U2 "Pop" - classic or dud?

It's one I spin once or twice a year for a little bit. Much better than All That You Can't Leave Behind, which suprisingly I found I could.

I dunno -- I think it's a pretty admirable album. The tunes are good, and to extent that the sound of U2 trying too hard is kind of annoying, it's also great that they tried, unlike All That You Can't Leave Behind. You know, trying and failing in a hubristic yet endearing and sincere way is kind of like the point of U2 anyway, right? Thematically, I mean? I say, on a scale of -100 being dud, and 100 being classic, it is like a 60.

This is why I'm curious about the new disc, like "Pop" recorded sans Eno, let alone Lanois.

"Discotheque" is a wonderfully disposable Duran Duran/INXS soundalike (revenge, perhaps, for INXS making that U2 knockoff "Suicide Blonde"?) "Do You Feel Loved", "Staring at the Sun" and "Mofo" are tasty, but nothing here cooks like Zooropa or Achtung, Baby. Then again, what does? Overall, It's a bland, slow, direction-less and disheartening album that drags its feet through Day-Glo muck. The bands eccentropop phase must come to a close now, because they've strip-mined it to the very bottom.

u2 are such a hard band to love, or even like--but there they are, and they are good

how about the new one? does it suck real bad?

It's odd how people say things like 'after Zooropa and Pop, they went back to their safe 1980s style in the 2000s'. But those more recent records are really not very different from the 1990s ones; much closer to them than to The Joshua Tree anyway. Maybe the new LP is more different; it doesn't seem very immediate yet.

Pop isn't that catchy but I've always wanted to like it. Actually I think my favourite thing on it might be Do You Feel Loved, which really ought to have a question mark after it.

ATYCLB doens't have a great deal in common with Achtung Baby to my ears. Achtung Baby is fucking good, for a start.

kinda sucks how many articles or reviews on the new album--as with articles and reviews of the two previous to that--dismiss 'pop' and then usually go on to dismiss everything from 1990-2000 that isn't 'achtung baby'. i'm a big u2 fan but i don't think i would have ever gone near these guys if their '90s music didn't exist. the whole received wisdom that their "true" selves is represented on the more MOR stuff is dumb.

Always thought that if this album had been released a year or two earlier, the response would have been much better. (see also Love & Rockets' Hot Trip To Heaven)

"Gone" was the best song in the whole album, and "Discotheque" was probably the last first single U2 released that had some thrillpower.

"Pop" is largely a dud, and probably among their weakest albums ("Rattle And Hum" is obviously weaker), but "Staring At The Sun" and "If God Would Send His Angels" are still two great songs, pointing forward to their better noughties work.

Nevertheless, "Discoteque" and "Mofo" were really horrible - nowhere near what U2 should ever have touched.

I was disappointed with Achtung Baby when it came out; it sounded weak and tentative, like they were afraid of what they were experimenting with. Zooropa I still feel is their most fully-realized album, and Pop was a brilliant and fearless extension of that. I prefer it (Pop) to pretty much everything they've done except Boy. ATYCLB was really weak, and ushered in the era of U2 as U2 cover band.

"Achtung Baby" is better because experimentation doesn't have to go at the cost of song form. "Achtung Baby" has some great and interesting arrangements, and still great melodic songs with traditional song structures and great singalong choruses. That what makes it better than the two albums that followed. Experimentation works best within certain boundaries.

That was the problem; we knew they could make great melodic songs with traditional song structures and great singalong choruses. They'd already made six albums of those. We got it. Achtung Baby wasn't demonstrably different from those previous records, save a few surface characteristics. Zooropa and Pop were more challenging (to artist and audience alike) and hold up a lot better. The experimentation on those records didn't come at the cost of song form; it forced them into different approaches to song form.

I think I've put my finger on what went wrong: it was doubly not what people were expecting. Those put off by "Zooropa," if not "Achtung Baby," who were hoping for a return to "normal" U2 didn't like what they got. But those fans who liked "Achtung" and "Zooropa" and expected more in that vein ... didn't get that either. But there's still some really strong stuff on here, no surprise given that a huge hunk of it stemmed from the burst of ideas generated for "Achtung Baby," some of which ended up on "Zooropa" and bits of the leftovers ended up on here. They tried their best to mess up, but they were coasting on remnants from a pretty dominant imperial phase. No wonder its relative failure set them back so much. The next three albums sounded like a band trying to hardest to work its way back, which may be why they sound so workmanlike. The last two albums, on the other hand, are just so bereft of songs they just sound aimless. But "Pop," this stuff sounds pretty vibrant, even at its most dated.

I often wonder what it would have been like if they'd given themselves as much time to make this record as it took to make Zooropa. It seems they were far, far more focused on that album than they were with this one. 'Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me' should have gone on the album too, in place of some of the lesser stuff.

I like the idea of reassessing this album but I still only really enjoy Mofo, Staring at the Sun and The Playboy Mansion. Discotheque is horribly misjudged - everything good about the Zoo TV era gone sour - and Miami is a disaster. The rest is just drab.

'Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me' should have gone on the album too, in place of some of the lesser stuff.

agreed.
the band really hate this album now dont they ?
i mean within a couple of years, they remade a few of the tracks for the greatest hits set that covered this period.
i dont mind it, but RM/RM has definitely hit the high spots with his selection.
have read several times about how they will tweak mixes, sometimes drastically, right up until the point of delivery.
sounds like they have huge doubts over their choices, and just don't know how to get the finish stage of an album.

I often wonder what it would have been like if they'd given themselves as much time to make this record as it took to make Zooropa. It seems they were far, far more focused on that album than they were with this one. 'Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me' should have gone on the album too, in place of some of the lesser stuff.

It may be the opposite. I think Zooropa was recorded primarily on tour and done with a minimum of fuss and almost no overthinking (it's also why things like The First Time and Dirty Day sound a bit undercooked). In fact, I believe the original intent was to release it as a stopgap EP and capitalize on their momentum as the Zoo TV world tour had them on the road for such a long time. With Pop, they labored over it with far too many cooks in the kitchen trying to go even further than the previous two records at making an experimental "statement". Alternate mixes of most tracks released after the fact are approximately 100% better.

which alt mixes in particular? i recall even the fans in the U2 poll struggled to throw much weight behind POP. i'm all ears for the better versions of tracks.

Well, there were a couple that were on the Best Of compilation, weren't there?

the mix of 'please' that was on the single was better but i wasn't that crazy about the others. i like pop more than any album released after it but it's simultaneously over and undercooked and definitely a case of trying to serve too many masters.

Yeah, that pretty much sums up the record: it's so overcooked it sounds undercooked.

Zooropa was also, for what it's worth, a pretty free collaboration with Eno. They had two studios, one for the band and the other for Eno. The band would finish some stuff and then hand it over to Eno to fiddle with (same process with Eno/James and Wah Wah). "Pop," for what it's worth, marked the band's most radical break from habit, enlisting Howie B. as its Eno, plus a hodgepodge of names in often less than lead roles. Flood, Ben Hillier, Marius De Vries, Mark "Spike" Stent, Alan Moulder ... Also, at least a third, maybe more, of the songs on "Pop" were written around the same time as "Zooropa," if not a tad earlier. Perhaps because it's so underrated it stands up better than it should, but it definitely underscores just how important someone like Eno or Lillywhite, let alone an all-around adept musician/producer like Lanois, is to the band. Doesn't explain the group's more conservative detour to dullsville after this one, though.

There was a great interview with Eno a few years back where he described the downside of the way the band works. U2 stuff is largely worked up from scratch in the studio, out of jams and stuff (which is weird for this least adept at improvising rock bands), then gradually gets stronger and coalesces ... unless the band keeps working, at which point the songs morph again and get worse and less good. So they keep hammering at them to get them back in shape, etc, but if the process ebbs and flows enough times, the band can run out of time as deadlines loom. In the case of this album it was a huge tour on the horizon, so they supposedly had to end sessions at a less than ideal stage.

I'll have to look up which mixes and where they appeared although there were definitely a few on the Best Of if memory serves. I think I went off someone's recommendation on a msg board years ago and was pleasantly surprised at the difference it made. Not night and day exactly, but enough to make me sit up and take notice.

i'm not sure anything would've worked the way they wanted (zooropa was a new jersey and casual fans had kinda turned away cf rem and new adventures) but there was this element of ok we have to be hit makers here but also have to maintain our 90s eurohip vibe plus gotta stay relevant so let's do an oasis type number and a trip hop number or two and let's embrace techno but at the same time we need to make it verse chorus verse songs o and also we're U2 so we need to say something, we need to impart our wisdom. it's a better, more interesting record than rattle and hum but the folly at heart is the same.

U2 stuff is largely worked up from scratch in the studio, out of jams and stuff (which is weird for this least adept at improvising rock bands), then gradually gets stronger and coalesces ... unless the band keeps working, at which point the songs morph again and get worse and less good. So they keep hammering at them to get them back in shape, etc, but if the process ebbs and flows enough times, the band can run out of time as deadlines loom. In the case of this album it was a huge tour on the horizon, so they supposedly had to end sessions at a less than ideal stage.

Also, Larry was recovering from back surgery while the band went ahead in the studio without him. He came back, did some stuff, then left again to fully rehabilitate. When he came back the second time, most of his work was recording drum tracks with/to replace the loops they'd been working with. Their whole process was out of whack, not helped by the deadline they couldn't move.

I would've been totally cool with more songs like "Do You Feel Loved" and "Mofo." They chickened out -- blame deadline or whatever. "Wake Up, Dead Man" and "If God Will Send His Angels" were the Zooropa outtakes.

did anyone go to the k-mart press conference? I did: the stink of preening, smug "oh look how au courant we are, no more "angle of Harlem" from us!" was overpowering. It's true that Pop was to Achtung baby as Rattle was to Joshua.

U2 at the lectern explaining to their fans that Pop Music Was Good. Remember they opened that tour with M's "Pop Muzik"?

still shocked 'do you feel loved?' wasn't a single. would've definitely voted for 'gone' in the u2 poll.

I would've been totally cool with more songs like "Do You Feel Loved" and "Mofo."

Me too. Always thought "Mofo" was one of their great songs, as good as anything they'd ever done.

did anyone go to the k-mart press conference?

I remember a long writeup in The Nation on this by Dave Marsh. He pointed out that someone at the press conference asked U2 why they were essentially shilling for KMart, given the sweatshop labor used to make the clothes sold there. Bono called the questioner a snob and moved on.

Pretty sure If You Wear that Velvet Dress is also a Zooropa leftover. And Last NIght on Earth. And I think Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me, which wouldn't have really fit on Zooropa or Pop.

It was.

xp It wasn't about sweatshops. "Why was the band, by its appearance, promoting Kmart, a chain that censors recordings, as does Wal-Mart? Bono called the guy a "snob.""

Not that I'd take Dave Marsh's word for gospel, given how much he loathes U2. http://www.miaminewtimes.com/music/rattle-and-bum-6360325

Always thought "Mofo" was one of their great songs, as good as anything they'd ever done.

Never could fully get into this song. I like it fine, but mostly it feels like a genre exercise in the same way that the entirety of Bowie's Earthling was. I think Do You Feel Loved is a much more successful attempt at recontextualizing those sounds.

And I think Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me, which wouldn't have really fit on Zooropa or Pop.

Seems like it would fit pretty well on Pop actually. But, again, in a different mix and definitely without those Broadway strings.

https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/12118767_958448767527484_3126987890053575950_n.jpg?oh=eb8595c89faa5b382e5936931e7f4d9b&oe=56CB8FB6