All Critical Reviews of the New album here

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I just don't think anybody that's listening to the best modern music from Grimes or Sun Kil Moon or whomever is going to find much about the new U2 album that's all that noteworthy.

Please enlighten everyone by explaining to us poor mortals how these artists music are much more daring and fundamentally good that what U2 for example is doing right now. Please explain. You must have really good arguments to be so sure about that so that should be really interesting to read. Or you are just reporting what other people want you to say and/or because it's cool to praise something that the mainstream will never heard and most of us instead of you will never know.

Also innovating is not all that matters in art, it's only half of what makes a piece of art good, but I'm sure that with all your wisdom and the one of these music experts on the web you already know that, right?
 
Benji is way better than Songs of Innocence, but they're nothing alike and not worth comparing.

Fuck, I am tired of hearing about Grimes though. She's just the most popular of countless underground acts making music like that today, acts that can more consistently churn out great songs. Genesis and Oblivion, fine. But her album tracks are always nondescript and her Rihanna leftover track was terrible. Possibly the least innovative thing I've heard all year.
 
Last edited:
I know and like Grimes a lot but never heard about Sun Kil Moon before. Don't see what is so noteworthy and revolutionary after hearing some of his songs but maybe I haven't read enough Pitchfork reviews to get it.
 
Can't I just like Sun Kil Moon AND U2? :sad:

You can like whatever you want:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTIJvNmsQgo

But you must understand that when someone listens to many of the 8.0+ records they aren't going to like all of them or in many cases very many of them. Then when an awesome U2 album comes out and they are PREDICTABLY considered "uncool" with the "cool" group, it's going to feel arbitrary and unfair. This is especially true if you listen to the album many times and really like it, before reviews come out, then the reviews bash it for reasons that seem like cognitive dissonance on their part. They probably like it but it's uncool to admit it.
 
I think BigMacPhisto is right that the Pitchfork rating will be like a 6.0 at best since they gave really good records from Beck and The Black Keys low ratings.

If they were really good records from those acts, they would have scored higher. Instead, they were sub-par later efforts...

They kind of got Morning Phase wrong though, but whatever. Pitchfork has given very good U2 records high scores. This one isn't a very good U2 record though.

Achtung Baby Super Deluxe - 9.5
Unforgettable Fire Deluxe - 9.3
Under A Blood Red Sky reissue - 9.0
Joshua Tree Deluxe - 8.9
War reissue - 8.9
Boy reissue - 8.3
October reissue - 7.1
.................................................................
How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb - 6.9
All That You Can't Leave Behind - 5.0
No Line On The Horizon - 4.2

Being their worst record (in my opinion) without any real standout moments and a critical consensus that's weaker than recent U2 releases, you'd almost expect it to score worse than NLOTH. However, Pitchfork rarely gives out scores as low as 4.2 in the first place...
 
I can agree up to a point, but I just don't see what the big deal is. Don't want it? Delete it, or hide it from your cloud. :shrug:

It's not like it's Malware that you can't get rid of.

I think the issue is that U2 are such a derisive, polarizing band at this stage (mostly due to their success). If there was a band that I despised for whatever reason and their music showed up in my itunes folder on my personal laptop, I would be pissed if I had to dedicate 3 seconds to get rid of it. PISSED. It's not rational per se, but that's how I'd feel. It was ballsy to disseminate it this way.
 
I know and like Grimes a lot but never heard about Sun Kil Moon before. Don't see what is so noteworthy and revolutionary after hearing some of his songs but maybe I haven't read enough Pitchfork reviews to get it.

Did anyone call it revolutionary? It's evocative folk rock. It's pretty and emotional, but I wouldn't call it innovative. He is just a monster lyricist, and his voice is absolutely soul-crushing. This isn't their first album, either, just fyi...He's been around a long, long time. It just so happens that Benji has, probably, his best lyrics, and I think that's likely why people enjoyed this album so much, since that's his strongest point.
But you must understand that when someone listens to many of the 8.0+ records they aren't going to like all of them or in many cases very many of them. Then when an awesome U2 album comes out and they are PREDICTABLY considered "uncool" with the "cool" group, it's going to feel arbitrary and unfair. This is especially true if you listen to the album many times and really like it, before reviews come out, then the reviews bash it for reasons that seem like cognitive dissonance on their part. They probably like it but it's uncool to admit it.

You must understand that anything you have to say to me about music is meaningless, after today.
 
If they were really good records from those acts, they would have scored higher. Instead, they were sub-par later efforts...

They kind of got Morning Phase wrong though, but whatever. Pitchfork has given very good U2 records high scores. This one isn't a very good U2 record though.

Achtung Baby Super Deluxe - 9.5
Unforgettable Fire Deluxe - 9.3
Under A Blood Red Sky reissue - 9.0
Joshua Tree Deluxe - 8.9
War reissue - 8.9
Boy reissue - 8.3
October reissue - 7.1
.................................................................
How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb - 6.9
All That You Can't Leave Behind - 5.0
No Line On The Horizon - 4.2

Being their worst record (in my opinion) without any real standout moments and a critical consensus that's weaker than recent U2 releases, you'd almost expect it to score worse than NLOTH. However, Pitchfork rarely gives out scores as low as 4.2 in the first place...

Thanks for your opinion but this record is better than Boy and October at least. I like it better than War. It's more consistent than The Unforgettable Fire though it doesn't have the same standouts it also doesn't have weaker tracks like Wire, Elvis Presley and America. NLOTH is also not the shit they point out for U2 fans. Of course it's their personal opinion. Secondly they have TIME to compare albums. U2 is comparing themselves to themselves which is a higher standard than comparing to most bands. If NLOTH is a 4.2 compared to their past albums is it really 4.2 compared to albums in general?
 
I know this isn't a professional review, but I wrote one for my own reference, so I thought I'd share it. I try and do this each record - capture what I love about it, not be afraid to gush a bit, so that hopefully I can see what lasts, what doesn't, and if I become a bit jaded about it, maybe I can reference this and get excited again. Anyway, feel free to read or scroll past.

By now we have heard all about the extended hiatus from U2, which lead to numerous announcements of their intention to release music ‘sooner than later’. Since 2009, the band have kept the fans on tenterhooks for a release, punctuated by Bono’s claim that a follow-up to ‘No Line on the Horizon’, titled ‘Songs of Ascent’ was due by the close of 2009, and then the live performance of 6 unreleased tunes throughout 2010 and 2011 as part of the 360 Tour. A few false starts at the close of 2013, and then in February 2014 following the release of stand-alone single ‘Invisible’, and fan frustration began to boil over. In a move that appears designed to make reparations for the teasing 5 and a half year wait, U2 not only performed and released a new single as part of Apple’s iPhone 6 announcement, but dropped their new album, now titled ‘Songs of Innocence’ instantly. For free.

Unsurprisingly, this sent fans into a frenzy of panic, hyper-activity, hyperbole and heart palpitations.

U2’s new long-player is 11 tracks that represent 5 and a half years of toil and self-doubt. By all accounts, this is the most fraught album process they have been through since 1991’s notoriously difficult ‘Achtung Baby’. And after a handful of spins, it is clear that they produce their best work under this kind of pressure. Sure, most of it is self-inflicted with ambitions that far out-reach any other band that have lasted into their 50s, but anyone who doubted the band that produced such ground-breaking reinventions like the aforementioned ‘Achtung Baby’, 1987’s ‘The Joshua Tree’, or 2000’s ‘All That You Can’t Leave Behind’ will soon be eating their words.

Musically, the album is a natural progression from fan favourite ‘Fez/Being Born’ from ‘No Line on the Horizon’. It expands on the more experimental moments of the last decade, and adds in a good measure of trance-inducing hooks, and some of the most mature instrumentation of their careers. It is also one of their most cohesive; thematically drawing on their roots, and their upbringing in 1970s Dublin. That said, it is also certainly an album of two halves.

It opens (rather traditionally for recent U2) with the lead single ‘The Miracle (of Joey Ramone), a crunchy, gritty rock song about the inspiration a young U2 drew from the Ramones. Soaring vocals lead into an a-typically dirty guitar riff (and was that a pickslide!) that builds to a rollicking, catchy verse that is sure to see crowds jumping and swelling in time. The chorus is more expansive and anthemic than the build-up suggests, but it works all the same. Still, this is probably the weakest track here, though its place as lead single rests on the catchy vocal hooks.

Following on is one of the songs debuted on the 360 tour. ‘Every Breaking Wave’ opens with a pulsing drum and bass riff that harks back to seminal track ‘With or Without You’. Lyrically, this track is really the foundation of a resurgence from Bono that paints pictures without suffering from recent bouts of verbal diarrhoea – “I thought I heard the Captain’s voice, but it’s hard to listen while you preach, like every broken wave on the shore this was as far as I could reach” Bono croons over Edge’s measured arpeggio’s that channel Sting’s classic ‘Every Breath You Take’. One of the strongest songs on the record, you can pencil this in as the second single now.

‘California (There is no End to Love)’ rounds out the first three, which really fit together as the most radio-friendly songs on the album. At this stage in the record, the listener really gets a feeling that they are loading the front with single-worthy tracks, and it is a direct response to criticisms of the preceding effort – that the songs lacked hooks and melodic development. And what’s that? An Edge guitar solo?!

‘Song For Someone’ is an unashamed ballad that rather overtly is about the beginnings of Bono’s relationship with wife Ali. The soaring ‘oh’s’ are back in the chorus, and the personal lyric style continues apace “and I’m a long way from where I was, where I need to be”.

Following on is the start of the second half of the album; not mathematically, but certainly sonically. The first half oozed with pop hooks and modern, fresh tones, but now we see U2 permeate this freshness into songs progressively more inspired by the darkness of ‘Achtung Baby’. ‘Iris (Hold Me Close)’ is one of the most naked and personal tracks in the U2 catalogue. A rolling, indie-infused song, that closes with a list of all the fading memories Bono has of his mother, who died when he was 14. One listen in, and it feels as though we’ve known this song our whole lives. Powered from both sides by Bono’s personal recollections of his mother, and Adam’s urgent and driving bass line. The single word chorus is delivered with bone-chilling beauty as Bono slides “Iris” into the sonic landscape.

‘Volcano’ opens with some Larry Mullen Jr thick, dirty beats and Adam taking centre-stage with another commanding bass line. This song oozes Arctic Monkeys, with the reverb on the lead guitar recalling 2013’s ‘AM’, something I had hoped they would channel on this record. Bono utilises the vocal effects seen when performing ‘The Fly’ on the documentary ‘From the Sky Down’, and they set the mood for the remainder of the album; combining the hooks and pop precision of the first half with some heavier music and themes.

Bono recalls a 1974 car bombing in ‘Raised By Wolves’, featuring one of the most evocative lines of the album “body’s not a canvass, body’s now a toilet wall”. The way this song builds with that rolling, rhythmic piano and opens into a sweetly sung pre-chorus section does not prepare you for the chorus. Bono hits a register he never has before with almost ecstatic ease offering a counter-point to the darker themes of the song. This one is a real contender for song of the album.

The immediate impression of ‘Cedarwood Road’ is that this song is everything 2009’s ‘Stand Up Comedy’ wanted to be. But where ‘Stand Up Comedy’ tried too hard to mix the rocking backing track with tongue-in-cheek lyricism, this song has infinitely more going on. The textures and counter melodies show an enormous advance in the song-writing between the two songs. In fact, those two elements combine to make this record stand head and shoulders over most of ‘No Line on the Horizon’, an album that was ambitiously crafted, yet was released as a predominantly safe and uninspiring effort, watered down by self-doubt and a lack of confidence in what they were doing. This song is the emphatic reminder that the confidence is back. The final verse and coda are quite possibly the best moments on the record.

The pumping synth intro to ‘Sleep Like a Baby Tonight’ again show some musical development from the previous record. They aren’t afraid to build soundscapes on strong chord progressions and strong melodies. Bono isn’t dominating songs with line-o-rama style singing, and he is back to using his voice as an instrument, not a megaphone. This song is slow, throbbing, slick and heart-breaking. The song also sees the successful return of the falsetto, hitting it as well as he did at the age of 33 throughout the ‘Zooropa’ record.

Immediate thoughts in the introduction to ‘This is Where You Can Reach Me Now’ is a combination of the atmospheric clunks and twangs of ‘Slug’ from the ‘Original Soundtracks: 1’ album, and the bird noises in The Beatles ‘Tomorrow Never Knows’. These give way to a reggae-tinged wah riff from The Edge, and again, more solid bass work from Adam – he really stepped up on this album. It’s either the marriage or the haircut, but who cares! Larry finds some really interesting ways of driving this song along as well, never over-playing, but keeping things grooving the way only Larry Mullen Jr. can.

The final track ends on a somewhat dark note. Lykke Li gives a haunting vocal performance singing the chorus “somebody stepped inside your soul, little by little they robbed and stole, until someone else was in control”. Notable for its musical restraint, interesting that they chose what is the strongest melodic hook on the record and went in the opposite direction. They play down all the strengths present in the mix here, and it works emphatically well. Punctuated at the end by another Edge mini-solo, and the album is over, and way too soon at that.

Overall, this record does many things. It paints U2, a band that has existed for 38 years made up of men approaching their mid-fifties in a fresh new light. It lets experimentation and risk taking off the leash, but keeps them in check with good song writing, solid hooks and melodies, and a vastly improved lyrical performance from Bono (it has to be more than coincidence that Edge gets lyrical credits on every song). In the end, U2 delivered the record that no-one thought they could. They erased 5 and a half years of false starts with a complete record in the age of singles and EPs. If this is a window into U2 4.0, I am on board, and can’t wait for whatever comes next. A-

For what it's worth, my immediate ratings for other albums NLOTH - B, HTDAAB - B, ATYCLB - B+
 
At some point I begin to feel sympathetic to the band in that well written reviews for their music are almost hard to come by these days simply because of the existence of Bono.

NME reviews should most definitely be ignored, they have their distinct favourites and those who they will always hate, they're like the McDonalds of music publications.
 
This is exactly what U2 wants, though. Because there will be those who actually don't have a strong opinion about U2 and give the album a chance because, hey, it's there. As for haters having to be reminded that U2 exists, wow, what a tragedy. I guess U2 should not do any press or play shows either because then they might stumble upon something online that mentions U2 and be reminded that yes, U2 is a thing. there is a band out there that makes music you don't enjoy, and that's a tragedy up there with child trafficking and the Holocaust, clearly.

There's a difference between seeing U2 while surfing the internet and purchasing a product that automatically adds the newest U2 album to your product. I hate The Killers and Creed, and while I'm a mature and rational human being that won't throw a hissy fit about it if either of them had a new album automatically attached to a product i was using, part of me probably will still be like "ugh" and I doubt highly that I would give it another seconds thought. Delete. Done. I don't think they're winning any battles here. They're just annoying people for a few seconds.
 
I've listened to all of them, and sticking within the genre of u2's music i only find Spoon's They want my soul as a superior pop-rock album. Other albums within the same generic framework which i consider exceptional, such as Gruff Rhys's American Interior or Damon Albarn's Everyday Robots were not even named Best New Music by pitchfork. Apparently they prefer FKA Twigs. That said, i consider a great accomplishment for a band with a history of 35 years and operating within the modes of a genre that has lost a long ago its vitality to come up with songs that bring something different to their musical oeuvre (i refer especially to the sequence from the Volcano up to The Troubles). In fact, if i would try to stress my opinion a bit too far, i would say that Spoon's sequence from Knock Knock Knock up to New York Kiss is ''safer'' and more typical than u2's Songs Of Innocence. The difference is that Spoon's songs are reviewed per se, but u2's songs are reviewed based on the perception of bono's public persona and u2's brand name.


Impressive response.


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
 
If NLOTH is a 4.2 compared to their past albums is it really 4.2 compared to albums in general?

Pitchfork used to have a sidebar detailing what the review scores meant. 5.0 doesn't actually mean terrible...rather an average, forgettable recording. Likewise, earning an 8.8 or higher on that site is basically a 10, but they only reserve such high scores for albums deemed instant masterpieces (such as Kanye West's fifth album) or re-releases of albums that have had time to build up esteem. In a similar fashion, Rolling Stone reviews are basically out of four stars with anything higher reserved for records they feel are also instant masterworks.

It would have been interesting to see what the HTDAAB score would have been if the second half of the record hadn't been so weak. The reviewer really liked the songs near the start, particularly "City of Blinding Lights" and "Vertigo" (which the website itself seemed to really like at the time). That was the last U2 record where the singles could stand up with the best songs being released in general that year (2004).
 
I know this isn't a professional review, but I wrote one for my own reference, so I thought I'd share it. I try and do this each record - capture what I love about it, not be afraid to gush a bit, so that hopefully I can see what lasts, what doesn't, and if I become a bit jaded about it, maybe I can reference this and get excited again. Anyway, feel free to read or scroll past.



For what it's worth, my immediate ratings for other albums NLOTH - B, HTDAAB - B, ATYCLB - B+

Excellent write-up! Thank you for sharing it (and taking the time to write it).

I like this:

U2’s new long-player is 11 tracks that represent 5 and a half years of toil and self-doubt. By all accounts, this is the most fraught album process they have been through since 1991’s notoriously difficult ‘Achtung Baby’. And after a handful of spins, it is clear that they produce their best work under this kind of pressure. Sure, most of it is self-inflicted with ambitions that far out-reach any other band that have lasted into their 50s, but anyone who doubted the band that produced such ground-breaking reinventions like the aforementioned ‘Achtung Baby’, 1987’s ‘The Joshua Tree’, or 2000’s ‘All That You Can’t Leave Behind’ will soon be eating their words.
 
Easy there, BigMac. You're not the only one who reads Pitchfork and buys many new albums on a monthly basis. Pitchfork is notoriously elitist as far as their reviews go, but I read practically every one and have found many gems thanks to their focus on indie music. I'm still a huge U2 fan (and Sun Kil Moon!) and take umbrage when all the Pitchfork U2 reviews just have to mention something about U2 not related to their music (usually Bono-hate). It's certainly within their rights to rate an album low based on content, but I hate to see any artist bulldozed by a review based on prior prejudice. I certainly expect more of the same when they review this one. If music's good, it's good. Just review the damn music, you hipster bastards!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using U2 Interference mobile app
 
Did anyone call it revolutionary?
I should have quoted this part too:
If an album doesn't really have anything new to say or to set it apart from anything else, then it's probably not worth pointing out. Doesn't make it a bad record, per se,

So from what you are telling me this could also totally apply to their last record. Doesn't make it a bad one per se but...

Well this shows that what Pitchfork for example, or BigMacPhisto here, can criticize for big bands like U2 won't be a problem for much less successful ones.

But at this point I think bashing U2 is just a commercial posture for many critics: there is just a huge market to please by doing so.
 
Achtung Baby Super Deluxe - 9.5
Unforgettable Fire Deluxe - 9.3
Under A Blood Red Sky reissue - 9.0
Joshua Tree Deluxe - 8.9
War reissue - 8.9
Boy reissue - 8.3
October reissue - 7.1
.................................................................
How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb - 6.9
All That You Can't Leave Behind - 5.0
No Line On The Horizon - 4.2

The aforementioned scores prove to me how safe the critics at Pitchfork have become. All the high scores were given by retrospective reviews regarding albums the legacy of which has been established long ago the reviews themselves. Whereas, reviews upon the release have been lukewarm at best. That may prove on the one hand that the albums of the 00's are far inferior, but it also signposts to me the negative disposition towards the band (ATYCLB e.g. received far more positive reviews by any other magazine or site at that period). That's why i would be very curious to know what their reaction would be against Pop, considered by many of us here as their most ''experimental'' album, at the time of it's release.
 
The aforementioned scores prove to me how safe the critics at Pitchfork have become. All the high scores were given by retrospective reviews regarding albums the legacy of which has been established long ago the reviews themselves. Whereas, reviews upon the release have been lukewarm at best. That may prove on the one hand that the albums of the 00's are far inferior, but it also signposts to me the negative disposition towards the band (ATYCLB e.g. received far more positive reviews by any other magazine or site at that period). That's why i would be very curious to know what their reaction would be against Pop, considered by many of us here as their most ''experimental'' album, at the time of it's release.


Yep - if they trashed the reissues they would lose creditability, just as they would if they praise a new one. Pitchfork is the most predictable of all music reviewers. Don't bother with them anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I didn't say I disagreed, either. Just that they wear their bias on their sleeves. And I feel it's way too early to really review the album, anyway.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using U2 Interference mobile app
 
I didn't say I disagreed, either. Just that they wear their bias on their sleeves. And I feel it's way too early to really review the album, anyway.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using U2 Interference mobile app

What do we do if Pitchfork gives it a 9.5?
 
It would have been interesting to see what the HTDAAB score would have been if the second half of the record hadn't been so weak. The reviewer really liked the songs near the start, particularly "City of Blinding Lights" and "Vertigo" (which the website itself seemed to really like at the time). That was the last U2 record where the singles could stand up with the best songs being released in general that year (2004).

They didn't choose the right singles (except for Magnificent) for NLOTH but they had plenty of other good songs to like it beyond a 4.2. Some of on that album are in the top U2 songs (Magnificent, MOS, Breathe). I still listen to them lots. It'll take some time with this record but I think Raised by Wolves, This is where you can reach me now, Every Breaking Wave, The Troubles, California are very welcome to be a part of the U2 song book for anyone that causally likes them. As a U2 fan I'm happy for all the songs to be included and hopefully they'll play all of them live.

What do we do if Pitchfork gives it a 9.5?

I expect a 0% chance of that happening. Look at what they put in the 9.0+ records. They won't put a U2 album that has retrospective qualities about it at the same level as Merriweather Post Pavilion (which I really like). They are probably going to look at U2 as posers for including Lykke Li. I would be happy to be wrong.
 
If they were really good records from those acts, they would have scored higher. Instead, they were sub-par later efforts...

They kind of got Morning Phase wrong though, but whatever. Pitchfork has given very good U2 records high scores. This one isn't a very good U2 record though.

Achtung Baby Super Deluxe - 9.5
Unforgettable Fire Deluxe - 9.3
Under A Blood Red Sky reissue - 9.0
Joshua Tree Deluxe - 8.9
War reissue - 8.9
Boy reissue - 8.3
October reissue - 7.1
.................................................................
How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb - 6.9
All That You Can't Leave Behind - 5.0
No Line On The Horizon - 4.2

Being their worst record (in my opinion) without any real standout moments and a critical consensus that's weaker than recent U2 releases, you'd almost expect it to score worse than NLOTH. However, Pitchfork rarely gives out scores as low as 4.2 in the first place...


I'm sorry but this is absolutely ridiculous. Pitchfork is so lame. The albums you list are all reviews they gave AFTER the fact, after history had fleshed out the album thoroughly. It's cool to like old U2, thus PF gives the older albums rave reviews. You can't be serious when u say that they don't have any bias against U2 going in. They do. PF reviews are based on trends and they also try very lamely and transparently try to set their own trends. This is why they will put Sun Kill Moon right next to Kesha, because oh they are so quirky and cool, or maybe uncool, I don't know. I'm mystified! Jesus Christ.

Just the fact that that they would give HTDAAB pretty much a 7 and NLOTH a 4 shows that they don't review U2's albums on the merits. They review it with their finger in the wind of what the audience wants from them at that moment.

If this is the year to pile on U2, which I guess it is, you can bet that PF will deliver the snarky nasty review their audience craves. I'm a huge indie music fan and listen to many dozens of new albums every year. I purposely skip pitchfork because it has become utterly annoying.

Whatever they give SOI, you can be certain that the next time Animal Collective or it's members release another album of 12 minute "songs" that show no "newness" PF will be on their knees bowing down to their greatness. Ive found if it lacks a melody. PF will love it!!

Worthless
 
Pitchfork is great if you want to discover new underground music. It's foolish to think they'd give a good review to any U2 album, period. Consider it a bonus in life that they like those older albums.
 
I'm sorry but this is absolutely ridiculous. Pitchfork is so lame. The albums you list are all reviews they gave AFTER the fact, after history had fleshed out the album thoroughly. It's cool to like old U2, thus PF gives the older albums rave reviews. You can't be serious when u say that they don't have any bias against U2 going in. They do. PF reviews are based on trends and they also try very lamely and transparently try to set their own trends. This is why they will put Sun Kill Moon right next to Kesha, because oh they are so quirky and cool, or maybe uncool, I don't know. I'm mystified! Jesus Christ.

Just the fact that that they would give HTDAAB pretty much a 7 and NLOTH a 4 shows that they don't review U2's albums on the merits. They review it with their finger in the wind of what the audience wants from them at that moment.

If this is the year to pile on U2, which I guess it is, you can bet that PF will deliver the snarky nasty review their audience craves. I'm a huge indie music fan and listen to many dozens of new albums every year. I purposely skip pitchfork because it has become utterly annoying.

Whatever they give SOI, you can be certain that the next time Animal Collective or it's members release another album of 12 minute "songs" that show no "newness" PF will be on their knees bowing down to their greatness. Ive found if it lacks a melody. PF will love it!!

Worthless

But what choice do they have with reviewing those albums when they've all been released way prior to Pitchfork's inception? Of course it's going to be long after the fact. They're also reviewing based on the quality of the reissue, meaning bonus tracks and whatnot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom