Rollingstone Review of HTDAAB

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

rjhbonovox said:


This reviewers another asshole who has dissed U2's 90's work. What a dickhead. There best music was done in the 90's. The only thing he has got right is that the albums probably worth 4/5.
no joke, plus he says he wants bono to be out playing "jesus to the lepers in his head" which is of course a 90's u2 reference. diss pop (though i'll disagree with you) but come on, ab and zooropa? two of the best albums ever, especially ab. i really don't like this review.
 
you people are crazy. some of you complain that they dont like the album enough, some complain that they like it too much. and then people complain about what the reviewer criticizes, then others wish they would explain what the reviewer doesnt like. people complain about how they hate the magazine as well, but still decide to take the review to heart for some reason. then other people complain about how it was written poorly? its not a tom clancy novel, its a review about a cd. a review which happens to be the listeners OPINION. i dont think any professional reviewer could please you people.
 
I get the impression that many reviewers mean "Zooropa" "Passengers" and "Pop" when they say "90s U2," like Achtung Baby should just be stuck in with Boy thru Rattle and Hum. But at least he likes the album.
 
and whats so WRONG with "Zooropa" "Passengers" and "Pop". They are two great albums and Passengers being a good experimental diversion. Some of the music on these records is great. That is one criticism of the new album. Too many of the songs sound radio friendly and could easily be singles, and not enough experimentation.:(
 
Maybe this is just a snippet of the full review. This review wasn't taken from the actual magazine but from their website. I'm sure RS will release a more in-depth review.
 
This guy is one ugly dude. Have you ever seen him?

The review was shit, but I expected that when I read "Rollingstone" right before the word review.

I like the allmusic review the most so far. Gives praise and takes a few jabs, but it calls it pretty close.
 
david said:
Anyone ever read the Rolling Stone review of Achtung Baby? That was an EXCELLENT review.

I like the piece Brian Eno wrote for RS back in '91.
That was very cool and it was a very different magazine back then.
 
Has pitchfork media reviewed the album yet? They seriously dislike U2, but most of their reviewers are indier than thou kids.
 
I would almost be willing to bet money, here and now, (an incredibly weighty internet statement) that this is the short version of the review. If you pull up the online review of Pop, you will find a short little thing, that feels like it was written around the time of ATYCLB.

I could see a larger review emerging both on the website and in the magazine. It really feels like a piece in US weekly. Four paragraphs, the huge first and last ones, are all sniping at Bono and the band, and then small two middle paragraphs are three sentences that boil down to: Edge lets it rip. And then a list of each song's topic.

It's a lame review. It's reads like US weekely. All the made up inner narratives. All the personal sniping about ego, while missing that Crumbs From Your Table is one of the most pointed and yet subtle political messages that U2 have ever done, I think right up there with Bullet. Aside from Miss Sarajevo, I would like to hear of 1 U2 song where the politics was both text and subtext that was as strong as Crumbs.

Maybe I'm forgetting something. Crumbs is better than Please, better than Peace On Earth or WILATW. And don't say walk on, that song could be about anything, (but yeah, it's probably a better song than crumbs).

imho

turnthedarkoff
 
anyone who says anything bad about 90's U2 deserves to strung up by leather trousers..........
 
Sheffield is a hack and Rolling Stone has turned in to nothing more than the glossy ads and a propaganda machine for the left. Notice the jab at Bush's election in the review. I am getting tired of this shit - issue after issue, it never ceases. I betcha Michael Moore probably jerks off to it.

And in closing, I remember a few years ago, Sheffield did a Springsteen retrospective where he stated that "The River" was a bleak portrait of Reagan's America. But, The River was written and recorded in the final year or so of the Carter presidency and released in Oct. 1980 - about a month before Reagan was elected. I expect journalists to get their facts straight but hey it's Rolling Stone.
 
how about AMG's Review:

Ever since the beginning of their career, U2 had a sense of purpose and played on a larger scale than their peers, so when they stumbled with the knowing rocktronica fusion of 1997's Pop — the lone critical and commercial flop in their catalog — it was enough to shake the perception held among fans and critics, perhaps even the group itself, that the band was predestined to always be the world's biggest and best rock & roll band. Following that brief, jarring stumble, U2 got back to where they once belonged with All That You Can't Leave Behind, returning to the big-hearted anthems of their '80s work. It was a confident, cinematic album that played to their strengths, winning back the allegiance of wary fans and critics, who were eager to once again bestow the title of the world's biggest and best band upon the band, but all that praise didn't acknowledge a strange fact about the album: it was a conservative affair. After grandly taking risks for the better part of a decade, U2 curbed their sense of adventure, consciously stripping away the irony that marked every one of their albums since 1991's Achtung Baby, and returning to the big, earnest sound and sensibility of their classic '80s work.

How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, the long-awaited 2004 sequel to ATYCLB, proves that this retreat was no mere fling: the band is committed to turning back the clock and acting like the '90s never happened. Essentially, U2 are trying to revirginize themselves, to erase their wild flirtation with dance clubs and postmodernism so they can return to the time they were the social conscious of rock music. Gone are the heavy dance beats, gone are the multiple synthesizers, gone are the dense soundscapes that marked their '90s albums, but U2 are so concerned with recreating their past that they don't know where to stop peeling away the layers. They've overcorrected for their perceived sins, scaling back their sound so far that they have shed the murky sense of mystery that gave The Unforgettable Fire and The Joshua Tree an otherworldly allure. That atmospheric cloud has been replaced with a clean, sharp production, gilded in guitars and anchored with straight-ahead, unhurried rhythms that never quite push the songs forward. This crisp production lacks the small sonic shadings that gave ATYCLB some depth, and leaves How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb showcasing U2 at their simplest, playing direct, straight-ahead rock with little subtlety and shading in the production, performance, or lyrics. Sometimes, this works to the band's detriment, since it can reveal how familiar the Edge's guitar has grown or how buffoonish Bono's affectations have become (worst offender: the overdubbed "hola!" that answers the "hello" in the chorus of "Vertigo"). But the stark production can also be an advantage, since the band still sounds large and powerful. U2 still are expert craftsman, capable of creating records with huge melodic and sonic hooks, of which there are many on HTDAAB, including songs as reassuring as the slyly soulful "Sometimes You Can't Make It on Your Own" and the soaring "City of Blinding Rights," or the pile-driving "All Because of You." Make no mistake, these are all the ingredients that make How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb a very good U2 record, but what keeps it from reaching the heights of greatness is that it feels too constrained and calculated, too concerned with finding purpose in the past instead of bravely heading into the future. It's a minor but important detail that may not matter to most listeners, since the record does sound good when it's playing, but this conservatism is what keeps HTDAAB earthbound and prevents it from standing alongside War, The Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, and All That You Can't Leave Behind as one of the group's finest efforts.
 
rjhbonovox said:
and whats so WRONG with "Zooropa" "Passengers" and "Pop". They are two great albums and Passengers being a good experimental diversion. Some of the music on these records is great. That is one criticism of the new album. Too many of the songs sound radio friendly and could easily be singles, and not enough experimentation.:(

100% agree with you my friend :yes: :wave:
 
Rolling Stone dude wrote
"Yahweh" continues a U2 tradition, the album-closing chitchat with the Lord. It's too long and too slow, but that's part of the tradition.

WTF? Yahweh is the least 'slow' album-ender I can think of.
 
I'm happy with four stars. Four 1/2 would have been nice, but oh well. The review isn't too exciting, but I love the very end of it.

But corporate magazines still suck. :D
nirvana5.jpg
 
riteshbhatt1 said:
how about AMG's Review:

but this conservatism is what keeps HTDAAB earthbound and prevents it from standing alongside War, The Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, and *All That You Can't Leave Behind* as one of the group's finest efforts.

This guy really knows what he's talking about. :ohmy:
 
Back
Top Bottom