Author Topic: Is the Joshua Tree really a Masterpiece?  (Read 2534 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline an tha

  • Airborne Ranger
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,562
  • You can swallow, or you can spit.
Re: Is the Joshua Tree really a Masterpiece?
« Reply #30 on: March 09, 2017, 02:33:04 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Surprised to see so much bashing about this album. Especially on a U2 "FAN SITE"

Here we are again....accusations of 'bashing'...

Why is it some people continually call any opinion however well put together that isn't praising u2 as 'bashing'

This is for me equally as anti the spirit of here as the well documented perceived 'negativity' but it is never picked up on in the same way - seems that you can accuse people of bashing and it is ok even when they are just making their point and doing so reasonably.....and to top it off put 'it is a FAN SITE' in bold to play another over used card....

For me this shuts down conversation just as badly as what people accuse others of doing - yet it never gets picked up - seems a very one way street

I remember site admin using an example of how stating things as 'fact' shuts down conversation and rubbishes people - so for example 'ATYCLB is rubbish, no question' is considered an unaccpetable way to post as it shuts down the person who likes ATYCLB (site sdmin used exactly that example to describe problems here)

But it seems 'TJT is a masterpiece, no question' is perfectly acceptable.....(not what you posted but it was posted)

That isn't fair in my eyes.

People can rubbish the writer of an article and call him bitter etc and it is seemingly ok...

It is all a bit 'tolerant liberal' really...
« Last Edit: March 09, 2017, 02:43:02 AM by an tha »

Offline Blueyedboy

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 845
  • Embrace the challenge
Re: Is the Joshua Tree really a Masterpiece?
« Reply #31 on: March 09, 2017, 02:43:57 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is all very typical fansite reaction to a question like this.

Of course it's a masterpiece. Whether or not it's your favourite is irrelevant - it's the legacy of the record that defines whether or not it's a masterpiece.

That's what I've been trying to say haha.

Exile on main Street is a masterpiece apparently, doesn't float my boat but who am I (and my questionable taste in music) to argue.

Offline soloyan

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,375
  • A dangerous idea that almost makes sense
Re: Is the Joshua Tree really a Masterpiece?
« Reply #32 on: March 09, 2017, 05:37:57 AM »
I may be wrong but I think it's possible many people here see the album as "overrated" because it got so much damn airplay. For many years it was everywhere and, even today, if a U2 song pops up on the radio, you have a 70% chance it'll be a tune from the Joshua Tree.
So, in many ways, we, as fans, don't "own" the album anymore. We're definitely not the only ones to perceive its brilliance. It's interesting to put that in perspective and compare with "Pop" for which the exact opposite occurs. Since the album was scrapped by the media and the band themselves, we feel like it's a precious object. That we are the only ones "getting it".
We've heard the Joshua Tree so much by accident that it holds no mystery anymore. With Pop we can live under the illusion that there are still some gems to find, buried under layers of heavy production.

Back to the article : I think that guy analyses a 1987 album as if it was a 2017 album. In 2017 you can totally isolate the songs from the album. You can even buy the songs without purchasing the whole album. It's also clear that today most artists do their track lists so that the tunes with the most commercial impact come first. Seeing it this way, it's perfectly understandable why he praises the A side and doesn't get the B-side.


Offline Chip

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 943
Re: Is the Joshua Tree really a Masterpiece?
« Reply #33 on: March 09, 2017, 07:17:09 AM »
Assessment of a work as a masterpiece isn't determined by public sales or love, nor does a large professional critical consensus (which does have more weight than the former) mean that every professional critic agrees. Some of us fans think TJT is a masterpiece; others of us don't. That's just fine. Diversity of opinion is a good thing.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2017, 07:18:49 AM by Chip »

Offline Vox

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 932
  • Time is irrelevant, it's not linear.
Re: Is the Joshua Tree really a Masterpiece?
« Reply #34 on: March 09, 2017, 07:53:27 AM »
I believe it is.  Sure, there are one or two weaker songs on “side B,” but albums such as Sgt. Peppers or The Wall also have one or two weaker songs.   The Joshua Tree has withstood the test of time, was commercially successful, and is critically acclaimed.  Throw that in with some pretty iconic album art and a legendary band who are entering their prime, and it’s a masterpiece.

I personally think Achtung Baby is a stronger album and I connect with that one more.  I’d also say that I play The Unforgettable Fire and Zooropa more that the Joshua Tree, but that’s more of a function of hearing The Joshua Tree out-and-about more. 

Yes – it’s a masterpiece and deserving of the title.  The first five songs alone are quite amazing for their quality, diversity, and sound.

Offline WookieeWarrior10

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,987
  • Every Artist is a Cannibal, Every Poet is a Thief.
Re: Is the Joshua Tree really a Masterpiece?
« Reply #35 on: March 09, 2017, 11:46:15 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I may be wrong but I think it's possible many people here see the album as "overrated" because it got so much damn airplay. For many years it was everywhere and, even today, if a U2 song pops up on the radio, you have a 70% chance it'll be a tune from the Joshua Tree.
So, in many ways, we, as fans, don't "own" the album anymore. We're definitely not the only ones to perceive its brilliance. It's interesting to put that in perspective and compare with "Pop" for which the exact opposite occurs. Since the album was scrapped by the media and the band themselves, we feel like it's a precious object. That we are the only ones "getting it".
We've heard the Joshua Tree so much by accident that it holds no mystery anymore. With Pop we can live under the illusion that there are still some gems to find, buried under layers of heavy production.

Back to the article : I think that guy analyses a 1987 album as if it was a 2017 album. In 2017 you can totally isolate the songs from the album. You can even buy the songs without purchasing the whole album. It's also clear that today most artists do their track lists so that the tunes with the most commercial impact come first. Seeing it this way, it's perfectly understandable why he praises the A side and doesn't get the B-side.
Part of what makes a song overrated is how much airplay it gets; it is a form of praise. Does the fact that Streets is overplayed diminish the quality of the song? Of course not. Does the fact that Streets is overplayed make it overrated? Not necessarily, but to the degree that the song is heralded and loved... it does.

Offline PopMart_1997

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 142
Re: Is the Joshua Tree really a Masterpiece?
« Reply #36 on: March 09, 2017, 06:47:41 PM »
Good lord, this guy wrote a troll piece! 🙄

Of course The Joshua Tree is a masterpiece, its right up there with Achtung Baby!!!!!!!

Offline mofospacejunk

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 84
Re: Is the Joshua Tree really a Masterpiece?
« Reply #37 on: March 09, 2017, 08:13:12 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Good lord, this guy wrote a troll piece! 🙄

Of course The Joshua Tree is a masterpiece, its right up there with Achtung Baby!!!!!!!

According to you.

And I guess everyone who has replied in this post saying it's over rated, its flawed, its not a master piece must be a troll as well.

Offline tigerfan41

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,476
Re: Is the Joshua Tree really a Masterpiece?
« Reply #38 on: March 09, 2017, 08:34:47 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Surprised to see so much bashing about this album. Especially on a U2 "FAN SITE"

Here we are again....accusations of 'bashing'...

Why is it some people continually call any opinion however well put together that isn't praising u2 as 'bashing'

This is for me equally as anti the spirit of here as the well documented perceived 'negativity' but it is never picked up on in the same way - seems that you can accuse people of bashing and it is ok even when they are just making their point and doing so reasonably.....and to top it off put 'it is a FAN SITE' in bold to play another over used card....

For me this shuts down conversation just as badly as what people accuse others of doing - yet it never gets picked up - seems a very one way street

I remember site admin using an example of how stating things as 'fact' shuts down conversation and rubbishes people - so for example 'ATYCLB is rubbish, no question' is considered an unaccpetable way to post as it shuts down the person who likes ATYCLB (site sdmin used exactly that example to describe problems here)

But it seems 'TJT is a masterpiece, no question' is perfectly acceptable.....(not what you posted but it was posted)

That isn't fair in my eyes.

People can rubbish the writer of an article and call him bitter etc and it is seemingly ok...

It is all a bit 'tolerant liberal' really...

To add to this, just because you are a fan of a band, it shouldn't/doesn't mean that they're infallible in your eyes. In my case, I'm a huge fan of U2, but above that I'm a music fan. When they release a garbage song or album, I'm going to call them out on it. When they say or do something stupid, I'm not going to defend that. That's not U2 bashing, that's trying to be objective about things and admitting when something isn't good.

Call me crazy, but I don't put any artist I like on a pedestal. When there's unfair criticism of an artist's music, I'll defend them, but when it's deserved criticism...well, I'm not going to blindly defend them.

People who don't consider TJT to be a masterpiece album have their reasons for that. Everyone here who has said as such has given a reason--so I'm not seeing how this is bashing or trolling or what have you.

Ultimately, music is a very subjective thing. There are some albums which critics and fans alike seem to universally agree on as masterpieces. Then there are albums like TJT where the opinion is more split. Nothing wrong with that or healthy debate on that taking place on a fan forum like this.

Offline PopMart_1997

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 142
Re: Is the Joshua Tree really a Masterpiece?
« Reply #39 on: March 09, 2017, 08:46:22 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Good lord, this guy wrote a troll piece! 🙄

Of course The Joshua Tree is a masterpiece, its right up there with Achtung Baby!!!!!!!

According to you.

And I guess everyone who has replied in this post saying it's over rated, its flawed, its not a master piece must be a troll as well.
If it wasn't, the band wouldn't be celebrating it by doing a special run of shows playing the album in its entirety, would they?

Offline PopMart_1997

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 142
Re: Is the Joshua Tree really a Masterpiece?
« Reply #40 on: March 09, 2017, 08:53:25 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Stupid article.
U2 phoning it in on side two is a ridiculous assessment.
Kudos to the patti smith reference, Exit is very similar.
It's a great great album, incredibly cohesive.

It's a masterpiece, whether we personally enjoy it or not. It just is.
if U2 wanted some more “big tunes” on side 2 they’d have sequenced the album differently.  That they did not tells me that side 2 is precisely what they wanted it to be.
If I remember correctly, U2 didn't sequence the entire album, just the first and last track. Steve Lillywhite's late wife Kirsty MacColl was hanging round at the studio and offered to sequence the album, so the band let her do it.

Offline tigerfan41

  • Staring at the Sun
  • **
  • Posts: 1,476
Re: Is the Joshua Tree really a Masterpiece?
« Reply #41 on: March 09, 2017, 08:54:26 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Good lord, this guy wrote a troll piece! 🙄

Of course The Joshua Tree is a masterpiece, its right up there with Achtung Baby!!!!!!!

According to you.

And I guess everyone who has replied in this post saying it's over rated, its flawed, its not a master piece must be a troll as well.
If it wasn't, the band wouldn't be celebrating it by doing a special run of shows playing the album in its entirety, would they?

Depends on how you define a masterpiece. To me, there is a difference between a masterpiece album and a classic album from a band. TJT is a classic U2 album, so it follows that they would celebrate it with this tour. That doesn't mean that the album is a musical masterpiece, though.

Offline WookieeWarrior10

  • Precious Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,987
  • Every Artist is a Cannibal, Every Poet is a Thief.
Re: Is the Joshua Tree really a Masterpiece?
« Reply #42 on: March 09, 2017, 09:59:41 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Good lord, this guy wrote a troll piece! 🙄

Of course The Joshua Tree is a masterpiece, its right up there with Achtung Baby!!!!!!!

According to you.

And I guess everyone who has replied in this post saying it's over rated, its flawed, its not a master piece must be a troll as well.
If it wasn't, the band wouldn't be celebrating it by doing a special run of shows playing the album in its entirety, would they?

Depends on how you define a masterpiece. To me, there is a difference between a masterpiece album and a classic album from a band. TJT is a classic U2 album, so it follows that they would celebrate it with this tour. That doesn't mean that the album is a musical masterpiece, though.
This puts it best.

Offline lucas.homem

  • Party Girl/Boy
  • **
  • Posts: 503
Re: Is the Joshua Tree really a Masterpiece?
« Reply #43 on: March 10, 2017, 04:38:36 AM »
I'm reading through the comments and I see people arguing as if they are bringing concrete evidence to the table or an objective analysis. However, there's not much explanation in the arguments that we can make reason about (music theory, sonics and timbre, performance, emotional delivery, originality, innovation, musical and lyrical concepts etc), only adjectives thrown here and there.

Of course, nobody is obliged to think that TJT is or is not a masterpiece, and that music's technical language is obscure to most, but if we're coming from personal feelings and taste (adjectives), we should be more relative in our opinions and more open to accept that TJT is what people want it to be, a masterpiece or not.

I'm not saying people are being agressive or rude here, because they are not, but there's a lot of groundless intransigence. IT IS A MASTERPIECE!! IT IS NOT A MASTERPIECE!! I'M OBVIOUSLY RIGHT!!
« Last Edit: March 10, 2017, 04:42:10 AM by lucas.homem »

Offline briscoetheque

  • Traffic Cop (Rue du Marais)
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,669
  • R-E-S-T-E-C-P
Re: Is the Joshua Tree really a Masterpiece?
« Reply #44 on: March 10, 2017, 05:01:56 AM »
This thread is the @u2 forum in a nutshell. A microcosm. A beautifully distilled version of an entire message board.

Well done us.