Surprise Surprise! Pitchfork hates NLOTH!

[mikal]

ha, yeah that bothers me too.

what i really wish for now though, is that they'd used the long intro version for boots... and made it longer.

actually screw that, just take that part and the bridge and make a song from that alone. that's good times in the form of audio right there.

yes. ever since i downloaded the version with the longer intro from the "Music On The Internet" sub-forum, it's hard to go back to the original, lol!

 

[ponkine]

Just rating "Bomb" way above "Horizon" makes the review just bulls***. No need to read it, really

 

[gwiz]

If Radiohead released an album of Cher covers I bet it would be awesome.

I'd buy that shit

 

[gwiz]

i have never respected pitchfork. They hardly support radiohead or muse, or u2.

 

[gwiz]

also,

 

[gwiz]

their point system is too exact, music never is

 

[nirniva]

i have never respected pitchfork. They hardly support radiohead or muse, or u2.

Actually, Pitchfork is one of the most pro-Radiohead review sites on the Intertubes. Not trying to be mean, just thought I'd point that out.
But, yeah, it sometimes seems like they hate on U2 just to look "cool".

 

[gwiz]

Actually, Pitchfork is one of the most pro-Radiohead review sites on the Intertubes. Not trying to be mean, just thought I'd point that out.
But, yeah, it sometimes seems like they hate on U2 just to look "cool".

I find a 9.3 rating for in rainbows to be cheap.

 

[Catman]

I have no problem with a negative review - the rating from Pop Matters, IMO, felt justified (even if I don't necessarily agree with it).
U2: No Line on the Horizon < Music | PopMatters

However, I really do think Pitchfork neglected significant aspects of NLOTH, whereupon they constantly focused on the negative. Did I read a single positive line throughout the entire review? If the site is all about propagating quality music to others, I really do believe they're doing a disservice by judging U2's latest so harshly, particularly when the review comes off so pretentious and self-affirming.
Now I cannot fault someone for disliking a record, but I refuse to believe the reviewer failed to find a single positive attribute of NLOTH worth mentioning - it was as if he had already made up his mind about the record, thus his agenda paved the way for the scathing review.

I can understand an individual not liking an album. I can understand if the music just isn't your thing... but, when the same reviewer gives VLVODAAHF a 6.5 and then NLOTH a 4.2, my reaction is simple - WTF?

 

[Reead]

Pitchfork has zero credibility. I'd trust a donkey's review of NLOTH over theirs. Rating HTDAAB over NLOTH? Ludicrous. Not just ludicrous, it reveals their true preconceptions about U2.

They couldn't rate HTDAAB too low simply because the critical praise was moderate, but extremely widespread. NLOTH is more divisive: reviewers either absolutely love it or hate it, and this gave Pitchfork their chance to give U2 an abysmal rating.

It's sickening, and I will ignore anyone that values that shoddy website's reviews from now on.

 

[nirniva]

I can understand an individual not liking an album. I can understand if the music just isn't your thing... but, when the same reviewer gives VLVODAAHF a 6.5 and then NLOTH a 4.2, my reaction is simple - WTF?

Yeah, that is weird. I liked Viva la Vida, but there's no way it's better than NLOTH. Crazy.

 

[ybab gnuthca]

Yeah, that is weird. I liked Viva la Vida, but there's no way it's better than NLOTH. Crazy.

Actually there are lots of ways in which it is better.

 

[gwiz]

6.5 is still extremely low

 

[catlhere]

Being a huge video gamer I have learned to not care about negative reviews anymore. There are always going to be haters, always. I only read/enjoy the ones that are positive because they mirror my sentiments, and I don't see anything wrong with that. It has given me a lot less annoyance over having to deal with opinions I completely disagree with.

 

[ozeeko]

In Rainbows is IMO the best Radiohead album since Kid A. So what if there's less techno drumbeats, the songwriting is at an all time high. And I fail to see how it sounds like Pablo Honey's twin brother...ure talking a grunge album typical of the 90's verses a looser, more stripped down, and more mellow, melodic album. This is Radiohead's pop song album. Songs like House of Cards, All I Need, Nude, 15 Steps...they're melodic masterpieces and easy to get with one listen. On Kid A, Amnesiac and HTTT, they really weren't writing "songs" in the traditional sense, they were more or else experiments given some direction by a keen sense of pop songcraft, while on this album they are clearly WRITTEN SONGS! That's the difference, and it's astonishing that so many people here fail to realize that. It's not like they wrote 10 Fake Plastic Trees ballads. This is strong songwriting that clearly displays the bands evolution and maturity.

 

[If you shout...]

They couldn't rate HTDAAB too low simply because the critical praise was moderate, but extremely widespread. NLOTH is more divisive: reviewers either absolutely love it or hate it, and this gave Pitchfork their chance to give U2 an abysmal rating.

This is hilarious, assuming it's not a joke. I don't mean to troll, or anything, and I'm not saying that Pitchfork's staff is the greatest (or even always competent), but this is one fantastic overreaction. Good old Pitchfork, conspiring and twiddling its fingers for years and years and years (and years) to give U2 a...middling review. The horror!

Amanda Petrusich didn't even write the new review, for the record. Ryan Dombal (who I don't even think was a writer, in 2004) did.

 

[AtomicBono]

In Rainbows is IMO the best Radiohead album since Kid A. So what if there's less techno drumbeats, the songwriting is at an all time high. And I fail to see how it sounds like Pablo Honey's twin brother...ure talking a grunge album typical of the 90's verses a looser, more stripped down, and more mellow, melodic album. This is Radiohead's pop song album. Songs like House of Cards, All I Need, Nude, 15 Steps...they're melodic masterpieces and easy to get with one listen. On Kid A, Amnesiac and HTTT, they really weren't writing "songs" in the traditional sense, they were more or else experiments given some direction by a keen sense of pop songcraft, while on this album they are clearly WRITTEN SONGS! That's the difference, and it's astonishing that so many people here fail to realize that. It's not like they wrote 10 Fake Plastic Trees ballads. This is strong songwriting that clearly displays the bands evolution and maturity.

I agree but ... is this thread about In Rainbows??

I think In Rainbows deserved the 9.3. I think NLOTH deserves something close to that (it should at least be higher than Bomb - but I believe ATYCLB should be higher than Bomb too). I think Pitchfork deserves a 1.6. Seriously, they will rate anything Radiohead does a 9.3. They gave HTTT a 9.3 which is a terribly inconsistent album. Pitchfork clearly has a hipster agenda (though a band whose song appeared at the end of the god-awful Twilight film is hardly hipster in my opinion), just like RS is more fond of big/classic acts (U2, Springsteen, Dylan, etc).

 

[shart1780]

Ptichfork hates anything mainstream. I am surprised they gave NLOTH that low of a rating. They actually gave GOYB a positive review when it came out.

Actually you'd be suprised. They rated Lil Wayne's albums pretty high. Pink and Justin Timberlake were both in the top 100 albums in 2006.

And it's silly to say that Pitchfork is just looking for an excuse to hate on U2. They gave the albums pre-ATYCLB great ratings. heck, UABRS got a 9.

I don't think Pitchfork is too bad anymore. Sure, they give a lot of great albums horrible scores, but almost all of the albums they give high scores I like a lot.

 

[ozeeko]

Why is anyone holding a grudge against Pitchfork as a WHOLE? Isn't it INDIVIDUALS who write the reviews? Shouldn't the 'pissed and angry' be pissed and angry at that PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL who wrote the review?

But seriously, who really cares anyway? Initial reviews are always a bit off. It takes time, years, before a work of art can fairly be judged.

 

[believer75]

It's a very surface review from what seems to be a surface music magazine. I do not read this magazine so it is not entirely fair to assume this first hand. But, this reviewer obviously does not "get" U2, therefore it is difficult for this type of person to write a completely fair review of their music. Songs like Magnificent and Moment of Surrender are not straightforward lyrically. Is Bono really talking about himself when he sings "I was born to sing for you"? or "my first cry was a joyful noise"? It is a possibility, but I don't think that he is. What is Moment of Surrender about anyway? I don't think this reviewer knows or cares to delve into their music that deeply in order to figure it out. It is easy to be critical of things that we do not understand. I think that Pitchfork took the lazy route in writing a review of this album.