--- In audities@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Bennett" <mrhonorama@h...> wrote:

> 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?

> Mike Bennett

I may have gone about in reverse order to everyone else who lived during the
time, but I actually started buying records before I read critical reviews.
Like Billy G. Spradlin my taste was shaped primarily by radio but, starting
in 1977 when I started trolling for more obscure pop, I tended to take a lot
of chances, buying things that "looked pop" (e.g. wimpy looking guys
pictured on the cover, song titles that evoked teen angst, that sort of
thing).  While I made some mistakes taking this tack, I did find a lot of
gems I otherwise wouldn't have.  I was also lucky enough to go to record
shops which had clerks who would play LPs I'd be curious about, which
severly cut down on my buying the wrong albums.  Later, when I started
reading Cream, Circus, and the Rolling Stone "Red Book", I found that most
of the albums I liked were severly panned by the critics.  I also found that
it was clear from their reviews that most of these critics hadn't actually
listened to most of these albums, which led to my immediate lack of respect,
and dismissal of most of what they wrote.

As for whether or not the critics were more nuts then than they are now, I
don't really think so.  Most "high level" critics always have been and
always will be swayed by what's cool, and will dismiss out of hand that
which is not.  As I said, it's highly likely that most of the critics who
panned LPs by America, Bread, and Abba never actually listened to them, but
simply wrote them off as not possibly being any good because the bands who
made them weren't cool, or were "singles bands" (same thing, in the minds of
most critics).  There were certainly exceptions to this rule, on both a
critic and album basis, but that's the general fibre.

More than likely, if there was an equivalent of America, Bread, Abba, Lobo,
Gilbert O'Sullivan, Gary Wright, etc...today, which there really is not,
today's critics would be panning them in the same way their forefathers did.
The difference wouldn't be with them, it would be in our perspective; that
is to say that we would have a much greater a priori knowledge of this type
of artist, and wouldn't need these critics help to formulate our opinions.
--
Pop Rules!!!!!
Take Care,
David (n.p. the debut disc by Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick, and Tich, just
reissued on Repertoire...good stuff, kinda like a wimpier early Who meets
The Hollies)