Once Criticised by Music Press(nme,mm etc) now Canonised.

Daft Punk's "Homework" got lukewarm reviews by both the NME and MM, but I have to admit buying the original release of "Da Funk" because of a glowing review by Sherman in the sadly defunct "Vibes" section

Later when punk was in its heyday there was a common critical view that the Stones was one of the few dinosaur bands it was ok to like, as long as you realised that they were finished by the time Brian Jones died. Thus the rot set in with "Let It Bleed", as confirmed by the bloated and lacklustre "Sticky Fingers" and "Exile". You don't see that line being taken so much now.

I have a Rolling Stone album guide published in 1992 in which no Queen album gets more than 3.5 stars (and that's Greatest Hits compilation - no "real" album gets more than 3). Of 16 Stranglers albums, 3 get 2 stars, 5 get 1.5 and the rest 1.

On the other hand the idea of Abba's critical rehabilition is a myth. I'm not saying the critics loved them from day 1 but they were being used as a litmus test to sort out the genuinely hip from the wannabees within a year or so of their initial success.

*(I believe he said it took about 25 listens before he started to get it).

and william reid's white boy 'fro was better than anyone's...

oh, it was so much fun.

[ Side thought -- please don't reply: Melanie = the Avril Lavigne of her day? ]
[ Side issue -- needs new thread: makes you wonder which currently-derided acts are awaiting NMEhabilitation in ten years. Yo La Tengo? ]

ArfArf I don't think any of the pro-pop people thinks the arguments are new - just that clearly they weren't 'won' or we wouldn't have to have them again year in year out.

I still see plently of posts in which people seem to imagine they are kicking against an establishment view that, as a point of principle, records must be more than just good pop to be any good.

You say the arguments weren't won "or we wouldn't have to have them again year in year out". But that's exactly my point: there isn't an argument, because no-one is putting the opposite case. Even the Sunday papers these days are genuflecting in front of Sugababes or whatever, while reviews of Will and Gareth are full of a badly concealed nervousness about whether it's ok to say anything nasty even about atrocious pop. The baddies are dead and there's no point in going around trying to butcher their ghosts.

Marsh's opinion of the Doors (like his opinions of other folks) has never been canonical. His opinions of the Grateful Dead on the other hand have by and large been accepted by the cognoscenti. To the point that most hipsters have an anti-Dead reflex. (For instance, recent Sun City Girls show: Hey, this is pretty good. Wait, it sounds like the Grateful Dead. Shit. Should I like it?) I think that's only now beginning to change. As long as the patchouli-wearing Deadheads are hanging out in your town the process will be a long one.

Hahahahaha, I like both! I know a few people that do, too.

They were right, but so what. He's great anyway and this is show business right?

i came about my grateful dead-hatin' all by myself, thank you very much. why is it that people who like the grateful dead just can't get that people who don't like the dead might have come about their opinions by listening to their music and deciding for themselves that they don't like it? with no help from Dave Marsh or any other critic?

But having a handful of good reviews, even excellent reviews, isn't the same as being well liked. I'm sure even Traci Lords's album has its decent reviews. I guess the way I view questions like this would be by common consensus of people of the era it was released - now I don't know much about the common consensus around the Stones (if my dad is to believed, they were the most important band ever besides maybe the Who and Zep and anyone who says otherwise is some kind of neo-communist bastard), but I will say that judging by the people I know who were around in the day, ABBA wasn't really viewed as an important or particularly good band, just at most something enjoyable...More "importantly", I guess, to this thread, is people of my era who I remember having a good laugh at ABBA when I was quite younger who all own ABBA albums today, unironically.

I think Madonna gets this quite a bit too, I find 5 years later critics tend to revise what they said about her albums, either making them critically greater or worse (Like a Prayer being the semi-inexplicable exception). I've noticed, for example, Erotica getting MUCH better press now than it did when it came out...though how much of it is due to Madonna dropping the oversexual almost "male" rock whore act and becoming a Stevie Nicks with a libido? The entirety of the feminist rant thread to this thread...

Ooer can you tell I been out? I'm blathering.

I agree partially with whomever mentioned the Manics. Certain critics just adored them from day one but an awful lot dismissed them as a sub-Gang of Four political joke. How did the Holy Bible get reviewed in the UK? It obviously didn't get done up in the US, as I don't believe it got a proper release here, but I'm just curious because I get the impression that it gets better cop since Richey's suicide than it did when it was released...

ArfArf - I think your reference to ABBA is much like Momus citing Madonna in the feminism thread - it conflates an instance with a totality. But ABBA's critical rehabilitation or the temporary triumph of the New Pop critical approach in the UK papers in the early eighties is no more proof that the "pro-pop" contingent have already won than the successful election of left-wing governments is proof that the socialists have won. Alex in NYC's grudging approval of Mystikal's "Bouncin' Back" doesn't mean he approves of mainstream hip hop; rather, it's him choosing a mainstream hip hop track and underlining what he thinks distinguishes it from the rest of the rap milieu, so in fact it reaffirms his stance against mainstream hip hop. A lot of critics approach ABBA in the same fashion ("craftmanship", "wrote their own songs", "transcendental melodies"). A lot of them don't, as well, but the fact that the battle rages on can certainly be proved by the ILM archives alone.

Patrin - Bangs was pretty notorious for changing his mind. Any critical rehabilitation of Sabbath that's occurred can probably be traced back to him (though grunge didn't hurt either).

Madonna's the closest thing to an actual critical rehabilitation (although a lot of rock critics who derided rap for being 'hatefilled', etc. or just ignored it altogether, suddenly wised up around the time the Marshall Mather LP was released) I've witnessed; the consensus on Abba remains divided along Europe-US lines, despite Stephin Merritt, KISS might not be derided anymore but they're rarely canonised (again, Bangs was the exception here). Disco might be a candidate also - it doesn't seem to automatically prompt guffaws in the rock press the way it used to (I can remember the incredulity emanating from Soul II Soul and Lisa Stansfield articles in '89 when Stansfield or Jazzie B would 'actually admit' they liked disco). Then again Donna Summer isn't in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, so maybe not.

and rehabilitate "Hippopotamomus", maybe ...?

Not that important.

he spent the 80s as a sports writer, mainly: when he switched back to cinema in the 90s he seemed completely at sea

i reviewed his early 90s coffee-table book on miles, in wire, and was pretty horrible abt it - and he wrote me a really funny, friendly postcard about my review: wot a gent!!

Rockist - it's a Smiths song about music industry fawning towards the dead.

My point: in the rush to make up for critical oversights or errors, there can be a tendency to overpraise the present work...though maybe critics really do prefer Like a Prayer to Madonna.

(By the way, I'm not saying things would be better if critics still hated Madonna or didn't treat her seriously!)

were "the shadows" cliff richards' backing band? they were tight!

almost as tight as rita chao's backing band: THE QUESTS!

I'm not sure if getting dumped from an ad campaign is "taking on" anything, except perhaps exposure to liability.

Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if (tada!) Pepsi and/or their ad agency had some sort of contingency in the contract they had her sign, or something. It's not like a settlement between the parties would be publicized, esp. with the army of lawyers at each side's disposal.

I don't remember what the press thought of her in the beginning.

But amazingly, CCR had quite an ambivalent rap with critics
during their first run. Some critics loved 'em, some hated 'em.
Rolling Stone allegedly gave them SEVERAL poor reviews.

Rolling Stone also criticized Pink Floyd. They gave generably
favorable reviews to _Dark Side_ and _Wish You Were Here_, but
the reviewer didn't like the singing much, didn't like Clare Torry
and hated "Wish You Were Here." Needless to say, today Rolling Stone
considers all of Pink Floyd's hit albums to be five-starrers.

ROFFLES!