Pitchfork/Mojo/'U2 haters'

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by 65980

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.

[65980]

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...

[65980]

Correction -- it was Uncut that had The Joshua Tree feature!

[The Sad Punk]

Originally Posted by 65980

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.

[Saracene]

Originally Posted by The Sad Punk

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?

[doctorwho]

Originally Posted by GirlsAloudFan

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.

[bram]

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.

[U2girl]

Pitchfork gave NLOTH a lower rating than ATYCLB/Bomb.

[The Sad Punk]

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.