Why is it that Pop is always called a failure and Zooropa not?

[tarquinsuperb]

I think the 'failure' of Pop is much overstated on this board because of the huge American bias. I think a lot of people (and I would even include the band themselves in this) could do with getting their heads around the fact that if something is a failure in America it does not make it a failure full stop. I can't see how on earth it can be considered a 'weaker' album than Zooropa when lyrically it's their strongest album since the JT.

My theory is this and I assume I will get shot down it:
I think the media wanted to savage U2 for Zooropa but there was no way with the tour going the way it was, they could do it and remain credible. That bile was saved for 'Pop,' hence it is seen as a failure.

Popmart legs 2 and 4 were very successful and for all that's said on here it's worth rembering the band themselves made bugger all money from Zoo TV. The band made a lot of bad decisions around Pop (K-Mart, the singles etc) you can't argue with that, I do think people have problems seperating that from the record itself.

Ultimately the 'failure' of Pop differs from country to country, it is much less of a failure in the UK or the Netherlands than it is in the US or Germany.

 

[LuvandPeace1980]

Actually POP sold 5.5 million copies in its initial year and has since then made it to around 6 million worldwide. Iits done 1.5 million in the USA and 4.5 million outside the USA. ATYCLB did 12 million worldwide with 4.5 million in the USA and 7.5 million outside the USA. HTDAAB has done 9 million worldwide with 3 million in the USA and 6 million outside the USA, BUT it has done this under very difficult market conditions compared to ATYCLB and POP, because of the level of "file sharing" and "CD Burning" and other means of obtaining albums for free.

I have seen many a quote where it has been said Pop has sold 7/8 million copies.
I spose nothing really means anything unless we know for sure the exact statistics of each album from a reliable source.
I know that Pop was number 1 in 28 countries when it opened.
What was Zooropa?

 

[Zoocoustic]

Pop was not a failure on release, it was a failure over time.

Pop came out to critical acclaim, strong sales, and a HUGE first single - Discotheque reached #10 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart - and was the last U2 single to get this high. BD only reached #21. Staring at the Sun was another big radio hit as well, though not nearly as big as Discotheque.

In my opinion, the world heard Discotheque and thought that the entire album would sound the same. It didn't. For those wanting 12 tracks of Discotheque, they were disappointed with the rest of the album. For those who didn't lke Discotheque - well, they simply didn't buy the album in the first place.

The tour was embarrassing - not just because of the problems with a lack of proper rehearsal - but because it was following something that U2 couldn't top - ZooTV riding on what is arguably their best album ever - AB. Sure, the screen was big, but to me it is obvious that Popmart felt hollow and empty compare to ZooTV.

Then came the media backlash. All of the sudden all you heard was "U2 playing to half-empty stadiums" and "sales of the Pop album plummeted". Unfortunately in the US, when the media decides you are "done", it's hard to reverse that thinking. They decided that U2 were has-beens, and the singles after SATS received virtually no attention. This, in my opinion, is why BD took such a long time to hit radio stations - because it is hard to turn the monster around, and maybe, arguably, it never has.

In contrast, Zooropa was already riding on a tour that had its identity. It's easy to build an album around a concept that is already successful. It's much harder to build an entirely new concept from the ground up that hasn't yet been tried and tested.

 

[ponkine]

The answer to the question is very simple:

Just because the band said that (and sadly they still are so close minded and believe that )

MANY, I mean, SO MANY fans and critics are so influenced by what the band say and state

LET´S HAVE YOUR OWN OPINIONS MY FRIENDS !!!!!

 

[STING2]

I have seen many a quote where it has been said Pop has sold 7/8 million copies.
I spose nothing really means anything unless we know for sure the exact statistics of each album from a reliable source.
I know that Pop was number 1 in 28 countries when it opened.
What was Zooropa?

Here are some sales facts for POP:

In Europe, the IFPI certifies all million and multi-million selling albums. POP is certified for 2 million copies sold in Europe. You can look at IFPI certifications at www.ifpi.org .

We know from Soundscan that as of December 2005, it has sold 1,493,000 copies in the United States.

For Canada at www.cria.ca , we Know POP has sold 300,000 copies as it is certified triple platinum.

In Australia, the album is certified platinum for 70,000 copies in sales. It is certified platnum in New Zealand for 15,000 copies in sales.

Europe, United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia together are roughly 75% of the market.

Total sales in these markets combined for POP are: 3,878,000 copies. It is not know where between 2 million and 3 million POP falls in Europe, and this could add more to that total, but still you get the picture.

Now lets take these same markets and compare album sales for ATYCLB and HTDAAB

ATYCLB

United States 4.5 million
Canada 500,000
Australia 280,000
New Zealand 45,000
Europe 4 million

TOTAL: 9.3 million

HTDAAB

United States 3.1 million
Canada 500,000
Australia 280,000
New Zealand 45,000
Europe 3.8 million

TOTAL 7.8 million

So in the four regions and countries above:

POP 3,878,000

ATYCLB 9,300,000

HTDAAB 7,800,000

If the claims that POP sold 7 to 8 million worldwide were correct, it would have had to have sold 3 to 4 million copies in places outside of Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand where more than 75% of U2's album sales come from. It could be argued that 6 million in sales for POP might be stretching it.

 

[STING2]

Pop was not a failure on release, it was a failure over time.

Pop came out to critical acclaim, strong sales, and a HUGE first single - Discotheque reached #10 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart - and was the last U2 single to get this high. BD only reached #21. Staring at the Sun was another big radio hit as well, though not nearly as big as Discotheque.

In my opinion, the world heard Discotheque and thought that the entire album would sound the same. It didn't. For those wanting 12 tracks of Discotheque, they were disappointed with the rest of the album. For those who didn't lke Discotheque - well, they simply didn't buy the album in the first place.

The tour was embarrassing - not just because of the problems with a lack of proper rehearsal - but because it was following something that U2 couldn't top - ZooTV riding on what is arguably their best album ever - AB. Sure, the screen was big, but to me it is obvious that Popmart felt hollow and empty compare to ZooTV.

Then came the media backlash. All of the sudden all you heard was "U2 playing to half-empty stadiums" and "sales of the Pop album plummeted". Unfortunately in the US, when the media decides you are "done", it's hard to reverse that thinking. They decided that U2 were has-beens, and the singles after SATS received virtually no attention. This, in my opinion, is why BD took such a long time to hit radio stations - because it is hard to turn the monster around, and maybe, arguably, it never has.

In contrast, Zooropa was already riding on a tour that had its identity. It's easy to build an album around a concept that is already successful. It's much harder to build an entirely new concept from the ground up that hasn't yet been tried and tested.

On the airplay chart, Discotheque peaked at #22, while Staring At The Sun made it to #16, so in terms of Airplay, Staring At The Sun was the bigger hit at radio. "Last Night On Earth" made it to #74 on the airplay chart.

 

[XHendrix24]

Just because the band said that (and sadly they still are so close minded and believe that )

It just occurred to me. Even the BAND doesn't 'get' Pop.

Their musical tastes obviously haven't progressed enough to truly appreciate its ravishing brilliance. What musical philistines.

 

[AtomicBono]

See? Even the BAND doesn't 'get' Pop.

Their musical tastes obviously haven't progressed enough to truly appreciate its brilliant. What musical philistines.

someday they will realize its brilliance

I agree with Earnie that most of it was image and perception, plus the music playing field had changed. Whenever people talk about Pop they're like "omg u2 was trying to be hip like prodigy and chemical brothers," and that may be true, but I don't remember either of those bands back in 1997. I remember Spice Girls and Backstreet Boys and Goo Goo Dolls. The majority of what was on the radio was pop or pop-rock. U2 wasn't really either, except for Staring at the Sun.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Pop they're like "omg u2 was trying to be hip like prodigy and chemical brothers," and that may be true, but I don't remember either of those bands back in 1997.

With all respect, are you from the US? If so, and again with all respect, you were a couple of years behind Europe all through the 90s. Or at least, it took what was big in Europe a couple of years to travel to the US proper. Remember U2 in the 90's were far more Euro-influenced, as opposed to the obvious US-influence of the 80s. And again, with all respect, thats fair enough. The US was virtually a musical wasteland in the 90s.

"U2 trying to be hip like Prodigy and Chemical Brothers" is all image and perception as well. Mofo for sure is heavily heavily influenced there. Do You Feel Loved certainly utilises their strengths. The rest of the album? Nope. Not at all. And fuck, taking obvious influence on board for 2 out of however many tracks is a crime for this album only??? No, of course not.

Image and perception, and pure fear in this case. If people paid attention to the groups they were being influenced by, they'd have known from Day 1 that they were going to get a heavy, heavy rock album. Not some techno thing, which is what it was perceived as being.

 

[CPTLCTYGOOFBALL]

The answer to the question is very simple:

Just because the band said that (and sadly they still are so close minded and believe that )

MANY, I mean, SO MANY fans and critics are so influenced by what the band say and state

LET´S HAVE YOUR OWN OPINIONS MY FRIENDS !!!!!

Who's stopping anyone from having their own opinions? And why do you care if someone's favourite U2 album is different from yours?



In fact I'm not sure I've even ever read on this board that someone "Hates" Pop. I'm sure it's been said by someone, sometime but you don't hear it very often. Most fans appreciate bits and pieces of all the albums, even the ones they don't like as much some of the others. What's the problem?

So U2 weren't happy with "Pop" and you loved it? Who cares?

Not to be a prick but sometimes you come across more like a political prisoner than someone whos favourite U2 album happens to not be the current one.

Who cares?

 

[AtomicBono]

With all respect, are you from the US? If so, and again with all respect, you were a couple of years behind Europe all through the 90s. Or at least, it took what was big in Europe a couple of years to travel to the US proper. Remember U2 in the 90's were far more Euro-influenced, as opposed to the obvious US-influence of the 80s. And again, with all respect, thats fair enough. The US was virtually a musical wasteland in the 90s.

"U2 trying to be hip like Prodigy and Chemical Brothers" is all image and perception as well. Mofo for sure is heavily heavily influenced there. Do You Feel Loved certainly utilises their strengths. The rest of the album? Nope. Not at all. And fuck, taking obvious influence on board for 2 out of however many tracks is a crime for this album only??? No, of course not.

Image and perception, and pure fear in this case. If people paid attention to the groups they were being influenced by, they'd have known from Day 1 that they were going to get a heavy, heavy rock album. Not some techno thing, which is what it was perceived as being.

Yes, I am from the US. so are you saying stuff like Prodigy was big in Europe? Because I'm still not sure if I buy the arguement that U2 was trying to be hip with Pop and failed. I do think they wanted mainstream success, just as they always have, but I don't think they were trying any harder with Pop

image and perception, yeah. I guess the perception was "omfg u2 iz a dance abdn!!1111"

 

[financeguy]

Yes, I am from the US. so are you saying stuff like Prodigy was big in Europe?

Yes, Prodigy were pretty big around the mid to late 90s here. Before that, i.e. in the early 90s, they were well known within the dance music community.

Having said that, I'm almost positive that their 1997 album 'Fat of the Land' got to number one in the US, although I don't think it held the number one position for very long.

 

[yolland]

Right, 'cause we were too far "behind" and retro to truly appreciate the subversive postmodern splendor that was "Smack My Bitch Up."

 

[soctheo]

Bottom line - I love Pop and think its a great album but U2 screwed up every step of the way recording and promoting the album.

With Pop, they spend two years in the studio experimenting with Passengers project and then recording Pop. Most groups today spend 4 to 6 months. If you can't get an album together in 2 years, its never going to come together. Some of the Pops songs were even worked on during Zooropa. The "one month theory" u2 keeps talking about is nonsense because songs like Please only came together live in Europe on the second leg.

Also, Staring at the Sun, LNOE, Please and If God Would Send His Angels are disasterous videos. They had no appeal to the general public, are boring and only hardcore fans showed any interest. Even their tv special sucked. Why include Do You Feel Love as the only live song from Vegas to promote the tour when you can't even play it (it was dropped two weeks later from the tour).

Having said that, I think its more of an honest album than ATYCLB or HTDAAB because those albums feel like they were created for mass popularity over creativity. I would love U2 to take a chance again and get out of the shell they seem to be in these days.

 

[MumblingBono]

Earnie Shavers - The 90s "musical wasteland in the US" produced the following:

Pearl Jam
Nirvana
Soundgarden
Alice In Chains
Smashing Pumpkins
Tool
Rage Against The Machine

Timeless rock masters, all. I won't mention the brilliant bands that spun off of the above...

I'll assume you were referring to the LATE 90's, when the USA rock scene started to suck.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Yeah, well we're talking about Pop so closer to 97.

Of course the US produced plenty of brilliant artists and albums in the 90s. It was though a weak decade overall, and like you say, the majority were in the first half of the decade. I think, aside from 'grunge' and the whole 'alternative rock' thing which kicked off in the US in the very early 90s, and I guess hip-hop making further moves forward, the rest of the decade was firmly owned by the UK. I am being very general here I know. Maybe it's because I'm from Australia, seeing it from a slightly different angle?

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I literally just this minute got handed a record company released compilation CD that is on disc one a remixed/dance disc, disc 2 the original tracks.

In the liner notes is the following quote:

----------------------------------------------------

"Action! Now! It's been said before but let's say it again, dance music didn't die, it just cross bred with everything and the kitchen sink and turned into a gnarly, unpredictable little mutt humping the leg of the establishment. It's the bastard child of floor filling and guitar spilling. Otherwise known as artrock/discopunk/selfmutilatedmixrock or simply indie rock with a dance element (pick and choose at your leisure). Here the Modular label, the fold that brought us the widescreen cut'n'paste work outs from The Avalanches and the current electro pin ups Cut Copy, present the first instalment of rule breakers cutting a stylish rug on dance floors across the world.

The eclecticism spreads far and wide. From Brit Grot rockers (the 9-5 ennui-fuelled hedonism of The Rakes, the blistering London screnesterings of The Cazals, the pelting pseudo politico pop of Bloc Party), to psychotic singer songwriters (the racketeering breakdown of Tom Vek, the twined fury of The Fiery Furnaces and the post-desert rock of The Kills), and dancefloor industrialists (Mylo, Erol Alkan and artrock's producer in residence Paul Epworth-under his "Phones" guise, junkyard dum'n'bassists Death From Above 1979). Even Vegas superstars The Killers are part of the act and finish the party.

What do they have in common? A shameless, shamanic, boundary busting attitude that holds their disparate parts together. It's totally about The Now, the past is just an event on the b-side of the horizon. So get yourself on the nearest dancefloor and be part of the revolution.

Priya Elan, NME, August 2005.

-----------------------------------------------------


Can I get a fuckin' Boom-Cha?

Obviously Pop sounds like none of the above. However, if you think Pop wasn't either a legitimate exercise, or don't think it was an exercise that was ahead of it's time....