Who else misses the POP era?? (POP appreciation thread)

[Salome]

Originally posted by bullet the blue sky:
I think the reason everyone gets to uptight about POP is that it is U2's most radical album... and whether you like it or not almost always says a tremendous amount about your own musical tastes and, by definition, your own personality and way of thinking.

I guess your feelings about any album tell something about who you are (even though most of the times it won't tell you anything interesting)
I don't think POP is an exception in this

The triumvirate of Zooropa-Passengers-POP is U2's most interesting phase, immaterial of whether you enjoy it or not.

musically it is
but when you look at the lyrics or the emotions songs manage to provoke those albums aren't more interesting than any other U2 album
personal preferences aside

POP was more of a 'vibe' record than a 'melody' record. It was based on beats and rhythms for the most part. As one review I read said "it sounds great, but where are the tunes?" - but again, that goes back to making an effort with music. Not all songs are ready-made hits.

ah, 'making an effort with music'
I'm not musically lazy
I prefer John Coltrane to Miles Davis even though Miles is far more melodic
I love Frank Zappa, I love Aphex Twin
a lack of tunes is not nesecarely a problem for me, but - if you theory is right - perhaps POP shows that U2 is far better at writing melodies then they are at trying to create a vibe?
I feel POP was more of an effort on U2 then on me (unlike Zooropa, an album I absolutely love)
it was a brave effort, but not one with the results they expected

Take Please for example - on first listen, who'd have thought that would be such a favourite with the fans?

if it wasn't for the live version (that shows the problem about POP not being U2's best produced album) it would never have been

but it would be a shame if the adverse reaction to POP would end U2's sense of adventure. Because without that, you would never have had The Joshua Tree and The Unforgettable Fire, never mind POP.

I think ATYCLB shows an immense sense of adventure
"Stuck in a moment", "In a little while" and "Grace" all covered territories U2 had never dared to embark upon
while "Elevation" and "New York" are more likely to be compared to the band's work on POP then on any other U2 album

In summary, I hope the next album is more Discotheque than Stuck In A Moment.

I don't nesecarely
I just hope they do something that they are able to do very well
not something they do rather well (but not as well as other artists) but have never done before

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[This message has been edited by Salome (edited 03-29-2002).]

 

[pub crawler]

[AutoReply] I love POP! Sure some people don't understand the album because it's kind of heavy and deep, but if you listen to it long enough, you'll get it! [AutoReply]

Edited to clarify that I'm joking with the above statement!!!..lol

[This message has been edited by pub crawler (edited 03-31-2002).]

 

[new orleans]

Originally posted by Saracene:
POP... the times when an aging rock band tried to be hip and cool to the kids by hopping on a techno music bandwagon while wearing the most ridiculous costumes in the known universe and trying to force an undercooked album down the public's collective throat.

Nah, I love POP, it's just that I can't stand any smug statements of what "true fans" are supposed to be and what they're supposed to like. Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy knowing what a superior taste in music you have. And I really cannot understand why so many people feel the need to constantly put down ATYCLB in order to affirm POP's greatness; can't it just be praised on its own terms?

Ok, I think that Miami is a horrible stinker and Playboy Mansion & Velvet Dress are kinda lifeless, but Gone, Discotheque, Wake Up Dead Man, Last Night On Earth are all as good as anything U2 have written and Mofo is one of Bono's most personal songs ever. Bono's lyrics are simply superb except when he tries to be too clever on Playboy Mansion and comes off a bit cringeworthy IMO.

[This message has been edited by Saracene (edited 03-28-2002).]

Well put. Overall POP was a good album except for the songs you mentioned. To meet Velvet Dress may be the worse song ever written by U2. As I said the album was good the tour sucked. I first saw U2 live on the riverboat President in New Orleans back in 1981 or 1982 and have been following them ever since. The tour of POP sucked because to me it wasn't U2. U2 is about the music and with POP the stage took over the music. And seeing U2 dressed up in those asinine costumes coming out of that stupid space ship/lemon was too much. I saw POP twice, Memphis & New Orleans, and it was the least favorite tour I've seen. To me it did not even look like U2 was into it or giving it their all while performing. The ATYCLB tour is the U2 I know. Giving 110% throughout the show. It was good to have them back.

 

[Autumn454]

Originally posted by pub crawler:
[AutoReply] I love POP! Sure some people don't understand the album because it's kind of heavy and deep, but if you listen to it long enough, you'll get it! [AutoReply]

You know, this irritates me. Some people act like people who don't like Pop 'didn't get it' or understand it, which I find insulting. I really dislike the sound of it in general, and the more I listen to it the worse of a headache I get. I know what it's about, but I still do not enjoy it because it is distasteful to me in many ways. Please understand and respect that some people really honestly do not like the album, and some of us also dislike the era in general, and that we never will like it, and knock off the 'didn't get it' crap please. Y'know, if I didn't know better, I'd swear some of you were 'stuck in the 90's LMAO!!!

------------------
~Burned by the fire of love~

 

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by bullet the blue sky:
I think the reason everyone gets to uptight about POP is that it is U2's most radical album... and whether you like it or not almost always says a tremendous amount about your own musical tastes and, by definition, your own personality and way of thinking.

The triumvirate of Zooropa-Passengers-POP is U2's most interesting phase, immaterial of whether you enjoy it or not.

These are your opinions, yet you state them as fact. I find it presumptuous.

And by the way, I love Pop, but in my opinion, Achtung Baby/ZooTV was a more interesting phase.

As for POPMart itself, by the time it came to Europe it had finally found its feet, but the first American leg was rather disappointing. And, again, whether you like it or not, the reason POP and POPMart were more successful outside America was that America was not ready for that type of music.

Or maybe, whether you like it or not, the America audience didn't respond as well because PopMart had not "found its feet" yet.



[This message has been edited by joyfulgirl (edited 03-29-2002).]

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by Autumn454:
You know, this irritates me. Some people act like people who don't like Pop 'didn't get it' or understand it, which I find insulting. I really dislike the sound of it in general, and the more I listen to it the worse of a headache I get. I know what it's about, but I still do not enjoy it because it is distasteful to me in many ways. Please understand and respect that some people really honestly do not like the album, and some of us also dislike the era in general, and that we never will like it, and knock off the 'didn't get it' crap please. Y'know, if I didn't know better, I'd swear some of you were 'stuck in the 90's LMAO!!!

I agree totally.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by Hawkfire:
Just to point out, some posters have accused me of trying to define who is or isn't a "real" fan and attempting to marginalize those who don't appreciate POP. In fact, if you reread my email, I simply stated that those who like POP are real fans (ie not along for a bandwagon ride or one or two big radio hits). I was implying that anyone who likes POP and appreciates its significance in the U2 cannon IS a "real" fan. That does NOT mean that anyone who doesn't like it isn't a fan...I'm not here to make that distinction. In other words, rest assured you can dislike POP and still be a U2 fan in my book. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Well, to be honest, you did write:

"many casual U2 fans or 80s U2 fans (is there a worse kind?)"

which is quite an insult.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by MrPryck2U:
The Boys were needlessly slagged by the critics and the old-school fans and got fucked in the ass for it. I found myself constantly defending U2 because they had the balls to laugh at themselves, Rock and Roll and Western Civilization. Without POP though, we wouldn't have had ATYCLB; the album that brought all the fuckwads back onto the "U2 is great bandwagon". Meanwhile, I was there all along.

So, would you call someone who liked U2 since 1984, but then didn't like Zooropa or Pop, but then became interested again with ATYCLB a "f***wad"? Let me be clear on that; is that what you are saying?

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Well, to be honest, you did write:

"many casual U2 fans or 80s U2 fans (is there a worse kind?)"

which is quite an insult.

[teasing] only if you're the kind of U2 fan that has the gall to go by a nick like 80sU2isbest. Couldn't that statement offend 90s U2 fans?

*ahem* [/teasing]

 

[u2utah]

This hasn't exactly turned into a "Pop Appreciation thread" now has it?

Hmmm, Must say something nice about Pop....

Pop has really great lyrics. Some of the best IMO.

Just wish I could hear them over all that noise.

My opinion of Pop is that it's a great rock album buried under a mountain of electronica cra-, er, stuff. Electronica is great for dance music, but Pop isn't a dance record, it has rock rhythms. I defy anyone to dance to most songs on Pop

Experimentation with new sounds is great, I just think the those sounds were allowed to overwhelm the songs. That's why I was happy to hear that it wasn't ever fully "finished" to their satisfaction, because that's how it sounded to me. More mixing and balancing was needed.

Most of the songs on Pop are really quite good (except for Velvet Dress and Miami, two songs that if I never hear again it will be too soon

Ah well, you can't like everything)

 

[*Stormy*]

I'm sorry, but this discussion and some of the things posted reminded me of this. Like I still had the Boston protest email, this packrat still had this post from old wire too, a Bill and Ted U2 Parody. I do hope everyone will see the comedy in this and not flame me for posting it. Note: if you never saw the second "Bill and Ted" movie, (Bogus Journey) you won't, uh, 'get it'

Subject: U2 "Bill and Ted" parody


[WIRE: The U2 Mailing List - Reflector]

Has anyone ever noticed the similarities between U2's story and the "Bill and Ted" movies? Okay, they started out as teenage boys who couldn't play their instruments, then they 'learned how to play' and 'got good' and won the Battle of the Bands, went on to achieve greatness and try to change the world with their music! It would make a pretty good parody to say that, in the early days, they were about to be separated but Rufus, who was from the futuristic society based on U2's music, was sent back in time to save the band. You could say they traveled time, and went to the future where they were totally worshipped. For the sequel,like"Bill Ted's Bogus Journey," they'd be in danger because that evil Chuck DeNomulous from the future wanted to destroy them so society could be based on his ideals and not U2's music. So, just like Bill and Ted in the movie, they are taken to the desert (near the Joshua tree?) and "killed." Then he replaces them with evil robots from the future (just like the movie) whose mission it is to ruin their reputations and trash their lives. DeNomulous meticulously crafted the robots as repicas of the band members, but being fat, ugly and baldheaded himself, he hated Bono because he was beautiful, so he refused to give the Bono robot any hair. Then, to make them look like complete fools, he dressed them in the stupidest outfits he could find- muscle shirt, surgeon mask, Village People stuff, etc. Now DeNomulous programmed his robots to create an album that was weird, electronic, and otherwise mostly un-U2 like in an attempt hurt their reputation and jeopardize their place in history! To add to the humiliation and disgrace, they were forced to travel about in a gigantic neon lemon. DeNomulous laughed with wicked
and evil glee as he watched the once-great band sink to this! Meanwhile, U2 were trapped in the afterlife, battling Mr. Death for their lives back! ('you may challenge me to a contest') They played Battleship,Twister, electronic football, and of course Bono kicked his ass at chess! ('best 5 out of 7?' damn right!) They traveled through the spirit world, to hell and finally to Heaven, where God loved them so much and wanted them to finish their work on Earth that He restored the life to their bodies and sent them back. Not a moment too soon! U2 destroyed the evil robot 'thems', went back to Ireland and recorded a fantastic rock album, then went on a glorious tour for it and totally kicked ass! Their reputation and their career were saved! They went on to achieve rock legendary status and immortality! The evil plot was
foiled and U2 ruled! Of course, in the future, the society based on U2's music flourished. Bono and U2 brought peace to the world and harmony to the universe. All was right. U2 was restored to their true destiny-
absolute greatness for now and all eternity. The End.

Epiloge: Bono saved the world.

 

[Hawkfire]

Stormy,
You are WAY off base in your assertions of my post and subsequent response. You are reading between lines that simply are NOT there.

I'll say it again: I am in NO WAY bashing people who are not fans of POP, apart from the one little jab at "80s U2 fans" that was said jokingly. I am not in the business of quantifying what "level" anyone's U2 "fandom" is.

I just wanted to call attention to what I think is a grossly underappreciated era in U2's career in which time they released a great album and put on a subsequent mindbending tour. While I have some problems with the recent commercial ventures undertaken with the marketing of ATYCLB, I did not say this was a horrible album or try to bash it in an attempt to lift POP.

POP fares well in comparison to most any U2 album, and though it's not my favorite and I'll be the first to admit it's far from perfect, like I indicated I think it is experimental, revolutionary, daring, and challenging. These traits make it deserving of appreciation years after the album's release.

 

[*Stormy*]

Well you know Hawkfire, the 80's comment didn't look like a joke, I've seen that same kind of attitude before and took it for more of the same, and, gotta admit now, the 'only the true fan' stuff really rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, regardless of their opinion on POP. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like one most people are going to take it for -a duck.

[This message has been edited by *Stormy* (edited 03-29-2002).]

 

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by Hawkfire:
Stormy,
You are WAY off base in your assertions of my post and subsequent response. You are reading between lines that simply are NOT there.

I'll say it again: I am in NO WAY bashing people who are not fans of POP, apart from the one little jab at "80s U2 fans" that was said jokingly. I am not in the business of quantifying what "level" anyone's U2 "fandom" is.

I just wanted to call attention to what I think is a grossly underappreciated era in U2's career in which time they released a great album and put on a subsequent mindbending tour. While I have some problems with the recent commercial ventures undertaken with the marketing of ATYCLB, I did not say this was a horrible album or try to bash it in an attempt to lift POP.

POP fares well in comparison to most any U2 album, and though it's not my favorite and I'll be the first to admit it's far from perfect, like I indicated I think it is experimental, revolutionary, daring, and challenging. These traits make it deserving of appreciation years after the album's release.

This strikes me as a much different post, in tone, than your original one. Stated this way, I agree with you.

 

[Sperber]

I wanted to meet Bono - and you gave me the Fly

I searched for the hip U2 - and I saw the old U2

I wanted to meet rock - and you send post-rock to me...

I am dissappointed, U2 used to be so cool, they were never so cool!

------------------
beLIEve

 

[MrPryck2U]

When I say fuckwads, I'm talking about all the frontrunner fans. The ones who think Pride is U2's best song and only have The Joshua Tree in their catalogs. The ones who don't like Rattle and Hum or the ones who didn't "get" POP or Zooropa. Now ATYCLB( A great album, by the way.) comes along and these same fuckwads come out of the woodwork and claim that they're big U2 fans and they liked them all the while. Which is a complete load of shit. Because of ATYCLB and it's rousing mainstream success, all of a sudden, it's cool to be a U2 fan again. That's what I'm talking about.

Bottom Line: Type the word "fuck"! Not this "f**k" bullshit.

------------------
The goal is ELEVATION!

 

[*Stormy*]

U2Utah, if you go back and read the original post, you will see why this is not a 'POP appreciation thread.' He contradicted that intention with his post, which is an obvious bashing of those who do not like Pop. Even his alleged retraction was insulting, and I see he used the word 'fan' but refused to admit one who dislikes Pop is a 'real fan.' I for one will not patronize him by finding something good about Pop. I do not like it, I love all the other albums, and I am a true fan, one of the best and truest ever if I do say so myself.

Hawkfire asks if there is any worse kind of fan than an 80's fan, to which I answer YES. There is the kind who is such an overwhelming Pop fanatic that they hold a grudge against everyone who didn't like it, bashing them and never accepting that maybe the damn thing just wasn't to their liking! Or worse yet, bashing other albums, especially ATYCLB which they are eaten up with jealousy of the success of, which make them hypocrites in their claim that if you don't worship everything U2 has ever done you are not a 'true fan.' These are the worst fans, because they set up definitions of a fan according to their own opinion and discredit all those who do not share their views. No, I am not like that. I accept that not everyone likes every album, and you can be a U2 fan only liking certain things- almost everybody likes pizza, we just don't all like the same things on it. It's the same thing with music. I think it's time that those who cannot accept the fact that lots of U2 fans didn't like Pop and that Pop was not the huge success ATYCLB, AB and JT were, should get over it and move on. I totally agree with 80sU2isbest and some of the others who have seen this happening and stated similar sentiments. This has really gone far enough.

 

[Drowning Party Girl]

I love POP. I think it is a great album. The problem is that unlike their other albums, they never finished many of the songs while on tour. Too many of the songs are incomplete. While they did an awesome job finishing up songs, such as mofo, gone, last night on earth, and please, they did nothing with songs that I was very interested in hearing completed live, such as If God Would Send His Angles, Do You Feel Loved, Wake Up Dead Man and Playboy Mansion. In my opinion, it is the most incomplete album yet, and they have done little with it in terms of live play, which makes it rather insignificant in some respects.

 

[bullet the blue sky]

I think in general issues, history has proven me right on almost every occasion so I have no reason to doubt my opinion on this.

[This message has been edited by bullet the blue sky (edited 03-29-2002).]

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by MrPryck2U:
Bottom Line: Type the word "fuck"! Not this "f**k" bullshit.

I'll type what I want. I'm not comfortable typing certain words. And why should it matter to you, anyway, if I type it or mask it? And why waste your energy getting mad because some people like Joshua Tree and nothing else, and then start enjoying U2 again with ATYCLB? Hey, if they buy the album, that's a good thing, right?

 

[Desire4Bono]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:

I'll type what I want. I'm not comfortable typing certain words. And why should it matter to you, anyway, if I type it or mask it? And why waste your energy getting mad because some people like Joshua Tree and nothing else, and then start enjoying U2 again with ATYCLB? Hey, if they buy the album, that's a good thing, right?

Oh no, it's not to people like Mr.Pryck and the ones who constantly start the 'I miss POP' threads (was it Johnny last week? Who was it the week before that?)and are so stagnanted and stuck in the 90s and can't get out. Yet they think it's some kind of crime for a person to not like POP and like the 80s and 00s, which they put down, so go figure! What is the difference which albums a fan likes or doesn't like as long as U2 gets the sales and we all enjoy what we want to hear?

 

[MrPryck2U]

I guess you missed my post on the first page. I clearly said I did NOT miss the POP era nor did I want to repeat it. I didn't start this POP appreciation thread. Somebody else did. Read it again! Hey, if you don't wanna type "fuck", that's fine. But, that right there does speak volumes.

------------------
The goal is ELEVATION!

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by MrPryck2U:
Hey, if you don't wanna type "fuck", that's fine. But, that right there does speak volumes.

Don't make some stupid little hit `n' run statement like "that speaks volumes" and then leave it at that. Come on, tell me exactly how that speaks volumes.

 

[Zoocifer]

This is getting good.

The sun shines east,
the sun shines west,
but we know where -
the sun shines best ...

MIAMI !!!!!!!!

~z~

------------------
" You love this town - even if that doesn't ring true. You've been all over, and it's been all over you " - Bono

" Don't you know there ain't no Devil, that's just God when he's drunk " - Tom Waits

 

[Seconds]

I know this is not a good basis for declaring wether an album is good or not. But Could someone who loves POP give me a valid reason why POP is U2's least selling album since propably War or maybe even october?

I know Album sales don't matter, quality is what matters, but why did all those millions of U2 fans suddenly stop buying U2? Can more than half of all U2 fans who love them in the early 90's have been casual fans? POP was promoted as much as Achtung so promotion can't be the reason.

All I want to understand is why their is such a high disproportion between the general population in the fans in this forum. It just seems like 90% of the fans in this forum think that album is a masterpiece.

 

[Hawkfire]

In response to the above question, here are a couple reasons why POP has sold the least copies of any U2 LP since October:

1) The videos, by and large, were not good. LNOE video is one of their absolute worst, the others were mostly boring "band playing the song" pieces...consequently did not garner much MTV time.

2) Discotheque as the first single was polarizing, particularly for a lot of the "Joshua" type U2 fans. This was not a radio-friendly happy 3 min, 30 second single...it was dark, had dance rythms and was completely unlike anything U2 had done prior to this (I personally love this song). In terms of dance elements, this song was not indicative of the album, but this single fed the media whispers that U2 "had gone dance" which turned a lot of people - particularly in the US - off to purchasing the album. Ironic because the album is NOT a dance album.

3) Singles strategy was questionable, to say the least. LNOE and probably Please never should have been singles. These are not radio friendly songs (though ironically these two became the live highlights of PopMart). They kept releasing so many, in so many different formats, that the "strategy" appeared entirely incoherent.

4) The US press turned on U2...slagging the tour, which was underrehearsed and got off to a dismal (by U2 standards) start in Las Vegas. Early tour reviews were mixed, stadiums were not sold out the first couple of months, and lukewarm album reviews contributed to U2 being shelved for the most part. In Europe, the concert was better and deservedly got higher marks. Not coincidentally, the album fared better outside the US.

In other words, U2 got stuck by committing to tour dates too early. This meant the final recording days were rushed (single and live versions of If God Will Send, Please, and LNOE all vastly improve the LP recording)and the tour suffered through Leg I. Unfortunately, these less than spectacular (by U2 standard) shows gave the press all the material they needed to write off U2. Unfortunately, by the time Leg III returned in October, when U2 had PopMart down to a tee, few bothered to tune in.

So in summary it was both bad decisions by the band and the press just deciding to knock U2 while they were considered the big stadium rockers...U2 were fighting an inaccurate perception of the album from before it was even released, and it was an uphill battle all the way, particularly in the US.

I don't think it had a lot to do with the quality of the work that was done by U2 on the album...perceived quality, yes...POP is a difficult album that takes time to grow to, but as I said before the songs are there.

 

[*Stormy*]

Originally posted by Seconds:
I know this is not a good basis for declaring wether an album is good or not. But Could someone who loves POP give me a valid reason why POP is U2's least selling album since propably War or maybe even october?

I know Album sales don't matter, quality is what matters, but why did all those millions of U2 fans suddenly stop buying U2? Can more than half of all U2 fans who love them in the early 90's have been casual fans? POP was promoted as much as Achtung so promotion can't be the reason.

All I want to understand is why their is such a high disproportion between the general population in the fans in this forum. It just seems like 90% of the fans in this forum think that album is a masterpiece.

*APPLAUSE*!!!

I have noticed those same things and I feel exactly the same way and agree with everything you said!!

Yes there is a terrible disproportionate(what a perfect word for this) number of POP fans on this board compared to the overall U2 fan population. I think it's because this site, and the www in general, came to life at the time it came out, and those who liked it came here, and continue to be vocal here, but there is no doubt the 'disproportionate' thing is true. Why is it I have never met a POP fan anywhere but here? I know lots of people of all ages who make fun of POP.

Oh, some will make their excuses, but I will tell you why I didn't like it. I am no casual fan. I have been a big fan since the War days. I bought AB and yes, even Zooropa, though the latter did put a bit of a scare in me as to where U2 was headed.(though Stay is one of my favorite songs) My worst fears were confirmed with POP. My band had freaked out. Bono shaved his frigging head, had on the most ridiculous outfit I had ever seen on a grown man, Edge looked like a cheap pimp from a bad 70's b-movie, and Adam just looked like a reject from a costume party. The Discotheque video turned me off, yes. It was a complete joke. No, not in a 'funny/having fun' way, in a stupid/sad way. They looked like idiots. I mean, most people hated the original Village People and now U2 was acting like them? I looked at this goofball parade and thought, THIS is the band who gave me SBS? THESE are those guys in the desert who did that masterpiece JT? THESE are the cool, no-shit guys who did ZOOTV? NO WAY!! (GO back and read the post I made earlier in this thread about the Bill and Ted parody- when I read that I was LMAO because that's exactly what it looked like!!)
Sorry, I just could not accept that. Yes, the image and the look did have a lot to do with turning me off, as well as many other fans I know and don't know. I recall waiting with anticipation for the K-Mart announcement, but when I saw them, and the way they acted, I wanted nothing to do with them. I didn't watch the TV special, which BTW was the lowest rated non-news program ever at the time. I don't think I was the only U2 fan who didn't want to see 'that' U2.

(One interesting thing I've noticed about this too is that while many older fans looked at and listened to POP and said 'what the hell is that' it's happening the other way around now too. There are some young fans who only took up with them at ATYCLB who are exploring the past stuff, come across Pop and also go, uh, what the hell is that? Coming in from two different directions, for some the reaction was the same.)

Okay- on to the music. Yes, the image was an immediate turnoff and scared me away right away, but if the music had been good it would have made some difference. It wasn't. I don't like the type of music most of those songs were. They were horrible noise to me, and still are. Some, like LNOE, actually make me feel sick to my stomach. I find MOFO impossible to listen to all the way through. Then there was Miami. Playboy Mansion. Of course, the idiocy which was Discotheque with its stupid sounding beat and its lameass lyrics. They seemed like it just didn't fit, not only like it wasn't 'them' but like it just didn't work, wasn't meant to be and there was a great disturbance in the force. Bono's voice was failing him. The type of music seemed so out of place for their abilities, strengths and talents. So, sadly I was, for the first time ever REPELLED from U2 as if they had become a smelly trash can surrounded by flies. Being a devoted fan up until that point, I do not consider myself not a 'true fan.' But, you know, sometimes there are things people do that piss you off, even the people you love very much, as so it was with me and U2.

Look at the legacy of POP compared to the other records. Songs from War, UF, JT and AB are all still played on the radio a lot. I haven't heard a POP song in years, and even in its day SATS was the only one that made the regular playlists. The facts are there, this album, though not the worst thing ever done, was within reason to believe the worst output U2 had ever done, and it cost them.

BTW- The media bashing had NOTHING to do with my dislike for Pop. I formed all my opinions on my own, and honestly I never really noticed any media negativity until I got back into U2 in 2000 started reading articles and stuff online.

Yes, am one of those who came back with ATYCLB. I was in line to buy it the day it came out. So were others, mostly 30-something women, like me. Were we gloating that 'our U2' was 'back'? Well, not out loud anyway. If anyone resents people being happy that U2 was 'back' that is really sad. You do want the best for your band, don't you? Are you just so bitter that Pop was not the success the other albums were? There were reasons for that. Loads of U2 fans rejected it and not enough others picked up the slack. No, U2 did not 'backslide' to the 80's, they just changed again, matured, took on a new perspective which made them write different songs, and maybe, just maybe, came to their senses. You people who like Pop, you have every right to. But don't continue to make excuses for it and glorify it in ways it has already been proven not to deserve. Just listen to it and enjoy it for what it is, and have fun. Whatever, I am very eternally grateful for U2's change in image and sound with ATYCLB and only hope they will continue with sincerity and what is in their hearts in the future and not ever try to put on some kind of act again just to prove they have 'changed.' Hey guys, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. U2 rules.

------------------
"I DO go on, don't I?"-Bono, MCI Center, DC, June 14, 2001



[This message has been edited by *Stormy* (edited 03-30-2002).]

 

[new orleans]

Originally posted by Zoocifer:
I still don't get why "Miami" is bashed by most fans. If you really go in deep - the song structure of "Miami" and "New York" is very similar.

Drum loop. Same type of lyrics. Booming guitar parts.

I'm off subject now but my point is that "miami" is not a bad song. In fact I think of it as one of U2's "cooler" songs. It's tongue in cheek and fun.

~z~

You're right, Miami and New York's stucture are similar. I think you can add Exit to that list also.

 

[new orleans]

Originally posted by *Stormy*:
But Boston's albums were all GOOD. I would rather hear a band do good stuff they are good at than something forced that isn't them. As I said in my last post, I do hope they will remain true to themselves and do what they really want to do and never again put on some kind of act just to prove they have 'changed.' If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Boston's first album is a masterpiece. It sounds every bit as good as it did when it was new, and everybody in my high school loved it. Talk about unapprecited, Boston has recieved some very unfair bad raps.

[This message has been edited by *Stormy* (edited 03-30-2002).]

I agree Boston's first album was a masterpiece it was great. But having that great of a first album hurt them. How do you put out something better? Again the first album was great, but their sound never really changed, at all.

 

[Zoocifer]

You guys really do talk too much. Looks like I'm reading 10 page essays here.

This should be called The Pop Aggression Thread.

Pop Rocks. Plain and simple. A complex album for complex people. You want irony - there it is. You want a darker side of rock - there is it. You want a chameleon act - there is is. You want an over the top tour - there is is.

They were ahead of their time in the way the mixed technology and rock. And they are still doing it.

~z~

------------------
" You love this town - even if that doesn't ring true. You've been all over, and it's been all over you " - Bono

" Don't you know there ain't no Devil, that's just God when he's drunk " - Tom Waits