maybe u2's downfall in the late 90s didn't really have anything to do with pop.

[Copy]

Not just those two things.

U2 and the US have a love-hate relationship over the years.

But why exactly would America hate POPMART? It seemed designed for America. Much more than, for instance, Elevation or Vertigo.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

It was the haircuts.

Eureka!

 

[roy]

.

US critics pan Rattle and Hum - U2 skips any and all American venues on Lovetown

But wasn't its purpose to primarily tour countries (and continients) not previously covered.

 

[beegee]

Although it could also be that people didn't get the costumes or giant lemon and thought U2 had gone overboard.

I can hardly imagine that someone would choose not to buy a u2 album or go to a U2 concert because of the outfits.

personally, what i remember from that time was coming off of the joshua tree tour (i skipped the zoo shows due to whatever was happening in my life at that time) where we were paying $20-$25 a ticket for some of the best rock shows we had ever seen and then reading articles about the upcoming pop tour (the giant fruits and vegetables, the cost of the tour, the outrageous ticket prices) and laughing and saying to myself, "who the fuck do they think they are?"

i deliberately skipped any and all pop shows because of it.

 

[U2Man]

personally, what i remember from that time was coming off of the joshua tree tour (i skipped the zoo shows due to whatever was happening in my life at that time) where we were paying $20-$25 a ticket for some of the best rock shows we had ever seen and then reading articles about the upcoming pop tour (the giant fruits and vegetables, the cost of the tour, the outrageous ticket prices) and laughing and saying to myself, "who the fuck do they think they are?"

i deliberately skipped any and all pop shows because of it.

so it wasn't the music that turned you off, but ehm...u2's lack of humility - and maybe too big an ego at the time; self-centredness?

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

so it wasn't the music that turned you off, but ehm...u2's lack of humility - and maybe too big an ego at the time; self-centredness?

Don't forget the giant fruits and vegetables... scandalous!

Chandler Bing voice: Can that olive BE any bigger?

 

[Utoo]

I wouldn't call it a "downfall," but instead a "dropping off." Downfall implies the end----the downfall of the Roman Empire, etc. U2 didn't end.


Listen, it was bound to happen. They essentially started down a sliding path with Achtung. Not necessarily the music, but rather the attitude. There was some great music made. But the attitude of creating the puffed-up image, the sarcasm that came with every single interview, etc., built and built. Musically, they weren't far off base. Hell, Passengers is pretty much a mix of Zooropa and Unforgettable Fire. You could see U2 in even that. But it was the image---you couldn't see U2 inside any more. Unless, of course, you decided that this "new U2" was, indeed, the real U2. Either way, it was a dead-end. You can't build up a global fanbase over 10+ years and then over the next ten years give them a radically different band--musically, but most importantly, image-wise--with no sign of the band you grew up with, and expect everyone to latch on for the ride with no end in sight. It's kind of like Bono says: two crap albums and we're out. It's the same way for the fans. Not that the stuff they made in the 90s was crap at all--not by any means. When you've gotten attached to a band through 6 albums, multiple tours, etc., you give them some room to change their image up....but when the image becomes a game and 3 1/2 albums later the band seems to forget that it's a game...that's when it becomes easy for people to say, "Alright, nice game, but I'm a bit tired of it & I'm out." And that, IMO, is what happened. People who jumped on in the 90s thinking that this was the main side of U2 loved it. Some people who'd been there from the start were turned off right away. Others who'd been there from the start gave them some room, probably liked some of what they got, but couldn't keep playing the game forever. As Paul McGuinness or somebody said in "U2 Show:" U2 fans want the band to change, yet they want them to stay exactly the same. That really applies to fans of every single era.

It was a great experiment, both in terms of music and image. But it was pretty much destined to end at some point.

 

[U2Man]

do you by 'game' imply that the band had started to lack substance? the good causes that had defined u2 in the 80s?

 

[Utoo]

no, i think that would be silly to imply and think to be true. it was all still there. and if you looked, it was still there in the music. Pop, as Bono has said once or twice, is perhaps their most religious album of the whole catalog. Religious/deep/smart/creative...whatever you want to say, you could find it in there. But in terms of what they put forth, what they showed to the world---it was all paper mâché. Watch a Pop-era interview---they're almost all a joke. Sitting around in leopard-print lounge chairs with people in costumes serving champagne. Yeah, there may be a point. But you can't make that point for a whole decade without it getting old.

 

[U2Man]

well, i take that as a yes, since their popularity is determined by what people see.

however, even if pop still had the substance in the lyrics, and i think you're right, maybe the world cared less about it than they used to?

which brings us back on topic:

As long as there is calamity, U2 will remain relevant. Maybe that's why they fell off during Clinton's second term-- the West had forgotten what real trouble was all about, and there was nothing for U2 to push against.

bono's reaction to the pop trouble was to get heavily engaged in clear and visible causes again - jubilee 2000 and africa. maybe that wasnt such a random decision

 

[dietcokeofevil]

I wish U2 would take chances like that again. They gradually lost their nerve after the Vegas fiasco and the tour really picked up incredible energy away from the states.

Now we have to watch Bono on as everyman everywhere. He doesn't say no to anyone famous.

 

[corianderstem]

Chandler Bing voice: Can that olive BE any bigger?

 

[Z00rop@83]

maybe we're looking into the whole thing a little too much....to the casual fan any chance it was just too weird?!?

ZooTv was cool...
Popmart was weird....

I didnt get the whole popmart concept myself and i'm a fan, i still don't fully understand it, i love the music and the album.....

but lets face it, a giant lemon, village people costumes, bono with dotted pants carrying an umbrella...it was WEIRD....

like i said the album is awesome tho

 

[U2Man]

maybe we're looking into the whole thing a little too much....to the casual fan any chance it was just too weird?!?

ZooTv was cool...
Popmart was weird....

I didnt get the whole popmart concept myself and i'm a fan, i still don't fully understand it, i love the music and the album.....

but lets face it, a giant lemon, village people costumes, bono with dotted pants carrying an umbrella...it was WEIRD....

like i said the album is awesome tho

but why the poor album sales then? the tour didn't go as well as they had hoped for in the u.s. - the album sales were severely disappointing (despite what bono might be saying now).

 

[LemonMelon]

1. The Discotheque video creeped out more people than just Larry.

2. The tour didn't live up to ZooTV.

3. The Pop sales shouldn't be compared to Zooropa's because that album was simply riding the coattails of Achtung Baby and ZooTV.

4. Why did AB sell 17 million? Because One was on it. Pop didn't have a single like that.

That is all.

 

[Utoo]

maybe we're looking into the whole thing a little too much....to the casual fan any chance it was just too weird?!?

ZooTv was cool...
Popmart was weird....

 

[redhotswami]

maybe Pop was a bit too avant garde? perhaps the u.s. just wasn't ready for it at the time it'll be interesting to see how the DVD sells, and compare it to the ZooTV DVD.

sorry if somebody posted something like this earlier. i'm too lazy to look.

 

[wtonis]

then there was popmart with half-empty stadiums.

That's why U2 haven't played US stadiums ever since.

 

[Salome]

4. Why did AB sell 17 million? Because One was on it. Pop didn't have a single like that.

it is that simple indeed

I'm not going to argue sales or chart positions (both can be manipulated as U2 has done successfully time & time again over their entire career), but until U2 released Beautiful Day they hadn't released a single with true mass appeal since One

this ends up costing you even when you're as big as U2


a hundred other reasons also didn't help, but the lack of a One (or about a dozen examples from 80s U2) would have made all the difference in public opinon

 

[U2Man]

pop had discotheque and staring at the sun which were both fairly big hits.

 

[verte76]

In my mind, Pop was an artistically successful album. It wasn't as commercially successful as AB or ATYCLB but that doesn't mean anything to me.

 

[J_NP]

pop had discotheque and staring at the sun which were both fairly big hits.

I'm sorry u2man , but u wanna compare it with One ? I mean , I think there was already in 91-92 that One was that big , and mate those 2 videos , the 1st gathering all people's attention by showing u2 as ladies , and the 2nd one was such a MTV hit , Who doesn't remember the zootv images , Bono's broken heart look in the bar and gettin out of the bar in the morning ............

One was such a super big promotion to achtung baby , I don't think other song was that much promo to a record .... coz if u look at

Joshua Tree had 3 super singles/videos
ATYCLB had 4 great singles
Even Vertigo with so much hype , wasn't the engine for Bomb , coz it was u2 back

But with Achtung , Besides it was their comeback after the 90's , the biggest promo was definitely One . Still Today , I hear people saying , What's the original album of One .......... Achtung .... I'm buyin it

 

[U2Man]

no, i'm just saying that it's not like pop didnt have any hit singles on the charts.

 

[theoriginal]

I remember Staring at the Sun was played a lot and I remember people at my high school who weren't U2 fans being into it.
Last Night on Earth, If God, Please, got no response that I saw.
Also I remember telling someone about the upcoming Popmart tour and he said "yeah I hear they're playing at Kmarts".

I really think Pop's reception had less to do with the music than the perception of U2 at the time. Before Discotheque was released to radio I was incredibly excited to hear it, but I didn't know anyone who even knew U2 was coming out with something new.

 

[intedomine]

That's a bunch of poor arguments.

What about Achtung Baby? Weren't U2 trying to do something different back then too?

Can you prove that commercial radio boycotted U2 at the time, because thats not how I remember it?

And since when have the "best" bands not been supposed to change their sound? The Beatles? Radiohead? U2 has been doing it throughout all their career - and should be compared to these bands, not Bon Jovi, RHCP and Oasis that never really changed their sound much.

Radiohead has never had the same mainstream success U2 has had, so there's less pressure on them. If Radiohead change their sound, the commercial mainstream doesn't give a toss because they never play their songs anyway (except for Creep).

The Beatles are from a completely different era and set of circumstances altogether. They're not really relevant to the argument.

Perhaps a commercial "boycott" of Pop is the wrong word.

A fact is a fact though. If Discotheque and Please were released as singles by a significantly "lesser" band (I.E The Rembrandts for argument's sake), they would never have been played on radio.

Why must we compare U2 with RHCP, Oasis and Bon Jovi? In this context, we are talking about U2 as a commercially successful band, not as a critically acclaimed band like The Beatles or Radiohead. This is about U2 as a "big" band, not about them being the "best" band.

The success of Achtung Baby was assisted by the fact that it had One on it, a sweetly accessible song that alienated no one. The commercial success of PoP would have been much greater had it spawned another One.

But Pop failed to do so, hence giving "casual" U2 fans and commercial radio a good enough reason to stay away from PoP. A shame really...

The songs from PoP nowhere near staurated the radio to the extent of Beautiful Day, Elevation, Walk On, Vertigo and Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own

 

[Brother Borat]

SONGS SONGS SONGS!!!

POP had some super tracks, ...and indeed, when played as a whole album, it is definately the most 'entertaining' album in their catalogue......U2 at their most daring....

Yet a big 'SONG' transends all, ...& when an album has a WITH OR WITHOUT YOU, a ONE, or a BEAUTIFUL DAY, then even my grandmother is out to get herself a copy!!!.....
POP just didn't have 'that' "BIG SONG"

 

[U2Man]

Radiohead has never had the same mainstream success U2 has had, so there's less pressure on them. If Radiohead change their sound, the commercial mainstream doesn't give a toss because they never play their songs anyway (except for Creep).

The Beatles are from a completely different era and set of circumstances altogether. They're not really relevant to the argument.

Perhaps a commercial "boycott" of Pop is the wrong word.

A fact is a fact though. If Discotheque and Please were released as singles by a significantly "lesser" band (I.E The Rembrandts for argument's sake), they would never have been played on radio.

Why must we compare U2 with RHCP, Oasis and Bon Jovi? In this context, we are talking about U2 as a commercially successful band, not as a critically acclaimed band like The Beatles or Radiohead. This is about U2 as a "big" band, not about them being the "best" band.

The success of Achtung Baby was assisted by the fact that it had One on it, a sweetly accessible song that alienated no one. The commercial success of PoP would have been much greater had it spawned another One.

But Pop failed to do so, hence giving "casual" U2 fans and commercial radio a good enough reason to stay away from PoP. A shame really...

The songs from PoP nowhere near staurated the radio to the extent of Beautiful Day, Elevation, Walk On, Vertigo and Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own

i dont know, i think staring at the sun is one of u2's poppiest, mainstream, chart oriented, single material productions ever. its not like all music on pop is some obscure stuff that would never make it to the charts.

also, you said earlier that part of the problem was that u2 had changed their sound and that they "wasnt supposed to do that". but as Copy said, u2 has been doing that their entire career, and it was exactly what they did with achtung baby with great success.

another huge group of the nineties, r.e.m. kept changing their sound all the time.

if u2 had sounded exactly the same since, let's say 1987, they would likely have had the same poor record sales as the stones today.

you're much more likely to experience a decline sooner or later if you always put out the exact same music, so i dont think your theory holds.

 

[Copy]

maybe Pop was a bit too avant garde? perhaps the u.s. just wasn't ready for it at the time it'll be interesting to see how the DVD sells, and compare it to the ZooTV DVD.

sorry if somebody posted something like this earlier. i'm too lazy to look.

If anything U2 ever did was 100% american, it was Popmart.

Maybe that was the problem

 

[BVS]

If anything U2 ever did was 100% american, it was Popmart.

Maybe that was the problem

How so?

I think it's the furthest from American they could have gotten. America as a whole aren't known for embracing irony and camp.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

^I kind of understand what he's saying here, the fact that all the glitz and commercialism of PopMart was a definite take on primarily "American Culture" but I don't think the US got the joke...