Release Date Speculation

[James U2]

it sold because back then any U2 would sell

then why didn't the popmart tour sell well in the US? you remember those shows with about 26 people at them, right? not everything U2 put on the shelves sold.

at the end of the day, U2 chose to not (publicly) take themselves - or the presentation of their music - seriously, and the public obliged them.

U2 can argue "irony" all they want, but at the end of the day they let the musical pendulum swing too far in one direction and the casual fans said, "see ya later." (incidentally, the same thing probably happened with NLOTH). and for casual fans, all it takes is the appearance of "uncool" and there they go. and U2 got a heaping dose of "uncool" during the popmart tour - but not before it. it wasn't until casual fans (and let's face it, most U2 fans are casual U2 fans) "saw" that U2 were in over their heads (relatively speaking) that they decided to move on to third eye blind, or the goo goo dolls, or live, or any other "band of the moment".

at the end of the day, U2 presented themselves poorly in 97 and 98. edge wore a cowboy hat and adam had a "drug mask" on his face, for crying out loud. they walked out of a giant lemon and they quoted spinal tap as an influence on the tour!!!

and eventually the band realized this. this was made so abundantly clear that they effectively produced the "safest" record and tour they had ever done to that point as a follow-up. but discotheque wasn't the problem. it wasn't even close to the problem. and to suggest that it was is nothing more than revisionist history.

 

[James U2]

The media did care. They wrote story after story exaggerating the ticket sales problem. It had an effect on the public's perception of POP which continues to this day.

this is quite accurate.

 

[popacrobat]

I'm not 100% certain on this, but didn't Rolling Stone's review of Pop (star-wise) actually change once PopMart opened? I thought originally they gave it a higher score, but downgraded it later that summer.

I was only 10 in 1997, so I could very well be wrong, but I thought I had read that somewhere.

 

[Niceman]

you remember those shows with about 26 people at them, right?

No.

 

[lemonfly]

I was 15 in '97, and as I recall Discotheque was quite positively received. It was being played on radio stations on reasonably heavy rotation, it was a hit almost everywhere (#10 on Billboard). Things started going south when they held the press conference at K Mart, and Vegas was really a killer blow. I remember the NME and Melody Maker ripped them to shreds. Also a new wave of younger bands (Oasis, Prodigy and so on) were being coveted by the music media and there seemed to be an agenda to knock U2 off their pedestal. But whatever, Discotheque absolutely was not the kind of problem that fandom purports it to have been. Disappointingly, the band themselves took to making Discotheque the scapegoat in interviews. It's easy to pin it on one thing when the reality was a range of factors that conspired together.

 

[James U2]

you remember those shows with about 26 people at them, right?

No.

ok, so i'm being a little facetious. but few north american shows sold out and many had fewer than 50% of the tickets sold. jacksonville, in particular, had fewer than 15k people there... so few that bono even cracked a joke about it during the concert. (something to the effect of, "are the two of you in the back enjoying the show?") i remember being at the new orleans show at the super dome, looking around, and thinking, "why is no one here?" many of those shows were just flat out embarrassing from an attendance perspective. and much of that came from the press surrounding the tour.

 

[Salome]

then why didn't the popmart tour sell well in the US? you remember those shows with about 26 people at them, right? not everything U2 put on the shelves sold.

POPMart didn't sell because the casual fan didn't like Discotheque enough
or they decided to buy POP based on Discotheque and didn't like the album enough

nothing could have stopped Discotheque from selling back then though
absolutely nothing

 

[BVS]

I don't recall 'Discotheque' being an issue. The single went gold (selling more than 500,000 copies) and the song went to #1 in many places, including the UK and the modern rock listing in the US. it was on the radio CONSTANTLY for weeks after its release, MTV showed the video non-stop (including having a 24 hour U2 video day upon its release). Discotheque was hardly a problem for POP. What hurt POP more than anything else was the really poor press the tour received following the opening night. if any single hurt POP, it was the choice to release Last Night On Earth as the third single. not to mention the album opened at #1 in 35 countries. Discotheque was hardly Pop's problem.

at the end of the day, U2 chose to not (publicly) take themselves - or the presentation of their music - seriously, and the public obliged them.

But I think Discotheque WAS part of this problem, especially in the States. It may have hit 10 in the charts but that's only because it was U2 and it was new. It had NO staying power and was actually criticized a lot, especially the video. U2 weren't taking themselves seriously, and people didn't know what to make of it. Hell the states didn't even know the word Discotheque, nothing about that single or video could the North American U2 fan relate to.

And I don't really remember it getting heavy radio play at all, but it may have just been my market.

 

[nathan1977]

But I think Discotheque WAS part of this problem, especially in the States. It may have hit 10 in the charts but that's only because it was U2 and it was new. It had NO staying power and was actually criticized a lot, especially the video. U2 weren't taking themselves seriously, and people didn't know what to make of it. Hell the states didn't even know the word Discotheque, nothing about that single or video could the North American U2 fan relate to.

And I don't really remember it getting heavy radio play at all, but it may have just been my market.

This is absolutely correct. With any major label support, you can buy the kind of pre-release hype "Discotheque"/"Pop" had -- including the All U2 Day on MTV. You can also buy a top 10 release. What you can't buy is word of mouth and staying power...neither of which the single or the album had.

What was interesting was that, for the first time, U2 was out of step with the times as far as rock went. Oasis, Live, Bush -- all of these serious, heartfelt bands were having unprecedented success and cited U2 as inspirations, and U2 were dancing about dressed like the Village People and out on a tour that was, in the eyes of many (and the words of Paul McGuiness in U2 By U2), sponsored by K-Mart. Plus the band was under-rehearsed for their shows (I remember rumors around the time that Larry was particularly pissed off by the lack of rehearsals) and seemed particularly adrift in terms of direction. I remember reading an article where U2 wasn't sure what to release as a single after "Staring at the Sun," and asking the reporter for their opinion. The band talks about spending the summer trying to re-record their material to get The Big Single, and it never happened.

 

[James U2]

But I think Discotheque WAS part of this problem, especially in the States. It may have hit 10 in the charts but that's only because it was U2 and it was new.

While there is certainly merit to the "it was new U2" argument, you have to remember that we're talking about a single that sold more than 500,000 copies. No record label can force people to buy singles. People will listen to a song on the radio that they don't particularly care for, but they won't go out and actually pay money for a song that they don't care for. There aren't many albums (especially in 1997) that sold 500,000 copies... let alone a single. At some point you have to acknowledge that Discotheque - regardless of the fact that it was "just" U2 - did very well and was far from the reason the album and tour didn't do well.

While I whole-heartedly agree that there were a number of problems that led to Pop's downfall (and the post above this one, which I haven't quoted, sums them up nicely), it's just not a worthwhile criticism to make Discotheque culprit #1. The song did better than both The Fly and Numb. And both of those songs arguably came on the heels of "bigger" albums. So saying that it sold well "just because" it was U2 is a little short-sighted (though not fully without some merit).

 

[Hollow Island]

The problem with Popmart U2 is that America hates gay people and U2 seemed gay. There you go. That explains why 100,000 people saw them in Gay Mexico City and Gay Toronto, and only 23,000 saw them in Gay Hating Kansas City, Missouri.

(or maybe it has something to do with population and demographics...)

(while I am being facetious, Missouri is not exactly the friendliest place for homosexuals to live in. Hopefully that will change soon.)

 

[Hollow Island]

But I think Discotheque WAS part of this problem, especially in the States. It may have hit 10 in the charts but that's only because it was U2 and it was new. It had NO staying power and was actually criticized a lot, especially the video. U2 weren't taking themselves seriously, and people didn't know what to make of it. Hell the states didn't even know the word Discotheque, nothing about that single or video could the North American U2 fan relate to.

And I don't really remember it getting heavy radio play at all, but it may have just been my market.

You might want to take the "north" out of that sentence. We here in Canada are familiar with the word "discotheque," and I have a hard time believing that Americans wouldn't know what that word meant as soon as they read it.

Was it really more "relatable" to south americans than residents of the USA? The video was criticised because people didn't like it, or didn't get it. These things happen.

Any attempt to rationalize the failure (of a hit album and the highest grossing tour ever at that time) is absurd because there is no way to know why the public likes or doesn't like something.

 

[gvox]

Hell the states didn't even know the word Discotheque, nothing about that single or video could the North American U2 fan relate to.

Uh, what? No. Just no. Americans invented disco did they not? And it's spin offs house techno etc.

The problem with Popmart U2 is that America hates gay people and U2 seemed gay. There you go. That explains why 100,000 people saw them in Gay Mexico City and Gay Toronto, and only 23,000 saw them in Gay Hating Kansas City, Missouri.

What the fuck. whatever

 

[Hollow Island]

Uh, what? No. Just no. Americans invented disco did they not? And it's spin offs house techno etc.



What the fuck. whatever

Since you missed the rest of my post, I'll quote myself. I know it's bad form, but I'm feeling lazy.

(or maybe it has something to do with population and demographics...)

(while I am being facetious, Missouri is not exactly the friendliest place for homosexuals to live in. Hopefully that will change soon.)

 

[gvox]

It's still bollocks.

 

[LemonMelon]

U2 lost 1 million in sales for every boomcha.

 

[Hollow Island]

It's still bollocks.

Yes, it is. Sarcasm normally is. Did you not get that it's a joke, even though I pre-emptively explained that it was to avoid people misunderstanding it?

 

[Hollow Island]

U2 lost 1 million in sales for every boomcha.

And 500,000 for every hip thrust.

 

[Galeongirl]

U2 lost 1 million in sales for every boomcha.

I wonder then how many Americans look away and cringe every time they play Mysterious Ways live ever since Popmart... Or are boycotting the show for that matter.

 

[Irvine511]

It's not so much that U2 dressed up for the chaotic Disco video. It's that all of Pop -- from the album to the tour -- was half-baked. Zoo TV was incredibly daring, but it was both incisive and cohesive, totally thought through and like the band far greater than the sum of its considerable parts. U2 tried to pull it off again, and while I give them points for being incisive about consumerism just a few years before the Internet transformed us all into consumers, it wasn't very coherent. It was muddy, like the record, as opposed to the coherence and vision of AB, and perhaps that's honest because that's what pastiche culture is, but U2 aren't hipsters. They're crusaders, and much more appealing on the streets of Berlin than wailing in the desert about MLK or something.

It was too cute by half and half baked by more, and that's why the concept fell flat as a pancake.

Points for trying. Too bad they didn't get it right.

 

[mama cass]

they got it right in Europe though - POP went down well here...

 

[OpenG180]

they got it right in Europe though - POP went down well here...

Huge in South America. Really, the problem was the USA.

 

[Salome]

U2 failed the sell out the 2 stadium shows in Rotterdam during POPMart ....
now, for U2 to fail to sell that amount of tickets in The Netherlands is a bit bizarre

I agree that US had most problems with POP,
but I don't think it's a fair portrayal of reality to make out like in most places elsewhere it was as popular as what the band did both before and after POP

within the context of U2 POP was not well received

 

[LadySpinHead]

It amazes me how every discussion around here comes back to if/why/when/where Pop/Popmart was a failure.

Blame Discotheque. Blame the 40' lemon. Blame the bad show in Vegas. Whatever. It was 1997.

 

[BVS]

It amazes me how every discussion around here comes back to if/why/when/where Pop/Popmart was a failure.

Blame Discotheque. Blame the 40' lemon. Blame the bad show in Vegas. Whatever. It was 1997.

I think a lot of discussions come back to Popmart because it's looked at in interference as a time where either U2 lost their way, or lost their confidence. The same can sorta be said about the Rattle and Hum era, but most weren't around then and it's not as well documented as Popmart since it was pre-internet. So it was a turning point in U2's career.

 

[Irvine511]

they got it right in Europe though - POP went down well here...

The marketplace isn't as crowded. U2 is afforded much more headspace than in the US with its much more diverse population.

Its unforgiving if you don't get it right.

 

[LadySpinHead]

I think a lot of discussions come back to Popmart because it's looked at in interference as a time where either U2 lost their way, or lost their confidence. The same can sorta be said about the Rattle and Hum era, but most weren't around then and it's not as well documented as Popmart since it was pre-internet. So it was a turning point in U2's career.

Is the general speculation that they've lost their way again? I'm not being snarky- just trying to make the Pop discussion relevant in the present.

Seems like their cycle is fairly predictable: success -> confidence -> try something ballsy -> perceived failure -> lost confidence -> reinvention -> success.

 

[gvox]

They're crusaders, and much more appealing on the streets of Berlin than wailing in the desert about MLK or something.

Not sure I get what you're saying here. "Wailing in the desert about MLK" (?) worked quite well for them.

 

[doctorwho]

Huge in South America. Really, the problem was the USA.

And I'd contend just part of the U.S. The first leg of PopMart in the U.S. sold out all shows. In fact, in some cities they had to add shows!

It was in the second visit to the U.S., where they hit smaller cities, that the tour had trouble.

 

[BVS]

Is the general speculation that they've lost their way again? I'm not being snarky- just trying to make the Pop discussion relevant in the present.

Seems like their cycle is fairly predictable: success -> confidence -> try something ballsy -> perceived failure -> lost confidence -> reinvention -> success.

I think the general speculation is that we're at a "perceived failure" stage.