(11-22-2004) Atomic dog - Chicago Sun-Times*

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

HelloAngel

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Sep 22, 2001
Messages
14,534
Location
new york city
Atomic dog

BY JIM DEROGATIS POP MUSIC CRITIC
(Rating: 1.5 stars)


Twenty-eight years after forming in Dublin, U2 has become the Rolling Stones. Both superstar acts have larger-than-life frontmen whose posing and preening is both their strength and their weakness. Both boast perpetually cool guitarists who serve as the groups' musical engines, and both have secret weapons in the form of deceptively simple but amazingly powerful drummers.

Unfortunately, both have also long since morphed from vital, creative rock groups into monolithic money machines, giant corporations that turn out new product -- er, albums -- primarily to fuel lucrative tours of the world's enormodomes.

Like 2000's "All That You Can't Leave Behind," U2's heavily hyped 11th studio effort, "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb," which arrives in stores Tuesday, is less of an artistic statement or a significant step forward than a simulation of what some unadventurous fans think a U2 album ought to sound like, and at times it veers obnoxiously close to self-parody.

Witness the album opener and first single, "Vertigo," which reeks of formula: Start with a grandiose Edge guitar line that recurs in the bombastic choruses; break it down to some tinkling atmospherics in the quiet verses and oh-so-arty mid-song break, and let Bono wail with great emotion about Jesus, "those bullets [that] rip the sky" and how deeply he feels.

Feels what? That question is never answered in this particular ditty, but you can tell by the way Bono is screaming that he feels something, man. "Whoo-hoo!" and "Turn it up!" he yelps.

Rather than vertigo, the dizzying sensation of the world spinning around you, the song evokes the feeling of deja vu, the sense that you've been here and done this before. My favorite part comes when Bono counts the band in: "Uno, dos, tres, catorce!" In case your Spanish is as bad as his, that translates as, "One, two, three, 14!" And that's as close to a quirky curveball as this long-running group gets in any of these 11 songs.

Looking back at the Rolling Stones' extensive catalog, the most die-hard fan will grant that the group's last great album was 1978's "Some Girls," an effort whose raw energy, brave experimentation and self-deprecating humor was inspired by the punk explosion of the time. For U2, it's been downhill since the one-two punch of 1991's "Achtung Baby" and 1993's "Zooropa," whose raw energy, brave experimentation and self-deprecating humor were inspired by the alternative explosion of the time.

Bono, the Edge, bassist Adam Clayton and drummer Larry Mullen Jr. were prodded to stretch out and challenge themselves on those albums by the arty but populist production team of Daniel Lanois and Brian Eno, and they were rewarded with the strongest efforts of their career. Lanois and Eno are back in some capacity here, but they're overshadowed by the just plain populist production team of Chris Thomas and old mainstay Steve Lillywhite, and a lazy reliance on the old-school approach dominates over any attempts to break out of the U2 mold.

This isn't to say that songs such as "Miracle Drug" and "Sometimes You Can't Make It on Your Own" -- both resonant of the brilliant "One" -- or "City of Blinding Lights" and "Crumbs From Your Table" -- heavy on "The Joshua Tree" influences -- are devoid of charms. They're just uninspired recreations and inferior simulations of the genuine achievements that preceded them.

As Bono has made abundantly clear in reams of pre-album publicity, the title of the new disc and many of the songs were inspired by his turbulent relationship with his father, who died from cancer in 2001. This experience led him to once again ponder heavy issues such as birth, death, war, peace and the existence of the Almighty, via the album's closer and its pretentious nadir, "Yahweh."

But the singer's musings never rise above the level of fortune-cookie proverbs, and the most honest line in any of his lyrics comes in "All Because of You" when he confesses, "I like the sound of my own voice."

U2's defenders will say it's unfair to allow extramusical factors to taint this album, but we can't avoid the fact that the band has hit a new low with a marketing campaign that outdoes Jessica Simpson's pact with 7-Eleven. The group's ubiquitous TV commercials for Apple and the special-issue iPod containing its entire catalog are cheap, tawdry gimmicks beneath a band of this stature, and while the stars have made a point of saying they didn't take any money for the sponsorship, they certainly haven't said they'll donate their royalties or profits from the tour that begins in March to Third World debt.

Ask yourself: If U2's new music was any good, would the group need to prostitute itself in ads and on the soundtrack to that teen soap opera "The O.C."? Would we have ever taken it seriously if it had done this sort of thing circa "Boy" or "October"?

"Ah, but these are different times!" the faithful protest. Funny, though, how it sounds like we're hearing the same old song.


THE JOKE'S ON BONO

More than any other rock band, U2 has inspired a bounty of jokes, most focusing on Bono. Even the most loyal fans love to laugh at the messianic singer, as evidenced by the Web site www.enjoyu2.com, which features a collection of quips about the star. Here are a few of my favorites.

*At the party after the show, Bono talks all night about U2, his intentions, his lyrics and his interests. He finally feels a little guilty and says to the other guests, "Sorry, enough talk about me and the band. Your turn to talk about yourselves. How do you like our new song?"

*Edge and Bono crash in an airplane and go to heaven, where they see God sitting on the great white throne. God addresses Edge: "What do you believe in?" Edge replies, "I believe in the Gibson Explorer and that if we had made more U2 records, the world would have become a better place." God thinks for a second and says, "I can live with that. Come and sit at my right."
God then addresses Bono: "What do you believe in?" Says Bono: "I believe you're in my chair!"


*Q. How many members of U2 does it take to change a light bulb?
A. One; Bono holds the bulb and the earth revolves around him.

*Q. What's the difference between Bono and God?
A. God knows that He is not Bono.

*Q. What's the difference between Bono and Moses?
A. Bono doesn't divide the sea; he walks on it.
Jim DeRogatis*

http://www.suntimes.com/output/entertainment/cst-ftr-u222.html

Thanks to Barb!
 
That's not a serious music review. That's someone who really dislikes Bono.

Agreed. This person simply does not like the idea of Bono nor the music of U2 - the category of 'Pop Music Review' says it all. Not a surprising column though from the same newspaper that has 'Roger Ebert' on board, obviously they are critical snobs who think they are cutting edge when they go against the grain just to flex their pompous hatred for anything that is popular to us 'regular' folks.
Even if someone does not like the album, there is no way someone can objectively say that it is below 2 two stars unless they outright can't stand the band. It makes me wonder why they had this clown review music he does not appreciate and ultimately does not understand.

- Nicholas

zoou2@hotmail.com
 
Why did they have this guy write the review? Because they'll obviously get more attention for outright dissing the album becaue the majority of reviews have all been positve.
 
This is not an album review but a bashing of Bono.
I went to this critics website jimdero.com. His 2003 artist of the year is johnny cash. His top 3 albums of 2003 are from Cherrywine, deftones and granddaddy. I don't think he has any credibility as a rock critic.
 
I think we shouldn't waste our time on this thread...after me of course!

I wouldn't put any stock in this review whatsoever. This guy makes his living from intentionally being provocative....so if we continue this thread too long, he'd most likely get off on it. What makes me upset is the fact that his paper thinks he can write an objective review of U2's work, when he's carrying so much hate baggage
for them that dates way back. He wrote a book called "Killing your Idols" which actually featured an essay on how dreadful the Joshua Tree was!!!

He's also a major suck-up for a star interview, then a subsequent back-stabber. He once told Peter Buck in an interview that REM are "way more inventive and innovative" than U2, who remain popular (unlike REM) because they "cater to mainstream interests." THEN, in a recent concert review, he criticizes the band for changing so much from the "rock-and-roll" band he knew as a teenager.

He's just looking for wind for his sail....let's let him sink:huh:
 
Last edited:
Having lived in Chicago for many years, I am familiar with Jim Derogatis. And he is, by far, the worst music critic I have ever read. Anything that is remotely popular, he disdains. The music he likes is so "out there" that it seems he likes it just to "be cool". I guess if I were in my early 20's trying to impress people with my music knowledge, I'd act like Derogatis. Anything this man writes should be immediately disregarded.
 
You can say what you want about Bono, but that a man who has saved litteraly thousands of lives in his AIDS/Africa work is selling out is just rediculous...

Of course people are entitled to their own opinion about HTDAAB, but I agree with the previous posters here. This is not a serious review.

Why do we have to post these crap reviews here at interference?

I agree we should post not so good reviews along with the good ones, but these crappy quality reviews should not get any attention.
 
Last edited:
doctorwho said:
I guess if I were in my early 20's trying to impress people with my music knowledge, I'd act like Derogatis. Anything this man writes should be immediately disregarded.

Really, a good critic should be able to separate marketing, past efforts and other outside inconsequential elements from the material they are reviewing. I have heard way too much about how the promotional aspects of this album are so horrible, and that maybe true to some, but it’s a whole separate issue than the actual content of the album. Of course this album isn’t as good at JT or AB.. but jeez.. That’s really not saying this album is horrible. If more albums that were released were even half as good at JT or AB maybe the current state of mainstream music wouldn’t be so damn abysmal! blah.
 
For those of you unfamiliar with Jim Derogatis, he's been a mainstay of Chicago music press for many years. He idolizes Lester Bang, and his "schtick" is to be a curmudgeonly, militantly "indie" critic. He's a big voice in the city, but he's recognized by most for what he is, and he's pretty transparent:

A) He loves to rip apart bands that deviate from what he thinks they should be doing;

B) He FREAKS OUT over any corporate ties involving music. If a band exhibits ANYTHING like a corporate connection, no matter how irrelevant or cool, they've completely lost all credibility in his eyes.

Mostly, he just amuses me. ;) We've had a few run-ins - lets just say that he's more comfortable hiding behind his newspaper than being put on the spot about anything.
 
And by the way, he LIVES for hate mail. He's "one of those." He likes to be antagonistic - so don't waste your time replying to him and making him feel like he touched a nerve with U2 fans.
:wink:
 
I feel so embarrassed to be from Chicago right now. Both our major papers gave the bomb not so good reviews. This piece of "jounalism" however is way over the edge. When a critic starts getting petty, then you know he's not reviewing the music, more so the band. Maybe the pole up his arse is affecting his hearing ability.:madspit:

And and I thought pitchfork was brutal. At least they know how to write some good stuff.
 
The group's ubiquitous TV commercials for Apple and the special-issue iPod containing its entire catalog are cheap, tawdry gimmicks beneath a band of this stature, and while the stars have made a point of saying they didn't take any money for the sponsorship, they certainly haven't said they'll donate their royalties or profits from the tour that begins in March to Third World debt.

That's an ubelievable remark to make considering how much time and effort (and God knows how much money) Bono has already put into the drop the Third World debt campaigns!

That one remark alone makes the guy an eejit
 
the review sounds like an Interference post. LOL...

I do believe there should be separation between reviewing the music and the promotional/ marketing aspects of the album. I mean it is all about the music itself and not how they bring it to the masses.

LOL, I bet he actually posts on Interference though... LOL.
 
Doesn't anyone else thing the jokes at the end of the review are hilarious? And there are more at the site referenced. I think they are funny....
 
Flying FuManchu said:
the review sounds like an Interference post. LOL...

I do believe there should be separation between reviewing the music and the promotional/ marketing aspects of the album. I mean it is all about the music itself and not how they bring it to the masses.

LOL, I bet he actually posts on Interference though... LOL.

Worst, this guy is copying me:

The Stones comparison, the last 2 records being made for ppl who enjoys unadventurous music (like Axver and others who always reply to my posts bashing me), the downhill (with the exception that i believe the downhill comes from Pop on, not Zooropa)...

This kid made a collage of my posts! LOL

On the serious side, it's amazing how many of you simply don't see that some points this guy made are actually real... or maybe some of you are just in denying state of mind...
 
Last edited:
U2_Guy said:


Worst, this guy is copying me:

The Stones comparison, the last 2 records being made for ppl who enjoys unadventurous music (like Axver and others who always reply to my posts bashing me), the downhill (with the exception that i believe the downhill comes from Pop on, not Zooropa)...

This kid made a collage of my posts! LOL

On the serious side, it's amazing how many of you simply don't see that some points this guy made are actually real... or maybe some of you are just in denying state of mind...

"the points this guy made are actually real" - ehm, no they're real to youor anyone that shares this guy's opinion, they are not fact. you can't speak on behalf of me or anyone else that actually enjoys for "real" the new music. I disliked ATYCLB but I think this new album is awesome and I've been a fan since 1982.

Every U2 album can be disected to find faults but there are too many people out there enjoying having a dig at U2 because they're successful.

If you don't like it U2_Guy nobody is forcing you to listen, go enjoy something else.

they moaned about October being too religous
they moaned about War being too political
they moaned at The Unforgettable Fire for not being War Part II
they moaned at The Joshua Tree for being too American
they moaned at Rattle and Hum for being too pretentious
they moaned at Achtung Baby for not being The Joshua Tree Part II
they moaned at Zooropa for being "dull"
they moaned at Pop....period
they moaned at ALTYCLB for not being Pop!
they moan, they moan, they moan
 
Last edited:
I am embarrassed to work for the company that owns the Sun Times. The AP review was lukewarm, but otherwise, the Sun Times review is the only bad one I've read!
His expectations are way outside what the band has been saying for months about what the album would be. They aren't trying to invent a new sound at this point, they are at a point where they are finally good enough to make the album they would have wanted to make at age 19, and it is good. No, it isn't their best album, but, in my opinion, it is much better than ATYCLB, since it is heavier.
No, the lyrics on these past two albums are not the simply poignent lyrics of War or Joshua Tree, but they are deeper, more personal and at least as passionate.
Who cares? The Sun Times sounds out of step since so many other publications are giving it very positive reviews. I have read numerous places that Atomic Bomb is their best since Achtung Baby. I agree.
 
U2_Guy said:


Worst, this guy is copying me:

The Stones comparison, the last 2 records being made for ppl who enjoys unadventurous music (like Axver and others who always reply to my posts bashing me), the downhill (with the exception that i believe the downhill comes from Pop on, not Zooropa)...

This kid made a collage of my posts! LOL

On the serious side, it's amazing how many of you simply don't see that some points this guy made are actually real... or maybe some of you are just in denying state of mind...

:up:

The reviewer is being hard on the band in many ways, but that doesn't mean that the most basic points of his review are not true.
 
"The reviewer is being hard on the band in many ways, but that doesn't mean that the most basic points of his review are not true."

what is truth?your truth?everyone has one, my truth is this album is there best, and the truth of most people is that is a great album, the truth of most critics is that is a great album. just keep your truth for you and don't try to enforce it to others and not even try to sell it without any good arguments because that you just give a poor image of yourself.
 
No matter what U2 release some people will criticise it just because it is U2. There are some people who dislike anything that is deemed too popular. I seem to recall the band were criticised in many quarters from Achtung Baby onwards for straying from the U2 sound. This reached a peak with Popmart. Pop actually received a lot of good critical reviews until Popmart began. Once Popmart started slowy people then percived that Pop was crap. The band have now gone back to their roots and are criticised for not broadening their music even more. I bet the people moaning that they haven't broke new ground were the same ones moaning that Achtung Baby wasn't Joshua Tree 2!! The new album is excellent and is in the top 3 records they have done with Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree. I find it hard to believe anyone can criticise a band that is famous for changing their musical style so often when they revert to type. Besides, has anyone else heard a guiar player making the sounds The Edge does?? No-one even comes close even when the guy is playing straight forward rock he is more innovitive than anyone else.
 
So obviously blatant

It is so clear to even the casual reader that this guy either (A) is trying out for the lead in 'Contrarians at the Gate' or (B) was 11th in line when 10 U2 tickets were given out to the hacks at his newspaper. And he jokes about U2 calling attention to themselves; how obviously can you say 'Look at MEEEE!' than to publish a scathing review of a disc by the most beloved band in the world?

Chris in New Hampshire
 
kakvox said:
I feel so embarrassed to be from Chicago right now. Both our major papers gave the bomb not so good reviews. This piece of "jounalism" however is way over the edge. When a critic starts getting petty, then you know he's not reviewing the music, more so the band. Maybe the pole up his arse is affecting his hearing ability.:madspit:

And and I thought pitchfork was brutal. At least they know how to write some good stuff.

And yet, Chicago brought the most cash on the Elevation Tour. Ya got nuttin' to be ebmarrassed about. Nuttin'.

Ya know, I remember Bono on K-ROC with Jed The Fish when they blew into LA for the PoP Mart Tour circa 1997. A caller chastised the boys for selling out to commercialism in their sound. Bono replied to sell out would be to continue making the Joshua Tree, so in his mind, selling out was furthest away. I knew at that moment that U2 were now in a position where they were dammed if they do, and dammed if they don't, no matter what they do. All that matters now is great music carrying some relevance, so respectfully I say... #$@% everybody else who sees it any other way.

Oh, and for the record, The Bomb to me is right there with Achtung Baby. Achtung takes it but only because it was so innovative at the time.
 
Last edited:
The problem with being the best at anything is it brings out the jealous haters. In U2's case, I am sure this is a problem that they love having!
 
Back
Top Bottom