Pitchfork = 4.2 (out of 10)Rolling Stone = 5 stars (out of 5)
Obviously the criteria for critiquing an album is much different.
But I'm going to have to go with Pitchfork on this one.
I watched all of their performances on Letterman this week, I honestly thought they were making a mockery of themselves with "Get On Your Boots". It was hard to watch. I felt embarrassed for them.
13 comments:
Oh Dustin...
We'll see how you're preaching is when you've been doing it for 3000 years... that is how long u2 has been a band, right?
I'm just amazed their still doing it... but it does seem embarrassing that their still going for the whole "Rock Star" persona... can't they just settle and start making some really amazing music?
If you haven't read Donald Miller's review of the cd.. I think it's pretty good.
Read it Here
have we created a false dichotomy here, one in which we are forced to choose sides between the true definition of hipster mentality and that of the old guard?
We have to choose either perfection, ala Rolling Stone or suckiness, ala the always "trustworthy" Pitchfork?
What about the agendas driving each review, that of pumping up a great band still doing relevant work 30 years after they began (which is impressive for all but the most jaded) or that of putting down anything that smacks of spiritual depth, age or self congratulation (the very nature of rock-n-roll). Of course Pitchfork would not like it. They are cynical bastards that slam anything with a message they disagree with (unless it is Jesus himself, Sufjan Stevens)or a manner that they don't get.
What is sad is that we all could have guessed and probably written the reviews for the publications based upon their track records and biases.
I choose to take neither seriously and will not force myself to choose between 2 extremes. It is a good album with 3-4 really good songs and 1 great 1. It has moments of ridiculousness and moments of wonder, just like U2 and the listeners.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
These reviews are accurate for the individual writing them (just like mine), but at least I (and you) make my biases known beforehand, unlike the harbiters of cool at Pitchfork.
I am a big fan of U2...and while their previous effort never really caught on with me...this one is much better. I do hate 'get on your boots'...terrible song...don't know why it's on there...but the rest of it is pretty good.
And I don't think that Pitchfork would ever give U2 a chance. Too commercial of a band. I like a lot of the music they like...but perhaps for different reasons. I like it because I enjoy the music...and not because no one else has ever heard of the band and that places them in the super secret music club.
I don't disagree with that at all Rick. I thought the contrast was funny. I knew Pitchfork would hate it. And I knew Rolling Stone would love it, although I was surprised that they would give it 5 stars. A perfect album??? Really???
"Get On Your Boots" is to U2 what "Highly Suspicious" was to My Morning Jacket.
"Of course Pitchfork would not like it. They are cynical bastards that slam anything with a message they disagree with (unless it is Jesus himself, Sufjan Stevens)or a manner that they don't get."
Yes, they've never liked anything U2 has done. Oh wait...
Joshua Tree - 8.9
Under a Blood Red Sky - 9.0
Boy - 8.3
War - 8.9
October - 7.1
How to Dismantle - 6.9
Huh.
so yeah, i guess i disagree with one thing :)
Wow...they gave Joshua Tree a high mark...in what? Like 1998 or so? That's a hard one...to rate a classic that highly. I suppose if they reviewed Blonde on Blonde they would give it high marks too.
Is your article here a critique of U2's newest album or of their appearances on Letterman? By the way, I had an IPA the other day and hated it. But I also enjoyed a Sam Adams and found it to be very refreshing.
Hey Thadd,
What kind of IPA was it? IPA's are hard to jump right into (and some people never like IPA's and that's fine). You should try some Brown Ale's, Porters and Stouts first. Those are gateway beers!
It was a critique of both really. I don't think the album is terrible, there are a few good songs, but nothing is really standing out to me.
I think pitchfork constantly over-rates albums, but most of their low scores or right on.
The U2 albums is terrible.
Rick, maybe talk to your dr about upping your meds...
"I think pitchfork constantly over-rates albums, but most of their low scores or right on."
I hadn't thought about that, but I agree.
Hey Anonymous,
Thanks for the suggestion. Can you give me the name of the doctor you use to prescribe your viagra?
Dustin,
Isn't it easy to review albums years later as Pitchfork did with most of the U2 albums you mentioned. I would have liked to see how they would have reviewed them when they came out. At least with Rolling Stone we actually have record of what they thought at the time, as opposed to a group of people pumping up their street cred by returning to albums years later to review them.
Also, to give Joshua Tree an 8.9 is to dismiss it in some way.
by the way- funny comment on GOYB being this albums Highly Suspicious. Hey, at least Bono does not sing in a ridiculous falsetto. A small victory I guess.
Actually I would say GOYB is worse than Highly Suspicious for 1 reason... it is also bland. Highly Suspicious is bad, but not bland. It demands you to listen, react and have an opinion. Get on Your Boots is almost ignorable.
Post a Comment