U2 have become the most pathetic band in the music world. So why do music critics and the music industry still support them?
Flashback to 1987: U2 released The Joshua Tree, the album that solidified their position as the greatest band on earth. The first two singles, “With or Without You” and “Where The Streets Have No Name” zoomed to number one on the Billboard Hot 100. The Joshua Tree Tour was an electrifying concert event that defined the stadium concert era. Back then, it seemed like U2 could do no wrong.…
Article comments
26 - Jake
"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.
27 - zingzing
i'm not sure i believe that. if it's done all the time, show me a link to one such review.
28 - Lono
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.
29 - Jake
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
30 - zingzing
"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...
31 - zingzing
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?)
32 - daryl d
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.
33 - zingzing
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.
34 - Rita C
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.
35 - Ann
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!!!
36 - Martigyrl
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
37 - Jake
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.
38 - daryl d
Does anybody find the way Perez Hilton has outed Clay Aiken to be totally pathetic?
39 - Marcia L. Neil
'U2' is also an album theme, as is 'Clay Aiken'. Themes are primal; performers become fragile.
40 - daryl d
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?????????
41 - Marty Dodge
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.
42 - U2Fan
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!
43 - DJRadiohead
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.
44 - bOB spelled backwards
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 !!!
45 - Dono
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!
46 - ldg
i find the title of the piece funny. clearly everyone -- including yourself, the music critic -- is "pathetic"
47 - zhon
U2 have become so irrelevant. This is a great article. A little harsh and I question some of the content, but a good read.
48 - Mike Roberts
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.
49 - zingzing
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...
50 - carrie
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.
51 - C
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.
52 - AA
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.
53 - SharkGoddess
*Yawns*
This piece should be classified as fiction.
54 - Kristen
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.
55 - stones fan
Daryl D, thanks for this great article. U2 fans live in an alternate reality where they actually believe the band is still relevant.
56 - Music143
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*
57 - inunenanon
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.
58 - zingzing
maybe you would like to restate that...
59 - Margie
Ah, thank god u2 got a bad review
Now I can go back to loving them ;-)
60 - Margie
... 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.
61 - Margie
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.
62 - Peter
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.
63 - daryl d
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.
64 - Just Sayin
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.
65 - David Garvin
I am a big U2 fan, a disgruntled post Pop fan, yes the last two were bland in places but the albums have got them Grammy's, No.1 albums and CD singles in the UK & US etc, all the stuff Pop didn't get (kind of, Discotheque did get No.1 for a 1 week), but you know what I mean, no rave reviews but thats why I liked it, coz no fucker else did, plus the Popmart tour was awesome in size and over the top spectacle, but I like good expensive stadium shows, Muse are now my fave live band, but for different reasons. All I hope is that U2's new album is much better and diverse than the last two or I might do something I've never done before...not buy the fucker!
66 - pathetic
u2 cant play,cant sing...told the world they can...and the yanks belived them
67 - Party Girl
Well, opinions are like assholes, honey. Everybody's got one and everybody thinks everybody else's stinks.
U2 are light years beyond their time, and most people cannot appreciate their music at all because of that. Many people appreciate it years, and years after an album is produced. And a the true U2 music connoisseurs have grown with them over time and know the layers of their music and understand.
68 - Brian aka Guppusmaximus
Yea..ahha...U2 is sooo complex and I just can't understand their "layers". *Smirk*
Maybe if they would stop writing tunes like they were writing them for K-Mart or Target commercials and actually get back to writing the soul & passion instead of the current politics notion then I could agree with the "light years ahead" mentality.
Till then,to me, it still sounds like a marketing ploy!