Was POP that bad???

[Saracene]

About the early reviews of POP: yes, they -were- very positive, but remember that the herd thinking goes both ways. Oasis' "Be Here Now" had a brilliant 5-star review in the Q magazine before they realised that maybe the album wasn't as good as they made it to be. Which is not to say that a lot of people didn't simply jump on a let's-bash-POP bandwagon; it's just that it's hard to know whether that initial praise was genuine or whether it's nothing but a product of the hype that usually surrounds a work of an artist/band from whom everyone expects nothing less than brilliance.

 

[scatteroflight]

it's just that it's hard to know whether that initial praise was genuine or whether it's nothing but a product of the hype that usually surrounds a work of an artist/band from whom everyone expects nothing less than brilliance.

Good point. I read a review of Pop in the Vancouver Sun which was a four out of five star review, but the reviewer said, among other things, something like "four of the songs work completely"--the other ones were significantly flawed in various ways, in the reviewer's opinion. Now, that sounds to me more like a two or two and a half star review--it was almost like the reviewer just had to give it four stars (one for each of the songs that worked completely?!) because it was U2. I did read other reviews that were highly favourable (one reviewer even thought it was "U2's first great album") and others that were quite negative, but that one stuck out because of the discrepancy between the stars and what the review actually said.

 

[Popmartijn]

About the early reviews of POP: yes, they -were- very positive, but remember that the herd thinking goes both ways. Oasis' "Be Here Now" had a brilliant 5-star review in the Q magazine before they realised that maybe the album wasn't as good as they made it to be. Which is not to say that a lot of people didn't simply jump on a let's-bash-POP bandwagon; it's just that it's hard to know whether that initial praise was genuine or whether it's nothing but a product of the hype that usually surrounds a work of an artist/band from whom everyone expects nothing less than brilliance.

Hello,

It took a looooong search, but I've finally found an article I was looking for the whole time this discussion started. I remember it being written at the end of 1997, so when the whole Pop hype had faded away and the music could be central. It's from Rolling Stone (issue 776/777) and I think it was featured in their Best Of 1997 review:

The conventional, major-label A&R wisdom on electronica boils down to this: "If only we could find a rock band that plays dance music and can write real songs." U2 did just that on "Pop" -- and nobody cared. Maybe they overhyped the techno angle; "Pop" is far more economical in its art-pop disturbance than "Achtung Baby" and less flamboyant in its ache than "The Joshua Tree." There are loops aplenty, but Pop is about hearts beating, not just pulse beats, and the best mix of sob and throb is in the ballads, a U2 specialty: the grim burbling of "Gone," Bono's arcing anguish in "Please." Taken on its own -- away from the chart numbers and the big shtick of PopMart -- "Pop" is simply an album of great pop. For some reason, for a lot of folks, that's just not enough.

So after a while some did see that Pop has its merits (although this article maybe also shows that most critics still just go in the same direction as the bandwagon goes, as I think RS blasted U2 and their FlopMart tour in the middle of 1997).

C ya!

Marty

P.S. A short while ago Q admitted that, though Be Here Now maybe didn't warrant 5 stars, they did like it (then). Some still consider Discoth?que to be one of the best singles of the '90s (I can agree with a lot of that magazine and I also think Pop is a great album, but I still don't like Discoth?que)

 

[SamanthaPuff]

I agree with this. It's a crime to diss U2's 90's music, particularly Pop (no one ever disses Achtung Baby, however, except maybe for individual songs). If you diss 80's work, however, at least if it's albums like October and War, it's just a few sad faces and "oh, well you should really give them a chance." Not this "you're not a true fan" nonsense.

This is true! You all listen to this girl, everything she's said is right!

 

[wertsie]

This is true! You all listen to this girl, everything she's said is right!

Well...I think it also has to do with the WAY that people tend to diss POP. I'm not just saying this because I love POP. I love all of U2's albums, and I think the way that POP is usually dissed tends to be much more brutal than if any other album is dissed.

 

[Joshua_Tree_Hugger]

I said it before and I said it again...

I POP. It's not false praise or anything else.

It's just one quality album!

 

[Whats The Story?]

Pop is certainly far better than its critics give it credit for. Discotheque, Gone, Do You Feel Loved? Mofo, Please, Wake Up Dead Man, Velvet Dress, Last Night On Earth, Staring At The Sun, If God Will Send His Angels. I see nothing wrong with any of these songs except a few production issues. Also I've seen people on here saying the album as a whole captures a certain mood and I think this is correct, too.

I think it'll be pretty cool hearing the pop re-mixes and who knows? maybe the rest of the songs will be re-done as b-sides. Then we could piece the "new" Pop together like a jigsaw. Won't that be fun?

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Well...I think it also has to do with the WAY that people tend to diss POP. I'm not just saying this because I love POP. I love all of U2's albums, and I think the way that POP is usually dissed tends to be much more brutal than if any other album is dissed.

this is true. for example, both october and pop were rushed albums, although for different reasons. october gets "the lyrics are kinda lame, and the music isn't as tight as boy" or something, while pop gets a big "wtf? " or something.

 

[Saracene]

this is true. for example, both october and pop were rushed albums, although for different reasons. october gets "the lyrics are kinda lame, and the music isn't as tight as boy" or something, while pop gets a big "wtf? " or something.

Thing is, this sort of sloppiness is more forgiveable coming from a very young, relatively unexperienced band who've only done one album before and didn't have a lot of time and money to spend. But the U2 of mid-90s were playing on a whole new level and I think it's fair to expect a certain level of professionalism and decsision-making from the artists of their calibre.

 

[* MoFo *]

Pop is my fav U2 album. i think U2's whole image in this era surprised people - it was far too colourfull, almost camp to non-U2 fans. i however loved their look at this time .
U2's image change from gypsie-look-alikes to what became the look of Zoo TV was much different and i feel because they looked far more 'neutral' than they did durin Pop, it was far better received.
U2's sound at this time also didnt help; it confused far too many ppl; it made U2 look like 'sell-outs' (in that they thought every1 would dig their new sound and thier overall look was that of the big-headded celebrity) if ppl actually paid proper attention to the album, not as many would hate it, although, every1 is entitled to their opinion and no end of listenin to the album will make them like it.

dont get me wrong; i loved everyhting about that era, although i wasnt a fan at that time, lookin back i wish i was.

this is how i perceive the overall perception of the album, anyway. feel free to shoot me down if u disaree

 

[wertsie]

Another interesting thing that I think is worth pointing out is that when POP is dissed, it's usually nothing specific about the lyrics to the songs. More often than not, I see people complaining about the "image" rather than the music...

 

[Hallelujah Here She Comes]

Thing is, this sort of sloppiness is more forgiveable coming from a very young, relatively unexperienced band who've only done one album before and didn't have a lot of time and money to spend. But the U2 of mid-90s were playing on a whole new level and I think it's fair to expect a certain level of professionalism and decsision-making from the artists of their calibre.

That might be true. Except it really doesn't warrant the criticism usually hurled at the band in regards to POP. Rarely do people criticizing POP say "oh, I wish POP had been more finished" (although some do). More often it's a simple "POP sucks" or "Discoteque is a dumb song." Of course, these people are as entitled to their opinion as anybody, but I think their opinions have little to do with how finished the album was and more to do with a simple dislike of the music. But that's just how I perceive it.

 

[Salome]

and I think the way that POP is usually dissed tends to be much more brutal than if any other album is dissed.

that might have something with the way your opinion is received in here when you say that POP is your least favourite album

the first time I posted the reasons why POP is my least favourite albums (production skills, some awkward lyrics and because it sounds more like 4 EP's thrown together than 1 albums) most of the reactions ranged from saying that it's obvious that I just don't "get it" and that I probably only like simple music to me not being a real U2 fan if I don't think POP is one of U2's best albums

so if your point is that all of us should stop whining then I agree
if your point is that the people who don't think POP is one of U2's best offering should stop whining then you're 50% right

 

[womanfish]

POP -
Daring, fun, dark, beautiful, sonic, sad, heavy, and lyrically amazing.

 

[wertsie]

POP -
Daring, fun, dark, beautiful, sonic, sad, heavy, and lyrically amazing.

Oooh...I like your choice of adjectives!

 

[jick]

Enough is Enough!

You should all stop dissing POP. Don't you realize that POP is U2's most artistic, gutsy and daring album to date? This is the only album where they had balls to say "fuck what other people say U2 should sound like, we make our own art, we are masters of our own destiny." The fact that no other U2 album sounds like POP is testament to this. U2 took the easy way out with ATYCLB, giving us U2-lite or soft U2. They have lost their balls. POP is legendary in the books of REAL U2 fans.

Cheers,

J
"The King Of POP"

 

[Popmartijn]

Re: Enough is Enough!

You should all stop dissing POP. Don't you realize that POP is U2's most artistic, gutsy and daring album to date? This is the only album where they had balls to say "fuck what other people say U2 should sound like, we make our own art, we are masters of our own destiny." The fact that no other U2 album sounds like POP is testament to this. U2 took the easy way out with ATYCLB, giving us U2-lite or soft U2. They have lost their balls. POP is legendary in the books of REAL U2 fans.

Cheers,

J
"The King Of POP"

Nice U-turn J. Finally rediscovered what your (former?) email address means? Now keep this sentiment and go out and correct your other diatribes.

C ya!

Marty (who also knows that hypocracy is the greatest luxury)

 

[jick]

Re: Re: Enough is Enough!

Nice U-turn J. Finally rediscovered what your (former?) email address means? Now keep this sentiment and go out and correct your other diatribes.

C ya!

Marty (who also knows that hypocracy is the greatest luxury)

Yes I have seen the great error of my past views so I have decided to abandon all previous views I may have had on POP and replace them with totally new views that is more consistent with the ideals and aspirations of this forum.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[Walkron]

Without POP, their would be no PopMart, of which I had the pleasure of attending, or, PopMart Mexico City, one of the finest live concert videos ever made. Without POP, Please,Wake up Dead Man, last Night on Earth etc... would probobly not exist.
The band needed to make this album for I think they were getting bored.
For those of you dissing this album, come on, revert your cranium insertion..
Snap out of it.

 

[Seconds]

...For those of you dissing this album, come on, revert your cranium insertion..Snap out of it.

Revert my cranium insertion?

Rationality is lost in these POP threads. If I don't like POP, I'm obvisouly an old man who doesn't know sh** all about music. If you like POP, you're a visionary.

Anyways. I swear by all that is good in life that i will never read, click or respond to any thread that has anything to do with POP. It's not wort it.

Even if the thread is called "Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby crap compared to POP."

Hmm. It actually wouldn't surprise me if most you POP lovers actually believe that.

Anyways, see you all in a more productive threads.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Revert my cranium insertion?

Rationality is lost in these POP threads. If I don't like POP, I'm obvisouly an old man who doesn't know sh** all about music. If you like POP, you're a visionary.

Anyways. I swear by all that is good in life that i will never read, click or respond to any thread that has anything to do with POP. It's not wort it.

Even if the thread is called "Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby crap compared to POP."

Hmm. It actually wouldn't surprise me if most you POP lovers actually believe that.

Anyways, see you all in a more productive threads.

 

[wertsie]

Hmm. It actually wouldn't surprise me if most you POP lovers actually believe that.

Arg! This is so incredibly stupid! Why do people who dislike POP think that those who like it don't like any other U2 albums?

 

[Whats The Story?]

POP's qualities will take time to be appreciated by music fans at large. It slightly let down by one or two dodgy tracks but in my opinion has a healthy amount of great songs.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Arg! This is so incredibly stupid! Why do people who dislike POP think that those who like it don't like any other U2 albums?

for real! i mean, i like pop and all, but for my favourite U2 album, that title would have to go to achtung baby.

 

[wertsie]

for real! i mean, i like pop and all, but for my favourite U2 album, that title would have to go to achtung baby.

Oh, definitely! Me too! AB all the way.

 

[daisybean]

AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH

I can't believe you all are still bickering over this.....

You like Pop, fine, yay for you....
You don't like Pop, fine, yay for you as well..


But for God's sake stop beating each other up over it....
No one is gonna change anyone else's mind...so ya might as well drop it.

 

[Hallelujah Here She Comes]

Re: AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH

I can't believe you all are still bickering over this.....

You like Pop, fine, yay for you....
You don't like Pop, fine, yay for you as well..


But for God's sake stop beating each other up over it....
No one is gonna change anyone else's mind...so ya might as well drop it.

GAAH! THANK YOU!

*joins daisy in *

 

[Walkron]

Revert my cranium insertion?

Rationality is lost in these POP threads. If I don't like POP, I'm obvisouly an old man who doesn't know sh** all about music. If you like POP, you're a visionary.

Anyways. I swear by all that is good in life that i will never read, click or respond to any thread that has anything to do with POP. It's not wort it.

Even if the thread is called "Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby crap compared to POP."

Hmm. It actually wouldn't surprise me if most you POP lovers actually believe that.

Anyways, see you all in a more productive threads.

Note taken
I love haggis

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Wow, I never would have thought that being a fan of U2 would be such a divisive excercise. I always thought the band was our commonality. Let's ask ourselves this: wouldn't it be better to go and listen to 'One' right now and actually live the message?