My problem isn't negative reviews of U2 (that's immature). My problem is these "quasi-reviews" that don't or barely mention the album, focusing instead on mainstream interpretations of the band's songwriter, marketing strategy, or longevity. All need to be taken into account, I'm sure. But A-N-Y reviewer should judge the WORK, first and foremost, then the artist.
Does someone eat at a restaurant and dissect the meal based on the chef that made the food before declaring whether they like it? Do you go to an art museum and shield your eyes as you describe what you loathe about Picasso, based on his lifestyle and influences?
That is exactly what's happening with this record, and it's irresponsible criticism. I've read some of the reviews of these guys before, and they're better than this. Just because it's new doesn't mean it's better, and just because it's familiar doesn't mean it's played out.
I see what you're saying, but the Pitchfork piece is not even a real "review". Why should the band have "more room to think" because of that pseudo-review, whan most other reviews were slightly to very positive? I think the guy disqualified himself by writing nonsenical stuff about the band instead of just focusing on the music, and by giving that ridiculously low rating. This is not "considered analysis" - I'm all for that! -, this is crap. Some reviewers make it sound as if someone in the band took their wife or something, too much personal agenda, they are disqualifying themselves as "critics".
I tend to agree with you both somewhat on the above - in this case the review is a little obscured by the outside references. What I was referring to was more the broader tendency - and this is not a criticism of what you wrote - to be too sensitive to Pitchfork's reviews and general attitude. It is there to
provoke and they do a mighty good job of it, even if they do tend to be a little too pretentious about their music tastes a lot of the time. I agree though that in this case the discussion of the album itself left a lot to be desired, but it did raise some interesting issues about the broader place of U2 and, like it or not, the only real place to discuss those issues on a site like Pitchfork is through an album review.
I didn't mean to suggest either that the Pitchfork review specifically gave the band 'more room to think', but that a more considered analysis in the broader sense would remove some of the pressure that U2 have imposed on themselves to be 'relevant' and to be the 'biggest band in the world', etc. I thought it curious that Bono mentioned (on the BBC's Culture Show I think) that the critics were saying it was one of their best albums yet, which shows that they are certainly conscious of what the media is saying and, I think you could imply, a little nervous and worried perhaps about how it would be received. Now I accept that any band will be worried at how their work is received, but I still have this feeling that the abandonment of the constriction of having to have a hit or two and big pop song like 'Crazy Tonight' (which just doesn't work for me) or the utterly-throwaway 'Stand Up Comedy' might make for a freer and more consistently interesting sound that still wouldn't compromise on the quality of the record.
It goes back to Eno's comments, not just in relation to having 'Moment of Surrender' as the lead single simply because they
could get away with it (and he has a point given the devaluation of singles), but also his comments about Passengers in his 1995 diary,
A Year With Swollen Appendices. Then Eno railed at the decision to put out
Original Soundtracks 1 under the Passengers moniker rather than under the name of U2 as had been intended right until the end of those sessions, saying that U2 had earned the right to have that artistic freedom and criticising them for not having the conviction to use that freedom fully. It seems to me that they need to worry less about outward perceptions of their music and to concentrate on shaping the music they want to. I think that we see that in all but the middle section of this album and in the at times over-reliance on that chiming Edge guitar sound to somehow sanitise the sound a little; I would just push for the kind of spontaneity and adverturousness that is clearly visible on 'Moment of Surrender', parts of 'Unknown Caller', 'Fez-Being Born' and the vocal delivery on 'Cedars of Lebanon' (though the latter still reminds me of 'Walk to the Water' each time I hear it). Finally, I tend to agree with the below; the perceived 'failure' of
Pop and the manner in which its perception has changed in twelve years has altered the nature and direction of U2's own approach.
I agree completely. But there's something that Pitchfork hit on which is actually rather profound, and a good discussion, at least - is this album really a big risky attack? or is it defensive?
Because I do like some of the experimentation on the album - tracks like Fez and COL and UC are my favorites on the album. But they aren't really that divergent from standard U2 tricks. Even if Eno is trying to make them not sound like U2, he's not doing as good of a job with that as he did with Coldplay.
But, really, there's a run of three songs here (IGC GOYB and SUC) that, while decent songs, are definitely not steps forward, and borderline ruin the mood of the album. And though I adore Magnificent, MOS, Breathe, and WAS, they aren't really bold leaps forward. I think Pitchfork, as inane as the review sometimes is, makes a point there. This feels like another album on the defensive. A bit less on defense than HTDAAB, but still.
What do you think? makes me worried that whatever U2 did with POP's criticism was so powerful that they're never gonna try to really f*** anyone up again.
about that.
