Originally posted by robotsandmonkeys:[..]
I think this article shared earlier best articulates Pop's effect on their career:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.stereogum.com/1927982/pop-turns-20/franchises/the-anniversary%3Famp%3D1


Originally posted by robotsandmonkeys:[..]
I think this article shared earlier best articulates Pop's effect on their career:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.stereogum.com/1927982/pop-turns-20/franchises/the-anniversary%3Famp%3D1
Originally posted by daymo1202:[..]I was there at that, living in New York at the time "Holy Joe" sounded great. I got the heads up the previous weekend that the band were going to be there to launch the POP album. We waited outside that morning the first 100 or so were ushered in.
Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:[..]
I guess that's what I was saying, was that at least (to me) Pop was strong enough in a certain direction to make them course-correct that much. I don't think NLOTH had anywhere near the same degree of an effect on them, only because it wasn't THAT different from what they done before, and now, they don't really know what or who they are musically - at least from a listening point of view. I also think Pop is much better written album. Imagine all the songs on Pop with just a piano and the lyrics, and then the same with NLOTH. I think one is clearly better.
I think I just disagree with many on here about NLOTH, especially when it comes to songs like Magnificent and Moment of Surrender. Magnificent to me is a lame attempt at another Beautiful Day (much the same way Boots is a lame attempt at another Vertigo), and I think if it was as good they'd be playing at these shows alongside BD, Vertigo, and Elevation. Moment of Surrender just never had the profound effect on me that it's seemingly had on many others.
To the beginning of your post, to me it just comes down to opinion. Sure you could boil it down to both albums just being rejected and that's it, but I think there's a lot more to it than that. I think Pop was rejected to a much further degree, because the album experimented to a much further degree.
EDIT: It also took a lot less time for them to stop playing NLOTH songs on 360 compared to them doing the same on Popmart. I think with Popmart they were confident and knew they were being risky with their work, whereas with NLOTH, I remember interviews not long after 360 started where they were already saying they thought NLOTH failed as an experiment. Wouldn't be able to cite those though.
Originally posted by BigGiRL:[..]
I was not the one comparing U2 to The Rolling Stones. If I said anything between the lines it was that the Stones still enjoy what they do and I hope U2 will have fun in what they do, whatever they do. That's just my sincere hope.
And, yes, I'll admit my musical taste is not very adventurous and I don't think it will become any wider than it is now. I can spend the rest of my life listning to what I already know. I love SOI and I love Blue & Lonesome. Both records made me very happy.
And when Pop came out, I loved it. Especially side 1 (see, that's just my oldskool condition!), and I still listen to it every now and then (or watch the Mexico 97 dvd), but when ATYCLB came out, it was a breath of fresh air to me (or actually even a month before it came out since I had a in-house copy on my desk at my PolyGram office
)
But for me, the best U2 albums have been made before 1992. I sure don't mind some more official 80-ies live releases. Or a 2023 "40th anniversary War" tour with Elevation and Beautiful Day to top it off
Originally posted by BigGiRL:[..]
H O L Y J O E ...!!! You were there![]()
How awesome
Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
PolyGram? You were a label grunt, too?
I'm with you. (on all of the above) And I have no problems at all with "safe" U2 either...
Originally posted by daymo1202:
I saw POP in Philadelphia in June 1997. To be totally honest I thought it sucked. I'm in a minority I guess, but for me it was lifeless. Hard not to compare it to previous tours such as ZooTV, Lovetown and the 1987 JT Tour.
Originally posted by Timk68:Pop will go down in history as one of U2's best albums . Seminal
Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
I think in general u2's top 3 albums will always be considered Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby and All that You can't leave behind, in that order. (Personally my top 3 also but not in that order). The reason why is because of the commercial success of these albums and the singles they've had from them. War has outsold ATYCLB but I believe that is an exception and if you asked 100 people most would pick they 3. I'm not saying that makes them the best but that's how I feel the general public would see it.
Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
General public being the key word. The general public would say Best of 1980-1990, Best of 1990-2000 and U218.
And interestingly enough, we keep mentioning how experimental Pop, when it was AB that actually led them there...
![]()