Author Topic: 5 star review  (Read 10825 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dislexoteche

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 134
  • helping God across the road like a little old lady
Re: 5 star review
« Reply #30 on: February 15, 2009, 06:03:05 PM »
Are you busy eating a big fat slice of humble pie BIBL? Cos if you're not I'd only be too delighted to lay a wager with you (for a sum of your choosing), with the good people of atu2 forum as our witnesses, that NME give NLOTH a positive review = 7/10 or more. Put your money where your Bono sized mouth clearly is my friend.

Offline Bono in Bonolands

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 881
Re: 5 star review
« Reply #31 on: February 15, 2009, 06:12:32 PM »
The article explains the history of NME and U2. How NME turned around in their view of U2. So I know that NME gave U2 a positive review for NLOTH. The article explains the transformation from the point of time that Bono sent the NME reviewer a hatchet.

NME have not always been favourable of U2. In fact, they were very negative for a long period of time. Now the view has changed as explained in the article.

Cheers.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2009, 06:22:21 PM by Bono in Bonolands »

Offline dislexoteche

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 134
  • helping God across the road like a little old lady
Re: 5 star review
« Reply #32 on: February 15, 2009, 06:17:31 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The article explains the history of NME and U2. How NME turned around in their view of U2. So I know that NME gave U2 a positive review for NLOTH. The article explains the transofrmation from the point of time that Bono sent the NME reviewer a hatchet.

NME have not always been favourable of U2. In fact, they were very negative for a long period of time. Now the view has changed as explained in the article.

Cheers.

Disappointing BIBL - and for a second there I thought you were gonna stubbornly refute the very simple point I made which was: NME are not necessarily anti-U2. Note the use of "are" BIBL - that indicates a use of PRESENT tense thus making any reference to the past relationship between U2 and NME completely irrelevant (hence why I didn't bother mentioning it). Deary dear... ::)

Offline Bono in Bonolands

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 881
Re: 5 star review
« Reply #33 on: February 15, 2009, 06:19:48 PM »
The past is extremely important when talking about the relationship between NME and U2. But then any real U2 fan knows that.

shockdocta22

  • Guest
Re: 5 star review
« Reply #34 on: February 15, 2009, 06:28:38 PM »
If NME says U2 did good, they did amazing

Offline dislexoteche

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 134
  • helping God across the road like a little old lady
Re: 5 star review
« Reply #35 on: February 15, 2009, 06:30:13 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The past is extremely important when talking about the relationship between NME and U2. But then any real U2 fan knows that.

Yes that's true - but let's go back to your original comment shall we?

"Q is U2 friendly.

NME is the opposite"

Now...asides from this being a sweeping and simplistic statement, it's also crucially in the present tense. This is what I was objecting to BIBL. Besides, you're making a ridiculous generalisation about what you term "relationship", based on one person working for NME expressing his personal taste.

Come now BNIB - are you not even the slightest bit embarressed. Of course....if you were even a fan of English I'm sure you would be :)

Offline dislexoteche

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 134
  • helping God across the road like a little old lady
Re: 5 star review
« Reply #36 on: February 15, 2009, 06:59:20 PM »
Ah...sorry BIBL - I didn't mean to bug ya. I'm not usually this much of a di*ck and it's funny that something as small as a suggestion of 'inferior U2 fan status' should wind me up. Its silly really. The really funny thing is that I was kinda defending NME magazine and I couldn't really give a sh*t about it.
I'm off to bed anyway - I'm supposed to be getting up in a few hours  :-[
Sorry again BIBL and everyone else for being such a ******* (please fill in the blanks with something appropriately rude) and killing the thread a little. On a brighter note though - looking forward to the next Q and their raving 5 star review  :)
Night all x

Offline Bono in Bonolands

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 881
Re: 5 star review
« Reply #37 on: February 15, 2009, 07:37:16 PM »
You are allowed your opinion. Good luck. You are proably the biggest U2 fan in the world for all I know. 7/10 still isn't setting the world on fire. But it is better than past reviews.

Offline adam1

  • Refugee
  • *
  • Posts: 274
Re: 5 star review
« Reply #38 on: February 15, 2009, 11:02:27 PM »
Not sure if NME loves U2. AB got 7/10, Z - 6/10, ATYCLB got 7/10. However 'Bomb' got a generous 9.

They always loved Guns & Roses in the 90's and were always saying they were better than U2.

Offline Bono in Bonolands

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 881
Re: 5 star review
« Reply #39 on: February 16, 2009, 02:02:22 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not sure if NME loves U2. AB got 7/10, Z - 6/10, ATYCLB got 7/10. However 'Bomb' got a generous 9.


Exactly what I mean.

Cheers.

Offline dislexoteche

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 134
  • helping God across the road like a little old lady
Re: 5 star review
« Reply #40 on: February 16, 2009, 03:20:00 AM »
I dunno - the relationship between a magazine/paper and musical act shouldn't affect the ratings and reviews as much as the amount of exposure the act gets. I'd say the fact that U2 have regularly featured in NME, often in massive articles which coincide with the latest album, is a much better indicator that U2 have a healthy relationship with NME. If they really wanted to hurt U2, they would ignore their work as much as possible. 

Offline miami

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2,397
  • here comes the car chase!
Re: 5 star review
« Reply #41 on: February 16, 2009, 03:21:21 AM »
to my knowledge, Q hasn't officially reviewed the new album, just talked about it sketchily. and "their best album" quote actually came from one of the band members, which Q simply printed, but didn't necessarily agree with.

Offline sirdorian

  • Stranger in a Strange Land
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: 5 star review
« Reply #42 on: February 16, 2009, 03:50:43 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I dunno - the relationship between a magazine/paper and musical act shouldn't affect the ratings and reviews as much as the amount of exposure the act gets. I'd say the fact that U2 have regularly featured in NME, often in massive articles which coincide with the latest album, is a much better indicator that U2 have a healthy relationship with NME. If they really wanted to hurt U2, they would ignore their work as much as possible. 

do the NME have still that huge influence in the UK? and i don´t think that NME will give a high rate as their aren´t people who know much about music.  but they push bands with a overrated hype which arent that good.

Offline Bono in Bonolands

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 881
Re: 5 star review
« Reply #43 on: February 16, 2009, 03:57:49 AM »
The feeling between U2 and NME is mutual.

Offline grymarg

  • Babyface
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: 5 star review
« Reply #44 on: February 16, 2009, 04:00:58 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
bloody hell, these 2 weeks can't come quick enough


i know two weeks and you know its going to drag cos u want so bad