U2 Named in Rolling Stone's Rock Meltdowns - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong > Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-21-2002, 02:19 PM   #1
War Child
 
jezebel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: down the road from the Harmony Motel
Posts: 712
Local Time: 04:52 PM
U2 Named in Rolling Stone's Rock Meltdowns

No. 18, I believe:


http://www.rollingstone.com/features...n.asp?pid=1018

I agree to disagree
__________________

jezebel is offline  
Old 08-21-2002, 02:29 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
HelloAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: new york city
Posts: 14,534
Local Time: 07:52 PM

Thanks for the news. It is now posted in the News Forum.
__________________

HelloAngel is offline  
Old 08-22-2002, 12:32 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
HeartlandGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 7,033
Local Time: 04:52 PM

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!
HeartlandGirl is offline  
Old 08-23-2002, 12:20 AM   #4
The Original
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
SkeeK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Hamilton, ON
Posts: 4,163
Local Time: 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by HeartlandGirl

The POP tour wasn't that bad!
The POP tour was freaking rad!
SkeeK is offline  
Old 08-23-2002, 12:22 AM   #5
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 06:52 PM
the PopMart Tour wasn't that bad?? it wasn't any bad
__________________
send lawyers, guns and money...
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-23-2002, 07:50 AM   #6
Refugee
 
jick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,054
Local Time: 07:52 AM
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
jick is offline  
Old 08-23-2002, 08:04 AM   #7
POP for GIRLS
 
GypsyHeartgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Stuck in the 80's!
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 06:52 PM
Re: Rolling Stone is right ...

Quote:
Originally posted by jick
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.
GypsyHeartgirl is offline  
Old 08-23-2002, 08:30 AM   #8
War Child
 
Cowgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 866
Local Time: 09:52 AM
can i ask gypsy..
did u actually go to popmart?
Cowgirl is offline  
Old 08-23-2002, 09:47 AM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Hallelujah Here She Comes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 3,528
Local Time: 06:52 PM
Re: Rolling Stone is right ...

Quote:
Originally posted by jick
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.
Hallelujah Here She Comes is offline  
Old 08-23-2002, 10:43 AM   #10
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 06:52 PM
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.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known
for engaing in very long discussions.
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 08-23-2002, 10:56 AM   #11
War Child
 
jezebel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: down the road from the Harmony Motel
Posts: 712
Local Time: 04:52 PM
Re: Rolling Stone is right ...

Quote:
Originally posted by jick


Cheers,

J

Is this the infamous J of Wire???



jezebel is offline  
Old 08-23-2002, 11:16 AM   #12
Refugee
 
jick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,054
Local Time: 07:52 AM
Re: Re: Rolling Stone is right ...

Quote:
Originally posted by GypsyHeartgirl


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
jick is offline  
Old 08-23-2002, 12:37 PM   #13
The Original
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
SkeeK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Hamilton, ON
Posts: 4,163
Local Time: 06:52 PM
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.
SkeeK is offline  
Old 08-23-2002, 03:26 PM   #14
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Mission, KS
Posts: 982
Local Time: 06:52 PM
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.
tkramer is offline  
Old 08-23-2002, 10:25 PM   #15
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 06:52 PM
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
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-23-2002, 10:30 PM   #16
War Child
 
walkon11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: California, USA
Posts: 664
Local Time: 04:52 PM
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).
walkon11 is offline  
Old 08-23-2002, 10:37 PM   #17
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 06:52 PM
yes, Papa Roach may be the worst band in the world right now
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-24-2002, 02:53 AM   #18
Refugee
 
jick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,054
Local Time: 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer
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
jick is offline  
Old 08-24-2002, 03:11 AM   #19
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 06:52 PM
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
__________________
send lawyers, guns and money...
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-25-2002, 03:10 AM   #20
Refugee
 
jick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,054
Local Time: 07:52 AM
Bon Jovi and U2

Quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer
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
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 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×