Bunbury
Refugee
You're all wrong IMHO with this, but we can go on and on.....
Yes, will they fall from the sky, or turn into a space craft and leave orbit? If the new album really is "punk rock from Venus," I suppose it will be the latter.Rafiennes said:It's almost like a plane rolling down the runway (Boy, October, War) then pulling up the front wheels for take off (TUF, JT, R&H) and then take off (Achtung, Zooropa, Pop) and now they're coasting above the clouds (ATYCLB) and where they go from here is...well, I guess we'll have to see.
J, your post, as it stands, is invalid. If you made the simple amendment of adding the phrase, "In the United States," after each sentence, you would rectify this issue. For example, starting at the beginning of your post: "Precisely why I described POP as "inacessible" [in the United States],"...or, "It wasn't U2's fault that not many could understand POP [in the Untied States]," clears things up nicely...or, "But the main fact is that POP was the least well-received U2 album since UF (or was it October), the worst selling and most dissed album since U2 launched to the rock stratosphere in 1987 [in the United States]," etc. This is by no means an insult to the United States, simply an amendment that would add accuracy to your post...because in pretty much every other country in the world, Pop was a big success, as was the tour.jick said:
Precisely why I described POP as "inacessible". It wasn't U2's fault that not many could understand POP. I could understand it. U2 simply overestimated the intelligence of its fans. We can argue all day as to whether POP is a good or a bad album, and no one will win because it is all a matter of opinion. But the main fact is that POP was the least well-received U2 album since UF (or was it October), the worst selling and most dissed album since U2 launched to the rock stratosphere in 1987. So in the sense that POP created a sales dive, and U2 played to mostly half empty stadiums during their 2nd trip to the USA kinda tarnished their image. ATYCLB era restored the legacy, as it was the antithesis of POP. POP debuted #1 everywhere but fizzled out, whereas ATYCLB started out not quite as good as POP did but it sustained its momentum for almost 2 years. Even in the tour, the contrast can be seen - U2 had to add dates to their 2nd US leg, while in POP U2 were playing to half empty stadiums.
Cheers,
J
u2sangel said:Seabird I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else who did not like POP it is not my favorite album either there are some good songs on it and then some that sound unfinished!I was referring more to the Pop tour and some people not getting the irony of what was going on onstage thats all!
follower said:
I don?t know about you, but I hope they continue to explore those colours and tones...you know, the whole rainbow in front of them.
Cheers
MT
You also need to add the phrase, "in the United States," after each sentence. Of course there are some Pop haters in Europe as there are in America, but since you're speaking in general terms, you have to concede that the percentage of people who liked it in Europe compared to that of America was much greater; and, conversely, the percentage of people who hated it in Europe was much smaller than in the US. For proof, just look at the album sales per capita and the success of the tour in Europe compared to America. There's a big difference. I just cannot buy your argument that U2 took "a dive in their public image" outside of America based on a small percentage of fans. It would be like saying U2 took a public image dive with ATYCLB in America because some people hated it...which, as we know, was simply not the case.Seabird said:I also disagree that if they had retired after Pop they'd be one of the top 10 bands ever. No way, they had really taken a dive in their public image. I used to hear comments like "U2? They used to be good, but now they suck, what happened?" or "They were so cool but then they freaked out." No you can't write them all off as "stupid" and "not getting it" and to do so would be ridiculous and unfair. I don't think it was just America because there are Americans who liked it just as there are Europeans who didn't- I know several Pop disliking Europeans myself. They had, sadly, as some others here have mentioned, become a laughingstock because of the Pop era.
Saracene said:A fair comment, but public image is not just about the fans and how many of them did/didn't like POP. It's also, if not more, to do with the general public and what the general perception of the band was. These may not have anything to do with the actual quality of the album. And whether it's fair or not, succeeding in US is a BIG DEAL, for both the artists and the observers, and it colours the general impression a lot.
Plus, I do not remember U2 playing more POP songs in Europe during the Elevation tour, either.
The general perception of the band (not just the fans) was also much better in Europe than the US. My argument was not about "quality of album" as you allude. People buy an album because they like it, not because of some objective quality standard. Of course succeeding in the US is a big deal. It's one of the largest markets in the world, if not the largest. That, however, doesn't negate the fact that in the rest of the world the album and the band did not suffer the public image/sales problems it had in the US--and to allude that the American market somehow paints the band all in one colour in a universal sense, it seems a bit arrogant to me. That's my argument.Saracene said:A fair comment, but public image is not just about the fans and how many of them did/didn't like POP. It's also, if not more, to do with the general public and what the general perception of the band was. These may not have anything to do with the actual quality of the album. And whether it's fair or not, succeeding in US is a BIG DEAL, for both the artists and the observers, and it colours the general impression a lot.
Plus, I do not remember U2 playing more POP songs in Europe during the Elevation tour, either.
Michael Griffiths said:That, however, doesn't negate the fact that in the rest of the world the album and the band did not suffer the public image/sales problems it had in the US--and to allude that the American market somehow paints the band all in one colour in a universal sense, it seems a bit arrogant to me. That's my argument.
Saracene said:
I agree, it's useless to centre everything around US market - but that's what your own argument does, in a way. Stressing how much more successful POP was in one territory than the other doesn't take into account the fact that, in US and many places outside US, the sales for POP were rather lower than for U2's previous albums. Here, on the Australian charts, POP was certified 1 x platinum, whereas Achtung Baby was 5 x platinum and ATYCLB 4 x platinum. That pretty much spells a dive in popularity.