Rolling Stone & U2

[Hollow Island]

Rolling Stone declared U2’s eminently forgettable Songs of Innocence the best album of 2014. Hagan reveals that Wenner demanded the ranking personally. (“My dictate. By fiat, buddy. That’s that.”)

It's official: RS lies. Imagine working for a boss that declared that SOI had to be album of the year...

https://slate.com/arts/2017/10/the-jann-wenner-biography-and-the-hbo-doc-reviewed.html

 

[BVS]

This is why you ALWAYS take music critics with the smallest grain of salt.

The majority have an agenda. They either; want to desperately be friends with the artist, want to humiliate the artist, failed as an artist themselves and are bitter, desperate for street cred, or have delusions of sleeping with the artist.

I’ve always found people who rely so heavily on critics to be sad. The majority are a joke.

 

[trevgreg]

In other news, the sky is blue...

 

[Hollow Island]

This is why you ALWAYS take music critics with the smallest grain of salt.

The majority have an agenda. They either; want to desperately be friends with the artist, want to humiliate the artist, failed as an artist themselves and are bitter, desperate for street cred, or have delusions of sleeping with the artist.

I’ve always found people who rely so heavily on critics to be sad. The majority are a joke.

I'm pretty cynical but this is too much even for me. I disagree with the critical consensus more often than not but most critics are honest in their opinions. Which isn't to say they aren't entrapped by trends and groupthink...they are people, after all.

Also, all artists are failures. They never achieve what they want to.

 

[iron yuppie]

They either; want to desperately be friends with the artist, want to humiliate the artist, failed as an artist themselves and are bitter, desperate for street cred, or have delusions of sleeping with the artist.

For someone who hates generalizations, this is one hell of a generalization.

 

[Axver]

I think BVS once got a bad review.

 

[BVS]

I'm pretty cynical but this is too much even for me. I disagree with the critical consensus more often than not but most critics are honest in their opinions. Which isn't to say they aren't entrapped by trends and groupthink...they are people, after all.



Also, all artists are failures. They never achieve what they want to.

Cynical? Maybe... but I find your notion that most are honest to be a bit naive.

One of my best friends wrote for one of the biggest publications of the 90’s and early 2000’s, she would tell me about how many reviews were written based on one listen, partial listen, some artists removed certain tracks, how some came with letters describing what to focus on, how the reps would wine and dine them, how many weren’t even big music fans just wannabe writers, etc.

To pretend you’re getting some well informed opinion of a record from someone who knows music is naive at best.

Let’s take SOI as an example, how are you being honest about the music when a majority of the critiques focused on the release method?

 

[Rachel D.]

RS has always sucked up to U2, while other publications/writers criticize them no matter what. That’s just how it goes.

 

[nbelcik]

That review was Rolling Stone sucking off U2

 

[jaimearodriguez]

Just confirms what we suspected all along. Things like these are why many people can’t stand U2.

 

[BVS]

Rolling Stone & U2

Just confirms what we suspected all along. Things like these are why many people can’t stand U2.

:facepalm: and what have we suspected exactly?

You think this is only a U2 thing?

Jaime

 

[Registered Dude]

Just confirms what we suspected all along. Things like these are why many people can’t stand U2.

:facepalm: and what have we expected exactly?

You think this is only a U2 thing?

Jaime

jaime's right.. this kind of thing is a big reason why people dislike u2, these days.

Also there's nothing in his post that suggests he thinks U2 are the only ones to get this treatment. Your use of is patronizing. Wish people wouldn't post this kind of thing

 

[Nick66]

Wait...did RS really name SOI album of the year?

 

[BVS]

jaime's right.. this kind of thing is a big reason why people dislike u2, these days.



Also there's nothing in his post that suggests he thinks U2 are the only ones to get this treatment. Your use of is patronizing. Wish people wouldn't post this kind of thing

What have we suspected all along?

 

[Montrose]

The amount of reviewers obviously sucking up to the band (or making a point that older artist can still rank in their lists regardless of 'relevance') is probably outweighed by the reviewers like Pitchfork who take it as a badge of honor to constantly knock particular artists regardless of the quality of their output. So many critics are ranking 'meta' stuff about music output, that it's generally hard to find one where the reviewer actually seemed to take the time to sit, listen, and absorb the music. I wouldn't say SOI was album of the year, but I liked it enough to think it should be mentioned, and definitely not as the article described: 'eminently forgettable'. Right there is the implication that an album's worth is more how 'interesting', relevant, and impactful an album is regardless of the musical contest. Or in some cases, it's a huge positive if an artist or album isn't too popular.
It's one of the reasons U2 fight so hard to get past those impediments. And the fact that they're obviously fighting to remain in the conversation is, for some critics, an element to use in a review.

 

[david]

Wait...did RS really name SOI album of the year?

For their 50 albums of 2014:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/l...-2014-20141201/u2-songs-of-innocence-20141201

 

[iron yuppie]

Can we please move away from this idea that Pitchfork blindly hates U2? They reviewed the reissue series very positively - glowingly in some cases - and even gave a decent score to Bomb.

 

[Montrose]

From the 'Bomb' review:

"Maybe the biggest problem with Atomic Bomb is just that it sounds so much like U2, and their semi-absurd, totally unparalleled ubiquity has left all of us just a tiny bit tired of listening to things that sound like U2..."

"... But maybe U2's immortality is also their biggest curse-- and now they're forced to wallow in superstardom, forever perpetuating their own colossal myth."

They may have given the album a 6.9 based on tracks they liked, like LAPOE and COBL, but the band themselves? Pitchfork seems, like many, to only like the old stuff and have grown weary of the band themselves. They spend a lot of their album reviews talking about U2 the band, the concept, and not necessarily the actual album.

EDIT:

And then, strangely, in the subsequent NLOTH review, trashing Bomb:
"But 2004's How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb and its subsequent tour were troubling.

That record saw four guys famous for dabbing classic rock into all sorts of impressionistic frames (or dismantling it entirely via Village People costumes) uncomfortably grasping for old-fashioned riffs, when they weren't mindlessly feasting on their own past. It was completely predictable ("City of Blinding Lights"), canned ("Vertigo"), and depressingly Sting-like ("A Man and a Woman"). "

 

[Axver]

"... But maybe U2's immortality is also their biggest curse-- and now they're forced to wallow in superstardom, forever perpetuating their own colossal myth."

Your problem with this is...? Seems entirely fair to me.

 

[kabigon]

You've got yourself wallowing in a superstardom and you can't unperpetuate it

 

[Registered Dude]

You've got yourself wallowing in a superstardom and you can't unperpetuate it

Dont say that next single will be better, youve got wallowing in a superstardom and you can't unperpetuate it

 

[Super Yo]

Who cares?

 

[Haywa1979]

Can we please move away from this idea that Pitchfork blindly hates U2? They reviewed the reissue series very positively - glowingly in some cases - and even gave a decent score to Bomb.

Pitchfork suffers from what several of the so-called U2 fans on Interference also suffer from: desperately wanting to be cool and part of the "group". It has become fashionable, even among some on this forum, to blindly bash almost any post-2000 U2 material. It helps them pretend to be hip and cool. In reality, it's just sad and disappointing. Some people can never let go of the juvenile high school need to be part of the "in crowd".

 

[david]

Pitchfork used to be pretentious but they’ve really tamed over the years.

 

[Hollow Island]

Pitchfork suffers from what several of the so-called U2 fans on Interference also suffer from: desperately wanting to be cool and part of the "group". It has become fashionable, even among some on this forum, to blindly bash almost any post-2000 U2 material. It helps them pretend to be hip and cool. In reality, it's just sad and disappointing. Some people can never let go of the juvenile high school need to be part of the "in crowd".

no, it's that their post-2000 music isn't very good, especially when compared to the 80s and 90s when they wrote better songs and were demanding of their audience. People are willing to accept old artists making good music - Bowie, Cave, Weller, Dylan, etc. Most of that respect (and quality) comes from them continuing to grow and take risks, while U2 have done the opposite.

Pitchfork does like U2's 80s and 90s though, and were fine with ATYCLB and Bomb.

 

[Iggy Fizz]

Most of that respect (and quality) comes from them continuing to grow and take risks, while U2 have done the opposite.

Yes. As each year goes by, U2 seem more and more interested in advancing their 'brand', at whatever cost to their music. And it seems to be having the opposite effect on everyone but the most dedicated/fervent/hardcore fans.

 

[kiwilad]

Most of that respect (and quality) comes from them continuing to grow and take risks, while U2 have done the opposite.

Yes. As each year goes by, U2 seem more and more interested in advancing their 'brand', at whatever cost to their music. And it seems to be having the opposite effect on everyone but the most dedicated/fervent/hardcore fans.

This is largely fair, I think.

However, while their newer music isnt TUF etc, it's still good. Great even, at times.
I'm not sure why it's so difficult to accept U2 peaked in the 90s, yet are still good now.
Every album adds to the 'awesome U2 songs' list.

But i do really hope SOA happens, and has no 'popularity' pretensions

 

[Haywa1979]

no, it's that their post-2000 music isn't very good, especially when compared to the 80s and 90s when they wrote better songs and were demanding of their audience. People are willing to accept old artists making good music - Bowie, Cave, Weller, Dylan, etc. Most of that respect (and quality) comes from them continuing to grow and take risks, while U2 have done the opposite.

Pitchfork does like U2's 80s and 90s though, and were fine with ATYCLB and Bomb.

I'm not saying their post-2000 material has reached the heights of what they did in the 80's and 90's, but saying it "isn't very good" just shows that you are more concerned with appearance rather than substance.

Plenty of their post-2000 stuff has been challenging and musically sophisticated, you're just too concerned about what others think to admit it. It's like you guys read from a script when it comes to this issue - you all say exactly the same thing, It's like the snotty, arrogant, cool-kid Pitchfork mindset has infected your brain.

 

[DaveC]

i love it when people who have been on the forums for a month talk shit like they know everything about us take your armchair psychology back to @u2, doctor fraud.

 

[Haywa1979]

i love it when people who have been on the forums for a month talk shit like they know everything about us take your armchair psychology elsewhere, doctor fraud.

Been following the forums for 15 years, ace. Try again.