BVS, as usual, your post is laced with a heavy dose of undeserved elitism and arrogance. But don't worry, I'm here to straighten you out:
I assume the subtext of this statement means: "I know more than you do." Did I get that right?
Thanks for letting me know. Because, ya know, I didn't know that!
My perceptions are coming from reading the ads about the album in the weeks before it came out, buying it on the day of its release, and then talking about it (and U2) to dozens of people my age in classes, on campus, and in a city where they're hugely popular. I maintain that if Zooropa had come out in Nov. 1991 instead of Achtung Baby, it would have been perceived as a major disappointment, but because it was (a) released in the midst of ZooTV, and (b) released at the peak of alternative rock in North America, it was welcomed and given an easier acceptance than, say, Pop.
See my response to Irvine511, above.
By whose accounts? I cannot really understand your English here, sorry. U2 were anything but "coming off a hugely successful time in their lives" in 1997. At best, they had had a long layoff, and at worst, they were actually considered kind of washed up... which they were, sort of.
I see. It's not U2's fault that they're not as popular, it's society's!
A lot of misconceptions in this post.
I assume the subtext of this statement means: "I know more than you do." Did I get that right?
Although many of us would like less time between album releases, it's not that uncommon, even younger bands are waiting longer lengths between releases.
Thanks for letting me know. Because, ya know, I didn't know that!
Zooropa was not really considered an offshoot by anyone outside the die hard community, it was just considered another album. It was hyped quite a bit and Numb and Lemon did well on video outlets but not on radio. So I'm not sure where your perceptions of Zooropa are coming from...
My perceptions are coming from reading the ads about the album in the weeks before it came out, buying it on the day of its release, and then talking about it (and U2) to dozens of people my age in classes, on campus, and in a city where they're hugely popular. I maintain that if Zooropa had come out in Nov. 1991 instead of Achtung Baby, it would have been perceived as a major disappointment, but because it was (a) released in the midst of ZooTV, and (b) released at the peak of alternative rock in North America, it was welcomed and given an easier acceptance than, say, Pop.
But the biggest misconception is that 360 is a huge success compared to PopMart.
See my response to Irvine511, above.
The other big misconception is that by all accounts, Pop and PopMart should have been HUGE. MTV was still big cheerleaders they had jumped on early with the next biggest thing: electronica, and they were coming off a hugely successful time in their lives. Everything was building this up to be the next coming.
By whose accounts? I cannot really understand your English here, sorry. U2 were anything but "coming off a hugely successful time in their lives" in 1997. At best, they had had a long layoff, and at worst, they were actually considered kind of washed up... which they were, sort of.
This time around they have very little to no markets for their songs to play. MTV is dead, radio gets worse every year, and now we have the internet allowing anyone to steal music. So almost nothing was on their side this time around.
I see. It's not U2's fault that they're not as popular, it's society's!