Surprise Surprise! Pitchfork hates NLOTH!

[mobvok]

I laugh at how it seems Pitchfork doesn't know what Pitchfork thinks. They gave HTDAAB a 6.9, but then they diss it here? And Pitchfork actually gave a good opinion of GOYB when it came out, and now they're dissing it as a mess?!

Maybe they should listen to a song or an album enough the first time so they don't have to keep playing the "revise" game to come across as having the "hip" opinions.

You laugh at how different people were dispatched to write the HTDAAB review vs. the NLOTH one?

Atomic Bomb review calls Pop "disastrous", NLOTH calls it a "knee-jerk victim" and is a whole lot fonder. So, two different people there.

It's possible to criticize Pitchfork without making silly attacks.

 

[Zoonation76]

The sad reality is that U2 is so big that a pretentious self-absorbed site like Pitchfork makes their hay on ripping the biggest thing around; that is just the way it is.

I mean, I really like Animal Collective's rip off of Panda Bear, but 9.6...come on.

All you need to know is that Pitchfork gave Scarlett J's album 5.5. That means it is 20% better than NLOTH according to these hacks. No need to argue any more really; Pitchfork is a joke and has completely lost the plot. It is cool to hate U2, and being "cool" is all Pitchfork cares about, which is quite ironic when you think about it.

Those who cannot do, teach..those who cannot teach, write for Pitchfork.

 

[Iskra]

You mean they didn't like the lyrical genius of "She's a rainbow and she loves the peaceful life."?
And why all the hate for HTDAAB on this site? When it came out, everyone was tripping all over them selves like they are now for NLOTH.
I think it's a better album than NLOTH by a mile.
Miracle Drug is a beautiful song and Yahweh is as well not to mention that Vertigo is better than Boots by a long shot.

 

[digitize]

You mean they didn't like the lyrical genius of "She's a rainbow and she loves the peaceful life."?
And why all the hate for HTDAAB on this site? When it came out, everyone was tripping all over them selves like they are now for NLOTH.
I think it's a better album than NLOTH by a mile.
Miracle Drug is a beautiful song and Yahweh is as well not to mention that Vertigo is better than Boots by a long shot.

Not to mention, the production, and the clipping - I love clipping and distortion!

 

[MMP]

Not to mention, the production, and the clipping - I love clipping and distortion!

Don't make me go all ....

 

[Clawgrabber]

The sad reality is that U2 is so big that a pretentious self-absorbed site like Pitchfork makes their hay on ripping the biggest thing around; that is just the way it is.

I mean, I really like Animal Collective's rip off of Panda Bear, but 9.6...come on.

All you need to know is that Pitchfork gave Scarlett J's album 5.5. That means it is 20% better than NLOTH according to these hacks. No need to argue any more really; Pitchfork is a joke and has completely lost the plot. It is cool to hate U2, and being "cool" is all Pitchfork cares about, which is quite ironic when you think about it.

Those who cannot do, teach..those who cannot teach, write for Pitchfork.

Those that can't do... often have to... and those that can't do... often have to write... FOR PITCHFORK!!!

 

[Fullonedge3]

You laugh at how different people were dispatched to write the HTDAAB review vs. the NLOTH one?

Atomic Bomb review calls Pop "disastrous", NLOTH calls it a "knee-jerk victim" and is a whole lot fonder. So, two different people there.

It's possible to criticize Pitchfork without making silly attacks.

Well, alright, I'm not completely sure how Pitchfork works. But if their writers are just a disparate bunch who can't agree on anything, who decides who gets to write each album's review? It seems kind of silly that whomever is chosen gets to permanently stamp the album with Bitchfork's opinion. How does Pitchfork maintain any credibility when their official opinions on identical subject matter vary to such a degree? I mean, maybe that's just how Bitchfork works...but there's something wrong when you go back to their archived reviews and read completely different takes on the same song or album.

 

[mobvok]

Well, alright, I'm not completely sure how Pitchfork works. But if their writers are just a disparate bunch who can't agree on anything, who decides who gets to write each album's review? It seems kind of silly that whomever is chosen gets to permanently stamp the album with Bitchfork's opinion. How does Pitchfork maintain any credibility when their official opinions on identical subject matter vary to such a degree? I mean, maybe that's just how Bitchfork works...but there's something wrong when you go back to their archived reviews and read completely different takes on the same song or album.

I think they hire freelance writers, so there's a fair bit of churn. It does go to show how ludicrous the numbering system is, much less to a decimal point. Numbers give a sense of objectivity, but there's no way in hell the NLOTH reviewer and the HTDAAB reviewer would give each other's album the same grade.

 

[adenoid_hynkel]

.

Pitchfork needs to pull their head out of Jack White's ass and actually listen to the stuff they review before writing their pre-conceived, oh-so-hip assessments.
None of the tred-of-the-moment stuff they praise (Fleet Foxes) will have anywhere near the shelf life of this album.

 

[dafish1234]

The guys who read Pitchfork and take it seriously would roast them if they liked this album. Its ok.

I still can't believe Rollingstone threw 5 stars on it. Wasn't expecting that

 

[U2DMfan]

Rolling Stones' 5 Star review is equally as laughable as this 4.2 from Pitchfork.

 

[LemonMelon]

Rolling Stones' 5 Star review is equally as laughable as this 4.2 from Pitchfork.

Not really. One of those sites actually wrote about the album.

 

[adenoid_hynkel]

IT's obvious Pitchfork hear "Boots" based their opinion of the album on it (or moreso the fact that it's not a hit) and gave the other tracks only a glance.

 

[Iskra]

Rolling Stones' 5 Star review is equally as laughable as this 4.2 from Pitchfork.

Agreed.
Q called it a Masterpiece.
There must be a happy medium between Pitchfork being morons and RS and Q pandering.

 

[Jive Turkey]

None of the tred-of-the-moment stuff they praise (Fleet Foxes) will have anywhere near the shelf life of this album.

Fleet Foxes is a beautifully timeless album in my opinion

 

[coach]

Agreed.
Q called it a Masterpiece.
There must be a happy medium between Pitchfork being morons and RS and Q pandering.

Well you know what, I dont need reviews to make up my mind about liking this album or not. I like it. Period.

 

[The Sad Punk]

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.

Of course, though, I'm aware of where their intended audience lies.

 

[cobl04]

Whilst I immediately dismiss that review based on journalistic integrity and the fact that it is a completely biased, non-review, it does make a few relevant points. The oh-oh-oh's in MOS are very similar to Stay's and whilst I wouldn't call NLOTH's chorus a 'deflating fart', it does really take away from the song.

But given the fact that over half the article does not even discuss the album, and he barely talks about the actual songs themselves apart from to say Bono's lyrics are sub-par and complaining about the return of Eno and Lanois, I'd say the article is the only 'pitiful' thing.

 

[Marko]

Whilst I immediately dismiss that review based on journalistic integrity and the fact that it is a completely biased, non-review, it does make a few relevant points. The oh-oh-oh's in MOS are very similar to Stay's and whilst I wouldn't call NLOTH's chorus a 'deflating fart', it does really take away from the song.

But given the fact that over half the article does not even discuss the album, and he barely talks about the actual songs themselves apart from to say Bono's lyrics are sub-par and complaining about the return of Eno and Lanois, I'd say the article is the only 'pitiful' thing.

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.

 

[edgeplaytheblue]

Never mind them ... a critic asshole who obviously doesn't like U2 at al

 

[IndyShade]

I still can't believe Rollingstone threw 5 stars on it. Wasn't expecting that

Why not? Rolling Stone's reviews of seminal artists like U2, Springsteen, Dylan, etc., are basically just handshake advertising, and a guarantee that they'll be granted big interviews by these hard-to-get artists. Why would RS risk not getting a Bono cover feature by calling the album anything but a 'masterpiece'?

Honestly, after I read Fricke's review, my heart sank. This is the guy who championed Wilco's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot after they were dumped by Warners for making something truly risky and groundbreaking and genuinely brilliant. I know he knows better than to rank NLOTH alongside Achtung Baby.

But, the publishers need Bono to sell magazines. Who wants to be the one to fuck that relationship up? Especially since Bono responded to a bad review in NME by sending the journalist a hatchet in the mail. U2 pay close attention to the people who cheer them on, and Rolling Stone and Q know it.

 

[AEKU2]

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.

If the intro lasted till the end it wouldnt be an intro.

 

[Galeongirl]

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.

And yet again, I don't give a fuck about other people's opinions anyway. I'm not supposed to like a piece because some whacko thinks it's crap? Well, more for me then!

 

[Marko]

If the intro lasted till the end it wouldnt be an intro.

yeah, than it would be prog rock

i wasn't talking about no need for intro but about it's disconnection from the rest of the song. Magnificent here springs to mind first...even more than Fez/Being Born

 

[Jive Turkey]

Whilst I immediately dismiss that review based on journalistic integrity and the fact that it is a completely biased, non-review, it does make a few relevant points. The oh-oh-oh's in MOS are very similar to Stay's and whilst I wouldn't call NLOTH's chorus a 'deflating fart', it does really take away from the song.
.

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

 

[mobvok]

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.

What you said. There's a ridiculous jump being made from the author writing a pretty clearly poorly crafted review not explaining the grade to the author himself actually being some hip (isn't that the hip word to use now?) scenester out to bring down a big name. The meat of the review simply doesn't back that up. He's a fan, he has history with the band.

However, given that people were up in arms that IGN had the temerity to give the album a 7/10, this reaction is not entirely surprising.

 

[Jive Turkey]

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.

I absolutely love that the intros are unique to that part of the song. Its one of the things that I always felt was missing from the previous two albums. I think it take a lot of balls to create a piece of awesome intro music and leave it as just that. They could've used the intros as a basis for completely different songs, but were confident that they had enough solid material as it was. Besides, the intro to Magnificent gets me so pumped. Its probably not going to happen, but i really want them to leave it in the single version

 

[Marko]

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

I love NLOTH the song, but I think that it would be totaly spectacular without the chorus...
imagine it with two extra verses and continuing energy, without the chorus fall, for 5 minutes

 

[Jive Turkey]

I love NLOTH the song, but I think that it would be totaly spectacular without the chorus...
imagine it with two extra verses and continuing energy, without the chorus fall, for 5 minutes

But the chorus is my favourite part

 

[Marko]

But the chorus is my favourite part

well you are completely wrong and from this point on your are not to like the chorus anymore

no, great if you love it...I just felt this way from the first time I heard it...