NLOTH Album Reviews - Professional / Web / Mag Reviews ONLY

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
It goes back to Eno's comments, not just in relation to having 'Moment of Surrender' as the lead single simply because they could get away with it (and he has a point given the devaluation of singles), but also his comments about Passengers in his 1995 diary, A Year With Swollen Appendices. Then Eno railed at the decision to put out Original Soundtracks 1 under the Passengers moniker rather than under the name of U2 as had been intended right until the end of those sessions, saying that U2 had earned the right to have that artistic freedom and criticising them for not having the conviction to use that freedom fully. It seems to me that they need to worry less about outward perceptions of their music and to concentrate on shaping the music they want to. I think that we see that in all but the middle section of this album and in the at times over-reliance on that chiming Edge guitar sound to somehow sanitise the sound a little; I would just push for the kind of spontaneity and adverturousness that is clearly visible on 'Moment of Surrender', parts of 'Unknown Caller', 'Fez-Being Born' and the vocal delivery on 'Cedars of Lebanon' (though the latter still reminds me of 'Walk to the Water' each time I hear it). Finally, I tend to agree with the below; the perceived 'failure' of Pop and the manner in which its perception has changed in twelve years has altered the nature and direction of U2's own approach.

Wow! I had always thought of Passengers as a complete side project, but it seems that this is really the moment that changed U2's career forever! If Passengers was released under the U2 name it would be considered the next logical step from Zooropa...it would have sold a helluva lot more copies, too. I don't want to bash Pop - I like it - but Pop is the sound of twelve mainstream songs from a mainstream band. If they'd have had the courage to release Passengers as U2 then who knows how crazy - how much further out on the fringes - the next recording could have been! Meaning that if they didn't have that crisis during the recording of Original Soundtracks, then maybe they never would have had it!
 
A disappointing review, to be sure. Compare this review for In Rainbows:

In Rainbows | Pitchfork

Sure, they spend a lot of time talking about the band's history. But then they really go into detail with most of the songs. As already mentioned, Dombal took a few pot shots at individual No Line songs and then bailed, as if a thorough criticism was beneath him.

And perhaps most irresponsibly, if you're going to give something a 4.2 (which is certainly better than the REALLY low scores they've dished out), then at least tell us what IS good about it. There's not a positive observation about the album in that whole review.

Exactly. They barely talked about the album at all. Didn't even mention WAS or Cedars.

I detest Pitchfork in general. This review doesn't change my mind.
 
These are good points, but what is the "purpose" of a U2 album...or any album for that matter? I have been responding very strongly on an aesthetic and emotional level to NLOTH, and it seems like this is going to continue for quite some time (unlike with HTDAAB, which I still appreciate). The philosophizing and hyper-analysis of newness/innovation/experimentation/pushing boundaries is really just a sideshow in the end. Do you love AB because it was a big departure from JT or because it's a great fucking record? The best albums of all time aren't hyper-experimental or a complete inversion of a signature sound.

Too true. This review is way too subjective. His evaluation of NLOTH is too relative to his expectations, U2's identity, along with his opinion of previous U2 albums. Just listen to the fucking music!

I can only imagine what score this would have received had it been for some unknown indie band.
 
So he disqualified himself by giving that ridiculously low rating. In other words,
because he disagreed with you and a bunch of other people about the album? Mind-blowing. I can understand your other point about most of the review having nothing to do with the album, but an opinion in sharp divergence from yours cannot be in and of itself grounds to invalidate it.

And 4.2 is NOT RIDICULOUSLY LOW. I don't think it deserves that low a rating, but in relation to the rest of U2' canon, excepting the last 2 albums, which is, for better or worse, how he reviewed it, I'm not sure it stands up that favorably either.


I'm sorry but this rating IS ridiculous, compare that to reviews and ratings of other artists and album, or even U2's last two albums, the guy may not like the band, but 4.2 is total crap, especially since the new album has got lots of postive reviews from other media. I really smell an agenda here: he waited to see what other media had to say and then countered it with this non-review and low rating. You may not love the album or even dislike the band, but this record clearly does not deserve such a low rating.
 
First of all, I understand why U2 refused to release Original Soundtracks Vol. 1 under the "U2" moniker - not everyone in the band was happy with the record. If you're going to release something, you damn well better be content with it, and if not... then you're just along for the ride, playing for others.

Secondly, the Pitchfork review - they were way off base. Perhaps they're trying to make up for the HTDAAB score (which, I feel, a lot of reviewers might be doing at this point). Maybe they think of U2 as purely a "singles" band and, when the record fails to deliver on any potential hits, they'll slag them off. While there were some good points (I hadn't thought of U2 on the defensive with this album, but it makes sense...), the fact that the reviewer didn't have ANYTHING good to say leaves a bit to be desired... not to mention the fact that he slags of any song that remotely resembles something else (all he had to say about MoS and UC is that the "oh oh oh"'s at the end were from "Stay" and that the opening chord is akin to "Walk On" ...and the beginning of Magnificent doesn't "fit").

It's not that Pitchfork gave the record a poor score that bothers me, but that the review did nothing to justify itself.
 
I'm glad about this Pitchfork review.

It proves that I'm right: After all this hype, I was expecting a low score from Pitch. It was kinda obvious. But I was afraid of the review itself. I was expecting that they would get every minor fault of this album and turn it into big flaws, etc., etc. and give actual "explanations" for the bad score. But they didn't. They weren't capable of analyze the songs properly. They just bashed. And it's great. No (maybe one, I'm not sure) review yet - and most important, Pitch's review - was capable of give a low score and explain why they did it (analyzing the album). I think that's a pretty good thing.
 
Screw everyone in the band! Sometimes all it takes is one member to be right! I wish they had balls enough to continue down the Passengers path, and Larry could just suck it up!
 
Too true. This review is way too subjective. His evaluation of NLOTH is too relative to his expectations, U2's identity, along with his opinion of previous U2 albums. Just listen to the fucking music!

Almost every review seems to be this way. I'm surprised Pitchfork didn't go on a tirade about Bono's humanitarian work. But seemingly every review feels the need to give us a long history of the band and then talk about Bono before even mentioning the album.

shit review, oh well. it might look bad on metacritic, but who cares? Three 5 star reviews will make it not too shabby.
 
Another review heading to Metacritic:

CD Review: 'No Line on the Horizon' by U2 - Eric R. Danton | Sound Check

I'm guessing 6 out of 10 on this one. And @$&^@# Pitchfork! :madspit:

By Eric R. Danton

Avid fans will find plenty to love about U2's new album: the brash, clanging guitar parts on "Magnificent," say, or the anthemic refrain on "I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight," which seems built to echo across huge stadium-sized crowds.

Novice listeners may want to start elsewhere.

"No Line on the Horizon" (Interscope) is a considered and nuanced work with significant depth beneath the dense, sometimes thorny exterior. Getting there, though, requires some work.
The band's 12th studio album is not as easily accessible as some of its earlier efforts, and though the songs are of a piece thematically, musing on interconnectivity and the quickening pace of a shrinking world, the Irish foursome explores a wide sonic palette.

Lead single "Get On Your Boots" is one of the speediest songs the band has recorded, with a bass line pulsing underneath tightly coiled fuzz-tone guitar. The Edge plays a brawny hard-rock guitar riff while Bono warns against "small men with big ideas" on "Stand Up Comedy," which contrasts with the subtly textured atmospherics (courtesy of producers Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois) on the traditional number "White as Snow."

Bono alternates between playful and soulful, peeling off wry one-liners on "I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight" and letting his voice ring with stately passion on the majestic "Moment of Surrender." He pushes his voice into falsetto on the churning title track, and sings with quiet, conversational understatement on "Cedars of Lebanon," the album closer.

It's not the easiest album to digest on first listen, or second. Ultimately, though, "No Line on the Horizon" is worth the extra effort it takes to dig in.
 
I would have respected Pitchfork's scoring if they had offered any evidence that the writer actually listened to the album. Love it or hate it, they should have done some in depth analysis of the songs. The lack of a full-on review is a real cop-out--a way for them to bestow a bad score without actually defending it. Pretty cowardly, actually, and more cliche than getting on the praise bandwagon.
 
You make a good point. But Animal Collective, I think (and according to Metacritic) basically deserves at least a 9.0.

The good point is made about Sticky Fingers and Rubber Soul...but, Trout Mask Replica is better than those two albums, so they'd still be kinda right!

Actually, Blur's Think Tank got a 9.0 I think upon review...they compared it to Sticky Fingers, so you never can tell. A modern Rubber Soul could be a Shins album, which they've given as high as 8.9, so really, while I understand exactly what you're saying and even agree, its not always so cut and dried.

Yikes. I should just hold my tongue, but this is too good to pass up. Rubber Soul's modern analog would not be the Shins, my friend. Rubber Soul, like all top-tier Beatle albums, was revolutionary both aesthetically and commercially. The Shins, charming as they may be (that B-flat in "Saint Simon" is delicious), are craftsmen in a dying genre. No one is looking to them to lead the way to *any*thing.

Secondly, while Trout Mask does articulate shockingly well one nether corner of its creator's restless mind (and not necessarily his best), it cannot match Rubber Soul's beauty, ease, instinct, or bigness of spirit.

And please do not tell me that this is only my opinion. I have a team of scientists working on this, and their findings confirm my own.

The new U2 album, by the way, is -- like all their work from this decade -- pretty good.
 
Has Pitchfork ever recognized the debt Radiohead owe to U2? They wouldn't dare put such a thing in print. I mean, the disparity between U2 and Radiohead reviews is obscene.
 
And please do not tell me that this is only my opinion. I have a team of scientists working on this, and their findings confirm my own.

:lol: Excellent.

The Pitchfork album failed to discuss in any sense what they liked about the album to justify a 4.2 score as opposed to 0.0, which is sneaky- they can criticize the band without showing any vulnerability in exposing what they actually like. That said, that was really all (all?) that was missing from the review. I liked reading the guy's analysis of U2's first two decades, and it's evident that he's a fan. His criticisms of the album are similar to mine. A flawed review, in a very Pitchfork way, but certainly illuminating.
 
The dot music review :
Presently occupying the position of World's Most Equally Loved and Loathed Band, it's easy to forget that U2 once pulled off a feat few ever achieve; completely reinventing themselves whilst winning over critics and bolstering an already vast fanbase. "Achtung Baby", "Zooropa" and the accompanying eye-popping tours represented the most fertile creative period of their career and for a while they seemed untouchable; straddling the globe like leather-clad, future-proofed, art-rockers, disposing of war and poverty along the way and doing it all with a smug swagger that showed they were clearly relishing their new found, hard won relevance.

For critics and fans alike though "Pop" was a step too far. Lurid, tacky and clutching desperately for modern impact and after a rethink, they duly retreated to the conservatism of "All That You Can't Leave Behind" and "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb". "No Line On The Horizon"'s lead single "Get On Your Boots", then is a somewhat portentous trailer, its fuzzy bass, funky drums and trashy sentiment revisiting the ill-advised crossover efforts of "Pop". It's a ghastly mish-mash of ideas, the tune itself utterly forgettable and all told, about as groovy as your dad pissed and trying to moonwalk. And ten times as embarrassing to boot.

The rest of the album isn't quite so throwaway but repeatedly misfires nonetheless. "Stand Up Comedy" goes for a kind of funk rock Led Zeppelin meets Red Hot Chili Peppers thing but labours under a lousy riff straight out of '101 Easy Rock Licks'. It also suffers - as do "Breathe" and "Unknown Caller" (complete with toe-curling, heave-ho, buzzword chorus) from an excess of Bono's overcooked half sung/spoken vocals. Elsewhere, when he's not scatting or clumsily free associating, he's over emoting, yelping at the farthest reaches of his register with self-parodical "Whoas" and "Ohs". "Moment Of Surrender" starts promisingly enough, some softly clicking precision assembled loops teeing up what sounds like a graceful ballad a la "One", only for Bono to tear into the verse, as crass as a Crazy Frog ringtone at a funeral before screeching across the sweetest of harmonies in its chorus.

It's not entirely awful though. Brian Eno's intricate production rewards over repeated listens and "Magnificent" is so vintage U2 that it's impossible not to picture Bono sprinting through a stadium belting out its strident, euphoric chorus, while Edge's unmistakable, chiming guitar rings ad infinitum behind him. Whether or not this image appeals depends of course on which of the two camps you fall into. For the lovers, this patchy album offering moderate advance on its immediate predecessors will probably suffice. But in truth it's an unmitigated failure to reconcile the sound of their past with a cohesive vision of their future - effectively another fudged clasp at relevance, which as they approach the twilight of their career makes for a frequently excruciating listen.

5/10
 
From the Scotland on Sunday newspaper

By COLIN SOMERVILLE
U2

No Line On The Horizon

***

Mercury 1796037, £12.72
A return to the chiming guitar motifs and terraces refrains of the band's early career has rescued U2 from disappearing up their own Bono.

The title track combines all the component parts of the equation to produce an explosive start. "Uh-oh-wah-oADVERTISEMENTh-oh" yelps the singer over a spatial musical arrangement lit up by the Edge's choicely detonated chords, then 'Magnificent' excels itself as one of their copyrighted elegantly layered anthemic rock specialities.

Reunited with the veritable trinity of producers Eno, Lanois and Lillywhite (who also sound like a pretty hot legal team), all the right buttons are being pushed in the studio.

'Unknown Caller' puts an interesting spin on that call-and-response formula that has served U2 so well, with a subdued horn swell teeing up more guitar heroics. 'Get On Your Boots' is clodhopping in comparison with everything else and a curious choice for a single, when the much smarter 'I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight' has the same immediacy without the idiocy of the pseudo-Dylan talking blues.

Mind you, 'Stand Up Comedy' also serves up a lyrical laugh or two, and makes you wonder if Bono would serve the cause better by sticking to the woah-oh-oh-oh-ohs. But this is the best U2 album since Achtung Baby, and 'Breathe' suggests that the band's classic approach can still sound contemporary.

Download this: Breathe, Cedars Of Lebanon


What a pathetic load of crap. He admits it's their best album since AB and yet it's only worth 3 out of 5. :huh:

Also he recommends COL to download yet complete forgets to mention the song on his entire review.
 
The album starting to get positive reviews on amazon.co.uk now, with many saying its the best since AB
 
Yikes. I should just hold my tongue, but this is too good to pass up. Rubber Soul's modern analog would not be the Shins, my friend. Rubber Soul, like all top-tier Beatle albums, was revolutionary both aesthetically and commercially. The Shins, charming as they may be (that B-flat in "Saint Simon" is delicious), are craftsmen in a dying genre. No one is looking to them to lead the way to *any*thing.

Secondly, while Trout Mask does articulate shockingly well one nether corner of its creator's restless mind (and not necessarily his best), it cannot match Rubber Soul's beauty, ease, instinct, or bigness of spirit.

And please do not tell me that this is only my opinion. I have a team of scientists working on this, and their findings confirm my own.

The new U2 album, by the way, is -- like all their work from this decade -- pretty good.

Yeah, no shit about Rubber Soul. Point is that nowadays the equivalent of Rubber Soul - the sound as we hear it nowadays - would be something like The Shins, rather than Radiohead or Ghostface Killah.

Perhaps you're right about Rubber Soul being better than Troutmask, but perhaps you're wrong. Rubber Soul is my least favorite "greatest" Beatles album simply because, nowadays-speaking, its only beauty, ease, instinct and bigness of spirit. I'm more interested in Troutmask's chaos, unease, instinct and splintering of spirit. It'll never finish as high in a concensus, but I hardly think that its wrong for an individual - especially one looking for the outer reaches of musical possibilities - to think its better than Rubber Soul. I've merely responded to the fact that it seems, nowadays, like the more revolutionary, less traveled down path of a record.

Lastly, I agree about the new U2, since that's what we're supposed to be talking about: it's pretty good.
 
Remember, U2 had to get in every one's faces from 2000-2004. They had 2 very succesful albums (with good music on those). Unfortunately, in order to have sales like that these days for a band like U2, they had to promote the shit out of them.

They became darlings again, and could do no wrong. This was also about the time that Bono's activism took a much larger role in the media. With 24 hr news reporting, it's easy to catch what the B-man is up to.

For the people who don't like U2's music, or don't like overload, this has probably been too much.

Then U2 come out and release a single that has people scratching their heads....like wait a minute....this isn't like the U2 of the 2000's. Those assholes!!!!

I really think this album will have luke warm reviews, but if you notice, a lot of the reviews bash Bono or the band for just being U2. Not a lot of great points to be made about the music.

At the end of the day though, what do YOU think about the album. Just cause Pitchfork, or Time calls it shit, doesn't mean it really is.
 
Has Pitchfork ever recognized the debt Radiohead owe to U2? They wouldn't dare put such a thing in print. I mean, the disparity between U2 and Radiohead reviews is obscene.

I'm not starting a U2/Radiohead debate. I'm just pointing out that U2 in the 80s into the early 90s, were Pitchfork a site back then, may have been awarded the same high marks. It could be that they honestly don't think, like many publications, that U2's current stuff holds up compared to other great bands, a category which many would place Radiohead at the forefront of.
 
I'm not starting a U2/Radiohead debate. I'm just pointing out that U2 in the 80s into the early 90s, were Pitchfork a site back then, may have been awarded the same high marks. It could be that they honestly don't think, like many publications, that U2's current stuff holds up compared to other great bands, a category which many would place Radiohead at the forefront of.

It could, but I don't know why people think that Pitch is different from anywhere else. Like any other place, they are biased towards something/someone. It's just how it goes everywhere and with everyone.
 
Most reviews I read were positive, that's enough for me. I never expected media in my country to give the album positive reviews, but they did. There were gazillions of reviews coming in over the weekend and there were many positive ones. The major music magazines gave good reviews, that's important. Some reviewers just cannot get over themselves. Why can't they give higher ratings if they can admit that the album is "their best since AB"?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom