More SOE Reviews

[dk42]

Well, here's the Pitchfork review, it got a 5.3, so they finally broke 5 (since HTDAAB).

A little surprised as I thought they might still honor them with a 4.3 or something, ah well, an improvement nonetheless.

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/u2-songs-of-experience/

It doesn't seem like the critic is aware of the backstory of the album, particularly Bono's health scare , which I think enhances the album a bit more, but to each their own.

 

[gweeps]

Why does everybody insist SOE is their 14th album? Rattle & Hum is a soundtrack album with both studio and live songs, and Original Soundtracks 1 is not credited as a U2 release, so technically you couldn't count that one either.

Boy
October
War
The Unforgettable Fire
The Joshua Tree
Achtung Baby
Zooropa
Pop
All That You Can't Leave Behind
How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb
No Line on the Horizon
Songs of Innocence
Songs of Experience

[/RANT]

On topic, of course Pitchfork isn't going to give U2 a good review because they don't make music that is tailored to Pitchfork readers' interests. (Yes I'm that cynical.)

 

[silkensky]

Huh? Of course Rattle and Hum is considered an official U2 album, with even a tour (Lovetown) to support it!

 

[Catman]

I wonder why that author for Pitchfork even gave it a 5.3 lol; can't think of a single song the guy mentioned as being particularly noteworthy (not even a mention of Little Things. wtf), and his wrap-up is a depressing conclusion that SoE's subpar, disappointing quality is as "good" as U2 is going to get. I mean, I'm all for respecting opinions (particularly when it comes to music)--I'm just genuinely curious what made him score the album as "high" as he did lol

 

[purpleoscar]

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/u2-songs-of-experience/

Blah, blah, blah, U2 is old.

It's pretty clear that U2's Songs of Ascent will have to be so good that reviewers feel like they snorted cocaine to get above 7.9 on Pitchfork.

 

[dan_smee]

Death, taxes, a poor review for U2 from pitchfork, and Interference members whinging about it. These things I know to be certain.

 

[rennowba]

Isn't 5.3 good for u2 from pitchfork?? I was expecting a lot less

 

[purpleoscar]

Isn't 5.3 good for u2 from pitchfork?? I was expecting a lot less

They've trained us to expects less.

 

[Montrose]

He started off getting the whole point of the Def Leppard listening experience wrong. From what I remember, it wasn't the quality of the music on that tape, it was the fullness and loudness of the sound. An audio quality sort of thing, where Hysteria's mastering and sound quality really made that tape explode on the car speakers compared to U2's old stuff. It wasn't the galvanizing force that led the band to Achtung..except that the reviewer wanted to fit some examples into his theme, so he made it about that. Then pitchfork crashed my browser and I was spared the rest. Lemme guess - another review where Pitchfork finds someone to review U2 the band , barely touching on the music, with a sigh and some muttering about the usual?

 

[kiwilad]

Death, taxes, a poor review for U2 from pitchfork, and Interference members whinging about it. These things I know to be certain.

U2 making terrible singles choices. (You forgot to include it on your list)

 

[dan_smee]

U2 making terrible singles choices. (You forgot to include it on your list)

Ah, fuckit.

 

[Mack_Again]

actually for Pitchfork, they've managed not to just irrationally trash the album.

 

[Mack_Again]

but i think that their desire to be relevant isn't really turning out that well on SOE.

 

[onemoresolo]

I do feel like the reviewer has misinterpreted a few things there. I’ve also noticed a trend in reviews of the album that they assume I/me in the songs means Bono and I’m not sure that is always the case. It’s undoubtedly a personal album but I think there are characters in there too (particularly Red Flag Day).

I think we would all agree though that U2’s best recent music is the stuff that isn’t trying to be hits/relevant. I find American Soul pretty embarrassing but would love non fans to hear the opening two tracks of SoE.

 

[rennowba]

but i think that their desire to be relevant isn't really turning out that well on SOE.

I honestly don't think u2 will be that relevant band again no matter what they release. There's still a big interest in new music, more then anyone of an act their age, so they should be very happy about that

 

[Mack_Again]

I honestly don't think u2 will be that relevant band again no matter what they release. There's still a big interest in new music, more then anyone of an act their age, so they should be very happy about that

I'm aware of that, what bugs me is that they're trying so hard to be like young kids which they clearly can't. I'm not saying they should make dad rock songs but i hope they'd make songs that naturally come to them.

 

[super fly guy]

Some review this!

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5a24a45fe4b04dacbc9bd8b0/amp

 

[Mack_Again]

The review of Pitchfork somewhat describes how i feel about this album.

 

[HansaTonImbiss]

but i think that their desire to be relevant isn't really turning out that well on SOE.

Honestly, the only place I'm catching that is on the singles thus far. The rest of the album is as probing and self-loathing as anything theyve written since at least Pop, maybe AB/Zooropa. ATYCLB looked outward for inspiration, those looked inward and so does this one.

Which is what brings me to Pitchfork. Know what albums scored around the same grade as this one for them? Taylor Swift's latest and Morrissey's train wreck of a new album. That album features a gray haired artist doing much of the same political musing and pandering as U2. But, you know, because he's vegan and fronted the Smiths he gets a couple tenths of a point more.

This is a good album by a band that spent the past decade trying too hard and failing miserably. I saw this as a step on the road to recovery. Sure, there are missteps and contradictions to that goal (megaphone, 9 producers, rawk songs. etc.), but those reviews spending 2 paragraphs explaining why U2 are what they are miss the point. This review is full of odd asides and frankly even avoids the album a few times (and i's background). I wish they had reviewed this as openly as they did the AB reissue. I also wish U2 got the same treatment by them as an Icelandic folk band releasing their second album. They won't, but shitting on them for their longevity and trying to stay relevant is a pretty low blow for a magazine that is pretty transparent about what kind of music they promote (indie acts, reissues, anything trending in suburban America). Those acts could only dream to be making this kind of music 40 years in.

 

[hasin73]

Honestly, the only place I'm catching that is on the singles thus far. The rest of the album is as probing and self-loathing as anything theyve written since at least Pop, maybe AB/Zooropa. ATYCLB looked outward for inspiration, those looked inward and so does this one.

Which is what brings me to Pitchfork. Know what albums scored around the same grade as this one for them? Taylor Swift's latest and Morrissey's train wreck of a new album. That album features a gray haired artist doing much of the same political musing and pandering as U2. But, you know, because he's vegan and fronted the Smiths he gets a couple tenths of a point more.

This is a good album by a band that spent the past decade trying too hard and failing miserably. I saw this as a step on the road to recovery. Sure, there are missteps and contradictions to that goal (megaphone, 9 producers, rawk songs. etc.), but those reviews spending 2 paragraphs explaining why U2 are what they are miss the point. This review is full of odd asides and frankly even avoids the album a few times (and i's background). I wish they had reviewed this as openly as they did the AB reissue. I also wish U2 got the same treatment by them as an Icelandic folk band releasing their second album. They won't, but shitting on them for their longevity and trying to stay relevant is a pretty low blow for a magazine that is pretty transparent about what kind of music they promote (indie acts, reissues, anything trending in suburban America). Those acts could only dream to be making this kind of music 40 years in.

 

[Aygo]

5.3, above the 5 mark... Wow, I'm impressed.
But the review is predictably biased, and it's embarrassing when relating "Get Out Of Your Own Way" to an Arcade Fire emulation when it's the biggest self-emulation ("Beautiful Day") U2 has done, or when saying that with the lines "I been thinkin’ ‘bout the West Coast/Not the one that everyone knows" Bono was discovering Lana Del Rey's Born To Die when the song "West Coast" belongs to Ultraviolence.

 

[kps88]

That Pitchfork review was brutal in places, particularly the last line.

I don't understand reviewers pointing out how certain songs sound similar to other bands. Most of the time the comparisons make no sense and when they do, it is with bands who have been hugely influenced by U2 in the first place. One brought up Coldplay and The Killers. These are bands that grew up with U2 so there is bound to be similar sounding stuff.

 

[HansaTonImbiss]

That Pitchfork review was brutal in places, particularly the last line.

I don't understand reviewers pointing out how certain songs sound similar to other bands. Most of the time the comparisons make no sense and when they do, it is with bands who have been hugely influenced by U2 in the first place. One brought up Coldplay and The Killers. These are bands that grew up with U2 so there is bound to be similar sounding stuff.

Its because comparison is the easiest trope for a reviewer. It prevents them from having to dig deep and analyze lyrics, background, inspirations, etc. Why do that when you can make a flat, reactive judgment comparing it to Coldplay, the National, etc.? I respect Pitchfork' s knack for helping break obscure acts, but their reviewers are not sage purveyors of the art by any means. Their reviews commonly overlook blatant imitation by new acts and are full of contradiction across genres. This is why classic outlets like Q, Mojo, RS, Village Voice, Spin are--while flawed--are more consistent. They judge artists against the body of their work and within genres. Only retrospectively do they look across music overall.

 

[Nick66]

Wow. That last line in the Pitchfork review was one of the most brutal and outright unkind things I've ever read anyone say about anything, let alone a record review.

Harsh.

 

[Mac_Fly]

Why does everybody insist SOE is their 14th album? Rattle & Hum is a soundtrack album with both studio and live songs, and Original Soundtracks 1 is not credited as a U2 release, so technically you couldn't count that one either.

On topic, of course Pitchfork isn't going to give U2 a good review because they don't make music that is tailored to Pitchfork readers' interests. (Yes I'm that cynical.)

I would consider R&H a album, with 9 new studio tracks. But I get what you mean, it isn't a typical new U2 album big roll-out before the next tour kind of album.

I suppose starting with Under A Blood Red Sky U2 used to put out a quick release to tide fans over until the next big studio project.

So we got UABRS, WWIA, R&H, even Zooropa (a rushed and in-the-moment project-- that I wish they'd do more of sometimes).

After POP it was the beginning of The Best Of's, with the 80's and then after ATYCLB it was Best of 90's. It was only after that they appeared to break tradition (the fan club releases not withstanding).

As for Pitchfork, if the criticism is "they keep trying to sound different," it fails miserably. Because if U2 were sounding like U2 of days past, the criticism would be "it's the same old crap from U2." But if they keep trying to push themselves and challenge themselves to evolve, they get this crap from Pitchfork.

If however, their criticism is "they keep trying to sound different and the result is material I don't think is very good," then that is their opinion and they're entitled to it.

I have the feeling a bias is there to dislike anything the band does at this point. But hey, everyone has their own set of ears channeling this stuff and not everyone is wired the same.

Personally, I would like to see U2 reunite with Enos and Lanois and do a NLOTH unleashed -- really get experimental (but not Passengers experimental -- save for Blue Room) and let loose instead of worrying about a successful single for a change.

I think U2 is at their best when they are simply creating -- not creating with a calculation in mind -- which is what I think most of the negative reviewers assume with their latest outputs.

 

[LadySpinHead]

Minneapolis/St. Paul-based station The Current has SOE as Album of the Week:
https://www.thecurrent.org/feature/2017/12/04/album-of-the-week-u2-songs-of-experience

 

[HansaTonImbiss]

Wow. That last line in the Pitchfork review was one of the most brutal and outright unkind things I've ever read anyone say about anything, let alone a record review.

Harsh.

It was totally over the line. Does he want them to retire tonight, thanking him for the advice? What a dick. Completely inappropriate.

 

[U2freakboy]

He’s completely wrong about Red Flag Day. He thinks Bono is talking about a tryst on the beach?? What a moron. Bono is telling the story from the perspective of a refugee.

 

[mikal]

A 5.3 from Pitchfork is basically a good review/score. They can’t ruin their cred by giving it any higher.

 

[Nick66]

It's not the rating, I expected that (thought it would be lower actually). It was just the personal nature end of the review that I found to be particularly harsh.