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

[U2DMfan]

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?

You don't read ver thoroughly, although this thread is getting longer and longer, take note that it doesnt matter if YOU GOT IT, the fact was, the perception of the failure of POP/POPmart is because MOST people did not get it.

Step outside of your own hemisphere for two seconds and think, this is about what you think of the album, the discussion is why it failed, or appeared to fail. It's like your response is the most subjective response possible, something like saying "Miami is shit because I don't like it", it's precisely what you are saying, because you "got it" then the argument is rendered invalid?, that's bullshit.

Again, as I typed back on the 2nd or 3rd page, it doesnt matter if you got it, or I got it, or if we liked it or didnt like it, we are discussing, trying to anyways, why it failed, or appeared to have failed. It's because it wasn't understood, good or bad. Some people thought it was crap because they didnt like the music, fine, that's not the fuckign point. The point is that U2 gave up on that particualr brand of U2 because they failed to get the idea across, we are asking the questions, why.

And if someone didnt get it, it doesnt mean shit, it wasnt that deep, it was just a statement. It reads like someone who didnt like hte music on POP reads the opinion and says "well you are being prenetious because you are saying yo got it, and I didnt"

the point was, the message, the object of the art wasnt well recieved and thats what the whole discussion is about.

Fucking frustrating to be honest on this board and try good discussion, people often read what they want to read and gloss over the rest. I have been here almost 5 years and still dont have a thousand posts, why? Because the only thing that is tiring is having to talk down to apologists who won't read an oppsing opinion objectively.

I dont want to appear to talk down to anybody, but some people (not just whomever I quoted) just read what they want to read, they only parts of an opinion they absorb are the parts that offend their senses, as if they are wrong about something. It's not about right and wrong as much as about it's understanding why things are the way they are. Much like religion is right or wrong based on a personal particualr view, or faith or belief, but the discussion of that religion can just be about understadning it. That's all that is going on.

You think POP sucks? Well fine, but that's NOT why it failed, because it didnt really even fail, even if you think it sucks. This is the whole point. It APPEARED to fail.

 

[2Hearts]

Gotta love Edge's "Child Molester" moustache. I mean how much cooler can you get!!!

 

[Miggy D]

Again, as I typed back on the 2nd or 3rd page, it doesnt matter if you got it, or I got it, or if we liked it or didnt like it, we are discussing, trying to anyways, why it failed, or appeared to have failed. It's because it wasn't understood, good or bad. Some people thought it was crap because they didnt like the music, fine, that's not the fuckign point. The point is that U2 gave up on that particualr brand of U2 because they failed to get the idea across, we are asking the questions, why.

But that's your opinion. You think it failed because people didn't understand it. U2Kitten thinks it failed because people understood it and didn't like it. Are either of these opinions pure truth? No - they're opinions. I already made my point of view clear in the initial post, but that's just my take on the whole thing. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if it's different from your own.

-Miggy D

 

[Axver]

Gotta love Edge's "Child Molester" moustache. I mean how much cooler can you get!!!

What's up with people calling that a 'child molester' moustache?

 

[financeguy]

It's not a child molester moustache it's a Freddy Mercury circa 1982 moustache.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

What a great thread. Pop is a very good U2 record. Like a lot of U2 records it has some peaks and valleys, and we can debate them night and day.

I must say I'm impressed with the passion some fans are showing in this thread.

 

[Miggy D]

It is totally a molestache. It's just dirty looking. It makes me think of child molesters.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Hey Miggy, I have to say I found it funny when drwho called you a "her". Sorry buddy, but that's comedy!

 

[Miggy D]

Hey Miggy, I have to say I found it funny when drwho called you a "her". Sorry buddy, but that's comedy!

Didn't you make that same mistake one time?

OK, that's it - my signature is now going to be:

-Miggy D
Kite remixed:
"I'm a maaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnn, I'm nooooot a girl."

 

[mysticchild]

I feel that PopMart was a joke. I guess that is what they were trying to do, i guess. I didn't get it and the concert was gawdy and over the top. I left the concert crying and saying to "myself this is it, this is their last tour, ever". I just never got into techno and trance music. I was only 29 at the time and that is still young.

 

[U2girl]

auch....

brutal.

disco was a TOP TEN HIT on the BILLBOARD 100. that's ALL airplay. not just modern rock, or adult top 40.

no u2 song has come closer than 21 since then, and i don't think vertigo even broke the top 30.

there's no doubt beautiful day and vertigo were big singles for the band. but you go on and on about how discoteque wasn't any good for them, well all the evidence goes against it.

when it comes to pop, you've made it quite clear you have a bias against it that clouds your judgement.

the same can be said about me when it comes to their material post 1998.

but you won't ever hear me say atyclb and bomb were marketed poorly. the marketing BOTHERED me, but their team did a great job of getting the word out there whether i agreed with the way they did it or not.

I believe Doctorwho replied to you satisfactory, additionally to my post. It's just odd to say nothing after Discotheque has been a hit.
(oops, U2 is not allowed to have hits after 2000)

Pop's sales are the biggest proof about Discotheque being bad as a first single. First single being in charge of promoting the album and all that.

Bias? I guess you'd know a lot about that, yes. Believe it or not, I felt the same from the time Pop came out, even before ATYCLB was released.

Keep believing what you want, though.

 

[Yahweh]

Discotheque was a great first single but in hindsight this is the way I would have released the singles.

1. Discotheque
2. Do You Feel Loved
3. Staring At The Sun
4. Please

Where POP failed at least radio wise was in the release of Last Night On Earth and If God Will Send His Angels, which were more of a convensional rock mode for U2 unfortunatly it was a rather weak one.

 

[intedomine]

Discotheque is a U2 masterpiece and represents everything that is amazing about U2. Who would think that band who could release a song like Running to Stand Still could also release a song like Discotheque.

Tweak the track order a bit, maybe include HMTMKMKM or even North and South of the River, scrap the awful If God will send his angels. That song could have been so much more.

Single releases were pretty spot on. I'd go:

1. Discotheque
2. Last Night on Earth
3. Please
4. Gone
5. Staring at the Sun


So what if it sold comparatively poorly in relation to the other albums. Most U2 fans will tell you that it's a special part of the U2 collection. And critics weren't all THAT dismissive of the album. Only the fuddy duddy critics were.

Although i must admit the Discotheque village people videoclip was a mistake. Although when Discotheque debuted at #3 on the Aussie charts, they didnt show that videoclip, but instead a video of the song being played live.

The PoP era is one that I adore.

 

[Zoomerang96]

I believe Doctorwho replied to you satisfactory, additionally to my post. It's just odd to say nothing after Discotheque has been a hit.
(oops, U2 is not allowed to have hits after 2000)

Pop's sales are the biggest proof about Discotheque being bad as a first single. First single being in charge of promoting the album and all that.

Bias? I guess you'd know a lot about that, yes. Believe it or not, I felt the same from the time Pop came out, even before ATYCLB was released.

Keep believing what you want, though.

oh snap!

you're just impossible to deal with aren't you? u2 aren't allowed to have a hit post 2000?

just what does that even mean?! your comments out of left-field just don't work well.

it's a shame though, cause when you're not having a hissy fit, you come across as a very knowledgable u2 fan. there's no doubt.

 

[stagman]

The Videos of each song were their worst ever..that certainly turned people off the new songs.
Gone should have replaced Last Night on Earth as a single and IGWSHA should not have been a single.

 

[jesseu2]

I know this might be off-topic but miggy and some others who were offended need a reality check here..

I am American and I agree with Yahweh's comments, I am in no way offended because it's the way things are. I am not being racist towards black people but.. My old white room mate was a fuckin wigger (eminem type). He thought every song was like pride/SBS... and he would impersonate them like they sing pride/SBS: "fuck the revolution". I told him many times that its not about the revolution anymore I would tell him u2's music would make me feel better as a person an he said, "how does that make u feel better?" Really couldn't stand him for this (and many other reasons too). he doesn't understand because he's into cRAP. I'm glad he's gone for good(for other reasons too mostly)!

It's true about rednecks in this country, we have country music, their fans who don't know what real music is, square dancers, etc. Pretty much sums them all up. oh, lets grab our cowboy hats and go to the billy bob bar and grill.

I have come to just see that this is the way it is. Accept it!

bash me all you want but it's the way i feel and i've made my points.

And, I love POP

 

[U2girl]

oh snap!

you're just impossible to deal with aren't you? u2 aren't allowed to have a hit post 2000?

just what does that even mean?! your comments out of left-field just don't work well.

it's a shame though, cause when you're not having a hissy fit, you come across as a very knowledgable u2 fan. there's no doubt.

You're the one that keeps ranting about U2 and their horrible ways since 2000. But everything is ok when U2 has a top 10 hit, as long as it's the 90's. Gotta love the irony.

It's sad that so much of your posts have to rely on mocking and insulting others - again and again- when they critique Pop or 90's U2.

 

[Miggy D]

I know this might be off-topic but miggy and some others who were offended need a reality check here..

I am American and I agree with Yahweh's comments, I am in no way offended because it's the way things are. I am not being racist towards black people but.. My old white room mate was a fuckin wigger (eminem type). He thought every song was like pride/SBS... and he would impersonate them like they sing pride/SBS: "fuck the revolution". I told him many times that its not about the revolution anymore I would tell him u2's music would make me feel better as a person an he said, "how does that make u feel better?" Really couldn't stand him for this (and many other reasons too). he doesn't understand because he's into cRAP. I'm glad he's gone for good(for other reasons too mostly)!

It's true about rednecks in this country, we have country music, their fans who don't know what real music is, square dancers, etc. Pretty much sums them all up. oh, lets grab our cowboy hats and go to the billy bob bar and grill.

I have come to just see that this is the way it is. Accept it!

bash me all you want but it's the way i feel and i've made my points.

And, I love POP

You're right, this is off topic.

But I'm an American too. And America has over 280 million people. Labeling us all 'rednecks' as if we are this huge homogenous group is very offensive. It's the same thing as saying 'all homosexuals are flamboyant' or 'all black people are violent.' It's a horribly ignorant stereotype that has no place anywhere in this forum. I've been raised to be informed and tolerant. If I disagree with a policy that say, the German government has implemented, I'm not going to take my anger out on the entire German populace. It wouldn't be fair to people I don't even know.

The people in Kansas are different from the people in California are different from the people in New York, and so on. Heck, the people two towns over from where I live are different from the people living in this one! America is a huge, diverse nation. Sure, we have idiots here. Every country does. Sure, many young people listen to throwaway bubblegum pop. So does Britain. So does France. Is there anything wrong with it? Is there anything wrong with anyone's personal musical tastes? No. It's not any of our business. It's their life, their choice. We don't have to listen to it. I don't listen to country. I don't personally care for it. But I'm not going to insult and degrade people who do.

Treat others how you want to be treated. And don't go making huge generalizations about the most culturally, religiously, and politically diverse nation in the entire world. We may not be perfect, but we're certainly not the shithole others would make us out to be.

-Miggy D

 

[jick]

...of how it was presented.

There are Pop haters out there. I'm not one of them. It's not their best album, but it's definitely a solid one. Gone is one of U2's best songs.

But Pop was not a huge success by U2's standards, and not because of the album. Pop failed because of presentation alone.

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.

You've earned tons of cool collateral from the Zoo TV era, and how do you spend it? By giving The Edge a child molester's moustache and dressing the band up as The Village People. It was supposed to be ironic. It was supposed to be cheesy. It definitely wasn't cool.

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.

"Well who gives a shit if those stupid people didn't get what U2 was trying to do!"

That argument doesn't hold up. U2 were able to say exactly what they wanted to say about music, culture, and stardom during the Zoo TV era and still look incredibly cool at the same time. Here, they just looked absurd.

Imagine if Bono and the boys had worn some darker colors, some grays and blacks, and some dark shades. Not recreating Zoo TV, but not recreating 1977, either. The clothing did not match the music. It took me a very long time to think about Discotheque without thinking of the video. Now I finally like the song.

There are a few outfits from the Pop era that were pretty cool. But for every cool outfit there were 3 huge cowboy hats, 4 yellow jumpsuits and 5 spandex bubble pants.

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

"But that's the point, stupid!"

Just because it was the point doesn't mean it was a good idea.

I watched the live performance of Gone from the Best Of 1990-2000 DVD last night. The band was dwarfed by the scenery. Sure, Zoo TV was flashy, huge, and excessive, but U2 managed to feel part of the spectacle. Popmart nearly drowned them in it. The band looked so tiny and insignificant in front of the huge screen, enormous yellow arch and gigantic metallic lemon. The whole concert felt distant.

I wasn't able to see the tour in person, but I have friends who did, and I've read about it. It seems that it was less a U2 concert and more a multimedia extravaganza while 4 men happened to be playing instruments.

Watching Zoo TV concert videos, I can see it all come together: the setting and scenery serve the band. "PopMart Live in Mexico City" left me feeling cold. Who knew such a huge band could look so small? U2 were defeated by their own technology.

Pop is a good album. It didn't get the presentation it deserved.

It's not that people didn't 'get it': people got it and didn't care for it.

Good album. Poor delivery.

-Miggy D

Sorry for the late reply but I was gone for a week.

First mistake: No song off POP would ever make a good single. They released 6 singles off that album, all of them tanked and none of them was a song called Gone. They had 5 other chances to release Gone but they didn't, so clearly the opportunity was there but they decided it wasn't fitting to be a single. So there was no mistake. Maybe SATS as the first single would have been better.

Second mistake: Even if the Discotheque video was directed by Phil Joanau, Antoin Corbijn, or Steven Speilberg, it would never save the lack of redeeming musical quality of the song.

Third mistake: Again, no good clothing can take away from the quality of the music which was lacking.

Fourth mistake: The tour was more personal because even the people in the back could see U2 through the giant TV screens. They were bigger than the Zoo TV screens. If you want to talk about impersonal, try the JT Tour -- no TV screens and giant stadiums. Imagine how alienated a spectator in the back would feel. Yet the JT Tour sold out, and so did the Zoo TV Tour. By the time, Popmart hit the third leg - they were already playing to half-empty stadiums. It wasn't about the tour but the lack of musical quality.

Many have argued that it was the overall package or the choice of singles that doomed POP. But that is hardly the case. POP failed in all these areas:

1. FAN APPEAL: The album debuted at #1 which doesn't speak much about it quality as it does about U2's snazzy marketing campaign. But the album dropped like a hot potato and hasn't even sold up to 2 million to this day in the USA. Some would argue that it did well outside the USA, but remember it debuted at #1 in 33 countries so that made up majority of the album sales - then it dropped after than. We all know strong debuts aren't indicators of the album's musical quality.

2. BAND ACCEPTANCE: The band has been quick to disown POP. Bono labelled it as "unfinished", Mullen said he wants to finish it, while Eno said it was "disjointed." Even the band's own actions of trying to remodel POP (from making better single versions to the new mixes) show their dissatisfaction and embarrassment about the album.

3. CRITICAL ACCLAIM: POP was the only U2 album post Live Aid that did not bag a Grammy. It did get a nomination but no awards. Nowadays, people say that the Grammies are a fraud and that the voters just pick "safe" selections like U2. But think again, once upon a time during the POP era they did reject U2.

4. TOUR FAILURE: Who could forget the band restarting a song and looking very lost during opening night in Vegas? Then by the very next show in San Diego, they played to a half-emply stadiums. By the time the third leg was in gear, half-empty stadiums were the norm. U2 managed to save face by playing South America (where the have never played before) to good attendance.

5. COMMERCIAL FAILURE: Some say POP didn't sell because U2 was already in the downward trend and that their sales figures were still good for musicians their age. Well U2 proved that wrong with ATYCLB and HTDAAB now. They are even older, yet they still sold more than POP. As a matter of fact, POP is their worst selling effort since the Unforgettable Fire. That is totally embarrassing considering U2 had just come from one of their most successful commercial peaks in their career with Zoo TV and public anticipation was high.

So POP was clearly a failure in all areas. From the critics disliking it, to the fans not buying it, to the band ultimately disowning it then remodelling it.

There are only a few noisy fans of POP (who constitute a vast minority) who keep on trying to "save" POP and indoctrinate the new U2 fans on this board about its real status among U2's catalogue. POP is a failure when compared to the rest of U2's back catalog.

Clearly, POP failed because of the music.

Cheers,

J

 

[Miggy D]

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

Sorry for the late reply but I was gone for a week.

***Edited for length***

Cheers,

J

Good post, Jick. I liked it.

-Miggy

 

[ponkine]

America is a huge, diverse nation.
-Miggy D

Wrong, so wrong why the hell do you still believe AMERICA is a nation ?. America is a continent, as Europe, Asia or Africa. Please stop talking like that

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA... you talk like...
AMERICA OF UNITED STATES

 

[Miggy D]

Wrong, so wrong why the hell do you still believe AMERICA is a nation ?. America is a continent, as Europe, Asia or Africa. Please stop talking like that

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA... you talk like...
AMERICA OF UNITED STATES

You're right. Sorry about that. Just using popular terminology. But you're right. I should have said United States. But when Bono sings 'They run into the arms of America' he actually means 'United States' too.

-Miggy D

 

[ponkine]

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

Clearly, POP failed because of the music.

I disagree with that. Let´s take for example Led Zeppelin III. That album was absolutely bashed by critics, sold less than any other pre or post album era ( including the lame Presence, which were platinium both on U.S and U.K BEFORE being released )... so it failed because of the music? NO WAY it was 100 times better than Presence, In trough The Out Door, Physical Graffiti, Houses Of The Holy or even the overrated Led Zeppelin II.

Radiohead Kid A. The same thing. No singles, bad album sales - their worst ever -, etc. So it failed because of the music ? NO. Everytime some artist release an anti-commercial album - as POP - sales decrease meaningly. That´s what happened with POP. That´s all. Bad album sales - believe it or not POP sold more than Zooropa - doesn´t mean BAD Album at all

It´s a huge mistake to believe that good album sales mean great album. So Britney Spears albums are better than UF, POP, War, etc ?. And all that shit "artists" like thousands extremely rich hip hop or R & B corporate hit and miss products are better than Bjork or Radiohead ?

Avant Garde art is not for the masses, that´s clear

 

[ponkine]

You're right. Sorry about that. Just using popular terminology. But you're right. I should have said United States.
-Miggy D

It´s ok

 

[jick]

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

I disagree with that. Let´s take for example Led Zeppelin III. That album was absolutely bashed by critics, sold less than any other pre or post album era ( including the lame Presence, which were platinium both on U.S and U.K BEFORE being released )... so it failed because of the music? NO WAY it was 100 times better than Presence, In trough The Out Door, Physical Graffiti, Houses Of The Holy or even the overrated Led Zeppelin II.

Radiohead Kid A. The same thing. No singles, bad album sales - their worst ever -, etc. So it failed because of the music ? NO. Everytime some artist release an anti-commercial album - as POP - sales decrease meaningly. That´s what happened with POP. That´s all. Bad album sales - believe it or not POP sold more than Zooropa - doesn´t mean BAD Album at all

It´s a huge mistake to believe that good album sales mean great album. So Britney Spears albums are better than UF, POP, War, etc ?. And all that shit "artists" like thousands extremely rich hip hop or R & B corporate hit and miss products are better than Bjork or Radiohead ?

Avant Garde art is not for the masses, that´s clear

U2 aren't Radiohead. U2 are a pop band. They crave commercial success. U2 admit that.

When an album doesn't get commercial success, but it gets poor sales, poor critical reviews, etc. then it is a musical failure. The music failed to deliver its purpose.

While the music may have done well to serve other purposes (like showcase experimentation or ambiguity), it failed on its primary purpose. If you like the music, then that is your opinion. I have spoken mine, the critics have spoken theirs, the fans have let their wallets speak, and U2 have spoken theirs.

Cheers,

J

 

[Miggy D]

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

When an album doesn't get commercial success, but it gets poor sales, poor critical reviews, etc. then it is a musical failure. The music failed to deliver its purpose.

Cheers,

J

I don't agree with that statement. Commercial success does not always reflect quality. Think about all of the bad albums that have sold millions of copies. Think about all of the good ones that haven't sold many. The public is a fickle beast, and their buying patterns are not always a good barometer of what is good or bad music. Having been a DJ at an Alternative/Underground radio station for a year and a half, I know for a fact that there are many artists out there who make great music but do not have commercial success.

-Miggy D

 

[LuvandPeace1980]

****I have to apologize for my post that i wrote here the other night, I was drunk at the time, what a comedy of grammatical errors LOL****

it should have been:

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. I remember a quote bono had at the time and he said this about Discotheque ' It's about replacing love looking for it in all the wrong places'. I just see that song as an examination of what was happening musically (Spice Girls and all the Pop revolution) and that tied in with the dance scene etc..
I just don't think the U.S. could relate to that 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. I think Discotheque has some pretty heavy and relevant themes.
B)
Another reason why Pop trailed a little bit is because Pop is U2's most melon colie album and has alot less Light and Answers in it than all of there other album's apart maybe from Zooropa. And more importantly it just seems Bono's usual defiant voice is just not matching the lyrics he is communicating. The music itself is just a bunch of unanswered questions and examination's. I mean there are still a few answered and some light and hope here and there. But what I found in ATYCLB is that it has alot of answers and alot of direction, each song is very dure of itself. Now Zooropa is similar to Pop in the same way it has a similar melon colie, but everyone new U2 was on an adventure, where with Pop I think people were wondering how far are they gonna go. Also the new people couldn't relate to the new music the same as we could simply because they didn't know where U2 had been, and what journey they were on. I feel U2 probably didn't pick up many new U2 fans with the Zooropa and Pop, I mean there must be some but overall no. I don't think the songs were as universal and uplifting and the hooks in the songd were either. The songs had no simple little messages that could be interpreted by new fans it seemed. New fans and some old ones were probably wondering how strange it all was. I honestly think it did. The funny thing about the Pop era is that U2 gave up on technology to go back to Raw Rock, it's funny cause they did exactly the oppositte in 1991 with ACHTUNG BABY! and some fans got annoyed about it, I don't see why. Just as I can't see why they would with dropping it either. U2 do what they want when they want and it just always turns out great. U2 have never had cages and that's why I love them, how could they with the message they deliver. Which brings me to the final thought.

C) U2 were always out to conquer rock they did it around the Josh Tree Era IMO.. and they knew music was evolving. They had to progress to stay on top. They took it as far as they could with Zooropa and Pop. I loved both of these albums alot, Pop is my second favourite and it's just so real, it has alot of desperation in it, it's Bono at his most darkest/desperate and even most doubtful at times.. but it's the realest he ever was but also the most out of focus or if you like too focused. It was always coming after Zooropa and Passengers. I think with the next album they had a real risk of fucking it up, people say they gave up on what they said about not cashing in and although I don't think the Album is their best I must say when I first heard it, I felt relieved and I thought it was great to hear that raw U2 playing..Even more so the ELEVATION TOUR. I new that strong and competitive U2 were back. It seemed like U2 were about to give up the battle for biggest band with Pop, or more so with Pop they took it for granted. I honestly don't think U2 wanted to make ATYCLB.. they needed to, for what they wanted to achieve. Which in the beginningg wasn't about being the most inventive and progressive band in the world. They wanted to remain the biggest so they could change things, influence as many as possible. U2 needed to get back to making influential music with hooks for the majority. 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' Larry said before ATYLB was relased that they wanted to be heard on the radio. 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 or see the cool video on the top 40. So why not give the new fans the same chance? Pop is a fucking excellent recording, with some bad production, at the Time U2 made the record, they are the same people who made all of the other records, Pop didn't fail, if so U2 wouldn't have made the next two albums. Pop inspired U2 to accept that they can't be complacent. I just feel that it was the limit it was desperation. Pop didn't fail, it was just was part of cycle.
peace out

 

[bathiu]

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

2. BAND ACCEPTANCE: The band has been quick to disown POP. Bono labelled it as "unfinished", Mullen said he wants to finish it, while Eno said it was "disjointed." Even the band's own actions of trying to remodel POP (from making better single versions to the new mixes) show their dissatisfaction and embarrassment about the album.

Quick? I wouldn't call nearly 4 years time "quick", wich also accidentaly was a part of a start of hype building for ATYCLB.
Single versions? From the first album to the last album they alway made "single versions. Should I even remind how diferent 'Elevation' and 'Walk On" are on singles compared to album versions?
...but of course it's POP that is remembered and bashed for having "single versions"...

3. CRITICAL ACCLAIM: POP was the only U2 album post Live Aid that did not bag a Grammy. It did get a nomination but no awards. Nowadays, people say that the Grammies are a fraud and that the voters just pick "safe" selections like U2. But think again, once upon a time during the POP era they did reject U2.

How is that an insult? ...and since when we're reading or care about "reviews"... You should check all threads with HTDAAB reviews and opinions about them.

4. TOUR FAILURE: Who could forget the band restarting a song and looking very lost during opening night in Vegas? Then by the very next show in San Diego, they played to a half-emply stadiums. By the time the third leg was in gear, half-empty stadiums were the norm. U2 managed to save face by playing South America (where the have never played before) to good attendance.

Where you not reading this thread at all or are you just a total ignorant?
How is selling 3 shows to 60000 people (3x20000) on arenas any better than one show on a stadium with 80000 seats/space even if only 60000 people were present (NEVER half-empty).
The only diference is "sold out" and "not sold out" written on the paper.
The fact is PopMart is one of the biggest grossing tour of all time.

5. COMMERCIAL FAILURE: Some say POP didn't sell because U2 was already in the downward trend and that their sales figures were still good for musicians their age. Well U2 proved that wrong with ATYCLB and HTDAAB now. They are even older, yet they still sold more than POP. As a matter of fact, POP is their worst selling effort since the Unforgettable Fire. That is totally embarrassing considering U2 had just come from one of their most successful commercial peaks in their career with Zoo TV and public anticipation was high.

4 years! "just came from'? anticipation?
/sarcasm/ ok /sarcasm/

POP's 8mln is just as good as Zooropa, UF, War... o yeah it looks bad compared to JT and AB... and the fact that 99% of world's musicians can only dream of having such sale figures dosn't matter of course.
"It's bad compared to U2's standards" What standards? Two albums that are considered to be among the best ever created? I ask you, How many bands even have a "second masterpiece"? U2 already have 4 of them (War, JT, AB, HTDAAB - the last one is just MO) out of 11 albums.
POP doesn't have to be one of them, but selling as good as some other U2 albums (wich are not getting all this bashing) and at the same time being the only one called a "failure" is not fair and not right!

By Bono's latest definition of "crap album"/mistakes they already had (October-not finished and rushed, UF-not finished, R&H, POP-not finished) yet their making music, they're releasing new albums... oh my, could it be just another "Bono's hype building"?

Clearly, POP failed because of the music.

Cheers,

J [/B]

...and you still LOVE it...

 

[LuvandPeace1980]

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

1. FAN APPEAL: The album debuted at #1 which doesn't speak much about it quality as it does about U2's snazzy marketing campaign. But the album dropped like a hot potato and hasn't even sold up to 2 million to this day in the USA. Some would argue that it did well outside the USA, but remember it debuted at #1 in 33 countries so that made up majority of the album sales - then it dropped after than. We all know strong debuts aren't indicators of the album's musical quality.

2. BAND ACCEPTANCE: The band has been quick to disown POP. Bono labelled it as "unfinished", Mullen said he wants to finish it, while Eno said it was "disjointed." Even the band's own actions of trying to remodel POP (from making better single versions to the new mixes) show their dissatisfaction and embarrassment about the album.

3. CRITICAL ACCLAIM: POP was the only U2 album post Live Aid that did not bag a Grammy. It did get a nomination but no awards. Nowadays, people say that the Grammies are a fraud and that the voters just pick "safe" selections like U2. But think again, once upon a time during the POP era they did reject U2.

4. TOUR FAILURE: Who could forget the band restarting a song and looking very lost during opening night in Vegas? Then by the very next show in San Diego, they played to a half-emply stadiums. By the time the third leg was in gear, half-empty stadiums were the norm. U2 managed to save face by playing South America (where the have never played before) to good attendance.

5. COMMERCIAL FAILURE: Some say POP didn't sell because U2 was already in the downward trend and that their sales figures were still good for musicians their age. Well U2 proved that wrong with ATYCLB and HTDAAB now. They are even older, yet they still sold more than POP. As a matter of fact, POP is their worst selling effort since the Unforgettable Fire. That is totally embarrassing considering U2 had just come from one of their most successful commercial peaks in their career with Zoo TV and public anticipation was high.

So POP was clearly a failure in all areas. From the critics disliking it, to the fans not buying it, to the band ultimately disowning it then remodelling it.

There are only a few noisy fans of POP (who constitute a vast minority) who keep on trying to "save" POP and indoctrinate the new U2 fans on this board about its real status among U2's catalogue. POP is a failure when compared to the rest of U2's back catalog.

Clearly, POP failed because of the music.

Cheers,

J

I must say thats the most intelligent thing I have read from you so far Jick

but.. I disagree a little bit

Sometimes things do go wrong, I think Pop is a good example of that, I think the marketing for Pop was aweful, the album was sold as a dance album and the add's with Bono saying this album is about Edge's moustache were just stupid. Some of the songs weren't finished, most noteably Please and LNOE and those songs are AMAZING live.

1)
Fan appeal hey? I don't think I have seen so many fans ever be so passionate about an album, that speaks for itself on so many layers. Most fans who love Pop have an affinite with the album because they stuck with them during it and accepted it and Popmart as well. And I know people who aren't even U2 fans who love Pop, more than other albums, it wasn't commercial, but so many people don't dig commercial music any more, Pop sold 7 million copies, 4 million in the first 3 weeks, it has sold more than Zooropa, which you failed to mention.
2)
And about the band acceptance, each member probably has there own opinion about their albums. I personally think Edge and Bono loved the songs on Pop and just because they weren't happy with it not being finished has nothing to do with the integrity of the songs, maybe it's the production they were unhappy with. Larry seems to be a little more dissapionted that it wasn't finished but he hates passengers as well. It doesn't mean they 'disown' it, that's just a bias comment you have come up with for your own self serving opinion
4)Tour Failure
The first night in Las Vegas was huge for the failure of the early sales of Popmart, about halfway through the first leg U2 started to get into some fine form, apart from the Colorado show with the blizzard By the time they were in Europe it was as big as ZOO TV, So I completely disagree about that tour failing, it was a sellout past the first leg.
I think now at this time Pop is not a failure and I don't think Popmart is either, I can say that if U2 had have not fucked the first night up and had have finished the album by the due date, it would have been quite a bit more successful. For one thing album would have sold more and the songs would have been alot more familiar. To Say the tour was a failure is silly, it made more money and sold out more shows than Zoo TV did. Possibly because they were involved with Dainty I might add.
I also think your comment about the 'quality of songs' a little bit of a shock. On the last tour Gone, Staring at the Sun, Please, Discotheque and Wake Up Dead Man were all played, Wake Up Dead Man and Gone being staples, you can tell Bono loves these two songs and is proud of them. Those two songs will be played ongoing and I personally thought Gone was the best Live song during Popmart. It comes alive Live as does Mofo and Please.

Do us a favour Jick, be a real U2 fan

 

[Miggy D]

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

Do us a favour Jick, be a real U2 fan

Ouch. Low blow.