Pop Did Not Fail Because Of The Music, It Failed Because...

[Zoots]

I can't tell you how dissappointed I am when I read the band detracting from their music in the 90's. Shit, most of us liked it, I think.

Yeah, really.. I wouldn't doubt it. As much as I like HTDAAB, the 90s were my fav decade.

 

[Yahweh]

If I really wanted to bash America it certainly wouldnt be based on musical preference. In the end music is only the taste of the person hearing it. Politics on the other hand that would be something easy to bash America about but I wont do that here.

 

[James U2]

as has already been stated the other 8,500 times this topic has come up...

criticizing discotheque as a first single is COMPLETELY off-base. the song is one of u2's biggest commercial hits. it went gold as a single in the U.S. (meaning it sold 500,000 copies) - U2 doesn't even release U.S. singles now days because they would sell so poorly. The video was ALL OVER MTV. at the time, mtv had a new show called "fuse" and discotheque was a big runner. it was also on heavy rotation on MTV as a whole. anyone remember the 24-hour U2 video marathon when discotheque was premiered. the song was a huge success on radio.

if you don't like Pop, that's fine. but at least have credible reasons for why it didn't sell AS WELL as most U2 albums in the states, not your opinion. if you want to point fingers at songs that failed on radio and MTV, point them at Last Night On Earth.

james

 

[U2DMfan]

it's relative to what the public wants, the American public in general (broadly speaking) likes entertainment over artistic value. I think this is because most people aren't really hardcore fans of music or movies even, they are content to be entertained for X amount of time. Me, personally, I love music, play music, listen to music, I am a junkie, so I certainly expect to have a different taste than most people and be in the vast minority.

The problem seems to be, U2 want those people to listen to them too, which to bring it back full circle to the subject at hand, is precisely why these people didn't get POP, they didn't even care to get it, they just want to be entertained and not have to do much thinking.

Why U2 targets this audience is troubling, but whatever, I gave up that fight years ago. They should have known that Pop/Popmart was over the heads of most people, American or not.

 

[Miggy D]

as has already been stated the other 8,500 times this topic has come up...

criticizing discotheque as a first single is COMPLETELY off-base. the song is one of u2's biggest commercial hits. it went gold as a single in the U.S. (meaning it sold 500,000 copies) - U2 doesn't even release U.S. singles now days because they would sell so poorly. The video was ALL OVER MTV. at the time, mtv had a new show called "fuse" and discotheque was a big runner. it was also on heavy rotation on MTV as a whole. anyone remember the 24-hour U2 video marathon when discotheque was premiered. the song was a hige success on radio.

if you don't like Pop, that's fine. but at least have credible reason for it didn't sell AS WELL as most U2 albums in the states, not your opinion. if you want to point fingers at songs that failed on radio and MTV, point them at Last Night On Earth.

james

It was the first U2 single in 4 years.

-Miggy D

 

[Zoomerang96]

discoteque is badass, jofo, come on.

but i like the idea of releasing hold me...as the first single...had they not released it earlier of course...

 

[James U2]

"It was the first U2 single in 4 years."

so, the fly was the first u2 single in three years and it didn't do anywhere near as well. and one could make a strong argument that u2 was bigger commercially in 1991 than they were in 1997.

 

[Zoots]

The problem seems to be, U2 want those people to listen to them too

They didn't wanna go Pearl Jam on us and keep making what they wanted to make, no matter how big or small the fan base. At least that's what I make of it.

 

[Zoomerang96]

just some general thoughts, good thread idea by the way miggy.

Discotheque hit #10 in America, U2's last and maybe very last top 10 hit they will ever have in America. Keep in mind this is higher than Beautiful Day and Vertigo. So, needless to say, I think the song was fine by itself, the video was a parody, or a joke in itself and most people (Americans in general) didn't get it.

A lot of people didn't get ZooTv either, but it was so brilliantly executed and it was supported by arguably U2's best album that it hardly mattered. Ultimately, that tour and album co-existed and reaped each others benefits. With Pop/Popmart, I think what you had was the critic trend of bandwagon jumping or under-the bus-throwing that happens more times than not.

Pop was applauded by most critics when it first came out, Allmusic Guide gave it 4 1/2 stars on it's release, later augmenting that to 4, and now it's even lower, possibly 3. Is it because the music didn't age well? I don't think so, I think it was because of the perceived failure of the tour.

And that's just it, perceived failure, the opening night was not good, and the TV special that promoted it was the lowest rated non-news program in network history (U.S.). Couple that with the images from the Disco video, the Kmart thing, the lack of a bona-fide quality single to follow Disco, and you have a recipe for failure. However the shows got better and better and the album is basically good, at least as good as the last two (subjective? sure)

90% of this was an image problem. And I think 90% of it's effect was in America. These stats are just guesses of course, but I think they are in the ballpark. Americans

We can shoot holes in that album all day long, but people should really stop pretending that it was a BAD album. Seems to be the bandwagon thing to do, liek the token POP derision in the latest reviews for HTDAAB.

It was a calcualted risk, the album sold pretty well, the tour was basically succesful, especially in Europe, and 8 years later what is the verdict? Most view it as a failure? Why? Image. Perception.

I wouldnt blame the single selection, I would blame the image problem. Also I would say that U2 weren't willing to accept the risk as much as they let on. They HAD to have known that this was stepping out on a limb.

Unfortuantely, you can count me in the group that considers their last two efforts good albums, but over-corrections in the 'safe' category. Pop, ATYCLB, HTDAAB are all good albums, and maybe not as good as they could have been, IMHO.

That big bad-ass, gutsy U2 got their hearts broken because people "didn't get it". it doesn't matter what you or I think, it hurt U2 that people didn't get it. I don't care that people didn't get it, most of you probably don't either, but I think it left a bad taste in their mouth.

The music is flawed in spots, and fantastic in others, the tour was really brave and actually quite groundbreaking, although it didn't sell as well as would have thought.

I just have to think that it was the image, people didn't get it, period. It was consumerism, right? The idea that you can SELL anything? Well that was the ideology, maybe not the image. I guess the image was overblown self-mockery. It just wasn't really well executed, a good idea, I think.

Ultimately, POP and POPmart were about mass consumerism and the irony of fame and it's drawbacks. Faith, or loss of faith, excess, sex, drugs and rock and roll. It really wasn't this cataclysmic failure that has been repeated over and over agian, it's just perceived that way.

It was the true irony that U2 made a tour and album about the marketing of our very soul that caused them to think that this was actually true, irony is dead. Because they couldnt even sell the smart aspects of that tour to the masses. Even when they dressed it up as a pop dance album, and to this day I still think there are a lot of people who don't "get it".

Consumers are all about imagery, unfortunately, I don't think they liked U2's packaging in 1997.

you're brilliant.

and i too would love to punch u2 in the face whenever they play down their 90's efforts. bastards. they should be apologizing for trying to walk on balls as opposed to swinging for the fence.

 

[Nube Gris]

A lot of it its true, some of it isn't

In My Opinion, these are the main reasons:

1. I think the name "Pop" was not a good one. You are right, maybe U2 "Wake Up Dead Man" would have been so cool
U2 " The Last Night On Earth"..... Wow!

2. Bono's image wasn't as cool as The Fly. That yellow shades, and that little green shirt made him look skinny and also his haircut wasn't the best.
So there was anywhere to go but down.
And by the Discotheque video, it wasn't much of a problem, the problem was Bono's image in it. Imagine a very cool Bono in that video? You would forget the rest.
Maybe a Travolta Night Fever image or kind of look i dont know...... im just thinking out loud

But Bono wasn't cool enough, it didn't atracted new fans

3. U2 didn't explain very well the whole PopMart concept, they thought "We are the biggest band, people should get it, its not our job to explain the concept, its anti-cool"

The PopMart tour was really great, the whole "parafernalia" was magnificent, i dont think the band was defeated by their own tecnology, sorry i think it was a mindblowing experience, i was part of the PopMart experience

4. Not being able to perform a lot more songs from Pop: This was just not acceptable. "If God will send his Angels" should have been a highlight, also "Do You Feel Loved" and "Staring At The Sun"
You have to play the new songs, to promote your album. Lets not forget this!

5. Selling the tour to the world, before finishing the record: We know that the band were not able to rehearse as they should have.


So basically the problem was
NOT A GOOD ALBUM NAME
NOT A GOOD IMAGE
NOT READY WITH THE NEW SONGS

After months in, Pop Mart was a SUCCESS
Why? They were in form. As simple as that
This should have happened from the very start

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUALITY OF THE ALBUM. PLEASE LET PEOPLE KNOW, I AM SURE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE CONFUSED ABOUT IT, SADLY THE MEDIA HAS BEEN RESPONSABLY OF THIS, BECAUSE ITS THE EASIER AND FASTER WAY TO REVIEW SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T WORK. INSTEAD OF MAKING AN ANALISIS LIKE ALL OF YOU HAVE BEEN MAKING, THEY WENT " POP FLOPS, ITS CRAP"

IT ISN'T! ITS BRILLIANT!!!

PLEASE GIVE POP THE PLACE IT DESERVES!!!

 

[Axver]

It was the first U2 single in 4 years.

-Miggy D

First in two. HMTMKMKM and Miss Sarajevo were both singles in 1995. Your Blue Room was going to also be a single but wasn't released because Miss Sarajevo bombed in the US.

 

[JOFO]

discoteque is badass, jofo, come on.

but i like the idea of releasing hold me...as the first single...had they not released it earlier of course...

ah, it's ok....I like it......but then they ruin it with the fuckin best of version.....plus, compared to DYFL and mofo...it's weaker.

 

[theu2fly]

U2 said that selling 8 million copies was failing for them...

Considering that Joshua and Achtung sold around 10-14 each.

 

[Miggy D]

U2 said that selling 8 million copies was failing for them...

Considering that Joshua and Achtung sold around 10-14 each.

Yep. The point here is to consider 'failure' in U2 terms. When your previous big release (Achtung Baby) sold 14-16 million, selling 7-8 is failing.

-Miggy

 

[cmb737]

I completely agree with the spirit of this post...however:

Mofo brought my wife to her knees at her very first U2 concert, when she went just because and not because she was a fan.

She became a complete addict after one show.

 

[indra]

They didn't wanna go Pearl Jam on us and keep making what they wanted to make, no matter how big or small the fan base. At least that's what I make of it.

I agree with this, and I find it kinda sad. I know, I know , I know U2 wants to be the biggest band on earth, but still.

 

[Axver]

What is this crap about U2 stopping making what they want to make? Then just what ARE they making? Somehow I get this feeling that they really wanted to make songs like SYCMIOYO, COBL, and OOTS. Just because some fans are opposed to U2's post-Pop change and just because the band were influenced to change doesn't mean the band aren't making music they want to make.

This is stupid. U2 make what U2 want to make. They wouldn't bother recording otherwise.

 

[Zoots]

Hey, maybe they are making what they really really want to make artistically. But we'll never know for sure. Had Pop been a fantastic success, things may (or may not) have been different. Bottomline is you can't deny the possibility of album sales playing a part in a band's artistic integrity... just my opinion.

 

[MrBrau1]

Disco was shit. If God Will Send His Angels was shit. LNOE was shit. Please was shit. Miami was shit. That's why Pop failed. U2 disliked some of these songs so much they released remixed (or re-recorded) single versions in 1997. They didn't like the record then, and the remixes show that.

 

[Zoomerang96]

no mr. brau, just your opinions are shit.

and axver, money talks. LOUDLY. just ask the eagles who are once again hitting the road to tour america again.

i believe the tour is called "the farewell tour: part 1". they're even mocking themselves, but the truth is, they need the money.

u2 don't, but i get the feeling they enjoy getting their hands on it more these days than ever before.

not that there's anything wrong with that of course. i'd LOVE to have that kind of money. it's just that they were making so much when they were making progressive music, i'm not sure why they're going about things the way they are now...

 

[allbecauseofu2]

rem hasn't had the sucess pop had since like1996! they would love for pop's sucess now lol. disocteqe had been remixed alot on techno compalation albums, it has enjoyed a cult status of its own sorta. the beat is too dam good . it might have been a touqe in cheek, but it also actuly rocked. pop did as good as chemical brothers and proldigy in 1997, whitch was just ok and not huge. so u2 did as good as they stuff that influnced them. i love pop and enoy the journey it takes me on. casue its so far from the way it affected me in the 80's. and then the stuff after pop making the circle complete.

 

[Zoots]

Disco was shit. If God Will Send His Angels was shit. LNOE was shit. Please was shit. Miami was shit. That's why Pop failed. U2 disliked some of these songs so much they released remixed (or re-recorded) single versions in 1997. They didn't like the record then, and the remixes show that.

Woah woah woah... easy on those OPINIONS. You're in the way of a herd of 'Pop' lovers. Don't get run over.

By the way, if the equivalent of the above post was made by a person who disliked ATYCLB or HTDAAB, they'd probably get ostracized from this website.

 

[MrBrau1]

Hey, maybe they are making what they really really want to make artistically. But we'll never know for sure. Had Pop been a fantastic success, things may (or may not) have been different. Bottomline is you can't deny the possibility of album sales playing a part in a band's artistic integrity... just my opinion.

Do you feel the same about U2's forced change after Rattle And Hum? The movie tanked. The press raped them, and the record didn't sell as well as it's predecessor. U2 went away, and came back with a different sound. They can do it in 1991 and it's honest, but not 2000?

Maybe they pushed it as far as it would go in the 90's. 4 albums, 1 so strange they wouldn't even call it a U2 record.

 

[Axver]

Maybe they pushed it as far as it would go in the 90's. 4 albums, 1 so strange they wouldn't even call it a U2 record.

Right. Really, where else could they go? You can only be in outer space for so long before you need to come back to earth. But it seems people have a problem with U2 being on this planet.

And really, if people think there's no exploration on ATYCLB or HTDAAB, they're bloody delusional.

 

[MrBrau1]

no mr. brau, just your opinions are shit.

1/2 my post was opinion. The remixes are fact. Dispute it.

 

[yolland]

If I really wanted to bash America it certainly wouldnt be based on musical preference.

Huh. Someone must've been twisting your arm when you wrote your first post then.

2. There is too many rednecks in the US that wouldnt like anything that is considered even the slightest bit expimental, if its not got the classic rock sound or country sound to it...any band would have a problem selling an experimental album in big numbers.

3. U2 had aged past the point of being cool in America by the time ZooTV had ended and the video for Discotheque probably came across as being a "midlife crisis" type of video for most people in america who have the idea that music is a young mans or womans game.

Gee. I always felt my indifference to 'Pop' was due to its relative lack of innovativeness, but since you're from a land where people are 'actually accepting of new music and a new sound,' perhaps you could enlighten me to the subversive postmodern splendour of it all. As you know, down here in Dixie we take ourselves REAL seriously, and don't always get that Yoo-ro-pee-an irony thing too good.

it's relative to what the public wants, the American public in general (broadly speaking) likes entertainment over artistic value. I think this is because most people aren't really hardcore fans of music or movies even, they are content to be entertained for X amount of time. Me, personally, I love music, play music, listen to music, I am a junkie, so I certainly expect to have a different taste than most people and be in the vast minority.

The problem seems to be, U2 want those people to listen to them too, which to bring it back full circle to the subject at hand, is precisely why these people didn't get POP, they didn't even care to get it, they just want to be entertained and not have to do much thinking.

Wow, thank God there are real music fans like you around to keep profound, subtle cultural commentary like PopMart alive. Must be a real pisser to have to share it with the sort of coarse, vulgar, culturally illiterate pinheads who account for most of U2's sales. I mean, can you see Clay Aiken challenging his audience with a 40-ft. lemon? It's like what Franz Kafka said: Art must be an ice-axe to break up the seas frozen inside us. (He probably meant things like 'Discotheque' and 'Miami.') Deep, deep, deep.

 

[Zoots]

I kinda see what you're saying Mr. Brau1 but let's face it here.

Achtung Baby was a fucking brilliant risk in 1991. They didn't make it to win back album sales. I wouldn't call ATYCLB anything close to a risk even though I like the album for what it is.

 

[MrBrau1]

And really, if people think there's no exploration on ATYCLB or HTDAAB, they're bloody delusional.

The exploration on Pop is "cool" cause it references Prodigy, Underworld and the like.

The exploration on ATYCLB and HTDAAB is "not cool" because it references Al Green and Van Morrison and U2.

 

[Zoomerang96]

i think my problem is that i find their music to be boring. it just is. it doesnt excite me.

then there's the stuff outside the music... bono with his mouth open looking more than a little stupid in EVERY. SINGLE. PICTURE. with an article where he once again makes a complete ass out of himself.

"yeah, we're the best in the world....blah blah blah". who the hell says that?! are you so insecure that you actually have to SAY that?! who are you trying to convince?? your fans already know it.

don't get me going on the lyrics. they're horrid IN COMPARISON to pre 1998 material. there are, of course exceptions. mercy is amazing.

it's just that bono can do so much better, and he really let the rest of the band down on the last two albums.

of course, the band didn't do a whole lot worth noting on atyclb to begin with, so let's just call it a wash.

and mr. brau, my opinions are no doubt shit to you. that's fine, i'm glad you stick out. you have conviction, and i know you truly believe in what you say. you're not a mindless fan who loves everything they've ever done simply cause it's u2, and they can do no wrong.

 

[Nerfherder]

And by the Discotheque video, it wasn't much of a problem, the problem was Bono's image in it. Imagine a very cool Bono in that video? You would forget the rest.
Maybe a Travolta Night Fever image or kind of look i dont know...... im just thinking out loud

But Bono wasn't cool enough, it didn't atracted new fans

This is funny to me personally because the Discotheque video is actually what introduced me to U2. It was so out of left field, so weirdly entertaining and self-mocking that I couldn't believe who the artists were at the end of the video. "U2?" Aren't they those serious Irish guys who made Sunday Bloody Sunday? I was hooked from that point on. LOL.

Based on a wider perspective of the band's history and fanbase, though, I can understand how the new direction they were going would possibly confuse and alienate some people and former fans. However, I think quite a few people absolutely loved it! lol

Great thread, btw.