Perhaps the greatest music critic in the business today is the previously mentioned Jim DeRogitis, who has the guts to criticize musical acts when they screw up, whether they are “Jesus Christ” figures or not. His review of U2’s How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb and the Vertigo Tour that followed were some of the most harsh reviews I’ve ever read. However, they were also incredibly accurate. Jim DeRogitis, famous for his venomous reviews, was fired from Rolling Stone magazine in 1996 after he dared to write a negative review of Hootie and the Blowfish’s new album, Fairweather Johnson. Instead, his review was replaced with a more favorable one by current USA Today music critic, Elysa Gardner. After all, their previous album sold over 8.5 million copies at the time and they were the favorite band of frat boys everywhere. They were also the favorite band of politically correct media conglomerates everywhere for obvious reasons, so anything said against the band was considered a sin. Perhaps Jim DeRogitis had the last laugh: Fairweather Johnson not only bombed at the record stores, but pretty much turned the band into a joke.
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. Angry music listeners, who dare to post negative comments about U2 on message boards, will have their posts removed. This, my friends, is pathetic. So why do we constantly act surprised that the music industry has taken such a deep dive over the past five years?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - The Haze
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!!!
2 - Marcia L. Neil
'Bruce Springsteen' is an album theme, and describes efforts to atone for misbehavior so as to forestall police complaints.
3 - Angel
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.
4 - sandra
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.
5 - u2 sucks
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.
6 - Mark Saleski
i'm sorry to see that some of the writing in the bc music section has sunk to the level of the politics section.
7 - Rowondo
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.
8 - daryl d
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.
9 - Drew
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.
10 - J.J. Hunsecker
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.
11 - Glen Boyd
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
12 - G
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
13 - nugget
I never liked U2. They were the Creed of the 80s. hahahahha.
14 - daryl d
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!
15 - Rockmeister
Thank God Clay Aiken will have a new cd coming out soon,so you can listen to some music you'll really enjoy!
16 - Christopher Rose
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.
17 - chrisb
wow - bad timing to be taking random pot shots at Prince, eh Daryl?
18 - Phillip Winn
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.
19 - Bonny
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.
20 - Sam
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.
21 - stevo
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.
22 - zingzing
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.
23 - Tim Hall
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.
24 - eric
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.
25 - zingzing
"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.