U2 In March 2005 Blender: Every CD reviewed
- Thread starter Nate Dogg
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
phanan
Blue Crack Addict
Nube Gris said:
Ah, but this is what is so great about Rolling Stone. They form an immediate opinion of something, and then later, when they've had a chance to see how well the album has done, or have had a chance to actually listen to it more, they revise their opinions.
Pop got four stars in the magazine itself, yes. When the album first came out.
It's now nearly 8 years later that we see the release of their new album review book, and in this book, they only give it three stars. Granted, it might be a different reviewer entirely, but it is still Rolling Stone.
It's like when Led Zeppelin was around. Back in the day, Rolling Stone gave them terrible reviews. Considered the band to be absolutely atrocious. Of course, over time, Led Zeppelin's place in rock and roll history has cemented itself, so naturally Rolling Stone needed to make a major revision to their Led Zeppelin reviews. Now they consider three of their albums five star material.
Being a rock critic is easy, I guess, because you can change your mind as often as you want.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
Zooropa also got four stars when it came out. So did ATYCLB. So did the bomb. If I'm not mistaken, so did Achtung Baby, and it was only changed to 5 stars later.
The only albums I remember getting less-than-stellar reviews were Rattle and Hum and The Unforgettable Fire (written by Kurt Loder). The Joshua Tree came out when they weren't giving star reviews, if I'm not mistaken.
I'd also like to point out the fallacy in Jick's argument that Rolling Stone's editorial board should be trusted. They gave Mick Jagger's Godess in the Doorway (from 2001) FIVE STARS, leading me to buy it. With the exception of a few tracks, the album was average at best.
Blender doesn't have much of a reputation, so J's just using this to forward his own agenda--getting people to bash POP.
laz
The only albums I remember getting less-than-stellar reviews were Rattle and Hum and The Unforgettable Fire (written by Kurt Loder). The Joshua Tree came out when they weren't giving star reviews, if I'm not mistaken.
I'd also like to point out the fallacy in Jick's argument that Rolling Stone's editorial board should be trusted. They gave Mick Jagger's Godess in the Doorway (from 2001) FIVE STARS, leading me to buy it. With the exception of a few tracks, the album was average at best.
Blender doesn't have much of a reputation, so J's just using this to forward his own agenda--getting people to bash POP.
laz
Mac Phisto
The Fly
It's funny how the magazine is written off cos its American, like a British mag inspires credibility, where Oasis, Radiohead and Prodigy pick up 8 of the top 10 "best songs ever" in every list.
Puhleeze.
Puhleeze.
Yes you're wright Phanan thats the way Rolling Stone conduces itself....too bad
Rolling Stone can't be taken seriously, they only want to sell.........they only say what people expect to hear.....too bad
So saying Pop is crap its more "in" with the times than reconfirm what they said in 97'
Rolling Stone can't be taken seriously, they only want to sell.........they only say what people expect to hear.....too bad
So saying Pop is crap its more "in" with the times than reconfirm what they said in 97'
