U2 Named in Rolling Stone's Rock Meltdowns

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The writers of that article/blurb ought to go over the PLEBA and read the "I like POP because..." thread. Both the album and the tour had its moments. Like I said over in that thread...Please into Streets, Edge singing SBS by himself, the LEMON, the concert in Sarajevo...

The POP tour wasn't that bad!
 
Rolling Stone is right ...

Normally, when new albums are released, you can doubt Rolling Stone's integrity since they could be influenced and swayed by album promoters and advertisers who give them revenues. But when RollingStone looks back on the past, they are usually straight shooting and no holds barred. They are just telling it the way it should be. We U2 fans should count ourselves lucky it was only 18th. The Pop debacle could have been ranked worse.

Cheers,

J
 
Re: Rolling Stone is right ...

jick said:
Normally, when new albums are released, you can doubt Rolling Stone's integrity since they could be influenced and swayed by album promoters and advertisers who give them revenues. But when RollingStone looks back on the past, they are usually straight shooting and no holds barred. They are just telling it the way it should be. We U2 fans should count ourselves lucky it was only 18th. The Pop debacle could have been ranked worse.

Cheers,

J

Exactly! I think the four stars came from U2's name and past rep alone, but once it was out in the open, it was seen differently. I agree it could have been higher than 18. This is no surprise. It's the general consensus everywhere but on this site and a mailing list that Pop really was a debacle, and a bad thing for the band's career. Even if lots of you here like it that doesn't change anything. I even read an article in a fall 2000 issue of Revolver where Adam and Larry called it 'a mistake.' That is what most fans and reviewers think, and I think now even the band knows it.
 
Re: Rolling Stone is right ...

jick said:
Normally, when new albums are released, you can doubt Rolling Stone's integrity since they could be influenced and swayed by album promoters and advertisers who give them revenues. But when RollingStone looks back on the past, they are usually straight shooting and no holds barred. They are just telling it the way it should be. We U2 fans should count ourselves lucky it was only 18th. The Pop debacle could have been ranked worse.

Cheers,

J

Or perhaps Rolling Stone really did like the album, but buckled under the general consensus that Pop was a 'failure.' Sort of interesting that they swooned over the album at first but start calling it "bad synth" once they perceive it's not widely liked.

So I don't think it's only promoters and advertisers that sway Rolling Stone's opinions. I think they buckle to popular pressure as well. Pop was perceived *by the public* as a failure, and I think that colors Rolling Stone's opinion on this issue.
 
I think Rolling Stone wants it both ways: they gripe when artists aren't inventive, aren't evolving as artists - but, at the same time, they will butcher you for making a misstep.

POPMart was such a mistake in that the tour was simply planned too far in advance: time that should have been spent rehearsing for the live act was spent finishing the album, and PR opportunities that should have hyped the tour was spent explaining the album.

But, that said, the band got their act together by the time I saw them that Thanksgiving in Atlanta: even if it wasn't a sold-out show, the concert kicked major ass. U2 proved, I think, that their new material (MOFO, Gone, Please, and Staring at the Sun) held its own against the older songs. The entire show nearly overloaded my eyes and ears, in a VERY good way.

Of course, were it not for POPMart, they would have listed Rattle & Hum: POPMart IS the Rattle & Hum of the 90's - something that has reviled by the press but STILL had more good moments than most bands of the era.


It seems to me that U2 push something as far as they possibly can then spin off in another direction:

- War pushed the straight-forward, martial sound as far as it could go. Had they made War Pt. II rather than work with Eno and Lanois, they would have become as one-dimensional as Creed.

- Rattle & Hum pushed the glaring obsession with America as far as it could: Achtung Baby was a change necessary for the band's survival into (and past) the era of grunge.

- POP pushed the European techno groove as far as it could go, requiring the band to change directions yet again. This time, they chose simplicity, making the best songs they could.

But notice:

- The political activism from War survived the transition to the Unforgettable Fire, resulting in Pride and MLK.

- The love of the blues actually survived into the Zoo era, too, if you know where to look: Tryin' to Throw Your Arms Around the World, Stay, and The First Time.

(Not to mention The Playboy Mansion, Stuck in a Moment, and In a Little While.)

- The electronic layers of POP weren't eliminated in All That You Can't Leave Behind: they just hid behind Edge's guitar in songs like Elevation, and When I Look at the World.


The band was willing to be brave enough to make mistakes, learned from those mistakes, and carried those lessons along with them.

What more does Rolling Stone want?


Ultimately, neither POPMart (#18) nor Jewel's poetry (#5) were so blood-curdlingly bad that they deserved to be among "the worst meltdowns ever," MUCH LESS be ranked higher than #31:

MARIAH CAREY IN GLITTER.

Once again, Rolling Stone does not fail to disappoint.
 
Re: Re: Rolling Stone is right ...

GypsyHeartgirl said:


Exactly! I think the four stars came from U2's name and past rep alone, but once it was out in the open, it was seen differently. I agree it could have been higher than 18. This is no surprise. It's the general consensus everywhere but on this site and a mailing list that Pop really was a debacle, and a bad thing for the band's career. Even if lots of you here like it that doesn't change anything. I even read an article in a fall 2000 issue of Revolver where Adam and Larry called it 'a mistake.' That is what most fans and reviewers think, and I think now even the band knows it.

Hmmm, now that I think of it, U2 only got 4 stars for ATYCLB despite Rolling Stone proclaiming it "U2's third masterpiece". Perhaps the deduction of one-star was based on U2's past rep because of the Pop nightmare? But I think Rolling Stone mag righted their wrong and steered the ship to the shore by subsequently naming U2 Band Of The Year to make up for the missing star in the ATYCLB review.

After all, it would be most illogical to call the 4-star Pop a "meltdown" while the 4-star ATYCLB a "masterpiece". Rolling Stone mag often contradict themselves, but at least they are taking a more consistent, correct and hard line by putting Pop where it rightfully belongs and not judge Pop based on U2's reputation alone.

Cheers,

J
 
A lot of people here are totally missing the point.

The point is that the article is not bashing the album specifically, but rather the tour. And the fact of the matter is that the Popmart tour was not bad. It sold very well for a stadium tour, just not up to U2's obscenely high standards. The first shows were obviuosly unrehearsed... that's the "mistake" the bandmembers are talking about.. they aren't saying the album was bad and the tour was bad, they're saying it was a mistake to hold themselves to a schedule like that. But after the first few shows, U2 really got into a groove... just listen to bootlegs from the 2nd leg onwards, or watch the Mexico City video.. that's not a debacle or a catastrophe or a meltdown... it's a damn fine rock n' roll show full of emotion, passion, beauty, and crazy ass lights.



PS. bad synth rock my ass.
 
I saw POPMART in May of 97 in Kansas City. I went on a whim with my sister. I knew Streets, Desire, M. Ways, and One. That was about it. She had to convince me to go. I knew little of the tour other than it was big. We got tickets from a broker shop fire sale at 10 bucks over face value. Little did we know at the time of purchase, (which was two hours before show time) that the tickets were 19 rows back just to the right of the b-stage catwalk...

I was freakin' blown away. I still have never seen a show that could touch the scale, insanity, fun, and free spirit that night was. I knew nothing about it so everything surprised me. The giant killer screen, the arch, the LEMON!!! Oh, yeah THE MUSIC!!! It made me a fan for life and I've since bought all the albums, side projects and four rounds of tickets to the Elevation tour. If that's a meltdown, well then I guess I have poor taste...but I doubt it.
 
you nailed it SkeeK, and it's true there was a lot of chaos surrounding the early part of the tour, which Bubba noted in his post, and that's what Larry was referring to, the whole band has said that -- they lost millions of dollars and weren't ready to start the tour and made asses out of themselves on opening night, live on US television

and they quickly recovered a month or two into the tour and started playing some of the best shows of their life

btw, putting Mariah Carey at #31 makes this entire thing null and void, how anyone can say PopMart was worse than Glitter needs to ask themselves which artist had their $30 million contract bought out by their record label shortly after
 
Last edited:
I stopped taking a noted interest in Rolling Stone when I noticed two things:

1. 80% of the albums reviewed in the mag get three (3) stars...such an easy cop-out for them.

2. They gave the new Papa Roach CD four (thats right, 4) stars.

Popmart was awesome...even if I only experienced them on video or bootleg...BTW, the meltdown for R. Kelly was hillarious (R. Kelly: Believes the Children are our future).
 
The Wanderer said:
you nailed it SkeeK, and it's true there was a lot of chaos surrounding the early part of the tour, which Bubba noted in his post, and that's what Larry was referring to, the whole band has said that -- they lost millions of dollars and weren't ready to start the tour and made asses out of themselves on opening night, live on US television

and they quickly recovered a month or two into the tour and started playing some of the best shows of their life

btw, putting Mariah Carey at #31 makes this entire thing null and void, how anyone can say PopMart was worse than Glitter needs to ask themselves which artist had their $30 million contract bought out by their record label shortly after

Well Glitter flopped and no one even watched it. But as for Pop, it sold so well initially in its first week (#1 in 33 countries) just because of the U2 name alone. Just because of anticiaption. Most of the sales of Pop were not because the people heard it, as the chart nosedive all over the world can attest to that. People bought it unheard, and Pop hit 6 million copies that year (and I think it still remains at 6 million now). So in short, 6 million people got ripped off and short changed with Pop. As for Glitter, well no one really cared. So Pop was a more massive failure. As I mentioned, I am even surprised it is only 18th, it could have been ranked much worse.

Cheers,

J
 
ok, PopMart sucked because Pop didn't sell as many copies as ATYCLB

man, you're right, let's put on ATYCLB or Bon Jovi and hug and kiss, and talk about how much money it's made for our sweet boys :sexywink:
 
Last edited:
Bon Jovi and U2

The Wanderer said:
ok, PopMart sucked because Pop didn't sell as many copies as ATYCLB

man, you're right, let's put on ATYCLB or Bon Jovi and hug and kiss, and talk about how much money it's made for our sweet boys :sexywink:

If Pop sold as many as ATYCLB, the Popmart tour wouldn't have been playing to half empty stadiums. Popmart was to promote Pop so fans and non-fans alike knew that half of the songs would probably Pop songs, so they wisely avoided it making the tour a massive flop.

"How much money it's made for our sweet boys." How can Bon Jovi make money for U2? I don't think any Bon Jovi record has made any money for U2. But if you mean indirectly, perhaps the U2 sighting in the Bon Jovi show in Cleveland may have put some awareness among Bon Jovi fans about U2, so this may have led them to check out U2 and buy concert tickets. Also, Bon Jovi doing a great cover of "One" in their Dublin show may have aroused the interest of some Bon Jovi fans towards U2 and made them buy some U2 stuff or tickets. But the money U2 may have indirectly made because of Bon Jovi is negligible at best.

U2 don't depend on other bands to make their own money, they depend on their own merits.

Cheers,

J
 
jick said:


Well Glitter flopped and no one even watched it. But as for Pop, it sold so well initially in its first week (#1 in 33 countries) just because of the U2 name alone. Just because of anticiaption. Most of the sales of Pop were not because the people heard it, as the chart nosedive all over the world can attest to that. People bought it unheard, and Pop hit 6 million copies that year (and I think it still remains at 6 million now). So in short, 6 million people got ripped off and short changed with Pop. As for Glitter, well no one really cared. So Pop was a more massive failure. As I mentioned, I am even surprised it is only 18th, it could have been ranked much worse.

Cheers,

J

But, you see, the difference between Glitter and Popmart is that POPMART DIDN'T ACTUALLY SUCK. Also, I'm among that 6 million who purchased Pop and unless by "ripped off and short changed" you mean "completely fucking adore" then I'd say you're off-base with that assessment as well.
 
Hello,

Yesterday evening I displayed my fondness for bad taste (again) as I popped in Popmart Live In Mexice City in the VCR. Man, that concert (and tour) was great. It brings back many sweet memories. The Elevation Tour might be even better, but Popmart certainly was no Flopmart.
Also, in contrast to what Matt McGee wrote about his 10 favourite live songs (you can find it on http://www.atu2.com), I don't like the Boston Elevation version of Streets. No give me the 'synth rock' version of Popmart anytime (preferably Rotterdam 18-7-1997, the Popheart version).

'And then there will be no time for sorrow
And then there will be no time for pain'

C ya!

Marty

P.S. At the end of 1998 (long after all the hoopla, good and bad, about Pop and Popmart had died down, U2 released the Popmart video. It got a five star review in Q magazine, noting 'This is what rock music will sound like in the future... if we're lucky.'
 
POPMart sure had its flaws, but in no way does it deserve to be mentioned together with "Glitter".

Rolling Stone lost all credibility with me when one of their reviewers called Britney (ahem) "a true child or rock'n'roll" in his "Ooops..." review. -And- the fact that they're concerned with pretty flesh rather than the actual -music- these days. "Q" is heaps better, anyway.
 
The Wanderer said:
ok, PopMart sucked because Pop didn't sell as many copies as ATYCLB


But didn't PopMart get trashed by people long before ATYCLB ever came out? :huh: :slant:

Originally posted by SkeekA lot of people here are totally missing the point.

The point is that the article is not bashing the album specifically, but rather the tour. And the fact of the matter is that the Popmart tour was not bad. [?B]


But it was the tour that got them 'bashed' more and probably the album was hurt because of the tour?! :huh: :shrug:

That's the way I remember it, or that's how it seemed, before anyone ever heard of ATYCLB.
 
jick said:
People bought it unheard, and Pop hit 6 million copies that year (and I think it still remains at 6 million now). So in short, 6 million people got ripped off and short changed with Pop.
ummm, let's not hijack this thread and make it some anti-pop thread, okay?

anyway, i can't believe glitter placed lower than popmart. at the very least, it should be based on the biggest embarrassments. glitter was a movie starring mariah carey, who at the time could pretty much do no wrong. just about every single she'd ever released went straight to #1. everyone just assumed she could act too. hell, it seems just about every singer is able to act, right? unfortunately (i've never seen the movie) either the script sucked, she sucked, or maybe both. last i heard, only a few hundred copies had been sold in the uk, and maybe about a couple thousand here. that, to me, is an embarrassment, to have 99% of the stock still sitting on the shelves over a year later, than to be playing to a partially empty stadium.
 
KhanadaRhodes said:

ummm, let's not hijack this thread and make it some anti-pop thread, okay?



Well, this IS a thread to discuss RS's recent negative comments on PopMart, what are people only allowed to come here and say how much Rolling Stone sucks and how terrible they are? This is a discussion, and both sides should be welcome. Jinks has made very intelligent, excellent and valid points. :up: They are accurate, regardless of if anyone wants to hear them or believe them.

Khanada, I think you just want to shout down everyone who says things you don't hear about Pop until they shut up and go away. That's just not right.:tsk:
 
GypsyHeartgirl said:


Well, this IS a thread to discuss RS's recent negative comments on PopMart, what are people only allowed to come here and say how much Rolling Stone sucks and how terrible they are? This is a discussion, and both sides should be welcome. Jinks has made very intelligent, excellent and valid points. :up: They are accurate, regardless of if anyone wants to hear them or believe them.

Khanada, I think you just want to shout down everyone who says things you don't hear about Pop until they shut up and go away. That's just not right.:tsk:

You're right, anti-Pop statements do belong in this thread. I think what Khanada took was that Jinks stated what was clearly opinion as irrefutable fact. He claimed that the six million people who bought Pop got ripped off. As one of that six million, I think I have a right to say that no, that was not a valid and accurate statement.
 
Re: Rolling Stone is right ...

jick said:
Normally, when new albums are released, you can doubt Rolling Stone's integrity since they could be influenced and swayed by album promoters and advertisers who give them revenues. But when RollingStone looks back on the past, they are usually straight shooting and no holds barred. They are just telling it the way it should be. We U2 fans should count ourselves lucky it was only 18th. The Pop debacle could have been ranked worse.

Cheers,

J

oh my god it is the 'cheers j' guy from wire!!

i remember a few years ago he posted that bono was a pedophile or something and backed it up with quotes from various songs with the word 'child' in it.....
 
Hallelujah Here She Comes said:
I think what Khanada took was that Jinks stated what was clearly opinion as irrefutable fact. He claimed that the six million people who bought Pop got ripped off. As one of that six million, I think I have a right to say that no, that was not a valid and accurate statement.
exactly.

GypsyHeartGirl said:
Khanada, I think you just want to shout down everyone who says things you don't hear about Pop until they shut up and go away. That's just not right. :tsk:
your obsession with spreading your already well-known hatred of pop is getting kinda tired. just because i made a statement you misinterpreted isn't my fault. oh, and by the way, opinions aren't fact, mmmkay?
 
Back
Top Bottom