Bonoisgodly
The Fly
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2009
- Messages
- 137
All Critical Reviews of the New album here
- Thread starter Registered Dude
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
After this review I've got the gross image of Win Butler being Bono's child and him sleeping with him. Holy shit! I thought Ryan Dombal was the biggest douche.
If Achtung Baby was the sound of four men chopping down the Joshua Tree, the this review is the sound of a man being paid to try very very hard to sound unimpressed.
I think what's going to work for U2 this time is that the overtly optimistic vibe of SOI will make snarky, spiteful reviews like this sound petty and inaccurate to casual or new fans listening to the album. U2 got ahead of the Pitchfork-esque critics this time. People can listen for themselves, then read the review, and then wonder why thse se writers are so darned bitter.
Sent from my fingertips.
birdman
Acrobat
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2010
- Messages
- 444
For someone who reviewed this as a 4.6, he spends a third to a half of it bitching about the nature of its release. He spends another third, making the obvious joke about Bono's infamous narcissim. A comprehensive review? I think not.
EDIT: Fuck Pitchfork, where and when can I read reviews that are at least fair?
EDIT: Fuck Pitchfork, where and when can I read reviews that are at least fair?
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
Interesting.
NLOTH - 4.2
+ SOI - 4.6
___________
Beyonce - 8.8
That's math!
It is interesting though how practically every negative review mentions the Beyonce record. Yes, it was a more interesting drop/creative album blah blah blah. But it's not really that relevant to the conversation.
Anyway, had no problem calling this review given the general consensus towards the new album and the score the last one received. Nothing really excites me on SOI and I'm an unabashed U2 fanatic, so what is there to love on it for some skeptical writers?
NLOTH - 4.2
+ SOI - 4.6
___________
Beyonce - 8.8
That's math!
It is interesting though how practically every negative review mentions the Beyonce record. Yes, it was a more interesting drop/creative album blah blah blah. But it's not really that relevant to the conversation.
Anyway, had no problem calling this review given the general consensus towards the new album and the score the last one received. Nothing really excites me on SOI and I'm an unabashed U2 fanatic, so what is there to love on it for some skeptical writers?
mama cass
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2004
- Messages
- 6,293
Must hurt looking at the current itune charts
that is so great! it must be such a lovely boost for the band as new listeners must have liked what they heard and have gone looking for more... the boys must have felt confident in these songs to release the album in this way, and rightly so!
CosmoKramer
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2004
- Messages
- 3,325
Interesting.
NLOTH - 4.2
+ SOI - 4.6
___________
Beyonce - 8.8
That's math!
It is interesting though how practically every negative review mentions the Beyonce record. Yes, it was a more interesting drop/creative album blah blah blah. But it's not really that relevant to the conversation.
Anyway, had no problem calling this review given the general consensus towards the new album and the score the last one received. Nothing really excites me on SOI and I'm an unabashed U2 fanatic, so what is there to love on it for some skeptical writers?
Was it you that said this album was very "U2 by numbers"?
Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Interesting.
NLOTH - 4.2
+ SOI - 4.6
___________
Beyonce - 8.8
That's math!
It is interesting though how practically every negative review mentions the Beyonce record. Yes, it was a more interesting drop/creative album blah blah blah. But it's not really that relevant to the conversation.
Anyway, had no problem calling this review given the general consensus towards the new album and the score the last one received. Nothing really excites me on SOI and I'm an unabashed U2 fanatic, so what is there to love on it for some skeptical writers?
Well I'm glad your satisfied (or not). Your loss. It's a good album and I'll be listening to it more than the Beyonce one or The Swans or Sun Kil Moon or Sunbather or Burial.
birdman
Acrobat
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2010
- Messages
- 444
As long as the bastards who give it bad reviews for cred, don't end up at their concerts, the world will keep turning just fine.
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
Whether I did or not, I could agree with that sentiment. Not that they aren't branching out a bit in terms of some sounds, whether or not you think it was brave or idiotic for The Edge to be more focused on riffs than soundscapes this time around, etc...but there's a lot of elements similar to things they've done before. It's not the career look-through that HTDAAB was, but it's certainly not as initially intriguing as any of the albums through ATYCLB.
I mean, is anybody here going to go to bat for The Miracle, for example, and say it's actually an interesting change-up from these guys? That's exactly the sort of thing we'd expect from them at this point after "Get On Your Boots" and "Vertigo"...
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
birdman
Acrobat
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2010
- Messages
- 444
There's your answer.
david
ONE love, blood, life
People point out the list of producers for this album.. Everyone forgot that Bomb had 8 people in the producing role in one form or the other.
david
ONE love, blood, life
...and Discotheque, The Fly, Desire, Pride.. Rock songs as first singles have always been their thing for the most part, with a few albums being the exception.
david
ONE love, blood, life
Romanek didn't like the New Yorker review at all:
https://twitter.com/markromanek/status/510211145563521024
@markromanek
Hate to bring more attention to it, but @sfj's U2 piece in the @NewYorker is stunningly assholic. Shocked they would even print it.
Pretty cool that he called him out on that piece.
Marko
War Child
While pitchfork's rating it's expected, in line with nloth, the review itself is not as stupid and pointless as those from NME and New Yorker.
I can disagree with the guy, but I can also see where he is coming from. I even agree with him on some points (for instance the feeling that some choruses destroy much better sounding body off a song - California, Vulcano, miracle...). But in my case this pushes the rating down to 6 or 7 ☺
Sent from my LG-D855 using U2 Interference mobile app
I can disagree with the guy, but I can also see where he is coming from. I even agree with him on some points (for instance the feeling that some choruses destroy much better sounding body off a song - California, Vulcano, miracle...). But in my case this pushes the rating down to 6 or 7 ☺
Sent from my LG-D855 using U2 Interference mobile app
Afliktor
The Fly
Similarly, 'where U2 most self-consciously plays itself--or, more distressingly, risk causing a temporal paradox...' is failing a grammar test, taking the age-old 'do we treat band names as singular or plural' question head on and answering, 'both, in the same sentence'.
GRAMMAR PWNED!
seriously pitchfork is just a fucking parody of itself. The Onion got it right.
Roland of Gilead
Gunslinger
The lucky fucker! He didn't even have to click anything on his iTunes. It was already there! Now that's how you infect a computer. 
birdman
Acrobat
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2010
- Messages
- 444
The way I see it, is that they have a good foundation of songs, that they afforded to U2 fans, which they can choose to improve on for their shows. This is just the record, that the band decided to release in an innovative way through iTunes. The negative reviews do not reflect the forecasted quality of the new era, where the songs will blossom for us, the optimistic U2 fans.
It's all there for us to enjoy.
Super Yo
New Yorker
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I see what you're getting at. You wanted something as groundbreaking as Achtung Baby like a The Fly as a first single but a lot of the high rated albums on Pitchfork aren't as good as Achtung Baby either so it's hard to expect the band to do that again when they've already done it and few others do it. I did like Merriweather Post Pavilion (which they give a 10) but I'll probably listen to most U2 albums more often than that.
I think it comes down to favourites versus being detached and assessing cultural impact and novelty. People who follow criticism will probably listen to more music and have a larger breadth than typical fans. The problem for me is when I try to do this, some of the music just sucks for me or I don't want to be associated with (Satanist Scream-o Metal music) no matter how hard I try.
This gets a higher rating:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfbLWHT7vUU
But I'm never going to put this in the same level of even October. It got an 8.9.
This one below has interesting parts but it's the same thing in that I think most of it sucks. Maybe I like verse-chorus-verse-chorus most of the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1v3NeGtm_Y
For example some of this sounds like a mentally retarded person on 9:30 that makes me laugh. This got a 9.0.
I would love for Larry to do a Passengers sequel where he moans and does weird arty-farty xylophone tracks while edge lays down a metal-riff and screams at the top of his lungs but this is not what U2 does and people don't want them to do that for the most part. They were nice enough to give Delta Machine by Depeche Mode a 5.0, but I suppose that they've faded away and didn't give it away to 500 million people they deserve that score.
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
Both of those albums were excellent. There are better Swans albums and better black metal/shoegaze bands than Deafheaven, but both are extremely good for the genre. I would just argue it's not your thing.
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Yes but U2 is being compared to them in the sense that U2 needs to sound even more drastically different than they do now to get noticed by the NME's and Pitchforks of the world. It's hilarious because even some U2 fans find the change they just did as too much for them.
bono_212
Blue Crack Distributor
Purple Oscar didn't like it, so the whole Internet is wrong.
Also, can you seriously stop calling people retarded, man? It's one thing when people say it about inanimate objects, I do it often enough, but shit, when I hear people call other people that, especially in the careless, crass way you have been, it really rubs me the wrong way.
Also, can you seriously stop calling people retarded, man? It's one thing when people say it about inanimate objects, I do it often enough, but shit, when I hear people call other people that, especially in the careless, crass way you have been, it really rubs me the wrong way.
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Well if people light themselves on fire with aerosols then they are at least stupid. That singing part I referenced on The Swans does sound like a mentally-challenged person.
LemonMelon is right, it's not my thing.
U2 sleeping with Arcade Fire children rubs me the wrong way as well.
Does anyone think with the critical backlash and supposedly only 200k people downloading the album, that if they were going to release songs of experience that they may hold off on releasing that album now?
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
owl
War Child
No. We still don't know when they are planning to release it anyway.
And that figure only applied to the US alone apparently.
Super Yo
New Yorker
200k the first day in the US, we don't know what happened next, also, we don't know if that number was true. Universal deny it.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
- Status
Similar threads
