Anyone wish U2 never changed course after POP?

[donkeytimes]

I first heard Pop while on Holiday in Spain, I bought it there at some store, and listened to it on a disc-man player. Those were the days...

I remember feeling the latin colors in the sounds I heard, all enhanced by being in Spain for the first listen. This caught me off guard. I missed the dark path of Achtung Baby, Zooropa and Passengers even...but Pop wasn't all happy times as I got to know the record better.

It does strike me as a hangover record for U2, familar but fuzzy due to all the reason many have outlined.

It could have been bigger, they were really Banking on Starring at the Sun. It just didn't happen for them.

I think Beautiful Day was huge because people like a comeback, and U2 had to come back after the Pop "debacle" as some view it. So, BD was a great tune for the most part, and a chance for the re-launch of U2 "we're back to be the best band in the world" blah blah blah...

PS - I might add the greatest hits also helped. The new version of the "Sweetest Thing" certainly helped ease folks back into U2's camp.

 

[Scorpionac]

It could have been bigger, they were really Banking on Starring at the Sun. It just didn't happen for them.

Back then they released Discotheque as the first single, saving their big gun for later. It didn't work. With ATYCLB and HTDABB, the big guns came out first - now they've released GOYB (another silly, simple rock song that probably had people more confused than anything) before bringing out more surefire hits, and well, those aren't charting now. It's odd that they'd repeat this mistake, it seems like it was one of the bigger reasons Pop didn't do as well as they'd hoped.

 

[popacrobat]

Back then they released Discotheque as the first single, saving their big gun for later. It didn't work. With ATYCLB and HTDABB, the big guns came out first - now they've released GOYB (another silly, simple rock song that probably had people more confused than anything) before bringing out more surefire hits, and well, those aren't charting now. It's odd that they'd repeat this mistake, it seems like it was one of the bigger reasons Pop didn't do as well as they'd hoped.

i do wonder if it entered their thought process "hey, this could be like pop redux but we just dont give a shit this time."

 

[bram]

Back then they released Discotheque as the first single, saving their big gun for later. It didn't work. With ATYCLB and HTDABB, the big guns came out first - now they've released GOYB (another silly, simple rock song that probably had people more confused than anything) before bringing out more surefire hits, and well, those aren't charting now. It's odd that they'd repeat this mistake, it seems like it was one of the bigger reasons Pop didn't do as well as they'd hoped.

Yeah, this can't be overstated. While NLOTH is no sales failure, we'll never know how big it could have been. You don't really get a second chance if the first song isn't a big hit. They should have gone with Magnificent, then Crazy Tonight...and then whatever they wanted (GOYB, Breathe, NLOTH--in any order).

 

[doctorwho]

This is an interesting piece of revisionism- thank you for taking the time to write it because it is certainly thought-provoking. Like a lot of revisionism, however, the case is overstated.

I'm not sure what you mean by revisionism.

I felt this way in 1997. Yes, I supported U2 then as I do now. And I feel "Pop" is a good album. But once I came off the "new album high", I realized that "Pop" isn't brilliant. It has brilliant moments, but I felt it wasn't nearly as well constructed as prior U2 albums. 12 years later, I still feel this way. In fact, while ATYCLB and HTDAAB may have been more of a collection of singles than an album, I feel that overall both are more coherent albums than "Pop". "Pop" comes across as a wild ecclectic mix of directions - punk, Christian, techno, Beatles, rock, and U2. It seems like they wanted to do everything in one album.

Again, I felt that way then as I do now. I am not revising my views. Nor is Billy Corgan.

And I stand by my comment. Even if "Pop" was a monster success, I feel U2 still would have had to change. How much further could they take that sound? They were already looking at music from others (and not the greats, like the Beatles or Elvis) for inspiration. They needed to look at themselves - and this is what they did. From that, we got ATYCLB. Now, ATYCLB isn't that brilliant either (the first half is great, second half drops) but I feel it is a natural progression for U2.

 

[financeguy]

I'm jumping in this thread late, but I don't think U2 changed quite as much as everyone thinks.

When "Pop" was released, one couldn't help but hear the techno influence on the first three tracks. To this day, I feel "Mofo" is one of U2's most brave songs, both for the departure in sound and for the intimacy of the lyrics.

In other words, while "Pop" did take a few bold steps, it was hardly this creative juggernaut of an album. It relied heavily on what U2 had done before.

U2 have changed directions several times. In 1988, some may have wished U2 never changed from their "War" sound. In 1993, some may have wished U2 never deviated from their R&H sound. But these days, it seems U2 are incoporating all sounds. They have fresh, current themes and sounds, yet still incoporate the punk, rock and atmospheric sounds of their past.

So do I mind that U2 changed? No, because I felt "Pop" was written in the same vein.

Furthermore, while "Mofo" is great, I felt that U2's attempt at this techno sound was odd. U2 usually stand apart. While other artists mimic what is already out there, U2 stood separate. In an era of Boy George and Wham, U2 had "War" and UF. In an era of Jackson, Bon Jovi and Gibson, U2 had JT and R&H. In an era of grunge, U2 had AB and "Zooropa". But come "Pop", U2 started to have a bit of that Prodigy and Chemical Bros. influence. They blended in, instead of standing apart. I've been challenged on this before, but this is my view and I stand by it.

I am surprised that anyone would challenge your view regarding the Prodigy/Chemical Bros influence on Pop. It has always been very obvious to me, and IIRC correctly U2 even specifically referred to listening to those bands during or in the run up to recording.

Actually, I've always thought "Mofo" (though I like the song) is arguably the most derivative track on Pop. When I first heard it I thought I was hearing a cover version of Stone Roses track "Begging You" (*), with the vocalist from the Prodigy standing in for the lyric on behalf of Bono. Ok, I may be exaggerating, but not much.

I like Pop, it is probably in my top 5 U2 albums, but I'm not going to claim it's particularly original, so overall I agree with you on Pop.

* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUQORGj2eFs

 

[financeguy]

Oh really?

It doesn't sum up shit. I like the album, my whole point is that it just gets too much credit of being "innovative" and "cutting edge" in here.

Credit from whom?

So Prodigy jumped on a bandwagon? I'm not exactly following, what kind of sound did Prodigy have before?

Prodigy had changed their sound by the mid 1990's, to make it more radio friendly and, to be frank, US rock audience friendly. Their early stuff is much rawer, more 'ravey'. Of course, they didn't fundamentally alter their sound, but they did pay more attention to production and the like.

Early Prodigy:

YouTube - The Prodigy - Charly (1991) Music Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiRtEBPGhto&feature=related


Mid to late 90's-era Prodigy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnbHOr0FpEw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_PAHbqq-o4

See what I mean? The earlier sound is rawer, more 'street'.

 

[BVS]

Credit from whom?

From many of the "90's were the coolest" crowd. Most of which didn't really witness U2 first hand during the time but picked it up years later... which I think it's a pretty big demographic here.

 

[financeguy]

From many of the "90's were the coolest" crowd. Most of which didn't really witness U2 first hand during the time but picked it up years later... which I think it's a pretty big demographic here.

Cuts both ways...it could be argued that many who dislike the 'Pop' era are really saying they don't like the entire genre of dance/rave music/electronica/trip hop, and prefer more traditional rock. Which is fine. I do like that type of music, so I am comfortable saying I rate Pop highly, whilst also acknowledging it is derivative.

 

[monsieur fly]

I'm not sure what you mean by revisionism.

"Pop" comes across as a wild ecclectic mix of directions - punk, Christian, techno, Beatles, rock, and U2. It seems like they wanted to do everything in one album.

Again, I felt that way then as I do now. I am not revising my views. Nor is Billy Corgan.

.

Hang on- that is not the same thing as saying Pop was a U2 greatest hits album. I agree it is eclectic, what I don't accept is that t he album is somehow representative of their past works when sonically and atmospherically there are only faint echoes. I called your piece "revisionist" because it argues against a commonly held perception of how things were.

 

[financeguy]

Hang on- that is not the same thing as saying Pop was a U2 greatest hits album. I agree it is eclectic, what I don't accept is that t he album is somehow representative of their past works when sonically and atmospherically there are only faint echoes. I called your piece "revisionist" because it argues against a commonly held perception of how things were.

Well, I am not sure what Doctor Who means by saying it is a greatest hits album, unless he is talking of a greatest hits of U2 themes and concepts. In terms of negativity/pessimism or presenting a dark view of existence, this theme is certainly not new to Pop for U2, and there are plenty of 'negative' songs in other U2 albums - e.g., War, even Boy. Heavens, UF is a concept album about nuclear holocaust, Seconds has the same theme, there are songs about suicide on Boy. I agree with you that most of Pop's songs don't sound like other U2 songs, before or since. Some of them do sound like other bands' songs, but that's a different argument. For U2, it is arguably the most musically adventurous album. Whether it worked or not is a subjective judgement.

People who like Pop sometimes talk up its innovativeness, people who don't like it tend to talk up its flaws, to an extent that to me, seems at times over the top.

While acknowledging Pop is a flawed album, I think each of their first three albums, for example, have more obvious flaws, and don't get me started on ATYLB/HTDAAB.

 

[BVS]

Hang on- that is not the same thing as saying Pop was a U2 greatest hits album. I agree it is eclectic, what I don't accept is that t he album is somehow representative of their past works when sonically and atmospherically there are only faint echoes. I called your piece "revisionist" because it argues against a commonly held perception of how things were.

I have the interview that DoctorWho is talking about and Bono and Edge both agreed with Corgan's perception that they wrote a U2 greatest hits album.

 

[BVS]

Cuts both ways...it could be argued that many who dislike the 'Pop' era are really saying they don't like the entire genre of dance/rave music/electronica/trip hop, and prefer more traditional rock. Which is fine. I do like that type of music, so I am comfortable saying I rate Pop highly, whilst also acknowledging it is derivative.

Ok, that's fine but I was just answering your question as to who usually gives it more credit than it deserves.

 

[monsieur fly]

Well, I am not sure what Doctor Who means by saying it is a greatest hits album, unless he is talking of a greatest hits of U2 themes and concepts. In terms of negativity/pessimism or presenting a dark view of existence, this theme is certainly not new to Pop for U2, and there are plenty of 'negative' songs in other U2 albums - e.g., War, even Boy. Heavens, UF is a concept album about nuclear holocaust, Seconds has the same theme, there are songs about suicide on Boy. I agree with you that most of Pop's songs don't sound like other U2 songs, before or since. Some of them do sound like other bands' songs, but that's a different argument. For U2, it is arguably the most musically adventurous album. Whether it worked or not is a subjective judgement.

People who like Pop sometimes talk up its innovativeness, people who don't like it tend to talk up its flaws, to an extent that to me, seems at times over the top.

While acknowledging Pop is a flawed album, I think each of their first three albums, for example, have more obvious flaws, and don't get me started on ATYLB/HTDAAB.

Yes I'm with you on this. ATYCLB and HTDAAB were seriously deficient in my view. What in your view was the chief reason for that (just out of interest)?

 

[monsieur fly]

I have the interview that DoctorWho is talking about and Bono and Edge both agreed with Corgan's perception that they wrote a U2 greatest hits album.

Well I don't agree with them haha.

 

[financeguy]

Yes I'm with you on this. ATYCLB and HTDAAB were seriously deficient in my view. What in your view was the chief reason for that (just out of interest)?

The desire to stay in the public eye - to be crude, to sell more records - won out over the desire to advance the art form, and the more musically conservative elements in the band won over. I don't necessarily mean one or two individuals. Larry Mullen sometimes gets blamed for this, but, of course, it wasn't him alone. I think Bono was as much on board as Larry. I suspect Adam was comfortable with continuing with the leftfield stuff, but maybe didn't have a broad enough spectrum of talents to drive it forward (there was an interview saying that they were all listening to mainstream chart stuff during the recording of ATYCLB - Kelis was specifically mentioned - except Adam whose tastes were still leftfield). I still have no idea what the Edge was thinking.

Of course, this is largely speculation, but that Q interview from 2000 is one fact that might back up my speculations.

 

[financeguy]

Well I don't agree with them haha.

U2 will usually politely agree with what is said to them by a celebrity interviewer.

 

[BVS]

I can't think of any other celebrity interviews, but U2 when it comes to album promotion are usually pretty stern to defend their newest work, other types of interviews I might agree with you but this type of stuff they are usually a little more resistant to just agree.

 

[corianderstem]

Going on the assumption that U2 doesn't seem to care that much that the sales are down and there aren't any big, giant singles from this album (seriously just speculation based on the singles they're releasing and their seeminly odd promotion of the album beyond the initial appearances they made), I kind of like what appears to be their return to making music for themselves rather than wanting to be Kings Of The World, or whatever.

That being said, knowing that that was what they were going for with All That ... and Bomb, those were still good albums. I like knowing that even when U2 goes the "safe" route, they put out music that I still enjoy, even if a few years later they're not my favorite albums.

This might not have anything to do with anything, but I felt like saying that after having a few cocktails in my neighborhood on this delightful Seattle summer night.

 

[U2girl]

Well said doctorwho.

 

[Saracene]

I love ATYCLB dearly but I can see some truth in the criticism that after the relative failure of POP the band lost their nerve somewhat. Though personally I don't think that it suffers because of it, ATYCLB is a very eager-to-please album. The band's reaction to POP's reception to me shows that 90s U2 cared very much about the sales, but they also had a confidence that they could sell -and- be adventurous, and that confidence probably suffered a blow.

I still think though that the band would have changed their direction after POP because IMO they took their 90s sound as far as they could.

 

[donkeytimes]

I agree...

Yeah, this can't be overstated. While NLOTH is no sales failure, we'll never know how big it could have been. You don't really get a second chance if the first song isn't a big hit. They should have gone with Magnificent, then Crazy Tonight...and then whatever they wanted (GOYB, Breathe, NLOTH--in any order).

I agree with this...and for the others...Disco being released was very similar to GYOB, odd...maybe they just thought, oh well its doesn't matter.

I think sleeping on Magnificent as the first single was a mistake for sure. They were saying nothing new with GYOB, err...rather Vertigo jazzed up. I don't personally mind it ...but when I first heard it, I knew it was doomed.

 

[bram]

I'd just like to throw it out there that ATYCLB is so commonly assumed to be a simple and safe album that few people stop to question this. I think if you go through it song by song, it doesn't come across as more safe or even less eclectic than Pop. Elevation, while not a favorite of mine, is a truly weird song. Stuck doesn't really sound like U2 to me. Ok, I'll give you Walk On. Kite, ok. In a Little While is new territory. When I Look and New York are very controversial songs---well-loved in some fan corners and absolutely loathed in others--but they're not really derivative of previous U2 or anyone else (at least not obviously so). Wild Honey and POE are weak, but no more so than IGWSHA and at least 1/4 to 1/3 of the rest of Pop. I guess I don't really buy the accepted wisdom on what these two albums consist of. HTDAAB is the album that really fails to branch out of a single musical mold in my opinion--it's all straight-up pop-rock. While disliking ATYCLB is fine and understandable, I think a lot of the criticisms (or praises) of it as being a "return to roots" is kinda bullshit, even if U2 encouraged this practice. NLOTH sounds more U2-y to me than ATYCLB.

 

[Salome]

I think a lot of the criticisms (or praises) of it as being a "return to roots" is kinda bullshit, even if U2 encouraged this practice. NLOTH sounds more U2-y to me than ATYCLB.

I love ATYCLB but with No line ... I got this warm feeling of the band tapping into what set them apart late 80s

I think the comment of POP being like a 'greatest hits' made sense to me at the time
it seemed quite obvious the band tried a marriage between what made them great in the 80s with what made them great in the 90s
I think it is a bit of mess ('eclectic' sounds too nice to me) as a result

 

[monsieur fly]

I'd just like to throw it out there that ATYCLB is so commonly assumed to be a simple and safe album that few people stop to question this. I think if you go through it song by song, it doesn't come across as more safe or even less eclectic than Pop. Elevation, while not a favorite of mine, is a truly weird song. Stuck doesn't really sound like U2 to me. Ok, I'll give you Walk On. Kite, ok. In a Little While is new territory. When I Look and New York are very controversial songs---well-loved in some fan corners and absolutely loathed in others--but they're not really derivative of previous U2 or anyone else (at least not obviously so). Wild Honey and POE are weak, but no more so than IGWSHA and at least 1/4 to 1/3 of the rest of Pop. I guess I don't really buy the accepted wisdom on what these two albums consist of. HTDAAB is the album that really fails to branch out of a single musical mold in my opinion--it's all straight-up pop-rock. While disliking ATYCLB is fine and understandable, I think a lot of the criticisms (or praises) of it as being a "return to roots" is kinda bullshit, even if U2 encouraged this practice. NLOTH sounds more U2-y to me than ATYCLB.

Fair point, well made but on the whole I don't agree. I accept it was by no means as safe as HTDAAB but it was far less edgy than Pop. BD, Walk On, Kite, and POE are unmistakably traditional right down to their chiming guitar chords and yearning vocals and it says everything that BD was picked as the first single. I don't agree with you about Stuck In A Moment because it wouldn't have been out of place on Rattle and Hum; nor do I agree about WILATW- a great song but with a yearning middle 8 that screams "we're back". NY has an interesting intro but the chorus harks back to earlier days. Only IALW and Elevation sound radical. Put it this way, it doesn't have a Mofo or Miami therefore I would say it was safer than Pop.

 

[bram]

Well, I "gave you" Walk On, Kite, and POE. BD should almost be left out of the discussion because it's really not indicative of the rest of the album, although I think its so popular and memorable that people subconsciously (but frequently) conflate the song with the whole album. BD is the sound of a band signing a 10-year contract with fans the world over. That song was so bigtime for them. I definitely don't agree about Stuck sounding like a R&H song, but perhaps others do.

I guess there's two different issues here that overlap a bit but aren't actually the same: 1) Is it a safe-sounding, non-aggressive album? and 2) is it highly reminiscent of U2's previous work? I'm a little guilty of conflating these two in my post above. I think it could be a solid "yes" for question 1 (ATYCLB). However, this would be "yes" for pretty much all of U2's albums (at least 90% of every album except 1 or 2 are basically "safe-sounding", including Pop). I was mostly thinking about Pop and ATYCLB in regards to question 2. Here I think the answer to both is...well, kinda sorta a little. And it's basically a tie for that one I think. I for one don't hear 80s U2 much in ATYCLB (although it's all over NLOTH) and I don't really hear 90s U2 either. I've always been a bit miffed about the "return to U2 roots" thing.

 

[U2girl]

NLOTH and Bomb are closer to "classic" U2 than ATYCLB.

 

[monsieur fly]

Well, I "gave you" Walk On, Kite, and POE. BD should almost be left out of the discussion because it's really not indicative of the rest of the album, although I think its so popular and memorable that people subconsciously (but frequently) conflate the song with the whole album. BD is the sound of a band signing a 10-year contract with fans the world over. That song was so bigtime for them. I definitely don't agree about Stuck sounding like a R&H song, but perhaps others do.

I guess there's two different issues here that overlap a bit but aren't actually the same: 1) Is it a safe-sounding, non-aggressive album? and 2) is it highly reminiscent of U2's previous work? I'm a little guilty of conflating these two in my post above. I think it could be a solid "yes" for question 1 (ATYCLB). However, this would be "yes" for pretty much all of U2's albums (at least 90% of every album except 1 or 2 are basically "safe-sounding", including Pop). I was mostly thinking about Pop and ATYCLB in regards to question 2. Here I think the answer to both is...well, kinda sorta a little. And it's basically a tie for that one I think. I for one don't hear 80s U2 much in ATYCLB (although it's all over NLOTH) and I don't really hear 90s U2 either. I've always been a bit miffed about the "return to U2 roots" thing.

An interesting issue. this

Question 1- yes for ATYCLB, much less so for Pop- think Miami, Mofo and the deeply unsettling Wake Up Dead Man.
2- I hear more 80s in U2 in ATYCLB than I do in Pop but less than on HTDAAB, so I half agree with you there.

 

[Gonna Run 2 U]

NLOTH and Bomb are closer to "classic" U2 than ATYCLB.

Yes, ATYCLB is U2's worst album with the exception of Beautiful Day and Kite being among their best songs, imo.

Bomb>Pop>ATYCLB

 

[gman]

Yes, ATYCLB is U2's worst album with the exception of Beautiful Day and Kite being among their best songs, imo.

Bomb>Pop>ATYCLB

Thats probably true, but, its all good, as i can still listen to it al the way through and really enjoy it. So its not a bad position to be in!