You can thank the MTV generation for expediting the industrys crazy train to hell.While video may have killed the radio star, it was greed that morphed the music into a six-pack of snake oil ready to be grabbed by the next sucker who rolls down the pike.Damn near everything today is so commercial and cheap yet packaged and pedaled like a work of art! Thats why the music of yesterday will always be able to stand the test of time and against any post-MTV music. If you play any of todays music backwards all it says is: BUY ME!!!

'Bruce Springsteen' is an album theme, and describes efforts to atone for misbehavior so as to forestall police complaints.

Thank God for this article! I hate U2, always have, always will. Bono has just as much talent as Britney Spears. So I don't agree with you that they were ever the world's greatest band.
That being said, I was once a member of the velvet rope website (www.velvetrope.com). When Bruce Springsteen released his Bob Segar sessions album, I criticized it. I was soon banned as a user.
We are being spoonfed music that corporate heads want us to be spoonfed. It got worse when Clear Channel took over the radio stations and started banning artists that were against the war, but promoting brainless acts that aren't a threat to the Bush administration (My humps, my humps, my lovely lady humps).
The Grammys have become a joke too. I won't even go into that.

I don't agree with you that U2 has become awful. They still produce pretty good stuff. Notice, I said "pretty good." In no way is it Grammy material. I agree that there are things that happen behind the scenes that we don't know about. I'm going to try and log on to the Velvet Rope tonight and make an Anti-U2 comment to see it it sticks. Join me: go to www.velvetrope.com and sign up.

Ok, I couldn't believe my eyes when I read that U2's current album (though it is a greatest hits album) has already plumetted to number 53. It's peak was number 12. You wouldn't expect a greatest hits package to sell anywhere near a studio album, but it should still sell. Why haven't the critics made a big deal out of this in the media? When Janet Jackson, Madonna, Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, etc. flop, it makes headline news. But the media is very quiet about this flop. I didn't find out about it until I read it here.

i'm sorry to see that some of the writing in the bc music section has sunk to the level of the politics section.

Actually, I think this article is well written. "The Cereal Box" thing is a little overboard, but Daryl, unlike other critics, doesn't have his head stuck up some media conglomerate's ass.

I'm sure we are going to see a bunch of negative comments from U2's brainless fans who wouldn't know what musical talent is if they saw it.

Well, the U2 fans are too busy beating their wives after the superbowl, so they haven't seen this article yet. I bet by tomorrow evening, this topic will be posted with "How dare you!" comments

About Clear Channel: Can someone confirm they recently sold a lot of their radio stations (did Rush Limbaugh buy those out)?

Also, I hear Billboard's chart system is going to undergo a major change soon. Streaming from Internet sites such as Youtube, Yahoo, and AOL will help determine a single's position. This is long overdue. At least now, Clear Channel cannot deterimine what WE should be listening to or consider a hit.

r u silly, actions speak louder then words y do ppl keep buying their album and going to their concerts. facts people facts u cant argue.

Considering they just put out a best-of four years ago, and have only released two albums since, why should there be any surprise that this best-of didn't sell that well?

I'm also a little unclear as to why critics would be worried about giving HTDAAB when you said Pop was unfairly criticized.

"Indeed, the band, known for "not selling out," had sold their souls to the Devil of Commercialism."

when has the band ever been against commercialism? That's fine if you don't like the band's current output, but you should try to be critical about it rather than flailing around, making stuff up in a desperate attempt to get attention and comments. But at least I know to skip all your future endeavors.

"Perhaps the greatest music critic in the business today is the previously mentioned Jim DeRogitis,"

Yeah, that would explain why he's only publishing on his website. That makes him a blogger, and what a shock to discover, he's a failed musician in a band no one has heard of. Also, I don't believe you know "a very popular music critic," which is oxymoronic to begin with.

"When Bruce Springsteen released his Bob Segar sessions album, I criticized it. I was soon banned as a user."

That might come from you not knowing music, Angel, as Bruce did a Pete Seeger album.

Daryl,

While I don't agree with a great deal of what you have to say here, I did find this piece to be very entertaining on an "okay so you don't like U2" sort of level. What I do agree with you on is the way music has become so commoditized in recent years -- I just don't happen to see U2 as the band most emblematic of that problem.

You also make some pretty bold accusations about critics getting fired for writing negative reviews and people being banned from websites for expressing a dissenting opinion. I'd like to see more in the way of documented facts before I accept those charges as the gospel truth.

Just to cite my own example, when Springsteen was readying his release of the Seeger Sessions (and that's Pete, not Bob), I expressed a dissenting opinion about Bruce doing an album of folkie covers on a very popular Springsteen discussion board. What I got was a flood of nasty comments about my post, but I was never banned from the group. As far as I know the post is still there ---although I've long since come around to enjoy the Seeger Sessions CD quite a bit.

I've also worked as a rock journalist for a number of publications, including one where I was a contributing editor. Never to my knowledge has a writer been fired (or even "disciplined") for writing something that the editor didn't agree with. Rock journalism's history is in fact full of instances where the critic made the wrong call. As I recall, the Rolling Stones "Exile On Main Street" for example, was near universally panned when it first came out. Now of course it is considered a classic.

-Glen

Great article, I couldn't agree more, I'm in a band trying to make it on our own and its nigh impossible when you simply cant compete with the power of the big companies. I think it is also down to musical taste, the industry has turned the majority of the buying record public into puppets afraid to explore the often more interesting independent and self published scene, so they can churn and churn their marketing machine and count all their pennies with no thought of the fact that they are murdering creativity. Everything (most) is so bland. Pah! It makes me sick.

G

I never liked U2. They were the Creed of the 80s. hahahahha.

Jim DeRogotis is not just a music critic of "some blog." He has been a music critic for the Chicago Sun Times off and on since the early nineties. A lot of people don't like him because, like me, his writing sometimes gets more entertaining than critical. I say there's nothing wrong with that!

Thank God Clay Aiken will have a new cd coming out soon,so you can listen to some music you'll really enjoy!

I've always thought U2 massively over-rated. They were more like the acceptable face of corporate rock when they first came on the scene during the punk era and despite several attempts to develop themselves a more credible image remained somewhat mistrusted.

Live Aid in 1985 somehow magically transformed the group's perception as well as marking a key stage in the long process of Bono's political emancipation.

wow - bad timing to be taking random pot shots at Prince, eh Daryl?

Nice job, Daryl; excellent trawling and trolling both!

For example, comparing U2's breakthrough album with a single song from a greatest hits collection -- classy. I mean, when an overtly Christian single on a greatest hits collection can't manage to do as well as one of the most popular albums in rock history, the band must be dead, right? From Album of the Year to... nothing.

Except, well, who could follow up this? "The Joshua Tree is not only widely considered one of the band's best albums, it is often considered one of the greatest albums ever recorded. In 1989, it was rated #3 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 100 greatest albums of the 1980s, as well as appearing at #26 on the magazine's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. The Joshua Tree was selected as #6 on CCM Magazine's 2001 list of the greatest Contemporary Christian music albums of all time (see CCM Presents: The 100 Greatest Albums in Christian Music). It came second place in Channel 4's 100 Greatest albums. It came in at #10 in ABC-TV's My Favourite Album, which aired in Australia in December 2006."

So you've stacked the deck from the outset, ensuring that you'll win, and that's neat.

U2 is very nearly at the top of their game, and the plaudits are well-deserved. They remain one bright spot in an otherwise increasingly dismal mainstream industry.

But nice article nonetheless. Very clever.

I think even U2 would agree that this latest album is just a space filler. They owed their label one more album and threw this one together in a hurry. It deserves this fate. Yes, Window in the Skies a bomb. But The Saints Are Coming with Green Day was a bone fide hit, and it did some good for New Orleans' morale. So there's still some life in the band. As for the Grammys, they have become an embarrassment to everyone in the music business.

U218 was obviously made to appease corporate, because it stands out as utterly unnecessary in U2's catalogue. U2's fans (and there are a lot of them) aren't stupid and can figure out when someone's trying to make a quick buck. Window in the Skies isn't a good enough reason to buy a bunch of songs they already own anyways, and the platform of the single itself has been dead for years. Yet it still managed to chart in the top 5 in the UK chart... Not to mention it has a great video that's been on heavy roatation whenever I turn MTV on... Also, can I ask how well Depeche Mode's and Oasis' recent Best Of albums have fared? Badly, worse than U2's. Obviously it's lack of success is due to the diminishing popularity of Best Of's and presenting nothing of value to the fans who buy their material.

U2 have been in bonus twilight prime since 2000 with ATYCLB. They have to accept constructive criticism like any other band.

Despite industry influence to silence critics who write against the grain to music press popularism, its no different to 1976 when AOR 'dinosaur band sounds' gave way to the anger and 'fresh approach' of punk/ska/new wave and everything is in cycles. Music is also about involvement and fresh choices, many established acts try to gain credibility from others and up-and-coming acts to stay relevant.

Its good to see consumers empowering themselves and downloading music from sites because they enjoy it and its healthy as in the end, record companies are prone to feature safe stable acts like U2 and Springsteen in that they can control their market share without any thought to the people they need to serve in the first place.

U2 and a lot of bands are in a conundrum as to where they lie and their audience exists. Personally, its a business and they no longer are in the forefront to what idealism they once enjoyed and stood for. Bono's crusadism is a marketing ploy no different to what Donald Trump or any other celebrity in Hollywood does to keep their face in the news. If you want to make sincere change, modesty is still the best policy.


You only have to look at the celtic boom inspired Irish economy to see this U2 as you have benefited from it and Ireland from a tax and artistic nurturing incubator have been good to the band allowing them to keep more of their income over many years from 1981-2005. The fact they want to corporately incorporate elsewhere to provide for their retirement years while preaching and pandering about poverty and what we can/cannot do to the rest of us does smack of ambiguity and its getting tenacious.

Personally, I admire artists like Neil Young who do stand up to their beliefs whether you like them or loath them and go about making a difference in a quiet way without any pompous showmanship, something Geldof and Bono/U2 management could very well learn from.

The Haze: "Thats why the music of yesterday will always be able to stand the test of time and against any post-MTV music. If you play any of todays music backwards all it says is: BUY ME!!!"

mhmm. you need to go listen to some more music.

as for the article itself... u2's not been all that since the mid-90's. they've had a few good singles since zooropa, but not much more. they're just another guitar rock band these days. there are worse fates.

"U2 is scheduled to release an album later this year. You can bet that, no matter how bad the album is, positive reviews will be written far ahead of its actual release. The album will win several Grammy awards. Music critics, who dare to criticize the album, will be fired."

it's very doubtful that people will write reviews of the album before they hear it (which is what you are trying to say here, i guess). it's a very difficult thing to do... the Grammy award is not a measure of anything but popularity, so if you are trying to say that the new u2 will be popular, congratulations, you're a fuggin genius. as for the claim that you can't give bruce, u2 or a few others a bad review without getting fired... you know that's crap. bad reviews of htdaab and the seger sessions are easy to find.

by the way, i didn't find your writing PARTICULARLY entertaining. although writing about music with this much anger is pretty damn hilarious.

if you give U2, Bruce Springsteen, or The Beatles a bad review, you will most likely be fired.

Except in Britain, where it's Morrissey, Paul Weller or the Clash. And any new band that doesn't namecheck at least one of those three is going to have trouble getting attention.

Great article! People who say you can't get fired for writing a "music industry favorite" a bad review really need to wake up and smell the coffee. Ok, you can write a bad review, but if it's a nasty review, you WILL get fired. Nasty reviews are allowed for most pop acts, but don't EVER writye a nasty article about U2. They're the music industry's favorite, even though most other people think they suck.

"People who say you can't get fired for writing a "music industry favorite" a bad review really need to wake up and smell the coffee. Ok, you can write a bad review, but if it's a nasty review, you WILL get fired."

ok. so you can write a bad review of said bands. just not a nasty one... what's nasty? speaking ill of the band's mothers instead of the music? or dreaming of the edge buggering bono? (when, clearly it's the other way around...)

i've written music reviews for publication quite a few times... and i've never had anything but complete freedom. i assume that if i was a VERY good music critic, i would have no less freedom. maybe the games a bit different at the MAJOR publications. but those publications are untrustworthy, maybe because they do employ such tactics. mostly, however, it's pretty hard to get nasty in the 150 words that rolling stone allows.

"it's very doubtful that people will write reviews of the album before they hear it (which is what you are trying to say here, i guess)"

It's done all the time. I'm not saying that Clay Aiken is on a par with Bono but the vast majority of the reviews of his latest CD were based on his hair, the tracklist and without breaking the shrinkwrap on the CD.

i'm not sure i believe that. if it's done all the time, show me a link to one such review.

Clear Channel has been sold in it's entirety. It was a family business that started in Texas with (many say) heavy Christian leanings. Anyhow, here is the scoop from the LA Times business section.

It won't change how bad corporate rock sucks, though... and I don't plan on going back to radio from my iPod anytime soon.

the article:


NEW YORK -- In the latest and biggest of a recent wave of media buyouts, radio giant Clear Channel Communications Inc. agreed Thursday to be purchased by private-equity firms and the company's founding family for $18.7 billion.

The deal, which also involves the assumption of about $8 billion in debt, ranks as the fourth-biggest leveraged buyout in history. Nine of the top 10 have come this year, the only exception being Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.'s $25.1-billion buyout of RJR Nabisco Inc. in 1988.

The following review was published 3 months after the CD was released. He obviously never did listen to it besides the first single. His focus is on anything but Clay's contributions to the CD, no mention of his writing credits or the fresh new arrangements, tempo changes and instrumentation on the songs. This critic gets a D- for a poorly written non-review.

Clay Aiken, A Thousand Different Ways (RCA)

GRADE: D-

I once had a great interview with Clay Aiken, a giddy young man who laughs like a hyena hopped up on Pez. The most famous runner-up in Idol history kept talking about ditching fame and working with autistic children. Asked about the new album, he sighed: "We're still trying to figure things out." I'm willing to bet Aiken despises his sophomore effort, with its gauzy covers of such lame pop songs as Mr. Mister's Broken Wings and Richard Marx's Right Here Waiting. (After all, Claymates will buy anything by their boy, right?) The wishy-washy orchestration makes Manilow sound like Metallica. And with the exception of a curiously pleading Without You, the singer sounds bored throughout. Still, if Aiken is trying to sabotage his fame - and it sure sounds like he is - I find that strangely admirable. Good luck with the teaching thing, buddy.

Sean Daly

"The wishy-washy orchestration makes Manilow sound like Metallica. And with the exception of a curiously pleading Without You, the singer sounds bored throughout."

that sounds like he listened to something...

plus, this (i had to search to find it) is a tongue-in-cheek ravaging of most of american idols' discs. it's not meant to be a full review, just a little "where are they now" kind of thing. the guy was reviewing american idol more than he was clay aiken.

you're half right, though, he probably didn't give the thing that MUCH of a listen, but then again, it's a clay aiken disc...

besides, the point is not whether somebody bashes an artist in a review without much thought to the actual music... that's lazy criticism, but it's not illegal... the problem is when a publication says "you will write a good review of this music, whethere it is good or not," and THEN the reviewer doesn't even bother to listen to the music before giving it a GOOD review. that's called payola... or is a derivation of the same idea. and that's illegal, wrong, etc.

if you can find a good example of such a thing, i'll eat my words. i'm sure that it has happened before, but it seems like a really fucking stupid idea as practice.

(i mean, who would bother to write a glowing review of something they have never heard, when it would be soooo much easier to find a sap who likes the music, have them listen to it, and review it... it's easier to say why you like something when you know why... i just don't see anyone taking the time to create some mythical reason for why they like something, having never heard it. wouldn't it be easier to lie about if you had heard it?)

I gave an example where a critic was fired for giving a bad review.

Note that Rolling Stone claimed he was fired because he revealed the magazine's decision to the public. This is NOT true. I do not have that in writing but know several legal people in this situation. Rolling Stone settled with DeRogatis:

Nikki Finke, a writer who I absolutely detest, currently writes for LA Weekly. She was fired after giving a movie a bad review (This I cannot confirm for sure)

But the DeRogatis example is pretty much proven. Keep in mind, I can see why many can't stand this guy: his negative reviews are sensationalist and sound like a first grader getting revenge on his teacher for not giving him a lemon drop. But his writing, nevertheless, is fun.

the deregoatis example is fine and good. no matter how his firing occured, it came down to a difference of opinion between writer and publisher. wenner wanted a good review of the album... as it is his magazine, that's his decision. maybe this was just the straw that broke the camel's back situation. who knows. now if it can be proven that wenner wanted a good review because he was thinking of advertising dollars... well, then that's just nasty. that's a question of journalistic intergrity. business should never interfere with editorial.

When you say "but then again, it's a clay aiken disc", isn't that the same prejudice that you are all discussing? You are dismissing the CD because of the artist before even hearing any of the songs = automatically giving U2 or Bruce a 4 star review just because it's them.

Both are patently unfair.

Clay Aiken is my favorite male singer and male entertainer. Clay Aiken is the greatest and the best male musical artist ever!!! Clay Aiken Rules!!! Clay Aiken's great new music CD "A Thousand Different Ways" totally rocks!!!

Funny seeing a review by Mr.Sean Daly, after recalling that he invited one and all, to write a review of ATD, instead of him having to do it.This was at his web site. Sean Daly, I seem to recall, has a wide range of musical tastes, and I would hate to think that in his 'busy critic life', ATD didn't receive a fair review, or a fair listening to. Mr.Daly, you surprise me with your nasty comments. Perhaps during our phone conversation, you weren't so genuine in your admiration of Clay Aiken, and his music, afterall.
I am failing to see the integrity, I thought you possessed, Sean.
A very sad enlightening observation,of your journalistic credence.
with respect( less than I had before),
Martigyrl

I find that far too many critics review themselves rather than the artist. They are more invested in proving their credentials, and their superiority than they are in fairly reviewing the music. I don't care about how rarified or obscure their tastes are. I want to know if a CD is good. Good for me aka the public, not the crusty elitist snobs/fellow critics that they pander to.

Does anybody find the way Perez Hilton has outed Clay Aiken to be totally pathetic?

'U2' is also an album theme, as is 'Clay Aiken'. Themes are primal; performers become fragile.

Marcia, you sound like a great person. I'm sure you are kind, sweet, loving, and fun to be with. BUT WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY IN YOUR POSTS?????????

Well U2s early stuff was badly played, I mean the Edge could not even play by his own admission, yet critics lauded them in extremis. Why? Because they were cheeky chappies from Ireland and that counted for a lot especially in the US.

I am soon to be related to a U2. She say them in Dublin a few years back and was not impressed partly due to the fact Bono did a 20 minute rant instead of bloody singing. (Tickets weren't cheap either.)

'Vertigo' was not a bad song but the rest of the new stuff...is a bit blah.

You cannot argue with the facts. people are not stupid and dont buy music just because its U2. They buy it because it is good and they are talented. In any walk of life people are jealous and claim a dislike of the best.

Its ok not too like someone but keep your small minded blog to yourself!

I hate going at something like this, but I feel a need to say it. You have questioned the objectivity and credibility of other reviewers as part of your platform to attack U2. I think we should make it abundantly clear to everyone that the guy who says U2 jumped the shark put Jewel's "Foolish Games" into his Hall of Fame. We're all allowed to like what we like, no problem there. I like U2. I think Jewel is atrocious at her best. Just as you dismiss critics who continue to heap on praise for a band you so clearly don't like anymore, if you ever liked them at all, I am choosing to similarly dismiss the opinion who puts Jewel songs in the Hall of Fame.

It should probably also be noted that in the case of "Window in the Sky," a song I am not crazy about, it falls into the category of many, many songs added to Greatest Hits package that did not become a hit on its own. The "Mary Jane's Last Dance" phenomenon is a bowl of rare. It is rare that an artist puts a new song on a hits package and sees it become a hit on its own. It's not uncommon for bands to stick a throwaway on a compilation because they hate having to give up a song that would be great on an album as a one-off for the package. In other words, "Window in the Sky" and its performance on the charts is not a fair barometer in and of itself.

Going into a U2 fanboard to criticize U2 is akin to walking into the Democratic National Committee HQ wearing a "W" t-shirt. Of course you're going to get a negative response. You have plenty of venues, BC Magazine, for instance, where you can empty your spleen about U2. What I find particularly galling here, though, is you can't just come out and say "I don't like U2 (anymore)." You have to turn it into a crusade. You have to turn yourself into some sort of martyr for the truth, you and other right-thinking people having been oppressed, fired, or censored for expressing your beliefs. Come off it.

everyone's entitled to his/her opinion, but i will always buy into U2's bizness ... the job of any good performer is to sell out ... if someone can't fill a stadium or arena, then they aren't a success anymore ... look at the facts, U2's VERTIGO tour was sold out nearly every night ... in my Bono book, they are still doing their job ... GOD bless U2 !!!

1. U2's involvement with Apple and the iPod went to charity.
2. They have been selling out shows for 20+ years.
3. Bono has used his stardom to benefit many, maybe not solve every person in the world's problems, but he has helped many and brought to light many issues.
4. Yes, Pop sucked, the videos were repulsive, I just left it out of my CD collection.
5. "The Edge" is a cool name for anybody.
6.They have been Rock Gods for 20+ years and still remained faithful to their core vaules and beliefs.

I grow tired of coming to their defense.

La-di-da-da-do!

i find the title of the piece funny. clearly everyone -- including yourself, the music critic -- is "pathetic"

U2 have become so irrelevant. This is a great article. A little harsh and I question some of the content, but a good read.

U2 is a good whipping post for the shallow music that surrounds us today not because they're the most egregious violators. Come on, we've survived boy bands. They win because of how much they've changed.

U2's first album, "Boy," was pretty sparse. It sounded like it was recorded in a garage, Bono's vocal range approached a single octive and everyone in the band sounded frightened. Each successive album showed dramatic growth in musicianship, vocals, and songwriting. By "October" their lyrics already meant something. Anyone who listened to U2 when their albums came out could see this. It made a new album release something to anticipate because you had to wonder how this album would be better than the last. This kept happening right up until "The Joshua Tree." This wasn't my favorite album ("Unforgettable Fire" is), but there's no denying that you're listening to masters of rock when you hear that album. It's beautiful. "Rattle and Hum" is still pretty good, but it was obvious at this point that U2 had stopped focusing on being musicians and instead worked on being Rock Stars. I shudder whenever I picture Bono as "The Fly." Brrrrr! Or should that be "Bzzzzz?"

The albums that came out after that sold because U2 made them, not because they were good. Now, U2 is just the retail brand of the band that started in the 70's. They somehow remind me of Aerosmith which isn't known for its music anymore. It's known simply because it's... Aerosmith.

for an alternate history of u2:

u2 started out grandly with boy, making a kind of innocent stab at mixing guitar rock with an ethereal, spiritual quality. october went all religious and strange, war was political and strange (but at least it had fantastic songs). the unforgetable fire, their first work with eno/lanois was half great space pop (bad, sort of a homecoming) and half crap earnest junk (pride, indian summer sky or whatever). joshua tree kept the earnest, but replaced the junk with a kind of spaced out americana, which fit the band wonderfully.

ditching eno, the band then released rattle and hum... which is more like ego and strum. figuring out that eno was what made them great, they released achtung baby, one of the great early 90s rock albums. all of their ego and earnesty was shunted off for crunchy rock and a nice dose of sex (which wasn't as strange as it sounds coming out of boner.) zooropa followed, and sound-wise, was very much a step up from a.b. unfortunately, the band only wrote 5 songs, but the album had 10...

pop was such a failure (it's not horrible... but it's not good) that u2 got frightened and went back on all their changes, forgetting how they made good music, but remembering how it made people feel... and released more of the earnest crap as all that you can't leave behind... then followed it up with more crap and more crap and...

I'm interested in hearing what you find to be relevant and "great" in today's music.

The part that made me laugh the most was this:

"To make matters worse, the song won "Song of The Year" at the 48th Annual Grammy Awards, the same organization that gave awards to Milli Vinilli and Jethro Tull. The sad part is that even though the awards achieved by these acts were laughable, their material, at the time, had far more substance than anything U2 has done recently."

As if Milli Vanilli ever had substance??!

You lost instant credibility in whatever you were trying to say.

I would appreciate if you could get your facts right. You assume so much and know so little.

I like conspicacy theories but yours is pretty poor.

Get some more infos if you want to critisize.

The U218 Singles is a joke but that's actually what Bono himself called it. Just a compilation for young people to check the Band out. Nothing more and nothing less. If you want the 2 new tracks, just buy the Singles. Window In The Skies is a Song that only works with the Musicclip. The Video to that Song is one of the best I have ever seen in my live.
A must to check out if you have any serious interest in music.

I bet with you that the new U2 Album won't come out this year. As usual they'll be late....very delayed.

Aaaaaaand if you think nobody dares critising U2 you should visit the huge international U2 Fan-Forums. It's always like murder in there. Many U2 fans are highly critical but in a substancial manner.

You've got no clue.

*Yawns*

This piece should be classified as fiction.

I'm a U2 fan -- always have been, always will be. This article is badly written bash on a great band. Even though I'll admit that How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb was mediocre, that doesn't matter since the quality of music that U2 has made over the years (and All That You Can't Leave Behind is included, their 3rd masterpiece) makes up for it. They are and will always be talented beyond measure. Record sales mean nothing - U2 hasn't jumped the shark, sorry to spoil your hopes.

Music critics don't give U2 bad reviews because U2 is the greatest band on earth. "Daryl" needs some prozac and a bottle of whiskey.

Daryl D, thanks for this great article. U2 fans live in an alternate reality where they actually believe the band is still relevant.

Of courses any "covers" concept is going to be rejected by the average status quo population, especially critics because it's played out to be banal. Artists/Bands who make their entire album (or majority of their album) of just renditions of cover songs won't be respected as an artist, whether they are amazing, great, ok, bad, terrible, i.e. vocally, because the average music user will see them as unoriginal, unless they are a radical fan of them. People like to hear new, original music. Something they haven't heard before. That is what sells. There are exceptions like when Whitney Houston covered "I Will Always Love You" by Dolly Parton or when Nirvana covered "The Man Who Sold The World" by David Bowie, as well as, a few others; but overall not a great idea. BTW, great blog. Keep up the good job. *hugs*

May I just state: You have no right to condemn Music Critics, as you are a relive nothing to them. They're critics for a reasons, and if you want to know some of those reasons, those are the opposite of why this article sucks.

maybe you would like to restate that...

Ah, thank god u2 got a bad review

Now I can go back to loving them ;-)

... please excuse the sarcasm-- I don't like a controlled music industry just as much as you... but it is necessary to acknowledge the fact that these are critics you're talking about, not the band themselves, who have no control over how the media interprets what they put out.

I don't think u2 hasn't recieved their fair share of bad reviews anyway... this is one right here, and I've seen many other reviews who follow this selling out/commercialism is the devil example, especially when comes to reviewing u2 or any other successful band.

Sometimes I can even see bad reviews as something good for u2, because it is important for rock bands to stir things up a bit, to be controversial, etc., as it adds to the passion of the music when a band questions/sings songs about ideas that can be hard to support and accept. For example, Bono exposes his own hypocrisies when he sings--something that is either interpreted very well, or very badly. If you do such a thing you will face both consequences, and fortunatley for u2 they have recieved alot of the prior-- but, in truth, that'd be worth nothing without the latter.

I've always been dissapointed that U2 can be percieved as irrelevant, but I think this maybe really be the case: U2 is not irrelevant, they're unique--beacuse so many people don't get them means they are in such a different and special place that the general public finds hard to put a finger on. I'm not saying they're the future of music... timelessness if probably what it is, because they have always seemed relevant to me, and never at all to others. I'm not really sure about that statement, actually, but maybe it's better that way... mystery is a very important part of music to me.

I thought for a moment (one) that All That You Can't Leave Behind was going to be a return to form for the band on a go-forward. But that last one stunk and I am wondering if Rick Rubin will tell it like it is with them...? Nah. I guess there's no recovering from Disco Lemon Syndrome.

I listened to "Pop" this weekend. I don't understand why this album was criticized so much. I think the band deserved praise for taking such a risk.

U2 were an 'OK' band up to the Joshua Tree, their finest moment. After that, with 'Rattle and Hype' it was SO obvious they were not musicians but 'rock stars'. Their music had a certain charm before, because the songwriting was good enough to make it unimportant that Edge couldn't really play guitar as such, and the rest of the group were similarly lackluster. Once they started pretending to be more than that, it really got ugly. Bizarrely, they morphed into 'the greatest rock band in the world' - what. the. hell.. These guys are so overrated it's ludicrous.