Pitchfork Review

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

An Cat Gav

Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Messages
4,171
Location
Ohm Sweet Ohm
I know Pitchfork comes in for a lot of abuse around here, but their review of Achtung Baby is pretty spot on and is probably the best one I have read. I thought you should read it, if you haven't already.

here's the link..

U2: Achtung Baby [Super Deluxe Edition] | Album Reviews | Pitchfork

but if that doesn't work here's the review...


"If you give a pop star a shit pile of dough and he refuses to self-destruct, I think it is a bit wet," said a smoking, slicked-back, black-sunglasses-clad Bono in a 1993 interview on the UK music show "Naked City". "I think it's part of the deal. If they don't die on a cross by 33, I'd ask for your money back." Like many of the knowingly audacious quotes from the singer and his U2 mates during this period, it's a little tough to deduce the exact level of sincerity involved. And that was the whole idea. In the early 1990s, U2 were sending up the idea of a "rock'n'roll star." They were offering themselves as an ironic, postmodern band for similarly confused times. They were making fun of themselves and their own humorless, slate-faced 80s reputation. A year after Bono's casual quip about pop stars dying on a cross, Kurt Cobain killed himself. And in Nirvana's final video, for "Heart-Shaped Box", Cobain could be seen making wild eyes in front of one.

Achtung Baby and its accompanying Zoo TV tour lived within the slippage between perception and reality. "Sometimes you can get far closer to the truth of what you're trying to say by highlighting what it isn't as if it were true," said the Edge on "Naked City". "That's assuming we know the truth-- 'truth' is one of those words that's lost its meaning." In the 80s, U2 seemed endlessly in search of a definite truth, whether in peace or god or love or some ambiguous combination of the three. Famously, they didn't find it.

But the quest was thrilling-- at least until 1988's album and film Rattle and Hum, which found the group looking and sounding spectacularly self-serious while gawkily paying tribute to some of their American heroes like Elvis Presley and B.B. King. The resulting critical backlash caused these open-hearted Irishmen to reflect, and they weren't crazy about what they saw in the mirror. "We looked like a big, overblown rock band running amok," says Bono in an excellent new documentary called From the Sky Down that chronicles the band's pivotal turn-of-the-decade moment. And while that might seem like an aptly derisive opinion of today's incarnation of U2, it's important to remember that these guys originally came out of the cacophony of rule-breaking post-punk, a realm where bloated arena rock was the enemy. So they went away and tried to come up with a new way to seek some truth.

Achtung Baby is rightly known as one of rock's greatest reinventions because it was so complete. Sure, U2 changed their sound from chiming melodics to lurching, distorted rhythm. But they also changed their attitude, their demeanor, their look, their ideas on how to deal with celebrity. All of a sudden, they were funny, sexy, a bit dangerous-- three things few would've associated with U2 in the 80s. And yet, at their core, the band's values remained constant. They were still ethically minded and interested in the real-life connection between living beings. But the way they went about projecting those core tenets flipped. In TV-news parlance, their attitude switched from "60 Minutes" to "The Colbert Report".

This new era was conveniently spelled-out on Achtung's first single "The Fly" with the Edge's metallic skronk and Bono's conspiratorial, effected whisper of lines like, "It's no secret that a conscience can sometimes be a pest/ It's no secret that ambition bites the nails of success." And just as the album goes lengths to both fulfill and upend rock'n'roll myths with thorny tales of deep betrayal, questioned fidelity, and ambiguous artifice, this coffee-table-book sized, 6xCD, 4xDVD set both props up Achtung and pokes a few holes in it, too.

Take the album's much-ballyhooed place of origin, Berlin's Hansa Studios. This was the location that played host to David Bowie and Iggy Pop's electronic-inspired masterworks Low and The Idiot. And Hansa is located near the Berlin Wall, which had only recently been breached when U2 set up there in the fall of 1990. Perched literally in the middle of historic liberation, U2 were meant to find inspiration in the world events around them and turn that spark into a new version of the band for a new decade. It's a great backdrop for a great story. But it didn't really go down that way. "We're there, and greatness has left the building," Bono recalls in From the Sky Down, which features the band returning to Hansa earlier this year in preparation for their headlining set at Glastonbury.

While Berlin did inspire bits of the record-- "Zoo Station" was named after a subway terminal that crossed East and West Germany-- it hardly lived up to its lofty reputation. This serves as a lesson for U2, a band that shamelessly worships past rock heroes, to move past such naïve mythologizing. "Berlin was a baptism of fire," says bassist Adam Clayton in the documentary. "It was something we had to go through to realize what we were trying to get to was not something you could find physically, outside of ourselves, in some other city-- that there was not magic to it and that we actually had to put the work in and figure out the ideas and hone those ideas down." This newfound pragmatism would help them to move past their fantasies about the sanctity of rock. So while Berlin played a part on Achtung Baby, it did so in surprising ways; though "One" was mostly written in a burst of inspiration in Hansa, most of the album truly came together once the group went back home to Dublin.

Most of the audio bonuses in this set are unfortunately superfluous, and don't offer much in terms of insight. There are two CDs filled with dance remixes, and while U2 were at the vanguard of big time rock bands embracing the notion of the remix, even the most devout rave nostalgist would have little use for six remakes of "Mysterious Ways". The disc of bonus material and B-sides is disappointingly slight, and another filled with early versions of every song on Achtung offers a few revelations-- an Irish gig-style version of "Tryin' to Throw Your Arms Around the World" has an easy charm, but generally, it's easy to see why these attempts were improved upon later. Achtung's even more electronic and weirder follow-up, 1993's Zooropa-- which was recorded in a creative frenzy during a break in the Zoo TV tour-- is also included, though it's generally (and somewhat unfairly) glossed over in all the accompanying materials.

The worthy additions in this "super deluxe edition" are nearly all visual. There's Anton Corbijn's gorgeous and colorful photography that covers its case, as well as a big, sturdy 84-page book. And then the four discs of video: It Might Get Loud director Davis Guggenheim's new 90-minute doc From the Sky Down, every video from the era, a full live gig taped in Australia in 1993, interview shows (like "Naked City"), and, best of all, a playfully subversive TV special from 1992 that includes live footage from the Zoo TV tour as well as goofy interludes that play up the surrealism and insanity of the whole project. Moments like the "Even Better Than the Real Thing" video, with the band playing in a glass case while fans look on outside, successfully tie in all the pomo flourishes U2 were chasing. The group was at the forefront of bringing huge video screens into the live arena, and some of the tricks they pull off-- Bono "dueting" with a static-y Lou Reed or flipping channels to live local stations-- still look impressive. And for all the technical wizardry of the stage setup, the band still uses it to complement the music rather than overshadow it. Even 20 years on, the tour looks like something to behold, a singularly inventive experience that no band-- including U2 itself-- has been able to really expound upon in a meaningful way.

In the Zoo TV special, which originally aired during Thanksgiving weekend in 1992, a "news commentator" covering the show dubs it "the most significant and exciting TV event since the Gulf War." Some of the ideas behind Zoo TV and Achtung Baby were inspired by the television coverage of that initial Gulf War in 1991, and the bizarre reality of being able to switch channels from home shopping to MTV to the bombing of Baghdad. U2 recognized the dangers of this idea, when war turned into just more filler for the burgeoning 24-hour TV-news cycle. And instead of preaching against it in a high and mighty fashion, they embraced that chaos in an effort to expose it. Of course, our collective information overload has been upped exponentially since thanks to the internet, making the flashes of words and slogans that backed U2 during their live campaign seem eerily prophetic. Talking about the Zoo TV audience in the "Naked City" interview, drummer Larry Mullen, Jr. says, "They're coming to a rock'n'roll show and watching television, what more can you ask for?" He's joking, but as we go to arenas and see singers on big screens through our cellphone cameras, the question begins to answer itself.
 
know Pitchfork comes in for a lot of abuse around here

Yes, and rightfully so. Their gushing about Achtung Baby doesn't make up for their totally ridiculous bashing of NLOTH, IMO. It's nice that they wrote a good review, but Pitchfork is two-faced. The review isn't worth much because it almost completly talks about the past. It's like reading a review from 1991.
 
Yes, and rightfully so. Their gushing about Achtung Baby doesn't make up for their totally ridiculous bashing of NLOTH, IMO. It's nice that they wrote a good review, but Pitchfork is two-faced.

I agree very much with this...

The review isn't worth much because it almost completly talks about the past. It's like reading a review from 1991.

..however, it's reasonable for them to talk about the past when reviewing a re-issue - re-issues are about the past
 
Pitchfork isn't all bad. i've found a lot of great bands by reading their site. they're simply coming from an indie rock fan perspective, so i don't necessarily blame them for stomping on U2's 2000's work.
 
When you're listening to Achtung Baby, can you actually tell that it deserves 0.1 point less than Merriweather Post Pavilion? That's what I need to know.

Yes, and rightfully so. Their gushing about Achtung Baby doesn't make up for their totally ridiculous bashing of NLOTH, IMO.

I respect the "IMO", but did you actually read the review? There was no bashing in it at all, and if anything seemed to be written from the perspective of a long time fan. I like NLOTH and Pitchfork are as slow-moving a target as you can get, but I found that review pretty refreshing and honest next to the obligatory five star handouts from RS and Q.
 
There was no bashing in it at all, and if anything seemed to be written from the perspective of a long time fan. I like NLOTH and Pitchfork are as slow-moving a target as you can get, but I found that review pretty refreshing and honest next to the obligatory five star handouts from RS and Q.
Agree. If memory serves, I thought the Pitchfork review of NLOTH was quite reasonable, and certainly the absurd 5-star review in Rolling Stone was the silliest one ever (this being the same magazine that awarded Mick Jagger's last solo album 5 stars... an album which received dismal notices and sold something like 31 copies).
 
the Pitchfork NLOTH review was, as far as I remember, on the dumbass side of things
this Achtung review barely discusses the music and where it does it's quite unfavourable
so I don't get why they rate it as high as they do
 
Gotta love when a review is more of a history lesson than anything else...

Pitchfork reviews are so pretentious and off the mark.
 
I respect the "IMO", but did you actually read the review? There was no bashing in it at all, and if anything seemed to be written from the perspective of a long time fan. I like NLOTH and Pitchfork are as slow-moving a target as you can get, but I found that review pretty refreshing and honest next to the obligatory five star handouts from RS and Q.

As I recall, the problem I had with the NLOTH review is that it barely talked about NLOTH, and spent more time bitching about U2's past instead. That rating screamed "This is what we think of U2!" Less so than, "this is what we think of NLOTH."

But this is all based on memory, because I am, of course, far too lazy to fact check.
 
Yes, we know that Pitchfork is a music-elitist website managed by hipsters who give surprising and fucked up reviews.

With this being said, why do regular people still somehow rely or follow Pitchfork's reviews as if they are the only valid opinions out there when it comes to music reviewing?

Carry on, don't kill yourself into thinking or questioning about what this website, or any other website, says about the music that you like.
 
If you look at all their reviews for u2 albums Pitchfork are actually very favourable to our lads.

Boy 8.3

October 7.1

War 8.1

Unforgettable Fire 9.3

Joshua Tree 8.9

Bomb 6.9.

Only ATYCLB and NLOTH get bad reviews. So really Pitchfork are kinder to U2 than many many other music publications.
 
If you look at all their reviews for u2 albums Pitchfork are actually very favourable to our lads.

Boy 8.3

October 7.1

War 8.1

Unforgettable Fire 9.3

Joshua Tree 8.9

Bomb 6.9.

Only ATYCLB and NLOTH get bad reviews. So really Pitchfork are kinder to U2 than many many other music publications.

I'm with you on this one, not least since - and this is just a personal opinion - NLOTH is not the only one they've gotten wrong. I'm not sure I'd give War that high a rating, nor HTDAAB for that matter. The whole point of Pitchfork at times is to shock and rile people up - and it works, obviously! Take it all with a pinch of salt, but they're generally quite good at what they do.
 
Good score but Dombal doesn't even talk about the album. I would have liked a review that focused on the music of Achtung Baby and not everything around that.
 
Good score but Dombal doesn't even talk about the album. I would have liked a review that focused on the music of Achtung Baby and not everything around that.
1. It's a remaster, so it's about a lot more than that.
2. Dombal never ever ever talks about the music because he's a jackass.
 
Pitchfork liking Boy more than War is awesome, in so much as some guy on the internet with a similarly-aligned opinion to mine can be awesome.
 
Most music critics don't know dick about making music.That's just the truth. Any musician that had written music for any decent period of time wouldn't conjure up the silly verbosity in most of those reviews, on Pitchfork or anywhere else.

In other words, you can tell the people that don't know shit about making music, or the literal art itself, by those who overly romanticize it. Like...99% of all music critics. Same is true in film or any other artistic medium. If you know how the sausage is made, you don't stand in such hyperbolic reverence or even derisiveness.

That doesn't mean that someone needs to be a musician to have a valid opinion about music. It just means that critics are not - at all - removed from knowledgeable fans. They just have a louder megaphone.

That said, I look at reviews as well, be it music or film. There is something about being accountable to those opinions that is certainly more credible than a lot of 'fan wank'.

Look at Pitchfork's Best of the Decade series, and if you can't dismiss them based on that idiocy, why bother parsing out any given review? They are niche and inconsistent at that. Nothing more or less.
 
Pretty much agree with Inner El Guapo (above). Certainly most published criticism of rock/popular music is written by people who know relatively little about music and aren't themselves musicians. This strikes me as strange, but speaks to how broad an audience this kind of music reaches.

How many Pitchfork scribes, dissing U2 or whoever, would feel confident writing a detailed review of a new opera or a recording of a classical music symphony? They might argue -- "I don't know enough about that to write about it". Yet they have no qualms writing about U2 because they're heard some records and can put them into a cultural milieu and pretend to sound knowledgeable. But putting music into a cultural milieu is not a good music review. A good music review focuses on and describes the music.

Nowadays, when I read a review of a famous band, the review almost inevitably begins with a three-paragraph summary or contextualizing of the band's history and current commercial clout. Is this really important in giving people an idea of the music on the disc? No.

I went back and re-read the NLOTH review. It was an utterly shite review, poorly written and embarrassingly non-musical (it did, however, strike some home-truths about U2's current state, I think).
 
pitchfork is run and written by a bunch of self righteous hipster douchebags, but that's a pretty spot on review.

People tend to like Pitchfork when they agree and hate Pitchfork when they disagree, but that's part of their business plan. Get attention. Whether it's positive or negative is irrelevant.

What annoys me is why they're taken seriously. Self-righteous hipster douchebags is being nice.
 
I read the NLOTH review just now, and I agree it's not that well-written. Funny thing is that most of the tracks he rips into are the ones that were actually the better ones on the album. And I would probably say MOS was more along the lines of "ambitious" rather than "lazy indulgence". It's not like they recorded things like that on the albums before that.
 
Back
Top Bottom