Just to take this seriously for a moment:
And you know what? They'd be right, 'cause the only way you're e-mailing a newspaper to tell them a review is unfair is if you're a crazy fan who's got blinders on.
I disagree.
First, this author gets to spew forth his opinion to the masses. Isn't a reader then entitled to counter? Does one have to be a "crazy fan" in order to disagree? Does one have to be a "hater" to not enjoy the album?
If NLOTH was another version of ATYCLB, I would agree. It's not. In fact, I feel it's the most adventurous U2 have been in over a decade. I further feel that it has some of U2's best work since the 80's and early 90's.
Additionally, when I listen to music, whether it's the coined sound of the Jonas Brothers, the lullaby rock of Coldplay, the stolen riffs of Beyonce, the mimicry of others by Justin Timberlake, the regurgitation of Eminem, the boredom of Kelly Clarkson, or the countless rock bands that sound just like U2, I am hard-pressed to look at NLOTH and say that U2 have "lost their edge". When that album is viewed with other popular acts today, it leaps out as fresh, not stale. Hence, the author's comments do come across as more of a "hater" rather than a true evaluation of the work.
But perhaps this is just a view of a "crazy fan" who has no right expressing his views of why NLOTH is indeed a sound album. We should definitely agree with all negative reviews, regardless of whether they are sound comments or not, because "who cares".
stupid article - have seen this from another source, so its basically a copy & paste. it's come from the so called flop of magnificent on the charts. at the end of the day most of the nloth album is not aimed at the commercial, one hit wonder world - it's music that has been written from scratch from the worlds most talented band. as far as live concerts go u2 crush anything else which speaks for itself. Also i think that alot of u2's best material is the least commercial stuff....
It is disappointing that "Magnificent" didn't become a hit. I was positive this would be at least a moderate hit for U2. It's catchy, yet soaring. It has the classic U2 sound, but in an updated style (with the drum machines and disco beat). Yet, for some reason, it just didn't catch on.
But then, I want people to take a good look at music sales. Kelly Clarkson sold tons of her first single via downloads. Her album has sold about half of what U2's has and hasn't done well at all worldwide. Flo Rida and Eminem have had monster singles. Flo Rida's album flew down the charts and Eminem, while seeing the strongest first week sales of the year, still sold less worldwide than U2 did in their respective first weeks.
This means one thing: people are buying "throw-away music". They'll spend 99 cents on a song. It's fast and easy. Don't like it in a month? No big deal - it was only 99 cents. They are buying the song more than the artist. It's almost impulse buying.
U2 are an album band. While they have had their share of hits, some of U2's classics never made it to the Top 40 or were even released as singles. Despite NLOTH not producing any real hit songs, NLOTH is the top selling album so far in 2009.
Could U2 have sold more with "Magnificent" as a lead single? Maybe. Sometimes U2's risks work ("Vertigo") and sometimes they don't ("Discotheque"). This could be another situation, like with "Pop", where the lead single negatively influenced the album. It's a shame though as NLOTH is a truly great album. U2 also could have sold more with a holiday release. Holiday sales probably would have NLOTH up at least another million - maybe two million - units worldwide.
Still, even with holiday sales, overall music sales are down. People will buy a song, not the album, not the artist.
I guess if U2 want to stay super-relevant, their next goal is to produce another ultra-catchy sure thing hit that will get 2M downloads on iTunes.
While that's fine, I'd rather have a bluesy, more experimental album like NLOTH.
