(08-21-2002) U2 Get Lost Behind Giant Lemon on PopMart Tour - RollingStone

[HelloAngel]

http://www.rollingstone.com/features/featuregen.asp?pid=1018

*In the most recent issue of Rolling Stone, legendary rock missteps are profiled. U2 charted at #18.*

U2
Get lost behind giant lemon on PopMart tour
1997


It's hard to imagine now, but just a few years ago, Bono and the lads felt insecure about their place in the world. "What can we do to make people like us again?" they asked themselves. "Eureka! We'll play bad synth rock on a huge stage set designed like a McDonald's! As an ironic statement on pop culture! And if that still doesn't work, by golly, we'll just have to emerge from a revolving forty-foot lemon!" Surprisingly, the plan failed. Although the lavish PopMart set cost $1.5 million a week to keep on the road, shows had to be canceled due to poor ticket sales. The Denver show sold barely half its 55,000 tickets. Happily, U2 came to their senses and returned with their best album, lemon-free.

 

[Bonochick]

I Pop, Pop Mart, AND the lemon!!!!

 

[bonovoxorg]

Pop and Popmart are growing on me. "Popmuzik" is really catchy for me right now for some reason.

Pop hasn't been in my playlist, I originally only bought it so my "collection" would be "complete" (and by no means am I even going to start comparing my meager collection to some people who are probably reading). I've been going back to it lately, and am rediscovering some of the soul behind the glitz. There's some damn good stuff in there once you get past the initial "trashy" sound.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Well...

I don't have the "Pop" album itself, but I've heard some of the songs off that album...I don't know why people have complained about it...the stuff I've heard off there I like. *Shrugs*.

But to each his own, I guess.

As for the tour with the lemon...I think it'd have been neat to see that tour...it sounded like a unique tour.

Why, oh, why did I have to come into these guys' music so late in their career? I missed out on a lot of cool stuff that's happened in the past.

Eh, oh, well. I'm sure they'll continue to do cool things with their career. .

Angela

 

[jick]

The bigger news is ...

It isn't the fact the Rolling Stone actually ranked U2 #18 that amzes me. The more startling thing is how could Rolling Stone even remember U2 released Pop 5 years back?

Seems like after the release of ATYCLB, all the long time alienated U2 fans have forgiven U2 and forgotten Pop - Rolling Stone included. The sheer brilliance of ATYCLB let everyone forget the sidetracking on U2 in Pop.

How they even remembered and dug up this zit in U2's past is quite something. Hardly anyone remembers Pop anymore. But then again, no list of missteps would be complete without the Pop debacle that haunted U2 for the years preceding ATYCLB's release. I hope U2 rights the wrong with the upcoming remix of Pop.

Cheers,

J

 

[bonovoxorg]

Re: The bigger news is ...

Seems like after the release of ATYCLB, all the long time alienated U2 fans have forgiven U2 and forgotten Pop - Rolling Stone included. The sheer brilliance of ATYCLB let everyone forget the sidetracking on U2 in Pop.

How they even remembered and dug up this zit in U2's past is quite something. Hardly anyone remembers Pop anymore. But then again, no list of missteps would be complete without the Pop debacle that haunted U2 for the years preceding ATYCLB's release. I hope U2 rights the wrong with the upcoming remix of Pop.

On the contrary. Pop too was a brilliant album, from an exploratory sense. Remember Achtung Baby was a massive shift in sound and feel from Joshua Tree, so too was Pop from the "Zoo" era. Maybe it wasn't what the market wanted, but they followed their own will and explored areas of musical style they hadn't tried before; expanding one's palette is a good thing.

Not everyone has forgotten Pop, and not everyone holds a grudge against the band for making a "non-mass-market" album. So it wasn't in a style you liked, don't listen to it, but don't think you have a place to hold a grudge against them for it.

For myself, I too didn't particularly care for Pop when it came out, and it's only been recently as I revisit all my music that I've begun to understand what it's about, what the songs are about. Sure the style has a little more cumin than I like, but the songs themselves are as soulful as any other album. It took years for Zooropa to grow on me, it took years for Pop to grow on me. I don't hate U2 for that.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Well, personally...

I'm all for a band making some big changes in their music most of the time. Yeah, this album may have been totally different from much of the other stuff U2 did, but a band like them should be allowed to experiment and try out new sounds and new things with an album. I even consider some of what U2 did in the 80's changes, because if you listen to their very early stuff, it sounds completely New Waveish, but then you listen to "The Joshua Tree", and that doesn't sound New Waveish at all (at least, not to me). And then you had "Achtung Baby", which was a drastic change from what U2 had done in the 80's altogether, and that was welcomed big time.

Course, I could be way off with all I just said, but, oh, well.

And like I said, from what I've heard off that album, I really don't see why people didn't like it...I like the stuff I've heard so far, it sounds like a pretty good album to me, personally. *Shrugs*

But like I said before, to each their own...if someone out there didn't like "Pop" they obviously had their reasons, so...whatever.

Angela