maybe u2's downfall in the late 90s didn't really have anything to do with pop.

[u2fan628]

i think pop was an awesome album...one of they're best imo although it didnt appeal to the masses....i dont think they flopped on the album but more so the way they went about promoting it and touring with it....

lose the fake muscle shirts, gas mask, kmart, and i think they woulda done fine !

u cant really blame non-hardcore fans for being like WTF is this !?!

Thank you so much!I was very much sayingWTF!!!!

 

[U2Man]

It showed there are people who agreed with me. I see the figures and I was also at a few sold out POP shows in stadiums.

I still think POP was awesome and without it there wouldn't be some of those beautiful songs, If God Will Send His Angels, Please, Do You Feel Loved etc. Just because it had the lowest sales out of U2's catalog doesn't mean it was a downfall.

A downfall is when your record sells so lousy that the record label drops you!

by 'downfall' i meant a significant and measurable decline in sales and popularity. going from selling 17 million to 6 million albums is indeed a significant decline.

 

[Alisaura]

From dictionary.com:

down·fall
-noun
1. descent to a lower position or standing; overthrow; ruin.
2. something causing ruin, failure, etc.: Liquor was his downfall.
3. a fall, as of rain, snow, or the like, often sudden or heavy.
4. a trap using a falling weight for killing, injuring, or imprisoning the prey.

Using the first part of definition 1, then the drop in album sales does constitute a (temporary) downfall.
Using definition 2, it doesn't - U2 wasn't ruined in a permanent sense. That's the Roman Empire sort of downfall.
As for definition 3 - did they throw fake money or confetti around on that tour?
... I'm not touching definition 4.

As for the original question... I don't think that's the case. And if this downfall of U2's (real or imagined) really didn't have anything to do with Pop, why quote album sales figures to prove that there was a downfall?
I can't imagine people hearing Pop, and thinking "Yeah, it's an awesome album, as good as anything they've done, but because U2 aren't pushing back against Western struggles right now (or there are none), I choose not to buy it, and will steadfastly ignore the tour."

 

[U2Man]

As for the original question... I don't think that's the case. And if this downfall of U2's (real or imagined) really didn't have anything to do with Pop, why quote album sales figures to prove that there was a downfall?

only necessary because people refused to accept that their was a downfall in the late 90s and thereby disputed obvious facts that were premises of this discussion.

 

[theoriginal]

I think Pop didn't fit with the time. When Achtung and ZooTV came out they seemed to capture the spirit of the times and people felt that. The whole "media overload" idea, chaotic and overwhelming, worked with people. In 1997 I think people were at a different place. In part I think culture was dumbed down. Blink 182 and that sort of "emo" music started getting popular, and I think culture somewhat turned away from music and entertainment that wasn't instantly gratifying. One of the roots of the change in culture may be the lack of a major defining international issue.
So while I think the original post has a lot of merit, I think the key is that U2 wasn't in tune with the culture of the time. I think Pop and Zooropa are quite similar thematically and stylistically. If Pop had been released in 1993 or 1994 I think it would have been huge.
I don't think though that major trauma or some major issue drives U2 to greater heights. ATYCLB was recorded during a period when "nothing" was going on, and it became more relevant after 9/11. But it didn't take 9/11 for U2 to write better or perform better or anything like that, it just changed the culture and the attitudes of listeners.

 

[david]

I think their mistake was latching onto the british techno rock dance beat influence trend that was popular in 96 and 97 with bands like Prodigy and others. That was the first time U2 directly applied what was going on at the time to their own sound. Where-as before U2 were somewhat innovative and created their own sound and landscape. The mistake was that it was a passing trend. At least in America it was. I just think it really confused a lot of the Audience at the time.

 

[STING2]

pleeeease let's not argue about facts.

just look at the album sales figures for starters:

AB 17 Million
Pop 6 Million
ATYCLB 12 Million

pop was expected to be a major release and seller like ab and atyclb. it sold about 1/3 of achtung baby and 1/2 of atyclb. and yes, then there was popmart with half-empty stadiums.

The sales figures are correct, but remember, Achtung Baby has sold 17 million albums because it has remained a consistent seller after the initial promotion period of the first year or two was over.

Worldwide sales in the first year of release:

Achtung Baby 10 million
Zooropa 6 million
POP 5.5 million
ATYCLB 10 million

 

[STING2]

there wasn't? an album that didn't sell half of what they had expected, a promotion tv show with a historically low amount of viewers, half-empty stadiums all over the u.s....

There were SOME half-empty stadiums in the United States. Overall, one could say demand for tickets in the United States was down by almost 50% from where it was on ZOO TV, but still the tour was the 2nd highest grossing tour in the USA that year, just behind the Rolling Stones tour. U2 were still a higher in demand concert act in the United States than any other artist except the Rolling Stones.

 

[STING2]

they would have played half empty stadiums in the smaller markets around the US for the last couple tours too. playing smaller venues doesnt mean youre more successful

Based on the speed of sellouts for the Vertigo tour, thats actually not true. U2 underplayed nearly every market in the United States on the last tour.

 

[STING2]

According to Billboard, the best selling albums in the late 1990s were:

1997: Shania Twain 20 million/Backstreet Boys 14 million
1998: Garth Brooks 20 million/Kid Rock 11 million
1999: Britney Spears 16 million/Santana 15 million

That's where music was at that point in time.

Fast-forward to 2006: the best-selling artist was Carrie Underwood. Her album, which actually came out in November 2005, has sold 4.75 million copies to date.

In the context of the 1990s, Pop was not a success. But it would have outsold Carrie last year.

Those figures are true, but when you look at the touring side of things POPMART crushed everyone one of those artist concurent tours in the late 1990s. Britney Spears, Santana, Kid Rock and Shania Twain would struggle to fill up 20,000 seat arena's while U2 were playing to an average of 38,000 people per night in football stadiums at nearly double the ticket price! Garth Brooks stayed primarily in Arena's at the dirt cheap ticket price of $20 dollars, and primarily just in North America.

The Backstreet Boys were the most competitive, but they still never approached even the level U2 was at on POPMART with touring.

 

[Chizip]

Based on the speed of sellouts for the Vertigo tour, thats actually not true. U2 underplayed nearly every market in the United States on the last tour.

you really think they could have sold out stadiums in smaller markets like Omaha, Salt Lake City, Portland, St Louis, etc?

On the Elevation Tour U2 didn't sell out in St Louis, it was 500-1000 less than a sell out and this was with all the sections behind the stage blocked off, which wasn't usually done.

Popmart St. Louis was one of the half sold out shows, selling only 30k out of a 60k stadium. But frankly I'd consider that more of a success than selling 19k out of 20k.

 

[theoriginal]

If it can be accepted that U2's popularity experienced some sort of decline during the Pop era, to what does everyone attribute it to? The original post wonders whether it had less to do with the music than the time in which it came out. I agree.

 

[Pinball Wizard]

I blame society.

And by society, I mean Paul McGuinness.

 

[Joey788]

Well there was definitely a slip in sales, and not just in the USA.
From "Peeling off those dollar bills", here's estimated UK sales for U2 albums.

1. The Joshua Tree : ~2,670,000 (2,665,553 as at 22nd Oct 2006)
2. Best of 80-90 (both versions) : ~1,925,000 (1,919,678 as at Sat 25th Nov 2006)
3. Rattle & Hum : ~1,400,000 (~1.23m by Oct '94)
4. Achtung Baby : ~1,350,000 (1.13m by Jan '98)
5. UABRS : ~1,300,000 (3xP by April 1987 & ~1.1m by end of '80's)
6. HTDAAB : ~1,240,000 (1.2m by end of 2005)
7. ATYCLB : ~1,130,000 (March 12th 2005 edition of Musicweek said 1,083,169 & has since done ok in top 100/200)
8. The Unforgettable Fire : ~890,000 (~810k by end of '80's)
9. War : ~830,000 (~750k by end of '80's)
10. Best of 90-00 (both versions) : ~875,000 (871,765 as at Sat 25th Nov 2006)
11. U218 Singles : ~620,000
12. Zooropa : ~600,000 (~500k in '93)
13. Pop : ~450,000 (370k in '97)
14. October : ~400,000
15. Boy : ~300,000
16. WAIA : ~150,000

I find it extremely sad that U218, which has been out for about 5 months sold more copies that Pop, which has been out for 10 years.

 

[AtomicBono]

the thing that confuses me is that Pop did fairly well when it was first released...I was reading Rolling Stone yesterday and on the back page they have that little blip where they flash back to an older issue, and that issue had "U2's POP" with four stars on the cover, and said Pop was the #1 album at the time.

Though I was too young to really be aware back then, it seems to me Pop was not initially deemed a failure. I think it was the tour that really killed them. If the opening night had been as strong as, say, Mexico City, that whole era could have been different. Although it could also be that people didn't get the costumes or giant lemon and thought U2 had gone overboard.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

Okay, if all you're worried about is popularity.

We ARE talking about Bono here.....

 

[intedomine]

Just because Pop didn't sell as many copies as AB/JT/ATYCLB, doesn't mean it was a lull or a downfall or that U2 were "worse" or in "poorer form" or whatever...

If my memory serves me right, the amount of radio play Discotheque got on Aussie airwaves at the time of it's release would probably only equate to 1/8 of the airplay given to Vertigo upon that song's release in 2004. Furthermore, Discotheque would have recieved around 1/15 of the radioplay that Beautiful Day recieved when that song was released in 2000.

Here's the reality, the only reason Pop/Popmart might be considered an "inferior" era in U2 history, is merely because the mainstream (esp. commercial radio) couldn't hack the fact that U2 had balls and were attempting something different. The "best" bands in the world (Bon Jovi, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Oasis, U2) are not supposed to do that....so the mainstream more or less boycotted U2. Sure, they might have played Discotheque and Please now and then, but it's mere tokenism. If those songs weren't by U2, we probably would never have heard the songs.....

U2 were/are alone in this world, and a fucked up world it was/is too...

 

[toscano]

Based on the speed of sellouts for the Vertigo tour, thats actually not true. U2 underplayed nearly every market in the United States on the last tour. [/QUOTE

But you don't take into account:

1. Internet ticket buying/scalping : Tix for every show were beingf bought by people on th eother side of the country for the whole point of re-selling. The speed of sellout has no bearing on demand by fans anymore due to the proliferation of internet scalping.

2. People attending multiple shows in the same city

So, 3 nights in LA might be around 51,000 people, but as far as individual attendees go that number might be around 44,000, just over half a Coliseum show. In other words, about the same as might have attended a Pop show, maybe even less.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I blame society.

And by society, I mean Paul McGuinness.

 

[U2girl]

It had to do with the poor reception of the album/tour in the US.

 

[BVS]

It was the haircuts.

 

[Copy]

It had to do with the poor reception of the album/tour in the US.

That was the symptom, not the cause.

 

[Copy]

Here's the reality, the only reason Pop/Popmart might be considered an "inferior" era in U2 history, is merely because the mainstream (esp. commercial radio) couldn't hack the fact that U2 had balls and were attempting something different. The "best" bands in the world (Bon Jovi, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Oasis, U2) are not supposed to do that....so the mainstream more or less boycotted U2. Sure, they might have played Discotheque and Please now and then, but it's mere tokenism. If those songs weren't by U2, we probably would never have heard the songs.....

U2 were/are alone in this world, and a fucked up world it was/is too...

That's a bunch of poor arguments.

What about Achtung Baby? Weren't U2 trying to do something different back then too?

Can you prove that commercial radio boycotted U2 at the time, because thats not how I remember it?

And since when have the "best" bands not been supposed to change their sound? The Beatles? Radiohead? U2 has been doing it throughout all their career - and should be compared to these bands, not Bon Jovi, RHCP and Oasis that never really changed their sound much.

 

[U2girl]

That was the symptom, not the cause.

Poor presentation of the album, lack of tour preparation (and booking stadiums early on), over the top outfits and relying on a sound that never really broke in the US?

 

[Copy]

I can hardly imagine that someone would choose not to buy a u2 album or go to a U2 concert because of the outfits. Hell, if people could cope with the Fly and Macphisto, they could hardly be scared away by the pop-outfits.

Would U2 fans that went to the ZOO-TV concerts and bought AB really choose not to by POP or attend POPMART concerts because they had a few problems on the opening night?

How was the presentation of POP worse than that of e.g. Achtung Baby?

 

[U2girl]

Because the first night of the tour went notoriously bad and AB was explained as an album in interviews before the tour - Pop wasn't as much talked about in comparison. If you look at the album and tour stats, U2 was far better recieved by their fanbase with AB than Pop. (Zooropa may have sold about the same but still fits under the succesful "Zoo TV" era)

The Fly - irony aside - outfit doesn't look out of place going to see a band. Shades, leather...nothing really that shocking. It helped that they were percieved as "cool" then. I doubt Macphisto would have gone over well in US.

 

[Copy]

So you're basically saying that POP only sold 1/3 of Achtung Baby because of

1) People in the U.S. didn't like that kind of music very much.

2) Poor promotion.

 

[U2girl]

Not just those two things.

U2 and the US have a love-hate relationship over the years.

 

[Copy]

But as someone pointed out, POP didnt do very well in the UK or the rest of the world either. So it wasn't just the US.

 

[U2girl]

Yes, but U2 were always very keen on conquering America. It seems that an album not working there gets to them more than album not working ROW.

US critics pan Rattle and Hum - U2 skips any and all American venues on Lovetown
Pop/mart doesn't take off in US - U2 cuts experimenting, sheds the irony and does a scaled down show

Not that this was the biggest and only reason that changed their music direction but I do think American reaction does influence them.