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.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the problem is that time is necessary but nobody is going to wait 5 years to rate the album. They will rate the album when it's released and then maybe rate it again if it's reissued.
 
purpleoscar said:
Yeah I don't like Sun Kil Moon. I listened to it because it was rated 9.2. I was laughing through most of it or quite bored.
Click to expand...

So your response was to throw out the following phrases:
* Retarded Rednecks getting blowjobs
* Dying Stupidly
* Getting ones pole liked by white trash
* Lost his mom to a stupid accidental fire
* Unintentional comedy

There's subjective and then there's whatever the hell what you wrote is, which is, at the very least, incredibly offensive.
 
I've noticed that a handful of reviewers seem to prefer the 2nd half more than the 1st. So, what happened? They got cold feet again and went back to secure those ready made hits again? This is such a front loaded album. I did not expect to enjoy the final 5 songs, in fact I was ready to come here and say "wow, the first ever U2 album where I don't like a single song all the way through." This was my reaction:

1) The Miracle: "Cool verse, cool bridge...oh no did he just say Pilgrim? What is this chorus? I thought it was about to rock, this sounds too happy, chord changes are unimaginative...cool middle 8, the high backing vox at the end somewhat redeem the happy chorus"

2) Every Breaking Wave: "Great verse of course, chorus is ok I guess. Pretty but nothing mindblowing, sort of miss the desolate live version"

3) California: "No...just, no."

4) Song For Someone: "Great song, if this was written by someone who never wrote a song before."

5) Iris: "Verses are nice and tense, the chorus is too happy again, i like where he says 'iris', very trippy. Can I just copy and paste the parts I like?"

6) Volcano: "This is just too cheesy for me but hey at least it's entertaining like The Refugee."

So...I was pretty much ready to write this one off...and then

7) Raised by Wolves: "Hmmm, this is actually pretty interesting. There's 4 songs left. I doubt they can keep up this level of interesting."

8) Cedarwood Rd.: "This does the unexpected quite nicely. Hey another pretty good one!"

9) Sleep Like A Baby: "Am I still listening to the same album? This is fucking great! What the fuck?!"

10) This is where you can...: "Huh? I like this one too?!?!"

11) The Troubles: "YOU GOTTA BE FUCKING KIDDING ME!!! THIS IS LOVELY!!!"

So...my question is...what happened and why? It seems like they clearly had a great album on their hands and fumbled it again for the fruitless pursuit of #1 hits. And some of these are just shamelessly pandering. Song For Someone? It's like they're not even trying to hide it anymore. They fucking reaaaaaly neeed a hit song. Please give it them world so they can stick to their creative guns on the next one.
 
BigMacPhisto said:
Lulz. As an avid Pitchfork reader/indie listener, I can say that this album has nothing on it that merits such a score. I'll be shocked if they manage to get higher than a 6.0.

And people need to stop drinking the Kool Aid and thinking every negative review has an agenda. Some of us just don't think the new album is very good. That's all.
Click to expand...

I think that I can speak for most here that are really liking the album that I don't care if someone says, I don't like it. I just would like their reasoning to make some sense.

I've heard people say that it's paint by numbers U2. How songs like RBW, Volcano, Sleep like a Baby, California, The Troubles, etc... could be characterized this way is just ludicrous to me.

I read a couple saying that they are just making an album to try to appeal to todays market with a bunch of hits... WTF?!? I mean, this is what I would say is the opposite of that. A great album full of strong album songs. Some could work as singles, but definitely not the focus here.

The NME one saying the RBW talks about blood and religion - even though it's about a religious car bombing... Huh? :huh: It seems that some of these reviews are pulling things out of their ass just to write a negative review.
 
Yeah, trashing one of the year's most acclaimed records for what purpose...? And Pitchfork isn't the only place that loved that record.

Ultimately, it's all about opinions. Everyone's got one, so let them have it.

And no, I don't think you need to listen to an album ten times before you can make up your mind or that you can't after listening to it once. People can do whatever they want and I'm sure most reviewers don't listen to the albums more than once or twice as they have a ton of music they need to consume. Between new releases and other stuff I'm catching up with (reissues in particular), I go through hundreds upon hundreds of albums/box sets in a given year. I've heard enough stuff and have a wide enough musical range that I know if I find something interesting after just one listen. Rarely have I felt I have been wrong about something when giving it a second listen, especially with anything I heard for the first time relatively recently. So, to me, people saying "you should give it a chance and more spins" are just kind of off. This record pales in comparison to the dozens of vinyls and cassettes I've purchased from 2014 and nothing's really going to change that.

I expect the album to end up doing worse critically than No Line On The Horizon (a 72/100 on Metacritic). It will be their first record of the century to truly have mixed reviews.
 
BigMacPhisto said:
Yeah, trashing one of the year's most acclaimed records for what purpose...? And Pitchfork isn't the only place that loved that record.

Ultimately, it's all about opinions. Everyone's got one, so let them have it.
Click to expand...

I decided not to mention the fact that it's acclaimed, because even if it wasn't that response was uncalled for, but it's true, the album is one of the most acclaimed of the year.
 
bono_212 said:
So your response was to throw out the following phrases:
* Retarded Rednecks getting blowjobs
* Dying Stupidly
* Getting ones pole liked by white trash
* Lost his mom to a stupid accidental fire
* Unintentional comedy

There's subjective and then there's whatever the hell what you wrote is, which is, at the very least, incredibly offensive.
Click to expand...

Sorry for you being offended but I hate the record because I do find it unintentional comedy. I don't care if it's "acclaimed". I think it's music for the inbred characters on Deliverance. That's my opinion and I don't care if it offends anyone, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. It's like listening to an album about a person who lit their fart on fire and burned to death by accident. Some of this stuff should be on Dumb and Dumber To.

I guess we agree to disagree.
 
ozeeko said:
I've noticed that a handful of reviewers seem to prefer the 2nd half more than the 1st. So, what happened? They got cold feet again and went back to secure those ready made hits again? This is such a front loaded album. I did not expect to enjoy the final 5 songs, in fact I was ready to come here and say "wow, the first ever U2 album where I don't like a single song all the way through." This was my reaction:

1) The Miracle: "Cool verse, cool bridge...oh no did he just say Pilgrim? What is this chorus? I thought it was about to rock, this sounds too happy, chord changes are unimaginative...cool middle 8, the high backing vox at the end somewhat redeem the happy chorus"

2) Every Breaking Wave: "Great verse of course, chorus is ok I guess. Pretty but nothing mindblowing, sort of miss the desolate live version"

3) California: "No...just, no."

4) Song For Someone: "Great song, if this was written by someone who never wrote a song before."

5) Iris: "Verses are nice and tense, the chorus is too happy again, i like where he says 'iris', very trippy. Can I just copy and paste the parts I like?"

6) Volcano: "This is just too cheesy for me but hey at least it's entertaining like The Refugee."

So...I was pretty much ready to write this one off...and then

7) Raised by Wolves: "Hmmm, this is actually pretty interesting. There's 4 songs left. I doubt they can keep up this level of interesting."

8) Cedarwood Rd.: "This does the unexpected quite nicely. Hey another pretty good one!"

9) Sleep Like A Baby: "Am I still listening to the same album? This is fucking great! What the fuck?!"

10) This is where you can...: "Huh? I like this one too?!?!"

11) The Troubles: "YOU GOTTA BE FUCKING KIDDING ME!!! THIS IS LOVELY!!!"

So...my question is...what happened and why? It seems like they clearly had a great album on their hands and fumbled it again for the fruitless pursuit of #1 hits. And some of these are just shamelessly pandering. Song For Someone? It's like they're not even trying to hide it anymore. They fucking reaaaaaly neeed a hit song. Please give it them world so they can stick to their creative guns on the next one.
Click to expand...


Trouble with reviews - especially music - is that they are very subjective. I agree with your views on "The Troubles" but we differ on almost all the other songs. In fact, I find the first half better than the second half as of this moment.

But music can change. Someone already pointed out the poor reviews "Sgt. Pepper" received back in 1967. And there were some so-so reviews of JT and AB too.

Overall, I find music reviewers to be the most pointless job in the world. How can anyone tell someone else how good a song is? A movie reviewer can at least provide a bit of plot description and comment on the quality of the acting of effects, which may prompt a person to see a film. But music? What one may love, another hates. So I ignore reviews.
 
I was waiting for the nme review :) u2 could release another joshua tree and the nme would hate it.

The nme should re called called nme8u2
 
"These critics with the illusions they've created about artists - it's like idol worship - They only like people when they're on their way up ... I cannot be on the way up again." John Lennon
 
AEON said:
"These critics with the illusions they've created about artists - it's like idol worship - They only like people when they're on their way up ... I cannot be on the way up again." John Lennon
Click to expand...

Exactly!

U2 has done a good song on this subject, Hold me, thrill me, kiss me, kill me. There's a youth cult in music but in other art forms like novels, poetry, and painting you can develop good art late in life.
 
Just out of interest what were the reviews for the joshua tree and achtung baby when they came out?

The reviews for SOI are better then they were for NLOTH at this stage. NLOTH had alot of good reviews when it came out but a few average/bad ones. SOI seems to be well recieved with a few bad/average ones here and there.
 
Irvine511 said:
the problem with having 30 years of history, not being a total heritage act, and having a lighting rod like Bono in your band, is that you try to wrap your review of the album around your existing prejudices. it would be really hard for any artist of their stature -- and, really, there's no one left -- to garner universal acclaim.

this does go both ways, however.
Click to expand...

Positive or negative, these are not actually music critics. Practically none of them. These are pop culture critics.

If I were reviewing your latest album Irvine, I shouldn't need to know a single thing about you beyond what's on the record. It shouldn't make any difference, if I'm just reviewing the music.

I'll put it another way - take any purported music review - edit out all the superfluous pop culture and background commentary - and see what the critic is actually saying w/r/t music. Almost always, there is very little meat on the bone in that respect. It is almost always lazy comparisons to other work, or outright approvals and dismissals with no qualification.

They don't know anything about the music other than being a fan with an opinion. That makes them, for better or worse, no different than anyone here.

As a creative person, it's really stinging to read a negative review from someone with a lick of actual knowledge about the subject. Thankfully, whether you're Maroon 5 or The National, those are few and far between.
 
rennowba said:
Just out of interest what were the reviews for the joshua tree and achtung baby when they came out?

The reviews for SOI are better then they were for NLOTH at this stage. NLOTH had alot of good reviews when it came out but a few average/bad ones. SOI seems to be well recieved with a few bad/average ones here and there.
Click to expand...

Almost all U2 records earned wide spread critical praise when they came out...even records that have been subject to revisionist history like R&H and Pop were initially reviewed quite well by critics. And anyone who says critics didn't like JT or AB when they came out is wrong.

I will say that the reviews of this one seem a little higher than NLOTH in general.
 
doctorwho said:
Trouble with reviews - especially music - is that they are very subjective. I agree with your views on "The Troubles" but we differ on almost all the other songs. In fact, I find the first half better than the second half as of this moment.

But music can change. Someone already pointed out the poor reviews "Sgt. Pepper" received back in 1967. And there were some so-so reviews of JT and AB too.

Overall, I find music reviewers to be the most pointless job in the world. How can anyone tell someone else how good a song is? A movie reviewer can at least provide a bit of plot description and comment on the quality of the acting of effects, which may prompt a person to see a film. But music? What one may love, another hates. So I ignore reviews.
Click to expand...

I don't let reviews sway me either to be honest, but I'm always curious to read about what others are saying about a newly released album, film, book, whatever. It's an enjoyable activity, and negative views don't actually convince me one way or the other on something. At the end of the day, I have to like it. All the acclaim BOMB received never converted me.

But this album does seem to be split in half between radio songs and less obvious songs. It's like two EPs smacked together. Even the production values sound different on both sides. And some critics have picked up on this. So I was just pointing it out. Doesn't matter I guess, but then again nothing really does matter in the end.
 
Nick66 said:
Almost all U2 records earned wide spread critical praise when they came out...even records that have been subject to revisionist history like R&H and Pop were initially reviewed quite well by critics.

I will say that the reviews of this one seem a little higher than NLOTH in general.
Click to expand...

I actually hated POP at first and didn't understand what the critics were raving about. I came around to it years later.
 
Nick66 said:
I will say that the reviews of this one seem a little higher than NLOTH in general.
Click to expand...


Yeah i agree. Nloth had alot of good reviews but on a whole id say SOI proably has a fair few more. Ive ony seen a handfull of bad reviews. (Similar to nloth)
 
U2DMfan said:
Positive or negative, these are not actually music critics. Practically none of them. These are pop culture critics.

If I were reviewing your latest album Irvine, I shouldn't need to know a single thing about you beyond what's on the record. It shouldn't make any difference, if I'm just reviewing the music.

I'll put it another way - take any purported music review - edit out all the superfluous pop culture and background commentary - and see what the critic is actually saying w/r/t music. Almost always, there is very little meat on the bone in that respect. It is almost always lazy comparisons to other work, or outright approvals and dismissals with no qualification.

They don't know anything about the music other than being a fan with an opinion. That makes them, for better or worse, no different than anyone here.

As a creative person, it's really stinging to read a negative review from someone with a lick of actual knowledge about the subject. Thankfully, whether you're Maroon 5 or The National, those are few and far between.
Click to expand...



very true.

i kind of wanted to throw something when the Vulture lady mentioned that "Iris" was about Bono's grandmother.
 
the EW "conversation" is maddening. it's just cultural positioning and trying to show that the reviewers have what they consider to be good taste.

it's like watching a hosted program on Fox or MSNBC prime time -- it's not news, it's not discussion, people explaining their present location.
 
purpleblackeye said:
Love it or loathe it? Two EW critics debate U2's new album 'Songs of Innocence' | The Music Mix | EW.com

check this one out....one of them actually says The Troubles is the worst song on the album! :doh:
Click to expand...

To me a good review is one where they delve into the content of the music and quality of it. Here they don't do that so :down:

Even if they don't like it, it would make sense to explain in more detail why.

To be cool you have to be part of the avant-garde for max 10 years and then you need to disappear.
 
prbiker15 said:
The song and that phrase don't go together.
Click to expand...

agreed, it's an incredible song. That review perplexed me. One of them actually says they kind of like the album, but then says they won't listen to it more than once. Lost all credibility with me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

dan_smee
Songs of Surrender - Discussion, reviews, impressions
7 8 9
Replies
241
Views
16K
BEAL
BEAL
N
I’m new here and like the recent stuff
Replies
2
Views
757
Sicy
Sicy
P
PEDRO G NEWBEE HERE. PLEASE BE GENTLE.
Replies
3
Views
185
clerks
clerks
dan_smee
I listened to No Line on the Horizon right through tonight for the first time in about 10 years…
2 3
Replies
83
Views
2K
lazarus
lazarus
Reggie Thee Dog
Are we NOT discussing the Dolby Atmos Mix of Achtung Baby?
Replies
13
Views
1K
count rushmore
count rushmore

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom