Rock/pop music criticism-- when did it get started?

[Amy B.]

So these days, when an album comes out you have all kinds of places to read reviews-- even the NY Times has a pop critic. But I get the sense that serious reviews of pop/rock music didn't exist in the 1950s and early 1960s. Is this true? I mean, are there any reviews of Pet Sounds from 1966? Rolling Stone didn't start publishing until 1967. What about other music publications?

Then again, I remember Paul McCartney saying that when Sgt. Pepper came out, "the critics slammed it." Which critics?

[OneEar/OneEye]

when one cave man hit another in the head with a stone!     (sorry, couldn't help myself  )

But I think serious critique of rock/pop music really got going around '66/'67.

[The Heartical Don]

when one cave man hit another in the head with a stone!     (sorry, couldn't help myself  )

But I think serious critique of rock/pop music really got going around '66/'67.

I'd say the same. It would have been around the time that pop albums became a planned whole, instead of two hits and filler material; artists' input became more important that that of A&R guys.

Jazz and blues sets got treated more seriously long before, I think?

[MBE]

They were few and far between but I've read some excellent articles going back to 1956. England had Melody Maker, NME, Disc and Music Echo, and Mersey Beat all of whom wrote pretty interesting material by the Beatles era. 1966 was the start of the seminal Crawdaddy magazine. So I guess my answer is that it started right at the beginning but didn't explode until the mid sixties.

[The Heartical Don]

They were few and far between but I've read some excellent articles going back to 1956. England had Melody Maker, NME, Disc and Music Echo, and Mersey Beat all of whom wrote pretty interesting material by the Beatles era. 1966 was the start of the seminal Crawdaddy magazine. So I guess my answer is that it started right at the beginning but didn't explode until the mid sixties.

Interesting. Made me think. I have a book with LP criticism by English poet Philip Larkin, titled 'All What Jazz'. He does treat quite a few pop albums too, and perhaps he wrote about skiffle and early Beatles LPs in a serious way. Glad to be reminded, must look it up sometime. He surely did blues, I know.

[Dr. Tim]

re: Paul McCartney's remark - Don't know about "critics" plural, but one rock writer at the time who claimed to hate Pepper was Paul Williams, who wrote for Crawdaddy and others.  He penned an exegesis to the effect that the Rolling Stones "Satanic Majesties" was the far more groundbreaking album, and would be recognized as such in twenty years' time, when Pepper would be consigned to the history scrapheap.  Ho!  Ha! He!

Rock criticism as we know it really started developing in 66 or so.  Some of the jazz critics took a stab at writing about rock music, like Ralph J. Gleason, who did lots of liner notes (Parsley Sage etc.) .  Before that it was mags like Teen Beat which were mostly fan-girl dreamboat picture spreads no boy would be caught dead reading.

These days Chicago's Jim DeRogatis (who I know from his Jersey days) is the Anti-Pepper scribe, leading off a recent book of essays with a damning screed about it.  He doesn't like BWPS either, so he should find lots of friends here.

[Roger Ryan]

re: Paul McCartney's remark - Don't know about "critics" plural, but one rock writer at the time who claimed to hate Pepper was Paul Williams, who wrote for Crawdaddy and others.  He penned an exegesis to the effect that the Rolling Stones "Satanic Majesties" was the far more groundbreaking album, and would be recognized as such in twenty years' time, when Pepper would be consigned to the history scrapheap.  Ho!  Ha! He!

Of course, Paul Williams loved the SMiLE material and wrote quite a bit about it in the late 60s. He also posted a few times on the old SMiLE Shop and Cabinessence boards (I remember he thanked me for a review I wrote of Brian's debut show of his first solo tour in '99).

[shelter]

Well, I know that they already had magazines with book reviews in the 19th century, so my guess would be that as long as there's been pop music, there probably have been pop critics.

[Mike's Beard]

I'd love to be a professionally paid music critic for today's 'music'. Easiest job in the world. "This blows", "This is crap", "This sucks anus" and so on...

[BJL]

I was searching through my university's nytimes archive subscription once when i stumbled onto a glowing review of smiley smile from october 1967, which takes the whole album completely seriously!!  I just love the thought of a few middle class parents reading this review in the times and then going out and buying the new beach boys album... 

Also, as a bonus, a hilarious article about jan and dean from the mid 60s: "one young songwriter believes parachute jumping will be the next teen craze, and has been writing sky-diving songs!"

tell me if the pdf download doesnt work!
also if posting this is somehow breaking a rule, but i don't see how it could be, since its not music. 

https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/blillis/web/beachboys/

[Andrew G. Doe]

I don't know what that guy's on... but I want some ! 

[Amy B.]

I was searching through my university's nytimes archive subscription once when i stumbled onto a glowing review of smiley smile from october 1967, which takes the whole album completely seriously!!  I just love the thought of a few middle class parents reading this review in the times and then going out and buying the new beach boys album... 
https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/blillis/web/beachboys/

Aha, that's what I was looking for. Serious discussion of music-- not "are the Beatles here to stay" and "Who do those Beach Boys think they are" condescension. Okay, so maybe Goldstein takes SS too seriously, but at least he takes it as real music.  He also hated Sgt. Pepper, I see. I can't find the whole review, but here's one excerpt:
"For the first time, the Beatles have given us a package of special effects, dazzling, but ultimately fraudulent. In Revolver, I found a simplicity and empathy that was staggering. But in Sgt. Pepper I sense an obsession with the surrogate magic of production, and a new sarcasm masquerading as cool."

Although I like Sgt. Peppre, I can't really argue with a lot of that.

[BJL]

I think its so awesome that the nytimes liked smiley smile better than sgt. pepper. 

1.  because it is better
2.  because thats just so vindicating!  not that i care what the critics say, particularly,
but i can't help feel good about that!

[Andrew G. Doe]

This guy's related to Tim White, right ?

[oldsurferdude]

when one cave man hit another in the head with a stone!     (sorry, couldn't help myself  )

But I think serious critique of rock/pop music really got going around '66/'67.

I'd say the same. It would have been around the time that pop albums became a planned whole, instead of two hits and filler material; artists' input became more important that that of A&R guys.

Jazz and blues sets got treated more seriously long before, I think?

"Downbeat " magazine was the "Rolling Stone" of jazz.

[the captain]

I recall finding a Pepper review while digging through archives in college--New Yorker? Not sure. But that review was lukewarm, calling it a triumph more for George Martin than for the band.

[MBE]

While somewhat highbrow I actually enjoyed reading that Smiley review.

[Mark A. Moore]

CREEM magazine . . . among others.