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.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nick66 said:
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?
Click to expand...


Bingo they cannot do right for doing wrong


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
BigMacPhisto said:
The difference comes between good and great. Did U2 make what's generally considered a great album? Not really. Did they make a listenable record? Yeah, so it's merely good (if poor by the band's own standards).
Click to expand...

Used to be you'd spend a couple of weeks with and album before you wrote the review, but today everyone expects it immediately upon release.

I honestly don't know how anyone can judge the merits of a rock and roll album after 24 hours.
 
LPU2 said:
Used to be you'd spend a couple of weeks with and album before you wrote the review, but today everyone expects it immediately upon release.



I honestly don't know how anyone can judge the merits of a rock and roll album after 24 hours.
Click to expand...


This is what scares me about the way music is going


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Nick66 said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's extra beatings though. LOL That's all I'm saying. It's a big spectacle and it's only going to magnify what's wrong with the album because it has been thrown in everyone's faces and celebrated as something everyone must have.

If the album does what it's supposed to do, then hurray I applaud their decision and I'll take it all back. I have my 5 songs that I like, that's pretty much all you can ask for these days.
 
And surely Apple "invaded" people's privacy when the people agreed to give them their names and email address etc, and then they send them some FREE music and people moan LOL


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
so when do y'all think rolling stone and q will have their reviews? what do you expect them to give u2?
 
I just don't want those "beatings" to prevent U2 songs I want from being released because the band retires due to a lack of relevance.


Sent from my iPod touch using U2 Interference
 
KUEFC09U2 said:
And surely Apple "invaded" people's privacy when the people agreed to give them their names and email address etc, and then they send them some FREE music and people moan LOL


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Click to expand...

was a joke yo!

Haters who were excited about this new shitty phone will now have it tainted with U2's new amazing album.
 
BigMacPhisto said:
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.
Click to expand...

I guess I just fundamentally disagree with the idea that a "new sound" is what makes music enjoyable. does it sometimes? absolutely, I love hearing something and going "whoa, I've never heard anything like this before!" But that accounts for maybe a small percentage of what I actually listen to, because it's 2014 and now there are sub-genres of sub-genres of sub-genres. it's all been done before, so it's rare to find something that is truly "new" (especially if you listen to a lot of different music).

and isn't a lot of music discovery just finding artists similar to the music you already like? Pandora, Spotify, last.fm - all operate under this principle.

when U2 puts out an album I expect it to be different enough that I don't feel like I've literally heard it before, but I still expect it to sound like U2. Even when they experiment, U2 still has Bono's voice. There's still something distinctive about the rhythm section, a certain colour to Edge's guitarwork. i happen to like all of those things.

not saying you're not allowed to dislike the album. just saying that assuming anyone who likes it must not listen to much music is false.
 
trevgreg said:
Well, Jann Wenner still runs RS, so it's a guaranteed 4-5 star minimum there.
Click to expand...

Yes, and this is the other side of that coin. The bulk of reviews are done by clueless webkids and the others are done by friends of the band. It's why all music reviews are meaningless.
 
ozeeko said:
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!!
Click to expand...

This is exactly what U2 wants, though. Because there will be those who actually don't have a strong opinion about U2 and give the album a chance because, hey, it's there. As for haters having to be reminded that U2 exists, wow, what a tragedy. I guess U2 should not do any press or play shows either because then they might stumble upon something online that mentions U2 and be reminded that yes, U2 is a thing. there is a band out there that makes music you don't enjoy, and that's a tragedy up there with child trafficking and the Holocaust, clearly.
 
My sources tell me that the Pitchfork review is almost complete. They haven't listened to the album yet but it should be done soon.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
So The New Yorker guy had the guts to compare an U2 album track by track with Beyoncé, which, musically, to me is one of the worst, most cynical big artists of our time. U2 are rock gods. Even at their worst they are better than most things out there, specially today. Maybe rock is indeed dead. But nothing that pop produces today can touch what rock does, EVEN today. Comparing U2 to Beyoncé was a cheat move to gain attention for the review, but showed that the critic understands nothing about rock. Maybe, no, probably, we are giving too much attention to this kind of crap. We are U2 fans, i think we know something about good music...
 
Cancer45 said:
what do y'all think of this review

U2 - "Songs of Innocence" (Album Review) - YouTube
Click to expand...

this is exactly why U2 did what they did. the guy admits to not being a U2 fan, but was still excited because of the way the album was released, and therefore felt compelled to listen and actually enjoyed it. Despite all the negative feedback, I'm sure there are many more out there like this fellow who wouldn't have necessarily sought out the record themselves. People are going to hate on U2 no matter how they release an album, why not do it in a way that also has the most potential to gain you new fans?
 
Nick66 said:
Almost all U2 records earned wide spread critical praise when they came out...even records that have been subject to revisionist history like R&H and Pop were initially reviewed quite well by critics. And anyone who says critics didn't like JT or AB when they came out is wrong.

I will say that the reviews of this one seem a little higher than NLOTH in general.
Click to expand...

Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby were regarded as masterpieces practically from the day they were released.
 
This is Apple we're talking about. When I installed that shitty software iTunes, it cluttered my computer with bloatware like Bonjour and other shitty, useless components. And people are claiming getting a free music album in their iTunes library is tantamount to rape?

Da fuq!?
 
bono_212 said:
I can almost guarantee a review in 5 hours and 48 minutes.
Click to expand...

And they'll probably get Ryan Dombal to stab the album with a Pitchfork.

I think BigMacPhisto is right that the Pitchfork rating will be like a 6.0 at best since they gave really good records from Beck and The Black Keys low ratings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

dan_smee
Songs of Surrender - Discussion, reviews, impressions
7 8 9
Replies
241
Views
16K
BEAL
BEAL
N
I’m new here and like the recent stuff
Replies
2
Views
755
Sicy
Sicy
P
PEDRO G NEWBEE HERE. PLEASE BE GENTLE.
Replies
3
Views
180
clerks
clerks
dan_smee
I listened to No Line on the Horizon right through tonight for the first time in about 10 years…
2 3
Replies
77
Views
2K
womanfish
womanfish
Reggie Thee Dog
Are we NOT discussing the Dolby Atmos Mix of Achtung Baby?
Replies
13
Views
1K
count rushmore
count rushmore

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom