All Critical Reviews of the New album here

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is all leading me to the conclusion why are you here? Your obviously not into it all?

I'm interested in discussing the new record from my second favorite band (and favorite active one)? A band that's still my favorite live act and whose last three albums I quite liked or loved.

Sorry for not enjoying the new album. I'm sure more that dislike it will either be silent because they no longer care about the band or will come out of the woodwork just like the last three cycles when every album seemed to have unanimous praise because it was new and then the hangover set in months to years later...
 
[Q UOTE=BigMacPhisto;7838893]Make a great record? People can criticize the distribution method all they want, but it really doesn't affect the record. U2 didn't deliver something to match the rollout, so perhaps there's extra disappointment involved?



I'm not sure if you're implying that reviewers should be nicer because U2 had a deal with Apple to give the album out to half a million people? How does that factor into artistic merit? Again, these reviewers simply don't like the album (referring to actual reviews of course, not these poor attempts at humor from certain journalists).[/QUOTE]

Have we not just come a bit full circle here? You just contradicted yourself saying critics are giving it poor reviews because there is nothing "new" but now your saying they just have to make a great record, which a lot of people think this is?



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I like other bands and try other records but I think the majority of others that don't like U2 aren't pitchfork maniacs and listen to lots of new bands. In fact they may narrow themselves to top 40.

In the music fans group that try many new records per year they may slag older groups like U2 or Beck for ageism reasons, but I think they lose track over some of those records they rated highly over the years.

I mean I still love The Strokes and Fleet Foxes but a lot of the 80+ Pitchfork ratings albums are forgettable and years later nobody is talking about it.


Sent from my iPod touch using U2 Interference
 
People around here...how many Best New Music selections from Pitchfork in 2014 has the average Interference poster actually listened to? How many new albums from 2014 has the average Interference poster actually listened to? We're talking about a fan base that's almost entirely above the age of thirty (it's mostly middle aged fans in queue for the GA line, for example) and unless you're a devout music fan, you probably don't listen to much new stuff when you reach that far into adulthood (like most people).

I mean, if I'd heard like three new albums this year, I'd probably have a much more favorable opinion of the record. As it stands, I'm bored by it.

I have no clue how many albums from Pitchfork's Best New Music selection I've listened to this year, because I couldn't care less what Pitchfork thinks is good music. I'm sure sometimes we happen to agree, but it's not how I discover music, and I'm guessing people who actually take Pitchfork seriously also probably aren't going to like this album. Which is fine by me.

I would agree the median age of U2 fans is probably a little older, but they have plenty of younger fans too. As for older people not listening to newer music, again, I somewhat agree, but that's a generalization. There are plenty of devout music fans out there.

I don't know. I'm constantly listening to new music and I love this album, but I can't speak to the rest of Interference. Perhaps we should conduct a poll.
 
The NME review is pretty embarrassing as well. I don't care if you don't like the record, fine, but this clown is just too pleased with himself and his snark. Lazy, stupid writing. This is what supposedly passes for being clever, hip, and ironic.



'This Is Where You Can Reach Me Now' "just stinks". Real fucking insightful there. "Stinks". What, not sucks? And this guy is paid.

Again, hate on the record all you like...but when you embrace your hate this way you just look like a fool. Some nut just shouting out complaints rather than a serious critic. This crap belongs on a blog, not on a real music site.

When it comes to NME if it isn't an Arctic Monkeys song it's rubbish.
 
Have we not just come a bit full circle here? You just contradicted yourself saying critics are giving it poor reviews because there is nothing "new" but now your saying they just have to make a great record, which a lot of people think this is?

How did I contradict myself? Critics don't like the album and don't think it's great...and you're saying I'm contradicting myself because a lot of U2 fans like the album?

Literally every message board for any artist is going to have people mostly loving the new album. Those that don't just disappear. Take Pearl Jam for example. Most of the millions that bought their albums in the 90s have no interest in the band any longer so only people that liked their last few generic LPs will still hang around their forums. Same result here. Anybody disappointed with the 00s stuff early on in the century has fled the coop, leaving a lot of people here that are predisposed to go :love: over anything new. Not saying that's the reason for anybody's opinion on here, just that you're not going to find a more biased opinion than around here...

...which is why it's great to hear reviews from the critical establishment that listens to more music than the general public and can also see things from a more objective level without blinders on. I mean, if we're going to say a great album has songs on the level of "Bad" and "Pride" than this is probably not a great album.
 
In Rainbows was all over Best of the Decade lists....Beyonce's record is all over Best Of The Half-Decade lists...what's there for me to prove? The press/listeners really dug both records.


Do you actually think what a few self appointed music "critics" think is important or meaningful in any way to your enjoyment of music ?

Any idiot can generate a "best of the decade", "best of the year" "best of the last 10 minutes" list, they are completely meaningless.
 
Do you actually think what a few self appointed music "critics" think is important or meaningful in any way to your enjoyment of music ?

Nope. But it's a great resource to find new music.

For the record, In Rainbows is a great record if a bit overrated. Beyonce's has some killer tunes, but runs on for too long. Too much filler and trite lyrics.

But again, I can at least instantly see why both records would excite a lot of listeners/critics. There's a lot of songs on both that break some new ground in terms of sounds. Songs Of Innocence just doesn't have that. It's ho-hum to a heavy music listener.
 
Backlash in full swing, I see :cute: I was too young during the R&H era, but the Apple stunt seems to be at least on par with the film in terms of giving the hardcore U2 haters a nice shiny stick with which to beat the band. I do think having any artist's work foisted upon you is a little unnecessary and aggressive, they could/should have toned down their strategy...but I really hope they don't end up getting pulverized for it.
 
People around here...how many Best New Music selections from Pitchfork in 2014 has the average Interference poster actually listened to? How many new albums from 2014 has the average Interference poster actually listened to?.

I've listened to all of them, and sticking within the genre of u2's music i only find Spoon's They want my soul as a superior pop-rock album. Other albums within the same generic framework which i consider exceptional, such as Gruff Rhys's American Interior or Damon Albarn's Everyday Robots were not even named Best New Music by pitchfork. Apparently they prefer FKA Twigs. That said, i consider a great accomplishment for a band with a history of 35 years and operating within the modes of a genre that has lost a long ago its vitality to come up with songs that bring something different to their musical oeuvre (i refer especially to the sequence from the Volcano up to The Troubles). In fact, if i would try to stress my opinion a bit too far, i would say that Spoon's sequence from Knock Knock Knock up to New York Kiss is ''safer'' and more typical than u2's Songs Of Innocence. The difference is that Spoon's songs are reviewed per se, but u2's songs are reviewed based on the perception of bono's public persona and u2's brand name.
 
I have to agree that this deal with Apple did put an enormous amount of extra pressure on the album. Sure, everyone can just not get it or delete it from their phones or whatever the process is, I'm not sure, but still...people were forced to THINK about U2 for a second, and for many people, especially haters, that's too long a time to think about them. LOL. It's ridiculous but true. U2 invaded their privacy!!

I firmly believe the album would have had a better shot just as a free download online without all this Apple bullshit.
 
Nope. But it's a great resource to find new music.

For the record, In Rainbows is a great record if a bit overrated. Beyonce's has some killer tunes, but runs on for too long. Too much filler and trite lyrics.

But again, I can at least instantly see why both records would excite a lot of listeners/critics. There's a lot of songs on both that break some new ground in terms of sounds.


You contradicted yourself because you said the reason they didn't like it was because there was nothing new, as for relying on someone else's opinion to find new music then I will pass, I am better judge on what I like than a critic


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I'd say Spoon's album was less daring than U2's since it's more like what they've done before. But it's a better album because they're clearly still on top of their game in terms of songwriting/hooks. To argue that for U2 based on SOI would be laughable, but I'll certainly want to read such an opinion...

War on Drugs is probably the closest well received release this year to a U2 record. And it's leagues better...but I don't want this thread to just turn into a comparison thing. It's just good to point out a lot of the best music from the last couple years in order to prove just why this record isn't earning the same kind of reviews as those ones.
 
I'd say Spoon's album was less daring than U2's since it's more like what they've done before. But it's a better album because they're clearly on top of their game in terms of songwriting/hooks.


Subjectively surely?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 

I really like that Spin review.

Yeah, fwiw, I used to be an avid Spin reader, when they give an album a 7/10, that's basically their version of a B. They give out so many 7's, their scoring system is practically meaningless, which is why I love their reviews so much they rely on their words, instead of a number, and usually they successfully get their opinion of the ALBUM across.
 
Also, fwiw, I agree with what others have said, if I received a free album from my least favorite band, I'd listen to it. Free is free, but I do think you should have been able to click a button to allow the download, imo, but that's on Apple, not U2.
 
Subjectively surely?

It's all opinion, yes. Which is what all of this criticism comes down to. If people are willing to be like "NME doesn't like this record" then we're on the right page. It's when posters start accusing these writers of simply wanting to knock down the band that it gets ridiculous. Just because U2 is your favorite band doesn't mean that should secure them a place on every critic's Best Albums of the Year list.
 
It's all opinion, yes. Which is what all of this criticism comes down too. If people are willing to be like "NME doesn't like this record" then we're on the right page. It's when posters start accusing these righters of simply wanting to knock down the band that it gets ridiculous. Just because U2 is your favorite band doesn't mean that should secure them a place on every critic's Best Albums of the Year list.


But unfortunately some writers have lost the ability to be subjective when it comes to U2 hence them bringing in tax avoidance etc


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
It's all opinion, yes. Which is what all of this criticism comes down too. If people are willing to be like "NME doesn't like this record" then we're on the right page. It's when posters start accusing these righters of simply wanting to knock down the band that it gets ridiculous. Just because U2 is your favorite band doesn't mean that should secure them a place on every critic's Best Albums of the Year list.


And I really couldn't care less if they gave the album a good review, but just don't cop out the review with tax avoidance and accusing the band of not asking for consent etc


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
They should be on a best of 2014 list because it's a good record and a lot of the new bands aren't necessarily bringing something new either.


Sent from my iPod touch using U2 Interference
 
But unfortunately some writers have lost the ability to be subjective when it comes to U2 hence them bringing in tax avoidance etc


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Which is why U2 shouldn't exacerbate this problem by pulling a stunt such as this. They should've let the music speak for itself. They're asking for a beatdown this time.
 
Which is why U2 shouldn't exacerbate this problem by pulling a stunt such as this. They should've let the music speak for itself. They're asking for a beatdown this time.


But why shouldn't they? There is obviously something stopping the younger generation from listening to the music because it's not "cool" to listen to a band in their 50's, Jesus they haven given people the album for FREE it's not a stunt they have done it, I have it I didn't pay a penny for it


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Which is why U2 shouldn't exacerbate this problem by pulling a stunt such as this. They should've let the music speak for itself. They're asking for a beatdown this time.


And others have said it if this was anyone else it wouldn't be an issue U2 fans of all people should know this


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Which is why U2 shouldn't exacerbate this problem by pulling a stunt such as this. They should've let the music speak for itself. They're asking for a beatdown this time.

Nah. I think the music does speak for itself.

If it would have been a traditional release, the criticism would be that they're an old school band who doesn't know how to do things in the age of digital downloads and social media.

U2 is a popular target, they were going to get a beat down no matter what. We've got the music, why does the rest matter so much?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom