Albums that were panned on it's original release.. :/

[JohnnyQuest]

But receives warmer reception now and even considered great & innovative records for it's time.
Here's one of my favorites.

David Bowie - Lodger

[Gabo]

Lou Reed - Berlin

[JohnnyQuest]

It's truly sad how little comments this thread has. lol

[the captain]

If it's truly sad, why are you laughing out loud?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Everything AC/DC's released since Back In Black.

Monster and New Adventures In Hi-Hi by REM

Everything Lou Reed's done between Transformer and The Blue Mask, then then everything between that and New York ..... And then everything after that.

[Gabo]

I don't think Lodger is a very good album anyway. It's a classic... if you love Bowie. It's kind of an... annoying album. All the songs are so camp, but in a comic and not "glam" way. Low is the masterpiece of the Berlin trilogy, the inspiration was in the toilet by Heroes, which is also a bad. Heroes is even worse than Lodger because its 99% filler. All the instrumentals are simply fillers and the rockers were improvised on the spot, lacking the melodies and thoughtful lyrics which make music good. I guess that's OKAY because the Eno/Bowie collaboration was more interested on sound than on songcraft, but Heroes is muddy sounding and lacks the precise arrangements of Low. Lodger is also muddy sounding, but I at least the appreciate the presence of more legitimate compositions.

In terms of my choice, Berlin is a love it or lump it album. The songwriting is probably the most consistently strong on any Lou Reed solo, and it's at least an interesting album compared to all the commercial tripe he made in the 70s (besides Transformer). The album makes you feel something with all those sad acoustic songs and sense of doom.

[Aum Bop Diddit]

The Rolling Stones' Exile on Main Street was not very critically well received upon release, if not exactly panned.  Same might be said for Tusk by Fleetwood Mac, and Quadrophenia by the Who.  Of course all are double LPs that followed commercial peaks for these groups.  Misunderstood and underappreciated upon release I'd say, but these albums are now often cited as the artistic high watermark for each.

[Please delete my account]

Smiley Smile

[the captain]

Radiohead's Kid A wasn't universally panned, but it was certainly given a more mixed reception at the time than one might guess considering its status now. Nick Hornby had a famously cool (meaning less than positive, not meaning, you know, cool review in The New Yorker. I recall other similar sentiments as well, that they were just being pretentious, just fucking with people, wasting our time, blah blah rawk dood.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Radiohead's Kid A wasn't universally panned, but it was certainly given a more mixed reception at the time than one might guess considering its status now. Nick Hornby had a famously cool (meaning less than positive, not meaning, you know, cool review in The New Yorker. I recall other similar sentiments as well, that they were just being pretentious, just fucking with people, wasting our time, blah blah rawk dood.

And hasn't every album since then been basically panned for either of the following reasons: 1. Failure to get back to being a "real band" ..... or ....... 2. Kid A Part 2, nothing new?

[the captain]

Radiohead's Kid A wasn't universally panned, but it was certainly given a more mixed reception at the time than one might guess considering its status now. Nick Hornby had a famously cool (meaning less than positive, not meaning, you know, cool review in The New Yorker. I recall other similar sentiments as well, that they were just being pretentious, just fucking with people, wasting our time, blah blah rawk dood.

And hasn't every album since then been basically panned for either of the following reasons: 1. Failure to get back to being a "real band" ..... or ....... 2. Kid A Part 2, nothing new?

I think that's the case with most every band, ever. It's a pretty familiar narrative by this point: getting away from what made them great, or playing it too safe/repeating themselves. You can't win...

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Radiohead's Kid A wasn't universally panned, but it was certainly given a more mixed reception at the time than one might guess considering its status now. Nick Hornby had a famously cool (meaning less than positive, not meaning, you know, cool review in The New Yorker. I recall other similar sentiments as well, that they were just being pretentious, just fucking with people, wasting our time, blah blah rawk dood.

And hasn't every album since then been basically panned for either of the following reasons: 1. Failure to get back to being a "real band" ..... or ....... 2. Kid A Part 2, nothing new?

I think that's the case with most every band, ever. It's a pretty familiar narrative by this point: getting away from what made them great, or playing it too safe/repeating themselves. You can't win...

and thank God Radiohead couldn't seem to care less 

[JohnnyQuest]

Radiohead's Kid A wasn't universally panned, but it was certainly given a more mixed reception at the time than one might guess considering its status now. Nick Hornby had a famously cool (meaning less than positive, not meaning, you know, cool review in The New Yorker. I recall other similar sentiments as well, that they were just being pretentious, just fucking with people, wasting our time, blah blah rawk dood.

And hasn't every album since then been basically panned for either of the following reasons: 1. Failure to get back to being a "real band" ..... or ....... 2. Kid A Part 2, nothing new?

I think that's the case with most every band, ever. It's a pretty familiar narrative by this point: getting away from what made them great, or playing it too safe/repeating themselves. You can't win...

and thank God Radiohead couldn't seem to care less 

With every David Bowie album that's decent the critics always seem to say "This is the best album he's done since Scary Monsters." 
They said that with Black Tie White  Noise,Heathen and The Next Day.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Sandinista!

Triple album, but still counts.

Panned hard when released and nowadays, even folks who want to reconsider it can't make it through all six sides in order to form a coherent opinion.

Everyone seems to agree now that it's standout tracks are The Clash at their peak.

[Jukka]

Weezer's Pinkerton. Pearl Jam's No Code. Soundgarden's Down on the Upside. Alice in Chains's Alice in Chains. Nirvana's In Utero. If you believe the media and public's general opinion, all the nineties greats dropped the ball with their follow ups, but anyone with ears should hear that the albums I just listed are great, full stop. Deeper and more soulful than the hit single -packed ones.

[Aum Bop Diddit]

Again not panned necessarily but somewhat critically misunderstood and commercially ignored believe it or not was "Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs" upon release.  Two years after "Layla" became a top ten single and over time of course it has been considered Clapton's finest hour.

[Rocky Raccoon]

http://rateyourmusic.com/list/schmidtt/rolling_stones_500_worst_reviews_of_all_time__work_in_progress_/

While you won't get through all of it in one sitting obviously, it's a very interesting read.  Now, Rolling Stone is considered the definitive rock and roll rag but back in the day, they (including well regarded rock writers such as Greil Marcus and Dave Marsh) were wrong about a lot of things and gladly kissed John Lennon's ass regardless of quality (they gave Two Virgins and Wedding Album good reviews!!!???).

[rn57]

I can remember when the original Syd Barrett albums came out in the US in '74 (as a twofer in the wake of Dark Side Of The Moon's success), Rolling Stone gave it a dismissive review. Where negative reviews of albums are concerned, the one of Magical Mystery Tour in Stereo Review by Rex Reed...yes, the Rex Reed...is worth looking up. He really got worked up over I Am The Walrus. And in the case of Love You...the one really favorable review I remember was in Phonograph Record magazine. There weren't too many others.

[phirnis]

Weezer's Pinkerton. Pearl Jam's No Code. Soundgarden's Down on the Upside. Alice in Chains's Alice in Chains. Nirvana's In Utero. If you believe the media and public's general opinion, all the nineties greats dropped the ball with their follow ups, but anyone with ears should hear that the albums I just listed are great, full stop. Deeper and more soulful than the hit single -packed ones.

I so agree about the 1995 Alice in Chains album! Probably their finest hour, musically; incredibly heavy and very inventive too. "Head Creeps" is probably my favourite song of theirs, just loved the overall sound of AiC when this record came out and I think it still holds up today.

[Jukka]

Hey, finally someone who agrees with me on AiC! One of the most important albums in my life, right up there with any greats of any decade! I mean, Sludge Factory... How heavy can you get, yet steer clear of heavy metal cliches? The whole album is really quite a ride. Don't know where, but it's dark and beautiful there.

[zane7570]

One I've been listening to lately, Watertown by Frank Sinatra. It still gets a few bad reviews but most of the reviews I see today range from "criminally underrated" to "one of his best". I find it to be one of his best, though I do understand why some don't like it. That is one of the few albums in my collection that envelops me and stays with me for a few days. I rarely listen but I must always listen to the full album...and then that mood lingers.