Original Rolling Stone reviews

[phirnis]

Perhaps this has been covered before, or maybe it's just not as interesting as I think it is. Anyway, I just found myself being fascinated by this stuff, as I wasn't even born yet when most of these reviews about some of my favorite albums were written. It's always rather exciting to me to get a glimpse into people's original reactions to the music.

The Sunflower review seemed particularly strange to me, as the writer so obviously didn't allow himself to come to the conclusion that this is just great music period:
It makes one wonder though whether anyone still listens to their music, or could give a sh*t about it. This album will probably have the fate of being taken as a decadent piece of fluff at a time when we could use more Liberation Music Orchestras. It is decadent fluff–but brilliant fluff. The Beach Boys are plastic madmen, rock geniuses. The plastic should not hide from use the geniuses who molded it.

That said, the Friends review being rather positive strikes me as a pleasant surprise. Next I'm going to read the one about M.I.U...

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/thebeachboys/reviews

[Aegir]

Ridiculous.

"Country Air" is the most relaxed and naturally achieved synthesis of innocence and sophistication that the Beach Boys are aiming for. Whether or not they recognize the success of this inconspicuously placed song, hugely successful in terms of what they have so obviously been aiming for, is doubtful. The song is about the Rousseauian-styled life of simplicity in the woods. The opening orchestral riffs set a thoroughly pastoral mood, and the single, well positioned cry of a rooster signals the entrance of the voices. The lyrics are unconsciously simpleminded, the simplicity which is the beauty of the whole Beach Boy stance since "Surfin USA." They say "Get a breath of that country air, Breathe the beauty of the everywhere."

The Friends review mentions Rousseau, too. What's up with that?

I just love the last line of the Surf's Up review, though. "You can come home, guys, all is forgiven."

[Surfer Joe]

I'd love to see their review of the 1988 Brian Wilson album again.  As I recall, it got four stars and "this is what pop music has been missing for years"- something like that.

Generally I find Rolling Stone's reviews snarky and pompous, but when I agree with them (of course) all (or most) is momentarily forgiven.

[the captain]

Generally I find Rolling Stone's reviews snarky and pompous, but when I agree with them (of course) all (or most) is momentarily forgiven.

I think that's how most music fans find all reviews. A weird combination of sought-after, yet reviled.

[Surfer Joe]

And you know I agree with that, but there's something extra smug about Rolling Stone.

I remember when they reviewed Anthony Phillip's mostly acoustic album The Geese And The Ghost- a very pastoral and melodic album from about 1976 or so.   Looking down their nose, they dismissed it with "this is not rock and roll- but not everything has to be, I suppose."  That tells you right there that they only really know how to respond to certain things, on a very limited basis.  They wouldn't hesitate to assign a tricky, sensitive, and problematic album like Beach Boys Love You to a guy who's just finished writing an authorized book on Kiss.  The results are predictable.

Rolling Stone established their own pompous criteria of music as art, and God help you if you're trying to do something else. As I mentioned another time, they had to interpret the car in "Don't Worry Baby" as a sexual metaphor before they felt they could enjoy it or endorse it.  I think Rolling Stone, back when they had clout, were tragically successful at imposing and enforcing their biases on popular music.  That's fine if you're Bruce Springsteen or David Bowie, who meet those standards with even their most average efforts, but it has stigmatized artists from Paul McCartney to Emerson, Lake and Palmer who had plenty to offer but didn't fit the suit.

[Pretty Funky]

I think I may have asked before, maybe not here, but are there any complete 1966 reviews of Pet Sounds available rather than the odd snippet?

[phirnis]

Handsomely produced by Bruce Johnston, the new album blends the pantheism of Holland, the tunefulness of Pet Sounds and the sweetness of Surf's Up into a polished, hook-filled retrospective that has the ring of an official farewell.

If only Keepin' The Summer Alive really sounded like that! Or does it?

Here's the one about BW88:
http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/brianwilson/albums/album/229208/review/5940634/brian_wilson

[Shady]

No album is complete without a RS review,

Sadly they only care about what's hip, and what's gonna sell,

They would put a transvestite with a number 1 album on the cover , if she was big at the moment.

Mark my words TLOS is gonna get it hard from RS, but Brian will most likely get a spread of some sort.

[Roger Ryan]

Mark my words TLOS is gonna get it hard from RS, but Brian will most likely get a spread of some sort.

They'll probably give it three stars and yammer on about how Brian has overcome a few more obstacles to deliver some "good vibrations" that the fans will like (essentially the same review they gave both IMAGINATION and GIOMH).

By the way, the cover art to SMILEY SMILE is quite close to the style of Rousseau, so I suspect that was lodged in Rolling Stone's head when they reviewed the follow-up albums!

[Aegir]

They would put a transvestite with a number 1 album on the cover , if she was big at the moment.

What are you even trying to imply there?

[Jason]

They would put a transvestite with a number 1 album on the cover , if he was big at the moment.

Fixed for truth.

And...

[buddhahat]

I'd love to see their review of the 1988 Brian Wilson album again.  As I recall, it got four stars and "this is what pop music has been missing for years"- something like that.

Generally I find Rolling Stone's reviews snarky and pompous, but when I agree with them (of course) all (or most) is momentarily forgiven.

It's still on the site. I discovered it recently and was pleasantly surprised that it was so positive.

[Roger Ryan]

I'd love to see their review of the 1988 Brian Wilson album again.  As I recall, it got four stars and "this is what pop music has been missing for years"- something like that.

Generally I find Rolling Stone's reviews snarky and pompous, but when I agree with them (of course) all (or most) is momentarily forgiven.

It's still on the site. I discovered it recently and was pleasantly surprised that it was so positive.

In re-reading the Rolling Stone BW88 review, I was surprised how much of it I remembered from twenty years ago. This was the review that got me back into being a fan ("best album since SUNFLOWER" was a key line to me at the time).

[Jonas]

Generally I find Rolling Stone's reviews snarky and pompous, but when I agree with them (of course) all (or most) is momentarily forgiven.

That's how I feel about pitchfork. Which is why I rarely read it.

[Beach Boy]

The Beach Boys are easily the most overrated group in rock & roll history---which presents the reviewer with a problem: simply stating the facts invites an overreaction from the band's maundering cult who exaggerate the surf bums' importance. But the truth is that Brian Wilson was never a musical genius