Re: Rolling Stone Needs Real Music Critics

["K.R.Marshall" <pcxkrm@unicorn.nott.ac.uk>]

In article <1992Oct11.175229.8958@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik) writes:
>
>	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

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with some of this - I found Wish a great album
that I listen to a lot - I also found Automatic for the People simply boring
compared to Murmur and Out of Time, my favourites by REM. I do, however,
agree with the comments on Us and 99.9 F, they represent steps in the right
direction for both artists concerned.

Keith.