The Guardian's music writers let fly on their personal dislikes.
Even though it's a fairly long article, you should read it, but should you be pressed for time, allow me to summarise.
The Strokes: Status Quo without jokes.
James Brown: Crap and proud.
The Clash: "WEUUUURRRGH"
Pet Sounds: Cures cancer.
The Stone Roses: THE GREATEST ALBUM OF ALL TIME.
U2: Most over-rated band in history.
Neil Young: Paunchy Mojo-reading types.
Elvis Costello: Discomfort.
David Bowie: Less Ziggy Stardust, more Alvin.
Elvis: Shakin' Stevens, Rick Astley, Gareth Gates.
Bob Marley: Iron, like a lion, in Zion -- tie on.
Tom Waits: Pantomime.
Captain Beefheart: Zoot Talon Cornflake Mama.
Prince:
Nirvana: Bad hair daze.
The Rolling Stones: Hideous, tulip-mouthed cadaver.
The Doors: Who are those fools at his grave?
The Beatles: Pub rock by white idiots.
What's Going On: Mawkish, handwringing idiocy.
Obviously I don't agree with everything, but when one critic noted of Elvis Costello; "He was great on Larry Sanders, though" he took the words right out of my ... mouth.
I'd also like to know which acts these critics REALLY dislike. I mean, it's OK that you dislike, say, The Beatles, but surely that means you must REALLY, REALLY dislike Oasis.
You missed Prince: Shaved monkey covered in vaseline and dipped in pubic hair.
I must be getting old, most of that music is good, and in the case of Pet Sounds, the best.
Posted by: SB | 07 December 2004 at 10:32
Yes good to see some sacred untouchables getting a touch up, with some good commentary to boot, the one on tosspot Prince is a cla**ic. And What's Going On an all-time classic? Agree, overpraise doesn't even come close.
Posted by: RT | 07 December 2004 at 11:55
Reminds me of the Reaper section they used to have in Uncut, where they would take apart a musical sacred cow. Wish they would bring it back.
Don't understand that bit about Springsteen's songs not being rock and roll. (MC5 *were* about real people, as opposed to ...?) Must google.
Posted by: Amanda | 07 December 2004 at 12:34
The attraction of Prince has always eluded me.
I was wondering about The Reaper just the other day, I even looked back through the mags to find out when it stopped. Of course, now I can't remember. Anyhoo, it was good to see both annoying fillums and music get a proper touch-up.
I'm with you on Springsteen. I don't see why writing about characters discredits one from being a rock n roller.
I'm not a massive Boss fan of late, but Kitty's Back is an all time favourite song and an absolute rock n roller. And unless I'm missing something, Kitty's a character.
Posted by: Tony.T | 07 December 2004 at 12:49
Most meaningless media job: art critic. "Art" here encompassing music, films, etc. The formula for all critical writing: Absolutely trash nearly everything but always include some quotable line or phrase like "inspired acting"** or "virtuoso performance"** which, when taken out of context, gets you in every advert for succeeding appearances for years. This insures that you and your paper or whatever get lots of free pub and hence you get lots more to review and make more money etc. You never have to like anything but it pays well and you get it all for free. Then to double your payback, write books summarizing all your reviews.
** as in: "The movie was totally without any inspired acting." or "These clowns have never had a virtuoso performance in their lives".
Posted by: Rob de Santos | 07 December 2004 at 15:41
Tom Waits is "clanking nonsense about dwarves"? I'm going to hunt that hack bastard down and force him to eat his mother's soiled panties. Prince though, now there's a nonsensical dwarf.
Posted by: hungbunny | 07 December 2004 at 21:03
Just remind me - what was it exactly that the Stone Roses were supposed to be good at that made them so wonderful? It obviously wasn't music.
Posted by: Clem Snide | 07 December 2004 at 21:27
But the Bob Marley crit is *so* accurate. Nice gentle sleepy beat and words that only a three year old would be proud of.
Posted by: John R | 07 December 2004 at 21:39
I can see there are probably about another ten posts in this vein.
You blokes want bad music, you should have been at trivia tonight.
The only two songs I knew were Living Thing By ELO and Swan Lake by Tchaikovsky, which isn't even a song, the rest was poison.
Fuck there's a lot of shit out there.
Posted by: Tony.T | 07 December 2004 at 22:16
Stone Roses are pretty cool- their debut album is top notch, but their release with "Fools Gold" on is their best- a selection of 'B' sides & 'minor' songs. Fools Gold sounds bloody good now-Ian Brown recorded a quite similar song on his own first album, but the Roses legal wrangles with their record company must have put 'em off a stride. Their 'comeback' album was'nt a patch on their first though.
U2 most overrated band in history ??? Bulldust mate, sheer bloody Bulldust- just delve back and listen to their early albums and then consider that statement- and they are still making pretty good records these days. But we can forget about their "Pop" album- now that was shite. Bono is probably overrated as a political commentator though.
Who is Captain Beefheart ? William Shatner on a bad day? AND who the hell is Pauline Fowler ?
Posted by: Brett Pee | 08 December 2004 at 03:46
How is it that the ultimate Brit tossers, the Smiths didn't get the treatment? Maybe they decided not to slag the true abominations.
Posted by: SB | 08 December 2004 at 06:43
Stone Roses first album goes OK.
For me U2 bit the dust after October. And the reviewer DOES say they were OK early, too.
Beefheart rocks.
Apparently Fowler is on Eastenders.
With you there, SB. The Pommy press love to boost the home-town boys, but as far as I'm concerned, The Smiths bite.
Posted by: Tony.T | 08 December 2004 at 07:17
"The Strokes are a kind of Top Shop version of the Ramones."
Great line! I shall be using that one.
Posted by: Tim | 10 December 2004 at 02:32
You've got me at a disadvantage there, Tim, I don't know what Top Shop is.
Posted by: Tony.T | 10 December 2004 at 15:44
It's a hipster clothing shop, Tony (just in the UK, I think).
There was a whole series of these articles...on film, TV shows etc. Check them out if you didn't, some clever writing there.
Posted by: Tim | 11 December 2004 at 05:25
You mean critics at The Guardian firing off at their pet hates?
Posted by: Tony.T | 12 December 2004 at 12:14
How about Billy Bragg: the greatest chook choking custard tosser in the history of Musak?
Posted by: murph | 13 December 2004 at 09:49
Murph, you can't expect The Guardian to bag Bragg. They'd put him up for Knighthood if they could.
Posted by: Tony.T | 13 December 2004 at 11:14
The Guide is the only part of The Guardian you'd like, Tony.
Posted by: Tim | 14 December 2004 at 09:09
OK, I know the part you mean. You're right, it has plenty of good articles.
Posted by: Tony.T | 14 December 2004 at 09:42