Was the failure of Pop the best thing to happen to U2?

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

'U2 want to re-record Pop. They shouldn't need to, but they do.'

Pop is one of my five favorite albums of all-time. No one in America agrees with me, but probably most of Europe agrees. Bono knows this. Even the Zimbab warriors in east Africa agree, but through hubris, stupidity, and a bottle of chianti he convinced his bandmates to release an album of sarcasm, emotion, and irony here in America by cutting the ribbon at a K-Mart. Bad idea.

We take ourselves way too seriously, and refuse to allow anyone to criticize us even if their points are true. This is especially problematic for lyricists who want to write about fixing problems: to fix a problem, you have to acknowledge it. As I said, that's not our strong point.

So how do you sell that type of album here? You don't (U2 found this out the hard way)... but a re-release could if they *ugh* market it right.

How to sell a great album in five easy steps:

1. Make the first single sound as "normal" as possible - as Frank Zappa said, "People just want to hear that falls comes, the leaves turn brown, winter happens, but then everything is OK again in the spring." Release Staring at the Sun as the first single this time around, guys. People just want to sing along with the little drunken irishmen who dreams about world peace.

2. Front-load the album - put all of the singles as first tracks. That's what they did with the Joshua Tree. That's how Nirvana sold Nevermind. They did it again with All that you can't Leave Behind. Those albums sold despite not being the best work.

Why do bands even pretend that we have an attention span? As much as I'd love the idea that there are 22 million people in America who are hardcore U2 fans who've read Plato's Allegory of the Cave just because it was referenced by U2, I just can't buy it. They like the singles. The Postal Service would just be known as mail-losing, slow-moving retirees if it weren't for the fact that the two singles were the first two tracks on the album. People get confused and disoriented trying to find "That song that Zach Braff wrote" if it's not one of the first two tracks.

3. Don't call it electronic, dance, pop, or experimental - Those are code words used by the average American that mean, "bad music." The ironic thing (and the thing that people think is so clever in Europe) is that Pop, the album, isn't pop music, it isn't dance music, it isn't electronic, and it is definitely not experimental. It's hard rock with a chorus.

4. Lie to the media - tell them (us?) that they (we?) are gods who "keep America on the right track!" Ignore the reality tv. Don't try to make a statement. The phrase "circle jerk" came into use because of the media industry. Don't make claims that the media shouldn't take itself so seriously. Journalists become journalists because they're the only people who can take such inane topics as seriously as they do. How else do you keep a straight face while writing a headline like "New Oasis Album a Fountain in the Desert?"

5. Don't make gay disco videos - Gays are evil here. They're the new Jew. I don't know what America's problem with gay people is. I don't get it. Maybe it's the fact that they dress nicely? Maybe it's the fact they're all nicer than the rest of America? Maybe it's just the dancing?

Whatever it is, we don't like it. Most of us apparently don't want our kids growing up to be anything but unkempt, smiling klutzes. So implying any effeminate qualities like these will kill you.

We want hairy, stupid men, and vapid, conniving women. Please, leave all notions of logic and compassion on the boat before you head for Ellis Island.


That's how you sell an album. How you make an album is by doing whatever they did to make Pop because it's great. It doesn't fall down after a fast start like The Joshua Tree. It doesn't ramble through truly experimental (but genius still) ruminations on nerve endings (see the song "Numb" on Zooropa). It doesn't sit on one idea for an entire 74 minutes (see the idea that "love hurts" on Achtung Baby). It doesn't ruin itself with hollow 80's production (see: War, The Unforgettable Fire, and October). It doesn't have Bono pretending he's a cowboy (see: Rattle and Hum). It doesn't have Bono pretending he's in the Harlem Boys' Choir (see Rattle and Hum). It doesn't have Bono pretending he's BB King's nephew (see Rattle and Hum), and it doesn't have Bono pretending he's the devil (see Zooropa).

Pop does have:

- The most intricate guitar parts on any U2 album.
- Immediacy (the vocals for Please were done in one take)
- The most unexpected drum patterns on any U2 album (ironically, this is the only album where Larry doesn't sound like a drum machine).

and...

- The best lyrics of any U2 album. Here's a quick rundown of the topics covered:

Disengenuous love affairs- Do You Feel Loved
Oedipus complexes - MoFo
Domestic abuse - If God Will Send His Angels
The Allegory of the Cave - Staring at the Sun
Ressurection - Last Night on Eart
Losing yourself to greed when you try to avoid pain - Gone
Everything you can do in Miami to procrastinate while making an album - Miami
The loss of meaning that happens when words for passion are coopted by the media - Playboy Mansion
Placing qualifications on love- If you Wear that Velvet Dress
Abandoning life for addiction - Please
A prayer for Jesus to come alive again after all of your other options are gone - Wake Up Dead Man


Buy it, and start on track 2; you'll love it.

Rolling Stone: U2-Pop: Music Reviews

RS rating: 4/5
Average user rating: 4/5


The conventional, major-label A&R wisdom on electronica boils down to this: "If only we could find a rock band that plays dance music and can write real songs." U2 did just that on "Pop" -- and nobody cared. Maybe they overhyped the techno angle; "Pop" is far more economical in its art-pop disturbance than "Achtung Baby" and less flamboyant in its ache than "The Joshua Tree." There are loops aplenty, but Pop is about hearts beating, not just pulse beats, and the best mix of sob and throb is in the ballads, a U2 specialty: the grim burbling of "Gone," Bono's arcing anguish in "Please." Taken on its own -- away from the chart numbers and the big shtick of PopMart -- "Pop" is simply an album of great pop. For some reason, for a lot of folks, that's just not enough.
 
bathiu said:
OK...
Pop does have:

- The most intricate guitar parts on any U2 album.
- Immediacy (the vocals for Please were done in one take)
- The most unexpected drum patterns on any U2 album (ironically, this is the only album where Larry doesn't sound like a drum machine).

and...

- The best lyrics of any U2 album. Here's a quick rundown of the topics covered:

Disengenuous love affairs- Do You Feel Loved
Oedipus complexes - MoFo
Domestic abuse - If God Will Send His Angels
The Allegory of the Cave - Staring at the Sun
Ressurection - Last Night on Eart
Losing yourself to greed when you try to avoid pain - Gone
Everything you can do in Miami to procrastinate while making an album - Miami
The loss of meaning that happens when words for passion are coopted by the media - Playboy Mansion
Placing qualifications on love- If you Wear that Velvet Dress
Abandoning life for addiction - Please
A prayer for Jesus to come alive again after all of your other options are gone - Wake Up Dead Man



fantastico!!:applaud:

now put it in an envelope, stick a stamp on it and address to 'Bono and Boys' with a quick short note stating:

'Stop slagging off your Masterpiece.'

xxx

:|
 
bathiu, did you write that, or was that part of a Rolling Stone article, or what? because that is GENIUS. except for the part where Discotheque is skipped :wink:

"Everything you can do in Miami to procrastinate while making an album" :lmao:

When I become a famous rock star, I'm going to buy an extra million or two copies of Pop so it won't be such a "failure" anymore.
 
Raydetect said:


The last 2 albums were definitely INFERIOR TO POP AND ZOOROPA!!!!

Not according to most U2 fans, the band, critics, Grammy academy, and the general public.:wink:
 
Re: Re: Was the failure of Pop the best thing to happen to U2?

JMScoopy said:


Boy-October-War - 0 grammys

does that mean they were failures?

Nope, but some here will do everything they can to convince others that winning the Grammy is a sign of failure.
 
I love, love, love pop for all the reasons stated here so many times.

pop isn't a failure.

the band said that they had a deadline, and that's why they didn't get to finish the record properly. that leaves the band unsatisfied, but doesn't make the record a failure.

it sold MILLIONS. it was considered a failure just because U2 normally solds a ridiculous amount of records ("ridiculous" stating many, not that everyone shouldn't buy U2 records)

POP is :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool:


:yes: :wink:


edit:

WinnieThePoo said:
in terms of money ... yes
in terms of making good studio albums ...no

why didn't I just quote this? I didn't even answer the question in the thread title myself. :lol:
 
STING2 said:


Not according to most U2 fans, the band, critics, Grammy academy, and the general public.:wink:

Well, I don't think that the Grammy Academy's views and the views of the general public mean anything in terms of artistic merit. I really don't. The general public loves Lil John and the Eagles, Grammy voters love Lenny Kravitz. They like good stuff too, but you get my point.

As for huge U2 fans, we seem to be of split opinion, at least on this board. I wouldn't be surprised if Zooropa and Pop were considered better (by a smidge) on interference.

Critics---I don't really read reviews, but do critics really like ATYCLB and Bomb better than Pop and Zooropa? Go look back at the reviews from 93 and 97. As I can remember, Pop got awesome reviews and the people turned on it when it didn't sell as well as expected. In the Flanagan book it was said that Zooropa's reviews were wonderful. I read ATYCLB reviews in on the now defunct youtwo.com and they were good, but not generally extraordinary. I don't know about the Bomb. I could be wrong, but it would be interesting to see what critics prefered the last two.

The Band--will give you that. However, they always like what's the most recent, as most bands do, though Bono has nothing but great things to say about Zooropa.
 
KhanadaRhodes said:

ahhh, but this is just your opinion. it's not a fact.


That part is true, but then, isn't that the purpose of this thread? ;)

For example, someone said that "Pop" has the best lyrics ever. Interesting. As a long time U2 fan, I remember the uproar over the whole "bubblegum" nonsense in "Discotheque". Fans were furious at the subpar lyrics. Fans didn't like "Miami". Fans hated the "Cartoon Network" comment and overbearing obviousness of "If God Will Send...". And many fans weren't thrilled with the music on some songs.

Funny, how 8 years later, "Pop" is not glorified as this masterpiece, while the album that just won Album of the Year is being treated like a red-headed stepchild.
 
doctorwho said:
That part is true, but then, isn't that the purpose of this thread? ;)
i'm just getting sick of people (not referring to anyone in particular as there are loads of people guilty of this) touting their opinions on this forum as fact. judging by other people's comments on other threads, i see i'm not the only one.
 
KhanadaRhodes said:

i'm just getting sick of people (not referring to anyone in particular as there are loads of people guilty of this) touting their opinions on this forum as fact. judging by other people's comments on other threads, i see i'm not the only one.
:drool: :D
 
KhanadaRhodes said:

i'm just getting sick of people (not referring to anyone in particular as there are loads of people guilty of this) touting their opinions on this forum as fact. judging by other people's comments on other threads, i see i'm not the only one.

Oh, I agree with you there!

Some write statements about Bono's lyrics, vocals or U2's image or Edge's playing or Larry's drum work or whatever as if this is the one and only truth. They say the lyrics are subpar, therefore it's true! Hallelujah!

And this is why I sometimes defend. Every era of U2 has problems. This is a GOOD thing - U2 are human. If anything was perfect, I think we'd freak. ;)

But an Album of the Year should not be dismissed so readily. It's a shame that people seem to disrespect HTDAAB so much. I wonder if Steely Dan fans or Santana fans did the same when their favorite artist won their Album of the Year awards a few years back. IMO, those albums were not as good as prior releases, but they were spectacular albums - similar to HTDAAB (not U2's absolute best, IMO, but spectacular). And all of these albums are worthy of the accolades they received. Sadly, some U2 fans seemed destined to cherish the past at the expense of the present. God forbid what the future holds for them.
 
Lemonfix said:


Well, I don't think that the Grammy Academy's views and the views of the general public mean anything in terms of artistic merit. I really don't. The general public loves Lil John and the Eagles, Grammy voters love Lenny Kravitz. They like good stuff too, but you get my point.

As for huge U2 fans, we seem to be of split opinion, at least on this board. I wouldn't be surprised if Zooropa and Pop were considered better (by a smidge) on interference.

Critics---I don't really read reviews, but do critics really like ATYCLB and Bomb better than Pop and Zooropa? Go look back at the reviews from 93 and 97. As I can remember, Pop got awesome reviews and the people turned on it when it didn't sell as well as expected. In the Flanagan book it was said that Zooropa's reviews were wonderful. I read ATYCLB reviews in on the now defunct youtwo.com and they were good, but not generally extraordinary. I don't know about the Bomb. I could be wrong, but it would be interesting to see what critics prefered the last two.

The Band--will give you that. However, they always like what's the most recent, as most bands do, though Bono has nothing but great things to say about Zooropa.

There have been multiple polls on here where HTDAAB was put up against either Zooropa or POP and in every case, HTDAAB has beaten both albums. In addition, another poll where people ranked the albums showed that HTDAAB is considered by the average person on here to be U2's 4th best album with the only 90s album ahead of it being Achtung Baby.
 
I really don't understand this backlash against HTDAAB.

"Zooropa" won the Grammy for "Best Alternative Album" - and deservedly so, IMO. That album was truly alternative - it was not only vastly different (barring perhaps "Stay") for U2, but different compared to all other music out there. In an era where grunge music dominated - yet was considered "alternative" - "Zooropa" stood out. It was a brilliant award for U2.

"Pop" was nominated for "Best Rock Record" of the year. It lost, perhaps unfairly, but then there was a backlash that year against U2 as well.

And this is what puzzles me - it seems there's always some sort of backlash against U2.

If you don't like HTDAAB, I got it. Great. Get over it. Many people do like it, including the 1000+ people who have a Grammy vote. Quit bringing up how "brilliant" "Zooropa" and "Pop" were compared to HTDAAB. They had their moments in the spot light.
 
doctorwho said:
I really don't understand this backlash against HTDAAB.

"Zooropa" won the Grammy for "Best Alternative Album" - and deservedly so, IMO. That album was truly alternative - it was not only vastly different (barring perhaps "Stay") for U2, but different compared to all other music out there. In an era where grunge music dominated - yet was considered "alternative" - "Zooropa" stood out. It was a brilliant award for U2.

"Pop" was nominated for "Best Rock Record" of the year. It lost, perhaps unfairly, but then there was a backlash that year against U2 as well.

And this is what puzzles me - it seems there's always some sort of backlash against U2.

If you don't like HTDAAB, I got it. Great. Get over it. Many people do like it, including the 1000+ people who have a Grammy vote. Quit bringing up how "brilliant" "Zooropa" and "Pop" were compared to HTDAAB. They had their moments in the spot light.

There has always seem to be a backlash from some group of fans after every album from Rattle And Hum onwards. Joshua Tree was the last album where the band got a pass from virtually every fan. I've never heard of any sort of a backlash from fans during the initial year of Joshua Tree or UF.
 
STING2 said:


Since when did selling 5.5 million copies of an album worldwide and having the 2nd highest grossing tour at that time become a failure?

I think you misunderstood. I had 'failure' in inverted commas, and I used the word 'relative'. I don't think it was a failure, in fact I can remember all of the singles hitting high in the charts, even the fourth single Please did very well. I was using the original poster's words to say that I didn't think it was a failure at all. Yet, relatively, it was a failure. 5.5 million albums for a band that sold a hell of a lot more earlier in the 1990s and with their next album is a relative failure of sorts.

Just to say, too, Pop is probably in my top 3 U2 albums, all three being the Achtung Baby-Zooropa-Pop phase. It nudges Joshua Tree out because I love the depth of its sound and lyrically it's very dark and powerful. If they had dropped Playboy Mansion and replaced it with Holy Joe (Garage Mix), or left it at an 11-track album, it would have been even stronger.


Lemonfix said:
Oh, and Grammys, U2 could have none and they could have 54 1/2 and it would not matter to me one bit. There's a reason the Grammys are considered a joke.

EXACTLY!!!! And whoever said that album sales mean anything either to an album being good? Record sales are not the best indicator of artistic success by a long shot.
'The greatest bands will never get signed' as Jeff Tweedy once sang!
 
Last edited:
The commercial failure of Pop was easily the worst thing that could happen to U2 :(

After that they took the easiest way and sold out to MTV, Grammies, Super Bowl, etc, etc until today :sad:
 
Earnie Shavers said:
Such a mammoth diversity of fans is both their biggest blessing and biggest curse.

It's a curse if you sit and ache and moan and groan for them to make another Pop, and meanwhile hate anything that comes since and isn't Pop.

Not a curse if you say that while Pop may be your favorite album, you can appreciate the current albums and recognize that going down a path already traveled has never been what's best for U2.
 
Chizip said:
Pre Pop - 7 grammys
Post Pop - 15 grammys


Discuss

4 of the past 15 Grammys were for Best Rock Song or Best Rock Album.

Best Rock Song started in 1992.
Best Rock Album started in 1995.

If either of those had been around from 1980-1991, there wouldn't be such a variance in Grammys won.
 
Back
Top Bottom