U2 - "Pop": How do you rate the album? (Poll).

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Sondek, Apr 6, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. George Co-Stanza

    George Co-Stanza Forum Resident

    Location:
    America
    I don't think it's odd. Just because they are similar in style doesn't mean the songwriting will be equally as good. I like both albums, while preferring Pop, but I can see why one might like one and not the other.
     
  2. Diamond Star Halo

    Diamond Star Halo Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vancouver
    I disagree. Monster was the career killer for REM. It was a subpar album with subpar singles - and everyone knew it. The album sold well (due to nearly unstoppable commercial momentum from its massive predecessor), but it was not well received by the general public. Sales did not reflect the new reality until Hi Fi.
     
    Oatsdad likes this.
  3. via_atx

    via_atx Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Listening to Monster currently. Great record. Bought it the day it came out. So did a lot of my other friends who were into R.E.M. Don't recall anyone not liking it. The songs were all over the radio and MTV. The tour was great. I saw them in Austin with Radiohead opening. Place was packed. Still one of my favorite albums by them.

    I don't buy this "career-killer" stuff.

    They sort of lost me post-Bill Berry, but even on those records there were some good tunes.
     
  4. jc1303

    jc1303 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Lincolnshire, UK
    I really like some of it (Discotheque (ok, the lyrics arent great but, damn, that riff!), Please, Last Night On Earth), some of it I am utterly indifferent to (Miami, The Playboy Mansion, Do You Feel Loved)
    The live version of Staring At The Sun, where its done kinda acoustically, was much better than the album version.
    Saw the Popmart tour and it was amazing.
    Not really cared for much of their output since though, couple of decent tracks here and there maybe.
     
  5. vudicus

    vudicus Forum Resident

    Location:
    UK
    Not everyone knew it.
    Monster is my favourite R.E.M. album.
     
  6. captainsolo

    captainsolo Forum Resident

    Location:
    Murfreesboro, TN
    Cough...my favorite album if you can’t tell...:D

    Pop is unfairly maligned and gets better with age. I think only one or two songs are iffy or feel unfinished due to the rushed schedule. However everything else is either great or some of the best material they ever did. This was the last record in which they were being challenging and different and since ATYCLB it has only been in the fits and spurts of trying to be different again that I enjoy new U2 music.

    Any record that has songs this good deserves a better reputation. I first bought my copy in the 99 cent bin with Zooropa when I was first getting into their back catalog in my teens. At first I was like: so these are the weirder more experimental albums and then I suddenly realized...what the heck were people smoking when they planned it-this is fantastic!

    Gone is one of the best songs they’ve ever done along with many others on Pop. Some of the highlights of the modern tours for me have been when they’ve done songs from it and Zooropa.
     
  7. PDK

    PDK Forum Resident

    Location:
    Central Florida
    I agree with everything you said except career killer.

    I never got the album. What REM does I love but the palette is not a broad one. Especially in regards to Peter Buck.

    Peter Buck + over-driven amps = never worked for me

    I was a huge fan too. Didn't get it. Never shared that with anyone until now.
     
  8. Diamond Star Halo

    Diamond Star Halo Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vancouver
    You’re right. Career killer is too strong. Momentum killer is probably more accurate.
     
    Golden Richards likes this.
  9. Remy

    Remy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Brooklyn NY
    As time goes by I like it more and more.
     
    noahjld and PDK like this.
  10. George Co-Stanza

    George Co-Stanza Forum Resident

    Location:
    America
    I like the live version, but I am a huge fan of the studio version. I love The Edge's electric guitar work in the studio version, which never gets played obviously when they do it all acoustic live. Plus, I love that dynamic shift when they come out of the middle section just after the 3-minute mark and the acoustic guitar comes back in right when Bono sings the pre-chorus again. That is one of my favorite u2 moments ever.
     
  11. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Huh - I just thought your avatar was ironic! ;)
     
    captainsolo likes this.
  12. JannL

    JannL Forum Resident

    No offense taken. I'm secure in my appreciation for certain albums. :cool: And I stand proud on my love for Songs of Experience, which I play a lot, and understand not everyone at this stage will feel the same way. A band this age loses and gains fans over the decades. I'm just thankful they are still putting out music and touring.
     
    puddingdish, JeffMo and PDK like this.
  13. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Yeah, I don't think anyone claims REM's career "died" after "Monster" - or even "New Adventures". They remained a prominent band - it's not like they entered "2nd billed to puppet show" territory.

    But their popularity did plummet massively after 1995 or so. They went from being able to play multiple nights at large arenas to doing single nights at much smaller venues.

    Of course, their album sales never recovered, either.

    I was shocked at how far they fell so quickly. While REM were never as popular as U2, I still viewed them as analogous from the POV that both built "alternative" audiences slowly in the 80s and had "breakout" success around the same time . Sure, U2's success was exponentially bigger, but from 1987-1994, REM were a definite "A-level" band.

    U2 had to "regroup" some after the relative disappointment of "Pop" and the tour, but they still sold very well - both records and tickets. "All That You Can't..." was a major success and they continued to be a huge concert draw.

    REM shed boohoogles of fans in the 2nd half of the 90s - it's like the "chart-topping years" never existed.

    I guess Pearl Jam offered a similar tale, except PJ shot to the top way faster than REM. I thought REM would've had a much more stable fanbase since they built a following over time.

    In contrast, PJ has enjoyed an intensely loyal fanbase that allows them to play stadiums. REM didn't have that.

    And I don't know why. I really thought that base that they earned in the 80s would've stuck with them more than they did... :shrug:
     
  14. SamS

    SamS Forum Legend

    Location:
    Texas
    This album was great when I first got it in 1997, and still feels mostly fresh, 21 years later.

    Yes, Discotheque doesn't age well, and gets tiresome after you've heard it 10 times. So, the first 3 sounds sound rather forced. But everything after that showcases U2's skills as songwriting monsters (no pun intended).

    If you love 80's U2, I find it hard to believe you could appreciate the craftsmanship of "If God Will Send His Angels", "If You Wear That Velvet Dress" and "Wake Up Dead Man".
     
    Nick Dunning likes this.
  15. Diamond Star Halo

    Diamond Star Halo Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vancouver
    I
    I agree that it is pretty interesting how REM’s status dropped from rock royalty to a mere afterthought in just a few years.

    The U2/ REM comparison is intriguing. I think the comparison fits quite well prior to the mid 90’s, but after that their careers went in completely opposite directions.

    As you mentioned, U2 was simply a bigger act than REM, which is a huge consideration.

    IMO U2 had three distinct “commercial peaks”: The Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, and All That You Can’t Leave Behind. Each of these albums were massive, and, most importantly, each gained U2 new legions of fans. Each time, the new fans seemed to outnumber those who had jumped ship. Some longtime fans turned up their noses at the noticeable changes in musical direction/image, but the kids ate it up.

    The final huge U2 album, All That You Can’t, is arguably the most important factor in keeping U2 in rock’s upper echelon. Although some old school U2 fans were dismissive of the album, a whole new generation of fans were happy to buy boatloads of U2 albums and concert tickets. Their fan base was probably at its largest and most diverse from 2000-2004.

    Not to mention the fact that U2 were way more consistently adept than REM at writing hit singles, in every era.

    In contrast, REM hit their commercial peak from 1987-1994 or so....although I would argue that they weren’t truly “rock royalty” until 1991 and the release of Out of Time.
     
    JannL likes this.
  16. captainsolo

    captainsolo Forum Resident

    Location:
    Murfreesboro, TN
    I think the issues were more due to R.E.M. never doing the same record twice, a seeming lack of effort on promotions by Warner after a certain point and most importantly their fan base migrating to being more of a European one post-New Adventures.

    I still remember how NAIHF was just suddenly out with only a little fanfare and then seemingly gone and forgotten.
     
    Interpolantics likes this.
  17. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Agree. "Green" put them close to the "upper echelon" but it wasn't until "Losing My Religion" that I think they finally broke free from the constraints of "college bands" and made it to the masses.

    REM really do feel like U2 "writ smaller" - similar slow upward trajectory, similar kind of original fan base, but smaller scale success. Even as big as they got, REM never sold more than 4 million copies of an album in the US, whereas "Achtung" sold 8 million and "Tree" went well above 10 million.

    REM never made it to stadiums, either. They could do arenas but never the biggest venues.

    REM always seemed like a band who were a "niche act" who happened to make it big. U2 always had "big time" written on them: arena-ready anthems, charismatic lead singer.

    On the other hand, at least in their early days REM had more introspective, jangly style and a shy lead singer who mumbled the lyrics. Stipe eventually became a pretty good frontman, but you couldn't see that evolution in the first half of the 80s, whereas U2 always seemed "arena ready".

    Anyway, REM's decline didn't surprise me - felt more like they went back to the "base" - but the speed with which they fell out of favor did surprise me.

    Maybe this was regression to the mean and the 500,000-1 million copies sold of the post-"Monster" albums represents the band's core.

    It was still a huge plummet that I wouldn't expect of a band that'd been around a long time. Rapid falls from the peak usually happen to bands who shoot up quickly, not those who build over time...
     
  18. mark winstanley

    mark winstanley Certified dinosaur, who likes physical product

    I wasn't real big on this album. Some good songs, but it was what it said it was and i much preferred October, war, joshua and achtung ...
    Having said that, i think it was important for them to make it. They needed to break habits and stretch out to find something new.
     
  19. Popmartijn

    Popmartijn Senior Member

    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Apart from the Pop album U2 released also some other stellar tracks that year. This might be one of my favourites they released in 1997, a duet with Sinéad O'Connor.
     
  20. The Bishop

    The Bishop Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dorset, England.
    I gave the album another try after reading your post, but I'm afraid I really didn't like it.

    I get that they were pushing the boundaries of the time, but the songs just sound uninspired to me.

    It doesn't help that I don't like dance music, so I'll be sticking with the other U2 albums, both before and post-Pop.
     
  21. Binni

    Binni Forum Resident

    Location:
    Iceland
    On this day in 1997 U2 released Staring at the Sun.

    Was it their best song from the 90s?

    Absolute Radio 90s
     
    Sean likes this.
  22. Django

    Django Forum Resident

    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    I also always liked it. I think they got a bit burnt on pop. They seem to have retreated back to a fairly trad rock sound ever since.
     
  23. NunoBento

    NunoBento Rock 'n' Roll Star

    Location:
    London
    It was an experiment that half failed, but it atill was an experiment and U2 are best when experimenting.

    The (half) failure of Pop turned U2 into a safe-playing / middle-of-the-road band, which was the real tragedy of Pop.
    They tried it again with No Line On The Horizon, but again, they were not successful, which led to the tragedy of Songs Of Experience.

    I miss the experimenting U2.
     
    No Bull likes this.
  24. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    Nope - not even top 10!
     
  25. Binni

    Binni Forum Resident

    Location:
    Iceland
    Yeah, strange question. I think I would choose ´One´ but Staring at the Sun I don´t find special.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine