monsieur fly
War Child
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 793
The album version outro of IGWSHA is one of U2's all-time highlights. That horn-like sound is the most harrowing depiction of loneliness I've heard on a song. Perfect.
Other songs are studio classics that are brilliant songs but just don't translate well when played live - In a Little While, Crumbs, Lemon, Heartland etc.
In A Little While And Lemon were brilliant live!
From a commercial standpoint, Pop and Popmart were very successful pretty much everywhere except in the U.S.. Pop's sales outside the U.S. were on par for what they usually sold and what was expected from it. It's in the U.S. where the sales were way off and I think it's still mainly in the U.S. that this album and tour are derided by some.
I remember when Zooropa was released in 1993 how the general public seemed to be disappointed in the album and it sold a lot less than Achtung Baby. Today there seems to be a bit of revisionist thinking about the quality of Zooropa, but I feel this album layed the seeds for the diminished commercial success of Pop in the U.S.. Fans were disappointed by it and were less in the mood to buy the next U2 album when it was released, especially with all the talk of the supposed dance sound to the album. The general public heard the title Pop, the first single called Discotheque and the Village People inspired costumes and were turned off, not willing to give it a chance.
I still think a lot of the people who deride Pop and Popmart never even heard the full album and gave it any chance. They single out this album as being a bad U2 album, while ignoring or forgetting that they didn't like Zooropa. Zooropa had no touring behind it in the U.S. and was meant to be a low key album, whereas Pop was always intended to be a massive U2 album to serve as the basis of the tour. As a result, Zooropa is the forgotten U2 90's album (excluding Passengers of course) which wasn't well received on release, but Pop is the one that is attacked because it was meant to be a high profile U2 album. I feel more casual U2 fans would like Pop over Zooropa if they really listened to it, as it is more like a standard U2 album than Zooropa was.
What I've always found puzzling was the band's statements about needing more time with it. Yes, more time probably would have made it a little better, but they already got that time, like they did with No Line this year. Pop was started back in 1995, possibly even late 1994, as they were reported at the time as working on 2 albums at the same time. It was scheduled to be released in November 1996, but like No Line, was pushed back by 3 months to allow them to finish it. They just didn't finish it to their liking, even with the extra 3 months they were given.
As far as them being underprepared for the tour, it's their own fault for not managing their time properly. Pop was finished in December 1996, so they had a good 4 months before Popmart started. Unlike with the past 3 U2 albums, they did no promo tour, only doing the 1 song performance at the Popmart press conference in February 1997. What prevented U2 from practicing the hell out of the new songs from January or February until starting time in Las Vegas instead of them shortchanging their rehearsal time? Most of the press they did for the album would have been done by early february, giving them 2-3 solid months where they could have rehearsed knowing what was ahead of them. They dropped the ball on that and it further hurt them in the U.S..
From a commercial standpoint, Pop and Popmart were very successful pretty much everywhere except in the U.S.. Pop's sales outside the U.S. were on par for what they usually sold and what was expected from it. It's in the U.S. where the sales were way off and I think it's still mainly in the U.S. that this album and tour are derided by some.
I remember when Zooropa was released in 1993 how the general public seemed to be disappointed in the album and it sold a lot less than Achtung Baby. Today there seems to be a bit of revisionist thinking about the quality of Zooropa, but I feel this album layed the seeds for the diminished commercial success of Pop in the U.S.. Fans were disappointed by it and were less in the mood to buy the next U2 album when it was released, especially with all the talk of the supposed dance sound to the album. The general public heard the title Pop, the first single called Discotheque and the Village People inspired costumes and were turned off, not willing to give it a chance.
I still think a lot of the people who deride Pop and Popmart never even heard the full album and gave it any chance. They single out this album as being a bad U2 album, while ignoring or forgetting that they didn't like Zooropa. Zooropa had no touring behind it in the U.S. and was meant to be a low key album, whereas Pop was always intended to be a massive U2 album to serve as the basis of the tour. As a result, Zooropa is the forgotten U2 90's album (excluding Passengers of course) which wasn't well received on release, but Pop is the one that is attacked because it was meant to be a high profile U2 album. I feel more casual U2 fans would like Pop over Zooropa if they really listened to it, as it is more like a standard U2 album than Zooropa was.
What I've always found puzzling was the band's statements about needing more time with it. Yes, more time probably would have made it a little better, but they already got that time, like they did with No Line this year. Pop was started back in 1995, possibly even late 1994, as they were reported at the time as working on 2 albums at the same time. It was scheduled to be released in November 1996, but like No Line, was pushed back by 3 months to allow them to finish it. They just didn't finish it to their liking, even with the extra 3 months they were given.
As far as them being underprepared for the tour, it's their own fault for not managing their time properly. Pop was finished in December 1996, so they had a good 4 months before Popmart started. Unlike with the past 3 U2 albums, they did no promo tour, only doing the 1 song performance at the Popmart press conference in February 1997. What prevented U2 from practicing the hell out of the new songs from January or February until starting time in Las Vegas instead of them shortchanging their rehearsal time? Most of the press they did for the album would have been done by early february, giving them 2-3 solid months where they could have rehearsed knowing what was ahead of them. They dropped the ball on that and it further hurt them in the U.S..
From a commercial standpoint, Pop and Popmart were very successful pretty much everywhere except in the U.S.. Pop's sales outside the U.S. were on par for what they usually sold and what was expected from it. It's in the U.S. where the sales were way off and I think it's still mainly in the U.S. that this album and tour are derided by some.
I remember when Zooropa was released in 1993 how the general public seemed to be disappointed in the album and it sold a lot less than Achtung Baby. Today there seems to be a bit of revisionist thinking about the quality of Zooropa, but I feel this album layed the seeds for the diminished commercial success of Pop in the U.S.. Fans were disappointed by it and were less in the mood to buy the next U2 album when it was released, especially with all the talk of the supposed dance sound to the album. The general public heard the title Pop, the first single called Discotheque and the Village People inspired costumes and were turned off, not willing to give it a chance.
I still think a lot of the people who deride Pop and Popmart never even heard the full album and gave it any chance. They single out this album as being a bad U2 album, while ignoring or forgetting that they didn't like Zooropa. Zooropa had no touring behind it in the U.S. and was meant to be a low key album, whereas Pop was always intended to be a massive U2 album to serve as the basis of the tour. As a result, Zooropa is the forgotten U2 90's album (excluding Passengers of course) which wasn't well received on release, but Pop is the one that is attacked because it was meant to be a high profile U2 album. I feel more casual U2 fans would like Pop over Zooropa if they really listened to it, as it is more like a standard U2 album than Zooropa was.
What I've always found puzzling was the band's statements about needing more time with it. Yes, more time probably would have made it a little better, but they already got that time, like they did with No Line this year. Pop was started back in 1995, possibly even late 1994, as they were reported at the time as working on 2 albums at the same time. It was scheduled to be released in November 1996, but like No Line, was pushed back by 3 months to allow them to finish it. They just didn't finish it to their liking, even with the extra 3 months they were given.
As far as them being underprepared for the tour, it's their own fault for not managing their time properly. Pop was finished in December 1996, so they had a good 4 months before Popmart started. Unlike with the past 3 U2 albums, they did no promo tour, only doing the 1 song performance at the Popmart press conference in February 1997. What prevented U2 from practicing the hell out of the new songs from January or February until starting time in Las Vegas instead of them shortchanging their rehearsal time? Most of the press they did for the album would have been done by early february, giving them 2-3 solid months where they could have rehearsed knowing what was ahead of them. They dropped the ball on that and it further hurt them in the U.S..
true, Zooropa was pretty much accepted the way it was intended
an album to accompany Achtung + ZOO TV
as a result the avarage person had been waiting about 5 1/2 years for the band to follow up Achtung Baby
I think most were just underwhelmed
From a commercial standpoint, Pop and Popmart were very successful pretty much everywhere except in the U.S.
I think the "1 more month" talk is wishful thinking
I honestly think the Monster Truck version should have been the mix that featured on the album. It's vastly superior to the Brit-pop bandwagon jumping version U2 went with and released as the second single when Britpop was actually pretty much on life support by then.Is anyone familiar with the 'Monster Truck' and 'Lab Rats' mixes of Staring At The Sun? They were on the single. The 'Monster Truck' mix is an industrial take on it, and the 'Lab Rats' mix sounds very similar except that the vocal track is techno-ed up a lot. They're both really cool.
This is a quote from the new Blender review of NLOTH:
"No Line on the Horizon is U2’s third killer in a row—by now, it’s bizarre to remember that just 10 years ago, everybody thought they were headed toward the dinosaur band tar pits."
I love NLOTH, but this quote is clearly referring to the time period between the end of Popmart and the release of ATYCLB. What kills me is that it's right. A lot of people did think that U2 were an "old" band. I remember on the first or second day of my Freshmen year of high school, in August 1999, in homeroom, the teacher had us do one of those, 'interview the person sitting next to you for five minutes to get to know each other' things, so the guy sitting next to me and I interviewed each other, and in the course of the conversation, I identified U2 as my favorite band - I had gotten seriously into U2 in the summer of 1998, and I had just the previous month finished collecting all of U2's albums+WAIA, and the U2 obsession was still relatively new to me - and so after everyone had finished their conversations and written the other person's answers down, each person was supposed to introduce the person sitting next to them to the class using the information written down during the conversation. So when it's his turn, the guy next me introduces me to the class, and one of the things he says is that U2 is my favorite band. Our teacher, who was probably in her 30s at the time, said something to the effect of, 'really? That's surprising, they're mine too, but I thought they were like an old band now', and some kid in the front of the room said, 'they are'.
I don't understand it though. Say what you will about Pop, it might sound too 'weird' to some people, it might not be 'U2' enough for some people, it might just not be your cup of tea(I disagree with all three), but it does not sound like a dinosaur rock band, it is not like Tattoo You or something. Whether you like Discotheque and Do You Feel Loved and Mofo and Staring At The Sun and Gone and Please or not, you can't deny that they still sound fresh today, and if that's true, then how could people have thought that U2 were an 'old' band or a dinosaur band based on Pop just two and a half years after its release and less than a year and a half after the end of Popmart?
I had similar expereinces. It's strange, I know. But if you look at the fag end of the '90s you can see a huge shift in music trends and target audiences. You had young poptarts like N'Sync, Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears popping up everywhere like gremlins multiplying and targeted toward kids. You had young, angry rappers targeted toward rebellious teens. You had young, angry rap metal bands targeted toward rebellious kids and depressed teens.
I was watching an old VHS tape tape the other day which had a couple of hours worth of MTV from the early '90s. The first thing I noticed was that the bands featured were all kinds of ages - from 18 to 60 years old. I noticed this too with an old radio cassette recording of BBC Radio 1.
Something happened between '98 and 2000 where anyone involved in mainstream rock and knocking on 40 was labeled a dinosaur. And it had nothing to do with U2.
4. i didn't get the impression that anything on pop was britpop sounding. i def feel stand up comedy sounds like oasis.
I don't knowIf you combine the actual satirical and ironic meaning behind what U2 was doing with the Kmart press conference, with how funny they were in the interview, I don't think it is melarky. It's actually quite a genius move.