Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
"Thanks, U2" should be the new "Thanks, Obama!"
i'm going to go with "because Bono!"
"Thanks, U2" should be the new "Thanks, Obama!"
Not really. I just listen to a ton of music and know what certain publications want out of new music, etc. I have no axe to grind. I just realistically think this will be the worst reviewed album of the last four. Sites like Pitchfork want intriguing new sounds. Regardless of whether or not you like most of their Best New Music selections, there's definitely an undercurrent running through all of them that has a certain spark of freshness/uniqueness. Fans might think this new U2 record is an interesting step for them, but it hardly does anything revelatory in a broader context, nor does it have some jaw dropping, inspiring moments of catharsis like "Beautiful Day" or "City of Blinding Lights" - tracks even Pitchfork has gushed over.
Deadspin.com:
U2 Never Gave Their New Album A Chance
The new U2 record arrived as spam, foisted upon you by the spam filter itself.
Innocence isn't terrible, but its introduction to us was terrible, and in 2014 that's basically the same thing.
Stock market just crashed #blameU2
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
i'm going to go with "because Bono!"
Actually, the stocks rose today, post U2 album.
Praise Radiohead for their innovative way of raising the stock market by doing nothing. Wish U2 would do that!
funny that Bono himself made the same comparison to junk mail. in that way I'm reminded of the ironic 90's U2, announcing albums at KMart and making us all watch TV at a concert. I'm sure the band realized that releasing the album in this way would piss off the haters. I like to think they're trolling just a little bit
Dog still took a shit in the living room though, that's U2s fault
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
So based on this is it really a fair way of judging an album? We have seen from interference that people are loving the album but yet the critics speak and that's it the world ends up believing it's a poor album, doesn't sit right that someone who is provably so far up their own arse has the right to try to influence people in a national publication
I don't think it's about influencing people at all and the fans around here or any band's message board have no reason to get their panties in a twist. It's interesting to see what members of the music press think about the album, that's all. I'd feel sorry for anyone who let their opinions be dictated to them by a certain critical establishment.
What sites like Pitchfork do best is bring worthy new albums or artists to light and I guess that's the big benefit of the music press industry. No artist is really going to be helped by a weak review, even if it does draw the attention to a new album or project. So I'm enjoying watching this to see just which publications think the album is a must hear of 2014 and which ones are either baffled by it or could really care less.
But the fact is some parts of the music "press" (and I call them that VERY loosely) already have their minds made up before writing an article, so they are already influenced to write a negative review regardless, and the sad thing is most people this day and age are influenced by what they read or see as being "cool"
I have no problem if useless oxygen deprived beings called "music critics" like or dislike an album.
What I do have a problem with is attacking U2 for giving away a FREE album. iTunes made it so easy that it was already in people's clouds - they just had to listen. Yet, this is tantamount to rape due to lack of consent. And when the bulk of the review is about this or nonsensical tax-dodging aspects, then it's clear it's not even a review. The writer just wants to rant about his views, even if the facts are wrong, and masquerade it as a "critique". That makes his work even more useless, if that's possible.
Again, when Radiohead release an album for free - genius. When Beyonce dropped a surprise album (that you had to pay for) - genius. U2 does it - tax-dodging devil incarnations.
As someone who once wrote a review or two, it's SO HARD to write positive reviews; it's much easier to write negative ones—or, as one of my favorite artists put it, it's so easy to "paint with a black brush."
What's more, negative reviews generate more attention. And, bizarrely, they even seem to bestow a measure of authority on their writers.
Some parts of the press are predisposed not to like this because there's nothing for them to like. Of course Pitchfork won't like this record. It doesn't offer them anything new or stands out among the rest of the music they praise. You can't say they just "hate U2" though when they give their album reissues high marks.
If anything, they're less biased than lifetime fans of a band that listen to about five new albums a year at most...
Pretty much
I don't get how seemingly everyone I meet - not to mention the entire internet - hates U2, but I still have to sit at my computer constantly hitting refresh when tickets are about to go on sale. Where are all of these people?
U2's concept was nothing new and was blatantly forced upon a half billion people. The music also wasn't as well received as Radiohead or Beyonce - both of whom put out records that are widely considered the best of their respective decades.
If anything, they're less biased than lifetime fans of a band that listen to about five new albums a year at most...
U2's concept was nothing new and was blatantly forced upon a half billion people. The music also wasn't as well received as Radiohead or Beyonce - both of whom put out records that are widely considered the best of their respective decades.
who are you talking about exactly? you seem to be implying being a lifelong U2 fan also means you don't listen to much other music. curious as to what evidence you have of this assertion.
The U2 of 2014 come across improbably as underdogs. More startling yet, they've made a record that suits the role.
U2's concept was nothing new and was blatantly forced upon a half billion people. The music also wasn't as well received as Radiohead or Beyonce - both of whom put out records that are widely considered the best of their respective decades.
who are you talking about exactly? you seem to be implying being a lifelong U2 fan also means you don't listen to much other music. curious as to what evidence you have of this assertion.
what did that have to do with my post?? my point was that for a band that seemingly everyone hates on (and this is nothing new), they sure have a lot of fans ready to shell out $60+ to see them live.
By whom ?
I can't stand either of them.
And frankly my opinion is the only one that counts.
To me.
I had meant to quote the post you had quoted. Sorry for the error.
And no, none of the haters are seeing them live. Playing to 4 million people live still means the other 7 billion on this planet could care less...
What more can U2 do? Seriously?