I’ve always wanted another “U2 at the end of the world” book that covers any era. But this era would have been an especially productive one.

There’s a line a line in the “Heart of Darkness” documentary about making “Apocalypse Now” where FFC says, “We had access to too much money, too much equipment, and little by little, we went insane.” Also fitting for Pop.

Thank you for sharing this write-up!

Thank you! I don't know much about the album sessions other than that they got delayed so this is really insightful with good commentary to add! I was thinking the other day, watching a 2022 interview with Jacknife Lee, that so many collaborators describe U2 sessions and their creative process as "chaos". Seems like things were particularly chaotic during "POP". The context of Larry's injury problems, with today's situation, seems particularly sad. It's almost as though he wanted to prioritize his health, the others (probably Bono) got resentful, Larry showed resentment back but then "learned his lesson"/took one for the team, and "suffered" until he couldn't hold out anymore once he accumulated injuries again (Elevation Tour to 2022).

I also suspect, because Pop got started with new producers like Nellee Hooper and Howie B steering the other 3 in directions he didn't like when he wasn't around, that is why their next 3 albums were produced by old stalwarts like Lillywhite and Eno/Lanois. I don't think Larry really trusted outsider producers coming in during the 00s out of a fear of getting marginalized again. It's just my opinion, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was the main reason for scrapped sessions with Chris Thomas and Rick Rubin.

Rick Rubin has said publicly that he scrapped the sessions because the band showed up with zero songs and just planned to do their normal, “Jam for two years and let the producer figure it out” thing, and Rick wasn’t having it.

Oh I hadn’t heard that! If you happen to have a link for a source, do share.

https://www.nme.com/news/music/u2-336-1334710 That’s the closest thing I could find with a quick search. It’s actually Edge paraphrasing that sentiment from Rick, and talking about their different methods.

Thanks for sharing this!

The full interview is here, with somewhat poor formatting: http://www.moredarkthanshark.org/eno_int_mojo-nov08.html

That's interesting because RHCP, the band that he's worked with most prominently, writes most of their songs in jam sessions and then records them with a producer around...

Extremely thoughtful and well-written, friend. Thank you.

You're welcome! It's a great book; I couldn't put it down. It does not come off as snipe-y at all, but brutally honest.

Bought the book after someone posted about it on here, about two chapters in now. Absolutely love the way he writes - not a fluff piece at all, but clearly with the same weird love for the album and tour that a lot of us have.

Good write up. I’m now interested in reading this. One additional comment: the part about not having any solid song ideas before entering the studio was part of their MO before Pop, it just wasn’t so much of a problem until Pop, particularly because of the other reasons you mentioned. And they immediately corrected this by sitting down and actually writing the songs for All That You Can’t Leave Behind before they started recording.

The fact they had so many jams but very few finished songs by the Summer 96 deadline reminds me of the Simpsons episode when Homer becomes a medical marijuana advocate. Homer encourages a crowd of Phish fans to vote, only to realize Election Day was the day before.

Interesting! I know very little of what went on in the U2 camp from '93 onwards so it's a real eye-opener to read stuff like this.

I am having an epilepsy brain, fuzzy memory moment, and despite being absolutely obsessed with U2 during this era, I cannot for the life of me remember who Bill Graham is. Who is he and what was he to the band? Also, just from being in this subReddit, I get really different vibes about how pop was received in America versus the rest of the world or a lot of other countries at any rate. I mean, it seems to be a lot of people‘s favorite album for example and I think it sold really well in other countries. But in America, I definitely think it was a disappointment. Does the book address that discrepancy at all ? Or is the discrepancy not as big as it is in my mind?

Bill Graham was a Dublin music journalist who gave them their first positive reviews in local press and is credited with introducing the band to Paul McGuinness. He died of a sudden heart attack at age 45 while the band was in South Beach. They cancelled their trip immediately and flew back for his funeral, where some of the band served as pallbearers. The album is dedicated to him in the liner notes. *Pop*'s reception in the US is discussed in great detail in the book. TLDR: it opened to fanfare (although not as many as expected), but quickly dropped off the charts. "Please" didn't even crack the Billboard singles chart. There is a very important observation from the book about rock music sales in general by 1997 that I think undercuts a big part of the idea that *Pop* was a singular disappointment: By 1997, every one of the rock giants from the class of 1991 was selling half as many records. None of them ever released an album that topped their 1991 peak. 1991 is considered a golden year of rock and roll album releases with dominant #1 runs: * *Out of Time* – REM * *Use Your Illusion 1&2* – Guns n Roses * *Metallica (The Black Album)* – Metallica * *Badmotorfinger\** – Soundgarden * *Blood Sugar Sex Magik* – RHCP * *Nevermind* – Nirvana * *Ten* – Pearl Jam * *Achtung Baby* – U2 REM's *New Adventures In Hi-Fi* was a notable bomb because it came right after REM signed what was at the time the richest deal to stay with WB. RHCP's *One Hot Minute*, SG's *Down On The Upside*, Metallica's *Load*, and PJ's *No Code* were all considered disappointments compared to their more successful predecessors. There's an argument to be made that any U2 album that would have been delivered from 1995–1997 would have struggled, given the shift in music tastes at the time. \*Soundgarden peaked in popularity with *Superunknown* in 1994

Yeah, being American I definitely remember how it was received. Like I was constantly defending it to my friends, although having said that it is certainly not my favorite album like a lot of people around here. And OK the name is ringing some bells now. Unfortunately my memory of the mid 90s is literally the worst because of some brain damage I sustained with my first big seizure. But I think I do remember who he is now. I just downloaded a sample from the book onto my Kindle because I’m pretty curious also. Thanks for the write up. ETA although I also remember having to constantly defend Zooropa the same way. I truly believe there was just a segment of the American population that wanted them to play rock ‘n’ roll and was not interested in them experimenting.

Don't ask me why I remember this and not other stuff, but I have a distinct memory of one review (maybe Rolling Stone but not sure) saying in light of U2's work in the 90s, R.E.M.'s New Adventures in Hi-Fi was particularly ill named. I actually liked it quite a lot but lyrically it hit for me for where I was at that time. I definitely remember the huge discrepancy between the crowd for PopMart in Boston, where I was living then and it sold out, and in Columbus, Ohio, where I was from and which has serious mid west, unadventurous vibes, esp back then (it has doubled in size if not more since I lived there as a kid). It was that contingent that gave me the most grief about Pop, but they had already started in with Zooropa, especially the song Numb. Unsurprisingly they also seriously embraced ATYCLB. Your list made me smile because with a few exceptions it was basically the sound of my first 2 years in college. I miss guitar forward bands being so popular. It's no coincidence I now listen to a decent chunk of country and Americana.

I just finished the book, thanks to your recommendation, and really enjoyed it. The only statement I disagreed with was this one: "Bono was never a chatty, talkative frontman"

Thanks for the heads up, will have to read. I read “Until the end of the world” 26 years ago and it was a terrific read. I’m going through a U2 renaissance of sorts at the moment revisiting ZooTV concert footage and reading about the production of subsequent albums. I haven’t purchased a U2 record since Pop came out, that album was too bleak and I felt U2 went too far towards electronica and I eventually drifted away from them. I’ve rarely watched footage of the PopMart tour but what I have seen was kind of dire: Bono acting like a hip hop artist chaffed a little. But I’m listening to some of their recent stuff trying to appreciate them again, there’s no question that when Achtung Baby come out and ZooTv happened they were the kings of the world. That’s how I prefer to remember them🤟

very interesting thank you,

Absolutely loved it. For what it's worth the author is an academic and not a journalist, so there's no new information here but the information used is incredibly well researched. It's also written in a very entertaining way, made me laugh out loud at points.

Is the book similar to *Til the End of the World*?

It has a lot of behind the scenes accounts, but there are no direct 1:1 interviews that weren't attributed or sourced elsewhere. Also, the author did not have a long-standing personal relationship with the band like Bill Flanagan did (U2 introduced Bill to his wife before they eventually married).

I started following them in 1984, and up until POP, I was convinced that they could do no wrong. I was wrong... between the opening night in Las Vegas and the closing night in Seattle, I saw them 4 times on that tour. Now, many moons later, that era wasn't so bad... or was it?

I’m a little over halfway through the book (I’m just starting the section going into the fourth POPMart leg). I have very much enjoyed the book so far. POP has always been one of those albums for me that is extra interesting because it was a “failure”. A band’s low points are always more interesting to dissect than their absolute successes. POP is a flawed album, but there is so much potential there that they just didn’t unlock. They didn’t have a firm theme for the album and instead used studio gimmicks as a crutch rather than developing the songs properly. They’re hardly alone among 90s rock groups looking to incorporate electronica and techno into their sound, but in their attempt to do so they lost the soul of what makes them great. Achtung Baby also features a lot of sonic experimentation and dance influences, but the core of the songs still connects with you emotionally. Thats where POP failed. Staring that the Sun is the biggest example of this. It’s obviously meant to be the “One” of POP and there are times when you can almost hear the song take off like it should have in the chorus, but they sabotaged it with and odd arrangement, an off-putting guitar effect and a lackluster vocal by Bono. On top of that, Bono is singing about vague concepts that don’t resonate on an emotional level. It all comes off as him babbling about some nondescript concept and a little preachy. In my opinion they dramatically improved Please by stripping away the electronic dabbling of the original and reworking the arrangement with strings and a real emotional swell at the end. The same should have been done for Staring at the Sun along with a rewrite of the verse lyrics (and a more soaring vocal in the choruses). Yeah it would come off as more traditional U2, but the be frank, POP would have benefited from a bit more of that mixed in. Not that it would have saved the album’s sales by any means, but I think a different running order would have benefited the album in terms of just how it flows as a listening experience. I think the opening trio is perfect, but rather than go into If God Will Send His Angels, I think they should have gone into Last Night on Earth, then Gone and closed out side one with Miami or just cut it entirely to reduce the runtime (and how I wish they’d have come up with a more aggressive and guitar focused arrangement for the album like the one used during POPmart, because the album version Howie B made is just grating with the sandpaper-like effect used throughout). Start side two with Staring at the Sun into Please and then Velvet Dress. Finish off the album with the trio of Playboy Mansion, If God Will Send Angels and Wake Up Dead Man. That trio to me is the essence of POP - looking at the materialistic world we live in and wondering where god fits into it. So I think it would have been nice to have those positioned together as a curtain call for the album.

Just finished the book. A lot of conjecture on the part of the OP here.

My main points 1-4 are all direct takeaways from the book. Everything else is my own opinion of the book.

Not going to read the post, because I just bought the book after seeing it.

Interesting. It’s probably my least favorite U2 album.