Surprise Surprise! Pitchfork hates NLOTH!

[mikaelmi]

Mr. Dumbai may have a point when it comes to Eno. Honestly, his latest work with David Byrne, Paul Simon and Coldplay isn't exactly cutting edge... and his pop-art-ideas have become quite predictable. Eno is more about the past than about the future, and perhaps U2 need to find a new guru to stay relevant.

 

[Popmartijn]

Why all this dismissal of Pitchfork? They did do a great review about music, giving it a 6.8: Pitchfork Gives Music 6.8 | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

[last unicorn]

But the chorus is my favourite part

Yeah, mine too. I like the contrast it produces in the song. I hear it in my head all the time.

And I agree with those who say that reviewers shouldn't tell us if we should like or not like an album.

 

[Niceman]

Why all this dismissal of Pitchfork? They did do a great review about music, giving it a 6.8: Pitchfork Gives Music 6.8 | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Perfect! LOL!

"Schreiber's semi-favorable review, which begins in earnest after a six-paragraph preamble comprising a long list of baroquely rendered, seemingly unrelated anecdotes peppered with obscure references, summarizes music as a "solid but uninspired effort." "

 

[intedomine]

Just a little something for those claiming that Pitchfork is "anti-mainstream" - they gave Justin Timberlake's FutureSex/LoveSounds an 8.1, if I recall correctly.

.

Good album that, deserved 8.1.

 

[The Sad Punk]

Good album that, deserved 8.1.

Yeah, I like it too. Just pointing out that it's a very mainstream album.

 

[cobl04]

at least this shows us that this guy knows his U2...he knows the background and can see the similarities between new and old songs in detail...
also - maybe he has a point in not liking Eno's influence, especially in intros. Intros start interesting and than it they end up forgotten by the end of the song. Like they were made only to leave an effect of something new. Look at intros from Magnificent, Fez and maybe UC, and than look at the intro to, for instance, UTEOTW - for me a totally different story. In UTEOTW the intro is integral part of the song that is present untill the end, and in Magnificent it's just a nice beginning which has no relation to the rest of the song.

4.2 is lousy grade, and I love the album, but he has a point. He comes of as someone who usually loves and admires U2 for their music and their will to spread their music styles, and now he is disappointed because he feels that they are just pretending to have interest in something new and in reality they don't have it in them anymore. Like he feels that they are in some way dishonest and he is pissed - thus 4.2.

I'm not saying that I agree with him, but if you read his text you can get this feeling. That he comes from that place.

Oh, I agree, he obviously knows his stuff, I just think he is being irrational and unfair. A lot of the reasons he puts down the album are petty reasons. Not liking the fact that Eno/Lanois produced again - so what? Intros being different to actual songs, again doesn't really matter.

I really like the chorus to NLOTH. I think it makes the song. Its got a kind of eerie goodness about it that perfectly introduces the album....I do agree about the MOS/Stay comparison, but I almost feel like they could get a free pass on that one. It was the first and only time they played the song together and they were improvising through much of it. I could be totally wrong here, but i think it was necessary to sing a familiar round of "oh oh oh oh" in order to sing in unison. I dont know but as far as real time song writing exercises go, I'd take a few familiar "oh oh oh"s over the muddy ramblings of Elvis Presley and America any day

Personally I think it's the lowest moment on the album, along side when Bono sings "Magnificent", the phrases in Unknown Caller and the chorus in Boots. The verses and the music really swell and build up to something, and then it's just let down by a paltry, underwhelming, 'no, no line on the horizon, no, no line...'

 

[Zoomerang96]

I don't see why you guys are throwing a hissy fit over this. It's Pitchfork.

I'm just suprised they rated Bomb so much better when it's so much worse.

yeah, no kidding.

and i can definitely sympathise with the reviewer's comments. i have a love-hate relationship with the album... i've given it a large number of listens and some days it's good, and other days i think "oh yeah, this IS the band that wrote elevation".

 

[Zoomerang96]

Not liking the fact that Eno/Lanois produced again - so what? Intros being different to actual songs, again doesn't really matter.

well that's not what he said, because what he did say matters.

fez being born are two songs put together, they didn't hide that, nor does one necessarily have to. but the result in this case doesn't work in the reviewers opinion, and comes across as a mess.

i love how reviews that are negative are instantly dismissed as being irrational.

if you want mainstream satisfaction to this record, go re-read the q and rolling stone reviews.

 

[Zoomerang96]

The fact that these 'professional' reviewers hate the album makes me love it only more. Because the critics usually bitch U2 till the very last piece.

see, this is what bothers me. this is factually incorrect. critics do NOT "usually bitch u2 till the very last piece".

come on.

 

[Marko]

Oh, I agree, he obviously knows his stuff, I just think he is being irrational and unfair. A lot of the reasons he puts down the album are petty reasons. Not liking the fact that Eno/Lanois produced again - so what? Intros being different to actual songs, again doesn't really matter.



Personally I think it's the lowest moment on the album, along side when Bono sings "Magnificent", the phrases in Unknown Caller and the chorus in Boots. The verses and the music really swell and build up to something, and then it's just let down by a paltry, underwhelming, 'no, no line on the horizon, no, no line...'

Yeah, I also think that he is unfair, but I was just speculation on where is he coming from - and I think that he comes from a place where he is very frustrated (and disapointed) by U2's output and has to get some steam out by giving them low grade

NLOTH chorus - we agree completely...just imagine if that energy and power lasted for whole song...bliss

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

Ha!! This is hilarious.
Cracks me up. The same Interference members who hate How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb have been on pins and needles waiting for the GREAT Pitchfork to post their review of NLOTH.
And they hate it.
I don't read Pitchfork. I could care less about Pitchfork. ...but for those of you that do. ...and for those of you that created and posted to threads on Interference SPECULATING about what the great Pitchfork would give NLOTH. It's time to admit it---How To Dismantle and Atomic Bomb is a good album. And No Line on the Horizon sucks a dogs ass.
It's true!! Pitchfork says so!!
The remainder of Interference (and any sane u2 fan) will remember that
Rolling Stone gave UF 3/5 stars and said that U2/Eno was a bad idea because U2 had enough atmosphere anyway.
Spin magazine gave Achtung Baby a yellow light. That's bad, in case you're wondering.

Pitchfork hates nloth. I love it.
...and they think HTDAAB is better. The next person who posts claiming that Pitchfork's opinion is any better (or saner) than Rolling Stone's gets a boot in the face. What a joke.

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

well that's not what he said, because what he did say matters.

fez being born are two songs put together, they didn't hide that, nor does one necessarily have to. but the result in this case doesn't work in the reviewers opinion, and comes across as a mess.

i love how reviews that are negative are instantly dismissed as being irrational.

if you want mainstream satisfaction to this record, go re-read the q and rolling stone reviews.

I agree. At least Pitchfork acknowledges what an excellent album How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb is. If only U2 would return to that kind of brilliance.

 

[Bernie02]

I would just reiterate that they gave Scarlett J's album a 5.5

What else is there to say?

 

[mikal]

I agree. At least Pitchfork acknowledges what an excellent album How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb is. If only U2 would return to that kind of brilliance.

LOL! Great response!

 

[Marko]

I would just reiterate that they gave Scarlett J's album a 5.5

What else is there to say?

come on...she deserves at least 4.5 only for being so hot....and than additional 1 for the album

 

[mikal]

i love how reviews that are negative are instantly dismissed as being irrational.

you're taking this comment a little far. i would love to read and would welcome a negative review that was actually written well, and if i'm missing one, please point me in the right direction. but every negative review of this album that i have read so far doesn't actually talk about the music, but instead cites external factors for not liking the album. the Pitchfork review is shit. even the snobby anti-U2 kids on Atease even admit that the review is complete bullshit.

 

[Clawgrabber]

Ha!! This is hilarious.
Cracks me up. The same Interference members who hate How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb have been on pins and needles waiting for the GREAT Pitchfork to post their review of NLOTH.
And they hate it.
I don't read Pitchfork. I could care less about Pitchfork. ...but for those of you that do. ...and for those of you that created and posted to threads on Interference SPECULATING about what the great Pitchfork would give NLOTH. It's time to admit it---How To Dismantle and Atomic Bomb is a good album. And No Line on the Horizon sucks a dogs ass.
It's true!! Pitchfork says so!!
The remainder of Interference (and any sane u2 fan) will remember that
Rolling Stone gave UF 3/5 stars and said that U2/Eno was a bad idea because U2 had enough atmosphere anyway.
Spin magazine gave Achtung Baby a yellow light. That's bad, in case you're wondering.

Pitchfork hates nloth. I love it.
...and they think HTDAAB is better. The next person who posts claiming that Pitchfork's opinion is any better (or saner) than Rolling Stone's gets a boot in the face. What a joke.

hahahahah. great post.

 

[doctorwho]

I never heard of Pitchfork until someone recently mentioned them on this site.

Then again, am I in the minority or majority? No one I know in real life has ever mentioned Pitchfork to me. In contrast, people are discussing the Rolling Stone and NY Times articles.

 

[doctorwho]

see, this is what bothers me. this is factually incorrect. critics do NOT "usually bitch u2 till the very last piece".

come on.

I would take all of your points seriously, if it weren't for the fact that you haven't liked anything U2 have produced since 1997. In other words, you agree with the reviewers, so you defend them. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but as you've not liked U2 in 12 years, it does make one wonder how unbaised your views are.

 

[Zoomerang96]

you're taking this comment a little far. i would love to read and would welcome a negative review that was actually written well, and if i'm missing one, please point me in the right direction. but every negative review of this album that i have read so far doesn't actually talk about the music, but instead cites external factors for not liking the album. the Pitchfork review is shit. even the snobby anti-U2 kids on Atease even admit that the review is complete bullshit.

some of those members are interferencers, and they're not "snobby".

i agree this review goes off the point of disecting the album a lot, but that doesn't mean it's shit in itself.

 

[Zoomerang96]

I would take all of your points seriously, if it weren't for the fact that you haven't liked anything U2 have produced since 1997. In other words, you agree with the reviewers, so you defend them. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but as you've not liked U2 in 12 years, it does make one wonder how unbaised your views are.

that in itself is a bit strange though, isn't it? not taking someone seriously because they don't much care for a band's recent material? have i been going about saying "u2 are horrible!!"

this album isn't bad, but i'm not overwhelmed by it. then again, i don't find myself overwhelmed that often anymore considering i don't really listen to music as much as i used to as a whole.

anyway, if i'm raining on people's parades, i'll just leave it alone. this is a fan site, in a particular forum where people should feel very welcome to be as happy as they feel fit in regards to all things u2.

 

[mikal]

some of those members are interferencers, and they're not "snobby".

and i'm one of them. but you can't deny that there are some very, very snobby people over there in the Music forum that think their taste is that much better than everyone else's. the only reason i visit Atease is because i've been introduced to some good bands that i would have never heard of. but i will never get into the circle there. the level of elitism gets quite rediculous.

i agree this review goes off the point of disecting the album a lot, but that doesn't mean it's shit in itself.

well, then is it half shit? 3/4 shit?

 

[Zoomerang96]

well, then is it half shit? 3/4 shit?

seriously, no reviewer needs to defend himself since a point of view.

wasn't it you who asked me to show you one negative review that WASN'T shit? i mean honestly... does that not seem a bit odd to you?

are you really saying that you've never read a legitimate negative response to a u2 album? ... really?

 

[mikal]

seriously, no reviewer needs to defend himself since a point of view.

wasn't it you who asked me to show you one negative review that WASN'T shit? i mean honestly... does that not seem a bit odd to you?

i asked you to show me one negative review about this album that was written well. i honestly haven't read one yet.

are you really saying that you've never read a legitimate negative response to a u2 album? ... really? [/QUOTE]

i don't know where you would gather this from, other than feeling the need to put words in my mouth. i have plenty of friends and have read plenty of lukewarm or negative reviews about U2 over the years, and to be honest, i've been able to see their point, even if i don't necessarily agree with it. i just haven't seen any well written reviews that are negative about this album yet. and before you put more words in my mouth or try to imply that i'm a blind sheep, you should know that i think the RS review is also poorly written.

 

[Yahweh]

The reviewing season allows a lot of U2 haters to come out of the woodwork and review material from a band they have never liked nor will ever like. The reviewer should actually be required to list the top 5 albums they like and then at least you can see where they are coming from. I think the idea of reviewing music or art is quite rediculus in itself though.

 

[Zoomerang96]

i don't know where you would gather this from, other than feeling the need to put words in my mouth. i have plenty of friends and have read plenty of lukewarm or negative reviews about U2 over the years, and to be honest, i've been able to see their point, even if i don't necessarily agree with it. i just haven't seen any well written reviews that are negative about this album yet. and before you put more words in my mouth or try to imply that i'm a blind sheep, you should know that i think the RS review is also poorly written.

auch... no, i genuinely thought you'd said that earlier about not ever reading a poor/well written review.

but my point still stands that i believe the overwhelming majority of responses to negative reviews is that it comes from being offended that someone has said something unpleasant about their favourite band.

i mean if the reviews themselves are poor, then just what the fuck are the responses to those reviews?

 

[Zoomerang96]

The reviewing season allows a lot of U2 haters to come out of the woodwork and review material from a band they have never liked nor will ever like. The reviewer should actually be required to list the top 5 albums they like and then at least you can see where they are coming from. I think the idea of reviewing music or art is quite rediculus in itself though.

exactly! but people are interested anyway, so there's a demand for it.

 

[mikal]

auch... no, i genuinely thought you'd said that earlier about not ever reading a poor/well written review.

but my point still stands that i believe the overwhelming majority of responses to negative reviews is that it comes from being offended that someone has said something unpleasant about their favourite band.

i mean if the reviews themselves are poor, then just what the fuck are the responses to those reviews?

hey, no harm done.

i definitely will say that i somewhat agree with you on that point. i do feel that some people get defensive quite easily when they see a negative review. i guess i've been a fan for so long that i've experienced enough backlash over the years that it doesn't bother me as much.

now rating HTDAAB over NLOTH does bother me!

 

[Zoomerang96]

hey, no harm done.

i definitely will say that i somewhat agree with you on that point. i do feel that some people get defensive quite easily when they see a negative review. i guess i've been a fan for so long that i've experienced enough backlash over the years that it doesn't bother me as much.

now rating HTDAAB over NLOTH does bother me!

ha, yeah that bothers me too.

what i really wish for now though, is that they'd used the long intro version for boots... and made it longer.

actually screw that, just take that part and the bridge and make a song from that alone. that's good times in the form of audio right there.