Listen to your words they'll tell you what to do
Listen over the rhythm that's confusing you
Listen to the reed in the saxophone
Listen over the hum in the radio
Listen over sounds of blades in rotation
Listen through the traffic and circulation
Listen as hope and peace try to rhyme
Listen over marching bands playing out their time
Then they didn't buy the album, the album failed in the USA and now we have ATYCLB/HTDAAB to please those americans who never quite understood Pop. And Bono's wearing a cowboy hat on the Vertigo video. They look "macho" in the view of the american audience so they will buy this new album.
James U2 said:[Q]The problem w/ Pop is Discotheque and it's video. It sunk the ship from day one.[/Q]
I would have to disagree. While you might think that the video is a bit trite, it doesn't change the fact that the single went Gold, the video was in MASSIVE rotation (even headlining a brief electronic video show on MTV called Fuse) and could be heard on the radio about every eight and a half minutes.
What really hurt Pop, in my opinion, was the choice to release Last Night On Earth (and a REALLY bad video!) as the third single. Granted the song went over well live, and U2 was in desperate need to prove that the album wasn't a techno record, but it's one of the weakest songs on the record. Gone would have been a much better choice.
But to the point of the post, I've always felt that Pop was a great record, and U2's high point artistically (though not necessarily musically). People always forget that the initial reviews of the record were great. 4 Stars in Rolling Stone, 9/10 in Spin (back when Spin actually mattered), and Q loved it.
Unfortunately, somewhere along the road some negative press came out and it became the media trend to follow suit. I remember reading articles criticizing U2's Las Vegas tour opener by writers who weren't even there. They were simply regurgitating what others had written, lending the situation uncalled-for negativity.
To the Pop naysayers, I simply challenge them to show me another band that could create those kinds of songs, with that much experimentation, at even a fraction the level of quality.
And if you're a U2 fan and you hate Pop (and there's lots of them out there), I ask you why you're even a fan of the band? That record represents everything wonderful about them. The courage to expand, the ability to be ahead of the game, the swagger and arrogance that any truly great showcase.
It may have been 1997, but 1987 wasn't coming back - and hasn't.
james
BrownEyedBoy said:I know it's been said a lot and I know you've covered this, but I don't get it. What the hell is so bad about Pop? :
BrownEyedBoy said:I know it's been said a lot and I know you've covered this, but I don't get it. What the hell is so bad about Pop? This was the album that made me a fan and then I come over to interference and all of you are dissing it so bad. So, go ahead. Explain to me what is so bad about it.
Most of the songs are good, like so:
(the tracklist may be off because I don't have the CD with me right now)
1. Discotheque ..............................good
2. Do you feel loved.......................good
3.Mofo ..........................................good
4. If God Would Send His Angels.....great
5. Staring at the Sun.....................good
6.Gone............................................Good
7.Last night on Earth...................good
8. Miami ..........................................bad
9.Playboy Mansion...........................decent
10. If you wear that velvet dress....very cool song, no one's ever done anything like it
11. Please.......................................good
12.Wake up Dead Man...................good
There you go. Only one bad song in the whole thing.
Pop is a great album.
..................
Miggy D said:I also don't get these kinds of conversations anymore. Pop came out in 1997. It's been discussed to death. Yet every 'Pop rocks! and 'Pop sucks!' thread that gets started gets 50+ replies. Let it go, people! Everyone! Let...it...go!
I know I replied as well but that's because I have only been a member for a few months and have never said how I feel. I'm only doing it once.
indra said:
The reason these discussions get so many responses is because it's fun. It's fun to find out what other people think is the good, the bad and the ugly about U2 (and other topics too). That's what discussion boards are for.
Miggy D said:I also don't get these kinds of conversations anymore. Pop came out in 1997. It's been discussed to death. Yet every 'Pop rocks! and 'Pop sucks!' thread that gets started gets 50+ replies. Let it go, people! Everyone! Let...it...go!
U2Kitten said:
I'm also tired of the 'Pop is daring and now they're safe' bullshit. Look, these guys were in the studio for 3 years, they said they were going to rock, they said it was punk rock made on Venus, what you got IS what was in them, they are NOT holding back or being 'safe.' This is what U2 is, on the inside. If you don't like it maybe you are not as much of a fan as you think. U2 have NEVER played to the current market and they have always been successful. They are not putting out something they think will sell. They are putting out what came out of four guys in a studio over 3 years. Like it or leave it alone, there is no evil, 'safe' anti-Pop plot behind it! Pop was what was in them in 1997. This is what is in them now.
Shade said:
U2_Guy:
You know, as an American, I see a lot of Americans in my day to day existence, and I'll be the first to call the average American shallow, dumb, or, perhaps, just ignorant. Look at the douchebag we just re-elected as president. But, if you think U2 is making safer albums just for OUR sake, I'd say your own disdain for America in general is behind your bitterness, here. Whatever U2 comes up with in the studio is their creation - and responsibility - not America's. Actually, if you look at what happens when creative people reach middle age and have a bunch of kids - whether it's people who work in movies, literature, or music - they quite often mellow out and start working in broad strokes. Some people even lose their 'touch'. Am I personally happy that U2 seem to have lost their jones for wild experimentation? No. My favorite albums have always been their more experimental ones. But, that fact is, they're humans who are constantly evolving creatively, and they're not always going to do what you or I want them to do. Those are the breaks, man. I'm more than happy to sit here and bitch about it with you. Because, while I think HTDAAB is a great album, it is by and large very safe for them (though a good deal more daring in places than ATYCLB) and that makes me sad inside. But, I'm not going to infer that some foreign country has ruined U2 for the rest of the world, which is what you're doing, here. That's preposterous. Every major chance U2 has taken, including POP, has done well in America. One way or the other, the albums always sell hugely, and the fanbase always grows larger and stronger, despite our perceptions of said country's collective intelligence. Even in your country - wherever that may be - where we can be certain that at least one ignoramus has purchased both ATYCLB and HTDAAB.