You ever wonder if the band split up after POP- what we'd be saying about them now?

[Zoots]

Originally Posted by Reggie Thee Dog

Pop is a very good record, but I'm not so sure about U2 'not caring' about what the public thought...they did. They were trying to ride the 'trip-hop', 'electronica' movement (read some pre-release interviews)...so they definitely had their nose in what was the 'mainstream' at that time.

This again??? It was new for U2 and that's all that matters, for me at least.

[Saracene]

Originally Posted by Reggie Thee Dog

Pop is a very good record, but I'm not so sure about U2 'not caring' about what the public thought...they did.

I would have thought that U2's reaction to the relative failure of POP is more than enough evidence that in fact they cared very much about the public opinion and reception.

If they quit after Pop I'd be kicking myself forever that I didn't go to Melbourne PopMart concert when I had a chance.

[Earnie Shavers]

I guess it's maybe to their credit (?) that they've openly - blatantly - worn that caring on their sleeve for the past 10 years.

And I honestly don't think Pop leaned on any particular influence more or less than a lot (most) of their other albums. It's there and just as obvious and open on plenty of them, just usually lauded. I guess it's just a very easy place to point for those who were disappointed with Pop.

[The Sad Punk]

Originally Posted by CosmoKramer

So, after 1997 U2 received 15 grammies,

Which means... ?

[nielsgov]

Nothing really

[ozeeko]

I'm happy we're all pondering this issue seriously. I was scared this was going to turn into a 90's VS. Naughties thread.

[CosmoKramer]

Originally Posted by The Sad Punk

Which means... ?

Well the question is, what if U2 broke up after POP, what would we (me) be saying. Fortunately, they didnt so we have the ability to compare if it would have been better to go out now or after POP. So, here is what I consider to be levels that one can measure success by:

1-Selling albums-Check! You cant lay claim to being the biggest band without having big album sales (e.g. one of the top selling albums of a given year). PoP failed to reach this but ATYCLB, HTDAAB & NLOTH all achieved this. So in this regard, it was better that they didnt break up because they would have gone out on a lower note.
2-Concert Draw-If you play it will they come? Check! PopMart failed here, again Im speaking from a US perspective because the PopMart tour did very well in the rest of the world. It didnt sell out that many US dates and then there is the Las Vegas debacle.... Staring at the Sun, If God Will Send his Angels and Do you Feel Loved (our guy couldnt hit the damn notes). Now, they have had two of the most successful tours in US (and World) history...and 360 should be the biggest tour EVER world wide and will out due POPMart in the US at the very least. So in this regard, it was better that they didnt break up because they would have gone out on a lower note.
3-Awards/Critic Reviews-Check! Now I know, most people on Interference dont care what critics think or what the Grammies think. Hell, most true/real fans dont care as long as the music is good. However, I like the Grammies and while I do not feel that if something wins a Grammy/award it automatically makes it good but I do respect the fact that it was recognized as one of the best (or THE best when talking about HTDAAB) in the USA. I personally dont put much weight on awards but they are a nice compliment to know that not just U2 fans like this music but critics/other music fans do as well. POP failed to win any awards, but ATYCLB and HTDAAB won 15, so in this regard, it was better that they didnt break up.

I know most people are going to say the grammies are shit or the Brits are shit but its all subjective anyway. If Zagat rates Cosmo's Steak House as the best steak of 2009, it doesnt mean that you will agree with it but the people at Zagats feel its the best, so I can claim that my steak is "award winning"

[CosmoKramer]

Originally Posted by ozeeko

I'm happy we're all pondering this issue seriously. I was scared this was going to turn into a 90's VS. Naughties thread.

We are U2 fans and can appreciate that each decade has the "U2 touch" in its songs/albums.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by CosmoKramer

1-Selling albums-Check! You cant lay claim to being the biggest band without having big album sales (e.g. one of the top selling albums of a given year). PoP failed to reach this but ATYCLB, HTDAAB & NLOTH all achieved this. So in this regard, it was better that they didnt break up because they would have gone out on a lower note.

NLOTH will most likely end up selling fewer copies than Pop, and the first two singles from Pop charted well above Boots in the US and, I believe, the UK.

[CosmoKramer]

Originally Posted by The Sad Punk

Which means... ?

One last point...you have to understand that I am someone who spends most of my time in the "Peeling off the dollar bills" forum. Therefore, I measure success differently than Interferencer's from say this forum. I love U2's music regardless but I do love when they break records for sales or concert gross.

[CosmoKramer]

Originally Posted by digitize

NLOTH will most likely end up selling fewer copies than Pop, and the first two singles from Pop charted well above Boots in the US and, I believe, the UK.

POP sold roughly 1.3 million initially in 1997 in the US and 5.5 million WW
NLOTH has sold roughly 986k in the US and 3.2 million WW

However, the market is very, very different. POP wasn't even in the top 40 best selling albums in 1997 at 1.3 million (I might be mistaken but I do believe it did not make the top 40) but NLOTH with roughly 1 million should be top 20 easy. As for singles, I wont make excuses but ageism might be at work (okay, that was the bitter U2 fan). Anyway, NLOTH is the 2nd best selling album WW at the moment and should end up in the top 5 WW no matter what happens by the end of the year.

Also, ATYCLB and HTDAAB were both huge sales improvements over POP.
ATYCLB 4.8 million to date in the US (estimated)
HTDAAB 3.5 million to date in the US (estimated)

[KhanadaRhodes]

according to wikipedia, both albums debuted at #1 in many countries, including the u.s. not sure what it has to do with the thread's topic, but yeah.

[CosmoKramer]

Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes

according to wikipedia, both albums debuted at #1 in many countries, including the u.s. not sure what it has to do with the thread's topic, but yeah.

My spin on the topic is that if they went out during POP, it would have been on a low note and today, people might not consider them one of the biggest bands of all time but rather just of an era.

Whereas if they went out today, the perspective would be very different when talking about U2. I brought sales into the conversation, so that might have led to the topic going astray a bit....

[U2DMfan]

We'd be saying (or singing along to) something like this.

Stop it! This is poverty.
The DNA lotto might have left you smart...