Convince me that POP is a great album!

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Not sure how the Original Poster feels now, but I cannot convince the OP that Pop is a great album.

IMO it is in the bottom half of U2's own catalog.

Personally I love Wake Up Dead Man, and Please is OK. Discotheque did get some farily interesting treatments live over time as I recall.


Dunno what else to say, it just never stood out for me and the album cover looks like they stole the concept from from Kiss Dynasty.

A KISS reference in a U2 forum

But a valid album to compare Pop to...considering KISS had come off some ground bre...well, some solid and big selling 'rock' albums...whereas Dynasty was a stab at something different, and more trendy...unlike U2, KISS' next album did not bring them back into the limelight they wanted...and regardless of which side of the fence you're on regarding KISS...they were never a band any music aficionado ever looked at they way they look at U2.

shh: I like KISS...I really do, but in comparison to U2...)

 

[lov12113]

Hey, OP here. Thanks for the discussion, everyone! I think I was looking for a discussion of the artistic merits of Pop, and you all helped with that quite a bit. I've been re-listening to U2 albums that i don't listen to very often, Pop being one of them. I actually first became a U2 fan because of Pop, although I would say ATYCLB was the album that really sealed the deal for me. That said, for me Pop is still in the lower half of my favorite albums, but I'm now convinced that there is a lot more to it than I picked up originally. I think I never grasped some of the nuances of Bono's lyrics on the album, and I've been pleasantly surprised by giving the album another go-around. It's usually one of my least-listened-to U2 albums but the great thing about U2 is how much there is to re-discover.

 

[CarpathiaMan]

I have to admit, I do love Pop, but explaining why I like something is very hard for me to do. And let's face it, most of the time, aren't we just looking for validations of our own opinions anyway?

But I think I can sum up it pretty succinctly as follows:

Pop is "raw, naked, and uncensored" U2.

 

[Niceman]

Hey everyone, I've been on interference for about 8 years or so, and I've noticed a vocal group of people who love POP to no end. I've always thought POP was good in parts (i.e. Please, Gone, Staring at the sun, and even Do You Feel Loved?) but I couldn't get into a lot of it (Playboy Mansion, Miami, Velvet Dress). However, I recently had a conversation with a friend who loves POP and thinks it's highly underrated and actually pretty brilliant. I started to delve back in to the album and I'm starting to agree, but I'm not quite all the way there. So, all you diehard POP fans, let me hear your thoughts on why POP actually is brilliant. Go ahead, convince me that POP is actually one of U2's best. No, I'm not trying to start a thread where people troll. I'm serious! All opinions are appreciated, whether you like POP or not.

If you don't know, then you'll never understand.

I can't talk you into enjoying orgasms either.

 

[Nick66]

I have to admit, I do love Pop, but explaining why I like something is very hard for me to do. And let's face it, most of the time, aren't we just looking for validations of our own opinions anyway?

But I think I can sum up it pretty succinctly as follows:

Pop is "raw, naked, and uncensored" U2.

Uncensored? Possibly.

But raw and naked? U2 is buried under sequencers and synthesizers in this one. There's more separating "U2" from the listener than just about any other record, that's just a fact whether you like Pop or not. Not to mention, as McG pointed out, "too many cooks in the kitchen" on this one. Pop is the least "U2" of any U2 record.

If you don't know, then you'll never understand.

I can't talk you into enjoying orgasms either.

Um...

Nah, too easy.

 

[LemonMelon]

Pop is "raw, naked, and uncensored" U2.

Well, lyrically, it's as close as we're going to get. Musically, I think it's a little too overproduced to qualify, but I see where you're going with this.

 

[Nick66]

Lyrically, I agree. There's some powerful stuff in there and I've never had a problem w/Pop's lyrics. Mostly.

 

[CarpathiaMan]

I understand the points you guys are making. I think what I originally meant by "raw and naked" was the emotions it makes me feel and the imagery it produces in my mind. I mean, I really think the trio of Achtung, Zoo, and Pop are much more gut-wrenching and visceral then some of the more "lofty" albums like Unforgettable Fire. Perhaps I didn't choose the best wording, but I think you get what I mean.

 

[digitize]

I understand the points you guys are making. I think what I originally meant by "raw and naked" was the emotions it makes me feel and the imagery it produces in my mind. I mean, I really think the trio of Achtung, Zoo, and Pop are much more gut-wrenching and visceral then some of the more "lofty" albums like Unforgettable Fire. Perhaps I didn't choose the best wording, but I think you get what I mean.

Such is part of Pop's irony. It is emotionally raw despite layers and layers of production. The production can't overcome what's within. That's part of what I like about the album.

 

[Niceman]

Such is part of Pop's irony. It is emotionally raw despite layers and layers of production. The production can't overcome what's within. That's part of what I like about the album.

True.

 

[Nick66]

Such is part of Pop's irony. It is emotionally raw despite layers and layers of production. The production can't overcome what's within. That's part of what I like about the album.

I feel the opposite....I think the production is burying what I suspect is some pretty powerful stuff buried under all that crap. I for one would have loved to hear a Pop that sounded like U2.

But such is part of Pop's irony.

Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to go party like it's my post count.

 

[OpenG180]

Pop is a mans album.

 

[U2DMfan]

Pop is the least "U2" of any U2 record.

I would agree with that.

Speaking of...this demonstrates an absolutely brain-dead motivation for seeking such a widespread relevance by not sounding like U2.

Neil Young was sued by David Geffen for not sounding like himself.
Neil Young was following his own lead, doing what he want to do.
That's what artists do.

And yet when U2 does it, we are to believe that it was because 'Firestarter' and 'Setting Sun' were #1 songs in the UK. I wouldn't suggest they weren't influenced by them or other electronic artists. Of course they were. But this wasn't some desperate attempt to be huge. Prodigy were categorically NOT huge in 1996 when U2 were recording POP. They were Brit-huge. BFD.

The Prodigy cracked the US top 40 once back then, when Firestarter hit #30. Mainstream music in 1996 (in America) was not hospitable to that music on a widespread level. And if you can't get relevant in America (in the way U2 always wants to be relevant) then you aren't relevant. Period.

Brilliant strategy, I tells ya!
Of course, I don't believe that was their strategy.
I'll leave that to the revisionists.
What I mean is, U2 certainly ALWAYS want to be relevant. But I don't believe they thought this path was the clear way to relevance. In other words, it was not a 'bandwagon hop' as many have said over the years.

I was 21 in 1996. I was immersed in the music scene as much as I probably ever was or have been since. What U2 did on POP was absurd in terms of wanting to have a big 'hit' in America. It was ballsy and brave. People don't bandwagon hop when they are being ballsy and brave. They bandwagon hop when something is a proven way to get popular. You don't jump on a niche that hasn't taken off yet. It's not yet a 'bandwagon' to hop on.

Madonna's Ray of Light wasn't until 1998. U2 were ahead of the curve to some extent. As America is always a little behind the curve (unless it is hard rock). That's not to say say U2 got it right w/POP, but they damn sure had more creative guts in 1996 and 1997 than they have since. And it's not even close.

 

[LemonMelon]

Thank you for fleshing out my argument with chart placements.

 

[Nick66]

Pop is a mans album.

Yeah, especially if they're dressed like the Village People.

 

[Nick66]

I would agree with that.

Speaking of...this demonstrates an absolutely brain-dead motivation for seeking such a widespread relevance by not sounding like U2.

Neil Young was sued by David Geffen for not sounding like himself.
Neil Young was following his own lead, doing what he want to do.
That's what artists do.

And yet when U2 does it, we are to believe that it was because 'Firestarter' and 'Setting Sun' were #1 songs in the UK. I wouldn't suggest they weren't influenced by them or other electronic artists. Of course they were. But this wasn't some desperate attempt to be huge. Prodigy were categorically NOT huge in 1996 when U2 were recording POP. They were Brit-huge. BFD.

The Prodigy cracked the US top 40 once back then, when Firestarter hit #30. Mainstream music in 1996 (in America) was not hospitable to that music on a widespread level. And if you can't get relevant in America (in the way U2 always wants to be relevant) then you aren't relevant. Period.

Brilliant strategy, I tells ya!
Of course, I don't believe that was their strategy.
I'll leave that to the revisionists.
What I mean is, U2 certainly ALWAYS want to be relevant. But I don't believe they thought this path was the clear way to relevance. In other words, it was not a 'bandwagon hop' as many have said over the years.

I was 21 in 1996. I was immersed in the music scene as much as I probably ever was or have been since. What U2 did on POP was absurd in terms of wanting to have a big 'hit' in America. It was ballsy and brave. People don't bandwagon hop when they are being ballsy and brave. They bandwagon hop when something is a proven way to get popular. You don't jump on a niche that hasn't taken off yet. It's not yet a 'bandwagon' to hop on.

Madonna's Ray of Light wasn't until 1998. U2 were ahead of the curve to some extent. As America is always a little behind the curve (unless it is hard rock). That's not to say say U2 got it right w/POP, but they damn sure had more creative guts in 1996 and 1997 than they have since. And it's not even close.

That's about the most persuasive and coherent explanation for this argument I've heard.

Having said that, I'm still not sure I entirely agree. I do believe it's obvious that U2 were influenced by some of the bands and music you mentioned, and that influence shows up on the record. They said as much at the time, and they also said, at the time and subsequently, that they were trying to get U2's music into the club scene, particularly Europe. That certainly wasn't their only motivation, their primary goal was clearly mainstream radio success. The goal, as always, was to be relevant and "huge", irrespective of whether their strategy (whatever it was) to get there in this case worked. The probably didn't think that electronic music was a golden ticket for them, but again, they were certainly influenced by it and gambled that this type of record would expand their fan base and get them played in more places. If they didn't think that, they wouldn't have done it. And they certainly wouldn't have tried to hire someone from Prodigy to produce the thing if they didn't have that in mind. That's not just a coincidence. I'm not saying they thought "This kind of music will make us successful", but I do believe they thought "we can be successful with this kind of music".

And I do think that Pop took a certain amount of courage, but more than anything it was a gamble. I don't think U2 were thinking "we're going to do what we want, we don't care if it's successful or not". This is not Radiohead. Indeed, their comments about the record are just the opposite. Rather, I believe U2 thought they were taking a chance with the record, but were confident it would be successful ala Achtung Baby. In the case of AB, they went a new direction, took a chance and it paid off big. They tried the same with Pop and it didn't work out quite so well.

Again, nicely worded argument.

 

[iron yuppie]

The one thing I want to add to this thread is that I don't quite understand why (The) Prodigy are usually taken as the antecedent to/major influence on Pop. To me the closest sister or parent album to Pop is Depeche Mode's Songs of Faith and Devotion. Both have the electro-guitar interplay with the wounded lyrical themes and fractured take on faith and spirituality. I'm not going to look up the sales figures right now, but I'm pretty sure Songs of Faith and Devotion did well in the US in the mid 90s, and certainly Violator before it had spawned some massive hits using the same basic electro-guitar formula. I would see DM as the foremost influence on Pop, if any, simply because they had fine-tuned the formula to the world market, including the US.

 

[lemonfly]

I think it's also worth noting that U2 actually recorded a track with Underworld called "Moaner", which was never released. The fact that U2 were actively seeking out collaborations with those big beat/ alt dance artists speaks volumes (pun not intended). In the past, they may have been influenced by other bands (like the Madchester scene for Achtung Baby) but they didn't go so far as to actually record material with those groups.

 

[OpenG180]

Yeah, especially if they're dressed like the Village People.

Well, Nick, "we've made a mans album" was how Bono described Pop on Q magazine, edition 126, march 1997. And i know how you value those statements coming from U2 members.

 

[OpenG180]

The one thing I want to add to this thread is that I don't quite understand why (The) Prodigy are usually taken as the antecedent to/major influence on Pop. To me the closest sister or parent album to Pop is Depeche Mode's Songs of Faith and Devotion. Both have the electro-guitar interplay with the wounded lyrical themes and fractured take on faith and spirituality. I'm not going to look up the sales figures right now, but I'm pretty sure Songs of Faith and Devotion did well in the US in the mid 90s, and certainly Violator before it had spawned some massive hits using the same basic electro-guitar formula. I would see DM as the foremost influence on Pop, if any, simply because they had fine-tuned the formula to the world market, including the US.

One day, i hope someone shows me EXACTLY where is the Chemical Bros or Prodigy influence on Pop. I mean, "listen at xx:xx, that sound is coming directly from Setting Sun and at zz:zz you can totally hear Block Rockin Beats"... And, no, Mofo is not an example. If you say Mofo, i'm pretty sure you never actually heard Prodigy or Chemical Bros.

I hear zero Prodigy or Chemical Bros, nada. Nothing. They (U2) may have even thought they were doing something in that vein, but that never shows on this record.

I totally agree with 1990-1993 DM being a truly palpable influence on Pop.

 

[BVS]

The one thing I want to add to this thread is that I don't quite understand why (The) Prodigy are usually taken as the antecedent to/major influence on Pop. To me the closest sister or parent album to Pop is Depeche Mode's Songs of Faith and Devotion.

Depeche Mode went from a mostly synth sound (and as Gore put it, "rediscovered the guitar" on that album) to a sound of a synth band that introduced guitars. It was a synth band that was influenced by rock and blues. Pop was the sound of a rock band that was influenced by the electronica music of the time. I think songs like Mofo, DYFL, Miami, and even Disco you can hear those influences.

Now that might sound like semantics, but I think you can definitely hear the differences. The songs on Songs of Faith at the bare bones sound like DM songs with guitars and grit added. Whereas Pop is a bit of confused album in the sense that songs like Mofo, Miami, and DYFL at the bare bones sound like songs influenced by electronica music at the time with U2 added. The rest of the songs sound like U2 with influences from that time.

One indicator is the live shows. DYFL flopped live, Miami was mostly backtrack, and I know most people like the Mofo performances but honestly so much of that was backtrack that I don't think U2 could strip it down and play that song and make it anything as a 4 piece. And don't get me wrong, I really like this album I just think this shows where they were coming from as far as influence. This album and Zooropa are the only albums that have songs that really couldn't be reproduced with a four piece rock band because some of the bones were created in the studio rather than with instruments in a room. I think that IS the electronica influence of Prodigy, Chemical Brothers, and others.

 

[LemonMirrorSky]

Such is part of Pop's irony. It is emotionally raw despite layers and layers of production. The production can't overcome what's within. That's part of what I like about the album.

Well said!

What U2 did on POP was absurd in terms of wanting to have a big 'hit' in America. It was ballsy and brave. People don't bandwagon hop when they are being ballsy and brave. They bandwagon hop when something is a proven way to get popular. You don't jump on a niche that hasn't taken off yet. It's not yet a 'bandwagon' to hop on.

Madonna's Ray of Light wasn't until 1998. U2 were ahead of the curve to some extent. As America is always a little behind the curve (unless it is hard rock). That's not to say say U2 got it right w/POP, but they damn sure had more creative guts in 1996 and 1997 than they have since. And it's not even close.

Completely agree. Lovely post!

Depeche Mode went from a mostly synth sound (and as Gore put it, "rediscovered the guitar" on that album) to a sound of a synth band that introduced guitars. It was a synth band that was influenced by rock and blues. Pop was the sound of a rock band that was influenced by the electronica music of the time.

Exactly!

This album and Zooropa are the only albums that have songs that really couldn't be reproduced with a four piece rock band because some of the bones were created in the studio rather than with instruments in a room. I think that IS the electronica influence of Prodigy, Chemical Brothers, and others.

Interesting take. Well, the fact that it was difficult to reproduce these songs in a live setting shows the influence of electronic music in general, not necessaily influence of the Prodigy, Chem Bros. etc.

 

[cobl04]

I've seen Chemical Bros and Prodigy live and both shows were awesome.

 

[LemonMirrorSky]

I've seen Chemical Bros and Prodigy live and both shows were awesome.

C'mon man! Tell us what really matters. Did they sound like Pop U2 or not???

 

[Nick66]

Well, Nick, "we've made a mans album" was how Bono described Pop on Q magazine, edition 126, march 1997. And i know how you value those statements coming from U2 members.

Good for him. If I recall correctly, he was one of the ones dressed as a Village Person.

 

[LemonMirrorSky]

It seems like they did a complete 180 on their own feelings towards Pop. So debating about the band's opinion on this album is going to be difficult.

 

[Nick66]

It seems like they did a complete 180 on their own feelings towards Pop. So debating about the band's opinion on this album is going to be difficult.

Well, I think you have to distinguish between their comments regarding their influences, recording process, technical matters, etc. made at the time, which I think would be highly reliable, as opposed to their opinion as to the quality of the record and how it turned out, in which case I'd suspect their comments made years later when they're not in the middle of trying to, um, sell the the thing are more reliable than those made in the midst of promoting it.

 

[LemonMirrorSky]

Well, I think you have to distinguish between their comments regarding their influences, recording process, technical matters, etc. made at the time, which I think would be highly reliable, as opposed to their opinion as to the quality of the record and how it turned out, in which case I'd suspect their comments made years later when they're not in the middle of trying to, um, sell the the thing are more reliable than those made in the midst of promoting it.

Look, at the end of the day they're businessmen after all. They try to sell their albums to the public. With that in mind, I'd rather listen to their interviews pre-1997 when they were really into the whole project and passionate about it than now when they know that it did badly and somehow have to explain the fiasco!

 

[BVS]

Interesting take. Well, the fact that it was difficult to reproduce these songs in a live setting shows the influence of electronic music in general, not necessaily influence of the Prodigy, Chem Bros. etc.

True, and I've been trying to think about how to explain that influence. Sometimes it's hard to explain music in words when you're not sure how verse your audience is in musical theory or technicality.

To put it in a very elementary way, Chem Brothers and Prodigy sounded like electronic bands that were influence by rock. A lot of the electronic music today has this very 80's throwback feel, very thin, tinny, and focused on the hi-hat sound. Late 90's electronic music lost a lot of that tin sound, focused on bass, but in particular had these very guitar like sweeping sounds. Similar to that of..........Mofo

 

[OpenG180]

True, and I've been trying to think about how to explain that influence. Sometimes it's hard to explain music in words when you're not sure how verse your audience is in musical theory or technicality.

To put it in a very elementary way, Chem Brothers and Prodigy sounded like electronic bands that were influence by rock. A lot of the electronic music today has this very 80's throwback feel, very thin, tinny, and focused on the hi-hat sound. Late 90's electronic music lost a lot of that tin sound, focused on bass, but in particular had these very guitar like sweeping sounds. Similar to that of..........Mofo

Depeche Mode - Rush, SOFAD 1993.

There is much more of that in Mofo than any Prodigy or Chemical Brothers.