Can't U2 Understand POP?

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

jick

Refugee
Joined
Aug 22, 2002
Messages
2,054
Location
Philippines
Taken from the recent Q magazine article as U2 revisited their 90's work for their latest Best Of compilation:

****
Flood: "All of the records that I've worked with them on, it doesn't matter how much experimentation's been involved, the core has always been the four of them
playing together in a room. That was one of the things that threw the album off on a tangent that it never managed to get back from. It was the band at their most fractured you've got Larry who's struggling with his health, then Adam and Nellee weren't seeing eye to eye, and then Edge wanting to rediscover guitar and finding it difficult, then Bono's tendency to come in and vibe things up."

J's COMMENTS: Hey Flood are you nuts? I think the core of POP was U2 - the four of them pursuing artistic ambitions no other band has dared to pursue. So what if it doesn't sound like U2? It IS U2!

*****

Mullen: "It was like, Oh my God, this record isn't very good. But that was because of the time constraints. If we'd had an extra month, we'd have
been able to do a lot more with some of the songs."

J'S COMMENTS: Hey Larry, get a grip - this record is very good. While I'm a big fan of your drumming, I'm not a big fan of your musical tastes. If you had an extra month, your back would recover even more and you'd replace all those brilliant drum loops and drum machines in POP with your own prehistoric drumming with bare hands!

****

Paul McGuinness: "How about never put out the record 'til you've finished the record."

J's COMMENTS: Hey Paul, you are the one who says it isn't finished. No wonder you may be considered the 5th member of U2 yet you are just a manager. You probably don't know how to play any musical instruments and you're best as managing - not deciding what's finished or what's not!

****

Edge: "But it's a huge thing to let something go that you know you're not one-hundred percent with."

J'S COMMENTS: If the legendary POP album isn't 100% for you, I can only imagine how poorly you'd rate other albums! So what's Joshua Tree? 50%? How about ATYCLB? 34%? Where does that leave Passengers? 1%?

**************

MORE J COMMENTARY:

At least Mullen admits to being conscious about sales-figues --- contrary to what many people here believe that U2 don't care about sales figures:

Q: When the sales figures started coming in, were you worried?
Mullen: "Yeah."

**************

Damn! I thought only a few uneducated members of the U2 fanbase have not yet seen the art, the beauty, and the magic of POP. I never thought even the U2 members, producers and manager themselves are also ignorant of what lies beneath in the masterpiece that is POP. They are all blind! Who cares? Bono says it best "I'm happy to go blind." Don't worry U2, you are already blind!

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP
 
Wow, that's interesting! But it's not the first time I've read comments like that from band members about that album.
 
Pop is ONLY "legendary" among U2 fans and even only a select number of those would say that. Realistically, if you wish to tag one word on Pop that word would be "infamous." Spoken of and recogized for all the wrong reasons.

Nonetheless, I enjoy Pop for all it has to offer. Grace makes beauty out of ugly things. ;)
 
Well, they aren't infallible. Yet. :wink:

I love Pop. I think its a great album. It is, however, very interesting to read what THEY think of it.

Its a great commentary on the band members that they can make an album that caused so much friction and come back with something like ATYCLB and the Elevation Tour.

A lot of good bands have fallen apart after a bad album.
 
I think its GREAT that U2 think that way about POP. I think it had the potential to be a good album, but it was rushed as they said. I for one applaud them for having the balls to admitt that. Hey, the critics didn't approve of Rattle & Hum, but I've heard many comments from Bono and Co. that theyas a band still stand behind that, saying that there's some "good tunes" on that album. So, it wasn't that its just the public's opinion that sways the band to think a certain way.

I may get hosed for this, but I think that POP may be so popular to lots of real fans because it was so "disliked" by the mainstream. People have a tendency to side with the minority which is great. Just like lots of people probably feel that Joshua Tree is not as great of album as everyone makes it out to be. Its extreme popularity may repel lots of people. Although, I for one think Joshua Tree is a far more superior album to POP, musically, lyrically, melodically, and thats not because the average Joe thinks so.
:wave:
 
screw U2 , i like POP , if they got old and betray thier ideals well .. bono is forgetting something , that he's rich and famous , not because of his booring same old political speeches or talks about God or glasses or MTV diaries but albums , songs , and music .
 
C'mon U2!!!!

The more I read about U2 admitting Pop as a mistake, the more I get the feeling that the band has moved (read pussied out) to a safe, unadventurous and crowd-pleasing part of their career. I dont wanna think this. Hope I'm proven wrong by a mindblowing new album.
 
tackleberry said:

I may get hosed for this, but I think that POP may be so popular to lots of real fans because it was so "disliked" by the mainstream. People have a tendency to side with the minority which is great. Just like lots of people probably feel that Joshua Tree is not as great of album as everyone makes it out to be.

:wave:

I'm not hosing anyone down, but huh?? I know plenty of "REAL" fans who dislike POP and feel JT is not only as great as everyone makes it out to be but GREATER. I also think too much is made of Rattle and Hum's bashing by the critics. Really, it didn't have that much impact. There is no comparison between the 'bashing' Rattle and Hum got and the "bashing" POP got. I remember Rattle and Hum being very popular in its day (I was 18-19 when it was out and REALLY into music, rock radio and MTV) and it was very well played on MTV. I never heard a negative comment about Rattle and Hum in my life until I joined this forum and people were going, oh it was bad, it was trashed by the critics and rejected by the fans' but I lived it and I never saw that.
 
Interesting. U2 can talk all they want about Pop and still I won't get them. Why is Pop such a lemon to them?:p The album is great. I actually think part of them really likes the album it's just that they don't want to admit it because some people say that it was rushed or some other lame excuse.
 
Re: C'mon U2!!!!

unnamed_streets said:
The more I read about U2 admitting Pop as a mistake, the more I get the feeling that the band has moved (read pussied out) to a safe, unadventurous and crowd-pleasing part of their career. I dont wanna think this. Hope I'm proven wrong by a mindblowing new album.
\

perfectly said.
 
So the band feels that Pop may not have been their best work. So what? If you like it, great!

At your work, are you always happy with the job you do? Probably not. Does that mean the work done was wholly without merit? No, it doesn't. Pop has some great songs on it. Just because the members of U2 aren't happy with the overall outcome doesn't change that.

Sometimes it seems like the more people diss on Pop (with now even the band members admitting they were unhappy with it) the more people want to declare it U2's best album ever.

:banghead:


:scream:





:combust:
 
Moonlit_Angel said:
Regardless of what anyone, even band members, say, I love "Pop". Always will. I really don't see what's so horrible about it. I really don't.

Angela

:yes: Me too. I have a feeling if POP was a blockbuster saleswise it wouldn't receive as much backlash from the band. I know they say the album was unfinished & they ran out of time, but didn't they take longer working on POP than any other of their records? I guess the more technology you use, the more options you have.
 
Oh my god, this is so funny. I got this from the other thread (also started by J) that Hallelujah mentioned.

Radiohead? Gimme a break. I can get the same music by Radiohead by simply running over a pussy-cat.

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 
And another thing ...

I have a feeling if POP was a blockbuster saleswise it wouldn't receive as much backlash from the band.

Passengers wasn't a huge commercial success and I've never seen any of the band members (apart from Larry) say that they were unhappy with it. In fact, haven't they always defended it?

Why isn't it possible for U2 to just not like Pop artistically, regardless of sales?
 
Re: And another thing ...

ThatGuy said:


Passengers wasn't a huge commercial success and I've never seen any of the band members (apart from Larry) say that they were unhappy with it. In fact, haven't they always defended it?

Why isn't it possible for U2 to just not like Pop artistically, regardless of sales?
The reason why it's rather interesting is because the band absolutely loved Pop when they released it. Edge was really surprised that it didn't sell too well because he, as well as the rest of the band, sincerely thought it was some of their best work, ever. It's interesting how U2's "tune" (pardon the pun) has now changed regarding the quality of the material on Pop.

Re: Passengers - that album was never meant to be a commercial success, which is why they never put the U2 label on it in the first place. It was more of an Eno side project collaboration than an official U2 record, and it was promoted (or not promoted) as such. It was supposed to be a small "arty" record.

To get back to R&H being allegedly bashed by the critics, totally not true. It was the movie that was bashed, not the album. People should get their facts straight!
 
Re: Re: And another thing ...

Michael Griffiths said:

To get back to R&H being allegedly bashed by the critics, totally not true. It was the movie that was bashed, not the album. People should get their facts straight!

Good to hear someone else say that! Whew! I really don't remember either being bashed by critics, if it was it wasn't a big thing. I was really into U2 then and I don't remember anything negative about Rattle and Hum. That is a myth that has somehow started and perpetuated on this forum, probably by people who weren't even fans then who took something they heard and ran with it, maybe as you say a movie review confused with the album or whatever, and now lots of people believe it and always throw it up to balance POP's bashing, but it really isn't true. I can't say for sure there is no evidence someone couldn't produce, just that I haven't seen it and if there was any anywhere it was insignificant did not have any impact.
 
Re: Re: And another thing ...

Michael Griffiths said:

The reason why it's rather interesting is because the band absolutely loved Pop when they released it. Edge was really surprised that it didn't sell too well because he, as well as the rest of the band, sincerely thought it was some of their best work, ever. It's interesting how U2's "tune" (pardon the pun) has now changed regarding the quality of the material on Pop.

Yes, but that's something that happens with artists all the time: they look back and re-assess their work. I mean, we the fans do it all the time: we may lose passion for an album we used to love dearly and take a liking to something we previously dismissed. So why is it that whatever feeling a band had for an album MUST stay the same no matter what? Edge is always talking about how he'd like to go back and remix all of their earlier songs; Bono says now that he can't stand to listen to his early singing. Gloria didn't appear on the first Greatest Hits compilation because the band felt that it didn't date well, and from the Q interview apparently Edge now feels the same about The Fly (although I wonder whether he was on drugs when he said that, :)). I'm sure that the band felt great about these two songs when they were first released.

And nowhere in the interview did any band member say that it was a bad idea to try and experiment with new sounds, or that POP songs were essentially poor. Their frustration with POP seems to be mainly because they didn't feel that they did as good a job with finishing it as they could.
 
Eh, screw POP. It's an alright album, but hell, it's not even the most experimental album they ever put out. Hell, it's more like a rock album hidden behind the curtain of a dance/trance album.

The best expirimental album U2 ever put out was Zooropa, and behind that Unforgettable Fire.

U2 took bigger risks with Zooropa than they did with POP. POP was more of an image than an album.
 
Re: Re: Re: And another thing ...

U2Kitten said:


Good to hear someone else say that! Whew! I really don't remember either being bashed by critics, if it was it wasn't a big thing. I was really into U2 then and I don't remember anything negative about Rattle and Hum. That is a myth that has somehow started and perpetuated on this forum, probably by people who weren't even fans then who took something they heard and ran with it, maybe as you say a movie review confused with the album or whatever, and now lots of people believe it and always throw it up to balance POP's bashing, but it really isn't true. I can't say for sure there is no evidence someone couldn't produce, just that I haven't seen it and if there was any anywhere it was insignificant did not have any impact.

Well, I've certainly read a lot of negative album reviews of Rattle'n'Hum, and anyway you can't really separate the movie from the album. It all sort of merges into a whole era in U2's career.
 
Hey jick.. dont you get tired of talking about POP? Cuz I'm sure getting tired of these threads and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Or no wait.. you just like to stir shit dont you?
 
Sicy said:
Hey jick.. dont you get tired of talking about POP? Cuz I'm sure getting tired of these threads and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
:yes:
it's hard to tell which jick is the troll...the pro-pop or the anti-pop.

sometimes i wonder if it's both :silent:
 
Jick, the band doesn't hate the record. From the article, it seems that they simply felt that it was unfinished and that it wasn't their complete vision. By going back and redoing the tracks for the new compilation, they're finally able to realize what they had planned for the POP album.
 
Back
Top Bottom