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

[Yahweh]

Pop and Popmart were excellent I could give a shit if anybody else liked it in my idea POP had everything U2 had done in it right from 1980 onwards.

 

[LuvandPeace1980]

A)
Discotheque was a song designed to point out some things that were going on with music/dance and pills ? It's obvious from the lyrics where Bono is coming from I remember a quote bono had at the time and he said this about Discotheque ' It's about looking for love in all the wrong places'. I just see that song as an examination of what was happening musically and that tied in with the dance scene etc.. I just don't think the same thing can be said about the U.S. at that particular time as dance music was taking over more so in Europe. Pop was always about U2 bringing some dance trends to the U.S.
B)
The reason why I think Pop failed a little bit is because Pop is U2's most melon colie album and has alot less hope and Answers in it than all of there other album's. It's just a bunch of unanswered questions and examination's I mean there are still a few answered, but what I found in ATYCLB is that it has alot of answers and alot of direction each song knows where it is going?
The new people to U2 couldn't relate to the new music the same as we could because we didn't know where U2 had been.. the songs had no simple little messages that could be interpreted by new fans it seemed.
Now this is the big bit..
C) U2 were always out to conquer rock they did it around the Josh Tree Era IMO.. and they knew music was evolving and we all know the story of progression. They took rock very far with Zooropa and Pop. I loved both of these albums alot, Pop is my second favourite and it really is just so real, it's Bono at his darkest and most doubtful at times.. but it's very real. It's what they had got to as the band and I think with ATCLB they had a real risk of fucking it up, I don't like the Album that much but I must say when I first heard it, I felt relieved and I thought it was great to hear that raw U2 playing.. it seemed like U2 were about to give up with Pop. I honestly don't think U2 wanted to make ATYCLB.. they needed to. They have said it themselves, I heard an interview with Bono from Perth after a Popmart concert saying 'we need to go back to basics' So if anything ATYCLB was just a step so they could see well as a progressive band we are decreasing, lets see if we can increase and plain rock band. The point is you can't change the world with songs that aren't heard. You people out there in the forum wouldn't know of U2 if you didn't hear that first single on the radio and Pop is fucking excellent. Quit fighting about it.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

i loved u2 when i was little in the 80's. but after 1990 i lost track. i remebed liking them on mtv and all. then in 95, somone had zooropa. and i got reintrouduced to them. and i was weirded out but i like it. i had neved heard any pre (or realy post_ joshua tree. i think i remembered new years, but thats it. by the time pop came out, i was ready to go. i loved the album, casue i loved electronic music.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

I wouldn't call ATYCLB anything close to a risk even though I like the album for what it is.

Ah, but that is where Bono himself might say you are wrong. Going back to the "classic" U2 sound was quite a risk for him, because he knew there'd be detractors who would claim that U2 was "falling back" on their old sound. It was a huge risk for Bono at least, and I'm sure he was uncomfortable with the change until "Beautiful Day" came out.

As for Pop being shit, I don't think that is true. If you were introduced to U2 in the 90's it's right up there with AB. But if you knew the band from an earlier period and loved AB, then Pop falls just a bit short of the finish line.

And as for Yahweh's viewpoints on the American audience, it's offbase and obviously prejudiced, but I'm hoping he just had a few too many and was ranting. America is U2 biggest fanbase. As a country that is. Europe as a continent, most likely, but as a singular country no one can touch the American fans. Doesn't mean we're a better fanbase but I certainly don't feel it's a weak fanbase.

The redneck comment has no place in this forum.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

POP failed in the US. IMO it probably did fine outside of the world...

I don't agree with the first couple of posts. I believe Discotheque was a great first single. I believe Pop debuted strong on the strength of the first single. Discotheque charted well, but somebody correct me if I'm wrong, if I do believe so. I believe the singles that followed helped leadl to the album's downfall. Staring at the Sun and then Last Night were songs released after Discotheque and they did NOTHING for the album. I remember Discotheque having a huge buzz as well. Fine songs but one of those songs U2 admits to not being "finished" and another song that was more powerful live then what was recorded for the album.

I also believe the music video may have given ammunition for critics or the close-minded to think of U2 differently but who knows.

I think the timing/ release time of the album was off too. Released FAR TOO LATE to have an impact on the scene. HMTMKMKM was huge and it could have come off of POP, but that was about 2 years before the release of POP. The sound would have been more "innovative" if released earlier. But by the time U2 got in the game, too many bands doing the whole techno thing.

Also U2 may have looked like they were riding a techno wave and that turns off a lot of people. When groups like Chemical Brothers, Prodigy, Moby, etc. are getting play and major promotion at the same time, U2 looks like they are just "capitalizing" on a sound. I believe the Chemical Brothers even dissed U2 for POP. Not good for U2 to have the people they are seeking inspiration from dissing the music.

Also, pop music (Spice Girls, Hanson, etc) and hip hop just started getting REALLY huge at the time. People were sick of "alternative music" and wanted to hear something catchy or melodic. The whole "pop" boom that led to the boy bands started around the time of the release of POP. A sign of changing tastes. Would garage rock been huge if the "leaders" of the movement released albums during grunge? Probably not. They would just be considered another alternative band.

Also look at Madonna's Ray of Light. Techno elements with a lot of guitar... well received overall and IMO it was b/c it wasn't as depressing and more catchy and "happy." POP doesn't actually fit that criteria. It is at times overwrought and not as melodic. The mainstream at the time wanted real pop music.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

I think Popmart was fine... the huge TV screen was great even though people up close to the stage couldn't see shit on the TV screen. The negative was how awful they were at Las Vegas... that is bad word of mouth waiting to happen.

Also the lemon is cool for stuff like Velvet Dress but pretty useless over all. If the lemon actually flew around or did some more laser light effects, it would be awesome. But it baiscally did absolutely nothing.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

funny, chemical brothers opened for u2 in 2000. anyway, i mentioned before that wave of techno in 1997, wasn;t that big of wave as it turned out. pop did as good as the real techno bands did. so they all crashed/did ok as each other. discoteqce had a life of its own sorta.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

funny, chemical brothers opened for u2 in 2000. anyway, i mentioned before that wave of techno in 1997, wasn;t that big of wave as it turned out. pop did as good as the real techno bands did. so they all crashed/did ok as each other. discoteqce had a life of its own sorta.

Yeah they (Chemical Brothers) did but they didn't sing the praises of POP or U2. They actually were bitter sounding towards U2 in that U2 was trying to "take" a sound an genre and either "homogenize it" or repackage it to the masses. The Chemical Brothers were NOT supportive of U2 at that time. Read the Snow Patrol news blurb.... they're doing support for the upcoming tour and kissing U2 ass. The Chemical Bothers on the other hand sort of thumbed their noses at U2. The shows seemed like another gig to them. Prodigy rejected an invitation to tour with U2. When bands are dying for an opening slot with U2, a relatively smaller band thumbs their noses at the chance. At least Howie B was up on U2.

Techno wasn't huge but it did have an impact. Though you don't think of albums such Garbage 2.0 or Ray of Light as techno albums, they had STRONG techno elements and did extremely well. Crystal Method also got good air time. And if not for the "minor wave," IMO Moby, Fatboy Slim, etc... would not have hit it big.

I'm sure there are people on here who remember the interview.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

I have no problem with the Chemical Brothers "diss" I think it started getting popular to diss U2 at the time. Pop era was when U2 got dissed by George Harrison, Patty Smith bagged on Bono, an alternative band from AP (fairly popular at the time but can't remember) described POP as a big letdown, Live and Third Eye Blind made some goofy cracks on U2, etc... A relatively hard time for U2.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

i get what your saying, but i dig when older bands use new sounds. to me its the same as when they borrewed from bands before them. its a influnece and its out thier. of course, one of the biggest ever instances where a established band was influnced by a album made after thier "time", was metallica when, they were infunced by danzigs album in 1988. then metallica made a small album called "the black album". i guess we know who won that "explortation". so i;m not bothered when this thing happens. i was introuduced to david bowie throguh his earthling album in 1997. this album is 10 times more techno then "pop". if anyone exploited techno in 97 whos was old its bowie. lol i'll be honest. that album is much more techno then ray of light and garbage. far more insane, and bowie is older then all of em. POP to me, sounds radio eadish at times. disoctqece by itself might be my fav techo/techno influnced song ever. the beat is just too dam good to me regardless of who made it and why.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

I have no problem with "exploiting" a sound if the end product is good music. Just relating to you what I remember reading at the time. Bowie would also be grouped amongst the other artists trying to "exploit" techno. Hell, there was an album with metal bands collaborating with techno bands for songs... the music by its progenitors may have not been huge, but it was huge enough to affect other artists and the music of the time. Cher also was tapping the dance music thing. If Cher's got her hands in it for inspiration, then you know the genre/ style has problems.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

hmm cher,lol i didn't even regonize that as her song till i read it was her. that do you belive or soemthing song. actuly, to bowies credit, his late 70;s album do have a influnce on electronic muisc. his berlin trilogy with eno. so he almost is kinda connected to techno. bowie has a wide range of influnce. he's persona is def weird enough for techno,lol it fits. i mean he had a charater that was from outer space, old ziggy.!

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Bowie does have a little connection from the past (but I haven't heard a lot of his stuff to make an assessment) but he has been all over the place and everybody loves Bowie so people will turn a blind eye when Bowie does borrow some stuff. Bowie was still part of the many who just sort of borrowed techno- timing is everything.

 

[bathiu]

Whatever you'll say about PopMart, just remember that if the Golden Arch didn't "fell over" on the crowd, you wouldn't have this "heart" thing on ElevationTour...

 

[allbecauseofu2]

i am a big fan, and the late 70's stuff sounds like the passengers. a good way of explaining it to people who havn't heard it. actuly, a big factor in bowie was his tour with nine inch nails in 95/96. that actuly powered his earthling album. nine inch nails is industrial as we all know. but then bowie added equal techno influnce as well. madonna might have had the biggest commercal sucess with this stuff.

 

[U2girl]

...of how it was presented.

First Mistake: Releasing Discotheque as the first single. Had they released Gone first instead, Pop would have done much better. Discotheque isn't a bad song, it's just a bad first single. Gone would have been a big smash on radio.

Second Mistake: The Discotheque video. As a U2 fan, I can enjoy it. It's funny, and it shows the boys having a laugh. Nothing wrong with that. But commercially, U2 couldn't have done themselves any more harm had they started killing fans.

Third Mistake: The clothing. Bono oozed cool as The Fly. So what was with the bubble pants and muscle shirts? He may have been mocking the outlandish absurdity of fame and excess, but it was too ridiculous by half.


Fourth Mistake: PopMart. The tour was too gaudy, too big, and far too impersonal.

Agreed.

Weak first single, not too bad a video (were it not for those ridicioulus outfits and dance at the end), lame clothing and megalomaniac, pretentious tour.
(yup, let's put out 40 foot lemon and the biggest screen in the world just because we can )

Also, add the fiasco of opening night of the tour and reworked single versions of 3 songs (and additional 3 later on). Clearly U2 was not 100% happy with the song versions on the album.

The problem with Pop is
- the obvious jump on the dance/techno bandwagon with the image and first three songs on the album. middle-age crisis.
- missing the U2 magic. The only album - apart from Rattle and Hum - that doesn't have Lanois, Eno or Lillywhite in any form and the only album that doesn't have a memorable song (even Rattle and Hum has Desire, even Zooropa has Stay)
- uncertainty. there's 6 experimental songs and 6 straight-forward rock songs. the "quickie" album Zooropa is more tight as an album.
- uneven-ness. Some good songs, but overall not convincing.
- lyrically, Achtung Baby and Zooropa who have very similar themes are better. I guess the same joke 3rd time around isn't funny anymore.

Zootlesque: posts like MrBrau's happen to ATYCLB and HTDAAB all the time, and a lot more often too.

To say U2 should have gone the way of Pearl Jam and Radiohead is a bit odd. I don't think they want that, and I'm not sure most of the fans do either. Leave obscurity and fear of success to other bands. I don't think some people not liking U2's current era is the band's problem, either.

As for U2 and money, funny how no one disses Zoo TV tour and Popmart who cost a ton of money (guess who payed for that?), and how everything was ok when U2 made an album, plus a book, plus a movie in 1987.

It's even funnier how everything was cool when U2 went against the wishes of the 80's fans in the 90's, and now that they're comfortable sounding like a band and *gasp* U2, it's a problem.
I guess experimentation is only okay when YOU like it.

 

[Axver]

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

- missing the U2 magic. The only album - apart from Rattle and Hum - that doesn't have Lanois, Eno or Lillywhite in any form and the only album that doesn't have a memorable song (even Rattle and Hum has Desire, even Zooropa has Stay)

That's just plain untrue. Firstly, 'memorable' song is pretty subjective. Secondly, RAH DID feature Lanois and Eno - it's this wonderful little track called Heartland.

By the way, when talking about memorable tracks off RAH, you can't forget All I Want Is You and Angel Of Harlem, but I'm getting way off topic here.

 

[bathiu]

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

The problem with Pop is
1) the obvious jump on the dance/techno bandwagon with the image and first three songs on the album. middle-age crisis.
2) missing the U2 magic. The only album that doesn't have Lanois, Eno or Lillywhite in any form and the only album that doesn't have a memorable song (even Rattle and Hum has Desire, even Zooropa has Stay)
3) uncertainty. there's 6 experimental songs and 6 straight-forward rock songs. the "quickie" album Zooropa is more tight as an album.
4) uneven-ness. Some good songs, but overall not convincing.
5) lyrically, Achtung Baby and Zooropa who have very similar themes are better. I guess the same joke 3rd time around isn't funny anymore.

I didn't want to... but when I see a huge piece of BS, I just have to react...

title: "the problem with ATYCLB is:"
1) the obvious jump on the "pop-bands-sell-much"/popular music/we-want-to-compete-with-Britney bandwagon with all 4 first songs aka all 4 singles from the album... middle-age crisis!
2) missing the U2 magic, with Lanois and Eno back who have no idea what's going on in the music world anymore and who butchered all the songs in production process, without any big memorable moments on the album, some sparks in Kite, maybe. But POP had at least 4 great moments (MoFo, SATS, Gone, WUDM)
3) uncertainty. there's 11 songs all going in diferent direction, the worst example of "pop music" possible, the only U2 album without a theme, without any "personality" at all. the "quickie" album Zooropa and so called "unfinished" POP are more tight as ALBUMS.
4) uneven-ness. One or two good songs, but overall not convincing and simply boring,
5) lyrically, everything from Boy to POP and HTDAAB is so much better and more deep; unlike any other album, especialy POP that have unique, depressing, with lots of phylosophical questions of life and faith, more than any other album ever had, many for the first time in U2's history without any similarity to other albums; ATYCLB is a mix, a "best of" of Bono's lyrics repeated many times before in a much better form; and all written as simply as it gets; I guess the same joke 10th time around isn't funny anymore, not to mention a lame joke is never funny.

We have (on POP) 3 out of 5 songs reworked on singles, one isn't even a single version but a simple "radio edit" of album's version (IGWSHA) only because there is no radio on this planet that will play songs that are longer than 5min (same thing happened with SYCMIOYO, but no ones complaining).
So technicaly we have 2/5, lets compare it with 2/4 totaly reworked and rerecorded single versions of ATYCLB's singles - Walk On and Elevation... but of course only POP songs are the ones that the band wasn't happy about ...

 

[Aardvark747]

Mofo should've been the first single!!!

 

[Marusa]

or Staring at the sun...many ppl who r not u2 fans love this song!!

 

[D'oh!]

Pop is definetley a failure, there is no running away from that FACT. It is a big dissapointment by U2's standards, and the band are right to be unhappy with most of the material on that record.

Agree with Miggy D that Discotheque was a poor choice for the first single. Any single at that point would have gone gold, i just think a better song would have helped the album in the long run. Just see what Beautiful Day did for ATYCLB and Vertigo for HTDAAB.
I dont think Gone or any of the 'rockers' would have been considered as the first single. In which case 'Do you feel loved?' should have been the obvious choice.

But Miggy D i disagree when you say Pop did not fail because of the music. Sure, they got the pesentation all wrong, the first single was the wrong choice, and the image certainly did not help U2's cause.
I think all that would not have mattered had the music actually been GOOD. Those 12 songs together account for the weakest batch of songs U2 has done. There is not a single classic on that record, and a couple of tracks would rank among the worst in the bands catalogue.

And a message to those who keep bashing ATYCLB: There is a reason why that album has walked all over Pop in terms of sales, critical acclaim. It is the MUSIC. The music on Pop cannot hope to compare with stellar tracks like Beatiful Day, Walk on, Kite, In a little while, When i look at the world, Stuck in a moment...and New York.

You can bitch and moan all you want about ATYCLB, but the fact of the matter is U2 took a risk, went back to what they did best, and because of that All that you can't leave behind will be remembered as the album that once again made U2 the bigget band in the world.

 

[God Part III]

I feel you're missing the point. What is great about Pop, Popmart and their image at the time was that they didn't seem to care if it failed or not. I loved them. I think it was their wildest, weirdest and most exciting years.
And if you didn't like them... They didn't care. They lived the idea out to the full, and how much money they made didn't matter.

 

[bathiu]

Pop is definetley a failure, there is no running away from that FACT. It is a big dissapointment by U2's standards, and the band are right to be unhappy with most of the material on that record.

The only problem with that is that U2 were and are happy with MOST of the material from POP. The problem is that people like to change the band's words "I think those songs are realy great, among our best; if we only had more time to work on a FEW songs..." to "U2 is not happy with most of the songs"...
But if working more on a few songs mean changing them into "best of" versions, I'm glad they didn't finish it!

As for the rest of your post...
ATYCLB better than POP?

The truth is there is ONLY ONE bad thing about the whole process of making POP.
It's Larry's "prophecy"/wish: "One day we should actualy make a pop record".
- "And I think we did that on ATYCLB" - Bono (from MTVeurope interviews)
ATYCLB - No theme, no "personality"... dicusting pop music.

POP - you can love it or hate it ("the weakest batch of songs U2 has done" would NOT have such reactions).
ATYCLB - you can love it or get bored to death by it ("the weakest batch of songs U2 has done" have such reactions)
What's worse?

 

[U2Kitten]

Pop didnt fail at all for the most part it was one of U2s best selling albums outside of the US in general.

Well I wouldn't say best selling, it didn't flop overseas as much as here (by U2 standards I mean) but it was hardly a best seller compared to JT, AB or the 2 latest ones. Check the Peeling off the Dollar Bills forum for more details.

1. There was a generation gap between Zooropa and POP where a lot of people forgot about U2.

This is a new one, and not true at all. If people 'forgot' about them why the hell did ATYCLB and Bomb do so well, and why are there still so many longtime fans around?

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.

"Experimental" doesn't always mean 'good music.' It doesn't always mean bad music either. But I'm sick of hearing Americans trashed for being too 'stupid' or 'rednecked' to 'get it.' When will you people ever admit we DID get it, but a lot of people just plain don't LIKE it??? Don't we have a right to that choice??

And I'm so pissed off and offended at the 'didn't understand' and 'redneck' comments I won't even bother to answer the rest!

The whole thing that has bugged me about this for years is the concept that the people who like it, or the people who believe U2 can do no wrong, refuse to believe there was anything wrong with the album, or the way it was presented, there must be something wrong with US the people who didn't care for it, and that is INSULTING! You insinuate we must be stupid and lacking mentally and intellectually. You think it's 'genius' and only a few special people can see it like the Emperor's clothes! This is bullshit! Can't you just accept that it was not very good to a lot of people and respect that? I don't care if you like it as long as you don't put anyone else down for opposing opinions. I have never seen any other album by any other band do this to its fans!

 

[U2girl]

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

That's just plain untrue. Firstly, 'memorable' song is pretty subjective. Secondly, RAH DID feature Lanois and Eno - it's this wonderful little track called Heartland.

By the way, when talking about memorable tracks off RAH, you can't forget All I Want Is You and Angel Of Harlem, but I'm getting way off topic here.

Heartland was the song written back in the Joshua Tree days, it's not really a RaH new song - that is why Eno and Lanois are credited. The rest of it was produced by Jimmy Iovine.

Agreed, subjective but I don't think Pop songs made the impact like these did to the wider audience outside of U2's fanbase.

 

[U2Kitten]

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

Zootlesque: posts like MrBrau's happen to ATYCLB and HTDAAB all the time, and a lot more often too.

Oh yes, ad nauseum, over and over again

To say U2 should have gone the way of Pearl Jam and Radiohead is a bit odd. I don't think they want that, and I'm not sure most of the fans do either. Leave obscurity and fear of success to other bands. I don't think some people not liking U2's current era is the band's problem, either.

As for U2 and money, funny how no one disses Zoo TV tour and Popmart who cost a ton of money (guess who payed for that?), and how everything was ok when U2 made an album, plus a book, plus a movie in 1987.

It's even funnier how everything was cool when U2 went against the wishes of the 80's fans in the 90's, and now that they're comfortable sounding like a band and *gasp* U2, it's a problem.
I guess experimentation is only okay when YOU like it.

And this is the ultimate 'IRONY' of all, and they weren't even trying

 

[U2Kitten]

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".

Once again, the excuse it 'flopped' because people 'didn't get it' is very tiring. I 'got it' just fine, the message you describe here is EXACTLY what I knew all along they were trying to do, but you know what? It didn't matter. The music was not something I liked and they looked like a bunch of fools. I wasn't interested. Do you really think if people 'got it' they'd suddenly like songs they don't enjoy?

 

[bathiu]

Well I wouldn't say best selling, it didn't flop overseas as much as here (by U2 standards I mean) but it was hardly a best seller compared to JT, AB or the 2 latest ones. Check the Peeling off the Dollar Bills forum for more details.



This is a new one, and not true at all. If people 'forgot' about them why the hell did ATYCLB and Bomb do so well, and why are there still so many longtime fans around?



"Experimental" doesn't always mean 'good music.' It doesn't always mean bad music either. But I'm sick of hearing Americans trashed for being too 'stupid' or 'rednecked' to 'get it.' When will you people ever admit we DID get it, but a lot of people just plain don't LIKE it??? Don't we have a right to that choice??

And I'm so pissed off and offended at the 'didn't understand' and 'redneck' comments I won't even bother to answer the rest!

The whole thing that has bugged me about this for years is the concept that the people who like it, or the people who believe U2 can do no wrong, refuse to believe there was anything wrong with the album, or the way it was presented, there must be something wrong with US the people who didn't care for it, and that is INSULTING! You insinuate we must be stupid and lacking mentally and intellectually. You think it's 'genius' and only a few special people can see it like the Emperor's clothes! This is bullshit! Can't you just accept that it was not very good to a lot of people and respect that? I don't care if you like it as long as you don't put anyone else down for opposing opinions. I have never seen any other album by any other band do this to its fans!

Than why wasn't it that bad in the "ROTW"? Do you have a "collective mind" in U.S.?
Won't you agree that most people in U.S. were living with boy-and-girl-band's music more than people in the "ROTW"?
I'm not questioning american "intellect", if you're "stupid" or not. I'm questioning american "musical taste" in the late 90's.

I want to remind that U2 was not alone. Oasis, Pearl Jam, RHCP... etc. bands also had huge problems with selling their albums.
...and then people get bored of all the music around and U2, also RHCP were very succesfull with their albums.
Even thought I don't like ATYCLB, I must admit that sales of POP and of ATYCLB have nothing to do with the music on them, but with the music world at the time.
In 1997 people were tired of rock, in 2000/2001 they were hungry for rock (no matter how good or bad it was)

Right now I feel people are again alittle tired of rock music... there's just to many of it everywhere.

 

[U2Kitten]

The late 90's were the absolute worst years in rock and US popular music (IMO) since the 70's disco craze. It WAS boring, you had all those lilith fair girls who all sounded alike , screeching divas and the emergence of the teen pop craze and raprock which SUCK. Those were indeed dark days, I agree. Unfortunately, just when I needed a good album from my favorite band, I didn't get it

Must add that RHCP Californication did kick ass and I did like it, best CD from a dismal era. Parallel Universe is a GOOD example of how experimentation with electronica can be good rock and roll.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Again... I do not believe Discotheque was a poor single? DID IT NOT chart well? It was U2's only single in the top 10 of Billboards Hot 100 or something. It created buzz for the album. I don't know what more you can ask for a single. I know people here are used to "singles" being more "poopy" or easy listening but that isn't always the case.

Again doesn't worldwide success mean anything? POP sold a lot of records outside the US. Doesn't that = success sales wise?

I believe the singles released thereafter did not help sustain the album. IMO that is more evident then talking about "image" being the problem. At the environment/ mainsteeam was starting to just get sick of the depressing grunge era/ alt rock era. POP's tone was very melancholy. Not enough party... If Zooropa was a minor success in the US and is basically an album they put together on the fly with little promotion then POP SHOULD have been huger. But it wasn't.