Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by BryanA-HTX, Mar 17, 2017.
Sometimes the public has better musical taste than the critics.
I always thought it was baffling that Hysteria's pre-Pour Some Sugar chart run was seen as this colossal embarassment... it had spent almost an entire year in the top 10 on Billboard prior to finally going #1 and had already sold 4 million units by that point. Pour Some Sugar On Me certainly took the album from "hit" to "blockbuster" but even if the album had peaked by that point, it still would've spent almost an entire year in the top 10 which should be considered a success.
Produced by: Robert John Lange
Date: 22/08/1987 - Run: 36- 9-4-4-4-5-5-5-4-5-6-6-6-6-6-7-8-8-9- (19 wsf)
02/01/1988: 9-10-8-10-8-8-7-6-8-8-7-7-7-7-9-9-12-11- 10-11-11- 10-7-4-3-3-3-2-2-*1*-1-2-1-2-2-1-1-1-2-2-2-3-3-4-4-5-6-6-6-7-6-7-7-(72 wsf)
07/01/1989: 6-7-5-4-7-7-6-7-8-9-10-12-14-15-17-18-19-20-20-20-23-25-28-39-43-48-57-59-69-78-80-87-89-96-95-95-94-101-104-107-113-120-129-134-134-153-164-173-179-164-158-158- (124 wsf)
06/01/1990: 158-146-145-150-154-171-180-192-198 (133/78-43c/6 wks)
Top 10 re-entries: 2
Total # of weeks: 133 (Top 10: 78-43c, Top 20: 91 Top 40: 96, #1: 6) UK:#1/111/7/1
Barring its debut week, the lowest the album got at any point in 1987-1988 was #12 shortly before Pour Some Sugar hit and took the album to a new level.
Hi VBlues is the last song in side one - the three side two tracks are where the stupifying effects of those notorious honey slides really kick in.
It shot to # 2 real early upon it's release I believe for 1 week.
It was a success to the true fans such as I before Sugar.
But it's post Sugar success made it appear as a classic once more people owned it and played it.
Nonsense - they were all critical favorites from day one. They just couldn't be found in stores, resulting in very few people (aside from music critics) being aware of their existence until several years later through growing word of mouth/celebrity fans and disciples mentioning them/passing around of tapes dubbed from deleted vinyl copies, which slowly (but steadily) built their "cult" until their early 90s CD releases and to a lesser extent their concurrent "reunion" shows which continued on and off until Chilton's death.
Though it took most people decades to even learn of their existence, for those "in the know" they were considered masterpieces from day one. Actually for me personally only "Third" (specifically the first 14 songs of the Ryko version - from Kizza Me to Take Care - tracks 15-19 being the less essential "bonus tracks") which many don't even consider a 'Big Star' album is their only true 'masterpiece' - as in "one of the very top notch - absolute greatest ever albums of all time by anyone". The first two albums are "merely" excellent (not every song is top notch, but close)
"You Gotta Move" is perfect, is it? "as a matter of "fact"?! OK
BTW - what "couple of really bad songs" on Exile are worse/less listenable than that?
Yes. It seemed like Sgt. peppers was almost universally regarded as the "best" Beatles album up until maybe 10 years ago, with Abbey Road considered their second best. Now I usually see Revolver topping the polls. FWIW Revolver was the first album I bought and has always been favorite Beatles album.
Pablo Honey has always been (and probably still is) widely considered to be their weakest album of all.
Wasn't Stone Roses ST considered a masterpiece from day one? (Certainly in the UK) So much so that the followup was considered a total disaster by comparison.
Sex Pistols - masterpiece from day one as well - at least in the UK
Going by lack of "Critical Acclaim" apon release; then public w/ or w/o professional acceptances later.
"Pablo Honey" is a "Platinum" seller, even if you consider it the band's "weakest" effort.
"S/T - The Stoned Roses": NME rated the album 6 out of 10 in '89, yet in '06 named it "The Greatest Indie Album of All Time"!
[New Musical Express is a UK mag/by-the-way]
"Never Mind... - Sex Pistols" was trashed in the UK at the time by some critics as obscene & an attack on the Queen.
Show proof every '77 review had it as a "masterpiece".
"Masterpiece" is in the eye of the beholder. As "worst" is as well.
"NMTB, HTSP" was amazing to me how good it was [& the 45 that came w/the WB release] even after getting three single releases before & being totally thrilled by them [especially the B-side "I Wanna Be Me"]. Just cause i pogoed for it, didn't think "everyone" else did as well!!
Where exactly did I say *I* consider it the band's weakest effort? And where did I say that what I personally think of it has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with critical acceptance/opinion. And what does sales have to do with critical favour? BTW is Pablo Honey their biggest seller - doubtful. And does it still sell - or did it make the bulk of its sales from the contemporary success of the Creep single? Does it sell as well now as say 'Kid A" or "OK Computer" do - and continue to?
You gave only one example (assuming its true as you didn't provide a link to back it up) which entitles you to no more than a single ha (with no exclamation points) BTW are we talking about the same band "Stoned(?) Roses" or are you just trying to impress everyone with your incredible wit and cleverness?
How could the album be an attack on the Queen? Nonsense. The 'God Save The Queen' single could have been seen as such - but obviously not the entire album.
WTF - you're telling me I need to "PROVE" that EVERY 1977 review claimed it was a masterpiece, but you don't need to do more than assert with no evidence (link) provided that only ONE magazine gave the SR debut album a 6 out of 10 score.
...and how exactly is that fair...not to mention logical, or NOT insane?
So it DIDN'T inspire pretty much every UK punk band that came after? And critics of the time DIDN'T love punk? So what WERE the critics salivating over in 1977?
Personally - not that it matters since the question is what was the critical standing at the time compared to now - but personally I think NMTB-HTSP is exactly half great and half crap. The four single A-sides included on the album along with two other album tracks are brilliant, while the other six songs on the album are borderline garbage.
Well... ha, ha!! Will try to address all that & more!
For "even if you consider", "you" is a collective "you"; not you personally & "if" is like 'supposing that' or 'providing that'.
Posted criteria of "Critical Acceptance" as mine, not yours. Again, i was using sales to prove my evaluation of success.
Posting "going by" meant i was "going by". Should i now post as you do 'where do i say you said going by or where do i say you said critical acceptance??
"Ha, ha!!" in that post was intended for NME. Thought that would be clear; since it clearly follows the 6 out 10 rated album becoming 'Best All Time Indie'. Still think that's pretty funny.
Oops! No; "Stoned (sic) Roses" is my miss take & not even 'stoned' for an excuse.
The album contained the singles which were considered an attack on the Monarchy & the Queen. So of course the album could be considered as such. What, you dismiss the songs impact because they had been previously released?
The album & ads were seen as obscene. Bobbies went around to shops & had them remove ads from shop windows. One store owner was arrested for not complying & there was an obscenity trial over the title ['Pistols' won].
It was not "fair" that i asked you to prove every review reviewed it as a "masterpiece". It was not meant to be "fair". It only proved you could not.
Guess i'm forsed to again use your "where exactly did I say... ":
'it didn't inspire "Punk" banks'
'critics didn't luv "Punk"'
'the critics weren't salivating over it'
"Sex Pistols - masterpiece from day one as well - at least in the UK"
"... the six other songs are borderline garbage"
To funny too!!
1/3 of the reason you quoted my post was to inform me "NMTB, HTSP" was a masterpiece back-in-the-day & now. Yet you post 1/2 of the 12 track release are bordering on "garbage".
Can anyone translate any of this "word salad" into english for me?
The singles (all 4 of them?) were attacks on the Queen? Really?
Holidays In The Sun?
Anarchy In The UK?
OK - explain how!
Because of the use of the offensive word "Bollocks" and the phallic symbol featured on the album cover. WTF does that have to do with the Queen? Or even more importantly - the music contained within?
More indecipherable "word salad"
I gave their opinion and then in addition gave my own opinion which are in fact very different from each other. How is that a problem exactly?
Do I have to share the critics' opinion to be allowed to state what their opinion was?
I'll say it again "How is that NOT insane?"
The definition of insanity is to repeat an action expecting a different result.
I missed that memo too. Diamond Dogs was mostly universally panned in the 70's and last time I checked on album review guides. I don't recall any reassessment of it. I don't even recall most Bowie fans mentioning it as a favorite in his catalog. The mere passage of time or the recent death of an artist should not elevate an album to "masterpiece" status.
Yes, both were very well regarded with the public and critics. Elton generally received good reviews for most of his output in between 1970-1975.
No, Caribou was sandwiched in between Goodbye and Capt. Fantastic. Also, his first Greatest Hits was between them as well. It is true that reviews for Caribou were not as good as his other albums of that era and even Elton himself admitted it had a lot of issues at the time. You are probably thinking of Rock of the Westies, which was much harder than anything else in his catalog. Some did not like it, but I recall Rolling Stone thought it was great.
No doubt there was a ton of backlash after the Beatles broke out, but McCartney still no problem getting radio airplay and moving lots of records in the 70's. I agree he made a lot of critical progress with Band on the Run, but that might have been a case of one step forward and two steps back when he came out with "Silly Love Songs" and "Let 'Em In" a couple of years later. That second solo LP with "Coming Out" (in 1980) was another critical bomb.
Yes, definitive statement on dysfunctional relationships & breakups.
Regardless of how Pablo Honey was received at the time you would have to search long and hard to find any Radiohead fan that would rate it as a 'masterpiece'. I think at best it would be regarded now as OK, 6/10. It's derivative and they haven't found their groove yet. No one regards it as a masterpiece now so it certainly doesn't fit the criteria of this thread.
That's the problem with a lot of the suggestions on this thread, people are confusing their personal opinions with widespread opinion. If you asked 100 Radiohead fans what were the 'masterpieces' in their discography I guess 99 would say either The Bends, OKC, Kid A or In Rainbows. 1 might say Pablo Honey. Now, logically, because one person thinks its a masterpiece does not make it so. We are talking about the widespread general opinion, not someone's personal subjective opinion.
The first four Ramones albums.
I think number six is great too but has yet to receive the recognition it deserves.
It's still not a masterpiece. Even less so today.
I think it's important to discount the general hysteria that now surrounds Bowie's work (and I've been a life-long fan), before proclaiming masterpiece status on an album which is not ranked as one of his best, even amongst fans. Ditto Lodger.
I do wonder about some of the albums coming up here - I've never known a time when H61R wasn't regarded as a classic.
The earliest critics album poll I've come across is one from 1971 by Zigzag where it placed at #5, and in the first NME album poll from 1974 it p;aced at equal 4th with Revolver.
And that one is interesting in itself as I've seen comments about Revolver's only recognised as a classic "recently".
If you read my posts above you will see I am myself quick to point out that albums like Pablo Honey and The Soft Parade are not masterpieces and very far from that, but Diamond Dogs is a tricky one as I do think you could argue that. It's top five for me and one of my favourites, and I think objectively you could (in the context of modern pop music) call it a masterpiece, if you are going to call Hunky Dory, Ziggy, Low and Station To Station masterpieces.
I mean the first side is, imo, faultless. Bookended by the two great singles you have the sublime Sweet Thing/Candidate section in the middle which is one of the great bits of the whole of Bowie's discography I think. It's a side that compares to any side he did.
Side b isn't quite as epic but I think all the songs are very solid and really enjoyable.
I admit it's not normally rated as one of his best but I think it is myself and can't see why it's not in that conversation when it contains such strong material. I can only think because it fell between the glam period and the Berlin period it doesn't have the narrative to go with it like those other albums have in terms of the narrative of his career.
Separate names with a comma.