Most Monumental Album Flops...

[Zoots]

this is off topic, but are you sure you mean this?

while it's fair if someone just doesnt like the more poppy style on atyclb and htdaab, i have a hard time finding previous u2 albums that resemble them.

I didn't say they resemble any previous albums. It was definitely a new direction for the band. Doesn't make it automatically good though! ATYCLB & HTDAAB are IMO average pop-rock albums full of cheesy adult contemporary schlock like Stuck In A Moment, Walk On, Kite, Sometimes, OOTS, Miracle Drug etc. I'm not against going for a more pop-ish sound but bands like Keane, for instance, are doing a much better job at creating beautiful melodies without the cheese. Nothing on Hopes & Fears comes close to the utter lameness of crap like Elevation or Vertigo. IMO!

 

[LemonMelon]

I didn't say they resemble any previous albums. It was definitely a new direction for the band.

Then what does this mean then?

Yeah... got back in gear to turn into U2-lite, a mediocre version of their former selves!

 

[Zoots]

Then what does this mean then?

They were still under the same name, U2, weren't they?? And IMO the last 2 albums have been mediocre. Hence, a mediocre version of the formerly great U2.

 

[LemonMelon]

They were still under the same name, U2, weren't they?? And IMO the last 2 albums have been mediocre. Hence, a mediocre version of the formerly great U2.

Sorry, I just took "U2 lite" to mean "a lite version of their stereotypical sound", as if "U2" is a genre of its own.

 

[MrBrau1]

Then what does this mean then?

It mean Zoots doesn't know what he's talking about. It's no joke, he actually has no idea what he's saying. His opinion changes depending on the question he's asked. Watch him cover your question. Should be entertaining.

 

[BVS]

Then what does this mean then?

It's Zoots slowy coming to terms that he actually appreciates U2 2000, but is still strugling because it's not cool.

 

[MrBrau1]

It's Zoots slowy coming to terms that he actually appreciates U2 2000, but is still strugling because it's not cool.

I thought liking bands who aren't "cool" was "cool?"

 

[Zoots]

In the 90's, I used to consider U2 and REM the best bands in the world, the upper echelon of alternative rock! And they were both at the top of their game, IMO! Since 2000, U2's music is I think better suited to be compared with say, Bon Jovi or Aerosmith. The latter day "don't wanna miss a thing" aerosmith that is. Some days even certain underrated songs of Bon Jovi like Dry County or These Days seem more interesting to me than all of ATYCLB & HTDAAB. Makes me wonder what the hell happened to this band after the commercial failure of Pop.

 

[MrBrau1]

Makes me wonder what the hell happened to this band after the commercial failure of Pop.

...and artistic failure of Pop. People figured out what a true bandwagon jump Pop was. They didn't buy it. Literally.

They followed Pop by doing what they've always done best, write great songs.

 

[Zoots]

They followed Pop by doing what they've always done best, write great songs.

Riiight! Because writing cliched preachy stuff like "you gotta stand up straight, carry your own weight" or "I know it aches and your heart it breaks, you can only take so much" or "life should be fragrant, rooftop to the basement" or "please stay a child somewhere in your heart" requires a lot of effort! I find these songs hardly great compared to songs from Boy to Pop.

 

[MrBrau1]

Riiight! Because writing cliched preachy stuff like "you gotta stand up straight, carry your own weight" or "I know it aches and your heart it breaks, you can only take so much" or "life should be fragrant, rooftop to the basement" or "please stay a child somewhere in your heart" requires a lot of effort! I find these songs hardly great compared to songs from Boy to Pop.

Have you ever listened to any U2 records?

 

[BVS]

Riiight! Because writing cliched preachy stuff like "you gotta stand up straight, carry your own weight" or "I know it aches and your heart it breaks, you can only take so much" or "life should be fragrant, rooftop to the basement" or "please stay a child somewhere in your heart" requires a lot of effort! I find these songs hardly great compared to songs from Boy to Pop.

Do you realize how much of art deals with pointing out the "obvious"?

How many paintings of flowers hang in the Louvre?

 

[coolian2]

Riiight! Because writing cliched preachy stuff like "you gotta stand up straight, carry your own weight" or "I know it aches and your heart it breaks, you can only take so much" or "life should be fragrant, rooftop to the basement" or "please stay a child somewhere in your heart" requires a lot of effort! I find these songs hardly great compared to songs from Boy to Pop.

Baby baby baby light my way

But for the first time i feel loved

I was of the feeling it was out of control


???

 

[LMP]

So taking single lame lines out of entire periods of great songwriting will make a point right?

right

 

[coolian2]

So taking single lame lines out of entire periods of great songwriting will make a point right?

right

My point exactly.

 

[U2Man]

but bands like Keane, for instance, are doing a much better job at creating beautiful melodies without the cheese.

i'd take a lasagne or pizza with a bit of cheese on top over just one big block of cheese any day, if you know what i mean

 

[guill]

They made a masterpiece with Jt, then they made a masterpiece with the “sound of four men chopping down The Joshua Tree" and then... they had to make a new record.... they couldn't experiment more than they did on Zooropa and they were reluctant to come back to classic guitar stuff. They turned on the radio and heard Dance/Techno music and Grandpa/Brit pop, they tried to copy them and add a u2 touch but it was just impossible.
SATS was not better than Wonderwall, Mofo was not better than any stuff from Prodigy, Please was not better than SBS, IGWSHA and LNOE sounded like a u2 spoof and if the Discotheque video was funny, i'm not sure that people buy u2 records to have a good laugh.
There was no good reason to buy that jamming session.

 

[U2Man]

Bullshit. I was in college when U2 released Pop. They were considered the top of their "fucking with the mainstream" status. People were expecting something big, but they weren't expecting Village People. Even the "alternative" kids respected U2.

Their age is a factor now, but believe me it wasn't then.

They killed Pop themselves, nothing else.

true. i don't think any u2 album has ever been as highly anticipated as pop, actually.

millions of u2 fans had waited 4 years for the first proper u2 song and, considering zooropa was just an extended ep, 6 years for the first proper u2 album. and what they got...was a piece of crap like discotheque and an even worse video.

 

[david]

1997 was an interesting time for the band and the whole mainstream music scene anyway.

It's weird, but when I remember reading Spin and Rollingstone album reviews for POP they were actually good reviews.

But I think it was just a bad period for U2 because their last album was Zooroopa and I am going to go out on a limb and say that they lost a lot of their 80's fans who thought the album was too out there I guess.

93-97 was a long time for them to be inactive. Sure, there was the hit song for Batman, and Passengers.

But I think when U2 was poised to return the musical landscape was shifting rapidly. Grunge was dying, SKA was getting popular, Spice Girls were emerging and we were seeing the return of boy bands as well and hip hop was becoming the more dominate music.

U2 were trying to find a place without having to rely on what they were, since at the time they were still trying to be progressive. I think what failed them was latching onto the fleeting techno sound. It was a passing trend. U2 were never about that. They were a progressive band that always had their own unique sound.

So despite the album getting good critical reviews I think being dormant for so long as well as spending the early 90's destroying the notion of what U2 was kind of actually ended up painting them into a corner I guess?

It's just weird to think that an album that got good reviews and had radio friendly songs on it as well as being released by a huge band just didn't sell so well in America. Maybe people didn't buy it because they forgot who U2 was.

Or U2 forgot who U2 was.

 

[U2girl]

Popmart - the real Pop. Dressing up as Village people combined with copy-pasting of the currently hot sounds (which happened to a lesser extent, albeit much better done, on the follow up too) didn't help matters, probably.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

You're all ignoring a simple fact:

NOBODY GIVES A DAMN WHETHER OR NOT POP SOLD ENOUGH TO COVER THE COST OF THE SHINY LEMON.

except for paul mcguinness.

 

[Mogi]

1997 was an interesting time for the band and the whole mainstream music scene anyway.

It's weird, but when I remember reading Spin and Rollingstone album reviews for POP they were actually good reviews.

But I think it was just a bad period for U2 because their last album was Zooroopa and I am going to go out on a limb and say that they lost a lot of their 80's fans who thought the album was too out there I guess.

93-97 was a long time for them to be inactive. Sure, there was the hit song for Batman, and Passengers.

But I think when U2 was poised to return the musical landscape was shifting rapidly. Grunge was dying, SKA was getting popular, Spice Girls were emerging and we were seeing the return of boy bands as well and hip hop was becoming the more dominate music.

U2 were trying to find a place without having to rely on what they were, since at the time they were still trying to be progressive. I think what failed them was latching onto the fleeting techno sound. It was a passing trend. U2 were never about that. They were a progressive band that always had their own unique sound.

So despite the album getting good critical reviews I think being dormant for so long as well as spending the early 90's destroying the notion of what U2 was kind of actually ended up painting them into a corner I guess?

It's just weird to think that an album that got good reviews and had radio friendly songs on it as well as being released by a huge band just didn't sell so well in America. Maybe people didn't buy it because they forgot who U2 was.

Or U2 forgot who U2 was. [/QUOTE

 

[ahittle]

I recall reading a lot of good reviews when Pop came out.

 

[ahittle]

Yeah, that Discotheque video probably did more damage than anyone realized. The typical American saw that and winced. That Village People image was maybe the one memory took from the whole experience. I'd call that a miscalculation as far as marketing went. They gambled on a first single and lost in the US anyway.

The tour was brilliant.

 

[ahittle]

And that whole electronica thing from the late 90's was pretty stupid. Critics were saying it was the death of the guitar and pretty shoddy DJ's were being celebrated as geniuses.

 

[hughfan_1]

In many ways, ATYCLB is a very dark album. Unfortunately, you can't see this because of the poppy music. ATYCLB was not an uplifting album until people made it one. When enough people say something other people will believe it without reservation. This is why Pop is considered a failure in theme and sales while ATYCLB is praised as an uplifting masterpeice.

Personally, I think ATYCLB is a masterpeice. But in truth, I also believe POP is also a very near masterpiece as well. I may be biased because of my love for the band, but along with a lot of other people, I did not like POP at first. I listened to POP a few times when I bought it and than placed it on CD bookcase shelf never to be listened to again for a very long time. Not until after ATYCLB was released, did I go back and revisit that POP album. It may have been a flop commercially (by u2 standards) but it has aged extremely well. It was an album that was ahead of its time and contains some of Bono's best ever written songs.

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

Yeah, that Discotheque video probably did more damage than anyone realized. The typical American saw that and winced. That Village People image was maybe the one memory took from the whole experience. I'd call that a miscalculation as far as marketing went. They gambled on a first single and lost in the US anyway.

There is a misconception that it only "flopped" In America but its not true. Here are the UK sales for all the U2 albums with Pop only selling more than Boy and October

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

from U2mix.org here are the australian sales for some U2 albums(don't know where the others are):

Pop - 70,000 (Platinum)
Achtung Baby - 350,000 (5x Platinum)
Best Of 1980-1990 - 560,000 (8x Platinum)
Best of 1990-2000 - 140,000 (2x Platinum)
All That You Can't Leave Behind - 280,000 (4x Platinum)
How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb -280,000 (4x Platinum)
U218 Singles - 210,000 (3x Platinum)


I'm not sure why people are getting pissed that U2 made the list-By U2 standards it was a flop commerically. I mean, by whos standards SHOULD the sales be judged other than their own. It was an album that had the full weight of the U2 media machine behind it and it was expected to sell more

Whether it was an artistic flop is up to the listener.

 

[U2Man]

I'm not sure why people are getting pissed that U2 made the list-By U2 standards it was a flop commerically. I mean, by whos standards SHOULD the sales be judged other than their own. It was an album that had the full weight of the U2 media machine behind it and it was expected to sell more

Whether it was an artistic flop is up to the listener.

spot on, putas.

it would have been nice, though, if the article hadnt touch the artistic terrain.

 

[Bones58]

I doubt U2 would have spent so much time on a record if they knew it was expected to sell between 5-7m. And I seriously doubt that the Record Companies would spent so much money on marketing and hype for an album that would have been expected to sell 5-7m. It was fairly obvious they were going for sales of at least 10-12m. So by U2's standards it was a flop but but by chart and sales performance - just on its own- it wasn't. But then thats why Zooropa wasn't considered a flop because there wasn't so much time, hype, money and marketing put into it unlike Pop, even though have similar sales.

 

[U2Man]

and you cannot put out something like zooropa and expect it to sell like a major release.

isn't there a bono quote somewhere, where he states that 10 million would have been acceptable?