Not really sure about 1. Why this matters and 2. Why Songs of Innocence has been so poorly received on this site. Rolling Stone is biased (we all know this) and it's not like they try particularly hard to hide that. Pitchfork is the same way on the opposite end of the spectrum…music magazines are basically like cable news now, narrowcasting is the norm and year lists are designed to appeal to the reader base.
Anyways, Songs of Innocence is a good album from a melodic/atmospheric standpoint. Yeah, it's incredibly overproduced and sterile but this doesn't warrant it receiving ratings below a 75. At best it's a turn in the right direction after No Line on the Horizon for U2 and at worst it's a harmless pop-rock album. It's not some evil product of money-grubbing corporations designed to give Bono cultural-dictator status. Unfortunately for U2, Rolling Stone ranking it "#1" feeds that stereotype and actually will turn more people off to even giving the album a listen.
No new news really, but this list just highlights to me once again that Rolling Stone has no idea who its serving anymore. There is no singular perspective to this list at all, show me the person who says "I really loved that St Vincent album, but it wasn't quite as good as the best album of the year by U2...." That person doesn't exist, those are mutually exclusive thoughts
What? You mean you're not a fan of this masterpiece?
I am a fan. I just don't compare it to The Wall (Kanssas) or other prog faves of mine, since I just plain love prog. I'd say the 4-minute version of Rock Lobster is better than all the songs off of DSOTM (Maybe not Time) and The Wall. I was really trying to make a point that prog rock is just as deserving as hard rock and that a rock magazine is kind of disorganized and stereotypical if they leave out some of the greatest bands out there, like the rest of the big four of prog. The mentioning of Rock Lobster was just a randomly assigned song I chose from the 300's on the RS list, and it could've been any other song. And if anyone's wondering about the "freakin'," RS kind of pisses me off at times. This is why I avoid rock magazines.
It doesn't seem like the Rolling Stone writers consult each other before creating this year end list. The magazine gave Morning Phase 4.5/5 stars but it's not even on the list.
Anyways on the subject of U2, the magazine gave their last record the top spot on the list of best albums of 2009, so I wasn't THAT surprised to see Songs of Innocence at the top again. I think the writers at Rolling Stone have been taking too much Viagra because they've had a hard-on for U2 for the past decade and a half (maybe even longer than that).
Post subject: Re: Rolling Stone named U2 as having the best album of the y
JMan wrote:
I was actually going for prog in general, not just Pink Floyd. I'm willing to bet there are plenty of prog rock songs that deserve more than Pink Floyd (although Shine On You Crazy Diamond is much to wonderful to me).
Well for all of prog yes there are hundreds of better songs than "Rock Lobster". But Rolling Stone has never been a fan of prog.
Post subject: Re: Rolling Stone named U2 as having the best album of the y
denmarkman wrote:
Well for all of prog yes there are hundreds of better songs than "Rock Lobster". But Rolling Stone has never been a fan of prog.
Exactly why I'm avoiding RS. I might read a rock magazine whenever I go to a Wal-Mart, but how can RS call themselves a rock magazine if they willingly avoid one of the most notable genres?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
