Jump to content

10 Classic Albums originally panned by Rolling Stone


goose
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.rollings...th-1970-101493/

 

An interesting read, with some priceless Rolling Stones drivel, like this from the review on Queen's Jazz:

 

Queen may be the first truly fascist rock band. The whole thing makes me wonder why anyone would indulge these creeps and their polluting ideas.

 

:LOL:

 

On the Zeppelin debut:

 

Unfortunately, [Jimmy Page] is ... a very limited producer and a writer of weak, unimaginative songs

Edited by goose
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rolling Stone hasn't half written some odious bullshit over the years. They had their favorites -- often for reasons outside of the music -- and judged so many other artists against those standards.
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding, High Voltage, "Australian gross-out champions". Complete wankers, those RS dillholes.

Hey, be fair. In the kinder, gentler 1983 review they did give it two whole stars.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rolling Stone can't even review themselves quite right. I'd hardly say a few of those reviews (Exile, Nevermind, Pinkerton) constituted "panning."

 

Also, I'm surprised RS now considers Queen's Jazz a "classic" when both the original review (which definitely does constitute panning... of the highest degree, it's comical really) and the 2004 re-review are highly negative. Perhaps they've finally realized they aren't "cool" for disliking Queen, as long as the entire world is on a Queen high anyway.

 

Garbage biased opinions rule that publication. Always have, and it seems they always will. It's not that I disagree with everything they've said, more that what I have disagreed with (not just Queen stuff mind you) I've done so because of how outrageous their biases are. You can and should be biased, but not to the extreme of RS or Pitchfork.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rolling Stone hasn't half written some odious bullshit over the years. They had their favorites -- often for reasons outside of the music -- and judged so many other artists against those standards.

Rolling Stone hasn't half written some odious bullshit over the years. They had their favorites -- often for reasons outside of the music -- and judged so many other artists against those standards.

 

This Magazine was a definite Waste of the paper that was used to print it on. Being a PURE manifesto of people who thought they were ENTITLED to do whatever it was they thought of, a Bunch of Idiots. The one and only RS I bought had a front page story on RUSH, and because of what they wrote, I NEVER bought Another.

t1Qf8U0.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.rollings...th-1970-101493/

 

An interesting read, with some priceless Rolling Stones drivel, like this from the review on Queen's Jazz:

 

Queen may be the first truly fascist rock band. The whole thing makes me wonder why anyone would indulge these creeps and their polluting ideas.

 

:LOL:

 

On the Zeppelin debut:

 

Unfortunately, [Jimmy Page] is ... a very limited producer and a writer of weak, unimaginative songs

Obviously, the morons from RS didn't read the morons from NME, or they would have known that Rush beat Queen to the honor of proving that Orwell was right about the meaninglessness of the appellation that, among others those who can't play use to describe those they don't understand.

 

Still, you've got to give it up for the physical dexterity of Dave Marsh, for apparently being able to type with his tongue three inches deep in Springsteen's ass.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rolling Stone can't even review themselves quite right. I'd hardly say a few of those reviews (Exile, Nevermind, Pinkerton) constituted "panning."

 

Also, I'm surprised RS now considers Queen's Jazz a "classic" when both the original review (which definitely does constitute panning... of the highest degree, it's comical really) and the 2004 re-review are highly negative. Perhaps they've finally realized they aren't "cool" for disliking Queen, as long as the entire world is on a Queen high anyway.

 

Garbage biased opinions rule that publication. Always have, and it seems they always will. It's not that I disagree with everything they've said, more that what I have disagreed with (not just Queen stuff mind you) I've done so because of how outrageous their biases are. You can and should be biased, but not to the extreme of RS or Pitchfork.

Since their inception, too many of their reviews reflect the smug superiority of Village pseudo-intellectuals. I always wondered why they even publish them?
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since their inception, too many of their reviews reflect the smug superiority of Village pseudo-intellectuals. I always wondered why they even publish them?

 

Because that's their (limited) world view. "Doesn't everyone think this way? Everyone I know thinks this way."

 

They always believed (but that doesn't make it so) that they were flying the flag of the non-conformist anti-establishment '60s -- this is one of the reasons RS always hated Prog music, because the artists had dared to practice for 10,000 hours and get really good at it and so were willing to challenge themselves and their listeners with complicated art; it smacked too much of hierarchies of access or skill. So they celebrated the things they felt reflected "authentic" (meaning simple) art, like some Dylan, Springsteen, and later punk/esque kinds of things, and they denigrated Prog, heavy metal, etc. RS's supposed intellectualism was really an anti-intellectual stance against music for music's sake.

 

Wankers.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with music critics. Each critic is simply another opinion. Take Robert Christgau, I don't agree with him the majority of the time but I still read his reviews. One can gain insight from both positive and negative opinions. A negative review can be insightful. Personally, negative reviews usually make me want to hear the music. Oh yeah, Jazz ain't that good.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between criticism and opinion, though, is massive. An opinion is something personal, not supported by facts, and not subject to disproof, like "I like bologna sandwiches." It's about the speaker, you cannot _prove_ you like bologna sandwiches, and no one else can prove you don't like them.

 

A critic should be offering judgments about the quality or meaning of a work that would be true even if s/he didn't exist. Criticism requires support and is subject to disproof.

 

It might seem like "I like Album X" and "Album X is a great record" are the same thing, but they are not, really, not in execution anyway, since the second thing requires the critic to support the claim through examples, specifics, and details, whereas the first thing is merely an ephemeral expression of taste.

 

I totally agree that too many "critics" are doing the first thing instead of the second, but that's why good criticism is so important and useful. It's not just some arsehole blowing gas, but somebody with some knowledge applying it to the album/novel/film/whatever.

 

As you said, much can be learned from good writing of any sort, too, yeah.

Edited by Nova Carmina
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give them credit for admitting those critics look foolish now, but it just underscores that the whole notion of paying someone to be a "critic" (the title even implies you're looking primarily to be negative) is stupid. Haven't all of us had the experience of not loving a particular piece of music on first listen, but later changing that opinion once we've had time to really absorb it? I know I have, even for bands I ALREADY like. It's really unfair to new/mostly unknown artists to have pieces like that written about their work by people who most likely only listened deep enough to pull out enough negative analogies to fill up an article. Fortunately, as time shows, they don't end up having as much influence over public opinion as they think they should. Edited by TexMike
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harvest was one of Neil Young's best albums, and Black Sabbath's debut was one of their best as well.

 

What does RS know anyway. :boo hiss:

 

In protest, I will go listen to The Wizard! :codger:

Edited by Lorraine
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Neil Young, but think they are not far off with their review of Harvest. I very rarely listen to it and think it's one of his weakest (commercial success isn't always an accurate measure of quality). The fact Neil headed off immediately to create the magnificently dark "ditch trilogy" suggests that he partially agreed with RS about the direction he'd taken.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with music critics. Each critic is simply another opinion. Take Robert Christgau, I don't agree with him the majority of the time but I still read his reviews. One can gain insight from both positive and negative opinions. A negative review can be insightful. Personally, negative reviews usually make me want to hear the music. Oh yeah, Jazz ain't that good.

I thought it was a strange one to pick for that narrative.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between criticism and opinion, though, is massive. An opinion is something personal, not supported by facts, and not subject to disproof, like "I like bologna sandwiches." It's about the speaker, you cannot _prove_ you like bologna sandwiches, and no one else can prove you don't like them.

 

A critic should be offering judgments about the quality or meaning of a work that would be true even if s/he didn't exist. Criticism requires support and is subject to disproof.

 

It might seem like "I like Album X" and "Album X is a great record" are the same thing, but they are not, really, not in execution anyway, since the second thing requires the critic to support the claim through examples, specifics, and details, whereas the first thing is merely an ephemeral exp<b></b>ression of taste.

 

I totally agree that too many "critics" are doing the first thing instead of the second, but that's why good criticism is so important and useful. It's not just some arsehole blowing gas, but somebody with some knowledge applying it to the album/novel/film/whatever.

 

As you said, much can be learned from good writing of any sort, too, yeah.

:goodone:

 

There are albums I recognize as great but just not my cup of tea. That's true of any art form.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I totally see that. I know I like some things that are kind of crap (Jason Stathem movies come to mind), and there are great things I don't like. There does not have to be overlap between those two ideas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One album not on this list is XTC's Skylarking. Its initial release, whose track list didn't include its now-signature song Dear God, was originally panned by RS as more evidence that XTC was exhausted and out of ideas, pandering to audiences with yet more pastoral nothings a la Mummer's Love on a Farm Boys Wages. Their negativity seemed to be validated by the lack of impact the album had on the charts. I remember this well as I really loved XTC and I loved Skylarking and wished more people would as well. I felt for XTC; not that their career needed validation from RS but they did seem to be struggling a bit (following Mummer and The Big Express) and a hit piece by RS didn't help a very good album that few seemed to notice (initially). I thought that review snarky, unfair and unwelcome; I could only wonder what XTC thought of it.

 

Then Dear God, issued as the b-side of Grass (various stories exist as to why it was left off the initial pressing of the album), took off on U.S. college radio and the album was subsequently re-issued with Dear God included (Mermaid Smiled was sacrificed, which was too bad as it was/is a really excellent song, though it did show up later on compilation album Rag and Bone Buffet). The re-issued album, carried by the success of Dear God, took off on the indie/college charts. A different reviewer with RS, reviewing the re-issue with Dear God, claimed the now-commercially successful album a masterpiece. Today, RS lists it as #48 on its top 100 albums of the '80s.

 

So is the album actually great vs completely forgettable just because it has Dear God instead of Mermaid Smiled? Of course not; two different reviewers, with their own taste and biases, each influenced by the album's apparent reception, apparently. This is what makes these reviews annoying, if you take them seriously, and which is why I don't take them seriously, just as I don't take car reviews seriously (it's all click bait in the end; everyone's trying to make a living).

 

Re Dear God, hard to believe it was left off the album in the first place. A wonderfully crafted, powerful song that doesn't really say anything controversial or new, it just says it with emotional impact. The "problem of evil" is probably the strongest argument against a loving God and always has been to my way of thinking, at least phrased as "the problem of pain" ... so much unnecessary evil is due to us violent, brainy monkeys that it's existence never swayed me as strongly as the existence of pain and suffering which seems woven into the fabric of things, regardless of our human awfulness. That said I don't think the argument decisive but needs to be faced and Andy Partridge has done his part. As he said, he was trying to give voice to "a struggling agnostic." Perfectly understandable, and well done.

 

p.s. Andy has written much more clever disses of organized religion than Dear God if one wants to get all upset about it.

 

p.p.s. I found the original, critical, RS review by Rob Tannenbaum (http://chalkhills.or...e.html#rs870326). Not quite as blistering as I remembered but definitely down on the album and the band. E.g., the result (of XTC's and producer Todd Rundgren's collaboration) is "ultimately unsatisfying," revealing "the limitations of (Partridge's) pastoral vision through his reliance on repetition." Later, after the successful re-issue, Tim Sommer of RS praised the album as "the most inspired and satisfying piece of Beatle-esque pop since ... well, since the Beatles," comparing it favorably with such classics as Rubber Soul, Revolver, Pet Sounds and The Kinks' Village Green Preservation Society. Same world, different realities.

Edited by Rutlefan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...