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

[Miggy D]

...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

 

[Zoots]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. But I'm not sure about Popmart though. I wasn't there but it did look really impressive on TV.

They definitely released the wrong songs as singles, Discotheque, If God... Angels, Last Night??? Gone, Do You Feel Loved, Staring and Please may have been better received.

 

[theu2fly]

It failed in the United States because electronica based music was not as popular as it was in Europe.

U2 saw Electronica / Techno / House music becoming popular in Europe, and they knew (thought) it was going to be popular in America, so they decided to ride the wave and get on top of it.

America didn't accept it well.

 

[U2Kitten]

I agree with most of your post. I know those who adore it hate to hear it, but really, the way they looked, dressed and presented themselves during that era was a joke to a lot of people, from longtime fans to casual fans to critics. It lost them some respect and it took them awhile to get it back. The designer of those clothes should be shot.

Discotheque dug them a hole they were not able to totally emerge from. As J often points out, the album debuted high, probably on U2's previous rap, but dropped fast after people heard (and saw) what it was. They became a laughingstock to many, even many who used to like them. It was like, WTF is up with them? I know a lot of you say they were funny and being loose, but the difference between PopMart and ZOOTV is that ZOOTV and the AB era, as MiggyD said, 'oozed cool', the look, the outfits, the attitude, the stage set, while Pop was more of a gaudy, flashy, silly image (well to a lot of people) I heard some people say it was embarrassing and they felt bad for the band! If they made people laugh, in many cases it wasn't in a positive way

I think if SATS or Gone had been the lead in single and the look of the band and the stage set was different (can the lemon!) Pop would not have the unfortunate rep it does. I do think the image hurt the sales, unfair and shallow as some of you think that is. Musically, it's my least favorite, regardless of the look.

 

[Miggy D]

It failed in the United States because electronica based music was not as popular as it was in Europe.

U2 saw Electronica / Techno / House music becoming popular in Europe, and they knew (thought) it was going to be popular in America, so they decided to ride the wave and get on top of it.

America didn't accept it well.

Mofo is the most experimental track on the entire album. Though there are electronic/techno flourishings on different songs, the album is fairly straightforwad rock. U2 may have sold it as a techno album, but does anyone ever listen to the stuff Bono says before a new ablum comes out? Last time I checked, HTDAAB is not 'punk rock from venus.'

-Miggy

 

[discothequeLP]

hindsight is 20/20

 

[ponkine]

I Agree First Leg of Pop Mart Tour was pretty bad... but ... Pop Mart South American Leg and Sarajevo 1997 were the most personal, honest and poingnant concerts I´ve ever heard since UF Tour days By far more personal than any Zoo TV concert - well maybe Sarajevo satellite Links were the exception - and any Joshua Tree and Lovetown concerts

Peace

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Pop failed because of the way U2 presented it and themselves. They delved a little too deeply into the irony they portrayed with Zoo TV.

I understand why they released "Discotheque" as the first single. Much like "The Fly" they tried to hit the public over the head with a "new" U2. However, as good as a song as it is, it isn't as good as "The Fly", and it was just a little too weird for most American tastes.

The second problem was the way Popmart was done. It was WAY over the TOP. I enjoyed the video screens, and all the pizazz, but did we really need a 50 foot Lemon? My problem was that it was a complete distraction from the music. Zoo TV worked because you understood the concept. I realize they explained what they thought Popmart was, but I think a lot of people never really got it.

Lastly, for every great song on Pop, there are two that just don't move me too much. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it was like listening to an album of B-sides on my first listen. I've grown to appreciate the album more and more, but I think had they nailed down "SATS" and "Please" this album would have kicked some major ass. Not to say those songs are very good as is, but I think they could've been better. The remix of "Please" is far superior to the remix of "SATS" that said. "SATS" just doesn't work for me anymore.

It's strange to think that this album is 7 years old today. Wow, where has the time gone?

 

[discothequeLP]

the lemon was 40ft, not 50

 

[Zoots]

the lemon was 40ft, not 50

While we're on technicalities... it's been 8 yrs, not 7.

 

[U2Kitten]

It's strange to think that this album is 7 years old today. Wow, where has the time gone?

Make that 8!

And after all this time it's still a sore subject that can't rest in peace.

 

[JOFO]

I agree with most points everyone has said so far.

I think Pop was received less than strongly because u2 expected electronica to be the next big thing, and were trying to get there first. unfortunately, it didn't happen, and the sounds on Pop seemed more like a failed attempt at that by some fans (not by me).
I always thought it would have benefitted from a slightly different image. I mean, I couldn't care less if they wore togas onstage, but I guess some people do. Imagine a u2 fan from the JT era, used to seeing them in cowboy hats, blue jeans, and boots....

I also think the title "Pop" sucks. I know it's ironic, whatever...it sucks...if they called it something like "Wake Up Dead Man"...that would be classic u2....or even "Last Night On Earth".

My fixes for whatever some deem "wrong" with Pop:
(personally I think it's great as is, but I'm playing along)

1. Better Image: remember Bono's look at the Sinatra speech Grammies? Bas Ass. Should've done that look.

2. 1st Single: Should've held onto HMTMKMKM from that stupid Batman movie....imagine hearing THAT after a 4 year hiatus...nice!

3. "Playboy Mansion" and "Discotecque" should've been canned for 2 better tunes.....anything....

4. The Golden Arch and The Giant Lemon, The Martini Olive and the kareokee.......gone.

that's all.....but can't change the past....glad I saw it in person; had a blast.

 

[indra]

Did Pop fail at all? Honestly. It didn't do as well, either commercially or in some cases critically as U2's other releases of the period, but does that mean it was a failure?

I mean it sold millions of copies, still has legions of fans who love it, and perhaps moved U2 along a path they needed to travel. I don't consider that failure.

 

[JOFO]

Did Pop fail at all? Honestly. It didn't do as well, either commercially or in some cases critically as U2's other releases of the period, but does that mean it was a failure?

I mean it sold millions of copies, still has legions of fans who love it, and perhaps moved U2 along a path they needed to travel. I don't consider that failure.

yeah, I agree, but at the time alot of people didn't like it.

 

[JOFO]

a little off topic, but think about this song list:


1. HMTMKMKM
2. Do You Feel Loved
3. Mofo
4. IGWSHA (single version)
5. SATS
6. LNOE
7. Gone
8. Miami (ok, most of you hate this song, so replace it with something else)
9. unrecorded song along the lines of COBL
10. IYWTVD
11. Please
12. Wake Up Dead Man

 

[namkcuR]

a little off topic, but think about this song list:


1. HMTMKMKM
2. Do You Feel Loved
3. Mofo
4. IGWSHA (single version)
5. SATS
6. LNOE
7. Gone
8. Miami (ok, most of you hate this song, so replace it with something else)
9. unrecorded song along the lines of COBL
10. IYWTVD
11. Please
12. Wake Up Dead Man

No.

9. is pointless speculation.

And Discotheque is brilliant, you can't just knock it off. I don't care if people didn't get it. It's their loss.

The Playboy Mansion is a great tune as well...'then will there be no time for sorrow, then will there be no time for shame'.

HMTMKMKM worked very well as a stand alone single between records, keep it that way.

 

[RademR]

I agree with your whole post, Miggy. Great job. Especially with the Discotheque video.

 

[quadcaster]

mmmm theres nothing wrong with pop at all, its gud

popmart is also gud, but yeah i think it was a little 2 impersonal...... but still amazing!

 

[namkcuR]

I disagree with pretty much everything that has been said.

I really don't care if the public 'got it' or not. What we saw with 'Pop' is U2 using their music as an artistic medium. It wasn't just about catchy tunes. It was about looking deeper into themselves then they ever had before or have since. It is imo the greatest lyrical achievement of their career as far as lyrics go. Songs like 'Mofo' and 'Gone' are some of the most personal songs Bono has ever penned the lyrics to:

"mother, am I still your son/you know I've been waiting for so long/to hear you say so/mother, you left and made me someone/now I'm still a child/but no one tells me no"

"you hurt yourself/you hurt your lover/then you discover/what you thought was freedom is just greed"

"You wanted to get somewhere so badly
You had to lose yourself along the way.
You changed your name
Well that's okay, it's necessary
And what you leave behind you don't miss anyway"

just to name a few.

All of the songs on this record and all of the videos made for this record were excercies in art and artistic expression, even the village people bit, that was making a statement - it was a statement about how ridiculous U2 saw their stardom as, about how seriously they DIDN'T take themselves at the time.

The K-Mart announcement of the Popmart Tour was another medium with which U2 made that same statement, about how ridiculous that kind of stardom and fame is. And the arch and lemon? They were works of artistic expression just like the record was, and the use of 40ft video screens was quite innovative in the area of rock concert tours - read U2 Show for more info. It was like they built a different world to play those songs in, and that world was Popmart.

The thing is, I see the U2 of 1997, making music and videos and tours aimed how showing how unseriously they tookthemselves, and then I see the U2 of 2005, who seem to take themselves much more seriously. The music is still very good, no doubt, but the attitude has changed. The only thing that makes me a little uncomfortable is that I am not sure which one is the 'real' U2.

Anway, Pop was brilliant, so was Popmart - I'm getting an itch to watch my Popmart DVD again(I convered my VHS to DVD).

 

[typhoon]

I agree that Pop was largely a commercial and critical failure; basically a failure by any measure in the music industry.

I love it, though, and wouldn't change it (much as I hate "Miami"). The PopMart tour also had some incredible moments (although, granted, none of them were thanks to the overwhelming visuals). I just wish the band would stop trying to "fix" this stage of their career with revisionist remixes and such and stop apologizing for it. They should stand behind their work.

 

[MsMofoGone]

I thought "Pop" was a "GOOD" LP...I really liked it!!
As for the LP failing....I thought it was said how U2 made the mistake of "trying" to promote their album....while "press-conferencing" at K-Mart in the lingerie dept. They were making fun of "selling themselves" and the "PopMart Tour" to the
world........ ( Alot of people didn't get the joke!!!!!! )
As for the "PopMart" concert...I thought it was absolutely GREAT!!
I agree......when U2 said, "PopMart would blow "Zoo TV" away.
It sure the heck, did!!!!!! I'll ALWAYS love "PopMart".
That concert blew me away too!!!

 

[Miggy D]

I disagree with pretty much everything that has been said.

I really don't care if the public 'got it' or not.

We know.

What we saw with 'Pop' is U2 using their music as an artistic medium. It wasn't just about catchy tunes. It was about looking deeper into themselves then they ever had before or have since.

U2 has always used their music as an artistic medium. It's never been just about catchy tunes. They already looked 'deeply into themselves' with Achtung, Baby. Pop was a continuation of this theme.

It is imo the greatest lyrical achievement of their career as far as lyrics go. Songs like 'Mofo' and 'Gone' are some of the most personal songs Bono has ever penned the lyrics to:

"mother, am I still your son/you know I've been waiting for so long/to hear you say so/mother, you left and made me someone/now I'm still a child/but no one tells me no"

"you hurt yourself/you hurt your lover/then you discover/what you thought was freedom is just greed"

"You wanted to get somewhere so badly
You had to lose yourself along the way.
You changed your name
Well that's okay, it's necessary
And what you leave behind you don't miss anyway"

just to name a few.

If you read my post, and for that matter, the title of the post, you would know that I don't think it was the music that hurt Pop's sales and popularity. Feel free to re-read at your leisure.

All of the songs on this record and all of the videos made for this record were excercies in art and artistic expression, even the village people bit, that was making a statement - it was a statement about how ridiculous U2 saw their stardom as, about how seriously they DIDN'T take themselves at the time.

I also acknowledged all of this in my post. I can appreciate the artistic statement U2 were trying to make during the Pop era, but as I said - I believe it was a grave misstep.

The K-Mart announcement of the Popmart Tour was another medium with which U2 made that same statement, about how ridiculous that kind of stardom and fame is. And the arch and lemon? They were works of artistic expression just like the record was, and the use of 40ft video screens was quite innovative in the area of rock concert tours - read U2 Show for more info. It was like they built a different world to play those songs in, and that world was Popmart.

I also acknowledged all of this in my post. I can appreciate the artistic statement U2 were trying to make during the Pop era, but as I said - I believe it was a grave misstep.

Anway, Pop was brilliant, so was Popmart - I'm getting an itch to watch my Popmart DVD again(I convered my VHS to DVD).

You have the right to your own opinion, and I'm sure there are many out there who thought Pop's presentation was great. I was simply giving my take on why Pop failed to reach the commercial heights of albums like Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, ATYCLB, and HTDAAB.

-Miggy

 

[namkcuR]

We know.

U2 has always used their music as an artistic medium. It's never been just about catchy tunes. They already looked 'deeply into themselves' with Achtung, Baby. Pop was a continuation of this theme.

If you read my post, and for that matter, the title of the post, you would know that I don't think it was the music that hurt Pop's sales and popularity. Feel free to re-read at your leisure.

I also acknowledged all of this in my post. I can appreciate the artistic statement U2 were trying to make during the Pop era, but as I said - I believe it was a grave misstep.

I also acknowledged all of this in my post. I can appreciate the artistic statement U2 were trying to make during the Pop era, but as I said - I believe it was a grave misstep.

You have the right to your own opinion, and I'm sure there are many out there who thought Pop's presentation was great. I was simply giving my take on why Pop failed to reach the commercial heights of albums like Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, ATYCLB, and HTDAAB.

-Miggy

I did read your post...I wasn't responding just your post to all of things I've read over the years about people saying that Pop was weak musically, which just isn't true.

You keep using the phrase 'grave misstep'...a grave misstep on the road to what? Commercial success? Public acceptance? This is the point I'm tryin gto make; that was a time when U2 were more willing to compromise sales for art. Granted, I fully expect that if U2 knew ahead of time that Pop would sell the way it did, they may not have taken so many risks, but still.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to attack you or anything, my post was more of a reply to all of the things I've heard said about Pop and Popmart. It's all good.

 

[Miggy D]

I did read your post...I wasn't responding just your post to all of things I've read over the years about people saying that Pop was weak musically, which just isn't true.

You keep using the phrase 'grave misstep'...a grave misstep on the road to what? Commercial success? Public acceptance? This is the point I'm tryin gto make; that was a time when U2 were more willing to compromise sales for art. Granted, I fully expect that if U2 knew ahead of time that Pop would sell the way it did, they may not have taken so many risks, but still.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to attack you or anything, my post was more of a reply to all of the things I've heard said about Pop and Popmart. It's all good.

No problem.

I believe U2 have always wanted success. I don't think U2 were willing to compromise sales for art at any point in their career. U2 have always talked about being the biggest band in the world - from the time they were 17 up until now, in 2005. U2 changed their sound in the 1990s because they knew they couldn't release another album that sounded like their 80s work. They needed something fresh, and they realized it. They knew they'd lose some fans with their Achtung Baby sound but they also knew they'd gain new ones.

U2 does not apologize for the Zoo TV era. I have read countless quotes from U2 apologizing for the Pop era. Whether or not you agree with them - U2 are not happy with how either the album or era turned out. You're right - had they been able to see the mistake they were going to make, they would have done things differently. But they're just human.

-Miggy D

 

[Yahweh]

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

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

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

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

4. Rock music at the time when POP came out was never so dull and people were used to listening to that dullness so of course POP was going to be something that they wouldnt ever understand.

5. In general the US fanbase is the weakest fanbase for U2 in the entire world and people can argue all they want about that but really the record sales since Zooropa prove it.

7 million isnt a failure to me so what if the yanks dont like it. I saw the first leg of Popmart in Canada it was an amazing show and it was made by people that actually were accepting of new music and a new sound.

120 thousand people attending 2 concerts in a city of less then 1 million is no failure...yes it may have failed in redneck states but did POP fail in hardcore U2 areas I doubt it...like new york and chicago it would be interesting to see.

 

[Zoots]

The thing is, I see the U2 of 1997, making music and videos and tours aimed how showing how unseriously they tookthemselves, and then I see the U2 of 2005, who seem to take themselves much more seriously. The music is still very good, no doubt, but the attitude has changed. The only thing that makes me a little uncomfortable is that I am not sure which one is the 'real' U2.

Yes Yes and Yes!!!!! very good post.

 

[U2DMfan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Miggy D]

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

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

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

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

4. Rock music at the time when POP came out was never so dull and people were used to listening to that dullness so of course POP was going to be something that they wouldnt ever understand.

5. In general the US fanbase is the weakest fanbase for U2 in the entire world and people can argue all they want about that but really the record sales since Zooropa prove it.

7 million isnt a failure to me so what if the yanks dont like it. I saw the first leg of Popmart in Canada it was an amazing show and it was made by people that actually were accepting of new music and a new sound.

120 thousand people attending 2 concerts in a city of less then 1 million is no failure...yes it may have failed in redneck states but did POP fail in hardcore U2 areas I doubt it...like new york and chicago it would be interesting to see.

As an American, I am seriously offended by this post. That kind of blind hate doesn't belong here.

-Miggy

 

[Zoots]

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

Yeah, that makes sense. Let's face it. They're probably the biggest stadium rock band. Plus they've always WANTED to be the biggest in the world. I'm not surprised that the reaction to Pop left a bad taste in their mouth. I mean... I don't care anyway cos it's my 3rd fav album after AB and JT but still... I can't help wondering what might have happened if everyone had 'got' the concept. More sonic exploration perhaps?

 

[U2DMfan]

I can't help wondering what might have happened if everyone had 'got' the concept. More sonic exploration perhaps?

Yeah, I would think that U2 would have said to themselves "this is what the public wants, or likes" as opposed to "they hate us this way".

But, I can remember after seeing two Popmart shows, and really being pleased with what U2 had done (91-97) and wanting them to move on. Make a rock record, and I don't think they have done it yet, and today in 2005, I don't want them to make a rock record anymore.

Unfortunately for me, they went to the brink of going too safe. That's just a personal opinion, and I think their post 2000 music is good, just not what I would ideally like, so no big complaint, I just understand mayeb why they are doing it.

I think ultimately, that's what the Pop era will be remembered for, the taste it left in the bands mouth. I can't tell you how dissappointed I am when I read the band detracting from their music in the 90's. Shit, most of us liked it, I think.