Convince me that POP is a great album!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Well, it's not relevant to how successful it was for U2 at the time, and how it was perceived, which is what we were talking about. :)

I completely respect that some people love the record, that's just a matter of taste. But pretending that it was some kind of huge success (it sold 1/3 worldwide of what AB did, and half of what R&H, the supposed "failure" did) is just silly.
 
Im really trying hard to find where it has been mentioned by anyone in this thread that Pop was a "massive success".

I've tried too. Can't find it anywhere. :shrug:

As far as the album, I could care less how many albums it sold or how it's perceived. That kind of stuff has no bearing on my opinions. "Pop" is my 3rd favorite U2 album, just below (1)Zooropa and (2) Achtung Baby and just ahead of (4) TUF.
 
Im really trying hard to find where it has been mentioned by anyone in this thread that Pop was a "massive success".

By almost any other band's standards, that record would have been a success.

By U2's standards, world wide sales of 8 million were a relative failure, when you compare it to 25 mil for JT, 18 mil for AB, and 13 mil for R&H. Even Zooropa, which was basically just an interesting interlude, sold 7 mil with almost no promotion and a hugely successful tour going on at the time. Of course, 8 mil would be considered pretty exceptional for them right now, but Pop was still the pre-MP3, pre-pirating era when U2 was at the height of their popularity.

Add to that they were having trouble filling seats for the tour in a lot of North American markets even with deeply discounted ticketing (the radio station where I lived in San Diego at the time, and saw the show, was giving them away to anyone who showed up), it's hard to call this record a success by U2's standards. Whether it was an artistic success is of course another matter entirely.

And since the bands statements about the record over the years speak for themselves, I'll leave it at that. :)

As far as the album, I could care less how many albums it sold or how it's perceived. That kind of stuff has no bearing on my opinions. "Pop" is my 3rd favorite U2 album, just below (1)Zooropa and (2) Achtung Baby and just ahead of (4) TUF.

That I can respect, and there's certainly no arguing with that. Bomb was a huge success for them and I think it was an artistic failure. I'm not conflating artistic success with commercial success (though U2 certainly does). But the fact remains, a lot of people who bought U2's previous records rejected Pop...so on that level, it was rejected on its artistic merits by millions of fans.
 
As far as the album, I could care less how many albums it sold or how it's perceived. That kind of stuff has no bearing on my opinions. "Pop" is my 3rd favorite U2 album, just below (1)Zooropa and (2) Achtung Baby and just ahead of (4) TUF.

:up:
 
By almost any other band's standards, that record would have been a success.

By U2's standards, world wide sales of 8 million were a relative failure, when you compare it to 25 mil for JT, 18 mil for AB, and 13 mil for R&H. Even Zooropa, which was basically an after thought, sold 7 mil with almost no promotion and a hugely successful tour going on at the time. Of course, 8 mil would be considered pretty exceptional for them right now, but Pop was still the pre-MP3, pre-pirating era when U2 was at the height of their popularity.

Add to that they were having trouble filling seats for the tour in a lot of North American markets even with deeply discounted ticketing (the radio station where I lived in San Diego at the time, and saw the show, was giving them away to anyone who showed up), it's hard to call this record a success by U2's standards. Whether it was an artistic success is of course another matter entirely.

And since the bands statements about the record over the years speak for themselves, I'll stop speaking about it. :)

I agree with pretty much everything you have said here, its pretty clear that the facts do speak for themselves. The question I pose is

1) who stated that Pop was a massive success?

2) does any of this really matter when it comes to the original question about is Pop a good album?
 
I agree with pretty much everything you have said here, its pretty clear that the facts do speak for themselves. The question I pose is

1) who stated that Pop was a massive success?

2) does any of this really matter when it comes to the original question about is Pop a good album?

1) No one...I was responding to someone who described it as "huge" in South America, and I went with the word "massive" instead of "huge". Sorry.

2) No.
 
Thank you for that polite reply, I appreciate it :)

I don't think the Pop argument will ever die around here. As someone who loves the album I confess to what Irvine described in his post as Pop being a sentimental favourite of mine do to my age and level of fandom when it came out.
 
1) No one...I was responding to someone who described it as "huge" in South America, and I went with the word "massive" instead of "huge". Sorry.

2) No.

It was huge. At least in Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay. Everyone i knew had the CD at home( fans, non fans, casual fans), the press they got was incredible and popmart in Rio actually stooped the traffic and the whole city in 98. Pop had massive coverage and sales here. Massive sales for a poor country like Brazil was in 98 (now it's changed alot).
 
The old "U2 were trying to be underworld, prodigy, chemical bros" argument... How boring if the person who's reading it lived that era and knows its bullshit.

Liam Howlett (of The Prodigy) stated in an interview in 2009 that U2 wanted him to produce Pop. He declined. I think that says it all, really.
 
Another thing.... It really was the band's last "cool" moment for me. While I've remained a fan of their last 3 albums, they really went from cuttng edge to dad rock.
 
Liam Howlett (of The Prodigy) stated in an interview in 2009 that U2 wanted him to produce Pop. He declined. I think that says it all, really.

The final product says it all.
And, btw, i followed u2 reports closely back them and don't remember anything like that.
 
It was huge. At least in Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay. Everyone i knew had the CD at home( fans, non fans, casual fans), the press they got was incredible and popmart in Rio actually stooped the traffic and the whole city in 98. Pop had massive coverage and sales here. Massive sales for a poor country like Brazil was in 98 (now it's changed alot).

I believe you. I know that Popmart was huge in South America and those shows were sold out and very well received.

I also believe you say everyone you knew had the CD at home. Everyone I knew had that CD as well. When you say "massive" sales, what figures are you basing this on? Do you know how well it sold in Brazil, and how well JT, R&H AB, and Zooropa sold there, by way of comparison. I'm not doubting you, I'm just wondering if you're basing your opinion on anything other than personal experience? I'm genuinely curious.
 
I believe you. I know that Popmart was huge in South America and those shows were sold out and very well received.

I also believe you say everyone you knew had the CD at home. Everyone I knew had that CD as well. When you say "massive" sales, what figures are you basing this on? Do you know how well it sold in Brazil, and how well JT, R&H AB, and Zooropa sold there, by way of comparison. I'm not doubting you, I'm just wondering if you're basing your opinion on anything other than personal experience? I'm genuinely curious.

I'm basing it on the best music mag we had here. (Bizz). It had a section with the best selling records. I still have the magazines at home. It was a top 10 record for at least 6 months.

It was a monthly publication.
 
Liam Howlett (of The Prodigy) stated in an interview in 2009 that U2 wanted him to produce Pop. He declined. I think that says it all, really.

I don't know that that necessarily means that U2 were "trying to be Prodigy" though.
 
I'm basing it on the best music mag we had here. (Bizz). It had a section with the best selling records. I still have the magazines at home. It was a top 10 record for at least 6 months.

It was a monthly publication.

And Brazil is a rare case where the top 10 is almost all made of brazilian artists.
 
Do you guys really care how much it sold or whether it was this huge success or not? Really? All that matters is if each of us personally likes listening to it or not.

As for me, I became a fan with the Achtung Baby singles that were played on MTV at the time. And with Pop I had became a super crazy fan! Actually I think I had become a super fan with Hold Me Thrill Me itself. :love:
 
Can't believe some deny the influence of Underworld, Prodigy etc on POP :s

that's because a lot of people in here became fans during the Pop era, and this was when the band was getting some exceptionally bad PR. so they remain defensive about it and aren't ready to hear that the album is, indeed, undercooked, and it's U2 in their most "whoring for relevance" stage. anyone who was listening to Prodigy and Underworld in 1996/97 could see what they were doing, and the goal was to get out in front of the "techno" revolution that was, supposedly, sweeping across the Atlantic from the UK and would take over the US. it didn't.

that said, there's lots of interesting stuff, some of Bono's better lyrics, it definitely has a larger (though vague) theme running through the album, the live performances were great improvements (though the re-released singles have more than a hint of desperation).

also, PopMart -- very pretty at times, but very static visually. Zoo TV and 360 were far more dynamic.

it's U2's most interesting swing-and-a-miss. and it directly led us to the HTDAAB era that so many claim to despise.
:up:
 
I don't know that that necessarily means that U2 were "trying to be Prodigy" though.

Perhaps. But it certainly doesn't help the argument that they weren't.

And then there's the fact that, as simple Google search will show, almost every article written about Pop at the time mentions Prodigy (or their contemporaries).
 
I think Pop is awesome because it came out when I was in college, and Popmart was my first U2 concert. Very fond memories of that time, which the album reminds me of. Not an argument that's going to convince anyone else, but whatever. :shrug:

I guess I don't care if it sold 4 copies. I dig it.
 
Perhaps. But it certainly doesn't help the argument that they weren't.

And then there's the fact that, as simple Google search will show, almost every article written about Pop at the time mentions Prodigy (or their contemporaries).

Lazy journalists in 95-96-97 would say anything remotely eletronic had a Prodigy-the Chemical Bros influence.

I listened to eletronic music back then and i could never see the influence of those acts on Pop. Never ever.
 
Lazy journalists in 95-96-97 would say anything remotely eletronic had a Prodigy-the Chemical Bros influence.

I listened to eletronic music back them and i could never see the influence of those acts on Pop. Never ever.

Well, they did try to get Liam Howlett to produce the record. Why try to hire him if they weren't influenced by his music? And then they made a record (particularly Mofo) that a lot of people thought was influenced by Prodigy. And U2 were clearly trying to make a record that at least had influences of electronic dance, so it would be almost unusual for them to be not influenced by one of the most, um, influential bands making that kind of music. It would be kind of like REM deciding to make a grunge record in 1992 and then saying they weren't influenced by Nirvana (after trying to hire Curt Kobain to produce it).

Who do you think U2's influences were for Pop, if not the more influential electronic bands of the time? Or did they make it in an artistic vacuum?
 
Well, they did try to get Liam Howlett to produce the record. Why try to hire him if they weren't influenced by his music? And then they made a record (particularly Mofo) that a lot of people thought was influenced by Prodigy? Sorry, it doesn't add up. And U2 were clearly trying to make a record record that at least had influence of electronic dance, so it would be almost unusual for them to be not influenced by one of the most, um, influential bands making that kind of music. It would be kind of like REM deciding to make a grunge record in 1992 and saying they weren't influenced by Nirvana (after trying to hire Curt Kobain to produce it).

Who do you think U2's influences were for Pop, if not the more influential techno bands of the time? Or did they make it in an artistic vacuum?

They were trying to be part of their era. They may have thought they were actually doing an eletronic album in the vein of prodigy etc.

But i maintain: i can not hear the influence. Not even in mofo.
 
Pop is on par with October...which came out when I was in high school, so I loved it at the time, and we all know that album's jaded history. Pop, is U2 trying to be anything but U2. Bono and Edge trying to get U2's music in the discos and dance floors...Prodigy, and trip-hop were HUGE influences on that album...delve into the interviews with Bono during that time and you'll read how he says as much.

Music is subjective, but in relevance to U2's history it's a dud...a fussy, unfinished album to my ears, which the band dismisses collectively. When it first came out, I thought it sounded like a collection of B-sides. There are a few good songs on the album, and some of Bono's most deeply soul and faith searching lyrics...but musically it seems a little contrived for the musical times, like it's trying to be 'in fashion', which U2 rebelled against in their younger years...:sad:
 
Pop is on par with October...which came out when I was in high school, so I loved it at the time, and we all know that album's jaded history. Pop, is U2 trying to be anything but U2. Bono and Edge trying to get U2's music in the discos and dance floors...Prodigy, and trip-hop were HUGE influences on that album...delve into the interviews with Bono during that time and you'll read how he says as much.

Music is subjective, but in relevance to U2's history it's a dud...a fussy, unfinished album to my ears, which the band dismisses collectively. When it first came out, I thought it sounded like a collection of B-sides. There are a few good songs on the album, and some of Bono's most deeply soul and faith searching lyrics...but musically it seems a little contrived for the musical times, like it's trying to be 'in fashion', which U2 rebelled against in their younger years...:sad:

:up:

Well said.

Except the part about October. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom