Pitchfork/Mojo/'U2 haters'

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

financeguy

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Dec 4, 2004
Messages
10,122
Location
Ireland
I see a lot of posts on here complaining about a certain magazine and website called Pitchfork Media (which I had never heard of until around a year ago) and their alleged dislike of U2 and I just wanted to make this point - it has always been thus. The rock music critical cognoscenti, for the most part, have never much cared for U2 - or even understood the context of U2.

Case in point: Mojo magazine, the doyen of the arbiters of good taste in 'real music' in the UK musical press, and very anti-U2 for most of their existence (though I think the current editor is a U2 fan, so they've mellowed a bit in recent years) once included the Unforgettable Fire in a list of the worst albums of all time. Yes, that's right. Worst albums of all time, not best, not even best failed attempts.

I just laughed when I read about this. It was like, they don't get it. It doesn't matter if they have 10,000 records in their collection and I only have 300, they will never get it.

And I think the reason behind this is that a particular ethic, in some elements of the cognoscenti, is elevated to the status of the zenith of 'real music' - being, essentially, I would guess, the craftsmanship of the bluesmen, in the case of Mojo, or, in the case of Pitchfork, the alt-rock/indie-rock genre, for want of a better expression - and that, for those types of magazines, anything outside that ethic doesn't really register. If it's outside that framework, it's probably suspect or careerist or opportunist or not credible or not 'heavy' enough. Melding different genres - that's suspect for a start, and U2, of course, have often done this.

That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong and we're right. Though I do wonder about the soul of someone that doesn't like Unforgettable Fire. I do wonder if they really know what music is supposed to be about.
 
for me, it's all about laughing Pitchfork off when it comes to U2. i will say though that i do use Pitchfork when searching for new music to get into.

back to U2, i think it's just inevitable. when you're making music at a high level for 30 years and add the fact that Bono is in the news all the time, they're an easy target.
 
For some idiotic reason I was actually angered a bit when Pitchfork came out with that very low score for NLOTH. Months on now and they actually were pretty spot on.

I like Pitchfork. Especially thought they did a fantastic job with their recent "Top 500 Tracks of the Decade" thing.
 
The 6.9 they gave HTDAAB is higher than what a lot of Interferencers would afford it.
 
Mojo gave Hutdab 4 stars. And though they haven't been brought up but are basically the same magazine, so did Uncut, for that matter. I think both gave NLOTH good reviews too, but like you mentioned, new Mojo editor an' all.

It entirely depends on the individual critic, however. But certainly, U2 are not sacred cows by any means.
 
I had never heard of Pitchfork before I read about them in a NLOTH review thread. And I don't care about them now. MOJO wrote a good NLOTH review and had a U2 cover story in 2005. I think these are the only two times I've read this magazine. I hardly ever buy and read music magazine, except when they have a really good U2 story with new pictures, interviews and all. I know the British media haven't been too kind to U2 and music magazines especially go more for the indie stuff, but this has been going on for years. The tour has been getting great reviews everywhere in Europe, only some British papers and magazines were a little bitchy. So what.
 
Pitchfork does give the older U2 albums good reviews, Under a blood red sky scores really highly.
 
The 6.9 they gave HTDAAB is higher than what a lot of Interferencers would afford it.

But the 4.2 for NLOTH was really low.

Still can't fathom how they - or, to be honest, anybody - can rate NLOTH below HTDAAB.

But then I'm sure most of this forum would find it hard to fathom how I can rate NLOTH below October, so perhaps I can't talk.
 
Still can't fathom how they - or, to be honest, anybody - can rate NLOTH below HTDAAB.

This appears to be your problem then -- you have difficulty accepting the existence of opinions that aren't yours.

I'm surprised to hear of this "worst" albums list, because I love Mojo and I've never noticed it to have any anti-U2 policy. I think it's by far the best music mag out there. NLOTH was given a 4-star review upon release, and I seem to remember the same mag giving Unforgettable Fire a 5-star review when it was re-issued some years ago. When you read one of these special features in a magazine, addressing some sacred cow album, it's just the opinion of one writer, and doesn't necessarily reflect anyone else's opinion. Usually the reviews of current releases are more fair, but they're also sanitized by corporate concern. That is, a mag like Mojo or Rolling Stone is afraid to give a U2 album less than a 4-star review, because they'll suffer for it from angry fans (who far outnumber their readers). I call this the Be Here Now after-effect -- when Oasis released Be Here Now in August 1997, they had been over-hyped to an absurd extent by the media, mainly in England but also internationally. Having disliked Morning Glory (their previous album) and then seen it go on to become the biggest seller since Sgt. Pepper, the British media lost their bollocks and slobbered all over the new Oasis album, showering it with 5-star reviews, even though it was clearly their weakest effort yet. When the huge backlash set in, it set a pattern for future reviews -- don't give anything 5-stars, and give all chart-topping artists 4-stars. That's pretty much how they've been ever since.

As further examples of why not to take printed critical perspectives seriously, remember that much of the music press, again particularly in England, which has far too much coverage of it, borders on amateur-Internet blog analysis. For example, when Pop was released in March 1997, Britain's Melody Maker, which had been going for decades and made its name reviewing jazz, gave the album a 0 out of 10 review (I'm not exaggerating), with the "writer" stating that Pop was one of the worst albums of all time.

When Unforgettable Fire was released, Rolling Stone (in the USA) gave it 3 stars out of 5, under the headline "Alliance with Eno yields flawed album". But then, about 8 months later, they had U2 on the cover as "Band of the 80s", and called them "maybe the only band that matters".

In short, one person's opinion is just one person's opinion. We could argue that certain opinions are worth more than others in certain contexts, but I won't get into that...
 
All those reviews in magazines don't say much. It's always the opinion of one person "who knows alot about music". When I'm looking for good albums I go to some music sites where alot of people post their opinions and that's alot more accurate (there are also people who hate U2 on those forums and give all the albums a 0 but they're just stupid)
 
if any band would be as calculated in maintaining their image as Pitchfork does then Pitchfork would slay them for it
 
This appears to be your problem then -- you have difficulty accepting the existence of opinions that aren't yours.

Please, Dr 65980, give me more psychological analysis based upon your reading of a few posts and next-to-no personal interaction.
 
Easy, cheesy. I didn't mean it as a slam against you -- I'm just saying that the purpose of this tread was your incredulity at some reviews you disagree with, and I'm pointing out that you solve this "problem" by not worrying too much about those reviews.

If this helps you psychologically, that is just an added bonus.
 
To correct myself -- the purpose of the thread was finance guy's incredulity, not Axver's.
 
Mojo magazine once included the Unforgettable Fire in a list of the worst albums of all time.

because of the incredible subjectivity of music, if someone doesn't like The Unforgettable Fire, fair enough!

but if someone says that The Unforgettable Fire is one of the worst albums of all time, that motherfucker should fucking die
 
because of the incredible subjectivity of music, if someone doesn't like The Unforgettable Fire, fair enough!

but if someone says that The Unforgettable Fire is one of the worst albums of all time, that motherfucker should fucking die

This.
 
First time, I have ever heard of this Magazine/Website. Though, this wouldn't be unusual for me. Since, I rarely read what critics have to say about music or film. I have my own taste.
 
I'm surprised to hear of this "worst" albums list, because I love Mojo and I've never noticed it to have any anti-U2 policy. I think it's by far the best music mag out there.

Can I ask you, is it only in recent years you started reading the mag? Because, in the 1990s, they were definitely anti-U2. Someone mentioned, correctly, that they put U2 on the cover in 2005 - this was the first time they had put U2 on the cover. In the 1990s, Mojo were the anti-Q (Q was always favourable towards U2, right from their inception).
 
To correct myself -- the purpose of the thread was finance guy's incredulity, not Axver's.

It isn't incredulity though as such. I've given the reasons why it is I think some elements of the music press don't (or, to be strictly accurate, didn't in the case of Mojo) like U2.
 
My understanding of Mojo is that it started at a classic-rock-retro magazine, which only had minor journalistic coverage of contemporary (non gray hair) artists. The first covers were all Dylan, Lennon, Hendrix, et al. So, it's not surprising that U2 wouldn't feature in that period. In more recent years, it's changed to balance new music and old music and thus it's not surprising that U2 are featured more. But no, I didn't really read it in the old days. However, was it not Mojo that had a large feature on The Joshua Tree about 6 or 7 years ago? I'm pretty sure it was, and it was a great article.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that large magazines with diverse staff, like Mojo , don't have official policies of hating one band. Although it is possible that an Editor could have final say over what gets published on that band...
 
However, was it not Mojo that had a large feature on The Joshua Tree about 6 or 7 years ago? I'm pretty sure it was, and it was a great article.

Pretty sure you're thinking of the Uncut issue. (edit - yep!)

And Uncut have always been fairly mixed with U2, I've got pretty much all the issues of the mag from its inception to around 2005, you see around equal amounts of perhaps unfair criticism and heaped praise. Mojo has definitely quietened down since the 90s, but I was under the impression they didn't think there was much going for U2 back when the mag started (mid 90s?).

I've even seen snubs of the band from the usually kind-to-U2 mags like RS, Q, Vox (defunct), etc. - hell, even in a magazine yearbook from around 1983/1984 they bring on the burnsauce! It's a little hard to understand for me since I wasn't born until a few years after that, but my understanding is that the band's grandiosity and pomp was an easy target since around War-time. But as you mentioned, it primarily comes down to who's writing the article in question.
 
But as you mentioned, it primarily comes down to who's writing the article in question.

This is actually something I've always been curious about, not having any clue about how music publications work. How do they decide who reviews this or that album or who writes this or that article, especially when I imagine that the reviewers' musical preferences/biases/likes/dislikes are known? Sure it's all individual opinion in the end, but most of the times the readers wouldn't recollect the name of the reviewer, they'll just say that magazine X said this and that about the album/band Y. Does it all depend on the head honcho of some sort?
 
For some idiotic reason I was actually angered a bit when Pitchfork came out with that very low score for NLOTH. Months on now and they actually were pretty spot on.

I like Pitchfork. Especially thought they did a fantastic job with their recent "Top 500 Tracks of the Decade" thing.

Sorry, I disagree with you and Pitchfork.

6 months on, I find that NLOTH is truly one of U2's best (far better than some of U2's so-called "classics") and is the best they have produced since AB. Is it perfect? No - but I would argue no album is perfect (that includes U2).

That said, NLOTH is not an album for the masses. And I fully understand how the aspect of "new U2" can blind one. I was this way about "Pop" - adoring it at first, but now, sadly, finding it a very weak attempt and one of U2's worst (sorry "Pop" fans).

As for Pitchfork, they are entitled to their opinion as we all are. But what I hate about any critic is that they spew forth nonsense (good or bad) to the masses. Thankfully, the internet has allowed us to respond in kind. We may not have columns, but blogs, forums like these and other outlets allow us to present our opinions.
 
Agree with doctorwho. I think NLOTH's legacy is going to end up qualitatively similar to that of War and The Unforgettable Fire: a very strong album with a couple of minor missteps.
 
I hated the Pitchfork NLOTH review when it came out, but I'm pretty sure the reviewer is actually a U2 fan that was just incredibly disappointed that they hadn't really pushed their sound in any new or exciting places in the face of the mainstream, as they had done for the generally accepted better parts of the career. I was kinda blinded by the whole new U2 music at the time, but I'm kind of in agreement now - NLOTH, for me, has lost its flavour very quickly, and I wasn't even listening to it a lot.

But that's just me, so yeah.
 
Back
Top Bottom