GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by RUMMY:The album has good tracks but it is indeed a mess. I've stated this before but it was a failure because "other, non-U2 things" we're going on in music in 1997 that took away any excitement/momentum the album upon it's release.


    True,Radiohead released OK Computer, June 1997,but that was after PoP was released in March of 1997.
  2. Originally posted by noiseless:I really will never understand the "rushed" argument. Really, what the fuck. POP wasn't a failure because it was rushed. I totally agree with Yeah here, it was an excuse, and most fans seem to buy it.
    In fact rushed is good. In general the best albums in history are recorded in a week and the only thing I generally dislike about U2 albums, is they tend to be polished to death. Good songs simply cannot be ruined by rush.
    I dare to assume if NLOTH was released before it was ruined by the 100th take-over, extra layer of muddy mess, and 'we don't know so let's add another layer of undefined sound' it could've been way more succesful. Songs are songs, POP songs are quite strong imo, all the talk about 'rushed mixing' is just plain bull of marketing guys.


    The "rushed" argument comes from the band themselves.In U2 by U2,I lost count on how many times the band members said "Pop was rushed","We sold tickets for the tour before Pop was finished".Larry, said this over and over in the book.He even feels they should re-record PoP.


  3. Can't argue with you on the above point. I think U2 may have been in a bit of trouble if they didn't go mainstream in 2000. I know a lot of us "diss" the last three albums (especially ATYCLB) but they may have lost a certain popularity factor that would have denied newer fans "accessibility" to them - or maybe I'm (unintentionally) full of crap.



  4. Initial reviews of Pop weren't that bad. The backlash took a few months. Don't forget about The Spice Girls (on a popularity level), Prodigy, The Verve, and all the other good and bad music that U2 had to compete with. The thing is, in 1997, U2 just weren't as cool as they were in 1992 or 2001.
  5. Originally posted by RUMMY:[..]

    Initial reviews of Pop weren't that bad. The backlash took a few months. Don't forget about The Spice Girls (on a popularity level), Prodigy, The Verve, and all the other good and bad music that U2 had to compete with. The thing is, in 1997, U2 just weren't as cool as they were in 1992 or 2001.


    Very true.Also,Oasis were still mega huge in 1997.The Manchester show, from Dec 1997,,was fantastic,even though, they kinda started to slip with Be Here Now.Radiohead, pretty much took over there when OK Computer was released that summer of 1997.
  6. Oasis and U2 seemed to be going down together (at least due to the eventual reviews of their 1997 albums) by the end of their resepctive tours. U2 seemed to recover (at least in North America) much better than Oasis did. For the record, I am a HUGE fan of all three bands you mentioned in your post and yes indeed, OK Computer was (and still is) monumental.
  7. Originally posted by RUMMY:Oasis and U2 seemed to be going down together (at least due to the eventual reviews of their 1997 albums) by the end of their resepctive tours. U2 seemed to recover (at least in North America) much better than Oasis did. For the record, I am a HUGE fan of all three bands you mentioned in your post and yes indeed, OK Computer was (and still is) monumental.


    We have good taste in music.LOL.

    That is why,I was so frustrated by the release of Pop.I was saying to myself,why the hell cant U2 release a U2 record ?

    OK Computer was then released in June.Be Here Now came out in August.I dont hate BHN,its just kind of bloated.But,it is a guitar record,unlike Pop.

    Pop was just,too heavy on a mixed sound.Bonos voice isnt clear at all on Mofo or the Pop cd.Wake Up Dead Man is a prime example.

    I perfer Pop live.The distortions are gone.You can hear the band.Bonos voice is clear.Mofo,LNOE and Miami sound fantastic live.
  8. You got it! I rarely listen to Pop but really enjoy the PopMart shows.

    I bought all three of those 1997 records the day they were released.
  9. damn me i was sleeping during this discussion
    i'd like to say a couople of thing hoping i haven't misunderstood or lost anything.


    uhm from what is my experience they won lots of NEW fans, lots of olders start to take a step back since All that you can't and following with the Bomb

    Originally posted by EDDMB:
    That is why,I was so frustrated by the release of Pop.I was saying to myself,why the hell cant U2 release a U2 record ?

    but what do you mean with U2 releasing a U2 record? i read you said also that with All that you can't they went back to be U2, puttig it near Joshua (this throws me cold shivers down my spine hehe).
    maybe i'm going to extreme but .. so Achtung is not a "U2 album"?
    and what is the U2 sound? you can't define it precisely .. all over the years they always went through evolution or maybe, saying better, changes ..
    first 3 - Unforgettable - Joshua - Achtung and so on .. they built something that cannot be labeled (and it's really hard for me thinking of another band that did that)
    i can accept that someone likes All that more than Pop/Achtung/Joshua/Unforgettable .. it's really hard but i can hehehe .. but not that in that album there's the typical U2 sound
  10. Originally posted by noiseless:
    I dare to assume if NLOTH was released before it was ruined by the 100th take-over, extra layer of muddy mess, and 'we don't know so let's add another layer of undefined sound' it could've been way more succesful.

    and maybe we wouldn't have had Boots but Winter, hopefully without its intro

  11. Originally posted by ahn1991:[..]

    Pop wasn't a failure because it was rushed.

    It was indeed rushed, but the real issue is that many songs on the album do not mesh well together at all. I mean, how do you have a song as moving as Please on the same album as something like The Playboy Mansion? I can't really explain it, but the album feels "confused". It tries to convey too many themes and ends up coming out as a rather bizarre mix of great songs and terrible ones. Don't get me wrong, I've got some favorites on the album, but other songs never grew on me and I still hate listening to them to this day.

    Another reason why I feel that a Pop remaster will not be created is the difference in available sound quality is not great enough to warrant it. When you compare modern acoustic technology to that available during the Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby era, there's a huge difference. With between the Pop era and now, there's no significant difference in sound quality to warrant a deluxe set.


    I partly agree, Pop might be a little confused but I don't think the song selection is a mess that big. Albums after Pop are, in my opinion, a bigger mess in that department. If you take it just as an experimental album everything fits fine, to me. But for me it's easy because there's only two songs on it I don't like, and three I'd rate as their very best.

    I do totally agree a remaster doesn't make any sense. It's plain madness to increase quality of a 1997 digitally recorded album.
    Older albums sometimes benefit from remastering but to be honest, none of the U2 albums needed it. The first three albums were destroyed by remastering, TUF and JT are not, but I prefer the originals and besides, the MFSL pressings are way better.
  12. Originally posted by EDDMB:[..]

    The "rushed" argument comes from the band themselves.In U2 by U2,I lost count on how many times the band members said "Pop was rushed","We sold tickets for the tour before Pop was finished".Larry, said this over and over in the book.He even feels they should re-record PoP.


    Yes, you're right. But the members of this fine band always talk like marketing guys
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.