Pitchfork likes Pop
- Thread starter Zoocoustic
- 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.
HumanMusicGroup
Babyface
I'm new to this forum, but, seeing Pitchfork's review sort of started this new reflection on my appreciation of the group. I became a fan because of Pop, but I've wrestled over the album since that time. When creating mix CD's for friends and other new fans, I'd waste so much time self-righteously and self-indulgently trying to make the album "better" by way of changing track order, swapping out album versions for single versions, popping in the b-sides and replacing other tracks. It didn't need my help. Never has.
It's such a profound effort. I'm not a Pitchfork fan for their sense of self-importance of their critical voice on the industry, but, I did like this review. I'm not sure it was necessary given they weren't around for the effort (again, that sense of self-importance), but I think they struggled with it similarly to how I have over the years. The best parts of the album may be what isn't on it by way of single versions or b-sides, or its contextualization through the Pop Mart Tour. I don't even know if I'd give the album that 8.0 score for what it actually is, though I'd collectively put that album's era around there, or higher. I agree that the band hasn't been as artistic or experimental since (and this was a reason why I slowly tuned out over the years).
I keep hoping any renewed focus or rediscovery of the album will prompt more special editions or cutting floor content (and actual original cuts, not cobbled together/refinished stuff). This was a nice review to see.
It's such a profound effort. I'm not a Pitchfork fan for their sense of self-importance of their critical voice on the industry, but, I did like this review. I'm not sure it was necessary given they weren't around for the effort (again, that sense of self-importance), but I think they struggled with it similarly to how I have over the years. The best parts of the album may be what isn't on it by way of single versions or b-sides, or its contextualization through the Pop Mart Tour. I don't even know if I'd give the album that 8.0 score for what it actually is, though I'd collectively put that album's era around there, or higher. I agree that the band hasn't been as artistic or experimental since (and this was a reason why I slowly tuned out over the years).
I keep hoping any renewed focus or rediscovery of the album will prompt more special editions or cutting floor content (and actual original cuts, not cobbled together/refinished stuff). This was a nice review to see.
I find it hard to wrap my head around an article that gives Pop it's due, that also lists Gone and Please as two of the more "meh" songs on the album.
Salome
you are what you is
Gone I can half understand as the production doesn't do the song justice.
Please is a highlight.
Please is a highlight.
HumanMusicGroup
Babyface
It's a bit of a low-blow to call out "Please" like that. Maybe get annoyed that U2 keeps trying to tap into that kind of song without the honest artistic and stylistic integrity it did throughout the 90's, but recognize its achievement in its ability to connect and its importance and impact. It's also a bit of a cringeworthy take considering the song renewed meaning after 9/11. Hey, remember that?
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
I've always had a vision that Pitchfork writers think to themselves something ala "I'm going to be edgy and give POP a good score, but even edgier by dissing two of the best songs on the album, and after I finish the article, I'm going to sniff my own fart and enjoy it".
Similar threads
