GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by haytrain:Bono has hinted (if not fully come out and said it) in the past that he and the band view Pop as being a bit of a dud, but yet it continues to be praised by the fans here on the message boards and calls for songs to be played on the tour continue into the 3rd leg. I was thinking today about comparing NLOTH to Pop, and how the fans stack these two albums up against each other. Now Bono wouldn't come out and say that the latest album has been a dud even though sales and responses have insinuated that idea, but do you see any comparisons between the two albums, or am I grasping at straws?

    Personally, I think they both have their strongest songs as the #3 track (Mofo, MOS), an underwhelming song as the #9 track (Playboy Mansion, White as Snow), and close the album with a mellow, haunting tune (Wake Up Dead Man, Cedars of Lebanon). But given the comparison, I'm quick to say that Pop is in fact a much better album and NLOTH is the real dud. Bono will never say this while they're out "supporting" the current album, but it'll be interesting to get his thoughts on it in 10 years.

    Thoughts?


    Firstly if you think White as Snow is underwhelming you're clearly not into their slower stuff, White as Snow, as an acoustic ballad WAS works very well - the execution of it is certainly better other songs on the album like GOYB or SUC - or even MoS. It is also one of the few songs on the album that don't have cringeworthy lyrics detracting from the song, unlike even MoS.
    I am by no means a fan of country music, but even I have to admit it is an extremely effective track, and don't think they could have done it better - Bono's current vocal form also perfectly
    suits the song, wheras he sounds rather old on tracks like NLOTH or GOYB.

    As for Pop, it is definitely underrated among their top 5 albums - the major difference between it and NLOTH I think is that they had far less time to work on it so it is far more cohesive than NLOTH which sort of meanders between a lot of different genres. I would also say NLOTH is more accessible than Pop which really caters to a more European taste and is quite a dark album. NLOTH is dark in places but Pop is really quite bleak, Wake Up Dead Man is getting past Thom Yorke levels of hopelessness.

    Bono's writing is also generally better on Pop, with hardly any cringeworthy lines in there - just compare Discotheque to GOYB, Discotheque actually works as a piece of dance rock.

    I think Pop could have been better if they had more time to 'finish it'. Songs like Last Night on Earth prove that.

    I disagree with people who say it'd go the route of NLOTH and start off experimental but be more mainstream when released - the band was in a different mentality when recording Pop, they weren't concerned about being mainstream or upsetting fans - eg. the Discotheque music video
    Wheras in NLOTH they wanted to get back to their more experimental sound while also retaining the biggest band in the world status they had thru ATYCLB and HTDAAB. That sort of tripped them up, in trying to please both the mainstream and hardcore audiences they released an album that didn't completely satisfy either.

    And lets keep this in perspective - by any standard NLOTH was a very good album . No, it wasn't a masterpiece but it was better than the vast majority of albums released today and better than HTDAAB and ATYCLB
  2. Originally posted by EyesWithPrideB3:...and then coming off of a lackluster album like "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb" that also didn't sell as well as ITS predecessor, or take them to the extreme popularity that ATYCLB did (even though that was a triumphant rebound)

    I was under the impression that Atomic Bomb was a pretty big hit even in comparison to ATYCLB. To be fair, I don't really care because I have both albums and listen to them both equally much anyway lol, but I should probably get myself a bit more clued up on the sales figures and shit...

    On subject - I highly rate both NLOTH and Pop. I listen to them both regularly. My general feeling is that both could have been spectacularly better, had a bit more thought been put in. Pop feels unfinished, I think that's a fairly common opinion, whilst NLOTH should have been different in its actual makeup. I'd probably say Pop is the stronger album though, on the basis that there isn't a song on it that feels out of place. NLOTH falls down there, for me - the trio of GOYB, I'll Go Crazy and Stand Up just don't work as part of it, and I've said it since the album first came out. As individual songs, they're fine - not masterpieces, but they're fair enough - they just don't fit with the rest of the album. That and the instrumental part of Fez. If they'd put together three tracks that maintained the feel and sonic architecture of the rest of the album, and replace the three I've mentioned - and cut out Fez - it could have been one of their best. Such is life. That for me is the only major difference - both have a certain theme and feel, but Pop feels more cohesive and consistent throughout.

    I just figure NLOTH was never going to sell big anyway, whether it turned out to be their best album ever or another relative failure - for one, the promotion was a fucking shambles, 'scuse my language. Secondly, I just think U2 are now at a point where they're not really going to attract a new fanbase, because they're not considered part of the current music scene, regardless of their influence and their back-catalogue. They're at a point in their career where people have generally made their mind up about them because they've now been around for as long as some people have been alive, if not longer than, so new material has become much of a muchness - those who love them will continue to buy their stuff as they probably always have, those who dislike them will say it'll sound exactly the same as everything they've ever made anyway (plus that they're crap), and those who can't make their mind up will buy or not buy it depending on whether it's a sunny day or not. It pains me to say it, but U2 are no longer perceived as a band who can really have much of an impact anymore, regardless of the quality of their material, so they're not going to change many peoples' opinion on them, hence NLOTH was doomed to mediocrity.

    'Swhat I think.
  3. I think its a good topic and an interesting comparison. I enjoy Pop more than NLOTH, however I believe NLOTH is their best since Pop. ATYCLB and HTDATB were fine albums, but I always felt they were "safe", but there are some beautiful songs there.

    I think Pop would do great in this era and thought it was always a bit ahead of its time.

    I enjoy the more experimental side of U2, which coincides more with Pop and NLOTH.

    In the end...POP
  4. They have some comparisons, although I don't think we can compare them in full length. I like Pop but not all of the songs, I like NLOTH too.

    For me, there is one big difference. Just like Bomb, NLOTH doesn't give me a cohesive album feeling. Pop in fact does. The songs work quite well together, with NLOTH they don't. Up to Unknown Caller it works but then comes Crazy..dreadful.
  5. Originally posted by MWSAH:They have some comparisons, although I don't think we can compare them in full length. I like Pop but not all of the songs, I like NLOTH too.

    For me, there is one big difference. Just like Bomb, NLOTH doesn't give me a cohesive album feeling. Pop in fact does. The songs work quite well together, with NLOTH they don't. Up to Unknown Caller it works but then comes Crazy..dreadful.


    Funny, I think HTDAAB is pretty cohesive, so is ATYCLB, POP and every other album they've done.

    NLOTH definitely isn't, hell it's less cohesive than some of their compilation albums.
  6. Originally posted by MWSAH:For me, there is one big difference. Just like Bomb, NLOTH doesn't give me a cohesive album feeling. Pop in fact does.

    Casper got it.

    Both albums have real gems, and I mean REAL gems, some of their best songs are in those albums. Mofo, Last Night On Earth, Gone, Please, Staring At The Sun.... and Moment Of Surrender, No Line On The Horizon, Cedars Of Lebanon, Being Born... But for me, the fact that Pop is cohesive and NLOTH is the big difference between that, and the thing that makes Pop a bigger and better album for me.

    Well, and the fact that Pop had balls, shown creativity and audacity... and NLOTH doesn't.
  7. Agree!
    Pop is far more cohesive.

    Now that you mention having balls..... they missed the chance to show balls by putting songs like Crazy and Boots on an otherwise spheric and 'dark' album. NLOTH could have been as great as POP is, if the middle section didn't consist of Crazy, Boots and SUC, but had moody versions of Every Breaking Wave, North Star and the likes.....
    Looks like they chickened out at the last minute....... which is something they didn't have time for with POP. (That is why POP a great and coherent album: because it isn't endlessly reworked and changed).
  8. they're both two of their least cohesive albums, when compared with the likes of TUF or Zooropa.

    i reckon Pop's the better of the two though, but it all comes down to taste, as does every "_____ vs. ____" argument.

    Pop, as Sergio said, was born out of a time when they weren't afraid to take chances, they thrived on it. now, with a massive legacy and casual fanbase, they still say they're daring and experimental, but the fact of the matter is that they can't be, because they've been successful for so long that they can't stand the idea of a commerical flop.

    they've tried to please both the casual fans and hardcore fans by doing an album that's safe enough to be liked by the masses, but daring enough for fans to embrace. and i, unfortunately, think they've wound up somewhere inbetween but effectively accomplished neither goal.

    that's not to say i don't like the album, because some tracks are phenominal.
  9. POP is a masterpiece.

    NLOTH, on the other side, could have been masterpiece if they didn't put Crazy Tonight and Stand Up Comedy in it.

    These are good songs,but they just don't fit in. In that place I'd put Every Breaking Wave and Winter.

    But still, NLOTH is a fecking fantastic album for a band that is 30 years together. Just look at the NLOTH song...new bands like Kings of Leon can't make song that is that strong.

    Of course they didn't skock anyone with NLOTH, but I'm more worried that younger bands don't shock the world like U2 did.




  10. Anyways, I think Dan summed it up very well.
  11. Originally posted by vanquish:[..]

    Funny, I think HTDAAB is pretty cohesive, so is ATYCLB, POP and every other album they've done.

    NLOTH definitely isn't, hell it's less cohesive than some of their compilation albums.


    HTDAAB is their least cohesive album, IMO.

  12. Pop would have been better if they haden't rushed it.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.