Author Topic: Pop is already a top 3 U2 album - so imagine if they had finished it..  (Read 647 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline asterik

  • Babyface
  • *
  • Posts: 16
If they gotten that extra 3 months to finish it as Larry stated, then I can only imagine that Pop would have been the greatest U2 album by far.

What staggers me is that the album is already a top 3 U2 album even though it was severely rushed and underdone. One can only imagine how great Pop could have been it they didn't have time constraints to work towards.

Alternatively, perhaps the fact the band had a set time limit, possibly is what resulted in the greatness of that album?



Offline wons

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 605
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If they gotten that extra 3 months to finish it as Larry stated, then I can only imagine that Pop would have been the greatest U2 album by far.

What staggers me is that the album is already a top 3 U2 album even though it was severely rushed and underdone. One can only imagine how great Pop could have been it they didn't have time constraints to work towards.

Alternatively, perhaps the fact the band had a set time limit, possibly is what resulted in the greatness of that album?

More like bottom 3 U2 album. At least half the songs need to be re-recorded and probably re-written.

Offline McSwilly

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 215
There are a couple of good songs on Pop, but top 3 - simply crazy in my opinion.

Discotheque is almost as bad as Get On Your Boots. Mofo, If You Wear That Velvet Dress, Wake Up Dead Man...all snoozers.

The B-Side Holy Joe is better than most of the album.

The remix of If God Will send was great, and I love Playboy Mansion. Please was good live as a wanna be Bad with more political overtones.

Offline laoghaire

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 687
  • IT MEEEEEEEANS SOMETHING!!!!!!
Mofo a "snoozer" - I mean, maybe you don't like the song, but "snoozer"? Mofo?

Offline shineinthesummernight

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,576
Yeah, Mofo as a snoozer makes absolutely no sense.

Offline Johnny Feathers

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,978
Anyone who thinks the album needed MORE time I think is mistaken.  The thing was already delayed when it finally came out.  The album is what it is, and more time would likely only have made it worse.  Look at the versions of the songs on the 1990-2000 set as evidence of what MORE time would have done.

It's a good album.  It was never going to be their best.

Offline shineinthesummernight

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,576
Bono always says an album wasn't finished when he's not 100 percent happy with it.  I agree that it was done.  He's just hedging his bet a bit, I think.

Offline Johnny Feathers

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,978
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bono always says an album wasn't finished when he's not 100 percent happy with it.  I agree that it was done.  He's just hedging his bet a bit, I think.

Many artists have made comments to the effect that albums often aren't "finished", they just run out of time.  That's part of the creative process--given endless time and resources, many artists would just keep finding things to tweak.  A little synth addition here, take away the hi hat there, maybe we should double the vocals on THAT part, etc.  And there's always something you're unhappy with, that nobody else would ever notice.

In U2's case, maybe the story is a little more dramatic, with recording the vocals to Last Night On Earth in the waning hours before the album was due, and having the tour commitment forcing their hand to deliver it.  And they can always use those stories as "evidence" for why the album didn't do as well as they'd hoped.  But it still comes down to the biggest band on earth, with all of the tools at their disposal, and more time than most bands would ever be granted, griping about having to "rush" the album.  At some point, any issues to do with the album might have to be reconciled as being intrinsic to THEM.  If two years (or whatever it was) wasn't enough time to get it right, maybe it was the material they were working with?  Personally, I really like the album, but it's not their best--and them having more time to work on synth parts or production wouldn't have changed that.  There's simply nothing "unfinished" about the album.  Don't believe their hype.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2018, 09:31:17 AM by Johnny Feathers »

Offline trevgreg

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,246
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Many artists have made comments to the effect that albums often aren't "finished", they just run out of time.  That's part of the creative process--given endless time and resources, many artists would just keep finding things to tweak.  A little synth addition here, take away the hi hat there, maybe we should double the vocals on THAT part, etc.  And there's always something you're unhappy with, that nobody else would ever notice.

In U2's case, maybe the story is a little more dramatic, with recording the vocals to Last Night On Earth in the waning hours before the album was due, and having the tour commitment forcing their hand to deliver it.  And they can always use those stories as "evidence" for why the album didn't do as well as they'd hoped.  But it still comes down to the biggest band on earth, with all of the tools at their disposal, and more time than most bands would ever be granted, griping about having to "rush" the album.  At some point, any issues to do with the album might have to be reconciled as being intrinsic to THEM.  If two years (or whatever it was) wasn't enough time to get it right, maybe it was the material they were working with?  Personally, I really like the album, but it's not their best--and them having more time to work on synth parts or production wouldn't change have changed that.  There's simply nothing "unfinished" about the album.  Don't believe their hype.

Exactly.

I do think there’s probably some truth in them thinking this particular album might have been rushed at the end, and therefore not as “complete” as it could have been with more time. But to a large extent, that is the case for most songs and albums out there anyway. You’re never going to view your songs in the same ways others do. You’ll always hear the parts you worked on, what could have been better or what you could do to it now, and so on. Like you said, it’s part of the writing process no matter what.

Here’s what I read one musician say recently when he was asked whether he likes to listen to his own music or not…

Also, I think there is a built-in assumption that, since a record is finished and released, it is exactly what the group hoped to make. They love it, they think it’s a masterpiece, etc. But more often (and I speak to lots of folks in bands), musicians feel as though what they made is a pile of crap.

I also like the story that George Martin told about John Lennon once telling him that he would re-record everything The Beatles ever created if he had the chance. Martin then asked him, “Even Strawberry Fields?” And Lennon replied “Especially Strawberry Fields!”

Offline miracle_al

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 103
Pop is brilliant...one of my favorite U2 albums.  However, the question I've wrestled with the most in relation to that album is whether it is a sign of the times that it was conceived/recorded in, or whether it is truly timeless in the way that The Joshua Tree is. 

Offline Johnny Feathers

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,978
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Pop is brilliant...one of my favorite U2 albums.  However, the question I've wrestled with the most in relation to that album is whether it is a sign of the times that it was conceived/recorded in, or whether it is truly timeless in the way that The Joshua Tree is. 

Eh, a little of both, maybe.  Having a song that references Michael Jackson and the OJ trial is pretty much the definition of "of its time", as are some of the electronica production elements.  But I think there's still a lot, subject-wise, that continues to be relevant.

Offline wons

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 605
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Anyone who thinks the album needed MORE time I think is mistaken.  The thing was already delayed when it finally came out.  The album is what it is, and more time would likely only have made it worse.  Look at the versions of the songs on the 1990-2000 set as evidence of what MORE time would have done.

It's a good album.  It was never going to be their best.

          The album was mistakenly timed to a tour that U2 for various reasons did not want to delay or couldn't delay. That's a bad situation to be in when your struggling to make an album. The schedule and commercial considerations became more important than the art and the album became rushed. The band has said this and stated they would never put themselves in that situation again ever.

Offline Luzita

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 315
Whether or not Pop is a Top-3 album is definitely a matter of opinion. Although some fans would rate it that way, most would not. There's a U2 Album Survivor poll going on in a different forum and Pop was the 4th album voted off.

Offline Johnny Feathers

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,978
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Anyone who thinks the album needed MORE time I think is mistaken.  The thing was already delayed when it finally came out.  The album is what it is, and more time would likely only have made it worse.  Look at the versions of the songs on the 1990-2000 set as evidence of what MORE time would have done.

It's a good album.  It was never going to be their best.

          The album was mistakenly timed to a tour that U2 for various reasons did not want to delay or couldn't delay. That's a bad situation to be in when your struggling to make an album. The schedule and commercial considerations became more important than the art and the album became rushed. The band has said this and stated they would never put themselves in that situation again ever.

That's a fair enough assessment, but I don't hear anything in the album that I would describe as "unfinished".  After the length of time they had to create the thing, I might say having to deliver it, despite their preference otherwise, could be viewed as a blessing in disguise.

Offline ShankAsu

  • Child of Grace
  • **
  • Posts: 1,966
  • Can't fight for s---, but sure can take a beating
Pop is definitely not in my top 3 for U2 albums.  It lower tier.  Other than being the first album that i bought as a fan when it came out, it means nothing special to me.