Convince me that POP is a great album!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
would definitely agree with the Depeche Mode references... i think U2/DM's musical soundscapes have criss-crossed quite a bit over the years, and that's not a bad thing - i love both bands
 
Depeche Mode - Rush, SOFAD 1993.

There is much more of that in Mofo than any Prodigy or Chemical Brothers.

I remember my first listen to SOFAD, my first reaction was Rush sounded very Achtung Baby to me, especially the drums.

Take a listen to Chem Bros Setting Sun again and tell me you don't hear the quick beats and sweeping sounds that could have influenced Mofo.

I don't know how anyone can deny it, nor do I understand why some are so defensive about it.
 
While MOFO is my favourite track on POP, I still think that musically it sounds a lot like an Underworld b-side.
 
I remember my first listen to SOFAD, my first reaction was Rush sounded very Achtung Baby to me, especially the drums.

Take a listen to Chem Bros Setting Sun again and tell me you don't hear the quick beats and sweeping sounds that could have influenced Mofo.

I don't know how anyone can deny it, nor do I understand why some are so defensive about it.

Obviously there is cross-pollination in terms of musical influences on Pop. That's the case with basically any album. In terms of a template for cross-Atlantic success with an electro-guitar approach, though, you really can't do any better than DM. I would imagine U2 had that in mind to some extent, even if they did not try to replicate the sound of Faith & Devotion directly.
 
Personally, I don't hear much (if any) Depeche Mode in Pop at all. Songs of Faith and Devotion incorporated electronic blues, gospel, and several guitar driven synth rock tunes (I Feel You, Walking In My Shoes etc). Fast forward to 1997, and the divergence between the two bands is even more obvious. Ultra is a much more stripped down almost retro electronic album, whereas Pop is densely layered and much more plugged in with contemporary (for 97) electronica. Pop is a much more modern sounding record. There's not much cross-over between the two bands. Also, there's no shame in U2 being inspired by the likes of Underworld and The Prodigy (great bands). It's not like they were copying a crappy dance/ techno group like N-Trance (which WOULD have been embarassing).
 
Last edited:
There was a difference in the perceived "failures" of R&H and Pop.

R&H sold 13 million records...not up to JT standards, but it was after all just a collection of hasitly recorded songs and live cuts. I don't think they expected it to sell nearly as well as JT just as they probably knew Zooropa wouldn't do as well as AB. Nonetheless, U2 has never distanced themselves from the music in R&H...only the image they boxed themselves into at that time (hence AB). And most of the so-called backlash at the time was directed towards that image, not so much the music. Indeed, R&H songs have been in continuous rotation live since its release, and to my knowledge U2 has never said anything disparaging about those songs. The critical backlash was largely in the press, not from the fans, and was directed more at the self-importance of the movie than the music.

Pop, on the other hand, was a major studio release they worked on for quite some time, and "only" sold 8 million records, a disappointment by U2 standards at the time. And those songs have only appeared sporadically, and in snippets, in subsequent tours. Their comments on Pop since its release show U2 distancing themselves from the music on that record...which is very different than what happened with R&H. Ironically, most of the press of the day loved Pop. It was the fans (no, not all of them) who ultimately left them on that record.

I do think, to a lesser extent, U2 now regards NLOTH much as they did Pop...which is a pity, and it makes me wonder which, if any of those songs we'll hear on the next tour.

Sure.

Rattle and Hum's fail wasn't about the sales. It was more to do with the band's megalomania and irish whiteys trying to play the blues. Of course the movie and consequent overexposure didn't help. Note also they were listening to the critisism and got the extra push to change direction for the 90's...

The fact U2 reworked so many songs for the singles on Pop speaks volumes. They were not completely satisifed with the music, as also shown by the live reworkings. This isn't something U2 conjured up in the 00's. Again, U2 understood the irony and fascination with club/dance music has to be toned down and changed again for the 00's.

With NLOTH, I think they got burned by the audience reception live/copied the Glastonbury Zoo TV 2.0 setlist and buried NLOTH. Also, the first nail in the coffin was the atrocious lead single choice aka Vertigo part II when there is but one single on NLOTH.
 
1.Discothèque
2.Do You Feel Loved
3.If God Will Send His Angels
4.Staring At The Sun
5.Gone
6.If You Wear That Velvet Dress

Are those songs not enough to make POP great?! Add Please live version and then the album becomes unbeatable.
 
The only great song on Pop, in my opinion, is "Please" (the single version which isn't even the actual version on the album). Discotheque great? No, when I think of greatness and U2, songs like One, Streets, Beautiful Day, etc come to mind, not Discotheque, IGWSHA. SATS, IYWTVD. However, I do think Discotheque, SATS, IGWSHA etc are good songs, but not great. We're talking about U2 here. We've seen some truly great songs from them. I don't think most of Pop is in that tier. That's my opinion. That being said, I do still appreciate Pop for its experiment.
 
As for Rattle and Hum and the perceived "fail," i think it ridiculous to say that Irish musicians can't explore American blues music just because they're not American. That's just silly. To me, people from another culture exploring music from outside their own culture is not being pretentious, as U2 was accused of being with Rattle and Hum. If that were the case, U2 couldn't preform rock and roll music either because rock and roll was born in America. I think the real backlash against Rattle and Hum was due to overexposure and U2 largely maintaining the same sound as Joshua Tree with the new studio tracks (an the movie was a little silly in parts with the band just sitting around giggling at their own jokes). And even more to the point, I think it was inevitable that the Americana sound that U2 explored on JT which became such a big hit would lead to some backlash, mostly because of how big U2 became and how much everyone got in to Joshua Tree. It seems to be a cultural phenomena in America that when something becomes ultra popular, you get 15 mins of fame and then people start to turn on you and backlash ensues because they don't want more of the same. They want something different and new, or at least a couple more years in between albums if you want to do more of the same. That's why so many popular bands/musicians in America have one or two huge albums and then people get sick of them, and backlash ensues. U2, thank God, has managed to maintain some level of relevancy despite how long they've been around.
 
I'm not a huge fan of the album- I've got a cut down version of it on my ipod

it works so much better in the live setting- except Please and Miami which to these ears are crap songs however they're done- the one song that they've never been able to play live is Discotheque

anyway I prefer the live versions to the album versions- someone mentioned Dep Mode- feel the same way about Songs of Faith & Devotion and the Devotional dvd- the songs carry much more weight and epicness with the live mix- especially Rush, In Your Room, I Feel You, Walking in my shoes- than the studio versions do (thanks to Alan Wilder)

as for R&H- U2 disappeared so far up their own arses with that one I'm suprised they could see daylight- although some of it has aged quite well
 
Just listen to it come on. This is raw U2. Sure it's not the best finished, polished U2 album by far but it's just pure.

Maybe U2 should try it more and not try and overpolish songs (like they did with MOS on NLOTH). There are so many great songs on this album. I also might question why so many here seem to not like Please. Come on how on earth can you not think this is one of the best U2 songs they have maked. On the album it's already good but not finished, but live dear god. It's just amazing live, the build up the whole end sequence it's just amazing. One of the best songs U2 has ever made.
 
Raw ?

It's the most overproduced album of their lives.

41P52HHKjqL._SL500_SS500_.jpg
 
i think it ridiculous to say that Irish musicians can't explore American blues music just because they're not American.

Except that's not really what the critics said. Plenty of non American acts do blues, and do it well/better than U2. Few of them act so preachy about it.
And rock and roll was white acts ripping off black musicians to begin with.
 
I have to agree, Pop is a lot of studio trickery and gimmickery...and how many producers did they employ during that album...Flood, Howie B., Nelle Hooper, Steve Osbourne, Eno, Lanois, Rodgers and Hammerstein...crazy...:crazy:..I kid...I know Eno and Lanois weren't involved...:wink:

There is little in Pop that is raw...War was raw, Nevermind was raw, Ten was raw...Pop was calculated...much like ATYCLB or HTDAAB...:yes:
 
Nevermind is raw? For all its grunge legend, it's pretty slickly produced.

Right? I don't actually know much about production, just going off things I've read over the years.
 
Yeah, Nevermind sounds pretty slick (well, reverb-soaked) for its reputation of reviving "real" rock music. Bleach and In Utero are much more aggressive and immediate. You feel like you're in the room with the band on those.
 
I have to agree, Pop is a lot of studio trickery and gimmickery...and how many producers did they employ during that album...Flood, Howie B., Nelle Hooper, Steve Osbourne, Eno, Lanois, Rodgers and Hammerstein...crazy...:crazy:..I kid...I know Eno and Lanois weren't involved...:wink:

There is little in Pop that is raw...War was raw, Nevermind was raw, Ten was raw...Pop was calculated...much like ATYCLB or HTDAAB...:yes:


It depends on what, or how many songs, those producers were working on. For example, No Line On The Horizon has the following listed in its producer credits: Brian Eno, Danny Lanois, Steve Lillywhite, Will.i.am, Declan Gaffney and Cenzo Townshend.
 
I think it all depends on what your definition of "raw" is. Personally, I find Pop very raw in terms of theme and overall tone, in terms of production, not so much.

Exactly! :up:

I'm sick of seeing the 2 camps fighting over whether Pop was raw or not. Thematically and lyrically, it is raw. Production wise, not really. Get it right!
 
There is little in Pop that is raw...War was raw, Nevermind was raw, Ten was raw...Pop was calculated...much like ATYCLB or HTDAAB...:yes:

There's this mythology how Nevermind is raw and untainted by the evil corporate producers, but I've always found it (production-wise) to be much smarter than the average bear. Compared to a record like Never Mind The Bollocks Here's The Sex Pistols, Nevermind is pretty tame in the rawness stakes.
 
Back
Top Bottom