I'm listening to some mellow Sunday morning tuneage -- led off with my 
freshly purchased used copy of America's HISTORY album.  And it got me 
thinking...

I have my own theories about this, but I was a little bit young when groups 
like Bread, America, Abba and many others were being ripped to shreds by 
orthodox rock critics.  Those are just some examples -- none who I think 
were consistent geniuses, yet all have some incredibly superior pop music 
(ex. -- "Daisy Jane" -- simply heartbreaking -- though I always wondered if 
it would be twice as cool if the song faded on a reprise of the effective 
quiet opening...) on their discs.  Though a group of a much different 
stripe, Sparks was not a favorite, and, as some of you may know, I think 
they're alright (NEWSFLASH!!! -- according to the band's web site, Sparks 
will be touring the US in Feb. and Europe before that).  Another example 
would be Black Sabbath, who were reviled in their day.

I wish I still had my Rolling Stone Red Book -- but I'm guessing that some 
of the stuff they were going ape for was full of pretension or dull as dirt.

So my question, for those who were really around then -- what was up with 
that?  Did you think the critics were nuts?  Did it affect your buying 
habits, and you had to come back later and get this good stuff?

On an unrelated note -- the new Richard Ashcroft record -- not a great 
record, and not that new, but I like this a lot -- he's toned down (without 
getting rid of) his epic quality and makes some cool dramatic rock.  I never 
thought he'd be so good this far into his career.

Mike Bennett



Record reviews and more at http://fufkin.com

_________________________________________________________________
Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your current Internet access and enjoy 
patented spam control and more.  Get two months FREE!     
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa