Pop album - what went wrong..?

[Irvine511]

All good points. I think the band has expressed frustration with SATS -- wasn't it once described as "miracle song"? -- and I get where they're coming from. I think it, like the album, was an interesting reach, but they couldn't grab it.

Also, I think there's one thing that's been overlooked. In 1997, videos were still played on MTV. And Pop has really shitty videos. We've discussed "disco," but I think SATS is the best one, and that's not saying much. LNOE was ghastly, if I remember. They were all visually unimaginative and dead boring.

 

[Thrillhouse]

SATS Please and IGWSHA were cool videos. Disco and LNOE were horrible yes

 

[Irvine511]

I'd have to rewatch. I think SATS and IGWSHA were fine. Just unmemorable. I feel like Please tried to be arty but failed, like the single mix. IMHO, obvy.

 

[ahittle]

I guess they were off the one-two punch of their first two records by 97, but if Oasis had done SATS it would've been a smash.

It would have been really difficult for U2 to have a massive hit in 1997. People were still interested in the live thing (in most markets), but the general population were not clamoring for U2 singles in 97. And it was only because they were humbled and "reapplied for the job" in 2000 that anyone accepted BD. It was part of that campaign's narrative as a back-to-basics theme - even if BD is not exactly that.

Even if U2 had BD in 97 as the lead-off single for Pop, I don't think it would have hit the way it did three years later. It's more than just songs, production, etc. Maybe the same way that NLOTH had an uphill battle no matter what song they released first.

 

[Gonna Run 2 U]

Bonos voice sounded like shit during this period. There's a few fun songs on the album but to me it's pretty meh.

 

[mikal]

I guess they were off the one-two punch of their first two records by 97, but if Oasis had done SATS it would've been a smash.

It would have been really difficult for U2 to have a massive hit in 1997. People were still interested in the live thing (in most markets), but the general population were not clamoring for U2 singles in 97. And it was only because they were humbled and "reapplied for the job" in 2000 that anyone accepted BD. It was part of that campaign's narrative as a back-to-basics theme - even if BD is not exactly that.

Even if U2 had BD in 97 as the lead-off single for Pop, I don't think it would have hit the way it did three years later. It's more than just songs, production, etc. Maybe the same way that NLOTH had an uphill battle no matter what song they released first.

That's a good point. And it's not like Beautiful Day was an instant smash either, at least in America. It seemed to take it a while to really get going. And then of course when 9/11 happened, the album and single regained a lot of steam as well.

 

[MrPryck2U]

That's a good point. And it's not like Beautiful Day was an instant smash either, at least in America. It seemed to take it a while to really get going. And then of course when 9/11 happened, the album and single regained a lot of steam as well.

BD was a smash in the US. They played the shit out of it when it hit the airwaves and MTV/VH-1/MuchMusic.

 

[mikal]

BD was a smash in the US. They played the shit out of it when it hit the airwaves and MTV/VH-1/MuchMusic.

I don't remember this for some reason.

 

[MrPryck2U]

I don't remember this for some reason.

Well, it was 13 years ago. I remember this quite well because I was working for a radio station at the time.

 

[mikal]

Well, it was 13 years ago. I remember this quite well because I was working for a radio station at the time.

Ah that makes sense. Could have been my area as well.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

Sometimes its about where the bands head is at. So in 97 they felt they had gone to far. They had a moment. Where they realized the sound of u2 was the sound of 4 men. Ok. Guess they suspended. That thinking during the 360 tour for "crazy tonight". Lol.

 

[jeevey]

I'm looking for an official IGWSHA video on youtube and not finding one. Can anyone guide me to the one that's been mentioned?

 

[Galeongirl]

I'm looking for an official IGWSHA video on youtube and not finding one. Can anyone guide me to the one that's been mentioned?

Just checked youtube, holy crap. What happened to that place...
Can't find it either, here's U2.com
U2 > If God Will Send His Angels (POP)

 

[U2girl]

SATS Please and IGWSHA were cool videos. Disco and LNOE were horrible yes

They were good videos for most part, minus bizzare LNOE and obviously the Village People ending of Discotheque.

 

[U2girl]

I guess they were off the one-two punch of their first two records by 97, but if Oasis had done SATS it would've been a smash.

It would have been really difficult for U2 to have a massive hit in 1997. People were still interested in the live thing (in most markets), but the general population were not clamoring for U2 singles in 97. And it was only because they were humbled and "reapplied for the job" in 2000 that anyone accepted BD. It was part of that campaign's narrative as a back-to-basics theme - even if BD is not exactly that.

Even if U2 had BD in 97 as the lead-off single for Pop, I don't think it would have hit the way it did three years later. It's more than just songs, production, etc. Maybe the same way that NLOTH had an uphill battle no matter what song they released first.

It's more about BD being a better song. ATYCLB in general did well in singles/songwriting/production, unlike Pop.

 

[U2DMfan]

I don't remember this for some reason.

BD first appeared on the front page of Interference (back when you could post copyrighted material here) in August of 2000. So you're saying BD needed a year to gain traction. Think about that.

 

[mikal]

BD first appeared on the front page of Interference (back when you could post copyrighted material here) in August of 2000. So you're saying BD needed a year to gain traction. Think about that.

Wait, did the articles still suck on the front page back then too?

 

[ahittle]

It's more about BD being a better song. ATYCLB in general did well in singles/songwriting/production, unlike Pop.

Obviously this is just a hypothetical scenario. This is my theory:

What I'm saying is that there were bigger issues that a half-cooked record in 1997. I think there was a general feeling that the band had over-played their hand, were launching another over-the-top tour, etc.

People welcomed them back in 2000 not only because they had a fantastic lead single and a familiar-ish album, but also because they liked the narrative of a band that corrected its past excesses and got back to basics in order to win the fans back.

 

[U2DMfan]

Pop is a failure, Bono and Edge say as much in U2 by U2:
........
Whether you love this album or not, it's is definitely not highly regarded by the band.

These two statements conflict each other, IMO. The former being irrelevant to everything but U2's future creative decisions. The latter is certainly accurate.

The band can believe what they want but they are not the arbiter of truth when it comes to the quality of their own music. That U2 consider POP a failure is utterly meaningless to the idea that it failed artistically or creatively. Commercially? That can be fairly measured - objectively. The band's own perception of it is whatever it is. But they don't hold any special authority over how any single one of us appreciates or doesn't appreciate a song.

Thus U2 calling POP a failure is only meaningful as a comment on its chart performance and other such nonsense that shouldn't matter to fans like us. We can love it or hate it or we can consider it a success or a failure and we don't need to defer to the band's opinion in order to do so.

 

[U2DMfan]

What I'm saying is that there were bigger issues that a half-cooked record in 1997. I think there was a general feeling that the band had over-played their hand, were launching another over-the-top tour, etc.

I can agree with that. Also, the choice of using irony (in 1997) was the biggest mistake. Not only were they repeating themselves, again, (inexplicable, really) using irony but it was a very earnest time in rock and roll. Especially in America, with all those terrible third generation "post-grunge" bands trying to put on the uniform and wear it.

I don't have a big problem with the rehash of irony personally. I'm glad U2 are always willing to go against the grain and the music will be whatever it is, for me, and that's all I care about. But if we're diagnosing what went wrong with POP - you absolutely, positively have to mention the choice of using an ironic presentation.

 

[mikal]

It's more about BD being a better song. ATYCLB in general did well in singles/songwriting/production, unlike Pop.

Match up Mofo vs Elevation. I dare you.

 

[U2DMfan]

Also, I never bought the whole "Pop sucks because we didn't have time to finish it because McG booked us on tour". Pop was finished. Is finished.

And then the following post, from the new album thread.

U2 will continue working on the record until the moment they stop working on it...and even then, it won't be "finished", merely abandoned.

 

[mikal]

And then the following post, from the new album thread.

 

[Nick66]

So, U2DMFan, were you deliberately trying to take me completely out of context, or just trying to be clever? If the former, you've succeeded remarkably...if the latter, not so much.

PS...I see you have an admirer.

 

[namkcuR]

I have a few things to say:

1. I agree with those who have said that U2 seemed suddenly old in the late 90s. I remember, on one of the first days of my freshman year of high school, in the fall of 1999 - a year and half after Popmart ended, over a year into my fandom, and a year before Beautiful Day and ATYCLB were released - in homeroom, we had one of those things where you introduce yourself to the person sitting next to you and you exchange answers to basic questions about yourselves and then recite them to the class, an exercise to become acquainted with your classmates. So, somehow, in my conversation with the person next to me, it came out that my favorite band was U2. When he was reciting the answers I'd given him to the class, he got to that part, said 'his favorite band is U2', and the teacher, a woman who I'm guessing was probably in her early 30s(maybe late 20s but whatever) at the time, twice the age of the high school freshmen in her class, said 'really? I thought they would've been old for you guys'(or something like that, I'm paraphrasing, I don't remember what the exact quote was), and another kid in the class piped up 'they are'. So yeah, teenagers in the late 90s just weren't that into U2, I guess, at least in the midwestern U.S; but I'm not sure that means older people weren't still interested - the teenagers that had been into them in the earlier 90s were in college by that time or even out of it. And this teacher, it turns out, was a fan too - she said her favorite LP was UF. She must've been an 'original' fan, a teenager in the earlier 80s, if she was in her 30s in 1999 and her favorite LP was UF.

2. To the point Irvine was making(and that many others have made) about Pop not having a big song to kick it off - I'm just going to say something I've said multiple times before: I often wonder what would've happened if U2 had held on to HMTMKMKM and put it on Pop instead of giving it to the Batman Forever soundtrack. It was a big single when they did release it, and I think it could've been a killer lead single for Pop; things may have been different.

3. For all the talk about how they strayed too far with Pop, in Please I can hear the band that wrote Love Comes Tumbling and Bad; in Gone I can hear the band that wrote New Year's Day and Until The End Of The World; in If God Will Send His Angels I can hear the band that wrote I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking for. Etc. Underneath everything, the same band is there. For me, anyway.

 

[lazarus]

And then the following post, from the new album thread.

 

[mikal]

Exactly. U2DMFan has risen up my ranks as favorite posters here today.

 

[U2girl]

Obviously this is just a hypothetical scenario. This is my theory:

What I'm saying is that there were bigger issues that a half-cooked record in 1997. I think there was a general feeling that the band had over-played their hand, were launching another over-the-top tour, etc.

People welcomed them back in 2000 not only because they had a fantastic lead single and a familiar-ish album, but also because they liked the narrative of a band that corrected its past excesses and got back to basics in order to win the fans back.

I'd say it was more about getting the right instinct about pop music being big at the time, and working it into the new album. There's certainly the story of Popmart soundchecks when they began stripping down their sound etc. though if any U2 album, Bomb should apply to "familiar U2 sound" storyline.

I think partially they were up for a fail after the winning stretch of Zoo TV years.

 

[U2girl]

Match up Mofo vs Elevation. I dare you.

Chart (2001) Peak
position
Canadian Singles Chart 1
Irish Singles Chart[12] 1

Chart (1998) Peak
position
Australian Singles Chart[2] 35
Italian Singles Chart[3] 26

And this with the benefit of more airplay for U2 in the 1990's.

 

[mikal]

Chart (2001) Peak
position
Canadian Singles Chart 1
Irish Singles Chart[12] 1

Chart (1998) Peak
position
Australian Singles Chart[2] 35
Italian Singles Chart[3] 26

And this with the benefit of more airplay for U2 in the 1990's.