GEN
Active topics
  1. Pop is magic.
  2. Originally posted by robotsandmonkeys:I think that interview answer is total post-rationalization of where they were in their career when he answered it ("relevance is king")...I'd point back to this video of MTV covering opening night of ZooTV - especially at 3:40 when Bono says:

    “we might lose some of the pop kids - but we don’t need 'em.”
    I dunno, I think that - even if he had sincerely thought he meant that when he said it - that was never the case. I mean, with their egos I think they genuinely can’t handle hearing their music all over when they release a new album.
  3. Originally posted by robotsandmonkeys:I've been thinking about this fantastic article in about Pop's 20th anniversary recently - especially in light of how the band has been talking about the album during the SOE tour.

    I think this article is spot on - you can split their career in half: pre-POP U2, and post-POP U2. Everything made post-POP has been done in reaction to that album...a trauma to their collective ego that (I think) has paralyzed them ever since.

    I think each album after POP is risk-averse, overthought, overproduced, second guessed, re-worked, and (ironically) over hyped by the band. They're not all bad, but there is something almost neurotic and uneven in the way they made every post-pop record that undermines what it could have been. Not to mention each post-pop album has been years, and years, and years in the making...a lot of time I imagine is taken up by second guessing and nail biting because they thought POP failed because they rushed it.

    And almost every post-POP album has been slagged off by the band just one release later ("it's overproduced"..."that really wasn't our best work, but THIS new album is"...etc)...seemingly in an effort to get ahead of any criticism. Or sabotaged on the last lap by not sticking to their original vision (I think NLOTH would have been FANTASTIC if they stuck to it being a fully U2/Eno/Lanois album instead of bringing in those awful Steve Lillywhite / Will.i.am songs in what was a blatant last minute freak out by the band).

    On the SOE tour they talk about POP like a distant, hazy memory (Bono claiming he forgets writing Staring at the Sun, etc)...a sort of amnesia that I seriously doubt. "Oh that album? Oh yeah, we NEVER think about it! Really...not at all! In fact...boy...I even forget recording it! Don't you guys? Yup...we NEVER think about it! That's our psychedelic period and we don't remember it AT ALL! Hey - want to hear Elevation again?"

    It's really unfortunate...one of those great "what ifs"...what if POP and POPMART was a hit...really wonder what the band would be like. We probably would at LEAST have gotten a Passengers Original Soundtracks 2


    There are two ways to think of this. One is the very literal way you just described it and the other is as a lesson. Maybe as a lesson they learned not to rush an album and book a tour. Nothing wrong with that.

    Post Pop they are also older. And have said so much already on albums. If they had more output post Pop would people say they are just repeating the same songs etc.

    I wish they would acknowledge the album as well but also it’s their choice. I really like it myself and consider it one of my favourites but when you really look at it Pop does kind of stick out. There aren’t any U2 “anthems” on there.
  4. Originally posted by kris_smith87:[..]


    There are two ways to think of this. One is the very literal way you just described it and the other is as a lesson. Maybe as a lesson they learned not to rush an album and book a tour. Nothing wrong with that.

    Post Pop they are also older. And have said so much already on albums. If they had more output post Pop would people say they are just repeating the same songs etc.

    I wish they would acknowledge the album as well but also it’s their choice. I really like it myself and consider it one of my favourites but when you really look at it Pop does kind of stick out. There aren’t any U2 “anthems” on there.
    Not in terms of accessibility and familiarity maybe, but I would say Mofo, Last Night on Earth, Gone, Discotheque, Do You Feel Loved, all stand up just as high as Vertigo, Elevation, etc. I know what you mean of course, but one could also argue that the album has no anthems because U2 never gave any song the time of day to BECOME an anthem, you know?

  5. Definitely insightful - thanks for sharing.

    Despite Bono's words, though, what I still can't wrap my head around is what the band actually wanted from this album. If they wanted it to "communicate on a wider level", then they can't just blame the fact that they weren't able to "finish" it for its perceived failure. It goes back further than that...as the band has said in places like "U2 by U2", they initially wanted to make an "ode to club culture" to reflect their hedonistic late 90s lifestyle, but they ended up making a record about the after-party, with Mofo already beginning the "mother of all hangovers"...

    But it's that clash between the artificial nature of the title/artwork/electronic dance-influenced production and lyrics arguing with God that makes it such a compelling album to so many of us, from what I've gathered. The irony and intensity of it all makes it brilliant.

    So, with that being said, does the band really believe that just working on it for a little longer would have made the songs into "anthems" that people would be singing all summer in 1997 (as an aside: the only songs I think they actually improved upon from the album mixes are IGWSHA and Please)? Or would they have needed to completely redo the whole album, lyrically as well as musically, for that to happen?
  6. Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:[..]
    Not in terms of accessibility and familiarity maybe, but I would say Mofo, Last Night on Earth, Gone, Discotheque, Do You Feel Loved, all stand up just as high as Vertigo, Elevation, etc. I know what you mean of course, but one could also argue that the album has no anthems because U2 never gave any song the time of day to BECOME an anthem, you know?
    Also true!

    I do wonder if there was more time/work could something have come from The Playboy Mansion?

    The "Then there will be no time for sorrow" part sounds like a snippet of an anthem...which it would become on the tour of course.

    Your point about those songs matching Elevation and Vertigo is taken and I agree. On the other hand though there is that sort of unabashed joy and sort of singing at the top of your lungs that Elevation and Vertigo has that despite not being "an anthem" still has similarities to Streets and Beautiful Day in that vein at least.
  7. Originally posted by bpt3:[..]

    Definitely insightful - thanks for sharing.

    Despite Bono's words, though, what I still can't wrap my head around is what the band actually wanted from this album. If they wanted it to "communicate on a wider level", then they can't just blame the fact that they weren't able to "finish" it for its perceived failure. It goes back further than that...as the band has said in places like "U2 by U2", they initially wanted to make an "ode to club culture" to reflect their hedonistic late 90s lifestyle, but they ended up making a record about the after-party, with Mofo already beginning the "mother of all hangovers"...

    But it's that clash between the artificial nature of the title/artwork/electronic dance-influenced production and lyrics arguing with God that makes it such a compelling album to so many of us, from what I've gathered. The irony and intensity of it all makes it brilliant.

    So, with that being said, does the band really believe that just working on it for a little longer would have made the songs into "anthems" that people would be singing all summer in 1997 (as an aside: the only songs I think they actually improved upon from the album mixes are IGWSHA and Please)? Or would they have needed to completely redo the whole album, lyrically as well as musically, for that to happen?
    I think you nailed it here (except the 2002 Gone is a huge improvement over the original ). The “not enough time” excuse just feels like, well, an excuse. It at the very least feels like it’s overlooking a lot of what caused Pop to be overlooked by most people.

    Starting with the fact that most casual U2 fans I talk to can’t stand Discotheque.
  8. Originally posted by bpt3:[..]

    Definitely insightful - thanks for sharing.

    Despite Bono's words, though, what I still can't wrap my head around is what the band actually wanted from this album. If they wanted it to "communicate on a wider level", then they can't just blame the fact that they weren't able to "finish" it for its perceived failure. It goes back further than that...as the band has said in places like "U2 by U2", they initially wanted to make an "ode to club culture" to reflect their hedonistic late 90s lifestyle, but they ended up making a record about the after-party, with Mofo already beginning the "mother of all hangovers"...

    But it's that clash between the artificial nature of the title/artwork/electronic dance-influenced production and lyrics arguing with God that makes it such a compelling album to so many of us, from what I've gathered. The irony and intensity of it all makes it brilliant.

    So, with that being said, does the band really believe that just working on it for a little longer would have made the songs into "anthems" that people would be singing all summer in 1997 (as an aside: the only songs I think they actually improved upon from the album mixes are IGWSHA and Please)? Or would they have needed to completely redo the whole album, lyrically as well as musically, for that to happen?
    What I get from that "not enough time" thing, is that Pop's song doesn't sound like "songs". Either by the structure or whatever, but they don't feel like a "normal" song.

    The fact that that's exactly what some fans love about it, doesn't change anything. Most people (including THEM) don't like it, that's why those musical experiments never end up being successful on the scale that they want, hence the "it became a niche record" line.
    (Basically you can say the same about NLOTH, but that's another thread).

    Back to the "not enough time", my take is that they would've beat those musical pieces trying to shape them into what they call "songs", which would've suck for everyone that really loves Pop.
  9. What I don't get from Pop fans is the overall idea that the band would want to make more music like Pop (or Passengers) but they somehow are betraying their instincts and "playing it safe" making their post-2000 music... no, they just don't care about that music anymore, which may or may not be a shame, but that's not the point.
    The whole "they should make another Passengers!" ...why? they didn't liked the first one, why would they want to make another one? even if they liked it, they've moved, they grew up, they're not in there anymore.

    Wanting them to release another Pop album is as ridiculous as wanting them to release another Boy. ("phrasing!")

    Not because some fans think some album is the best and the band doesn't, doesn't mean there's an ulterior motive... is just that they don't like it, not that they're scared of it.
  10. Originally posted by Bloodraven:What I don't get from Pop fans is the overall idea that the band would want to make more music like Pop (or Passengers) but they somehow are betraying their instincts and "playing it safe" making their post-2000 music... no, they just don't care about that music anymore, which may or may not be a shame, but that's not the point.
    The whole "they should make another Passengers!" ...why? they didn't liked the first one, why would they want to make another one? even if they liked it, they've moved, they grew up, they're not in there anymore.

    Wanting them to release another Pop album is as ridiculous as wanting them to release another Boy. ("phrasing!")

    Not because some fans think some album is the best and the band doesn't, doesn't mean there's an ulterior motive... is just that they don't like it, not that they're scared of it.
    Pop is my favorite U2 album, but I don't want them to do "another JT, or another AB or another Pop". Pop was the right album for 1996 (as it was originally scheduled to be released) 1997. The band transcended the "techno-trip hop" culture of the time (Chemical Brothers, Prodigy, etc.) as they did in the 80s with blues and gospel music and they gave us an album that captured very well the musical and intellectual interests of the band at that time.
    Nostalgia can be very blinding, but I know that at that time the band was still desperate to be the biggest band in the world and they did care about radio play, critics, and -gulp!- being relevant. I think than in 20 years we will be yearning for the times of the NLOTH album where the band "didn't care about sales or music critics".
  11. For perspective, I consider Pop to be a top 3 or 4 album for the band.

    U2 want their albums to be embraced by as many people as possible while at the same time making music that interests them. I don’t think this path is necessarily “safe” or not. But it’s what they have always pursued. They are an incredibly insecure band (mostly in a genuinely positive, humble way).

    The fact that Pop was not embraced by the “average” music fan clearly bothered them - while for different reasons I think the reactions to RH and very much like NLOTH have bothered them as well - they try and change musical course as a reaction to those albums. It’s not purely sales, it’s about a pursuit to have their music be embraced as touchstones in as many peoples lives as possible. Their post-Pop output has largely been about trying to capture that broad audience again.

    Each of us may or may not like the albums that have resulted from their efforts - but I don’t think the bands underlying motivations have changed a whole lot. Bono’s “we don’t need the pop kids” during Zoo TV was nothing more than typical Bono hyperbole - the entire AB album was still at its core about the band trying to capture the widest audience possible.
  12. Originally posted by cesar_garza01:[..]
    Pop is my favorite U2 album, but I don't want them to do "another JT, or another AB or another Pop". Pop was the right album for 1996 (as it was originally scheduled to be released) 1997. The band transcended the "techno-trip hop" culture of the time (Chemical Brothers, Prodigy, etc.) as they did in the 80s with blues and gospel music and they gave us an album that captured very well the musical and intellectual interests of the band at that time.
    Nostalgia can be very blinding, but I know that at that time the band was still desperate to be the biggest band in the world and they did care about radio play, critics, and -gulp!- being relevant. I think than in 20 years we will be yearning for the times of the NLOTH album where the band "didn't care about sales or music critics".
    yes to all that, specially that part of how good they captured and transcended the musical culture of the time... (unfortunately the public was not "ready" to get it).


    ---

    Pop was like Rattle and Hum, when they pushed the limits of what they were doing thinking it would strike gold again but (mildly) backfired instead, so they went and reinvented themselves after that.

    One thing that I find interesting, is that many bands do something like that, all those bands that continue to do "the same album" over and over again.

    If U2 were one of those bands, after Rattle and Hum which could be said "is the same album" as Joshua Tree, or after Pop, which could be said "is the same album" as Achtung/Zooropa, they would've give it another shot, or several more depending on their success, and they would've become that one trick pony band that they're not.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.