All Critical Reviews of the New album here

[Irvine511]

"Thanks, U2" should be the new "Thanks, Obama!"

i'm going to go with "because Bono!"

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Not really. I just listen to a ton of music and know what certain publications want out of new music, etc. I have no axe to grind. I just realistically think this will be the worst reviewed album of the last four. Sites like Pitchfork want intriguing new sounds. Regardless of whether or not you like most of their Best New Music selections, there's definitely an undercurrent running through all of them that has a certain spark of freshness/uniqueness. Fans might think this new U2 record is an interesting step for them, but it hardly does anything revelatory in a broader context, nor does it have some jaw dropping, inspiring moments of catharsis like "Beautiful Day" or "City of Blinding Lights" - tracks even Pitchfork has gushed over.

So based on this is it really a fair way of judging an album? We have seen from interference that people are loving the album but yet the critics speak and that's it the world ends up believing it's a poor album, doesn't sit right that someone who is provably so far up their own arse has the right to try to influence people in a national publication


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Afliktor]

Deadspin.com:
U2 Never Gave Their New Album A Chance

The new U2 record arrived as spam, foisted upon you by the spam filter itself.

funny that Bono himself made the same comparison to junk mail. in that way I'm reminded of the ironic 90's U2, announcing albums at KMart and making us all watch TV at a concert. I'm sure the band realized that releasing the album in this way would piss off the haters. I like to think they're trolling just a little bit

Innocence isn't terrible, but its introduction to us was terrible, and in 2014 that's basically the same thing.

 

[doctorwho]

Stock market just crashed #blameU2


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Actually, the stocks rose today, post U2 album.

Praise Radiohead for their innovative way of raising the stock market by doing nothing. Wish U2 would do that!

 

[corianderstem]

i'm going to go with "because Bono!"

That does have a nice ring to it.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Actually, the stocks rose today, post U2 album.



Praise Radiohead for their innovative way of raising the stock market by doing nothing. Wish U2 would do that!

Dog still took a shit in the living room though, that's U2s fault


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[doctorwho]

funny that Bono himself made the same comparison to junk mail. in that way I'm reminded of the ironic 90's U2, announcing albums at KMart and making us all watch TV at a concert. I'm sure the band realized that releasing the album in this way would piss off the haters. I like to think they're trolling just a little bit

If any other artist did the same thing, I'll be honest - I'd listen. Even if it was Bieber or some other crap artist. And if I didn't like it - delete. But I'd be grateful I didn't have to pay for it.

Again, when Radiohead release an album for free - genius. When Beyonce dropped a surprise album (that you had to pay for) - genius. U2 does it - tax-dodging devil incarnations.

 

[doctorwho]

Dog still took a shit in the living room though, that's U2s fault


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

True, if you were listening to U2 so much that you forgot to let the poor fellow outside, I guess it is U2's fault.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

So based on this is it really a fair way of judging an album? We have seen from interference that people are loving the album but yet the critics speak and that's it the world ends up believing it's a poor album, doesn't sit right that someone who is provably so far up their own arse has the right to try to influence people in a national publication

I don't think it's about influencing people at all and the fans around here or any band's message board have no reason to get their panties in a twist. It's interesting to see what members of the music press think about the album, that's all. I'd feel sorry for anyone who let their opinions be dictated to them by a certain critical establishment.

What sites like Pitchfork do best is bring worthy new albums or artists to light and I guess that's the big benefit of the music press industry. No artist is really going to be helped by a weak review, even if it does draw the attention to a new album or project. So I'm enjoying watching this to see just which publications think the album is a must hear of 2014 and which ones are either baffled by it or could really care less.

As for your comment about whether or not it's a fair way to judge an album, I say yes. 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, but 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.

 

[super fly guy]

At the end of the day I love the album,fuck the haters. Especially NME,that is not a proper review.

Sent from my GT-P3110 using U2 Interference mobile app

 

[KUEFC09U2]

I don't think it's about influencing people at all and the fans around here or any band's message board have no reason to get their panties in a twist. It's interesting to see what members of the music press think about the album, that's all. I'd feel sorry for anyone who let their opinions be dictated to them by a certain critical establishment.

What sites like Pitchfork do best is bring worthy new albums or artists to light and I guess that's the big benefit of the music press industry. No artist is really going to be helped by a weak review, even if it does draw the attention to a new album or project. So I'm enjoying watching this to see just which publications think the album is a must hear of 2014 and which ones are either baffled by it or could really care less.

But the fact is some parts of the music "press" (and I call them that VERY loosely) already have their minds made up before writing an article, so they are already influenced to write a negative review regardless, and the sad thing is most people this day and age are influenced by what they read or see as being "cool"


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[doctorwho]

I have no problem if useless oxygen deprived beings called "music critics" like or dislike an album.

What I do have a problem with is attacking U2 for giving away a FREE album. iTunes made it so easy that it was already in people's clouds - they just had to listen. Yet, this is tantamount to rape due to lack of consent. And when the bulk of the review is about this or nonsensical tax-dodging aspects, then it's clear it's not even a review. The writer just wants to rant about his views, even if the facts are wrong, and masquerade it as a "critique". That makes his work even more useless, if that's possible.

 

[LPU2]

Again, reviews, both positive and negative, have never been more meaningless. There was a time when reviewers were serious writers who knew and cared about music. Today it's just a bunch of WebKids who write as if they're trying to maintain a level of cool on their facebook pages by tossing off caustic one-liners.

As someone who once wrote a review or two, I can say that it's much harder to write a positive review; it's much easier to write negative ones—or, as one of my favorite artists put it, it's much easier to "paint with a black brush."

What's more, negative reviews generate more attention. And, bizarrely, they even seem to bestow a measure of authority on their writers.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

But the fact is some parts of the music "press" (and I call them that VERY loosely) already have their minds made up before writing an article, so they are already influenced to write a negative review regardless, and the sad thing is most people this day and age are influenced by what they read or see as being "cool"

Some parts of the press are predisposed not to like this because there's nothing for them to like. Of course Pitchfork won't like this record. It doesn't offer them anything new or stands out among the rest of the music they praise. You can't say they just "hate U2" though when they give their album reissues high marks.

If anything, they're less biased than lifetime fans of a band that listen to about five new albums a year at most...

 

[KUEFC09U2]

I have no problem if useless oxygen deprived beings called "music critics" like or dislike an album.



What I do have a problem with is attacking U2 for giving away a FREE album. iTunes made it so easy that it was already in people's clouds - they just had to listen. Yet, this is tantamount to rape due to lack of consent. And when the bulk of the review is about this or nonsensical tax-dodging aspects, then it's clear it's not even a review. The writer just wants to rant about his views, even if the facts are wrong, and masquerade it as a "critique". That makes his work even more useless, if that's possible.

And the main reason he or she is ranting is because that's what the see as being the popular thing to do, they don't go into it with an open mind, they go straight in knowing what to write with actually very little about the new album


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Afliktor]

Again, when Radiohead release an album for free - genius. When Beyonce dropped a surprise album (that you had to pay for) - genius. U2 does it - tax-dodging devil incarnations.

Pretty much

I don't get how seemingly everyone I meet - not to mention the entire internet - hates U2, but I still have to sit at my computer constantly hitting refresh when tickets are about to go on sale. Where are all of these people?

 

[BigMacPhisto]

As someone who once wrote a review or two, it's SO HARD to write positive reviews; it's much easier to write negative ones—or, as one of my favorite artists put it, it's so easy to "paint with a black brush."

What's more, negative reviews generate more attention. And, bizarrely, they even seem to bestow a measure of authority on their writers.

Yet most of the albums on Metacritic end up with positive overall scores...most music ends up with positive reviews on AllMusic, etc.

I like the over rationalization that happens around here when critics don't agree with fan sentiment regarding U2 or Pearl Jam or whomever. These are truly forgettable works from major artists, hence the worst reviews. There's no other motivation at play.

The difference comes between good and great. Did U2 make what's generally considered a great album? Not really. Did they make a listenable record? Yeah, so it's merely good (if poor by the band's own standards).

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Some parts of the press are predisposed not to like this because there's nothing for them to like. Of course Pitchfork won't like this record. It doesn't offer them anything new or stands out among the rest of the music they praise. You can't say they just "hate U2" though when they give their album reissues high marks.



If anything, they're less biased than lifetime fans of a band that listen to about five new albums a year at most...

Oh come on


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Pretty much

I don't get how seemingly everyone I meet - not to mention the entire internet - hates U2, but I still have to sit at my computer constantly hitting refresh when tickets are about to go on sale. Where are all of these people?

U2's concept was nothing new and was blatantly forced upon a half billion people. The music also wasn't as well received as Radiohead or Beyonce - both of whom put out records that are widely considered the best of their respective decades.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

U2's concept was nothing new and was blatantly forced upon a half billion people. The music also wasn't as well received as Radiohead or Beyonce - both of whom put out records that are widely considered the best of their respective decades.

What more can U2 do? Seriously?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Afliktor]

If anything, they're less biased than lifetime fans of a band that listen to about five new albums a year at most...

who are you talking about exactly? you seem to be implying being a lifelong U2 fan also means you don't listen to much other music. curious as to what evidence you have of this assertion.

 

[JTbaby]

U2's concept was nothing new and was blatantly forced upon a half billion people. The music also wasn't as well received as Radiohead or Beyonce - both of whom put out records that are widely considered the best of their respective decades.

By whom ?

I can't stand either of them.

And frankly my opinion is the only one that counts.

To me.

 

[JTbaby]

who are you talking about exactly? you seem to be implying being a lifelong U2 fan also means you don't listen to much other music. curious as to what evidence you have of this assertion.

about as much evidence for "widely considered the best of their respective decades."

 

[ajax]

The U2 of 2014 come across improbably as underdogs. More startling yet, they've made a record that suits the role.

'Songs of Innocence' Review: U2 Talk to Ghosts and Avoid Becoming One | SPIN

 

[Afliktor]

U2's concept was nothing new and was blatantly forced upon a half billion people. The music also wasn't as well received as Radiohead or Beyonce - both of whom put out records that are widely considered the best of their respective decades.

what did that have to do with my post?? my point was that for a band that seemingly everyone hates on (and this is nothing new), they sure have a lot of fans ready to shell out $60+ to see them live.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

who are you talking about exactly? you seem to be implying being a lifelong U2 fan also means you don't listen to much other music. curious as to what evidence you have of this assertion.

People around here...how many Best New Music selections from Pitchfork in 2014 has the average Interference poster actually listened to? How many new albums from 2014 has the average Interference poster actually listened to? We're talking about a fan base that's almost entirely above the age of thirty (it's mostly middle aged fans in queue for the GA line, for example) and unless you're a devout music fan, you probably don't listen to much new stuff when you reach that far into adulthood (like most people).

I mean, if I'd heard like three new albums this year, I'd probably have a much more favorable opinion of the record. As it stands, I'm bored by it.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

what did that have to do with my post?? my point was that for a band that seemingly everyone hates on (and this is nothing new), they sure have a lot of fans ready to shell out $60+ to see them live.

I had meant to quote the post you had quoted. Sorry for the error.

And no, none of the haters are seeing them live. Playing to 4 million people live still means the other 7 billion on this planet could care less...

 

[BigMacPhisto]

By whom ?

I can't stand either of them.

And frankly my opinion is the only one that counts.

To me.

In Rainbows was all over Best of the Decade lists....Beyonce's record is all over Best Of The Half-Decade lists...what's there for me to prove? The press/listeners really dug both records.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

I had meant to quote the post you had quoted. Sorry for the error.

And no, none of the haters are seeing them live. Playing to 4 million people live still means the other 7 billion on this planet could care less...

This is all leading me to the conclusion why are you here? Your obviously not into it all?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BigMacPhisto]

What more can U2 do? Seriously?

Make a great record? People can criticize the distribution method all they want, but it really doesn't affect the record. U2 didn't deliver something to match the rollout, so perhaps there's extra disappointment involved?

I'm not sure if you're implying that reviewers should be nicer because U2 had a deal with Apple to give the album out to half a million people? How does that factor into artistic merit? Again, these reviewers simply don't like the album (referring to actual reviews of course, not these poor attempts at humor from certain journalists).