This sort of felt like the Greg Kot exchange during the last album, only the interview that came out of the Kot exchange was a lot more memorable, and a lot more probing. Richardson honestly looked anxious the entire time, and justifiably; his colleague had slammed a really influential band's record, and he had to go meet the guys for the clean up. Still, in defending Dombal's review, if you look at the news segments about U2 that preceded the record release, it's clear that he too was probably a fan, in spite of himself a fan, who couldn't quite palate the last decade of releases, or the latest one. And who hasn't felt that at some point? The review was harsh at times, but Dombal was also sympathetic (can U2 still make relevant records was a genuine question throughout that review). Still, likening an Edge lick as a 'fart' - that was pretty fucking rough.
In that sense, the grace that the band showed in doing the interview, of speaking quite earnestly about 'music as sacrament,' etc, was pretty moving, I thought. And it's not like U2 hasn't been down this road before - remember the "Village Voice" comment during the Grammys?
As for Pitchfork's love for throw away pop, there's been a pretty concerted effort for the past decade or so to embrace more hip hop and r & b and dance, etc; they had to redo their best of 90s list, after they realized that they didn't have more than a couple Black artists on that (how messed up is that they ignored the entire genre of hip hop?). Pitchfork always reminded me of the nerdy white hipsters who were no doubt creative, but so stuck up their own arse, they were a pain to be around. Still, when you read a positive review on Pitchfork - something like the Animal Collective review - you can tell there is a really genuine appreciation for the kind of ecstatic music that U2 once pulled off quite regularly. They aren't haters for haters' sake.
In that sense, the grace that the band showed in doing the interview, of speaking quite earnestly about 'music as sacrament,' etc, was pretty moving, I thought. And it's not like U2 hasn't been down this road before - remember the "Village Voice" comment during the Grammys?
As for Pitchfork's love for throw away pop, there's been a pretty concerted effort for the past decade or so to embrace more hip hop and r & b and dance, etc; they had to redo their best of 90s list, after they realized that they didn't have more than a couple Black artists on that (how messed up is that they ignored the entire genre of hip hop?). Pitchfork always reminded me of the nerdy white hipsters who were no doubt creative, but so stuck up their own arse, they were a pain to be around. Still, when you read a positive review on Pitchfork - something like the Animal Collective review - you can tell there is a really genuine appreciation for the kind of ecstatic music that U2 once pulled off quite regularly. They aren't haters for haters' sake.