GEN
Active topics
  1. Fuck Pitchfork. Did anyone really expect U2 to get an unprejudiced review? Do you really think the reviewer would be brave enough to hang around the P4K watercooler/coffee house and look his skinny jean wearing sculpted beard face furnitured hipster colleagues in the eyes after giving a positive review? Fuck Pitchfork. The irony is that P4K is as much of a past-its-prime trend setter behemoth as it seems to think U2 is.

    Ratings are nonsense where a subjective appreciation of art is concerned, how absurd would it be for some art critic to give Michelangelo's David a 7.3, but the Mona Lisa an 8.1, etc. (I'm not putting U2 on such a lofty pedestal, just ilustrating a point)

    Trust your own ears, head, heart and gut. Music is food for the soul and mine is well nourished by SOI. Fuck Pitchfork.

    "writing about music is like dancing about architecture" - Martin Mull.
  2. Lovely last quote
  3. Originally posted by TheRefugee:Fuck Pitchfork. Did anyone really expect U2 to get an unprejudiced review? Do you really think the reviewer would be brave enough to hang around the P4K watercooler/coffee house and look his skinny jean wearing sculpted beard face furnitured hipster colleagues in the eyes after giving a positive review? Fuck Pitchfork. The irony is that P4K is as much of a past-its-prime trend setter behemoth as it seems to think U2 is.

    Ratings are nonsense where a subjective appreciation of art is concerned, how absurd would it be for some art critic to give Michelangelo's David a 7.3, but the Mona Lisa an 8.1, etc. (I'm not putting U2 on such a lofty pedestal, just ilustrating a point)

    Trust your own ears, head, heart and gut. Music is food for the soul and mine is well nourished by SOI. Fuck Pitchfork.

    "writing about music is like dancing about architecture" - Martin Mull.

    Here fucking here!

    Seriously though critics have hated U2 basically since The Unforgettable Fire. Is anyone keeping count at this point on good vs bad reviews? I've read a fair share of both.

    I don't really give a shit, but it's sad to see reviewers bash U2 for being U2, especially if the music is good. I think the most redundant comment is "This song sounds like U2 copying a band who tries to sound like U2, like Snow Patrol." Do they not realize how ridiculous that sounds? A more apt comment would be "this sounds like U2, just not a great U2 song."

    It's always nice to see your love for something shared by everyone. My biggest worry is that U2 will see all of these bad reviews and say "Guess we're not releasing something like that again" and there goes a possible Songs of Experience or more of them trying to sound current. Every single negative review I've read reads like a biased critic who hates U2. They know enough about the band to insult them beyond just the music, and it's clear in all of them. I haven't seen one negative review that says "the production on this song is lacklustre and the melodies are a tad bland." Instead it's always "Bono sings this lyric "__" like he's saving the world and guess what, no one cares Bono". Get over yourselves.
  4. "That gravity has a name, and it’s four letters long, and at this point even those letters are wearing sunglasses. The two brief moments where Bono drops his global-rock-ambassador persona—the deranged, filtered first note of the “Raised by Wolves” chorus, the brief return of the “Lemon” falsetto on “Sleep Like a Baby Tonight”—are jarring enough to expose just how overblown his crooning is on Songs of Innocence. While the album’s liner notes contain a moving, train-of-thought reflection on a childhood made up of witnessing car bombings and sneaking into Ramones shows, almost none of that insight makes it into the actual songs, which are a celebration of self-absorption: “You are rock and roll” quickly amended to “You and I are rock and roll.” - Pitchfork


    This entire paragraph is just bullshit lmao
  5. This happens all the time in music journalism – a critic will have a personal vendetta against a certain artist because of one asepct; in this case being "Bono is a wanker." I agree that you can't hate an artist for that, it's simply unwarranted.

    But what is happening here is that a lot of you are jumping on the U2 hardcore fan wagon and are defending U2 at every corner. Try and look at it from a realistically critical point of view yourself. Of course there will be a lot of reviews based on the generic opinion of U2 and the unnecessary hatred of Bono, but a lot of it will be cogent analysis. The album isn't perfect, they've had two of those already and will probably never replicate those golden years that occurred many moons ago. It's a valiant effort but it has flaws: should have been wholly Danger Mouse, can be too synthy at points, few typical cringey moments here and there etc. If I was rating it, it'd be 6 or 7 if I was in a critical situation – e.g. writing for Pitchfork, Guardian etc. But I'd try hard to be impartial and not talk utter bollocks like NME.
  6. An excerpt from Stereogum, I think I stop reading crap like this:

    So Songs Of Innocence doesn’t have any ideas, and there’s no rawness in its production. Fine. It could still be a good U2 album. All That You Can’t Leave Behind was short on ideas and intensity, too, and it’s still the moment U2 gracefully transitioned to elder-statesman status. And maybe Songs Of Innocence could’ve worked like that one did. If only the band had managed to come up with some fucking choruses. What happened to these guys? They used to be capable of melodies that could swallow up the world. But there’s not one single chorus on Songs Of Innocence that I could hum at gunpoint, even after keeping the thing on repeat since it came out. The buildups to the choruses are often quite nice. “Raised By Wolves” is an effectively tense churn until the guitar squawks and Bono starts bleating about being “stronger than feeeeuh.” “Iris (Hold Me Close)” sounds like a classic midtempo U2 ballad, Edge’s guitar rippling the way it always should, until we reach the payoff of a bunch of buried voices muttering “oooh weee-uhh weee-uhhh.” “California (There Is No End To Love)” has some nifty doo-wop stuff going on in the intro, but its hook is one big wet fart. I don’t get it. This band never had any trouble delivering on the big tension-release moment. But this time, they just can’t pay anything off. When these songs get to the part where they should soar, they just sputter and die.
  7. Originally posted by KieranU2:This happens all the time in music journalism – a critic will have a personal vendetta against a certain artist because of one asepct; in this case being "Bono is a wanker." I agree that you can't hate an artist for that, it's simply unwarranted.

    But what is happening here is that a lot of you are jumping on the U2 hardcore fan wagon and are defending U2 at every corner. Try and look at it from a realistically critical point of view yourself. Of course there will be a lot of reviews based on the generic opinion of U2 and the unnecessary hatred of Bono, but a lot of it will be cogent analysis. The album isn't perfect, they've had two of those already and will probably never replicate those golden years that occurred many moons ago. It's a valiant effort but it has flaws: should have been wholly Danger Mouse, can be too synthy at points, few typical cringey moments here and there etc. If I was rating it, it'd be 6 or 7 if I was in a critical situation – e.g. writing for Pitchfork, Guardian etc. But I'd try hard to be impartial and not talk utter bollocks like NME.

    I certainly agree with you. And it's all suggestive too. Someone who says U2 can't write any memmorable choruses anymore sounds ridiculous because I keep singing them all day long in my head.
  8. Although it does seem like some people are looking for the easy way out to criticise the band by stating stuff that isn't necessary entirely evident when listening. Some journalists just aren't digging deep enough. Cough cough, Stereogum.
  9. Is the P4K 'reviewer' seriously annoyed that a lead singer in a rock band is self absorbed? The lyrics are autobiographical for God's sake, a reflection on youth and a celebration of discovering one's vocation in life.

    Besides, If self-absorbed autobiographical lyrics are such a musical crime how did Kanye's Yeezus not lose more than 0.5 marks out of 10 from P4k in their review - Double Standards methinks.
  10. Not really a review, but did anyone else see that idiotic "10 things to do with an unwanted U2 album" that The Guardian had? I clicked it hoping for at least a bit of humor because if it's actually funny I don't mind laughing at people I admire but it was just more petty U2 bashing.

    I do think this album has its flaws, and almost agree that reviewer that said "where the songs should soar they sputter and die", except not "sputter and die" just that there aren't enough big moments that sound like they could fill a stadium like I expect from U2. Eh, right now the wave of popular U2 hate is around most comment sections on the internet I've seen so I'll wait until it blows over to hear legitimate criticisms from review sites.
  11. Originally posted by KieranU2:This happens all the time in music journalism – a critic will have a personal vendetta against a certain artist because of one asepct; in this case being "Bono is a wanker." I agree that you can't hate an artist for that, it's simply unwarranted.

    But what is happening here is that a lot of you are jumping on the U2 hardcore fan wagon and are defending U2 at every corner. Try and look at it from a realistically critical point of view yourself. Of course there will be a lot of reviews based on the generic opinion of U2 and the unnecessary hatred of Bono, but a lot of it will be cogent analysis. The album isn't perfect, they've had two of those already and will probably never replicate those golden years that occurred many moons ago. It's a valiant effort but it has flaws: should have been wholly Danger Mouse, can be too synthy at points, few typical cringey moments here and there etc. If I was rating it, it'd be 6 or 7 if I was in a critical situation – e.g. writing for Pitchfork, Guardian etc. But I'd try hard to be impartial and not talk utter bollocks like NME.

    I can admit to not really being able to view it from a critical point of view, but what you are saying also comes down to opinion about it should've been DM's album and all that. I'll agree it has its flaws, but that doesn't mean we agree on what those flaws are, and what I'm saying is most of the reviews that I've read don't hit on the flaws that some people around here are making out, it's all just "U2 are blowhards and Bono is self-centered."
  12. Originally posted by KieranU2:This happens all the time in music journalism – a critic will have a personal vendetta against a certain artist because of one asepct; in this case being "Bono is a wanker." I agree that you can't hate an artist for that, it's simply unwarranted.

    But what is happening here is that a lot of you are jumping on the U2 hardcore fan wagon and are defending U2 at every corner. Try and look at it from a realistically critical point of view yourself. Of course there will be a lot of reviews based on the generic opinion of U2 and the unnecessary hatred of Bono, but a lot of it will be cogent analysis. The album isn't perfect, they've had two of those already and will probably never replicate those golden years that occurred many moons ago. It's a valiant effort but it has flaws: should have been wholly Danger Mouse, can be too synthy at points, few typical cringey moments here and there etc. If I was rating it, it'd be 6 or 7 if I was in a critical situation – e.g. writing for Pitchfork, Guardian etc. But I'd try hard to be impartial and not talk utter bollocks like NME.

    See that's your opinion too cause I honestly like all the songs and am glad that they sound the way they do so for me an entire Danger Mouse album isn't necessary.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.