City Of Blinding Lights Review

[starvinmarvin]

What do you guys think of this review? I found it at dotmusic.com


U2 - 'City Of Blinding Lights'
(Monday June 13, 2005 12:59 PM )

Released on 06/6/05
Label: Interscope

Business as usual for Bono and the boys, sleepwalking through yet another sincere and well-structured grand-scale pomp rocker about world peace, which sounds pretty much like every sincere and well-structured grand-scale pomp rocker about world peace they've churned out since 1805.

So mountainous and indomitable is the U2 canon nowadays, this feels a bit like someone deciding to build a rockery on Everest. The Edge is the first to clock on, punching his card with an overlong guitar intro that builds into a lazy synth-led melody as the other members stroll in with their Styrofoam lattes, check their Blackberrys and start another honest day's work for a ludicrous day's pay.

This filler track from current long-player "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb" is so featureless, technically flawless and purpose-built that if it were a building it would be a new, slick office block in Croydon, funded by the EU and boasting a WHSmith in the foyer.

by Anna Britten

 

[corianderstem]

Considering she thinks the song is about world peace, I can't really take anything else she says seriously.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Try and deny it.

'Technically flawless but featureless' is spot on.

 

[Zoots]

This filler track from current long-player "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb" is so featureless, technically flawless and purpose-built that if it were a building it would be a new, slick office block in Croydon, funded by the EU and boasting a WHSmith in the foyer.

Sadly, I have to agree with her very well written review. You know... this topic has been dragged in the mud for too long. Still.... its pretty obvious that U2's music nowadays is so calculated, safe and made for the charts... they're afraid to take risks, so everything is over produced, over studied and carefully released into the market at the strategic time (christmas usually). Of course they have to compete with hip hop and what-not, I know. Anyway, I still appreciate COBL for the pleasing sounds it delivers! Nothing more.

 

[corianderstem]

There's no denying that it sounds like a U2 song. But I don't find it to be a filler track at all. It's not featureless to anyone who finds something moving about it ... which I do.

 

[U2DMfan]

While I may agree that COBL, as it is on the album and single, is more or less U2 on autopilot. When she said "purpose built, flawless and featureless" is the only substantive part of the whole review. Or better yet, it's the only thing that hints and the quality or lack thereof of the song.

I would say that writers like this lack the substance to critique music for music's sake, and usually end up "filling" their own 10 sentence reviews with 8 sentences of comments about style and image. So in that manner, this critic can join the long list of "look how clever my wordplay is" assholes who know more about what they don't like in the band playing the song, than the song itself.

 

[starvinmarvin]

While I may agree that COBL, as it is on the album and single, is more or less U2 on autopilot. When she said "purpose built, flawless and featureless" is the only substantive part of the whole review. Or better yet, it's the only thing that hints and the quality or lack thereof of the song.

I would say that writers like this lack the substance to critique music for music's sake, and usually end up "filling" their own 10 sentence reviews with 8 sentences of comments about style and image. So in that manner, this critic can join the long list of "look how clever my wordplay is" assholes who know more about what they don't like in the band playing the song, than the song itself.

What do you think a music critic should talk about then?

 

[typhoon]

The music.

That entire review had one sentence about the music, and the rest was about the band's image.

 

[Zoots]

Okay... after reading her review one more time, I have to go back on my words just a bit. I agree with U2DMFan that despite COBL being purpose built, flawless and featureless.. the writer comes off as a showoff wordsmith. She's calling the song filler and downright making fun of the band here. Plus how is this song about world peace?

 

[corianderstem]

Thank you, Zootlesque. If a critic/writer isn't sure what the song is about, they shouldn't try and guess.

And yeah, I hate critics who sound like they're trying to hard to sound smart. Use small words we punters can understand.

 

[U2DMfan]

What do you think a music critic should talk about then?

I don't know....music?

or styrofoam lattes, rockeries on Everest, blackberries, slick office blocks, the EU and WHSmith. We get it, U2 make a lot of money, this I did not know and was surprised to find out about!
wow! so clever!!!

just saying, if you filtered out the substantive musical critique, you'd be left with about 10 words. I like reviews and critiques that examine the music instead of supposed clever dialogue to compensate for the actual examination of the music itself.

I understand this is probably just a writing technique, used by most talented writers, colorful descriptive phrases. I am more of a meat and potatoes kind of guy. Review the music.

" well-structured grand-scale pomp rocker about world peace "
since when is this song about world peace? Leads me to think the person reviewing the song probably just went through the motions. "gee, I don't know what else to say......okay, I detest u2 and the big money, big sound, earnestness, so I'll recesitate a review that could have been pulled out of 1989"

Just gets old, that's all. It's not bad writing, it's just doesn't give anyone anything but a stylyistic review.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I don't know. Dumbass world peace comment aside, what she is doing is painting a picture that describes exactly how she feels about the music, ie, it's U2 clocking in, knocking another one out, going home. Nothing inspired or interesting or really original. She's painting a picture of blandness and sameness, and that's all she gets from the song. If the song lept out of the speakers for her and painted an almighty sonic picture, the review, I assume, would be very different and she might have a hell of a lot to say about Bono's lyrics, Edge's guitar etc etc, but as it happens, she's yawning at it and doesn't see much there.

 

[corianderstem]

That's a good point. I still prefer critics that aren't so in love with their own cleverness (because you know she just totally is), but it's a good point.

 

[U2DMfan]

I don't know. Dumbass world peace comment aside, what she is doing is painting a picture that describes exactly how she feels about the music, ie, it's U2 clocking in, knocking another one out, going home. Nothing inspired or interesting or really original. She's painting a picture of blandness and sameness, and that's all she gets from the song. If the song lept out of the speakers for her and painted an almighty sonic picture, the review, I assume, would be very different and she might have a hell of a lot to say about Bono's lyrics, Edge's guitar etc etc, but as it happens, she's yawning at it and doesn't see much there.

Fair enough, I gathered that's exactly what she was doing, my point is, why is she bored by the song? Why is it uninspired?

Do you think she would be able to articulate these points discussing the music itself, or does she need the descriptive word play mixed in with the jabs at the band? Hell, take the jabs at the band, I don't care, she doesn't even refer to an instrument or a lyric. (oh wait, she did say synth!)

I like to read things about the music from other people's perspectives. Not some rock snob turned writer who is playing to her "yeah, this band still sucks" crowd. Not one mention of the lyrics, yet she gets the meaning of the song wrong? Yeesh.

I just think she was going through the motions. I get put off by the laziness of a critical review that only says "this sucks" or "this rocks" and doesn't tell me why. Otherwise it's of no substance to this music fan.

It's not a big deal, I was only trying to point out that while you can agree with a review in principle, you should still reserve the right to call bullshit on the reviewer

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Cool, I do see your point. I do think though in this case that a lazy song is asking for a lazy review. There's no way she could escape without musical description if the song demanded it. But I do agree with your sentiment about cynical reviewers. I was frustratingly reading the album reviews from a local street press newspaper here last night, and found that I had no guess as to what any of them actually sound like, except that they said one of the new Turin Brakes songs sounds like it's borrowed from Outkast. That was it. The rest was attitude.

And yes, I agree with her. Is there anyone in here who seriously thinks that if we locked U2 in a room for a week and said "Have us 10 City Of Blinding Lights by this time next week or we'll shoot you", they wouldn't bang the door down after only 2 days with 20 City of Blinging Lights written? It's as easy for them as hitting a jump shot is for Michael Jordan.

I'm hanging for U2 to smash down the office block and set fire to the WHSmith with an album that doesn't sound like them punching in and checking out.

 

[thrillme]

I'd like to see a review of a U2 song, written by actual musicians for once, just once.

Someone who knows the nuances of writing a song, the structure of a musical sentence. I don't, but I do know a little about playing an instrument.

The intro is a piano and a guitar, a nice bass slide by Adam, Larry, isn't he using brushes for part of the intro.

Who cares if they have blackberry's, I think Edge is the only one who actually has one. Adam (could've changed his mind at this point) said he has no interest in getting or having an Ipod.

You know, if City was off of Pop, I bet it would get so much praise...oh wait, it did start as an outtake from Pop, silly me.

One reviewer said that Adam on bass was a revelation, so forceful, so melodic, yet so in step with Mullen and Edge, that it makes you reconsider his whole body of work, has he always been this good.

I'm thinking he/she was mostly referring to this song.

Saw a fan review that said this song was the "big f-you" to Henry Rollins for saying U2 have a terrible rhythm section.

And, wasn't this song written about the first concert in New York, that U2 played, after 9/11.

World peace? Love and Peace, Yahweh, but not City.

 

[cobl04]

I really wish I hadn't clicked on this thread...

 

[bedouin fire]

once again, cobl sounds like an any other band trying hard to save an uninspired song making it sound like u2 by putting there all their "traditional" elements (sliding echo guitar, falsetos, bono's clichés, and so on...). the result makes it enjoyable but nothing more.
critics like this for such a song were expected.

 

[Nate Dogg]

Fuck reviews...City Of Blinding Lights ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[LemonAid]

i hated reading it too. found it at the site a few days ago.

hated reading it because it was so true in my own opinion.

its strange, because The Guardian gave it a glowing review last week and that is a supremely well-written paper that sometimes gets up its own ass when doing reviews, especially with a band like U2....but they gave it Track Of The Week and the best review ive heard....along with www.musicomh.com

but ive always been fighting my underwhelmed feelings for this song.

it SHOULD be great. on paper it has everything you want from a u2 song.......but it ends up feeling exactly like she said, workmanlike.

just 'there'.


and the chorus makes me cringe a bit too. everybody in UK loved it at manchester when i saw them this week...but that chorus is so lazy it makes me feel ill.

bonos lyrics are the most disappointing thing about u2 recently. I like the ones he did for Vertigo, fast cars, one step closer......mainly because they avoid cliché as much as possible....

..but cobl's chorus.....and alot of the rest....'the more you see the less you know' ...nice sentiment, but come on...you can do better than this bono.

you wrote acrobat.

 

[RademR]

COBL is definetly u2 by numbers and very much over-produced.

But the good thing for me is that I love u2 and they r my favorite band, so I could give a shit.

 

[Aygo]

This is the typical comment from a critic that probably don't know what a note or a scale is or can't even read a paper full of notes and signs... And in the other hand, we can see by the discurse that the critic doesn't even know what the song talks about. That's what I hate in this kind of people: talk bullshit about something without knowing it... Get a life!!!

 

[Zoots]

bonos lyrics are the most disappointing thing about u2 recently.

You are absolutely correct!

 

[AtomicBono]

While I may agree that COBL, as it is on the album and single, is more or less U2 on autopilot. When she said "purpose built, flawless and featureless" is the only substantive part of the whole review. Or better yet, it's the only thing that hints and the quality or lack thereof of the song.

I would say that writers like this lack the substance to critique music for music's sake, and usually end up "filling" their own 10 sentence reviews with 8 sentences of comments about style and image. So in that manner, this critic can join the long list of "look how clever my wordplay is" assholes who know more about what they don't like in the band playing the song, than the song itself.

I agree with everything you say.

City of Blinding Lights is a good song, imo. It's very powerful live, but single material? Even the edited version is far too long for radio. But as for the merits of the song itself... I enjoy the lyrics, I think they're some of the better lyrics from A-Bomb, I like the imagery ("Neon heart, Day-Glo eyes/A city lit by fireflies"). The chant-along chorus may be almost too easy, but it sure is enjoyable. The rhythm section is solid; drums in paticular. Edge's guitarwork is classically, well, Edge - but is that such a bad thing? Seems people complain whenever he deviates from his usual sounds (Pop, for example) and pander for a "return to Joshua Tree" sound. So he does on this paticular track, and people complain. I don't see a problem with Edge playing like Edge, I LIKE HIS STYLE. He doesn't have to completely push the boundries of what can be done on guitar on every song. I love the slide guitar. I love the bridge, it's different and features one of my favourite lines from the album ("Time won't leave me as I am/But time won't take the boy out of this man"). The only thing I really don't like is the piano intro. It's cheesy and unnecessary. Overall, it's a good song...not extraordinary, but good. U2 on autopilot perhaps, but you know what? I happen to like U2, so I don't mind hearing songs that sound like U2 every once and awhile.

 

[U2DMfan]

the single/album version would be a lot better with a better mix, all by itself. Nelle Hooper should be punched in the balls for this.

there is nothing wrong with U2 sounding like U2, of course.
when any band spends so much time in the studio working on the same songs over and over, this is exactly what is going to happen. Take #527 is going to be less full of energy and spark than take #27, if you know what I mean.

It becomes harder to seperate yourselves from the songs, because you have heard them so much, all you hear about the song is imperfection. So you re-record it until it is note perfect, free of all fat. In other words, over produced.

Bono in the studio, well this is another long post waiting to happen. Bottom line is, he should write his lyrics before they record this time. Change them up a little and preserve that voice for a great vocal take that will go on the album instead of settling for less because he can't figure out what he wants to say.

 

[AtomicBono]

the single/album version would be a lot better with a better mix, all by itself. Nelle Hooper should be punched in the balls for this.

there is nothing wrong with U2 sounding like U2, of course.
when any band spends so much time in the studio working on the same songs over and over, this is exactly what is going to happen. Take #527 is going to be less full of energy and spark than take #27, if you know what I mean.

It becomes harder to seperate yourselves from the songs, because you have heard them so much, all you hear about the song is imperfection. So you re-record it until it is note perfect, free of all fat. In other words, over produced.

Bono in the studio, well this is another long post waiting to happen. Bottom line is, he should write his lyrics before they record this time. Change them up a little and preserve that voice for a great vocal take that will go on the album instead of settling for less because he can't figure out what he wants to say.

Agreed. It would be interesting to hear what City of Blinding Lights sounded like in 2003...

 

[Yahweh]

Damn its a bloody miracle U2 actually has fans left...critics bash them and even their own fanbase here on interference bash them and probably even harder....maybe U2 should just pack it in and leave all the screaming babies behind with the 1 or 2 albums that they like as "my album".

Secondly in my opinion being a music critic is about the most useless job in the world but it would be nice to get paid for it.

 

[thrillme]

I haven't come across too many Adam fans who don't like it.

Is Adam's work on How to, better than ATYCLB?

Pop is probably his best work, but does it sound like he's just "clocking it in" or sounds like he's improving with each album?

Any bassists around?

 

[ultraviolet7]

Somewhat pompous this lady - however I entirely agree with the "purpose-built, featureless and filler" concepts which accurately describe my own feelings towards the song.

 

[ultraviolet7]

the single/album version would be a lot better with a better mix, all by itself. Nelle Hooper should be punched in the balls for this.

Nellee Hooper shouldn't get all the bashing. The problem here is production which IMV is terrible. I just couldn´t believe my eyes when I read Flood's name on the main production credit for this track.