Could the POP look/image have had a negative influence on how the CD was recieved?

[Desire4Bono]

Okay, wait, listen- don't bash me or start a hair or era flame war, I'm not just talking about the damn shaved head here! I mean the clothes, the pictures, the stage setup, the lemon, what was on the videoscreens, the entire image and attitude the band presented to the public at the time. Isn't it possible that perhaps that, combined with the 'different' sound, had a negative influence on how the general public and some fans felt about the whole album and tour? I think so. The Kmart conference itself and the Vegas special to kickoff the tour were a turnoff to many. Then think about how the band was attired, and how they came out of a giant lemon to the tune of Pop Muzik? A lot of people saw that (combined with hearing the songs and the Discotheque video) and were like, WTF is wrong with U2? It only confirmed fears and suspicions of a great many fans that U2 had gone off the deep end, had freaked out, had totally 'lost it.'

As shallow as it may seem to most of you, the average person is heavily influenced by visual images, and, unfortunately the image of U2 during POPMART and the POP era was percieved as comical to many and it added to them becoming, well, almost a joke. I am not saying this as fact or my opinion, but I have heard it so much the factor cannot really be denied.

Okay- now hold it. I know a lot of you here just love that era, and of course I respect that, so please don't just jump in and tell us how much you loved it, yadda yadda yadda. So YOU liked it, okay, but my point is, thousands, perhaps millions who obviously rejected the album and tour might not have, and my question is:

Do you think if U2 had not had such an extreme, over the top, dayglow, outlandish look and stage setup, do you think the POP album itself might have gotten a better view in the public eye?

If the band still had their cool ZOOTV era look and image, would that have helped sell them any? Though some old fans might have been shocked by it, overall it was well liked and well recieved. The difference in the sales of AB and POP proves that millions who loved AB rejected POP, so it wasn't all the 80's people! Is it possible the image they put forth in the POP era had a hand in turning fans against the CD itself?

Would the change in sound have been easier to take if not for the image?

Again, I'm not asking what YOU like or personally think and I don't want any fights, just do you think in the grand sceme of things could this have had something to do with the public acceptance of it in general, or do you think the sound alone would've done it regardless of the look and image and personality of the band at the time?

I certainly hope I have explained myself well and will not be misunderstood. I have seen this topic touched on before but not in a thread. So, please don't flame, but discuss!

 

[oliveu2cm]

interesting..

I think it's personal preference as to what "looks cool" etc, so yknow that phrase "no matter what you do, someone, somewhere, will hate it"?..

I also think that the looks
a) convey something about the music and
b) should not stop a person from studying the music.

Pop is so much more than their image.

if they kept their AB loook.. it would have been a farce. For instance, Bono stated that:


"We're right in the middle now, but the music..the music tells you what to do, and in the end that's what you gotta do. The music tells you what clothes to wear, it tells you what kind of stage you should be standing on, it tells you who should be photograhing you, it tells you who should be your agent. You might see the glasses as a mask, but Oscar Wilde said something like, 'The mask tell s you more about the man.' Something like that. But it's always the music that tells you what to do. And so if I want to take the glasses off, I just gotta change my tune." Bono, Feb 93

Their look reflected the image they wanted to give and the image the music was giving them.

Is this the main reason people don't like Pop? The image?

p.s. I know what you're saying about people not being able to get past the image- but is that really the band's fault or the fan's fault? Is it U2's job to make things easy on us?

 

[Desire4Bono]

I never meant that the look was the main reason for its 'rejection', it's just that there were negative responses to the sound and negative responses to the look and I wondered if there were a correlation between the two, or would the music on the CD have been criticized even if not for the look of the tour. I guess we'll never know.

I do agree that each era's look goes with the music, and each would not fit with th other, because part of the way they were at the time comes out not only in the music but their personality and their entire image.

As stated by U2Girl in the other thread, there is no way to please everybody all the time.

 

[pinkfloyd]

i like pop , i like pop mart mexico video , goodnight , **** off not interested .


I want my U2 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bullet the blue sky]

I don't think having a shorter haircut had any effect whatsoever.

But I will say that lots of people of a certain part of the world saw U2 doing something different and dressed at the Village People and thought "Hmm that looks a bit strange" and stopped liking them. For a bit.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

okay, i'll bite. great questions, btw! perhaps this thread will be a bit less edgy as the atyclb thread is.

Do you think if U2 had not had such an extreme, over the top, dayglow, outlandish look and stage setup, do you think the POP album itself might have gotten a better view in the public eye?

perhaps. although then the album probably would have made no sense. but then again, it didn't seem to make sense to a lot of critics and fans, so who knows. i think, maybe, that the time span between the end of the zoo tv tour (in all its 3000 legs) and the start of popmart was perhaps a bit too long, that people forgot how over the top the zoo tv tour was. bono ordering pizza for all the concertgoers, calling up the president, dressing up as the fly, etc. it was a possible next step, for the band to be even more over the top with their next tour. so perhaps if pop had come out in, say, late 1995, it may not have been met with so many

If the band still had their cool ZOOTV era look and image, would that have helped sell them any? Though some old fans might have been shocked by it, overall it was well liked and well recieved. The difference in the sales of AB and POP proves that millions who loved AB rejected POP, so it wasn't all the 80's people! Is it possible the image they put forth in the POP era had a hand in turning fans against the CD itself?

i don't think it would have. it may have been even worse for them to do that, since they were reinventing their sound (although in the similar vein of achtung baby and zooropa, pop was still vastly different than the two albums.) it probably wouldn't have been good if they didn't also reinvent their image.

Would the change in sound have been easier to take if not for the image?

i don't think it would've mattered. unfortunately, while it's a great song and an awesome video, i think "discotheque" got people started off on the wrong foot. it was a bad first impression of the album. they were dressing up like the village people. it was definitely not anything anyone was expecting. it may have been better for perhaps the second or third single. i'm not going to speculate what should've been the first single, but i don't think it should've been "discotheque."

 

[u2popmofo]

Do I think the image had a negative affect for some people? Definately.

I had a couple friends from HS who went to the Popmart SLC concert come back and tell me they thought it was the worst thing they'd ever seen and that they hated the Pop album now. Oddly enough they never told me they hated the album until they'd seen the concert. My guess is they liked the album and songs fine until they went to the concert and didnt know what to think, so they automatically thought "hmmm, i dont feel comfortable with this, I dont like this." I'm near positive they concert itself changed their ideas on the album.

As a side note, I get pissed off everytime those friends tell me about the concert because I totally disagree with them. The concert was great. But like this thread says, different people perceive things in different ways.

 

[verte76]

In a sense I'm not qualified to answer this because I missed Popmart (the Atlanta show was the night before Thanksgiving). But the whole thing used the whole idea of image and superficiality, and people wanted to call the album and the show superficial because it was "glitzy" or "submerging the music in a huge display of visuals" or "distracting". There was alot of comparison going on with the thread-bare stages of the '80's...hey, I didn't do it, the media mostly did it. But some people felt like the visuals were overdone, and watching the video, it's not my favorite U2 tour. It's a bit heavy on imagery; there isn't quite the right balance between the visual and audial. This didn't keep me from liking the album. I think it's quite a good album. Unfortunately, there were distracting factors; the K-Mart deal might have prompted the press to pull out the knives for U2. But, the band themselves were pretty critical of the way they handled certain things, and let's face it, they did pull some screw-ups with timing. This certainly led to some bad press, and bad press begets bad press and negative images in the minds of the general public. People can be gullible about what they read in the media, unfortunately. If you get off to a bad start it's tough to pick up the pieces in midstream--especially if you're in a superstar band with everyone looking. That puts you in a situation where you're so vulnerable to attacks, attacks and more attacks. So it was the image and more that made for a negative reaction to Pop.

 

[Mrs. Vedder]

 

[JOFO]

I've been saying it since 1998:

pop would've done better if:
1. bono kept the long hair
2. stage setup was different
3. discotechque was not the first single

but I might be wrong.:lemon:

 

[Ultravioletbabe]

I've been saying it since 1998:

pop would've done better if:
1. bono kept the long hair
2. stage setup was different
3. discotechque was not the first single

but I might be wrong.:lemon:

I agree with everything you said JOFO and Adam's outfit and mask were really crazy too. I think SATS should have been the first single then Please and maybe Discotheque should not have been a single at all just my opinion oh well.

 

[JOFO]

also how the pop album coulda been better:
discotecque: b-side; cd led off witha rockin tune along the lines of hmtmkmkm.
playboy mansion: left off cd; replaced w/ rock tune.

my 2 cents.

 

[Hallelujah Here She Comes]

Re: interesting..

I think it's personal preference as to what "looks cool" etc, so yknow that phrase "no matter what you do, someone, somewhere, will hate it"?..

I also think that the looks
a) convey something about the music and
b) should not stop a person from studying the music.

Pop is so much more than their image.

if they kept their AB loook.. it would have been a farce. For instance, Bono stated that:


"We're right in the middle now, but the music..the music tells you what to do, and in the end that's what you gotta do. The music tells you what clothes to wear, it tells you what kind of stage you should be standing on, it tells you who should be photograhing you, it tells you who should be your agent. You might see the glasses as a mask, but Oscar Wilde said something like, 'The mask tell s you more about the man.' Something like that. But it's always the music that tells you what to do. And so if I want to take the glasses off, I just gotta change my tune." Bono, Feb 93

Their look reflected the image they wanted to give and the image the music was giving them.

Is this the main reason people don't like Pop? The image?

p.s. I know what you're saying about people not being able to get past the image- but is that really the band's fault or the fan's fault? Is it U2's job to make things easy on us?

Olive, you said exactly what I was thinking.

I suppose it's possible that the Pop image helped turn people off to Pop as a whole. But the image was what the music demanded, so I can't say that U2 would have been better off with a different one, except perhaps financially. And I don't think that would have been a good enough reason to compromise their artistic integrity.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

I quite love how the irony of it all went zooming right over the public's heads. Sad in a way because it shows how shallow the culture is...most people didn't even get that they were being mocked.

Viva Popmart!

 

[wertsie]

Re: Could the POP look/image have had a negative influence on how the CD was recieved?

Do you think if U2 had not had such an extreme, over the top, dayglow, outlandish look and stage setup, do you think the POP album itself might have gotten a better view in the public eye?

If the band still had their cool ZOOTV era look and image, would that have helped sell them any? Though some old fans might have been shocked by it, overall it was well liked and well recieved. The difference in the sales of AB and POP proves that millions who loved AB rejected POP, so it wasn't all the 80's people! Is it possible the image they put forth in the POP era had a hand in turning fans against the CD itself?

Would the change in sound have been easier to take if not for the image?

Great post! It's about time for another good ol' discussion!

Yes, I believe that the general "look" of POP and the way they promoted it turned many people off, and if it might have been presented in a more "mainstream-friendly" way, there would have been a more positive response from the public...However, I don't know that I would have WANTED it any different. I loved it just the way it was.

I, for one, loved Popmart, POP...The whole POP era because they are what turned me into the rabid U2 fan I am today.

Every era of U2's career (including music and fashion) is cool in its own way, in my opinion. I guess I'm very biased that way. If it's U2, I'm going to love it. 'Nuf said!

 

[wertsie]

Re: interesting..

p.s. I know what you're saying about people not being able to get past the image- but is that really the band's fault or the fan's fault? Is it U2's job to make things easy on us?

GOOD point! And to answer that last question...No, it's not. I have always held the belief that it's the band's job to do what makes them happy. Their happiness creates the genuine, from-the-heart music that we love! Keep it up, guys!

 

[verte76]

I've been saying it since 1998:

pop would've done better if:
1. bono kept the long hair
2. stage setup was different
3. discotechque was not the first single

but I might be wrong.:lemon:

I think you might be right about Discotheque as the first single... that threw people for a loop, they thought that U2 had turned into INXS (no offense to INXS, I was a big fan of theirs, but dance music was their "sound") and everyone screamed "ah, disco!"
Bono should have kept a little more to the ZooTV look, but that's just my personal preference. I'm infamous in PLEBA for my sentiments about ZooTV-era Bono. I know why he didn't though; he didn't want the tour to be ZooTV II.
The stage setup? It was a classic case of "intentional overkill". It's hard to make this work in any context. I use it in theatrical costuming when I deliberately make a costume or accessory too ornate. I've had these things really blow up in my face, and some of the, uh, offending objects were relegated to closet duty because they didn't work, to say the least. It's harder to do a stage set, trust me! It's hard to make a crowded set work in a context that's supposed to emphasize audials.

 

[Sicy]

**** off not interested

watch it.

 

[JOFO]

I really just think they kind of had an idea of what the concept was on the tour, but kind of didn't fully realize it, whatever the reasons for that may have been.

examples:
1. what was the relevence of adam's costume?
2. what was the deal with bono and edge's matching anatomy shirts?
3. the golden arch was just an eye-sore that was half-conceived.
4. on zootv, even with the ironic component, when they came out and played pride, bono had taken off those shades and it morphed into classic u2. that never happened on popmart, and I always felt that tune was totally out of place in the setlist.

lastly, I know I'm gonna get killed for this, but the electronica aspect was applied to tunes like streets (the middle sequenced moog pattern) and bullet was totally out of place, as if trying to "update" tunes for the late 90's.

well, I still loved them and stood up for them to people who were like "u2? they suck now".

 

[pinkfloyd]

speaking of tour live mixes , yes i think U2 just weren't ready to play some tunes ( bono's voice and rhytm of the band ) , meanwhile on popmart video it sounds great ( btbs, wtshnn , discotheque ) but on live boots , sometimes it's afwul , it just sounds not complete or right , maybe not enough rehearsals . costume of bono during discotheque was like from some china-town cheap shop and Edge's karaoke......

 

[U2Kitten]

*fails to resist temptation to respond knowing she will regret it*

This is very interesting, because I have thought about this myself, for myself. If they had LOOKED different, would I have felt any different about the songs on the album? Verte76, I have a thing for ZOO Bono too. It's my personal preference that he looks better with the dark hair and leather. I don't think he had to have such a drastic change to avoid "ZOO 2" I mean Larry hardly ever changes LOL. I know this isn't supposed to be personal, just general, but I'm trying to compare how it was for me to how others might have felt. POP pictures scream at me in horror and bright orange. Their costumes looked more like Halloween than a rock show IMHO. Compared to all the ways they had looked in the past, I can understand how some people were like, because I was. I could post pics to illustrate the drastic change but I will avoid that. Just looking at them, and hearing them was quite an unwelcome, unacceptable shock for some. Verte76, I don't think they became INXS, it was much more extreme than that, I have seen some say they became Right Said Fred. The Village People was just too, too much. Yes, I DO think that was a bad move. Yes, I think it made them a source of ridicule for the media and even fans. If anyone here likes it or not, it was possibly the worst move that damaged their career. They were fortunate to recover. Styx never overcame Mr. Roboto LOL! As it word spread around, be it through the media or word of mouth among fans, I think it hurt album sales and probably discouraged people from the tour. Yes I think the pictures and images had a lot to do with people forming this opinion.

It's about marketing, and it was just marketed wrong. The press conference presented to the public a product that was perhaps not so desirable as what the 'company' had produced in the past. All companies deal with this, like Ford and the Edsel and when McDonald's tried delivery. Not every idea works out. The look of the band members and the tour was a muliticolored spectacle of garish excess. I know that's what they were going for and though the irony may have gone over people's heads, I doubt they cared. Whether or not you 'get' the message about mocking everything from their own stardom to commercialism and the band being sold as a product doesn't really matter. If it doesn't look right, and it doesn't sound right, it's not going to sell so well.

Remember, marketing to the public is important, and it didn't fly with enough of the public. The image and the music together worked to show that this was not the same U2 that had been known and loved. They had changed, but change is not always for the best. When you have diehard, longterm fans who don't accept it, it's not surprising that the media and casual fans or non-fans had a field day. Of course, there were some who liked it. To each his own. But it's kind of clear at this point that Pop was the era least well recieved by fans and media, and IMO the sound and the look combined to produce that reaction. That is what transpired with the public.

Now I think I can answer the question I have been wondering about myself, I would have to say I don't think that I would have liked the songs any better if they didn't look that way, because I really don't like the sound of most of the album. Would I have accepted the sound more if they looked different? I think I can only conclude by saying if they looked like they did in ZOOTV, or even Elevation, I would have drooled over the pics, but at times it would have been with the sound down

 

[JOFO]

the biggest dissappointment in all of that was they were really at the height of their powers at the end of the zootv tour in late 93.
I waited 4 years for an album I thought was gonna change the world for me, again. but that didn't happen, and I doubt they care. I sure wouldn't.

summing up: oh well.
bring on the new tunes.

 

[Hawkmoon1021]

I think releasing Discotheque as the 1st single was the main problem. I believe a lot of fans thought U2 had gotten as far away as they could from the "classic" U2 sound with Zooropa & Passengers and were expecting a return to rock.

I first heard Discotheque when I saw the U2 A to Z special on MTV before the single came out. When the video came on I was so shocked by the song & the visual that all I could say was "What the f*ck was that?" I didn't know what to make of it immediately, but I did have a slight sense of disappointment, and also thinking the masses would not understand it. Being a diehard fan, I of course would buy the album, but I felt anyone who knew U2 from the radio hits, or blockbusters like JT & AB would have a hard time finding what they liked about the band in there, especially if I was having trouble grasping it. I love U2's experimental side, but I had a feeling they might be experimenting, just for the sake of experimentation, not necessarily if it was what they did best. It definitely made me question what the album was going to sound like.

Eventually, I grew to love the song, but the single & video, and tour perhaps, tainted peoples perception of the album IMHO. If they launched the album with Staring At The Sun I think the album would have sold better and the public would be more receptive to it. The video & song are definitely more user friendly.

Personally, I could care less if it didn't sell as well as expected. I think it is one of their best albums, and it definitely rewards on repeated listenings. I always hear something new when I play it. Perhaps it was just ahead of it's time. It would be nice to see some of the songs get rediscovered on the new Best of, but if the compilation is from 1991-2002, I don't think we'll see more than 3 songs on there.

 

[JOFO]

again, I agree. I love pop. there's so much stuff on that cd, I'm sure I haven't heard it all yet, 5 1/2 years later.

but your metion of passengers is a great point, because what the fuck is that? let's be honest here. there's some great stuff on it, but is it an eno album? no way. it was the u2 album that they realized they could never release without getting destroyed. so they put it out under they name "passengers"....bullshit.....that was a u2 album with more than usual contributions and directions from eno....so ......
ah fuck....I don't know WHAT it was.......

and I'm a die hard fan....so of course the general public wanted some rock after that.
but they got discotechque instead.

 

[verte76]

U2Kitten--I agree, that garish orange just screams at you. It's overwhelming. ZooTV had a much nicer sense of aesthetics. I understand you don't always want pretty, but visually, Pop was the rock equivalent of me using about 800 gross of aurora borealis crystal on a vest (a gross is 144 beads, and please don't ask me to do that much f**king math--I can't add). Ouch! Overkill From Hell! They didn't need that much to avoid ZooTV II. The press conference, by the band's own admission, wasn't such a great idea. I like the album, the lyrics, etc, etc, but there were a fair number of screw-ups here, most of them having to do with either visuals or timing.

 

[verte76]

I quite love how the irony of it all went zooming right over the public's heads. Sad in a way because it shows how shallow the culture is...most people didn't even get that they were being mocked.

Viva Popmart!

Good point. It did a fantastic job of showing just how shallow popular culture is. Some people were pissed because they felt like they had bought an album that practically scolded them for buying it. It did go over people's heads. I saw the effect of using 800 gross of aurora borealis crystal on one vest. Overkill! It was deliberate. Deliberate overkill is *so* hard to do well. Even if you think you pulled it off not everyone is going to agree, that's for sure.

 

[JOFO]

doesn't matter......

they jumped on the elecronica movement before it exploded because it was supposed to be the next big thing.


worst thing they ever did.
(jumping on that; not the cd).

 

[verte76]

Oh, well, the only people that don't screw up are the people who don't do anything.

 

[JOFO]

Oh, well, the only people that don't screw up are the people who don't do anything.

best point made yet.

 

[BonosSweetestThing]

I for one hated ZooTV Bono, those utterly ridiculous fly shades made him look like an old old man! I hated the Zoo TV look and was glad when POP came around! New look and better sound.