cato

cato

Comments

I guess he does the same about tom breihan's insistent shitting on Songs Of Innocence. When someone refers to devaluation of music critic discourse, i think his words must be exemplary. Hilarious wording at least.
Embarrassing for their legacy to say the least.Indifferent and mundane.
''But if anyone actually hands any Grammys to that boring, boring album, we’re going to have to burn the whole system down''. Or just shit on it(both the album and the system i mean), as it's the writer's hobby and, judging by his writing skills, his only capability. Now, everyone back to the joyful, irresistible and above all un-boring Tomorrow's Modern Boxes.
That's why i prefer Songs Of Innocence to Tomorrow's Modern Boxes. Far better quality -too much compression at those Bittorrent files-, far better pricing for fans and as far the music quality is concerned, there cannot be any serious comparison. Unless we like to compare self-conscious music to useless musical drafts- which seems to be the only kind of musical structure Yorke is capable of nowadays. Long are the days of The Bends and In Rainbows.Melody and rhythm demand discipline and knowledge, not lazy and pretentious sketches.If i want to listen to nuanced electronic-ambient music, i prefer Lee Gamble's latest album. Not this caricature of electronic music-.
So many words for such a nonsensical album. I never expected Yorke to be able to deliver an album even worse than The King Of Limbs, but he made it. Major achievement, no doubt. What strikes me more though is that Yorke seems to be far from reaching his artistic nadir. I am looking forward listening to an album even worse than Tomorrow's Modern Boxes. And he is the only capable of doing this. Ps. “There Is No Ice (For My Drink)” sounds even sillier than it's title suggests.
U2 would never have imagined such publicity. Even the most unaware person must by now heard of Songs Of Innocence and it's release. Keep it coming Stereogum
If a considered review contains quotes like ''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'', ''Songs Of Innocence doesn’t have those songs, and it sounds like bullshit two days later. All the audacious marketing in the world can’t polish a turd'' or it's basic notion is that ''They could do things like that again -referring to Achtung Baby-. It can be done.'', i guess i don't understand the meaning of the word. The Romans long ago said that ''de gustibus, non est disputandum''. You can't convince me that the album is abysmal. You have no strong arguments about that, since everything depends upon your subjective reception of what an abysmal album is. In the same way, i cannot convince you either that this is a great record, because that is determined by my notion of what constitutes a great record. What i am saying though, is that a review that is based precisely upon the writer's aesthetic criteria (for example he considers coldplay's latest album an exemplary model for u2 to follow-even though, since you read many reviews you already know, ghost stories has received lukewarm response by the critics-) is meaningless. Only if a review takes into concern the generic framework within which a band operates, understands the allusions to previous records (e.g. the gesture of Sleep Like A Baby to the music aura of Zooropa.I don't care if the writer thinks that ''The glassy synths of “Sleep Like A Baby” are pretty enough, though it’s hard to imagine any member of U2 having a hand in creating them'', because that 's just an opinion without any justification. He finds them pretty enough, someone else, like you for example, may find them horrible) and, in general, conceives songs as artifacts related to a specific music tradition, makes it worthy of consideration. In any other case it just ''seems like bullshit two days later''.
It's an easy task to retrospectively review an album, the legacy of which was long before the review itself undisputed. The difficulty comes when someone wants to review a u2 album based on the songs themselves, and not on the perception of bono's public persona and u2's brand name. And since these songs nowadays don't meet the aesthetic criteria set by stereogum writers (and i suppose u2 as a typical pop-rock band don't want to comply to stereogum's handbook of ideal music production), i don't see the point in reviewing Songs Of Innocence at all.
There is no comparison between those two. Arcade Fire is one of the most overestimated bands of the last 15 years, whereas Spoon is probably the most underestimated band of the oo's. The way they progressed their eclecticism from Series Of Snakes up to They Want My Soul is unparalleled. Arcade Fire on the other hand is just an average, but heavily hyped band. Nothing more.
Given that every single writer here at stereogum is uninterested in U2 (some even shit on their latest album), i find it funny that they still bother with them. Just let it go. Your silence about them would be much more poignant.
Not surprisingly, the same notion permeated N.M.E.'s review of Achtung Baby back in 1991. It criticized the absence of memorable songs and the lack of Joshua Tree's glory, awarding it with 7 out of 10.Had it been released today, many contemporary critics i suppose would call Trying to Throw Your Arms Around The World a pop-hip hop throwaway, not to mention the intensely personal lyrics and the bonoisms throughout the album.I am sure the same critic who now bashes SOI, would have said, regarding Achtung Baby that ''They could do things like that again. It can be done'', referring to The Joshua Tree. But It's the legacy of Achtung Baby, now firmly established, that compensates it's genuine incongruities. Funnily though it was still Q magazine and the Rolling Stone, the most concervative music magazines even then, that awarded Achtung Baby with the most positive reviews. Had twitter existed back in 1991, i would love to see an announcement of a review such as ''I shitted on Achtung Baby''.
I guess the same term ''predictability'' applies also to stereogum's review, but from the opposite perspective. Both reviews are full of cliche and trite descriptions. A detached critical discourse regarding a u2 album is difficult to find.
Hi. It looks like you're using an ad blocker.

As an independent website, we rely on our measly advertising income to keep the lights on. Our ads are not too obtrusive, promise. Would you please disable adblock?