GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by Bullet_Blue:[...] They are going to be the next Stones - another band that made its last great album in 1971 but still on the road for the next 46 years - a big act that will always fit stadiums and arenas and that will always sell records, and this is the main goal of the band right now: keep making money, not losing it. And this because Pop and PopMart. [...]
    Wouw...dragging The Stones into the Pop thread...

    I just hope that U2 will have the same joy being on the road as The Stones have.
    And making even more money with excellent releases "from the vaults" (e.g. Totally Stripped)

    Pop: been there, done that, and got a priceless t-shirt ...what more can I say

    Have fun you Popmartians (no irony!)
  2. Originally posted by BigGiRL:[..]
    Wouw...dragging The Stones into the Pop thread...

    I just hope that U2 will have the same joy being on the road as The Stones have.
    And making even more money with excellent releases "from the vaults" (e.g. Totally Stripped)

    Pop: been there, done that, and got a priceless t-shirt ...what more can I say

    Have fun you Popmartians (no irony!)
    So you wish U2 will spend the next 20 years releasing greatest hits + cover albums and making two concerts per year?
    I love them that much to not do it.
  3. Originally posted by RattleandHum1988:[..]


    I'd argue that while it's a bit more... "experimental" than its surrounding albums, the core songwriting just isn't good. Pop had songs that were incredibly well written and vulnerable, they were just wrapped in some crazy sounds. NLOTH has some not-nearly-as-crazy sounds with some not-nearly-as-great songwriting, and I think that's sort of what they realized after. It wasn't that people didn't go along for the ride like with Pop, it's that there wasn't much to latch onto to begin with. Compare songs like Mofo, Please and Last Night on Earth with songs like Magnificent, Unknown Caller and Crazy Tonight. Yeah.......

    I get what you're saying, I just don't like seeing NLOTH compared to Pop I'd also say that at least Pop HAD such an effect on their career, NLOTH is basically just forgettable. They don't play Pop songs because they're afraid of them. They don't play NLOTH songs because no one in the audience or band really think those songs stand up to the rest of their work.


    Sorry. I think the comparison between Pop and NLOTH is this... records the band was proud of what they did, but got largely rejected. Maybe we can say Pop was rejected more by casuals and NLOTH was rejected more by core fans, which may have had more sting (which could argue the point that they would be more afraid to play these) To say NLOTH is forgettable is a stretch. To you, maybe. I would venture to say you'll hear something live from NLOTH before you will from Pop. As to why? There's only 4 people that could tell you the real reason. We could throw our little conspiracy theories out there all day. And I would put Magnificent and Moment of Surrender up with the best of them.

    Out of curiosity, what was Pop's effect on their career? Not arguing here, I won't argue your opinion, I'm just genuinely curious at other perspectives. I think the effect Pop had on U2's career made them more cautious and less confident. (See their next album) I think NLOTH started to loosen them up and indulge again with the same result Pop had on them. Two records they were proud of, and if anything, maybe wish they'd spent a tad more time on. Which brings us to U2 in it's present incarnation... worrying too much about how everyone else feels. Even before record sales started to decline, most artists would look at 3.5 million records sold as a huge success!
  5. Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]


    Sorry. I think the comparison between Pop and NLOTH is this... records the band was proud of what they did, but got largely rejected. Maybe we can say Pop was rejected more by casuals and NLOTH was rejected more by core fans, which may have had more sting (which could argue the point that they would be more afraid to play these) To say NLOTH is forgettable is a stretch. To you, maybe. I would venture to say you'll hear something live from NLOTH before you will from Pop. As to why? There's only 4 people that could tell you the real reason. We could throw our little conspiracy theories out there all day. And I would put Magnificent and Moment of Surrender up with the best of them.

    Out of curiosity, what was Pop's effect on their career? Not arguing here, I won't argue your opinion, I'm just genuinely curious at other perspectives. I think the effect Pop had on U2's career made them more cautious and less confident. (See their next album) I think NLOTH started to loosen them up and indulge again with the same result Pop had on them. Two records they were proud of, and if anything, maybe wish they'd spent a tad more time on. Which brings us to U2 in it's present incarnation... worrying too much about how everyone else feels. Even before record sales started to decline, most artists would look at 3.5 million records sold as a huge success!
    Couldn't agree more.
  6. I wish they would have gone full Danger Mouse on SOI - their best album since Pop, imo. And it isn't close.

    Love his (DM) work with Gorillaz and Broken Bells. They might have returned to a more innovative space although nowhere near what Pop was and some could argue that they'd just be chasing a trend.

    Would have been a new(er) direction though.

    I'm bittersweet about Pop as I was one of those fans who didn't like it at the time and didn't like Popmart either. Took me many years to realize what a gem it is.

    It's now the most listened to of their studio albums for me and my favorite album of theirs.

    Would have killed to see that show a few weeks ago instead of the J-Tree show that I did, which left me meh.
  9. Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]


    Sorry. I think the comparison between Pop and NLOTH is this... records the band was proud of what they did, but got largely rejected. Maybe we can say Pop was rejected more by casuals and NLOTH was rejected more by core fans, which may have had more sting (which could argue the point that they would be more afraid to play these) To say NLOTH is forgettable is a stretch. To you, maybe. I would venture to say you'll hear something live from NLOTH before you will from Pop. As to why? There's only 4 people that could tell you the real reason. We could throw our little conspiracy theories out there all day. And I would put Magnificent and Moment of Surrender up with the best of them.

    Out of curiosity, what was Pop's effect on their career? Not arguing here, I won't argue your opinion, I'm just genuinely curious at other perspectives. I think the effect Pop had on U2's career made them more cautious and less confident. (See their next album) I think NLOTH started to loosen them up and indulge again with the same result Pop had on them. Two records they were proud of, and if anything, maybe wish they'd spent a tad more time on. Which brings us to U2 in it's present incarnation... worrying too much about how everyone else feels. Even before record sales started to decline, most artists would look at 3.5 million records sold as a huge success!
    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.
  10. Originally posted by Bullet_Blue:[..]
    So you wish U2 will spend the next 20 years releasing greatest hits + cover albums and making two concerts per year?
    I love them that much to not do it.
    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
  11. And Pop is a much better album than NLOTH.

    Google Pop right now and read all of the articles that came out this year celebrating Pop and calling it misunderstood and underappreciated in its time.

    That will never happen with NLOTH because it's a weak and safe album that just happened to have a great tour.
  12. "It’s the album accompanied by the tour that the band announced in an appearance at a Manhattan Kmart, next to the lingerie section and under a fake department sign reading “Pop Group” (priced at $U2.97), a tour involving the biggest LED screen ever (at the time), a giant golden arch that coincidentally looked just like half a McDonald’s logo, and that began, naturally, in Las Vegas. (At the Kmart appearance, the band played one song — a b-side called “Holy Joe” that, despite the horrific echo in the live video, is one of their best non-album tracks.)"

    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.

    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.