namkcuR said:
I did read your post...I wasn't responding just your post to all of things I've read over the years about people saying that Pop was weak musically, which just isn't true.
You keep using the phrase 'grave misstep'...a grave misstep on the road to what? Commercial success? Public acceptance? This is the point I'm tryin gto make; that was a time when U2 were more willing to compromise sales for art. Granted, I fully expect that if U2 knew ahead of time that Pop would sell the way it did, they may not have taken so many risks, but still.
Anyway, I wasn't trying to attack you or anything, my post was more of a reply to all of the things I've heard said about Pop and Popmart. It's all good.
You pointed out some of "Pop's" best lyrics. But many fans only heard the worst - such as "chewing bubblegum" or "Cartoon Network turns into the news" or "Miami - my mammy". And, the truth is, both views are right. For every brilliant item Bono has written on any album, he also wrote something that is highly questionable on every album. "Pop" is no exception.
Also, while you argue how strong the music is, oddly enough, you attempt to illustrate your point with lyrics. In my opinion, musically "Pop" wasn't nearly as experimental as most claim. Sure, some additional beats were in "Do You Feel Loved" but nothing too extreme. "Discotheque" was a straight-forward rock song - ala "The Fly" or "Vertigo". "Mofo" was the most techno-oriented song on the album. After that, most songs fell into the classic U2 pattern of pop-rock. Therefore, I just don't see why "Pop" receives so much praise for being so "experimental". I hear that type of experimentation on every U2 album, including the latest (with L&PorE and "Fast Cars").
Miggy D wrote it best in her post - even though I *strongly* disagree with the selection of first single. U2 really released the wrong first single.
In 1991, "The Fly" was not really a hit in the U.S., peaking at only #61 on the Hot 100. This was U2's first new song since 1988 and yet the song couldn't even crack the Top 40! U2 almost wanted to "shock" fans - and in many ways they did. U2 "got away" with it because "The Fly" was a strong song and, more importantly, U2 quickly followed it with back-to-back super radio friendly songs (namely, "Mysterious Ways" and "One"). "The Fly" also served the purpose of showing U2's new look and direction - both incredibly important for AB and the subsequent tour.
However, by "Zooropa" that "shock" aspect was starting to fade. People "got it" on AB, they didn't need to be hit with it again on "Zooropa". Unfortunately, U2 tried it a third time with "Discotheque" and while the song performed well initially, this "shock" feature ultimately killed the song and the album. Fans were truly sick of U2 trying to shove irony down their throats and shock them with their image changes. I recall people coming up to me stating how much they hate the new U2 song ("Disoctheque") as if I had anything to do with it. But this goes beyond my personal world - even when the song was played on Boston radio stations - U2's "home away from home" - people called in complaining!!
I always felt that a better first single would have been SATS. It's different enough from previous U2, yet not so shocking or ironic. U2 could have introduced their new look in the video without overwhelming the public. I think this song would have been the perfect way to launch "Pop". "Discotheque" could've still been a single, but perhaps a second or third release.
Also, had U2 been able to get "Pop" out in Nov. 1996 as originally planned, they would've had the huge holiday sales boost. That alone would have helped the album hit 2x Platinum in the U.S. Even if "Pop" never went on to sell much more than that, it wouldn't have been viewed as such a "failure". Had "Pop" received strong initial and sustained sales - like HTDAAB and ATYCLB did in Nov. and Dec. upon their releases - it would have created the feeling of a huge hit album that people must have. Instead, seeing "Pop" fall down the charts hurt as it was viewed as a failure and stopped others from buying it (no one wants to buy a "flop").
The tour was a bit much, but was in-line with what the feeling U2 was trying to create with the album. However, what really hurt wasn't the size, but the fact that it was all stadiums. Clearly the giant screen and arch and lemon, etc. forced U2 to use stadiums. However, when every stadium failed to sell out, it once again created the illusion that the tour was failing. The truth is that PopMart remains U2's best selling tour to date, but again, since every stadium failed to sell out, it was a "flop".
This is why the Elevation Tour and Vertigo Tour are arenas in the U.S. U2 can easily sell out U.S. arenas - as evidenced by the fast sales we've seen. The thing is, U2 could probably sell out stadiums in certain U.S. cities as well. But U2 won't go that route again - far better to do 2, 3 or even 4 sold-out arena shows in a city than have one huge stadium show that fails to sell every ticket. Doing three sold-out arena shows says "hot ticket". Doing one stadium show that fails to completely sell out - even if it sold more than the three arena shows together - says "flop". It's not fair, but not many in the media are intelligent.
As a result, U2 have released more straight-forward rock songs from their last two albums. They introduce their new looks while not shocking their audiences too much. Also, they do arena shows that instantly sell out. U2 are still experimental and Bono still writes some excellent lyrics, but they keep these a bit more subdued - something fans can discover as they listen to the album.