I kind of have an understanding of Popmart...

[toscano]

Okay, I'll answer this in two parts.

First off, you've almost made my first point for me. Of the thousands of people who buy U2 albums and go to concerts alot of them would fall under the category of casual fans. If the forum is any indication, the bigger U2 fans are still a little divided on Pop. So, the casual fan might not have understood Pop and some who went to the concert might not have got it either. Unfortunately the casual has as much influence on the albums sales, ticket sales and U2's own opinion on thier work as the fans who are more than casual.

Second, the album's sound was very different from the music scene in America at the point of it's release. Remember Zooropa wasn't a big seller in America compared to other U2 albums. I say this as an American, that the mainstream music in America doesn't seem to accept anything that's really experimental. The general American audience had to figure it out. It didn't help either that the tour started so soon after the album's release which didn't allow Americans to really take in the album before seeing it live. The Discotheque video really confused Americans I think. Seeing the group dressed as the Village People didn't get the response U2 wanted.

I hope that answered your question, toscano.

No, not really. My question was what basis do you say Americans "didn't get it", you didn't show any evidence they didn't get it.

People turned up to the shows in similar or higher numbers than the Elevation/Vertigo tour, even on the return leg after they had a chance to "take in" the album.

The response to the Discotheque video does not mean Americans didn't get Popmart or it was a failure in absolute terms. Maybe it was a failure in not getting grammy's or making more money, something ATYCLB and HTDAAB took care of by their plunges into mediocrity in order to broaden U2's appeal to the ClearChannel listener

 

[Salome]

I think this whole "America didn't get it" is simplifying it a bit

I will never forget that Bono spent most of the first 30 minutes of the second POPMart show in The Netherlands (which was also the 2nd show in Europe) getting worked up at the people in the seats on his right because a fair number of seats there weren't occupied

POP (and because of this POPMart) was received less than just about any other U2 record in more places than just The US

probably because it is a very good album but not quite the gift from the heavens above that people on this forum make it out to be

 

[Screwtape2]

No, not really. My question was what basis do you say Americans "didn't get it", you didn't show any evidence they didn't get it.

I think the albums sales and the lack of single sucess are evidence enough of the general music fan's response to the album. Combined with the fact that alot of fans that are more than casual and from America like the album along with the album's success in Europe leads to a possible conclusion that the general music fan "didn't get it." A conclusion I subscribe to.

As for Salome's point, I agree that the US wasn't the only country that had troubles with Pop. The US is just one example that happens to be a large music market.

 

[toscano]

I think the albums sales and the lack of single sucess are evidence enough of the general music fan's response to the album. Combined with the fact that alot of fans that are more than casual and from America like the album along with the album's success in Europe leads to a possible conclusion that the general music fan "didn't get it." A conclusion I subscribe to.

As for Salome's point, I agree that the US wasn't the only country that had troubles with Pop. The US is just one example that happens to be a large music market.

By 97 there really was no such thing as a singles market in the US

Album sales are in the multiple millions, not sure how many but certainly enough to make most bands salivate.

Maybe it's not that they "didn't get it", maybe people just "didn't like it". For example I "get" Radiohead and eminem, I just can't stand listening to them. It's rock music, not rocket science.

A casual fan will buy an album based on airplay, if all they hear is Discotheque, that sends a message as to how the album is. I mark it down to a poor choice of leadoff single on U2's part. If they had released Staring at the Sun FIRST, Ithink it would have sold more copies. Still, people did show up iun droves for Popmart, so even though many shows weren't sellouts, they were playing to numbers comparable to or higher than Elevation or Vertigo tours.

 

[Screwtape2]

A casual fan will buy an album based on airplay, if all they hear is Discotheque, that sends a message as to how the album is. I mark it down to a poor choice of leadoff single on U2's part. If they had released Staring at the Sun FIRST, Ithink it would have sold more copies.

That part is the first thing we can agree on. But I really think that it was a matter of the general public not getting it opposed to not liking it because if they didn't like it they wouldn't have gone to the shows. However if they didn't "get it" then there won't be a kind of stigma around the tour that lingered during and after the tour. The latter is what we see today.

 

[toscano]

That part is the first thing we can agree on. But I really think that it was a matter of the general public not getting it opposed to not liking it because if they didn't like it they wouldn't have gone to the shows. However if they didn't "get it" then there won't be a kind of stigma around the tour that lingered during and after the tour. The latter is what we see today.

So you're saying they didn't want to shell out $12 for the album because they didn't "get it" but were willing to shell out $50/ticket to watch the show with a huge chunk of new material they didn't get from half a mile away ?

I think the stigma is a self-inflicted U2 thing, and they are using the "didn't get it" as a lame half-baked excuse for not being rewarded for Pop/Popmart with their usual grammy's and tens of millions of CD's sold

 

[J_NP]

As for Salome's point, I agree that the US wasn't the only country that had troubles with Pop. The US is just one example that happens to be a large music market.

Yeah , but US was the only place in THE world which had ridiculous attendance , and this whole talk of Pop , it's curious ....... Places like Italy , Spain , England ...... which I don't know if sold POP millions ahead of the US , The reaction there could have been better or not towards it , still the European Leg was a huge success .

Which comes to the thing I was tryin to say on this thread and others ..... While in Certain Countries U2 can release a completey crap album , people will still put 100.000 on their shows .... while in the US people only feel like this with a grammy award album or something like ...... Anyone care to prove otherwise

 

[toscano]

Yeah , but US was the only place in THE world which had ridiculous attendance , and this whole talk of Pop , it's curious ....... Places like Italy , Spain , England ...... which I don't know if sold POP millions ahead of the US , The reaction there could have been better or not towards it , still the European Leg was a huge success .

Which comes to the thing I was tryin to say on this thread and others ..... While in Certain Countries U2 can release a completey crap album , people will still put 100.000 on their shows .... while in the US people only feel like this with a grammy award album or something like ...... Anyone care to prove otherwise

Popmart attendance's were as high, or higher than Elevation or Vertigo tours, often without the benefit of the band doing multiple nights so people don't artifically inflate the attendances by going twice.

The proof ? "U2 live, a concert documentary by Pimm Jal De La Parra"

Oh, and the Grammy's are AFTER the tour is over, so that theory doesn't hold water either.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/07...783071/ref=sr_1_1/002-4964010-5778427?ie=UTF8

 

[J_NP]

Popmart attendance's were as high, or higher than Elevation or Vertigo tours, often without the benefit of the band doing multiple nights so people don't artifically inflate the attendances by going twice.



Oh, and the Grammy's are AFTER the tour is over, so that theory doesn't hold water either.

Just one thing ..... not sure where are the attendances you took from ...... from a particular leg or the whole tour . Coz dude a full stadium tour SHOULD have very much higher att .....

2- That's why I used the term "or something like " , It wasn't literal .... Although the grammies only happen one year after , who had doubts that JT , AB , ATYCLB and Bomb would get grammies ..... Grammy is only the final point , when a album sells very well , and it's well received it only goes this way (Well at least with U2 ) ...... That's what I meant . That's the situation I wanted to describe

 

[Screwtape2]

So you're saying they didn't want to shell out $12 for the album because they didn't "get it" but were willing to shell out $50/ticket to watch the show with a huge chunk of new material they didn't get from half a mile away ?

I think the stigma is a self-inflicted U2 thing, and they are using the "didn't get it" as a lame half-baked excuse for not being rewarded for Pop/Popmart with their usual grammy's and tens of millions of CD's sold

I think that people would be more willing to go to the shows because they already know some of the material. Don't forget that the general fan sometimes goes to a show before they buy the album. People were willing to shop at Popmart but partly based on the concert may not have been willing to pick up Pop.

I think you're wrong about the second part too. I find that the reaction of the general public influences the band's opinion on thier work. Because of the way Pop was recieved in terms of sales and the way the tour began in the US, U2 gained the opinion that the US didn't understand what they were doing.

 

[Screwtape2]

Which comes to the thing I was tryin to say on this thread and others ..... While in Certain Countries U2 can release a completey crap album , people will still put 100.000 on their shows .... while in the US people only feel like this with a grammy award album or something like ...... Anyone care to prove otherwise

You're right, Americans tend to turn on artists if thier newest work isn't on the same level as thier older material. I think that's good though because it makes artists have to put out good material with every release.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

I've said this a few times in this forum...Popmart did not appeal to the U.S. because U2 had played their stadium trump card with the Zoo TV/Zooropa tour. Anything similar to that in the U.S. was bound to fail if the album buzz was anything less than spectacular.

We all know that Pop got a lukewarm greeting from both critics and the mass audience in the U.S., I agree. Either way I enjoy the Pop album, Grammy winning or not, but it is not "the pinnacle" of U2's career. How someone can state that it was their best work to date in this very thread, is baffling to me, and obviously a little biased.

 

[toscano]

Just one thing ..... not sure where are the attendances you took from ...... from a particular leg or the whole tour . Coz dude a full stadium tour SHOULD have very much higher att .....

OK, but people point to non-full stadiums as "proof" that America "didn't get it", I point to the same crowds and show the attendances are HIGHER than for the tours they supposedly "did" get. You can't have it both ways !

And the numbers are from the book I supplied a link to.

2- That's why I used the term "or something like " , It wasn't literal ....

OK, so flesh out the argument, WHAT is the "something" ?? WHAT is the proof that Americans "didn't get it" vs. "didn't like it" or because U2 picked the worst possible song as the first single to showcase the album

"Didn't get it" implies a lack of UNDERSTANDING the material, how do you show Americans didn't understand it ? Or are we just reduced to quoting Bono ad nauseum without regard for what he's actually saying ?

 

[J_NP]

OK, so flesh out the argument, WHAT is the "something" ?? WHAT is the proof that Americans "didn't get it" vs. "didn't like it" or because U2 picked the worst possible song as the first single to showcase the album

Toscano just read my full comment above , Screwtape2 for example got it in the 1st ..... what I meant is , if there isn't an album out with the potential of winning a grammy , which is selling well , well received by all such as AB , JT , ATYCLB , HTDAAB ....... You won't be seein an attendance in the US like the other places , just read the things above

Here I make it easier for you : Quoting myself

' Which comes to the thing I was tryin to say on this thread and others ..... While in Certain Countries U2 can release a completey crap album , people will still put 100.000 on their shows .... while in the US people only feel like this with a grammy award album Instead of this , read as a potential grammy winner album ...... Anyone care to prove otherwise '

Got it now ....

 

[toscano]

You're right, Americans tend to turn on artists if thier newest work isn't on the same level as thier older material.

Not really true. Every artist has their ups and downs. Using that rationale, ATYCLB and HTDAAB should have gone straight down the crapper, actually if your logic were true they wouldn't even be releasing albums here anymore after rattle and Hum !

 

[toscano]

if there isn't an album out with the potential of winning a grammy , which is selling well , well received by all such as AB , JT , ATYCLB , HTDAAB ....... You won't be seein an attendance in the US

But the attandance WAS THE SAME OR BETTER with Pop !!! What part of that don't you understand ???

Either the attendance was worse because people didn't like Pop or it wasn't. In Pop's case, it WAS NOT WORSE than the grammy winning ATYCLB or HTDAAB tours. If anything, it inspired MORE loyalty than those albums, few repeat attendees as there were few multiple nights, many in cold weather, etc.

 

[toscano]

I think that people would be more willing to go to the shows because they already know some of the material.

OK, so using that argument, you could say Pop actually inspired more devotion and loyalty than HTDAAB or ATYCLB, less time to get used to the material, high attendance (even if not sell out)

Don't forget that the general fan sometimes goes to a show before they buy the album.

OK, but that contradicts what you just said above, that fans are "more willing" to go if they know it.

People were willing to shop at Popmart but partly based on the concert may not have been willing to pick up Pop.

OK, so now you're saying that you think most fans are willing to go to a show if they bought the album and are familiar with it, but now you think in U2's case that with Pop that was NOT the case ? That people went but didn't buy the album ?

I think you're wrong about the second part too. I find that the reaction of the general public influences the band's opinion on thier work. Because of the way Pop was recieved in terms of sales and the way the tour began in the US, U2 gained the opinion that the US didn't understand what they were doing.

Actually you're taking a different tack but you're essentially agreeing with me that it was the relative lack of commercial success that is influencing U2 to say Americans "didn't get it", however other than the band's comment I've yet to see one shred of evidence to say Americans didn't get it. Maybe many didn't want it......

 

[J_NP]

But the attandance WAS THE SAME OR BETTER with Pop !!! What part of that don't you understand ???

Either the attendance was worse because people didn't like Pop or it wasn't. In Pop's case, it WAS NOT WORSE than the grammy winning ATYCLB or HTDAAB tours. If anything, it inspired MORE loyalty than those albums, few repeat attendees as there were few multiple nights, many in cold weather, etc.

You didn't got it , My comment wasn't upon Comparing Popmart with other tours , My comment was upon comparings legs of Popmart , such as .......

September 20, 1997: 150,000-plus see U2 in Reggio Emilia, Italy

U2 performs in front of an estimated 150,000+ people at Reggio Emilia, Italy. At the end of the show, Bono tells the audience "You gave four Irish boys an evening they'll never forget."


November 12, 1997: Concert: Jacksonville, FL, USA

The crowd for tonight's PopMart show in Jacksonville in estimated at only 20,000. At one point, Bono asks the crowd, "Those of you in the back, can you hear us? Both of you?" As U2 descends from the lemon, all four band members are wearing jerseys of the Jacksonville Jaguars football team, which plays its home games in the same stadium.

 

[Screwtape2]

OK, so flesh out the argument, WHAT is the "something" ?? WHAT is the proof that Americans "didn't get it" vs. "didn't like it" or because U2 picked the worst possible song as the first single to showcase the album

"Didn't get it" implies a lack of UNDERSTANDING the material, how do you show Americans didn't understand it ? Or are we just reduced to quoting Bono ad nauseum without regard for what he's actually saying ?

So many questions with so many answers.

1. Q-What is the "something"? A- The "it" the energy and excitement that surrounds a tour for one. The "something" is teh collective energy of all the things involved in an album and tour.

2. Q-The proof? A-Every U2 album before Zooropa and Pop had a specific location and certain feeling. Look at the sales of those two albums compared to the albums around them. Also listen to the part of the Rolling Stone interview with Bono when he talks about Pop. Obviously, what Bono was intending in Pop was not what other took from it.

3. Q-Americans didn't understand it? A-Obviously, it went above the general public's head, if you asked a casual American U2 fan what Popmart was about, they probably couldn't give you an answer. Ask them what the message of Pop was, probably the same response. Americans didn't understand Pop because one has to dig to find the true meaning of the album and the tour. Americans weren't willing to dig because the couldn't figure to give it up.

And to be honest I don't understand your last question.

 

[toscano]

3. Q-Americans didn't understand it? A-Obviously, it went above the general public's head, if you asked a casual American U2 fan what Popmart was about, they probably couldn't give you an answer.

"probably" - So you don't actually know ?

Ask them what ATYCLB is "about" and I bet you they'd have the same answer

Americans didn't understand Pop because one has to dig to find the true meaning of the album and the tour. Americans weren't willing to dig because the couldn't figure to give it up.

I'm amazed at how much research you've done on the topic, to have interviewed so many fans, to have drawn on their responses and arrived at this conclusion, I mean you have actually researched it right ? you're not just coming up with this based on no actual data ?

I guess the "messages" of ATYCLB and HTDAAB were soooo much clearer and obvious to the dumb American casual u2 fan right ?

And to be honest I don't understand your last question.

A non-American might have understood it, you have to dig deep.......



anyhow, it was rhetorical, meaning that every time i hear someone say "Americans didn't get it", they didn't actually put any thought into that or have a real basis, they are merely parroting what Bono has said to defend th epoor marketing and scheduling behind th ealbum release and tour. Respectfully, i believe you have done the same.

 

[Mofo]

I think the whole "didn't get it" thing is really just that Pop wasn't really radio friendly with the exceptions of Discotheque and SATS, other than that the other singles weren't exactly the best choices.

It got mediocre results (for U2 standards) when it was first released in the USA other than that I remember the album being number 1 in like 27 or 30 something countries

The concert reviews for the first shows didn't help either seeing as the band didn't rehearse enough the new material (however I think most of us can agree that they manage to fix every problem and manage to put on an excellent show later on)

And I think that people were really turned off by the Discotheque video this is something I agree with J_NP North Americans didn't get it

 

[toscano]

You didn't got it , My comment wasn't upon Comparing Popmart with other tours , My comment was upon comparings legs of Popmart , such as .......

September 20, 1997: 150,000-plus see U2 in Reggio Emilia, Italy

U2 performs in front of an estimated 150,000+ people at Reggio Emilia, Italy. At the end of the show, Bono tells the audience "You gave four Irish boys an evening they'll never forget."


November 12, 1997: Concert: Jacksonville, FL, USA

The crowd for tonight's PopMart show in Jacksonville in estimated at only 20,000. At one point, Bono asks the crowd, "Those of you in the back, can you hear us? Both of you?" As U2 descends from the lemon, all four band members are wearing jerseys of the Jacksonville Jaguars football team, which plays its home games in the same stadium.

You keep flipping back and forward between comparing albums/tours to now just comparing legs of a tour. using the same rationale and lack of understanding of the economies, geography, scale and frequency-of-tours of Italy and the US, Elevation and Vertigo tours were just as "unsuccessful" as Pop if you're using Reggio Emilia as the yardstick.

20,000 people outside in November in the rain and cold in a large, low population density state where other shows are planned promoting an album the people supposedly "don't get" isn't bad compared to a small higher populaiton density nation in which they're only playing 2 shows in the whole damn country during a nice warm summer night !

 

[Screwtape2]

I don't think the poster who originally put up this thread up could have imagined such passion over the topic.

I respect your point of view but of course I disagree. You are taking the position that I can't understand what a casual fan might be thinking. It's simple logic.
A casual fan doesn't have the time or the energy to spend on an album because some albums like those made by U2 are peices of art. If you don't hook them from the start they are destined to never understand it. The American audience is more impatient when it comes to spending time on things. Thank mass media for that.

You see it is simple logic.

 

[J_NP]

You keep flipping back and forward between comparing albums/tours to now just comparing legs of a tour. using the same rationale and lack of understanding of the economies, geography, scale and frequency-of-tours of Italy and the US, Elevation and Vertigo tours were just as "unsuccessful" as Pop if you're using Reggio Emilia as the yardstick.

I .... I ? Are you crazy or somethin , of course You may have not understood what I meant , but you was the 1st one to come up with comparations on the 2001/2005 tours ..... All the time I was talking bout how different places of the world reacted to popmart , in terms of attendance .

All I was thinking and saying is , look at 2nd leg in Europe , big sucess , most of the shows were sell-outs , 4th Leg same thing ....... but look at the 3rd leg , where the Popmart show was already on fire , the problems with the POP songs were already solved , and still bad attendances in the US shows .

The Whole time all I was sayin was this ..... Places like Europe or South America ( Ok let's not count this , coz was the 1st time they toured) , or Oceania , which were places they've toured before , and despite the problems of Pop , people still put 90, 100.000 or more on the shows ..... Thing which didn't happen on the US

That's it I'm off this disc ..... gets tired writing the same thing over and over .....

 

[toscano]

I don't think the poster who originally put up this thread up could have imagined such passion over the topic.

I respect your point of view but of course I disagree. You are taking the position that I can't understand what a casual fan might be thinking. It's simple logic.
A casual fan doesn't have the time or the energy to spend on an album because some albums like those made by U2 are peices of art. If you don't hook them from the start they are destined to never understand it. The American audience is more impatient when it comes to spending time on things. Thank mass media for that.

You see it is simple logic.

Ted nugent was being interviewed by a British journalist.

The journalist asked: "What do you think the last thought is in the
mind of a deer before you shoot it ? Is it, `Are you my friend?`

or is it `Are you the one who killed my brother?'"

Nugent replied: "Deer aren't capable of that kind of thinking.
All they care about is, 'What am I going to eat next, who am I going
to screw next, and can I run fast enough to get away. They are very
much like the French."

 

[toscano]

I .... I ? Are you crazy or somethin , of course You may have not understood what I meant , but you was the 1st one to come up with comparations on the 2001/2005 tours ..... All the time I was talking bout how different places of the world reacted to popmart , in terms of attendance .

And I'm saying America actually responded BETTER or THE SAME as compared to other tours you apparently don't have an issue with. It's your attitude to each tour that is changing, not the American responses in terms of attendance.

All I was thinking and saying is , look at 2nd leg in Europe , big sucess , most of the shows were sell-outs , 4th Leg same thing ....... but look at the 3rd leg , where the Popmart show was already on fire , the problems with the POP songs were already solved , and still bad attendances in the US shows .

Do you think the elevation and vertigo tours were badly attended in the 3rd leg US too ?

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

U2 will always be big ticket-sellers when they tour. I'd be surprised if the total # of people attending U2 concerts worldwide in 1997 was much less than in 2001 or 2004.

But I'll never understand the whole "didn't get Pop" thing. I was a fan for a good 12 years at the time, and liked everything else they did in the 90s. But I was disappointed by Pop. It doesn't mean that other people can't love it, but I'm just making the point that it wasn't just casual fans that were underwhelmed by it.

What's there to get? You either like an album or don't





The whole USA vs the ROW argument gets me too in relation to Pop. It has had disapointing sales EVERYWHERE(for U2), not just the US.

If the figures in Peeling off those dollar bills forum are correct Pop (along with Zooropa-Both seem to be at about 5-5.5 million outside the US) is the lowest selling album U2 has released since the mid-80s. For whatever reason it just didn't take off.

 

[U2DMfan]

The band just got their feelings hurt. It really is about ego.

The Stones' Bridges to Babylon tour was the biggest of all time back in 97/98, selling out football stadiums, or at least near sell-outs even in America at the same time of POPmart (which put up smaller, but similar numbers). Both tours were a big success in terms of revenue and attendance.

Bridges to babylon sold about 1.2 million copies.
POP sold what? 2mill at best? (American figures)

What does it really say?
Big names still have a big draw and can still pack 'em in even with an apathy towards the latest music. U2 is a marquee name and would sell out an arena tour in the US with NO album.

The reason for the switch to arenas in America has been pointed out pretty well, it's about turning a profit. Even though POPmart drew huge numbers of fans, the productions costs meant U2 didn't make enough money to justify such a spectacle, on such a scale.

The touring arguments really don't speak much to the apathy of the music buying public at the time (much less how much a particular album is loved) when a band/artist is so huge, they will sell on name alone.

They and their label made a bunch of money off of the album sales, the tour made money, just not enough to justify their egos. They wished they were BIGGER at the time. More loved, more appreciated. So the natural cause is bagging on the music becuse it didn't sell like gangbusters. The initial critical reaction in the US was good, not negative (generally) another POP myth. Granted when publications like AMG or Rolling Stone change their ratings from 4 or 4.5 stars to 3 stars, it's easy to be confused by revisionist history.

 

[Lancemc]

A lot of people think that POPMart was crap, and wasn't U2 at their best. However, some people, myself included, believe that POP was probably their best work to date...

Just thought I'd correct your first post for truthiness.

 

[toscano]

The band just got their feelings hurt. It really is about ego.

The Stones' Bridges to Babylon tour was the biggest of all time back in 97/98, selling out football stadiums, or at least near sell-outs even in America at the same time of POPmart (which put up smaller, but similar numbers). Both tours were a big success in terms of revenue and attendance.

Bridges to babylon sold about 1.2 million copies.
POP sold what? 2mill at best? (American figures)

What does it really say?
Big names still have a big draw and can still pack 'em in even with an apathy towards the latest music. U2 is a marquee name and would sell out an arena tour in the US with NO album.

The reason for the switch to arenas in America has been pointed out pretty well, it's about turning a profit. Even though POPmart drew huge numbers of fans, the productions costs meant U2 didn't make enough money to justify such a spectacle, on such a scale.

The touring arguments really don't speak much to the apathy of the music buying public at the time (much less how much a particular album is loved) when a band/artist is so huge, they will sell on name alone.

They and their label made a bunch of money off of the album sales, the tour made money, just not enough to justify their egos. They wished they were BIGGER at the time. More loved, more appreciated. So the natural cause is bagging on the music becuse it didn't sell like gangbusters. The initial critical reaction in the US was good, not negative (generally) another POP myth. Granted when publications like AMG or Rolling Stone change their ratings from 4 or 4.5 stars to 3 stars, it's easy to be confused by revisionist history.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers things as they actually happened !

The whole "didn't get it" thing was totally about ego, Bono started it as basically a way of absolving themselves from any blame in the fact that it didn't sell as well or that stadiums didn't sell out.

They now have a formula to make more $$ than you can shake a stick at by drawing FEWER people than Popmart did. Good for them. The product isn't nearly as creative or interesting though.