Interference family - let's come together

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
RaisedByWolves said:
There's no cure for U2's Songs of Innocence | Georgia Straight, Vancouver's News & Entertainment Weekly

This so called writer from a Vancouver entertainment paper received an earful from me when I saw him at a local coffee shop. His review of SOI was very hateful and in our conversation he finally confessed that he actually didn't even listen to the album apart from a 10-15 second overview. Why the hell was Alan Ranta even allowed to review it!
Click to expand...

Do you really have nothing better to do than be an annoying dick in public?
 
Oh fuck off. Even if the way of finding out was kinda shitty, when are you going to stop being in denial about the fact that a lot of the reviews for this album were based on the Twitter rage and not the album?

This "The album sucked and you all just want a scape goat" argument has been played for months. Sometimes the obvious answer is the obvious one. The album never had a shot from critics that wanted to get five minutes of fame from the Internet. Why is that so hard to accept?
 
bono_212 said:
Oh fuck off. Even if the way of finding out was kinda shitty, when are you going to stop being in denial about the fact that a lot of the reviews for this album were based on the Twitter rage and not the album?

This "The album sucked and you all just want a scape goat" argument has been played for months. Sometimes the obvious answer is the obvious one. The album never had a shot from critics that wanted to get five minutes of fame from the Internet. Why is that so hard to accept?
Click to expand...

The obvious answer doesn't involve reaching for a multitude of excuses and judgments. There are far fewer "ifs" and assumptions if the guy just didn't like the album. Yeah, sure there are shitty critics. But the largest amount in U2's career to date? Just in time for this particular album? Alright. Sounds like fan insecurity to me.

And how has the argument become "played?" Has it been proven that no one listened to the album? Has a conspiracy been uncovered and I didn't notice?
 
Last edited:
LemonMelon said:
The obvious answer doesn't involve reaching for a multitude of excuses and judgments. There are far fewer "ifs" and assumptions if the guy just didn't like the album.

Yeah sure there are shitty critics. But the largest amount in U2's career to date? Just in time for this particular album? Alright.
Click to expand...

It's an album that only ended up a few percentage points, via Metacritic, lower than the last. It's not like we're talking about worlds of difference here, but you act as though there aren't "journalists" out there that were chomping at the bit to bring U2 down so they'd get a slap on the back from others. This reviewer (the one the thread is about) being one of the more obvious.

Let's be clear here, it's not like the album was panned anyways. To suggest that it was is just silly. But when one actually reads the poor reviews, they certainly do spend a lot of time harping on about the release method. If you think that didn't tinge the water, I don't know what to say, but it seems to fit the narrative you want to exist where this album is apparently just one big piece of crap, and to think otherwise clearly just means you're a mindless fanboy/girl.
 
What you, and others, seem to neglect is the possibility of it being both. There are definitely negative reviews that are negative reviews. There are also negative reviews that certainly feel as though they were just commenting on how old and out of touch U2 are. It can be both.
 
It's a 65 vs. a 72. And we all know that if RS didn't receive their yearly gift basket it would be even lower.

I have read the reviews and I think that most of them (including the one the guy got accosted for, which is ridiculous) had a sufficient degree of insight. With a traditional method, a handful of bad apples wouldn't have surfaced. Maybe we would be talking about a 70 instead of a 65. That's about it.

The release method hurt them more in the mainstream at large, I think. It's not like they had the critics in their pocket to begin with, RS and Mojo excepted. FWIW, I think the anger over the release method was entitled bullshit. Fuck those people.
 
Last edited:
And if pitchfork didn't shit on everything they've recently done , it would have a higher score. NME as well. Q and Rolling Stone and those two all negate one another.

The accosted writer (that's such a stupidly hyperbolic word to use here) said they reviewed the album without listening to it. Are you suggesting they were in fear for their life by Raised by Wolves and lied?
 
Well, she was raised by wolves, so obviously she was probably really aggressive and possibly really scary. :wink:
 
I wasn't there. An "earful" casts a wide net, but it sounds like overkill to me. It wasn't their album and the review wasn't libel to begin with. Who cares? A guy can't go out in public because he thought SOI sucked?

I'm not about to track down Ryan Dombal for all the stupid shit he's written over the years.
 
Last edited:
It was overkill. I never would've done it. It's pretty stupid. Doesn't change what was said, though, that's all I'm saying.
 
Hey guys, I should clarify. What I did was ask Alan Ranta if he actually listened to SOI before reviewing it, when he told me he hadn't, I expressed my enjoyment of the album and explained to him that if he is going to share his opinion on a piece of music he had better have actually listened to it. He then told me he has never liked U2's music and that he's more into punk. He mostly was offended by the Apple delivery system of the album and felt violated. His iPod music was his own and his own only. I then gave my opinions and that was that.
 
I'd tell somebody I didn't listen to the album just to make them go away.
 
Diemen said:
Checked out the consensus among other reviews and decided "hey, I could do that, too!"

:)
Click to expand...

See, this is what I mean by people not looking for the obvious answer. That sounds like it would take ages when they could just as easily listen to the album once.
 
LemonMelon said:
See, this is what I mean by people not looking for the obvious answer. That sounds like it would take ages when they could just as easily listen to the album once.
Click to expand...

I dunno. I've written about games that I had to for work and I would just look at a box score or something and come up with a recap that way, without having watched one second or one highlight of anything.

It's a little different with music, but if you have an axe to grind, you could just pick out one or two reviews, lift the negative things from the review, focus on the album release method and ta-da, an easy, 20-30 minute review, done.

Granted, I don't care either way. I like the album. If somebody out there doesn't like it, whatever, it doesn't bother me any.
 
Got them all the way to #2 for band of the year. :lol: Not bad.

They also wound up under "most frustrating act in music," so that's not especially complimentary.
 
LemonMelon said:
Got them all the way to #2 for band of the year. :lol: Not bad.

They also wound up under "most frustrating act in music," so that's not especially complimentary.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with your second point. I was kind of surprised that they are on enough of CoS's reader's radars to be considered. If they're frustrating, that kind of implies at least some of the people were expecting more from them?
 
VintagePunk said:
Not sure I agree with your second point. I was kind of surprised that they are on enough of CoS's reader's radars to be considered. If they're frustrating, that kind of implies at least some of the people were expecting more from them?
Click to expand...


This.


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
 
VintagePunk said:
Not sure I agree with your second point. I was kind of surprised that they are on enough of CoS's reader's radars to be considered. If they're frustrating, that kind of implies at least some of the people were expecting more from them?
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on the definition of "frustrating." Great album with a shitty release method? Previously great band with a shitty new album?

The acts around U2 don't help clear anything up:

Mark Kozelek: remarkably talented cynical douchebag, definitely should be #1
Iggy Azalea: says unintelligent things and makes terrible music
Taylor Swift: I don't know why she's here. For "selling out?" Non-existent music video controversy?
Billy Corgan: egotistical douchebag, hasn't released relevant music in years

So would I want U2 in this company? I honestly have no idea.
 
Last edited:
LemonMelon said:
I suppose it depends on the definition of "frustrating." Great album with a shitty release method? Previously great band with a shitty new album?

The acts around U2 don't help clear anything up:

Mark Kozelek: remarkably talented cynical douchebag, definitely should be #1
Iggy Azalea: says unintelligent things and makes terrible music
Taylor Swift: I don't know why she's here. For "selling out?" Non-existent music video controversy?
Billy Corgan: egotistical douchebag, hasn't released relevant music in years

So would I want U2 in this company? I honestly have no idea.
Click to expand...

Ha. Point taken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Headache in a Suitcase
  • Sticky
U2 in Vegas - Tips for booking hotels, flights and other Vegasy type things.
20 21 22
Replies
642
Views
32K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
D
Paul Epworth provides some interesting insight into U2's songwriting process.
Replies
24
Views
2K
An Cat Gav
An Cat Gav
KhanadaRhodes
  • Sticky
Guntersville, Alabama Superthread
Replies
3
Views
2K
bono_man2002
bono_man2002
LuckyNumber7
Desert Island Mini - LP Island - Rules & Sign Up Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
4K
Axver
Axver
Irvine511
The Harper's Letter and Cancel Culture
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Vlad n U 2
Vlad n U 2

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom