Allmusic Review

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

VertiGone

Acrobat
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
376
Location
Jersey
Ever since the beginning of their career, U2 had a sense of purpose and played on a larger scale than their peers, so when they stumbled with the knowing rocktronica fusion of 1997's Pop — the lone critical and commercial flop in their catalog — it was enough to shake the perception held among fans and critics, perhaps even the group itself, that the band was predestined to always be the world's biggest and best rock & roll band. Following that brief, jarring stumble, U2 got back to where they once belonged with All That You Can't Leave Behind, returning to the big-hearted anthems of their '80s work. It was a confident, cinematic album that played to their strengths, winning back the allegiance of wary fans and critics, who were eager to once again bestow the title of the world's biggest and best band upon the band, but all that praise didn't acknowledge a strange fact about the album: it was a conservative affair. After grandly taking risks for the better part of a decade, U2 curbed their sense of adventure, consciously stripping away the irony that marked every one of their albums since 1991's Achtung Baby, and returning to the big, earnest sound and sensibility of their classic '80s work.

How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, the long-awaited 2004 sequel to ATYCLB, proves that this retreat was no mere fling: the band is committed to turning back the clock and acting like the '90s never happened. Essentially, U2 are trying to revirginize themselves, to erase their wild flirtation with dance clubs and postmodernism so they can return to the time they were the social conscious of rock music. Gone are the heavy dance beats, gone are the multiple synthesizers, gone are the dense soundscapes that marked their '90s albums, but U2 are so concerned with recreating their past that they don't know where to stop peeling away the layers. They've overcorrected for their perceived sins, scaling back their sound so far that they have shed the murky sense of mystery that gave The Unforgettable Fire and The Joshua Tree an otherworldly allure. That atmospheric cloud has been replaced with a clean, sharp production, gilded in guitars and anchored with straight-ahead, unhurried rhythms that never quite push the songs forward. This crisp production lacks the small sonic shadings that gave ATYCLB some depth, and leaves How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb showcasing U2 at their simplest, playing direct, straight-ahead rock with little subtlety and shading in the production, performance, or lyrics. Sometimes, this works to the band's detriment, since it can reveal how familiar the Edge's guitar has grown or how buffoonish Bono's affectations have become (worst offender: the overdubbed "hola!" that answers the "hello" in the chorus of "Vertigo"). But the stark production can also be an advantage, since the band still sounds large and powerful. U2 still are expert craftsman, capable of creating records with huge melodic and sonic hooks, of which there are many on HTDAAB, including songs as reassuring as the slyly soulful "Sometimes You Can't Make It on Your Own" and the soaring "City of Blinding Lights," or the pile-driving "All Because of You." Make no mistake, these are all the ingredients that make How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb a very good U2 record, but what keeps it from reaching the heights of greatness is that it feels too constrained and calculated, too concerned with finding purpose in the past instead of bravely heading into the future. It's a minor but important detail that may not matter to most listeners, since the record does sound good when it's playing, but this conservatism is what keeps HTDAAB earthbound and prevents it from standing alongside War, The Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, and All That You Can't Leave Behind as one of the group's finest efforts.

4/5
 
I always find the critical/negative reviews to be the most informative...constant praise gets old.

That said, this review was very interesting. Since I haven't listened to anything except Vertigo yet, it is a nice alternate perspective, if nothing else.
 
Quite critical.. so much so the reviewer only gave a 4/5 star rating. :)

This review seems to regurgitate a lot of the "conventional wisdom" of U2's past.. esp. concerning POP / All That You Can't Leave Behind.
 
Interesting review...don't agree with a lot of it, but interesting. It reads like a 2.5-3 of 5 review, yet at the end they give it a 4 of 5!
 
I agree with that review.

U2 abandoned a lot of what has made them great, yet they still made a very good album. They sampled themselves, but they didnt push it beyond that, honestly.

4/5 is about where this album should be rated. Higher than that is just fans being overzealous and lower is critics being overzealous.

And that is my subejctive opinion. :)
 
Homerpalooza said:


Actually, AMG seems to do this quite often. I never understand it.

Yes, the reviewer complains about the lack of innovation on the record, but then gave Pop 2.5 stars. Very inconsistent.
 
:confused: The way this review was going I thought the final grade would be much lower.

This is the first negative major review so far of the new album...probably a good sign. :)
 
I don't agree with them on POP (I love POP), but I agree with them on the HTDAAB review... I think they hit it right on with the "conservative" thing... They are playing it a bit safe and maybe too bland... nothing too interesting, too inovative..only standard good songs (onla :) )...

Today I heard "One" on my local radion station when I was in the car, and nothing on this record comes close to One... I listend to "Sometimes You Can't" and this is what I heard - a good song, but a little bit geberic - starts slow, builds up a bit, and at the end Bono is yelling his loung out, he is singing louder and louder as he is excited - it's the case with almost every song here..they all follow the same pattern. And "One" was so beautifull, so perfect, that there was no need to do that, he doesn't raise his voice much there, the song and the lirics are good enough for themselves to make it a perfect song..

I don't know if I make sense, probably I don't, but that itwhat I feel when I'm listening HTAADB - good music, I enjoy it every day more and more, but it doesn't come close to JT, AB, Zooropa or POP.... for me, at least :)
 
i think it's safe to say that this reviewer missed the boat. first off, pop wasn't a *flop*, but that's besides the point.

'sometimes' is 'slyly souful'? there's nothing sly or subtle about that song. it's a beautiful ode to his father, both heartbreaking and uplifting.

the band is committed to turning back the clock and acting like the '90s never happened.

did they not listen to 'love and peace'?

:confused: this review doesn't make sense.

the bomb is some of the most powerful and emotional work they've ever done. certain songs may have been a little 'over-produced', but to truly hear what they're saying, you need to get past the layered guitar riffs and other embellishments. they're in top form, never sounded better.
 
It's interesting that the reviewer chides this album for being safe, but states that ATYCLB is one of their best works. I think that flies in the face of the general consensus around here. Even the HTDAAB naysayers like it better than ATYCLB.
 
I guess when you're using JT & AB, both of which are 5/5, then I guess a 4/5 is a step down. And since we are talking about U2, a band who's 10 out of 10 in terms of quality records, standards shift to the right. Can you imagine if any other band had put out POP? They would have been showered with critical aclaim and called inovators. Cause whether you like POP or not, its sound is one of a kind and every song is unique.
 
Last edited:
When POP first came out - the reviews were glowing. It wasn't until later did the negativity come. On the other hand, Achtung Baby didn't receive universal praise (other than Rolling Stone) until the tour.
 
AEON said:
When POP first came out - the reviews were glowing. It wasn't until later did the negativity come. On the other hand, Achtung Baby didn't receive universal praise (other than Rolling Stone) until the tour.

I remember reading alot of mixed reviews with POP, some liked it but just as many thought it was subpar. With most U2 albums, I remeber there being a positive consencence by the critcs...then again, now that I think about it R&H wasn't particularily well recieved when it first came out so what do I Know!:huh:
 
AMG is a great music archive, but their reviews can be crap... i also think that there stars don't match there reviews in alot of cases. I'm much more interested fan reviews than music archivers that are trying to cater to every music taste ever.
 
I agree wholeheartedly with this review. They are "turning back the clock," but they just don't capture the darkness and sense of intrigue in Joshua Tree or Unforgettable Fire. It's a great album but it is not one of their best. I'd place it as maybe their fourth or fifth best album.
 
I have to say I listened to this album for 1 week now and at the beginning it was more than I had expected.

I was enthusiatic over it and I think I might have gotten on my husbands nerves a little bit by playing it over and over...

But I have to admit that the songs I liked the most in the beginning I almost can't listen to anymore - All because of you for instance . Extremely catchy but after the 20th time of hearing it I can't stand it anymore (at least today ;-)

Some other tunes catched my interest instead - the growers like Yahweh or OOTS.

I don't think that it's time to decide where this album stands - you can only judge it when some months or maybe years have gone by - and yes , the tour will provide a big part to it. If the tour will be great and emotional the album will be remembered as well.

I think it will work this way and I truely hope I will listen to this album in 10 years on from now as I still do regularly with AB.
 
this album is the best ever, the haven't sounded so good...and added with Mercy...fuck me my spine is tingling...i'm in heaven
 
AquariumDrinker said:

Interesting review. I'm not really sure if I agree or not. I still haven't figured it out myself.

In review that opens with the "Pop sucked/ATYCLB was a return to form", well, I don't read past that...
 
You can pretty much toss any review that starts with: "POP was a commercial and critical bomb..."

Hogwash. Bull. Utter tripe. This article, and pretty much every musical review that gets written these days, reflects a growing and disturbing trend in music journalism. They read each others reviews and repeat them. I swear this is true. No one will form an honest, open opinion anymore. They listen to the album maybe twice but usually once, go online and do ten minutes of research, and then churn out another puff piece. You really can't even blame the reviewers, as some editor is forcing them to write five music reviews a day. You then can't blame the editor as his staff has been cut in half because the corp. that bought his rag and five others demands more for less to valididate bloated stock prices. Anyone who would do five minutes of REAL research would see that most of the original reviews LOVED POP. They would also see that the tour was not some monster failure, and that it was actually quite successful. Made more cash than ZOO did that's for sure. Reviews that start with the same "Pop was a failure, so the band had to find themselves again..." reflect a total lack of knowledge of the subject they are supposded to be experts on. U2 moved away from their ironic side because they had gone to the edge of the cliff. They couldn't push it any farther. They were turning 40 and were ready to be 40. HTBAAB still has elements of the 90's though, which is way lines like "the band is committed to turning back the clock and acting like the '90s never happened." make no sense. Look at LAPOE for exhibit A.

Also, some of the songs are quite layered, and that makes some of this reviews other comments even more puzzling. Striped back too much? Are you kidding? Did we hear a different album? Yes there are two songs that sound kind of basic, but most are walls and waves of piano, guitars, vocals, echos, etc.

Lastly, why the focus on past albums? I want a review of this album. They spend most of this article comparing the sound to other albums and why that matters, then admit someone just listening to it wouldn't know any different. Well, great then! Judge it on its own merits as this is a review for this album, not about your hangups as a reviewer!

I have no problem with the 4/5 review, I think that's quite fair, but the article itself is problematic.
 
I liked the review. It's fair, it should talk more about how good are the songs though and about the strong points of the album. HTDAAB can't be compared to what it's out there, it's much better and interesting. I agree with them when they say: "But what keeps it from reaching the heights of greatness is that it feels too constrained and calculated, too concerned with finding purpose in the past instead of bravely heading into the future."

I don't fully agree with the last part cause I think Love And Peace Or Else and other special moments on the record are new grounds for U2 (and that's pretty much what makes U2 so good and relevant nowadays, that they can still make music that they haven't fully made before in their 25 years) but I do agree that at times HTDAAB sounds a bit too calculated and constrained.
 
Last edited:
Layton said:
It's interesting that the reviewer chides this album for being safe, but states that ATYCLB is one of their best works. I think that flies in the face of the general consensus around here. Even the HTDAAB naysayers like it better than ATYCLB.

That kind of threw me for a loop, too. Yes, HTDAAB is a fairly safe album, but when you compare it to ATYCLB is it positively adventerous. ATYCLB also had terrible production compared to HTDAAB - it was so slick and shiny that it drained all the life out of the songs.

The reviewer did hit on something that I've been trying to put into words for a long time. Over and over and over again, you hear how ATYCLB was a return to the "classic" U2 sound of UF and JT. I've never understood this, because both of those earlier albums always sounded much darker and moodier and a thousand times more interesting than ATYCLB, both in sound and in lyrics. Sure, Pride and Streets are big, soaring, inspirational anthems, but songs like WOWY, Wire, Bullet, The Unforgettable Fire and Exit are very dark.
 
I didn't care for the overally review, perhaps the reveiwer only listened to the album once or twice. I went back through the U2 catalogue today part-way, listened to AB and JT all the way through and I really did understand why those albums are so classic, they are incredibly mind-blowing. I then listened to HTDAAB again, and really was captured by the songs. However, I really now think that HTDAAB may be a strong consistent set of songs, but the overall feeling I get from the album doesn't quite aspire to JT or AB. It may be third on my U2 album list right now. For example, I have almost all of the UF, Pop, Boy, and War on my IPOD, only some of October, Rattle and Hum, and ATYCLB, but the whole albums of JT and AB. I also have all of HTDAAB. Again, none of the songs on HTDAAB bore me or do I consider weak, yet JT and AB have a hold on me beyond comprehension. Just my thoughts. :shrug:
 
tkramer said:
You can pretty much toss any review that starts with: "POP was a commercial and critical bomb..."

Hogwash. Bull. Utter tripe. This article, and pretty much every musical review that gets written these days, reflects a growing and disturbing trend in music journalism. They read each others reviews and repeat them. I swear this is true. No one will form an honest, open opinion anymore. They listen to the album maybe twice but usually once, go online and do ten minutes of research, and then churn out another puff piece. You really can't even blame the reviewers, as some editor is forcing them to write five music reviews a day. You then can't blame the editor as his staff has been cut in half because the corp. that bought his rag and five others demands more for less to valididate bloated stock prices. Anyone who would do five minutes of REAL research would see that most of the original reviews LOVED POP. They would also see that the tour was not some monster failure, and that it was actually quite successful. Made more cash than ZOO did that's for sure. Reviews that start with the same "Pop was a failure, so the band had to find themselves again..." reflect a total lack of knowledge of the subject they are supposded to be experts on. U2 moved away from their ironic side because they had gone to the edge of the cliff. They couldn't push it any farther. They were turning 40 and were ready to be 40. HTBAAB still has elements of the 90's though, which is way lines like "the band is committed to turning back the clock and acting like the '90s never happened." make no sense. Look at LAPOE for exhibit A.

Also, some of the songs are quite layered, and that makes some of this reviews other comments even more puzzling. Striped back too much? Are you kidding? Did we hear a different album? Yes there are two songs that sound kind of basic, but most are walls and waves of piano, guitars, vocals, echos, etc.

Lastly, why the focus on past albums? I want a review of this album. They spend most of this article comparing the sound to other albums and why that matters, then admit someone just listening to it wouldn't know any different. Well, great then! Judge it on its own merits as this is a review for this album, not about your hangups as a reviewer!

I have no problem with the 4/5 review, I think that's quite fair, but the article itself is problematic.

I'm getting a little bit off-topic, but I think that what I've got to say is sort of important, especially since somebody got up and made these remarks. "tkramer," you are totally right. I should know--I've written a bit of music criticism, over the years. I obviously never have written and never will write for a mainstream publication or for as major a resource as AMG, but the trends you describe are indeed true. Hell, I've been a victim of it, myself, and I'm a well-informed listener, a polished and accomplished writer, and a strongly opinionated individual who isn't afraid to make his feelings known. Even so...it just happens. I think that people should just bear these sorts of things in mind when trying to appraise the album's worth based on these initial album reviews--not everybody does it (I don't even think a lot of people do it...but some do), but it's dangerous to do that sort of thing, because some of the reviewers (trust me) don't even really know what they think of the album. We've just gotta' figure it out for ourselves, by ourselves, etc.

That said, I do agree with what Erlewhine (I may be misspelling his name...sorry) says, here. I was actually pretty surprised with how cut-and-paste this review sounds, though....he does trip himself up a lot and he does make some REALLY strange and illogical argumentative steps, but I agree with his overall sentiment: it's too safe but VERY well-written and quite listenable...a GOOD album, but not a true classic. I just didn't expect this from Steve, because he's typically pretty well-informed, U2-wise... Very odd; especially the HTDAAB v. ATYCLB comparisons...crazy-style.
 
This is a strange review. It's like something out of the New Yorker. I get to the end and I have no idea whether it was a good review or a bad one. But, hey, four out five ain't bad.
 
Allmusic is waiting to see how this album is received. If this album hits it big and is uber-popular with the reviews remaining consistently good... they WILL change the review to a more positive and glowing review. They've done it for a couple of CDs that they have reviewed before.

I agree with aspects of the review but the whole POP thing was a load of crap... When you have Q, Rolling Stone, Spin (who hates U2), TIME, etc... giving super positve reviews for POP when it came out, that equals being well received by critics. The reviewer overrates ATYCLB too.
 
Well, Pop was somewhat of a commercial disappointment. Just look at Pop's sales in comparison with the rest of U2's album sales in the United States according to the RIAA.

Boy--certified platinum.

October--certified platinum.

War--certified multiplatinum (over 4 million in sales).

Unforgettable Fire--certified multiplatinum (over 3 million in sales).

Joshua Tree--certified diamond (over 10 million in sales).

Rattle and Hum--certified multiplatinum (over 5 million in sales).

Achtung Baby--certified multiplatinum (over 8 million in sales).

Zooropa--certified double platinum.

Pop--certified platinum.

All That You Can't Leave Behind--certified multiplatinum (over 4 million in sales).

Pop sold about half the number of albums as Zooropa, which itself sold only two million copies (although these figures are probably old as the last platinum certifications for these albums were back in '97). For any other band, platinum and double platinum albums would be the epitome of success, but these figures are dwarfed by the sales that albums such as All That You Can't Leave Behind, Achtung Baby, Rattle and Hum, The Joshua Tree, the Unforgettable Fire, and War enjoyed.
 
Back
Top Bottom