s folk....influences ranging from Bo Diddly to Bob Dylan, to black soul of the past, to the beginnings of rock n' roll. U2 explore roots music on R&H, and experiment with traditional American sounds. On JT, there are influences, but overall it's an extension of TUF sound...with Edge rarely puting his digital delay away. I couldn't imagine a song like 'Angel of Harlem' on JT.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: last post on this topic for me

dietcokeofevil said:


I can't speak for anyone else... but think that if you met me in person you would find that I am not much of an elitist. As far as "complexity" or inaccessability...I don't know what to say. I just really loved the album. It worked for me. It reached me the way most other albums hadn't. It was dark and gloomy by U2 standards, and yes had its imperfections. But man, I could really relate to its desperation lyrically and musically. I know that other fans find that hard to believe but that album came from an angle that worked for me on every level. Sorry if that makes me an elitist.

As for the "Cool" image thing. I guess that I just never "got it" as to how cool it was. Bono always has been and always will be a wanker to me. And I love him for it. There has never been an era where I didn't simultaneously beg for more and at the same time wish they would shut up. An oxymoron of cool and anticool I suppose.

I know, I know. I do get heat for not liking Unforgetable Fire. Does it help that I do at least like Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby?

I'm sure you're not an elitist. And yes, Bono was always talking crap even when they were all the shit. It seems like he's gotten the "talking shit" down as he's aged while the music has suffered. I guess it's just a part of growing older. He almost makes sense these days. But the music grows stale.

And yes, liking The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby helps. :)
No heat for not liking Unforgettable, just a bizarre description of it. You should start an entire other thread of just those comments and see what happens. Axver will probably have a coronary.
 
Another Pop-lover here. Actually, I don't like the album that much, but I do like the live versions of most songs. And that's my theory of why people don't like Pop: the way it sounds, the way it is produced... It's just not the shimmering U2 that most people are used to.
And I think that was just what U2 had in mind: come up with something different. But as with all decissions, there's a good and a bad side to it. It's good that they didn't just go for the easy way of repeating themselves. It's bad that it had to be done this way.

If you listen to live versions of Mofo, Gone, Please... you just can't deny that those are U2-worthy songs. Also, I just love IGWSHI from the Las Vegas opening night. Yes, they mess up, but that particular version just makes it an honest song with U2 written all over it.

DYFL was really bad live, but the album version really works for me.
Velvet dress, works both live and album. Playboy mansion, maybe not their greatest song, but it has a certain feel that I like.

Apart from that, I think people should be less judgemental over other peoples opinions and tastes. I'm not saying that Pop is an overlooked masterpiece, but I do think calling it their biggest mistake says more about that person than it it does about U2.

It's their music, their work and they do it however they want it and that's what keeps it interesting for us :)
 
I love Pop but I won't argue that those who dislike it somehow "don't get it." If you don't like it, fine. Tomato, tom-ah-to.

For me, the album is different and even unsettling enough to be interesting. I also think Bono's lyrics are particularly good (ok, maybe not "Miami, my mammy..."). I love their willingness to embrace synths and programming to such a degree, and I think the original album mixes are way better than the tracks that were remixed for Best of 90-2000. (The single mix of "Please" outshines the album version, though.)

Still, I must concede that it would have been an even better record if they'd had more time to finish it and if they hadn't gotten distracted by the monster that was Popmart. Also, consider this telling credit from the liner notes:

"Produced by Flood. Additional production by Howie B, Steve Osborne. Recorded by Mark "Spike" Stent, Howie B, Alan Moulder. Mixed by Mark "Spike" Stent, Howie B, Steve Osborne. Engineering Assistant: Rob Kirwan."

That's too many producers, just as HTDAAB had too many producers. For Pop, they should have fired everyone and just kept Flood as the sole producer. They had worked with him before (starting with JT) and he obviously had plenty of experience with Depeche Mode, etc. to help the band pursue its love of synths and sequencers at the time. I think Flood working alone could have kept things from sounding too scattered.

Still, I really love this album.

As for the Unforgettable Fire debate, I'd have to agree that it's one of their weaker albums. It's got some of their best tracks (Pride, UF, MLK, Bad), but also some of their most indulgent and rambling (Elvis, Wire, Indian Summer Sky, etc.) It's like they spent half the album trying to embrace the listener and the other half trying to alienate him or her.
 
Back
Top Bottom