Do U2 buy out the press (eg Rolling Stone Magazine) regarding reviews?

[CrashedCarDriver]

its a thought that came to my head when i was reading the review of No Line on the Horizon

personally in my opinion no line on the horizon is an unsatisfying album which has U2 living in the past. so unsatisfied by the album it has been excluded from my own preferred "2009 Playlist on my Ipod" (all songs released in 2009)

and i have a few songs on my 2009 playlist as well (244 songs), mind you i like stuff by Bon Iver, Animal Collective and the Dark Was the Night compilation double cd, i couldnt find a place for pop music or U2 on that playlist

u2 wouldnt feel that left out, theres a chance a crap song from No Line on the Horizon might still come up, theres a 1 in 638 chance of that happening

but seriously back onto the point, i didnt find the album satisfying at all, and i see no reason why rolling stone magazine would give it five stars, simply because it is U2. what happened to having an impartial view? parochialism gets you nothing

 

[Galeongirl]

U2 need to buy votes now?


The fact that you didn't like the album doesn't mean the rest of the world didn't like it.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

It's your personal opinion for god's sakes!

Just because the review didn't agree with your perception of the album doesn't mean U2 "bought out the press".

 

[coolian2]

dunce.

 

[gman]

Wait a moment here.....I love R&H.....the press slated it. I dont remember u2 having to buy me out!
Point being, it is feasible that maybe the person responsible for the NLOTH review actually loves the album...as i and many others do

 

[digitize]

Wait a moment here.....I love R&H.....the press slated it. I dont remember u2 having to buy me out!
Point being, it is feasible that maybe the person responsible for the NLOTH review actually loves the album...as i and many others do

Nonsense. NLOTH is a joint-venture conspiracy between U2, Brian Eno, Daniel Lanois, Steve Lillywhite, The Illuminati, The Scottish Rite, The Catholic Church, The European Union, The African Union, The Democratic Party, The WTO, The United Nations, and the Liberal Media to reduce open thought in the world and bring about the apocalypse. That's right, folks, you heard it here first... BONO IS THE ANTICHRIST.

 

[Saracene]

what happened to having an impartial view?

What's an "impartial view"? The one that mirrors your own?

 

[Galeongirl]

Something went wrong there.

 

[Galeongirl]

Nonsense. NLOTH is a joint-venture conspiracy between U2, Brian Eno, Daniel Lanois, Steve Lillywhite, The Illuminati, The Scottish Rite, The Catholic Church, and the Liberal Media to reduce open thought in the world and bring about the apocalypse. That's right, folks, you heard it here first... BONO IS THE ANTICHRIST.

NOBODY Expects the Spanish Inquisition!

 

[65980]

Rolling Stone actually gave Rattle & Hum a 4-star review when it came out, and the article about it was very complimentary.

Well, I assume CrashedCarDriver is being a bit silly with his question; obviously, nobody literally "buys" good reviews. However, as I have occasionally but regularly read music magazines (mainly, Rolling Stone, Q, Mojo, NME) since the early 90s, I do notice a trend, which seems to be that 95% of famous/big-name artists get a 4-star review. If the album is a real stinker, it might get 3 stars, and if the magazine feels safe enough in publishing a 5-star review and the album is obviously a classic, they might give it 5, but that's extremely rare. (These observations are based on the 2000s in general -- seems to have been different before then.)

So, I also found the 5-star Rolling Stone review for NLOTH quite surprising because (a) I don't think it's a particularly good album, and (b) Rolling Stone, like all publications, doesn't really give 5-star reviews to new albums.

This doesn't mean that Paul McGuinness has bought Rolling Stone (thought he may have tried!), but it might indicate that U2 are now the only rock band with enough mass-public influence to push the most corporate of corporate magazines into "awarding" 5 stars.

I admire some of Rolling Stone's stuff in the past, and it's political articles/interviews are often excellent. However, it needs be said that I think publisher Jann Wenner is a bit of an idiot. He's completely stuck in the 60s (as per the mag in general) and is bosom-buddies with Mick Jagger. He's also on extremely good (and close) terms with Yoko Ono, which is why Rolling Stone is the only magazine that continues to delude readers into thinking that John Lennon was the only Beatle who mattered (an absurd position) -- you'll notice the current/recent issue on "The Beatles"... which features only Lennon's picture on the cover (and I'm saying this as a huge Lennon fan). Finally, if you heard the audio of Wenner's 2005 interview with Bono (he saves the "big" people for his own interviews), it's clear that Wenner is a bit of a clueless knob. When Bono talks about meeting and interviewing Bob Dylan in Ireland, Wenner then asks Bono if this occurred during Dylan's 'Rolling Thunder' tour... which was in 1975.

Anyway, it's just the music press. If you don't like it, don't read it!

 

[cobl04]

what do you do for your hard-earned, 65thousand?

NOBODY Expects the Spanish Inquisition!

 

[mikal]

i think U2 should retire because they didn't make your 2009 playlist.

 

[An Cat Gav]

I don't think it's true in this case, as NLOTH deserved at least a 4 star review. however if the editorial team at a big magazine like Q won a deal to follow a big band's tour around the world, exclusive interviews with the band etc really won the band or artist's trust, if when it came to do the review of their album the individual journalist appointed to review it decided that the album was a sack of crap and only wanted to give it a 1 or a zero, then I think the editorial team would definitely have a word in that journalists ear to make sure they bumped that mark up a bit.
Like I said though, I doubt it happened here as the marks given were pretty spot on.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

i agree with the sentiment that Jann Wenner is a fucking idiot.

As for u2 buying our Rolling Stone, well what is the point to that? Thats like the government paying $3000 for a toilet plunger. In this day and age there are media outlets (for better or worse) everywhere, not just in print. One guy loves NLOTH and a couple of others buy into it, so what? You want the opposite conclusion, go read pitchfork. The end result is...do you like it?

Or better yet, who is buying all of these millions of concert tickets that have been sold for the 360 tour? I guess the word of mouth + good publicity from the so called respected publications sales tickets, so point partially taken there. Even though a vast majority of tickets were sold before the claw ever fired up and so you can't really credit an RS, Q, or USAtoday article for selling tickets.

My question would be, how is it that this tour can be so massively successful when the album they are touring has under achieved on almost every level? Answer = u2 is a motherfucker live, and live is where they live. I wish i had a dollar for everyone who told me "i dont really like their albums anymore but i heard they put on a really good show".

The bigger the better, i say. And so did she...

 

[BGD75]

not only did they buy out the press, but they also pay people to go and watch their shows.

 

[digitize]

Bono pays off Africans to be in extreme poverty so he can take advantage of their plight to satisfy his ego and make money.

 

[God Part III]

Of course not.
NLOTH is their best in 18 years

 

[digitize]

Of course not.
NLOTH is their best in 18 years

Did they buy you off, too? ILLUMINATUS!!!

 

[cobl04]

do you believe in the illuminati, oh digital one?

 

[digitize]

do you believe in the illuminati, oh digital one?

I am the Illuminati.

 

[Galeongirl]

I am the Illuminati.

*Pointsandshouts* ILLUMINATI!!!!!!

 

[last unicorn]

not only did they buy out the press, but they also pay people to go and watch their shows.

That's so true.

Btw, I'm still waiting for all of that money to arrive on my account. Come on, U2!

 

[BVS]

So because YOU don't like it, it must mean no one should like it...

Your posts have become quite the joke. I remember your posts right after NLOTH came out and I honestly don't even think you get it, you even said MOS is trying too hard to be a One and that has to be one of the most baffling statements I've seen in here.

 

[coolian2]

but my opinion is so much more important than anyone else's!

 

[Screwtape2]

The evidence has been out there for a while. Buying good Rolling Stone press is only the tip of the iceberg.

YouTube - U2 - Godfather

 

[Diemen]

Your posts have become quite the joke.

http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f201/all-apologies-199915.html

 

[financeguy]

its a thought that came to my head when i was reading the review of No Line on the Horizon

personally in my opinion no line on the horizon is an unsatisfying album which has U2 living in the past. so unsatisfied by the album it has been excluded from my own preferred "2009 Playlist on my Ipod" (all songs released in 2009)

and i have a few songs on my 2009 playlist as well (244 songs), mind you i like stuff by Bon Iver, Animal Collective and the Dark Was the Night compilation double cd, i couldnt find a place for pop music or U2 on that playlist

u2 wouldnt feel that left out, theres a chance a crap song from No Line on the Horizon might still come up, theres a 1 in 638 chance of that happening

but seriously back onto the point, i didnt find the album satisfying at all, and i see no reason why rolling stone magazine would give it five stars, simply because it is U2. what happened to having an impartial view? parochialism gets you nothing

I don't think it's straightforward, flat-out corruption in the way you're suggesting. I think the music press is rather lenient towards top bands or new bands that show any trace of talent because they fear their industry is in a long term secular decline and they feel they have to shill for bands much more than they used to.

Q magazine for example, used to be quite tough in their album reviews and rarely gave five stars to an album. Now, five stars are given out willy nilly, any old plodder gets four stars and utter rubbish gets three stars.

 

[financeguy]

Rolling Stone actually gave Rattle & Hum a 4-star review when it came out, and the article about it was very complimentary.

Well, I assume CrashedCarDriver is being a bit silly with his question; obviously, nobody literally "buys" good reviews. However, as I have occasionally but regularly read music magazines (mainly, Rolling Stone, Q, Mojo, NME) since the early 90s, I do notice a trend, which seems to be that 95% of famous/big-name artists get a 4-star review. If the album is a real stinker, it might get 3 stars, and if the magazine feels safe enough in publishing a 5-star review and the album is obviously a classic, they might give it 5, but that's extremely rare. (These observations are based on the 2000s in general -- seems to have been different before then.)

So, I also found the 5-star Rolling Stone review for NLOTH quite surprising because (a) I don't think it's a particularly good album, and (b) Rolling Stone, like all publications, doesn't really give 5-star reviews to new albums.

This doesn't mean that Paul McGuinness has bought Rolling Stone (thought he may have tried!), but it might indicate that U2 are now the only rock band with enough mass-public influence to push the most corporate of corporate magazines into "awarding" 5 stars.

Wow. I hadn't even read your post before I posted mine. Spooky.

 

[Bono's shades]

Personally I think NLOTH deserved four stars, but five is ridiculous. But there's no way in hell money was exchanged. Rolling Stone is run by suck-ups who give good reviews to certain musicians that Jan Wenner happens to be buddies with no matter what the content of the album is. That is all.

 

[ozeeko]

Music is so bland lately than anything halfway decent is automatically given 5 stars, and anything released by a major longstanding act with new tricks up their sleeve (even if its just a few tricks) will be given 5 stars....according to Rolling Stone. Also, Rolling Stone loves any song that bashes Republicans. No matter how cliched and non controversial it is.