Tim Sommer rips apart the Joshua Tree.

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

bono2017

Acrobat
Joined
Jan 11, 2017
Messages
387
Music critic Tim Sommer tries to explain that the Joshua Tree is not a great album.

U2’s ‘The Joshua Tree’ Isn’t the Masterpiece You Remember

Alternately ecstatic and underwhelming, historic and histrionic, powerful and vague, The Joshua Tree is half a masterpiece.

U2’s The Joshua Tree turns 30 this week, an event to be celebrated by a tour, a series of commemorative plates from the Franklin Mint, and a newly discovered Irish moss to be named Polytrichum Piliferum Joshuam.

U2’s fifth studio album is a testimony to the churning, night-purple planetarium of starry majesty they could harness and wrap around the simplest frames, while at the same time exposing the band’s distressing and consistent habit of turning on autopilot halfway through an album.
The Joshua Tree is also a masterclass in the act of transparent but effective appropriation, something U2 have always been very, very good at. Like David Bowie (or Led Zeppelin and R.E.M.), the sheer weight of U2’s personality and charismatic energy allows them to get away with the most basic thievery: in their hands, it doesn’t feel like plagiarism, but like a redistribution of deserving and lesser-known art to the masses.

First, let’s talk about an absolutely integral aspect of The Joshua Tree: we’ll call this “The Phone Book Phenomenon.”

This is one of the truly remarkable things about The Joshua Tree—if you just listen to the first side, you’re fairly convinced that you’re hearing one of the greatest classic rock albums of all time; but once you hit the second side (beginning with track six, “Red Hill Mining Town”), U2 are playing the phone book.




The rest of the article is here:

U2’s ‘The Joshua Tree’ Isn’t the Masterpiece You Remember | | Observer

Tim Sommer - The Observer

Just goes to show that not even what is arguably the greatest album of all time is not immune to criticism based on hidden contempt for the band in general.
 
The Joshua Tree is one of the greatest albums of all time, that is undisputed.

Tim Sommer - who the hell is that? Never heard of him. Didn't bother clicking on the link either. Enough said.
 
Ugh. Thanks for the share. Article was a slog. Whoever the hell he is, the author's in love with the sound of his own gas-baggy voice. Paid by the syllable obviously :)

But then I'm biased!
 
The Observer seems to have some vendetta against U2. Just this week, they posted an article that said regarding their collaboration with Kendrick Lamar on "xxx"...."U2 Ties Record With Michael Jackson, Tarnishes Brand in the Process... U2’s latest collaboration is a cry for help—and ticket sales"

What the hell is their problem? Is this really what qualifies as journalism?
 
Just one guy's opinion on a planet with 8 billion people.

Bono has described his 80's work as "unfinished songs," and maybe that's what this guy was getting at -- the songs aren't as unique and complete as those on side 1 (with the exception of Mothers). But I can't imagine this album as emotive and powerful without the other songs, they blend and swirl with everything else on the album to paint that desert landscape that the band was going for.

You sure as hell need In God's Country, Exit and Trip Through Your Wires to pull that off.
 
completely accurate or not, the author makes some interesting points/claims.

I don't know why so many U2 fans put their heads in the sand when faced with specific critiques of their band.
 
completely accurate or not, the author makes some interesting points/claims.

I don't know why so many U2 fans put their heads in the sand when faced with specific critiques of their band.

I mean, the article is just bad though. I'm all about reading critiques that go further than "I didn't like the last half of the album" so I'm going to call it a "phonebook". Makes no sense. I really like the 2nd half of Joshua Tree, even though it didn't have any big hits off of it. The album was powerful enough where even a casual fan during that time would easily recognize In God's Country or One Tree Hill during the show today.

So yeah, it's just a crap article. Show me a well written article that critiques that band, and I'll read it.
 
In what world is Exit considered auto-pilot? One could make a case for In God's Country being generic anthemic wide-open U2, but it's still a great track. Trip is a countrified rave-up that they'd never done before. Mothers is atmospheric and moving, with a soundscape pretty unique compared to anything on TUF. One Tree Hill stands out with its guitar and drum sound.

Fuck this guy.

Sgt. Pepper's has a much more vulnerable Side 2.
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying he is correct. In fact, I love most of the album including Side 2.

The parts I am most intrigued by are his claims that they stole (OK were inspired by) other songs. Pretty serious charges, if true.

Now, I have no idea if there is any substance to it. But to just write it off because 'who is this guy?' or 'I never heard of him' seems lame.

BVS - great reply as usual. :up:
 
I'm not saying he is correct. In fact, I love most of the album including Side 2.



The parts I am most intrigued by are his claims that they stole (OK were inspired by) other songs. Pretty serious charges, if true.



Now, I have no idea if there is any substance to it. But to just write it off because 'who is this guy?' or 'I never heard of him' seems lame.



BVS - great reply as usual. :up:



You're questioning his 'stolen' charges after 30 years? :lmao:

My "reply" was an accidental push of the button, but good on you for keeping it classy as usual.
 
I'm not saying he is correct. In fact, I love most of the album including Side 2.

The parts I am most intrigued by are his claims that they stole (OK were inspired by) other songs. Pretty serious charges, if true.

Now, I have no idea if there is any substance to it. But to just write it off because 'who is this guy?' or 'I never heard of him' seems lame.

BVS - great reply as usual. :up:

The only interesting charge of stealing was Out Of Control and the Skids song. Thing is, U2 wrote Out of Control in May 1978 and the Skids song was released until 1979. I can see the similarity a little bit, but again, U2 already had Out Of Control before they ever heard the Skids song.
 
Blatant plagiarism is one thing (and pretty uncommon), artists being influenced by other artists in a more organic way a wholly different thing. I think people get way too hung up on the latter.

As if everyone is supposed to be some atomised little ball of creation, penning their little ditties in some kind of vacuum of pure rarefied copyright-non-infringement.

Frankly, I hear a shit-ton of Patti Smith in Exit, but that doesn't make me think less of the band. Quite the reverse, in fact.
 
You're questioning his 'stolen' charges after 30 years? :lmao:

My "reply" was an accidental push of the button, but good on you for keeping it classy as usual.

Maybe you missed the part where i said I have no idea if there is any substance to these claims?

How's this for classy: based on many of your posts I've read, I'm pretty sure you know a lot more about U2 than I do. Probably a lot more about music in general. So I would respect yours and others' opinions on the matter. As for dismissing the claim because it's 30 years old - maybe that's valid, maybe not. But my original point was directed at those who would dismiss it out of hand for no good reason at all.
 
Maybe you missed the part where i said I have no idea if there is any substance to these claims?



How's this for classy: based on many of your posts I've read, I'm pretty sure you know a lot more about U2 than I do. Probably a lot more about music in general. So I would respect yours and others' opinions on the matter. As for dismissing the claim because it's 30 years old - maybe that's valid, maybe not. But my original point was directed at those who would dismiss it out of hand for no good reason at all.



But you don't know if they're dismissing it for no good reason at all, you're just accusing some of dismissing any criticism at all.

It's been 30 years, if there was any real claim of "stealing" outside of the normal artist realm, don't you think that "valid criticism" would have come to light by now?
 
There's no doubt that the second half could have been a lot better. The guy is right in saying that TTYW is barely even B- Side quality. Imagine if they had included Walk to the Water or Luminous Times, or if they had spent a couple more weeks to finish Heartland. Then it would have been truly a masterpiece. For me it's so close to being a masterpiece but a couple of dud songs on it unfortunately prevents it from being so.
 
Last edited:
But you don't know if they're dismissing it for no good reason at all, you're just accusing some of dismissing any criticism at all.

It's been 30 years, if there was any real claim of "stealing" outside of the normal artist realm, don't you think that "valid criticism" would have come to light by now?

I agree with your second point/question. Doesn't mean the authors' comments should not be considered or explored.

As for your first point, please go back and read the first 6 responses to the OP. Knee-jerk, get off my lawn reactions.
 
I agree with your second point/question. Doesn't mean the authors' comments should not be considered or explored.



As for your first point, please go back and read the first 6 responses to the OP. Knee-jerk, get off my lawn reactions.



Iggy, it's not knee jerk if it's been 30 years. You don't think the folks in here haven't heard it all? Phone book? Really?!

Be smart, pick your battles. You seem way too hell bent on trying to label this forum a chorus of blind sheeple any chance you get, but honestly this one is even below troll level to defend.
 
Ah yes here we are again with the troll label. Getting a bit repetitive no... not to say lazy and weak.



So I'm a troll for reacting to an article that had some interesting accusations and wondering if any might have merit? And pointing out some of the initial reactions were knee jerk... ok then.



I guess I'll need to spend the next 15 years here posting non stop like you to fully understand these dreadfully complicated things. Oh dear.



You can't even take a compliment FFS. Must be a treasure at home.



Look, I'm not going to do this back and forth. If you don't want to come off as a troll, then stop being an asshole. Plain and simple. I mean you called me out for a . post, how sad is that?

If you don't want to be a troll, then my suggestions are; answer the questions you are asked, don't blindly support anyone who comes off as criticizing the band, and just be a decent person. Honestly, it's not that hard.
 
There are certainly a lot of apologist sheep here, but it's def a pick your battle situation. I don't think laughing off or reacting angrily to this article is an example of blind sycopancy, most of us have seen more than our share of criticism against the band and know how to separate wheat from the chaff.
 
Look, I'm not going to do this back and forth. If you don't want to come off as a troll, then stop being an asshole. Plain and simple. I mean you called me out for a . post, how sad is that?

If you don't want to be a troll, then my suggestions are; answer the questions you are asked, don't blindly support anyone who comes off as criticizing the band, and just be a decent person. Honestly, it's not that hard.

Good, then take your own medicine. Don't be an asshole. Stop accusing anyone who has opinions you don't like of being a troll.
 
In what world is Exit considered auto-pilot? One could make a case for In God's Country being generic anthemic wide-open U2, but it's still a great track. Trip is a countrified rave-up that they'd never done before. Mothers is atmospheric and moving, with a soundscape pretty unique compared to anything on TUF. One Tree Hill stands out with its guitar and drum sound.

Fuck this guy.

Sgt. Pepper's has a much more vulnerable Side 2.

Blatant plagiarism is one thing (and pretty uncommon), artists being influenced by other artists in a more organic way a wholly different thing. I think people get way too hung up on the latter.

As if everyone is supposed to be some atomised little ball of creation, penning their little ditties in some kind of vacuum of pure rarefied copyright-non-infringement.

Frankly, I hear a shit-ton of Patti Smith in Exit, but that doesn't make me think less of the band. Quite the reverse, in fact.

There are certainly a lot of apologist sheep here, but it's def a pick your battle situation. I don't think laughing off or reacting angrily to this article is an example of blind sycopancy, most of us have seen more than our share of criticism against the band and know how to separate wheat from the chaff.

All of this!

JT never would've made it to the iconic status it did if they started putting filler tracks in after Running to standstill. The argument is just absurd. All of the tracks fit in thematically and production wise. They have as much or more depth in them as the first 5. IGC is a compelling look at the idea of America and is produced to fit the atmosphere of the album. It wasn't recycled from War or TUF.

U2 have a far more original sound than almost any well known musical act throughout history and that's not an exaggeration. They had influences like anyone else, but they took those influences and created their own signature sound. Led Zepellin, to name one of many, ripped off many blues acts riff for riff.

What is this double standard with U2 everywhere? They're expected to be from out of space and invent new instruments that make sounds we've never heard before.
 
Back
Top Bottom