Originally posted by CMIPalaeo:[..]
Ah, glad you liked my ramblings.
Pop is just such a monster of an album, part of me can’t believe it wasn’t universally hailed as a masterpiece, and part of me can’t believe it worked at all. I wonder so very much what the original 1996 Pop was like...
I wouldn't have liked it as much. It seems a lot more rocky and a lot less interesting. Again, not to say Pop isn't "rock", I agree it's definitely not "dance music" lol, but the album that came out is definitely rock put through the lens of something much more interesting. This to me sounds like they were still jamming the songs and hadn't put those cool touches on any of them yet.
But I also know many others think these mixes sound way better than the final product, so who am I to say.
I believe that when U2 say they needed a few more months, they mean to give it the extra polish like the later, "new mixes" had. Like compare Please on the album to Please on the Mexico DVD. The arrangement is a little better, that cool-ass groove section is WAY better, etc. Things like the bridge on Last Night on Earth has always sounded "unfinished" to me, like Bono meant to do that part later and never got to. Or Edge's backing vocals on the Gone chorus. Or the guitar part that's on the live version of Velvet Dress that's not really super present on the album version.
That's what I think they meant, but I could be wrong. Maybe they would've battered it into something less interesting.