@U2 Forum

U2 => News and Rumors => Topic started by: Bads316 on February 15, 2009, 12:32:41 PM

Title: 5 star review
Post by: Bads316 on February 15, 2009, 12:32:41 PM
The review isnt out yet, but on the back of The Telegraph today there is a huge advert for nloth with a quote from Q magazine that says 'their greatest album' 5 stars - Oh yeah!!!!!
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Shaky1 on February 15, 2009, 12:39:14 PM
That is cool!! Q are normally positive about u2 but like so many reviewers reluctant to give 5 stars as it puts there neck on the line. Any Oasis fans on here will remember q giving 'Be here now' 5 stars and eventually getting hammered for it so for them to do it for a u2 album i think shows this album to be really special!!
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: shockdocta22 on February 15, 2009, 12:43:38 PM
Well it seems every revier likes them, but will we?
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Nagrom99 on February 15, 2009, 12:48:53 PM
"their greatest album"....hhhmmm, this is getting better everyday.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: eddyjedi on February 15, 2009, 03:32:01 PM
bloody hell, these 2 weeks can't come quick enough
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Mofo118 on February 15, 2009, 03:44:37 PM
To be honest Q is the only music magazine I read so for NLOTH to get 5 stars is great!!
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Mysterious Ways on February 15, 2009, 03:46:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"their greatest album"....hhhmmm, this is getting better everyday.

They say that about every album!
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bads316 on February 15, 2009, 03:52:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"their greatest album"....hhhmmm, this is getting better everyday.

They say that about every album!

they've never said that, its only the third U2 album that Q have given 5 stars to, alongside JT & AB!!!! 
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bono in Bonolands on February 15, 2009, 03:58:28 PM
I can see the key to the Album is wether the review likes Magnificent and Moment of Surrender.

The rest of the reviews have been pretty consistent on the other songs.

Some think Magnificent and MOS work and therefore give 5 stars and some reviews think they don't work therefore give 3 stars.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: rlj1010 on February 15, 2009, 04:07:31 PM
I've only heard Get On Your Boots so far, as I'm saving the rest of the album until its fully available... not just short clips or alternate takes...


That being said...


Even if every song I haven't heard yet is a perfect classic, the album still contains Get On Your Boots, and therefore is immediately disqualified for 5-star status.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: JuniorEmblem on February 15, 2009, 04:12:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I've only heard Get On Your Boots so far, as I'm saving the rest of the album until its fully available... not just short clips or alternate takes...


That being said...


Even if every song I haven't heard yet is a perfect classic, the album still contains Get On Your Boots, and therefore is immediately disqualified for 5-star status.

what he said........

Four and a half at best, would put it up there with Pop, TUF and AB...........

There's only one 5-star album in the U2 collection, well, that's 5 start swhen compared to the rest of the U2 catalog anyway.

There's more if you put it up against mediocrity like Day and Age, Only by the night or Viva la Vida

Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: shockdocta22 on February 15, 2009, 04:13:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I've only heard Get On Your Boots so far, as I'm saving the rest of the album until its fully available... not just short clips or alternate takes...


That being said...


Even if every song I haven't heard yet is a perfect classic, the album still contains Get On Your Boots, and therefore is immediately disqualified for 5-star status.

dont be a hog-head
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: adam1 on February 15, 2009, 04:14:06 PM
If 'Q' gives it five stars I am really excited. 'Q' reviews are always interesting and accurate. ATYCLB & B got 4 stars, so it must be better than those.

I never see many 5 stars in 'Q' magazines. Just for the record, here are some other albums 'Q' gave 5 stars for -

X & Y,
Favourite Worst Nightmare
Black Holes and Revelations
JT
AB
Be Here Now


All these (apart from 'Be Here Now') deserve 5 stars. 'Q' obviously got as caught up with the Oasis hype as everyone else in 1997.

Anyone know any other albums that got 5 stars ?  



Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: shockdocta22 on February 15, 2009, 04:19:36 PM
X and Y didn't deserve 5 stars
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bads316 on February 15, 2009, 04:19:59 PM
and here we are, in one thread moaning about 3 stars and in this one explaining why it shouldn't get 5, and none of you have heard it! Judge Boots within its context - pretty much every review has said its a welcome bit of fun & energy half-way in.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: eddyjedi on February 15, 2009, 04:21:53 PM
X & Y is cack
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bads316 on February 15, 2009, 04:23:35 PM
two word review, it just says s**t sandwich
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: ProofThatThisIsReal on February 15, 2009, 04:27:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
X and Y didn't deserve 5 stars

That's actually my favorite Coldplay album and I think its a better actual 'album' then any U2 album, (though I do like the U2 albums far more because they have cooler songs, with other not-so-cool one's.  I think X&Y is just very complete album)  Anyway, I hope this album turns out breathtaking.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: eddyjedi on February 15, 2009, 04:34:34 PM
'I think its a better actual 'album' then any U2 album'..............speechless
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: shockdocta22 on February 15, 2009, 04:36:44 PM
sounds like chris martin has entered the building
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: dislexoteche on February 15, 2009, 04:52:12 PM
Surely it's the Telegraph that's giving NLOTH 5 stars - the new Q doesn't come out until the end of the month. ???
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Mysterious Ways on February 15, 2009, 04:56:30 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
"their greatest album"....hhhmmm, this is getting better everyday.

They say that about every album!

they've never said that, its only the third U2 album that Q have given 5 stars to, alongside JT & AB!!!! 

What I meant is, that's what U2 say about every album when it comes out.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bads316 on February 15, 2009, 04:57:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Surely it's the Telegraph that's giving NLOTH 5 stars - the new Q doesn't come out until the end of the month. ???

no mate its an advert in the telegraph which quotes Qs review, im lookin right at it, telegraph gave it 4 stars
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: dislexoteche on February 15, 2009, 05:03:31 PM
Cheers for that man  :) I never realised that a rating could be advertised that way...even before the source review was published!
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bono in Bonolands on February 15, 2009, 05:09:44 PM
Q is U2 friendly.

NME is the opposite.

Q should be called Q2 they love the band so much.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: dislexoteche on February 15, 2009, 05:14:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Q is U2 friendly.

NME is the opposite.

Q should be called Q2 they love the band so much.

You serious? NME really rated GOYB a couple weeks ago and the issue this Wed is mainly dedicated to U2. It'd be a strange way for them to express their lack of love for the band...but maybe the editor is going for irony?
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Boom Cha! on February 15, 2009, 05:15:18 PM
Seems ridiculous to get excited over a 5 star review and then disregard a 3 star review.  ::)
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bono in Bonolands on February 15, 2009, 05:30:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Q is U2 friendly.

NME is the opposite.

Q should be called Q2 they love the band so much.

You serious? NME really rated GOYB a couple weeks ago and the issue this Wed is mainly dedicated to U2. It'd be a strange way for them to express their lack of love for the band...but maybe the editor is going for irony?


Have you been a U2 fan for five minutes?

Please read.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article5726724.ece
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: shockdocta22 on February 15, 2009, 05:38:08 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
Q is U2 friendly.

NME is the opposite.

Q should be called Q2 they love the band so much.

You serious? NME really rated GOYB a couple weeks ago and the issue this Wed is mainly dedicated to U2. It'd be a strange way for them to express their lack of love for the band...but maybe the editor is going for irony?


Have you been a U2 fan for five minutes?

Please read.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article5726724.ece

Always with the humor?
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: dislexoteche on February 15, 2009, 05:42:17 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
Q is U2 friendly.

NME is the opposite.

Q should be called Q2 they love the band so much.

You serious? NME really rated GOYB a couple weeks ago and the issue this Wed is mainly dedicated to U2. It'd be a strange way for them to express their lack of love for the band...but maybe the editor is going for irony?


Have you been a U2 fan for five minutes?

Please read.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article5726724.ece

Hee hee hee....5 minutes is actually a fairly long period of time BIBL: I reckon there are fans of even shorter duration that would be puzzled at the point you are attempting to make. If you're refering to an article which was written by Stephen Dalton when he worked for the NME in the early 1990s, I can't see what relevance it has to the current stance of NME in relation to U2 which I was referring to earlier. Please explain...
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: dislexoteche 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.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bono in Bonolands 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.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: dislexoteche 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... ::)
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bono in Bonolands 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.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: shockdocta22 on February 15, 2009, 06:28:38 PM
If NME says U2 did good, they did amazing
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: dislexoteche 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 :)
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: dislexoteche 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
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bono in Bonolands 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.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: adam1 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.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bono in Bonolands 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.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: dislexoteche 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. 
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: miami 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.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: sirdorian 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.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bono in Bonolands on February 16, 2009, 03:57:49 AM
The feeling between U2 and NME is mutual.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: grymarg 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
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bono in Bonolands on February 16, 2009, 04:08:09 AM
U2 on the cover of the N.M.E., 14th March 1987.

Y’see, there was this band from Ireland….
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: dislexoteche on February 16, 2009, 04:24:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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 ove       hype which arent that good.

Yeah - they do have a fair bit of influence in the UK music industry. I totally agree with you though - they're really into the young, cool trendy bands with very little in the way of substance.  
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: jick on February 16, 2009, 07:12:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The review isnt out yet, but on the back of The Telegraph today there is a huge advert for nloth with a quote from Q magazine that says 'their greatest album' 5 stars - Oh yeah!!!!!

Well, someone must have tipped U2 about the review.  How can they even know it was 5 stars?  Perhaps they pushed their weight and used their influence (plus advertising money) on Q Magazine?  It is definitely odd to boast of something that hasn't even been announced or published yet.  Perhaps in the next ad, they can put "2010 Grammy Album Of The Year."

Cheers,

J
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Yukona [The League of Extraordinary Bonopeople] on February 16, 2009, 08:35:21 AM
Jick, magazine copy writes are usually finalized and approved at least a month before circulation. It's also standard industry practice that the artist who provides an advance copy for reviewing gets to read the review.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: TraKianLite/Zooropa on February 16, 2009, 10:25:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.

Linkificationalisation. (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/46485-column-poptimist-9)

Probably the best bit of Pitchfork, even if the guy writing is a Smiths fan.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bono in Bonolands on February 16, 2009, 03:54:34 PM
The New Musical Express (better known as the NME) is a popular music magazine in the United Kingdom which has been published weekly since March 1952. It was the first British paper to include a singles chart, which first appeared in the 14 November 1952 edition.

NME is kind of the grand daddy of all rock n roll publications.

NME however have not always been at the forefront of music .

The NME took to Grunge very slowly ("Sounds" was the first British music paper to write about grunge with John Robb being the first person to interview Nirvana. Melody Maker was more enthusiastic early on, largely through the efforts of Everett True, who had previously written for NME under the name "The Legend!"). For the most part, NME only became interested in grunge after Nevermind became popular.

NME have only recently come on board with U2 music. Whereas magazines like Rolling Stone called U2 the future of rock n roll from the early 80s, NME were very luke warm on the band possibly because they did not create enough stir off stage for their liking. They didn't like the direction that U2 had taken pseudo-punk music out of the 70s.  However as time has passed NME have slowly achieved a begrudging respect for U2 because of their longevity. All their writers now are children of a U2 dominated era and for that, they have to give some kudos to the great band.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bads316 on February 16, 2009, 03:57:58 PM
wouldn't wipe my ar*e with the nme, a music tabloid best described as ''a rag''
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: shockdocta22 on February 16, 2009, 03:58:20 PM
NME opinion is way more important that Qs
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bads316 on February 16, 2009, 03:59:49 PM
if your 14
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: shockdocta22 on February 16, 2009, 04:03:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
if your 14

are you referring to me or Bads316
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bads316 on February 16, 2009, 04:07:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
if your 14

are you referring to me or Bads316

er....yoohoo, its a pretty pointless argument really, but Q is read by a far wider demographic than nme no?
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: shockdocta22 on February 16, 2009, 05:01:17 PM
yes but Q has always loved U2 so NME is a harder reviewer to get a good word out of
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bads316 on February 16, 2009, 05:22:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
yes but Q has always loved U2 so NME is a harder reviewer to get a good word out of

right, so that makes Kerrangs review even more important does it? Its a pretty general, sweeping statement really, but if the nme review is more important to you then fair enough, I think that seeing as Q have only given 5 stars to JT & AB before its a pretty good reason to be a bit more excited, I predict an 8 from nme, & 4 stars in Mojo - what d'ya reckon?
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bono in Bonolands on February 16, 2009, 05:33:14 PM
I want someone to accurately tell me in their review if Magnificent and Moment of Surrender are classics or wantabees.

Because that is the crutch of the issue.

There seems to be two camps for reviewers:-

1)   think the back end of NLOTH is far superior to the start.
2)   Think that M and MOS are up with One, Streets etc.

Which is correct?
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: shockdocta22 on February 16, 2009, 05:34:36 PM
both are, too bad some arent saying too many praises about MOs
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: joegtheog on February 16, 2009, 05:38:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
yes but Q has always loved U2 so NME is a harder reviewer to get a good word out of

right, so that makes Kerrangs review even more important does it? Its a pretty general, sweeping statement really, but if the nme review is more important to you then fair enough, I think that seeing as Q have only given 5 stars to JT & AB before its a pretty good reason to be a bit more excited, I predict an 8 from nme, & 4 stars in Mojo - what d'ya reckon?

How about Rolling Stone? I was floored when they gave Bruce's record 5 stars, simply because I didn't think it warranted it (Queen of the Supermarket is a dreadful song, as just one example).  So on some sort of logic, if they give 5 starts to NLOTH, what does it all mean?  i think we can drive ourselves crazy thinking about it. Bring on the album!!!
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bads316 on February 16, 2009, 05:42:48 PM
yeah but One didnt get lavish praise for a good while, the one thing a classic needs to become a classic is time, and I mean years.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: silkenskies on February 16, 2009, 05:43:15 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
yes but Q has always loved U2 so NME is a harder reviewer to get a good word out of

right, so that makes Kerrangs review even more important does it? Its a pretty general, sweeping statement really, but if the nme review is more important to you then fair enough, I think that seeing as Q have only given 5 stars to JT & AB before its a pretty good reason to be a bit more excited, I predict an 8 from nme, & 4 stars in Mojo - what d'ya reckon?

How about Rolling Stone? I was floored when they gave Bruce's record 5 stars, simply because I didn't think it warranted it (Queen of the Supermarket is a dreadful song, as just one example).  So on some sort of logic, if they give 5 starts to NLOTH, what does it all mean?  i think we can drive ourselves crazy thinking about it. Bring on the album!!!

Bruce could make an album of Milli Vanilli covers and RS would give it five stars. Same with the White Stripes.
Although I do love RS  ;D I reckon it will give NLOTH 4-4.5 stars
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: silkenskies on February 16, 2009, 05:46:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I want someone to accurately tell me in their review if Magnificent and Moment of Surrender are classics or wantabees.

Because that is the crutch of the issue.

There seems to be two camps for reviewers:-

1)   think the back end of NLOTH is far superior to the start.
2)   Think that M and MOS are up with One, Streets etc.

Which is correct?


I'd be worried if there was a consensus about the album among the reviewers; which half is better, Magnificent and MOS are awesome/suck, etc.

That's the great thing about their records, your least favorite stretch of songs is someone else's favorite.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bads316 on February 16, 2009, 05:46:59 PM
problem is - giving Bruce 5 stars you paint yourself into a corner because it then has to equal his best work to justify it, which it didnt!
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: shockdocta22 on February 16, 2009, 05:50:02 PM
his Working on a Dream was not that good so that makes the problem worse
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bads316 on February 16, 2009, 05:53:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
his Working on a Dream was not that good so that makes the problem worse

hey it was made on the road & is a nice rowdy closing chapter to what he started with the rising - nothing special, he had an itch & scratched it.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bono in Bonolands on February 16, 2009, 06:00:45 PM
It is hard to read what other people think as usually if some tells me they don’t like something, I low ball my expectations and generally like it. But when people flaunt something and say how wonderful it is, I usually am disappointed. So I am trying to think very neutral about NLOTH.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: shockdocta22 on February 16, 2009, 06:02:33 PM
must be hard
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Revolver7 on February 16, 2009, 07:52:15 PM
Zooropa, Pop, All That You Can't Leave Behind, and Bomb all got 4 stars from Rolling Stone...I don't think No Line on the Horizon will get less than that...

Hopefully, if it really is a masterpiece, it'll get 4.5 or 5 stars
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bono in Bonolands on February 16, 2009, 08:07:09 PM
Rolling Stone love U2. All the way back to the start as per the attached article. Even when u2 weren’t commercially successful in the United States, Rolling Stone consistently rated them band of the year just on their live performances alone. So Rolling Stone deserve a lot of kudos for plugging U2 when it wasn’t fashionable to do so.

Interesting words from Bono at the end which ring even louder now some 28 years later.

"It is my ambition to travel to America and give it what I consider it wants and needs."

AMAZING!

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/u2/articles/story/7088993/u2_here_comes_the_next_big_thing

U2: Here Comes the "Next Big Thing"
Future looks bright for Irish rockers
JAMES HENKEPosted Feb 19, 1981


Here I am, an American writer, dining with an Irish band in a Greek restaurant in the heart of England. Strange? Well, so is the scene that's unfolding in front of me. A few feet away, two musicians are seated on a platform. One is playing bouzouki, a stringed instrument similar to a mandolin, while the other, a heavy-set fellow in black suit and dark glasses who looks remarkably like the Godfather, is hammering away at a small electric keyboard with built-in rhythm machine. In front of them, approving patrons toss plate after ceramic plate to the floor, where they shatter at the feet of U2's Bono Vox, who is demonstrating that a rock singer from Ireland can be quite a lively dancer.
Though this seems like some sort of international celebration, it's only another preshow dinner for U2. The band, which has been touring Britain nonstop since the release of its debut album, Boy, in mid-October, has garnered more than the usual amount of attention -- thanks in part to an overzealous English music press. Since early last year, the media have been touting U2 -- vocalist Vox, drummer Larry Mullen, guitarist "the Edge" and bassist Adam Clayton -- as the Next Big Thing. If all the publicity weren't enough, Island Records President Chris Blackwell proclaimed the group the label's most important signing since King Crimson.

In concert, the loquacious Vox tries to play down all the hype -- he regularly tells audiences to "forget all that stuff you may have read and make up your own minds" -- but privately he concurs with the press. "I don't mean to sound arrogant," he tells me after the dancing has died down, "but even at this stage, I do feel that we are meant to be one of the great groups. There's a certain spark, a certain chemistry, that was special about the Stones, the Who and the Beatles, and I think it's also special about U2."

A mighty boast, to be sure. But Boy, scheduled for a late-January U.S. release, does indicate that U2 is a band to be reckoned with. Their highly original sound can perhaps be best described as pop music with brains. It's accessible and melodic, combining the dreamy, atmospheric qualities of a band like Television, with a hard-rock edge not unlike the Who's. In particular, Edge's guitar playing and Bono's singing stand out; the lyrical guitar lines slice through every song, while the vocals are rugged, urgent and heartfelt.

The title Boy is appropriate and significant: not only are the band members young -- Bono and Adam are twenty, Larry and Edge nineteen -- but the bulk of their songs deal with the dreams and frustrations of childhood. "We're playing to an audience in Britain that ranges in age from seventeen to twenty-five," Bono explains. "There is massive unemployment, and there is real disillusionment. U2's music is about getting up and doing something about it."

But wasn't that also the aim of punk? "The idea of punk at first was, 'Look, you're an individual, express yourself how you want, do what you want to do,'" Bono says. "But that's not the way it came out in the end. The Sex Pistols were a con, a box of tricks sold by Malcolm McLaren. Kids were sold the imagery of violence, which turned into the reality of violence, and it's that negative side that I worry about. People like Bruce Springsteen carry hope. Like the Who -- 'Won't Get Fooled Again.' I mean, there is a song of endurance, and that's the attitude of great bands. We want our audience to think about their actions and where they are going, to realize the pressures that are on them, but at the same time, not to give up."

Part of U2's attitude comes from the fact that they are, as Bono puts it, "appreciative of our background." The group formed in 1978 at an experimental school in Dublin. "It was multidenominational," he explains, "which, in terms of Dublin and Ireland, is quite unique. It was also coeducational, which was unusual too. We were given freedom, and when you're given freedom, you don't rebel by getting drunk."

That message comes across again when the group headlines a show at London's Marquee club a few days later. After a rousing forty-five minute set, the band returns to the stage for an encore. But before launching into another song, Bono makes a short speech about the little boy pictured on the British version of U2's LP. "Some people have been asking about the boy on the cover of the album," he says. "Well, he happens to be a kid who lives across the street from me. We put him on the cover 'cause he's a pretty smart kid. And sometimes I wonder what his future will be like -- and I wonder about ours."

At this point, U2's future looks bright. The band has managed to deal level-headedly with its sudden popularity in the U.K. In addition, they've shunned traditional rock and roll pitfalls as booze and drugs. Finally, the band is willing to work. A three-month U.S. trek will begin in March, and Bono is, as usual, confident about the band's chances in the States. "Right now, the word is 'go!' for U2," he says. "It is my ambition to travel to America and give it what I consider it wants and needs."

[From Issue 337 — February 19, 1981]
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: joegtheog on February 16, 2009, 08:10:21 PM
I love the Rolling Stone Files book I have that collected all their articles about U2.  They did lay into them a little (along with everyone else) for Rattle and Hum, however. This article below is beyond prescient. And I love how he is referred to as "Bono Vox".
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: jjcruiser on February 16, 2009, 08:26:37 PM
Great find and post.  Funny to read in retrospect.
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bono in Bonolands on February 16, 2009, 09:02:13 PM
Interestingly Rolling Stone cheated with Rattle and Hum. They originally gave it 3 and a half stars but later revised the review to give it 4 stars.

Just going to show how stupid the review process is. I mean, how can you really assess an album on your first listen??? Time changes your ambivalence to things and you find yourself to paraphrase Bono – “In the Sound!”

Interestingly the reviewer mentions only very, very, fleetingly the songs, Desire and All I Want Is You. The two absolute classic tracks off the Album. Proving my point.

“The album ably demonstrates U2's force but devotes too little attention to the band's vision.”

The boys had a vision alright!!!


http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/u2/albums/album/234580/review/5940780/rattle_and_hum

Rattle and Hum is an expression of U2's urge to have it both ways. A sprawling double album that incorporates live tracks, cover versions, collaborations, snippets of other people's music and a passage from a taped interview, the record is an obvious effort to clear the conceptual decks and lower expectations following the multiplatinum success of The Joshua Tree.
But ambition has always been U2's gift and curse, and the band clearly doesn't feel fully comfortable with its sights lowered. Consequently, if amid the rather studied chaos here, you feel moved to draw comparisons with masterpieces of excess like the Beatles' White Album or the Rolling Stones' Exile on Main Street, you can be sure that Bono, the Edge, Adam Clayton and Larry Mullen Jr. won't mind a bit.
This record doesn't quite ascend to those heights, but U2 does win half the prize. In its inclusiveness and rollicking energy, Rattle and Hum caps the story of U2's rise from Dublin obscurity to international superstardom on a raucous, celebratory note. At the same time, it closes off none of the options the band might want to pursue for its next big move – and, possibly, the album even opens a few doors.
Despite Bono's insistence in the blistering "God Part II" that "I don't believe in the 60's in the golden age of pop/You glorify the past when the future dries up," Rattle and Hum is in large part a paean to the tradition of Sixties artists that U2 reveres. "God Part II" itself is Bono's personal extension of "God," the dramatic track on Plastic Ono Band in which John Lennon shed the Sixties, his identity as a Beatle and all the idols he had worshiped. Bono's update includes a pointed attack on Albert Goldman, whose book The Lives of John Lennon paints a bitter, unflattering portrait of the ex-Beatle: "I don't believe in Goldman his type like a curse/Instant karma's gonna get him if I don't get him first."
Rattle and Hum evokes the Beatles right off the bat when it opens with a corrosive live version of "Helter Skelter," a song that originally appeared on the White Album. "This song Charles Manson stole from the Beatles; we're stealin' it back," Bono announces portentously before U2 tears into the tune.
Bob Dylan sings on one track (the meandering ballad "Love Rescue Me," which Dylan also co-wrote) and plays organ on another ("Hawkmoon 269"). He is further acknowledged when U2 ignites a live rendition of "All Along the Watchtower." Jimi Hendrix, the third member of U2's Sixties trinity, is resurrected when the version of "The Star-Spangled Banner" he performed at Woodstock introduces U2's searing live take on "Bullet the Blue Sky."
U2 certainly holds its own while flirting with the greats, but Rattle and Hum is most enjoyable when the band relaxes and allows itself to stretch without self-consciously reaching for the stars. The New Voices of Freedom choir joins the band onstage in New York for an electrifying gospel-style rendition of "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" that finds new depths in a song that was gripping the first time around.
Guitarist B.B. King teams up with U2 at Sun Studio, in Memphis, and together they tear up "When Love Comes to Town," a rousing blues rocker about the redemptive power of love. While in Memphis, U2 also brought in the Memphis Horns to help out with a soulful tribute to Billie Holiday titled "Angel of Harlem."
U2 flexes its rock & roll muscle on the Bo Diddley-inspired single "Desire," the fierce "Hawkmoon 269" and a raucous live rendition of the anti-apartheid "Silver and Gold," which first appeared in a studio version on the Sun City protest album organized by Little Steven Van Zandt. A tough live performance of "Pride (In the Name of Love)," U2's anthem in honor of Martin Luther King Jr., captures the group's onstage might at its inspirational peak.
But the quieter songs on Rattle and Hum provide the record with introspective moments made all the more effective by the generally boisterous context of the album. The Edge turns in a fine lead vocal and accompanies himself on electric guitar and keyboards on the hymnlike "Van Diemen's Land," about an Irish nationalist poet who was exiled to Australia. "Heartland," on which Brian Eno plays keyboards, summons up a dreamscape reminiscent of the drifting, poetic songs on The Unforgettable Fire. And Rattle and Hum eases to a close with the ballad "All I Want Is You," a stirring statement of unsatisfied desire that features an eloquent string arrangement by Van Dyke Parks.
As its title suggests, Rattle and Hum is meant to be dynamic, rather than strictly coherent. It's intended to dramatize U2 in motion and transition and to exult in the barrage of influences the band had just begun to admit on The Joshua Tree. Recorded almost entirely in the United States, the album also carries forward U2's near obsession with the brave new world of America.
But for all its excitement, Rattle and Hum seems a tad calculated in its supposed spontaneity. The album is, after all, a soundtrack. Rather than a documentary, it's merely a document of events that often were staged and arranged for the express purpose of being filmed and recorded. The album ably demonstrates U2's force but devotes too little attention to the band's vision.
That vision, of course, has evolved impressively over the years – beginning with the dark adolescent wonder of Boy and moving through the mystical enclosure of October, the fury and poignance of War, the surreal imagery of The Unforgettable Fire and the resonant expansiveness of The Joshua Tree. Rattle and Hum is the sound of four men who still haven't found what they're looking for – and whose restlessness assures that they will be looking further still.

Anthony DeCurtis (posted Nov 17, 1988)

Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: TheFlyingLemon on February 17, 2009, 01:42:31 AM
If its getting 5 stars then thats great.  :)
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: Bono in Bonolands on February 17, 2009, 02:11:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
have just read this from U2EXIT.com :

U2 have hit back at critics who attack frontman Bono for his crusading attempts to bring about political change.

Guitarist The Edge tells NME that the band still supports Bono even though he has become a much-derided hate figure in the press.

“As his mates, you don’t like to see him take the custard pies of journalists around the world. .. You have to understand that the man actually wants to save people’s lives!”

“I think people hate it when others get above their station. So the idea that a lowly singer in a band would be walking through the corridors of power, talking to world leaders, people go, ‘How come he’s doing that?’

He reveals he tried to discourage Bono from spending time with former US President George W Bush but to no avail.

“He wears his heart on his sleeve, he speaks his mind. So, hanging out with George W Bush – which he knew was uncool, deeply unpopular in certain quarters – he knew for his own reasons that it would get results. And he was right.”

“The amount of extra American investment in African development that occurred during that administration, compared to even the Clinton administration, was huge.”

“A large part of why that happened was because Bono was willing to be in the photographs, take the meetings and make it a popular issue.”

The latest issue of NME is on sale tomorrow (Wednesday).

- Metro.co.uk

Great response from the the Edge and it shows a real turn around by NME. Man has everyone chilled out these days.

NME used to be the main ones persecuting Bono.

Now they are on board with the defence for Bono.

Man the World can CHANGE after all!
Title: Re: 5 star review
Post by: dislexoteche on February 17, 2009, 06:25:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

NME used to be the main ones persecuting Bono.

Man the World can CHANGE after all!

Always good to know that Bono's chief persecutors are easing off  :)