Surprise Surprise! Pitchfork hates NLOTH!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
sadisticpenguin said:
Shocking.

Pitchfork is not a site you should take seriously, ever. It has no journalistic integrity whatsoever. They gave the new U2 album a poor review because they are expected too. Radiohead could release an album of Celine Dion covers and they'd cream all over it.

I fucking hate this hipster bullshit pretentious site.
Click to expand...

I fixed that up for you. :wink:
 
Yahweh said:
Who cares what those elitist clowns think of any album, although I guess somebody does because their site seems to get a lot of traffic.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's us. We shouldn't have a thread about this, it's in the review thread already. I didn't even know that site before I came to this forum. I don't care what they think, the "review" is unreadable. The album surely does deserve more than that ridiculous 4.2 rating.
 
Yeah, I was shocked this morning when I read the Pitchfork review, too. I actually agreed with them on their rankings of ATYCLB and Bomb so I thought that they would give NoLOTH a fair shake, as well. I'd be lying if I said this review didn't sting a little, more than say, a review from a city newspaper. Then again, they didn't like PJ Harvey's Stories from the City, Stories from the Sea, which is one of my favorite albums of all time. :shrug:
 
...the album is heavy on half-assed word-salad characterizations and the sort of meaningless platitudes Bono used to be so great at (barely) avoiding...
Click to expand...

...exactly like my own review of the album.

Interesting.
 
Pitchfork's reviewers have been proving for a long time that they are cretins. I'm not surprised by this rating at all, though it does sadly reinforce their douchebag snobbery.:|
 
clerks said:
A side note, Pitchfork just gave me a 2.5
Click to expand...

:lol:

yeah... I wasn't expecting anything higher than a 7, but 4.2? Really? Also can we do away with the stupid decimal system? What exactly distinguishes a 4.2 from a 4.3? Certainly nothing in the review. The review didn't even really distinguish it from a 0.

What a terrible review. Ho hum, here's a long history of the band, oh yeah they put out an album, all the songs suck I guess. Arbitrary rating here.
 
:shrug:

I guess this means Pitchfork reckons to get more readers by writing nonsense instead of doing an honest review
at least U2 apparently is relevant enough again for them to unleash their juvenile wankering
 
Niceman said:
The guy who wrote this review isn't very bright, or deep, or a good writer. I'm not worried that he'll convince anyone! :wave:
Click to expand...

Oh, he will. Convince people is not something hard to do. Especially if above yout name comes another one, like Pitchfork. :shrug: :|
 
I’m surprised by the rating, obviously that is ridiculous in comparison to HTDAAB and (less so) ATYCLB. Really, what Pitchfork have done is totally fucked up with Atomic Bomb and it’s a difficult one to correct. And of course, they’re all different reviewers. There’s no point questioning why one person on that site wrote up a decent view of Boots, and then this guy slams it in his review. Or why someone who clearly needed medical attention gave the Bomb such a high score four years ago, only to have the far, far, unimaginably far better No Line score significantly less than it.

But the actual review I don’t think is that bad. I don’t know why people jump all over reviews that are at least in part a summary of U2 and their career. Yeah, I hate the ones that start with a four paragraph rant about what a cock Bono is, but I think the general assessment of the band is fair and correct and relevant to the reviewers points as to why he doesn’t like No Line. You can’t say this is someone who has paid no attention to the band or doesn’t ‘get’ them. He clearly does. I’d go so far as to say he’s bang on for a large part of it. And U2 have been around for 30 years and have a huge back catalogue. It does play into any current review. It does play it’s part in why any reviewer or any of us do or don’t like their new stuff.

Read the review again. He’s disappointed because he clearly quite likes U2 and highly respects their career and what they’ve done over the years. That they’ve had the balls to always be moving forward, and to on occasion leap forward. He’s disappointed because he doesn’t see that this time. And you know what? He’s not actually wrong. I think it’s a fair assessment and reaction. It’s not where I land, or where the majority of this forum lands, but I bet a lot of us are pretty close.

I personally think that U2 aren’t going to do an Achtung leap ever again. Not that dramatic. They’re probably well aware that they’re late in the 4th Quarter here, career wise, and they don’t necessarily have the time to take massive risks anymore. If it fails – and they all easily could have or still could do – they probably don’t have the time to recover. I’m very happy with this album because it’s a massive step forward after the truly atrocious Bomb in so, so, so many ways. Many more ways than I actually expected. I think that’s what the reviewer is missing. He pays enough attention to know and understand the band and to see the fuck up clearly, but not quite enough to realise just how close they were with the Bomb and the Vertigo tour and everything around it to completely losing it all, and so to be able to see the huge career and legacy saving u-turn they’ve pulled with this album. That in itself is a big deal.

So no, it’s not an Achtung leap. Yes, it plays it safe as much as it moves it forward. Yes, they’re retro mining as much as ever, in some points really, really obviously. Yes, Edge seems to have checked out creatively at some point around the turn of the century and is less like a mad scientist now, and more like a machine. But to me it’s still a huge step forward. Not a leap, but a very big step. More than that, it’s a huge sign that U2 haven’t lost their way, that they can still recognize what is important in their music and what isn’t. And if this new album talk is for real and it takes another big step forward, I think you’ll find that U2 circa 2009 just don’t feel the massive risk is worth it, and instead will do it incrementally from now on. Two companion piece albums that when put together show a larger leap rather than betting their whole career once again, on just one album, so late in the game. Another Achtung and they'd be Gods, but another Pop and they're booking an exclusive deal with a Vegas casino.

And yeah, I find decimal point scores utterly fucking ridiculous.
 
trust me, it is still hip to hate U2.
pitchfork have a target group who isn´t interested in a better rating. fck them;)
 
Earnie Shavers said:
Read the review again. He’s disappointed because he clearly quite likes U2 and highly respects their career and what they’ve done over the years. That they’ve had the balls to always be moving forward, and to on occasion leap forward. He’s disappointed because he doesn’t see that this time.
Click to expand...
if that is indeed the reason for his low score they should hang him by the balls with barbed wire for an hour an then throw him in the ocean

all that re-inventing yourself shite
 
Earnie Shavers said:
But the actual review I don’t think is that bad. I don’t know why people jump all over reviews that are at least in part a summary of U2 and their career. Yeah, I hate the ones that start with a four paragraph rant about what a cock Bono is, but I think the general assessment of the band is fair and correct and relevant to the reviewers points as to why he doesn’t like No Line. You can’t say this is someone who has paid no attention to the band or doesn’t ‘get’ them. He clearly does. I’d go so far as to say he’s bang on for a large part of it. And U2 have been around for 30 years and have a huge back catalogue. It does play into any current review. It does play it’s part in why any reviewer or any of us do or don’t like their new stuff.
Click to expand...

Okay, fair point. But would you agree that the review doesn't go in depth enough about the actual album? If the review were longer and discussed the album more, I wouldn't have a problem with the long intro. But the meat of this review seems to be an assessment of U2's career with a "btw the album sucks" afterthought.
 
Salome said:
if that is indeed the reason for his low score they should hang him by the balls with barbed wire for an hour an then throw him in the ocean

all that re-inventing yourself shite
Click to expand...


I agree, but reviews are just personal opinions reflecting someone’s personal taste (to state the completely obvious). That’s why I think it’s ridiculous for everyone here to get so jumpy, riding the wave of every good and bad review like it means anything. Pick 5 people in here to write a review, and you’ll get 5 different highlights, low points and logic behind liking or disliking the thing. So I think it’s perfectly reasonable and probably fairly common for someone to like U2 not just for the music, but because they generally keep on pushing it forward. It’s easy to roll your eyes at, but it beats getting 20 years of the Joshua Tree over and over again and I think it’s perfectly understandable that it’s something people admire about U2 and see as one of their strong (if not strongest) creative points, and therefore can easily become something they’re judged on. It’s their own fault for being so good at it for so long.

AtomicBono said:
Okay, fair point. But would you agree that the review doesn't go in depth enough about the actual album? If the review were longer and discussed the album more, I wouldn't have a problem with the long intro. But the meat of this review seems to be an assessment of U2's career with a "btw the album sucks" afterthought.
Click to expand...

Yeah, agreed. Although I think it’s definitely helpful or interesting to get a reviewers ‘story’ like that. Read the review in reverse. Oh, you like this, not that, what the hell, whats your story? Then you read that they hate the Bomb, so disliking the middle three tracks makes sense. Or they thought the 90s were a wank, so they think this track or that track is just indulgent or whatever. I like getting those parts of the review as well. But yeah, a bit more on the actual album tracks would be good, although there’s enough in there for me to understand the point in this case.

He wanted revolution, and fine, he didn't get it, but he can't seem to see that he did get evolution, and all things considered, that's a fucking godsend.
 
dan_smee said:
this is like opinion piece journalists who write garbage to incite a response. You justify their existence by being angry and actually paying attention. If noone cared, they would get no traffic and no money. Becaus they piss you off, you visit to see what they say, and they get $$$.

Just stay away if it upsets you
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reasoned approach. If it worked for Madonna and Marilyn Manson then it can work for journalists. Controversy = $$$
 
i do know someone who has written for Pitchfork. he was an amazing guy and someone i've worked with in other contexts and i hold a very high regard for his opinion.

and in his opinion, he's pretty up front about the fact that there are a lot of D-bags who write for Pitchfork.
 
I do wonder, they gave In Rainbows 9.2 or something. While I like the album, I wouldn't call the songs on it incredibly innovative or, to use that meaningless word when talking about music, "relevant". Some of the songs were Radiohead in autopilot, and most of those songs had been going around for about 5 years, yet Radiohead for some reason took an eternity to release them. The most timeless thing about the album was the unique release method, which has bugger all to do with music on the album.

The eleven songs from NLOTH are gonna have a lot more meaning to a lot more people than the stuff off Rainbows. U2's most earnest and intimate collection of songs since Achtung Baby. There's nothing at all superficial on NLOTH. So much more scope for connectivity between NLOTH and music lovers than with In Rainbows and music lovers. You really believe it when U2 sing their heart out, when you meet them in the sound, yet for some reason, the album only gets a 4.2. Bewildering.

Pitchfork have an audience and they pander towards them accordingly. Even if it means adopting an elitist and shallow anti-mainstream attitude. it's all good marketing, hence the massive traffic. Kinda disappointing though, because you do wonder, when ultimately recognising whether an album is "great" or not in twenty years time, who are the voices of influence. Pitchfork might well be remembered as a leading source in the noughties of assessing greatness, and if so, such a review doesn't bode well for NLOTH's future acclaim.
 
But Horizon is clearly playing not to lose-- it's a defensive gesture, and a rather pitiful one at that.
Click to expand...

Hardly pitiful. :D

"Surrender"-- reportedly improvised in one seven-minute take-- comes across as lazy indulgence, and the title track's hard-nosed verse is torpedoed by its deflating fart of a hook. As the go-to sonic innovator of the group, the Edge dials in a particularly dispiriting performance throughout; his rare solos usually pack in enough panache to fill stadiums but his bluesy blah of a spotlight on "Surrender" would barely satisfy a single earbud.
Click to expand...

Talk about bull****. :D
 
intedomine said:
I do wonder, they gave In Rainbows 9.2 or something. While I like the album, I wouldn't call the songs on it incredibly innovative or, to use that meaningless word when talking about music, "relevant". Some of the songs were Radiohead in autopilot, and most of those songs had been going around for about 5 years, yet Radiohead for some reason took an eternity to release them. The most timeless thing about the album was the unique release method, which has bugger all to do with music on the album.

The eleven songs from NLOTH are gonna have a lot more meaning to a lot more people than the stuff off Rainbows. U2's most earnest and intimate collection of songs since Achtung Baby. There's nothing at all superficial on NLOTH. So much more scope for connectivity between NLOTH and music lovers than with In Rainbows and music lovers. You really believe it when U2 sing their heart out, when you meet them in the sound, yet for some reason, the album only gets a 4.2. Bewildering.

Pitchfork have an audience and they pander towards them accordingly. Even if it means adopting an elitist and shallow anti-mainstream attitude. it's all good marketing, hence the massive traffic. Kinda disappointing though, because you do wonder, when ultimately recognising whether an album is "great" or not in twenty years time, who are the voices of influence. Pitchfork might well be remembered as a leading source in the noughties of assessing greatness, and if so, such a review doesn't bode well for NLOTH's future acclaim.
Click to expand...

I want to preface this by saying I have been a u2 fan since 1984 and actually do love the new record (much more than ATYCLB and HTDAAB) but these comparisons between Radiohead and U2 are a joke especially considering at the point that each band is at in their respective careers.

Radiohead are at a period in their career where U2 were at with JT, AB and Zoo yet they are choosing to move those ideas across more albums and a longer time period. Radiohead don't seem to be comfortable in their own skin, so to speak thus the constant going to the edge and coming back...whereas U2 know who they are and where they want to be (and are constantly telling us...)

While I do agree that NLOTH is definately more innovative than the previous records it is in by no means this generations Sgt. Pepper's (for lack of a better term). Keep in mind that the U2 camp (the band, Danny..etc) don't help themselves when they are constantly jabbing to the press about the innovative directions the band are taking and then don't live up to the hype (as far as innovation goes).

I do agree that Pitchfork is a joke and they don't look at albums with any sense of objectivity as they have an agenda just as much as Q and Rolling Stone do...but to be honest, who cares what what they think?

The fact of the matter is that U2 has made an excellent record and Radiohead did as well.
 
killerklown24 said:
The fact of the matter is that U2 has made an excellent record and Radiohead did as well.
Click to expand...


Yup, I agree with pretty much everything you say, both albums are excellent, but one only got 4.2 and the other got a whopping 9.2, despite being not necessarily all that innovative or different by Radiohead's standards. If anything, the most different thing on Rainbows, was the acoustic ditty Faust ARP.
 
U2 aren't making fun college music along the likes of MGMT or Fleet Foxes so of course anyone that writes for pitchfork won't give anything U2 does a good rating.
 
ugh, the horror... it got less than that bloody Madonna Hard Candy Album which they gave 5.3.

They sometimes get it right albeit toooo generous [Animal Collective] and pure wrong Goldfrapp Seventh Tree, but I agree this is just plain odd. I guess someone has to fly in the face of the good news ' hey look at me I dissed the U2 album!' :down:
 
I laugh at how it seems Pitchfork doesn't know what Pitchfork thinks. They gave HTDAAB a 6.9, but then they diss it here? And Pitchfork actually gave a good opinion of GOYB when it came out, and now they're dissing it as a mess?! :lol::lol::lol::down:

Maybe they should listen to a song or an album enough the first time so they don't have to keep playing the "revise" game to come across as having the "hip" opinions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dan_smee
I listened to No Line on the Horizon right through tonight for the first time in about 10 years…
2 3
Replies
83
Views
2K
lazarus
lazarus
LemonMelon
The Weather Station - Ignorance
Replies
28
Views
2K
cobl04
cobl04
cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
T
A quick thought on NLOTH
Replies
26
Views
3K
AndrewCowley
A
C
Happy that they still bleed when cut
Replies
7
Views
2K
lazarus
lazarus

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom