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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
What's wrong with professional journalists?

Nothing. I love professional journalists who critique the subject matter, and don't start articles confessing their opinions or prejudices on the band.

Example A of non-professionalism
Let me first admit that, of the many schools of thought on U2, I belong mostly to the crabbiest, seduced by the early-'80s post-punk romanticism but then put off permanently by the spreading gigantism and messianic grandeur.

Oh, good for you to be transparent about your bias. Now what about the music?
 
Of course there's shitty critics as well as great ones, like any field of anything in life. I just think it's silly to dismiss criticism in general because a few say mean things about a favorite band.
 
Most critics have a point of view like any ordinary human being.

Sure, but they have a higher expectation of analyzing the music, comparing it to the classics and contemporaries, and produce a professional opinion with clarity and examples on the subject matter. Every writer needs to follow these rules if they expect any credibility, but many of these reviews are biased with little substance.

Of course there's shitty critics as well as great ones, like any field of anything in life. I just think it's silly to dismiss criticism in general because a few say mean things about a favorite band.

It doesn't have to be just negativity. I get bothered by any bias that is positive to the band. When I read these reviews, I expect as little prejudice as possible in a published opinion, but yet these writers often outright expose their prejudices upfront. It's annoying as a person who often has to go through peer-review process to publish anything.
 
Sure, but they have a higher expectation of analyzing the music, comparing it to the classics and contemporaries, and produce a professional opinion with clarity and examples on the subject matter. Every writer needs to follow these rules if they expect any credibility, but many of these reviews are biased with little substance.



It doesn't have to be just negativity. I get bothered by any bias that is positive to the band. When I read these reviews, I expect as little prejudice as possible in a published opinion, but yet these writers often outright expose their prejudices upfront. It's annoying as a person who often has to go through peer-review process to publish anything.

With criticism though there's going to be some bias. It's not like simply reporting on an event and relaying the facts, this is an opinion based operation...reviewing an album or film or novel or play...personal experience and taste is going to come in no matter how neutral one tries to maintain. I agree though, that some critics will start out with an agenda even before giving the art in question a chance....I just tune those ones out and look for more balanced reviews. But I'm not going to lie, sometimes it can be really fun reading a nasty review, even on something I like, if it's funny. Just look up Roger Ebert's Jaws the Revenge review. Hilarious guy. May he rest in peace.
 
Nothing. I love professional journalists who critique the subject matter, and don't start articles confessing their opinions or prejudices on the band.

Example A of non-professionalism


Oh, good for you to be transparent about your bias. Now what about the music?

But...that's a really good review your quoting, did you actually read the whole thing?
 
I had a feeling that's what I was going to see when I clicked this thread. I just noticed that about an hour or two ago...I've ever seen them post garbage like that before....hilariously awful.
 
It's like a really spiritless Interference troll post.

Nothing on that list achieves even the cynical heights of 'Stop (the Poverty)'.
 
What's interesting this time around is that U2 doesn't have to worry about the critics' reviews in terms of people giving their music a listen. If, say, Pitchfork looks even further down its nose and pooh-pooh's U2's latest, the response is simple: Hey, it's free, it's already in your library.. Give it a listen see of you agree. don't let them tell you what to think.

Under previous management, I think the plan was to get as many big reviewers on their side ahead of time to try to help dictate taste. There's been a huge backlash against this in the 'i' generation, where your music is your choice, and fans are free to look through acres of tunes to like whatever they want to like.

Now, when I look at the comments sections under predictably negative reviews (NME) is a good example, I'm finding that now the commenters are rebelling against the usual, reactionary 'U2 sux' reviews. I read a lot of, 'Hey did this guy even listen to the music? It's actually pretty good!"

So even if the Apple release method had some sore points.. Giving people an album in their libraries whether they want it or not, the obvious corporate tie in, the fact they kinda did sort of thing before... It may prove to be a very smart move in that it gives the power back to the people to decide for themselves about the band, based on just the music.


Sent from my fingertips.
 
I haven't had the chance to listen to Grande's album although it's sitting in my Spotify queue. I can say that "Problem" and, especially, "Break Free" are two of the best pop songs of the year and better than anything U2 has done from 2005-onward. So, there's that.

:ohmy:
 
What ever the sort of collected conventional wisdom of the internet and social media that's said about this record (the stew of blogs, music critics, pop culture critics, tech writers, Twitter, etc.) over the next three days is pretty much going to set how the record and U2 is perceived for the near future, fairly or unfairly. In a week, probably sooner, no one is going to be talking about this record outside of places like this. At least, until Apple or U2 does their next big thing.

We'll know fairly quickly how cool or uncool U2 is going to be from here on out. None of that has anything to do with how good the music is, of course. But that's hardly the point these days, is it?
 
I think the commercial with The Miracle will be a big part if that too. I thought it looked great. As did Vertigo 10 years ago, and while I think V is overall the stronger song, TMOJR doesn't have annoying bouncy Bono and has the potential to be more a grower than a shower.

It's really sad, to me, how much Bono has come to overshadow the band. He's their creative lifeforce, a strong lyricist, and has an utterly unique voice capable of doing things and finding emotions no one else can -- he's utterly Bono, with that transcendent ache of liberation-through-pain. He's great on SOI. It's too bad that the South Park caricature has so taken hold. But he is partially responsible, certainly in the 80s, but also his "best band in the world" BS from the early '00s.

If the commercial can make them look cool and let the song grow, they will be fine.



Sent from
 
The critics will shit on it because the new business model doesnt suit them.
 
The Cloud is very generous, giving us Kate Upton's boobs and a new U2 album in the span of 2 weeks.
 
Omg Sasha Frere-Jones just wrote one of the nastiest reviews I've ever read about anyone. Imagine Dragons is better than U2? REALLY??? And there is no place for comments after it.

Let the hipsters & the kids hate U2...more tickets for us!!!


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
 
Okay, I've calmed down just a bit.

The New Yorker has been right up there with U2 as something I love for most of my life. I built up a collection of hundreds of issues from the 40s to the early 2000's. I finally had to read and discard many of them before my most current move five years ago. Throwing magazine files full of these issues that I collected from a back issues store in Boston and an antique show in the Chicago area and later, eBay, was so, so difficult.

The New Yorker has published some of the finest short stories, nonfiction, poetry and yes, cartoons ever published in this country. In Cold Blood first appeared in its pages. So did Hiroshima, which kids still read for classroom assignments. J.D. Salinger's short stories found a home here, as did John Updike's and John Cheever's. Roger Angell's baseball articles. Calvin Trillin's flawless articles on anything that struck his fancy. Charles Addams' cartoons. And on, and, and on.

And now, for this magazine that was the gold standard for writing to publish, on its website, this crock of shit review is so damn disappointing to this longtime reader. U2 has provided me with many of the best experiences of my life, from the JT tour stop at MSG to ZOO TV At Yankee Stadium to that surprise concert in Brooklyn to mark HTDAAB's release, and to see them trashed so thoroughly, so downright hatefully by a writer at the magazine I spent countless hours reading and collecting and enjoying...screw you, New Yorker. Screw. You.


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
 
Why is everyone so surprised by this reaction? The biggest band in the world, and for that reason most polarizing, just shoved their new album down the throats of 500 million people. For better or worse, this band needs to do everything big. And this is big. And with this level of big comes praise and venom. Both predictable and valid reactions.

Who cares.
 
"You won't see a long time fan give the album a glowing review"? Really? Seen quite a few to be fair


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Omg Sasha Frere-Jones just wrote one of the nastiest reviews I've ever read about anyone. Imagine Dragons is better than U2? REALLY??? And there is no place for comments after it.

Let the hipsters & the kids hate U2...more tickets for us!!!


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference

wtf is sasha frere-jonz?...Serously U2 have proven themselves...net reviewers not so much.
 
Oh how i've missed the blue crack!

I adore ADORE this album. Sure its not Achtung Baby, but its not the 90's anymore, and as much as I love that decade, its passed on!
I think they've done a stellar job at actually once again doing something no one else has done! Dropping it to 500 million people...beyonce wishes.
Of course people will hate, will bang on about egotistical bono, about being FORCED to have it etc, but who cares? On the most personal level, I've waited so god damn long for this record and compared to my first NLOTH listen, I am coming up roses. I LOVE the sounds they've found for this record and the stepping out of the comfort zone, whether you see that or not.
Reviews just love to be 'the man' bashing Bono and U2 et al. It's boring.
 
Any review from q or rolling stone yet?

I think you can sort of guess what review is going to come from certain publications. Id expect q's and the rolling stones reviews to be really good. Where as i knew for a fact the NME's would be bad
 
Critics already wrote their review before listening to the album. You know it is poor when they start off the review talking about tax avoidance

Sent from my SM-T210 using U2 Interference mobile app
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom