Rolling Stone Needs Real Music Critics

[as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik)]

	If anyone has seen the October 1 issue of Rolling Stone, they will
have noticed that 10,000 Maniacs' new album Our Time In Eden received ****,
while Peter Gabriel's Us received *** and Suzanne Vega's 99.9 F received
***1/2.  Now whereas I agree that Vega's latest deserved its rating (and
probably more), Our Time In Eden is the least satisfying album by the
Maniacs to date; lyrics and music are eminently inferior.  Us deserved at
the very least ****; I like it much better than So, as a matter of fact. 
It's lush, gorgeous, otherworldly...RS's criticism totally missed the point. 
Our Time In Eden has nothing to hold on to, and is really much more
"background music" than Us.  My feeling was that the ratings should have
been reversed, if not totally rethought.  But then, this is the magazine
that gave the Cure's inconsequential and unpleasant Wish ****.
	While I'm on the subject of new albums, what are the thoughts on
REM's Automatic for the People?  I'm impressed by what seems to be a welcome
lack of pop-chart fodder.

Andrew D. Simchik
Whose brain and U of R's run on totally different schedules.

"If he treats you horribly, he's probably a Scorpio"
Robyn Hitchcock, "The Devil's Coachman," Queen Elvis