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

[POP-ROMANCER]

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

I've got 2 strategies for POP singles:

1st strategy

1. Discotheque (let people know their new sound, this song represents pop. When you listen to this song, you know exactly what the album is about, I think this is a good first single release)

2. Gone (not so techno-ish, just a good song. they can reach the larger public with this song)

3. Staring at the sun (could have been a classic u2 song like one'. But at the time the 3rd single was released POP was completely gone, so it couldn't be that huge hit)

4. Please (the 4th single should have been the last, maybe the 3rd should have been the last single from this album. why? because the more u2 released, the more it was a failure. They knew by 2nd single that it was not going to work anymore to create a huge single hit.

2nd stratgy

What's wrong with 3 singles? Like zooropa, they could create the strategy for one good single, let's say gone (compared with stay). One video single (discotheque) and mofo for dance charts or someting (like lemon). Now they failed because 4 singles failed (not discotheque).

I like POP but I think their single strategy wasn't good.

 

[2Hearts]

As far as Edge's Child Molester moustache goes, I just read the original post in this thread and started laughing. I'd never even really paid the moustache much attention, but now I love it (ha-ha)! Mind you, I do not love child molesters though. I bet the guys in the band would get a kick of out that comment as well.

 

[Miggy D]

Mind you, I do not love child molesters though.

Whew. That's a relief.

-Miggy D

 

[POP-ROMANCER]

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.



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.


Cheers,

J

But no one goes to a u2 concert to look at a videoscreen. So I think the tour wasn't personal. The most important thing is the music played at a concert, POPmart was the videoscreen more important than the music.

A videoscreen has to support the music. By POPmart the music supported the screen

 

[Miggy D]

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

But no one goes to a u2 concert to look at a videoscreen. So I think the tour wasn't personal. The most important thing is the music played at a concert, POPmart was the videoscreen more important than the music.

A videoscreen has to support the music. By POPmart the music supported the screen

Yep. Completely agree.

 

[U2Kitten]

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.

How do you know that? Can you read the minds and judge every single person who didn't like Pop? Do you even know them? Since I am one of them, and I know several more personally, I think I am better qualified to say that the 'getting it' argument is not valid in most cases. I'm saying that it doesn't matter if you 'get it' or not, if you don't like it, nothing else matters, and I don't believe 'getting it' is suddenly going to make someone like music they didn't like before.

If you 'got' Eminem's life would you suddenly become a fan? Or whatever Celine Dion is up to? I also think the 'didn't get it' argument is insulting because it basically says that people were too lacking to understand it. How would you like it if people started saying people who hate ATYCLB were too deficient intellectually to 'get it?' It's like you're saying, oh have to excuse the dummies for not being smart enough to catch onto this wonderful genius! That's why when people start the 'don't get it' HORSESHIT it reminds me of the Emperor's New Clothes. No, 'getting it' makes NO difference, you either like it or you don't. It has nothing to do with ANYTHING other than individual musical TASTE!

 

[Miggy D]

How do you know that? Can you read the minds and judge every single person who hated Pop? Do you even know them? Since I am one of them, and I know several more personally, I think I am better qualified to say that the 'getting it' argument is not valid in most cases. I'm saying that it doesn't matter if you 'get it' or not, if you don't like it, nothing else matters, and I don't believe 'getting it' is suddenly going to make someone like music they didn't like before.

If you 'got' Eminem's life would you suddenly become a fan? Or whatever Celine Dion is up to? I also think the 'didn't get it' argument is insulting because it basically says that people were too lacking to understand it. It's like you're saying, oh have to excuse the dummies for not being smart enough to catch onto this wonderful genius! That's why when people start the 'don't get it' HORSESHIT it reminds me of the Emperor's New Clothes. No, 'getting it' makes NO difference, you either like it or you don't. It has nothing to do with ANYTHING other than individual musical TASTE!

Score one for the Kitten.

 

[U2Kitten]

Score one for the Kitten.

Thanks I'm so glad someone else understands!

 

[Miggy D]

Thanks I'm so glad someone else understands!

You mean my original thread-starting post didn't clue you into that?

-Miggy D

 

[LuvandPeace1980]

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

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


J

U2 ARE NOT A POP BAND!!!! THATS IS B***S**T!!

U2 are in the commercial business and there songs are radio friendly some of their songs might be popular, but they aren't pop songs nor is U2 a pop band. There songs sound like no one elses, they have their own style for the most part. It's pretty obvious U2 crave commercial success and they have become very good at doing it, masters in fact. Thats still not saying they are a pop band. U2 have always been about trying to change things, the thing I respect about Radiohead and other artists who play great innovative music is that if you want to be known as good band then fine, but whats the point of it if no one knows about it.
U2 could make artsy fartsy music all day if they wanted to but that's not what they are about. Radiohead is brilliant, Coldplay is brilliant.. but maybe U2's ambition level is higher and they are prepared to sacrifice some of that artistry if it means getting their message accross to the larger part, to bring people together(Which is in turn what I do not admire about some artist's like Radiohead etc.. it's more egotistical in that way for them, they are just satisfying themselves rather than using there fame the best they can). Or maybe they just aren't as good as the other guys. U2 came from a different era where their weren't computers, both of those artist's have gained knowledge and listened to U2 all their lives, U2 would be different too if they had themselves as one of their influences.

question: Jick have you seen U2 live?

 

[bathiu]

How do you know that? Can you read the minds and judge every single person who didn't like Pop?

Can you?
You're saying that people "got it" but didn't like it, other people are saying that people didn't "get it'... both opinions are equaly "credible"...


and just to add something to jick's post:

Originally posted by jick
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.

First you have to realise who is a "fan".
For me it is a person that buys every album, even if it's just for a "collection" purpose.
U2 have around 5 or 6 mln of "loyal" fans (that have "everything"), the rest of the albums' sales are people that liked this-or-that album but never bought any other.
Just like many of us, like me, for example have just one ColdPlay album, one Blur's album, one Oasis' album etc, I'm not a FAN of them, but I have this-or-that album from their catalog.
If after JT U2 had 24mln FANS than all albums before JT would get a real boost in sales as well... not to mention the sales of R&H would be much better.
If after AB U2 had 19mln FANS than Zooropa would sell so much more than 8mlns.
And finaly if after the first 'Best Of' U2 had 14mln FANS than the second 'Best Of' would sell more than only 5mln copies (with "suposedly finished" versions of some songs).
If you want to talk about "FAN appeal of the album", the album's sales is not a good example.

U2 had a few "best sellers" and we should be glad about that. Most bands don't have any or only one at the most.

 

[bathiu]

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

U2 ARE NOT A POP BAND!!!! THATS IS B***S**T!!

I agree! U2's music, even if "radio friendly", was/is always diferent than anything popular at the time. How is that being a pop band?

One more thing:

Originally posted by jick
Bono labelled it as "unfinished", Mullen said he wants to finish it, while Eno said it was "disjointed."

...just a "food for thought"...
They didn't "finish" it for the "Digital Box Set" wich would make it even more desireble to buy and download...
...and they had almost 8 years to make it...

 

[jick]

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

U2 ARE NOT A POP BAND!!!! THATS IS B***S**T!!

U2 are in the commercial business and there songs are radio friendly some of their songs might be popular, but they aren't pop songs nor is U2 a pop band. There songs sound like no one elses, they have their own style for the most part. It's pretty obvious U2 crave commercial success and they have become very good at doing it, masters in fact. Thats still not saying they are a pop band. U2 have always been about trying to change things, the thing I respect about Radiohead and other artists who play great innovative music is that if you want to be known as good band then fine, but whats the point of it if no one knows about it.
U2 could make artsy fartsy music all day if they wanted to but that's not what they are about. Radiohead is brilliant, Coldplay is brilliant.. but maybe U2's ambition level is higher and they are prepared to sacrifice some of that artistry if it means getting their message accross to the larger part, to bring people together(Which is in turn what I do not admire about some artist's like Radiohead etc.. it's more egotistical in that way for them, they are just satisfying themselves rather than using there fame the best they can). Or maybe they just aren't as good as the other guys. U2 came from a different era where their weren't computers, both of those artist's have gained knowledge and listened to U2 all their lives, U2 would be different too if they had themselves as one of their influences.

question: Jick have you seen U2 live?

Yes, I have seen U2 live.

Your categorization of pop or not pop is irrelevant. Don't you think it is ironic that we are talking about an album titled POP?

Anyway, even with an album as innovative as HTDAAB, U2 were still concerned about whether the album had enough "hits." Your song doesn't have to sound like someone else's to be considered pop.

About U2 coming from an era when there were no computers, this is an irrelevant comment as a lot of U2's 90's music were done with computers (programmed loops, etc) and even Bono now writes his lyrics in his laptop (who could forget the "lost laptop saga" as the publicity stunt for ATYCLB?). U2 also took advantage of the computer age with their website.

Back to the basic point, POP was a musical failure because it didn't turn out to be what U2 really intended - and it wasn't accepted by the fans. Now some fans with different tastes may find other redeeming features for the POP album but all of these were not part of the plan and an overwhelming majority don't see this "beauty" that lies in your beholder's eyes.

Cheers,

J

 

[U2Kitten]

You mean my original thread-starting post didn't clue you into that?

-Miggy D

Your post rocks!

 

[U2Kitten]

Can you?
You're saying that people "got it" but didn't like it, other people are saying that people didn't "get it'... both opinions are equaly "credible

Sigh, obviously you didn't 'get' my other post YES I can, because I AM one of those people, and I know a large number of them personally. How many do you know who say 'I just didn't get it', or is it just your 'opinion' and excuse based solely only on what you choose be believe with no basis? It's not right to judge and categorize people based on a totally unproven theory.

 

[all_i_want]

I've got 2 strategies for POP singles:

1st strategy

1. Discotheque (let people know their new sound, this song represents pop. When you listen to this song, you know exactly what the album is about, I think this is a good first single release)

2. Gone (not so techno-ish, just a good song. they can reach the larger public with this song)

3. Staring at the sun (could have been a classic u2 song like one'. But at the time the 3rd single was released POP was completely gone, so it couldn't be that huge hit)

4. Please (the 4th single should have been the last, maybe the 3rd should have been the last single from this album. why? because the more u2 released, the more it was a failure. They knew by 2nd single that it was not going to work anymore to create a huge single hit.

2nd stratgy

What's wrong with 3 singles? Like zooropa, they could create the strategy for one good single, let's say gone (compared with stay). One video single (discotheque) and mofo for dance charts or someting (like lemon). Now they failed because 4 singles failed (not discotheque).

I like POP but I think their single strategy wasn't good.

id rather go with:

1-gone
2-staring at the sun
3-discotheque (this couldve been used in an ad a la vertigo, cause its such a fun, vibrant song)
4-please (w/ discotheque remixes!)
5-mofo (live version/concert video)
6-if god will send his angels (from the CoA soundtrack, of course)

of course, many singles would work today, because of services like iTunes and cause they dont release physical singles. but still, i believe more singles keep albums going.

and mind you, staring at the sun was 20 something on top 100, i hardly see that as a failure

 

[bathiu]

How many do you know who say 'I just didn't get it',

...and how many will admit it?

I'm not attacking you, I'm saying that you're equaly right as the other "theory" is right.

 

[U2Kitten]

...and how many will admit it?

I'm not attacking you, I'm saying that you're equaly right as the other "theory" is right.

What, so now you're convinced everyone who didn't like Pop just won't admit it? No, they are not equally right, because yours is no more than an excuse in your mind with NO basis!0 It's not just this album, not 'getting' something has nothing to do with liking it. Take Sgt. Pepper by the Beatles. It was heavily LSD influenced, so technically, anyone who hasn't done acid will never really 'get it'- but does that mean you can't still like it? Of course not. How many times do people ever consider whether or not they 'get' something before they buy it? And wouldn't you have to have to buy it first do decide whether or not you 'got it', and would it really matter? How ridiculous! It's insignifcant, a non-issue, other than when you guys try to make excuses for Pop. What I'm trying to say is that I'm very sick of the dislike of Pop being written off as 'not getting it' when really it was just a matter of personal taste. Why can't you 'get' that?!

 

[bathiu]

I don't think so. It's not just this album, not 'getting' something has nothing to do with liking it. Take Sgt. Pepper by the Beatles. It was heavily LSD influenced, so technically, anyone who hasn't done acid will never really 'get it'- but does that mean you can't still like it? Of course not. How many times do people ever consider whether or not they 'get' something before they buy it? And wouldn't you have to have to buy it first do decide whether or not you 'got it', and would it really matter? How ridiculous! It's insignifcant, a non-issue, other than when you guys try to make excuses for Pop. What I'm trying to say is that I'm very sick of the dislike of Pop being written off as 'not getting it' when really it was just a matter of personal taste. Why can't you 'get' that?!

... because you're saying others are making up excuses for POP...
Because you're saying that people didn't like it, while it still sold 8mln copies worldwide, like quite a few other U2 albums and like other bands can only dream about. I'm calling it making excuse not for POP, but for yourself... and that's why I don't see "your truth" any more important than the "other truth".

 

[U2Kitten]

... because you're saying others are making up excuses for POP...
Because you're saying that people didn't like it, while it still sold 8mln copies worldwide, like quite a few other U2 albums and like other bands can only dream about. I'm calling it making excuse not for POP, but for yourself... and that's why I don't see "your truth" any more important than the "other truth".

I don't think it's that high, check the Dollar Bills forum. But anyway, it doesn't matter who liked it or didn't does it? I don't care if 20 million bought it, I still don't like it. And why should you care if only 100 bought it if you do? It's all just taste, who cares?

The 'get it' argument is something I have only seen applied here to Pop, but the more I think about it it's ridiculous for any album, or anything else. It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[adam3000]

one of the biggest mistakes marketing pop was releasing it in february/march instead of november/december because ...

1. more people are likely to buy an album during the forth quarter of the year. bono even remarked that the secret to making a zillion selling album make it last over two christmases.

2. gives people more time to get used to the songs and get pumped about the tour

3. because i said so.

 

[namkcuR]

one of the biggest mistakes marketing pop was releasing it in february/march instead of november/december because ...

1. more people are likely to buy an album during the forth quarter of the year. bono even remarked that the secret to making a zillion selling album make it last over two christmases.

2. gives people more time to get used to the songs and get pumped about the tour

3. because i said so.

Very good point you have made. I wouldn't dream of using the fact that The Joshua Tree was released in March as some sort arguement against it. [/sarcasm]

 

[ImOuttaControl]

How many do you know who say 'I just didn't get it', or is it just your 'opinion' and excuse based solely only on what you choose be believe with no basis?

Pop is, in my opinion, U2's most inaccessible album. It takes time to get into; time to understand. In a immediate gratification world the vast majority of people aren't willing to give an album a lot of time to speak to them, which is why pop music will always "speak" to more people than alternative type of music.

To answer your question about how many people I know who "just didn't get it."

I was one. In fact, out of all my friends who are U2 fans, I don't think 1 single person "got it" right away. My first impression was "what the fuck is this?" Add up the image to the music and I couldn't take the music seriously. And when I watched the Popmart Mexico video for the first time?? Again, I was going "what the fuck is this? Why is adam wearing a mirror helmet and a surgens mask...what the fuck is with that muscle suit!!!" It took some time, but I finally "got" the message U2 was trying to put across, as did my friends. Now, being that my friends and I gave it a chance, we agree it's one of U2's best. (It's #2 for me). People simply don't "get" this album because it's inaccessible, the complete opposite of 95% of everything U2 has done. Most people want something that's immediately pleasing to the ears, and when they didn't get that immediacy from POP they quit listening.

 

[namkcuR]

Pop is, in my opinion, U2's most inaccessible album. It takes time to get into; time to understand. In a immediate gratification world the vast majority of people aren't willing to give an album a lot of time to speak to them, which is why pop music will always "speak" to more people than alternative type of music.

To answer your question about how many people I know who "just didn't get it."

I was one. In fact, out of all my friends who are U2 fans, I don't think 1 single person "got it" right away. My first impression was "what the fuck is this?" Add up the image to the music and I couldn't take the music seriously. And when I watched the Popmart Mexico video for the first time?? Again, I was going "what the fuck is this? Why is adam wearing a mirror helmet and a surgens mask...what the fuck is with that muscle suit!!!" It took some time, but I finally "got" the message U2 was trying to put across, as did my friends. Now, all of us who gave it a chance agree it's one of U2's best. People simply don't "get" this album because it's inaccessible, the complete opposite of 95% of everything U2 has done. Most people want something that's immediately pleasing to the ears, and when they didn't get that immediacy from POP they quit listening.

Well said

 

[ImOuttaControl]

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

U2 ARE NOT A POP BAND!!!! THATS IS B***S**T!!

U2 are in the commercial business and there songs are radio friendly some of their songs might be popular, but they aren't pop songs nor is U2 a pop band.

Uhhh, yes, U2 is a pop band. You can't get more pop than songs like "Vertigo," "Pride" or "Even Better Than The Real Thing."

Pop isn't a dirty word! I think people forget that pop = popular!!!

What's wrong with "popular music????"

The Beatles were a pop band, the Rolling Stones were a pop band, Coldplay is a pop band...Hell, even Radiohead was a pop band at one point (High and Dry, Creep). Read through interviews, Bono is pretty fond of saying U2 are a pop band.

I think the problem is that you think that a band can only sit in one genre--be it rock, pop, alternative, rap...ect, when that is completely wrong. U2 probably best occupies the "alternative pop" genre the best.

 

[namkcuR]

Jick:

I'm you're not offended when I say I think you are totally full of it. You talk like it's only a few odd fans here and there that actually like Pop, when in reality, every forum I go to, every group of U2 fans I have interaction with, it's cut down the middle. Whether or not you like the music is your opinion, but stop stating your opinion as fact, it is less than endearing.


Everyone else:

The order/selection of singles wouldn't have mattered, the time of year the record was released wouldn't have mattered. The only way Pop would have sold more is if either U2 made the music on the record more mainstream(which I'm glad they didn't) or if the music-listening public, in America especially(I'm sorry, I am an American but there is no denying that this country is a culture of instant gratification) became more accepting of music that wasn't all about catchy hooks and choruses. Neither of those things was likely at all to happen at that time.

 

[namkcuR]

U2Kitten:

I understand where you're coming from, I can totally understand not wanting to be told that you don't 'get' something, but in this case it might be true. In cases like this, I don't really think you can consciously recognize that you don't 'get it' until you do 'get it', if that makes any sense, and so I wouldn't expect you, or any of the people that claim they get it and don't like it, to admit to not 'getting' it because I don't think you or they are consciously aware that it is not being 'got'. If that previous paragraph doesn't confuse you, nothing will

 

[LuvandPeace1980]

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

Yes, I have seen U2 live.

Your categorization of pop or not pop is irrelevant. Don't you think it is ironic that we are talking about an album titled POP?

Anyway, even with an album as innovative as HTDAAB, U2 were still concerned about whether the album had enough "hits." Your song doesn't have to sound like someone else's to be considered pop.

About U2 coming from an era when there were no computers, this is an irrelevant comment as a lot of U2's 90's music were done with computers (programmed loops, etc) and even Bono now writes his lyrics in his laptop (who could forget the "lost laptop saga" as the publicity stunt for ATYCLB?). U2 also took advantage of the computer age with their website.

Back to the basic point, POP was a musical failure because it didn't turn out to be what U2 really intended - and it wasn't accepted by the fans. Now some fans with different tastes may find other redeeming features for the POP album but all of these were not part of the plan and an overwhelming majority don't see this "beauty" that lies in your beholder's eyes.

Cheers,

J

I never said that U2's music wasn't pop, I said they weren't a pop band. Pop is just another word for Commericial radio. U2's music has always lasted longer than Pop music being played on radio.. hands up hear who still listens to Right Said Fred 'I'm too sexy' I bet no one, or the number 1 single 4 months ago, no. The fact is U2 songs will be played for years on the radio. Pop music is disposable music. I still see U2 as Pop music but something more, it's still played on the radio and it's music which has respect. I have always found Pop music to be plastic and disposable and I think there is some good pop music out there, but most of it is trash. In order for U2 to compete against that crap music they have to go at it and be part of it, it's a fact of life.

You again seem to just spurt off random little statements to direct people down a narrow path, I aint saying don't have a opinion but heck!Why oh why do you have to make out that the people who love Pop are in the minority, you could not possibly know this, please state facts only or better yet get them right.

***And what did U2 intend Pop to be exactly? Have you got written words from Bono explaining this?***

FOR
OUTOF CONTROL
Yes U2 is a 'popular' band I completely agree, the point I am trying to make is that they aren't just popular for the sake being popular they genuinely make great long lasting music, it's life music, not the disposable type, they also worked hard for there popularity. Pearl Jam was popular and so was REM, but they aren't considered Pop now because they aren't really in the mainstream. U2 are in the mainstream becuase there sound is very catchy and easy to pick up. And many have now taken on similar forms as U2. U2 can't 'just' be considered a Pop band, I mean they aren't hanson, even though Bono likes them.. hahaha. With all of the different songs they have encountered over the years, they definately can't just be defined as a pop band.
I agree they are alternative. I consider songs like Pride and Vertigo and Even Better than the real thing pop , but it's hardly something that even reminds you of another band.. infact most of U2 songs are very unique in sound. Looking at Pearl Jam, Matchbox 20 and heaps of bands they can at times sound similar.
U2 have always tried to stay away from the mainstream sound thanks to the edge.

 

[diamond]

pop has some of the weakest songs on it and some of the strongest.

i love-
do you feel loved
last night on earth
gone
velvet dress
i like-
wake up
please

the rest can go out w yesterday's rubbish

and my friends who were only casuall u2 fans when attending the PopMart concert were uncomfortable w Edge's stache and that damn cowboy hat.

women fans seem to favor this tour over zootv..

the pop era was an eclectic avant garde time period morphing into the intellectually stimulating time for the long time u2 fans.

we also picked up a few new fans such as jesseu2 and arun.

sicy chose to sit out the popmart tour, i don't know why.

and that's that.
db9

 

[Zoots]

Pop is, in my opinion, U2's most inaccessible album. It takes time to get into; time to understand. In a immediate gratification world the vast majority of people aren't willing to give an album a lot of time to speak to them, which is why pop music will always "speak" to more people than alternative type of music.

To answer your question about how many people I know who "just didn't get it."

I was one. In fact, out of all my friends who are U2 fans, I don't think 1 single person "got it" right away. My first impression was "what the fuck is this?" Add up the image to the music and I couldn't take the music seriously. And when I watched the Popmart Mexico video for the first time?? Again, I was going "what the fuck is this? Why is adam wearing a mirror helmet and a surgens mask...what the fuck is with that muscle suit!!!" It took some time, but I finally "got" the message U2 was trying to put across, as did my friends. Now, being that my friends and I gave it a chance, we agree it's one of U2's best. (It's #2 for me). People simply don't "get" this album because it's inaccessible, the complete opposite of 95% of everything U2 has done. Most people want something that's immediately pleasing to the ears, and when they didn't get that immediacy from POP they quit listening.

To this day, I still don't know what the mirror helmet or the surgeon's mask are about!!! I haven't been to Popmart. I got the irony at certain times..like the KMart release but not at all times. I still love the album to death. It's my 3rd favorite. You could 'get' something and enjoy it or you may not 'get' something and still enjoy it. It's all very very subjective. Someone may like the album for the lyrics. Somebody else may like it for the techno influence. We should stop trying to make generalizations.