Laughable Review

[snutes1]

I don't know if this is the right place to post this but Time's review by Mr. J. Tyrangiel states that : "This late-version U2 has produced a run of hits ("Beautiful Day," "Wild Honey," "City of Blinding Lights")"

At first I was concerned that this was yet another weak review, but then I realized, why am I worrying about these dudes who thinks that Wild Honey was hit.


I like wild honey btw.

 

[digitize]

 

[OrARoundabout]

That is really funny

 

[cdirani]

Again just proves my theory that ANY REVIEW sucks a lot. It steals the quality of the listener of taking his own conclusions.

 

[Niceman]

Is that the same one that said Pop was a failure for being too political? LOL!

 

[buzzkill27]

What a dick...and he writes for TIME of all publications.....he's a douche

 

[Iskra]

I wish U2 fans that get bent out of shape when they read a bad review would look in the mirror when they go off on their Coldplay bashing binges.

 

[gareth brown]

not as bad as the rather skeletal review of The Best Of 80-90 on Yahoo Music. Wild Honey SHOULD have been a hit anyway. And A Man And A Woman

 

[last unicorn]

I think it's a shame that Time, which is overall a very good magazine, cannot hire a more competent and intellegent reviewer who knows a thing or two about the band and the music he's actually writing about. Sad to see a review like that, but it's not the only review I've seen that is full of errors and inaccuracies.

 

[Niceman]

I wish U2 fans that get bent out of shape when they read a bad review would look in the mirror when they go off on their Coldplay bashing binges.

Criticizing a band you don't like is different than writing a public review about the biggest band in the world and simply getting your facts wrong!!!

P.S. Chris Martin is a Wanker!

 

[Galeongirl]

FAIL.

 

[Achtung_CJ]

The entire article is ridiculous. I happened across it the other day and was just highly confused...it basically just bashes NLOTH the whole time too.

 

[65980]

I'm constantly amazed by the inaccuracies in otherwise sound-looking publications. It seems that popular-music gets a pass when it comes to responsible editing and fact-checking. I actually saw a nice-looking music reference book a while ago where it said, regarding U2, that the lead guitarist was Bono. Yes, I'm serious.

 

[SamuelSmeloc]

Criticizing a band you don't like is different than writing a public review about the biggest band in the world and simply getting your facts wrong!!!

P.S. Chris Martin is a Wanker!

Definitely.

 

[europop2005]

that was random

 

[Brian-C]

Sort of reminds me of what James Joyce said about an aesthetic epiphany. For him, criticism was didactic. Joyce felt that each person would know when they were having an aesthetic epiphany, because the mystery and rhythm of the piece would overtake them, and they would have no need for criticism or interpretation whatsoever.

So the very notion of the criticism cannot be something eye-opening, according to Joyce. Therefore, the greatest experience of music can't be captured in a review. Not that we didn't already know that, but who doesn't like an intellectual to lend credence to our internal compass, which already tells us that critics suck?

 

[ShellBeThere]

I don't know if this is the right place to post this but Time's review by Mr. J. Tyrangiel states that : "This late-version U2 has produced a run of hits ("Beautiful Day," "Wild Honey," "City of Blinding Lights")"

At first I was concerned that this was yet another weak review, but then I realized, why am I worrying about these dudes who thinks that Wild Honey was hit.


I like wild honey btw.

Lol! I started to read that review, and decided I didn't want to catch the negative vibe and I really don't like reading reviews til I've processed it some myself for something as important as a new U2 album. But I caught that too, the Wild Honey reference, and then stopped reading
I'm sure I didn't then consciously write off the review so much as I needed to stop and ponder that assertion, and then subconsciously must have decided it wasn't worth reading on now....
And I *really* like Wild Honey
My cursory take-away was that this reviewer didn't pay too much attention to the album, that he sorta came up with a title for the review before he listened to the whole thing maybe...funny how people who confidently state stuff about 'wild honey' being a 'hit' can make us worry

 

[ahittle]

Yeah, I saw that this weekend. How did he ever get there? Wild Honey?

And to think how many editors and fact checkers go over that stuff - don't you think at least one would have said, "What about Vertigo? Wasn't that a hit?"

Also interesting was the graphic about the quality of the records. JT, AB, and Zooropa were seen as the masterpieces. Usually don't see that kind of love for Zooropa in the mainstream press. October was slightly better than Boy (neither masterpieces) and NLOTH was ranked down there with POP as utter failures.

 

[whackjester]

Talk about clueless reviews; I read my copy of Entertainment weekly this weekend. The reviewer quoted the lyrics from the song No Line on the Horizon as, "Know the line on the Horizon/Know the line". In the same review, Moment of Surrender apparently has the lyric, "vision over invisibility".

 

[Brian-C]

Don't call me shoeless. YOU'RE shoeless!