Anyone wish U2 never changed course after POP?

[bizkitgto]

So U2 decided to go backwards after POP......I feel we lost a decade of creative U2, although NLOTH seems to be a step in the right direction.

Cool video of Bono on POP......."we're out in the ether somewhere, and a lot of people would like us to come to Earth, but ummmm I personally like it out here and I'm not coming down."

YouTube - U2 : Max Masters : About Pop

....well I guess all the POP haters dragged him down to Earth...kicking and screaming.

 

[BVS]

Man you are obsessed with Pop, aren't you?

I like Pop, but I honestly think it was U2 at it's height of uncertainty. It's a very non-cohesive album, similar to Bomb, and at a lesser extent NLOTH.

It starts out with this embrace of the electronica sound that was really growing at the time but died an early death. Then it had a few tunes that were closer to the AB sound, and then it finished with these very unpolished songs that sounded like updated older songs. I remember Billy Corgan interviewing U2 at the time and he said, "I'm amazed, you released a U2 greatest hits album but with all new songs." It was a compliment, but he was right, it was an album that was all over the place and trying to grab the past and future at the same time.

I still think it's a great album, just overrated by a few people like yourself...

I love DYFL it sucks they couldn't pull it off live. Same with Angels...

I love MOFO, Gone, Please...

Last Night and SATS could have really been something.

Miami just flat out sucked.

PM just eh...

WUDM the biggest disappointment of the album. Great concept, great lyric(and some of the worse), the previous versions were kick ass; and then we get this?!?!?!?! I still like it, but it's the biggest neutering job U2 has ever done.

 

[dward1]

I like the sense of adventure but while the album was adventurous it was simply not as good enough to continue down that path. Two horrible songs in Miami and Playboy Mansion along with too many uninspired songs like Discotheque, Do You Feel Loved, Last Night on Earth could not make up for the high points of Please, Wake Up Dead Man, and Mofo. They aren't as good at doing the electronic space rock as they are doing sweeping arena rock songs. I like a mix of styles on the album but Pop was not showcasing the strongest side of U2.

 

[AndrewCowley]

As much as Pop was experimental for U2, and hats off to them for making that record, I don't think they are that much of an experimental band to have kept going down that road. They don't have it in them. They are more or less a traditional rock band. I think they lack both the musical and creative ability to keep the Pop 'vibe' alive.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

i'm not entirely sure. i do love pop and think it's a great album. however i've never wanted them to repeat themselves, so i know change was inevitable. even though i'm not a fan at all of atyclb and htdaab, i'd rather have those instead of them trying to duplicate any of their 90s output or anything.

 

[65980]

I dunno, I mean what "direction" were they going in with Pop anyway? With the passing of time, I don't really hear Pop as that different from All That You Can't Leave Behind, except in the production, which is drastically different (neither was good -- Pop's is too distorted and you can't hear the band; ATYCLB's is too 'pop', with the vocals way too high).

I don't consider U2 a particularly diverse or experimental band. Certainly not compared to, say, The Beatles or Prince. People like that can pull of almost any style and do it convincingly. I think U2 are essentially a post-punk band with a big sound like The Who. If you strip away the high bass, distortion, and some of the programming from Pop, the songs you're left with are no different from ATYCLB.

So, if the question is: do I wish they'd continued repeating the sound of Pop, then the answer is "no".

 

[ozeeko]

I think the band was going in the right direction with Pop. It took me many years to realize that. I think the band was moving in a direction more concerned with subtletly. I appreciate the fact now that Bono was singing in a lower register on a lot of the album. I know a lot of this stemmed from the fact that he lost his voice around that time, but at the same time i can't help but feel...this is the way it should be. I like Bono singing in a lower tone. It was more conversational. More detailed. His lyrics were a lot less forgiving. It seemed more realistic. That's one of the things that jarred me about that album, was his willingness to just say things bluntly, without any reassurance or optimisim. Like Dylan's best lyrics, Bono was just singing about things as they were, not projecting them into larger than life formats. Even tho i enjoy most of ATYCLB, i say that the only reason, and i mean the ONLY REASON they went that 2000's route, is because of the mixed reactions after POP. I truly believed
(about POP) that they believed this was how their music should sound. But i think they became way too addicted to being #1, and this is what killed them overall, creatively. That was the moment the U2 spirit died. From then on out is when they started to care more about relevance than artistry. And i know what you're thinking, that AB occured because of the same line of thinking, them being relevant. I disagree. I think that AB was a natural change for them. Listen to Hawkmoon, Desire, God Part II. There lies the sound of a band ready to rock out. The sound of U2 on ATYCLB is of a band trying to recapture their former glory. I always felt that, even tho i like the album. But it always seemed like an all too conscious effort to recapture their past earnestness.

 

[God Part III]

POPTARTS!

No I don't. Pop is not a cohesive record. Gone isn't the greatest U2 song of the 90's, and to me, no song from Pop part II would ever match Beautiful Day, which could never have been on that album.

The funny thing is that my experience with pop seems a bit different than the rest of Interference - I really like Playboy Mansion, I actually love Miami and Discothèque is a much stronger song to me than Gone or Please will ever be. To me, Pop is just a mixed bag of great ideas, but they don't work that well together - as a whole, I almost never listen to Pop - as individual bits and pieces, I like the songs that stand out. It's just overrated on the wrong premises. Zooropa is a much better album.

The only thing U2 should have done different in terms of albums was making HTDAAB a good album, instead being a cringe-worthy embarrassment made by your favourite band.

Pop isn't crap, it's not bad, but it's not glorious either. The most overrated U2 album.


Edit: Popmart was pure genius though.

 

[65980]

Pop is actually the most overrated on this Forum, and the most under-rated amongst the general public.

Actually, Ozeeko makes a good point that Bono's vocal and lyrical approaches were quite different on Pop. I hadn't really considered that, so I stand corrected...

 

[branwalls]

^ Agreed, POP was such a dark album lyrically:

Looking for the father of my two little girls.

Looking for to fill that God-shaped hole.

God's got his phone off the hook, babe, would he even pick up if he could?

And a fucked up world it is too

I really wish some of the recent "love is all you need" style platitudes hadn't become the standard for Bono's lyrics over the last decade. I miss the doubt and uncertainty he wrote about in the early to mid 90s. But while I agree with the OP's general sentiments, I think POP under-delivered. If, back in 1997, we would have gotten the music from NLOTH and lyrics closer to POP, well, that might have been the right direction.

 

[An Cat Gav]

I wish they hadn't lost their nerve to experiment after Pop. It wasn't a cohesive album, a couple of songs just didn't work and were just plain boring, If God Will Send His Angels and Playboy Mansion. But there were songs which were amongst their bet ever, Mofo Wake Up Dead Man, Gone. Bono was on top form, vocally and lyrically, unlike others I think the lyric to Miami and WUDM were some of Bono's best.
Ok, Discotheque and Do You Feel Loved didn't work out as well as intended but they were still glorious efforts, Staring at the sun as well.
I think the band saw it as a real failure and their music has suffered from them second guessing themselves ever since. I don't disagree that they needed a change of direction after Pop, but I don't think the back to basics approach was the right one.
Pop was a very good album, though not as great as some people reckon.
I was far more disappointed by Popmart then I was Pop.

 

[An Cat Gav]

I think the band was going in the right direction with Pop. It took me many years to realize that. I think the band was moving in a direction more concerned with subtletly. I appreciate the fact now that Bono was singing in a lower register on a lot of the album. I know a lot of this stemmed from the fact that he lost his voice around that time, but at the same time i can't help but feel...this is the way it should be. I like Bono singing in a lower tone. It was more conversational. More detailed. His lyrics were a lot less forgiving. It seemed more realistic. That's one of the things that jarred me about that album, was his willingness to just say things bluntly, without any reassurance or optimisim. Like Dylan's best lyrics, Bono was just singing about things as they were, not projecting them into larger than life formats. Even tho i enjoy most of ATYCLB, i say that the only reason, and i mean the ONLY REASON they went that 2000's route, is because of the mixed reactions after POP. I truly believed
(about POP) that they believed this was how their music should sound. But i think they became way too addicted to being #1, and this is what killed them overall, creatively. That was the moment the U2 spirit died. From then on out is when they started to care more about relevance than artistry. And i know what you're thinking, that AB occured because of the same line of thinking, them being relevant. I disagree. I think that AB was a natural change for them. Listen to Hawkmoon, Desire, God Part II. There lies the sound of a band ready to rock out. The sound of U2 on ATYCLB is of a band trying to recapture their former glory. I always felt that, even tho i like the album. But it always seemed like an all too conscious effort to recapture their past earnestness.

I think you're making a lot of sense here.

 

[coolian2]

i like that they tried something different, even if it wasn't particularly good.

it's more than possible that continuing the 90s course could have run stale and we might not have a u2 and a no line on the horizon to enjoy now.

 

[phommel]

If Coke is a mystery
Michael Jackson... history
If beauty is truth
And surgery the fountain of youth
What am I to do
Have I got the gift to get me through
The gates of that mansion

 

[coolian2]

If Coke is a mystery
Michael Jackson... history
If beauty is truth
And surgery the fountain of youth
What am I to do
Have I got the gift to get me through
The gates of that mansion

they mentioned oj in that song too, that's going to be sooooooooooo meaningful once he dies.

not to mention all of the names in peace on earth...that song gets so much more poignant whenever a sean or julia dies.

 

[The Sad Punk]

It's going to be totally fucked up when the Playboy Mansion dies. Also, beauty.

 

[coolian2]

It's going to be totally fucked up when the Playboy Mansion dies. Also, beauty.

just you wait until gloria carks it.

 

[MikeyJB]

Maybe they'll finally drag out Playboy Mansion on the tour?!

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Maybe they'll finally drag out Playboy Mansion on the tour?!

i hope not!

 

[zwervers2]

U2 at its most insecure is the U2 I love the most.


POP is a dark mother of a record that saw them approaching music like they had never done before.
Lyricaly absolutely brilliant sometimes and a record that they should not be ashamed off but rather proud. Looking back, for me, after POP it all went downhill. And eventhough they are still on the mountain in comparission to most bands they are not on the himalaya of creativity anymore which is not a surprise. How many men of almost 50 can you name that are able to climb the highest mountain?

 

[mikal]

i'm not entirely sure. i do love pop and think it's a great album. however i've never wanted them to repeat themselves, so i know change was inevitable. even though i'm not a fan at all of atyclb and htdaab, i'd rather have those instead of them trying to duplicate any of their 90s output or anything.

exactly. as much as i'm a 90's U2 fanboy, if they were still making records that sounded like Pop, i think we'd all be sick of it.

 

[BVS]

U2 at its most insecure is the U2 I love the most.


POP is a dark mother of a record that saw them approaching music like they had never done before.
Lyricaly absolutely brilliant sometimes and a record that they should not be ashamed off but rather proud. Looking back, for me, after POP it all went downhill. And eventhough they are still on the mountain in comparission to most bands they are not on the himalaya of creativity anymore which is not a surprise. How many men of almost 50 can you name that are able to climb the highest mountain?

I think this album gets far too much credit for being the "height of creativity". Yes it was U2 being insecure, but they were insecure about where U2 fit in with the current music landscapes, so they grabbed one and decided to play with it...

 

[zwervers2]

I think this album gets far too much credit for being the "height of creativity". Yes it was U2 being insecure, but they were insecure about where U2 fit in with the current music landscapes, so they grabbed one and decided to play with it...

and I liked it a lot
the 90's were an unbelievable time in regards to their creativity.
AB, ZOOROPA, PASSENGERS, POP in 6 years time is a GREAT achievement!
and then they turned 40

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

I Pop, it tends to trade places with AB as my top U2 album all the time.

That being said, I feel that U2 hit a plateau with Pop and had nowhere else to go creatively, at least at the time. Obviously I don’t know what would have happened if Pop had sold 15 Million copies and PopMart had been a huge success like Zoo TV, would they have put out another album like it? I’d like to think not but I don’t really know.

While the 00's is not my favourite decade for U2 I think they needed to deconstruct their music and their approach to music to build it up again. I really think that NLOTH is a stepping stone to something much more creative on it's way...

 

[BVS]

and I liked it a lot
the 90's were an unbelievable time in regards to their creativity.
AB, ZOOROPA, PASSENGERS, POP in 6 years time is a GREAT achievement!
and then they turned 40

And so did I, but it was the least creative of these albums you listed.

 

[zwervers2]

And so did I, but it was the least creative of these albums you listed.

You turned 40 or you liked it a lot?

I agree 110% that POP is the least creative

 

[bigjohn2441]

u2 should never have changed course after JT / rattle and hum

 

[The Sad Punk]

u2 should never have changed course after JT / rattle and hum

 

[speaker]

and I liked it a lot
the 90's were an unbelievable time in regards to their creativity.
AB, ZOOROPA, PASSENGERS, POP in 6 years time is a GREAT achievement!
and then they turned 40

i couldn't write it better myself

 

[bizkitgto]

I think the band was going in the right direction with Pop. It took me many years to realize that. I think the band was moving in a direction more concerned with subtletly. I appreciate the fact now that Bono was singing in a lower register on a lot of the album. I know a lot of this stemmed from the fact that he lost his voice around that time, but at the same time i can't help but feel...this is the way it should be. I like Bono singing in a lower tone. It was more conversational. More detailed. His lyrics were a lot less forgiving. It seemed more realistic. That's one of the things that jarred me about that album, was his willingness to just say things bluntly, without any reassurance or optimisim. Like Dylan's best lyrics, Bono was just singing about things as they were, not projecting them into larger than life formats. Even tho i enjoy most of ATYCLB, i say that the only reason, and i mean the ONLY REASON they went that 2000's route, is because of the mixed reactions after POP. I truly believed
(about POP) that they believed this was how their music should sound. But i think they became way too addicted to being #1, and this is what killed them overall, creatively. That was the moment the U2 spirit died. From then on out is when they started to care more about relevance than artistry. And i know what you're thinking, that AB occured because of the same line of thinking, them being relevant. I disagree. I think that AB was a natural change for them. Listen to Hawkmoon, Desire, God Part II. There lies the sound of a band ready to rock out. The sound of U2 on ATYCLB is of a band trying to recapture their former glory. I always felt that, even tho i like the album. But it always seemed like an all too conscious effort to recapture their past earnestness.

I know there's a lot of different opinions here, but I agree with that statement the most, I know that AB->Zooropa->Passesngers->POP there was some form of evolution, a natural progression from each album, I know their age is a big factor too....Pop -> ATYCLB -> HTDAAB -> NLOTH seems kinda funny, like for 10 years they were backed into a corner afraid of any criticism, reworking their 80's formula to match the present.

On the other hand, I think it was interesting how Bono said they try to absorb the sound of the contemporary music and work it into their albums, one of the major change in pop music after 1997 was rap/hip-hop taking over, U2 can't rap so maybe they had no choice with ATYCLB?