Desire4Bono
Refugee
Okay, wait, listen- don't bash me or start a hair or era flame war, I'm not just talking about the damn shaved head here! I mean the clothes, the pictures, the stage setup, the lemon, what was on the videoscreens, the entire image and attitude the band presented to the public at the time. Isn't it possible that perhaps that, combined with the 'different' sound, had a negative influence on how the general public and some fans felt about the whole album and tour? I think so. The Kmart conference itself and the Vegas special to kickoff the tour were a turnoff to many. Then think about how the band was attired, and how they came out of a giant lemon to the tune of Pop Muzik? A lot of people saw that (combined with hearing the songs and the Discotheque video) and were like, WTF is wrong with U2? It only confirmed fears and suspicions of a great many fans that U2 had gone off the deep end, had freaked out, had totally 'lost it.'
As shallow as it may seem to most of you, the average person is heavily influenced by visual images, and, unfortunately the image of U2 during POPMART and the POP era was percieved as comical to many and it added to them becoming, well, almost a joke. I am not saying this as fact or my opinion, but I have heard it so much the factor cannot really be denied.
Okay- now hold it. I know a lot of you here just love that era, and of course I respect that, so please don't just jump in and tell us how much you loved it, yadda yadda yadda. So YOU liked it, okay, but my point is, thousands, perhaps millions who obviously rejected the album and tour might not have, and my question is:
Do you think if U2 had not had such an extreme, over the top, dayglow, outlandish look and stage setup, do you think the POP album itself might have gotten a better view in the public eye?
If the band still had their cool ZOOTV era look and image, would that have helped sell them any? Though some old fans might have been shocked by it, overall it was well liked and well recieved. The difference in the sales of AB and POP proves that millions who loved AB rejected POP, so it wasn't all the 80's people! Is it possible the image they put forth in the POP era had a hand in turning fans against the CD itself?
Would the change in sound have been easier to take if not for the image?
Again, I'm not asking what YOU like or personally think and I don't want any fights, just do you think in the grand sceme of things could this have had something to do with the public acceptance of it in general, or do you think the sound alone would've done it regardless of the look and image and personality of the band at the time?
I certainly hope I have explained myself well and will not be misunderstood. I have seen this topic touched on before but not in a thread. So, please don't flame, but discuss!
As shallow as it may seem to most of you, the average person is heavily influenced by visual images, and, unfortunately the image of U2 during POPMART and the POP era was percieved as comical to many and it added to them becoming, well, almost a joke. I am not saying this as fact or my opinion, but I have heard it so much the factor cannot really be denied.
Okay- now hold it. I know a lot of you here just love that era, and of course I respect that, so please don't just jump in and tell us how much you loved it, yadda yadda yadda. So YOU liked it, okay, but my point is, thousands, perhaps millions who obviously rejected the album and tour might not have, and my question is:
Do you think if U2 had not had such an extreme, over the top, dayglow, outlandish look and stage setup, do you think the POP album itself might have gotten a better view in the public eye?
If the band still had their cool ZOOTV era look and image, would that have helped sell them any? Though some old fans might have been shocked by it, overall it was well liked and well recieved. The difference in the sales of AB and POP proves that millions who loved AB rejected POP, so it wasn't all the 80's people! Is it possible the image they put forth in the POP era had a hand in turning fans against the CD itself?
Would the change in sound have been easier to take if not for the image?
Again, I'm not asking what YOU like or personally think and I don't want any fights, just do you think in the grand sceme of things could this have had something to do with the public acceptance of it in general, or do you think the sound alone would've done it regardless of the look and image and personality of the band at the time?
I certainly hope I have explained myself well and will not be misunderstood. I have seen this topic touched on before but not in a thread. So, please don't flame, but discuss!