purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
"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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I will say that the reviews of this one seem a little higher than NLOTH in general.
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.
Positive or negative, these are not actually music critics. Practically none of them. These are pop culture critics.
The Troubles is the worst song on the album!
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!
Anybody read the NME review? Typical U2 hating crap.
Sent from my HTC One using U2 Interference mobile app
The song and that phrase don't go together.
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!