Sabbath = the great deaf-spot (auditory and ideological) of the Last Waltz/Stranded generation of rockwrite
Every generation of rockwrite has one, and has to have one. It's the essential by-product of having a value-system, a metrics of valorization.
So what was ours? (I'll leave the "us" of "ours" open-ended for now).
Thought: the vitiation of contemporary music-write = its attempt not to have any deaf-spots ... none at all, not one.
Given his recent book, I was just thinking about Cameron Crowe's evasion of that 'value-system', and how it plays now versus how it played then - then, his acceptance of everyone from the Allmans and Yes to Station to Station era Bowie to Joni Mitchell was viewed, arguably more than his utilitarian prose, as his ultimate failing; now, it make him look more 'modern' than many of the more respected critics then
ReplyDeleteCrowe is probably the chief example of 'second-tier' rockwrite of that era also lacking a recognizable 'system', which has minuses and pluses, I think
The way the question is posed leaves so many interesting paths open.
ReplyDeleteGenerally speaking, as a rockwrite-reader in the late 80s/early 90s, I found a really striking contrast between US and UK critics. At that time it seemed like the "great deaf spot" in the US was just about anything that came along after, oh, 1978, while in the UK there was deafness for anything *before* that year. I'm picking a somewhat arbitrary year, I know, but as a reader it just seemed like those were the two dominant value-systems on either side of the punk/post-punk divide, and they excluded a lot.
(Greil Marcus crosses over, beautifully, but much to my chagrin I didn't discover that until I started reading his stuff after 2010.)
More specifically, if we're talking about bands, I'd nominate Rush as the band critics in my lifetime have inexplicably ignored. I don't even like Rush, really, but I'd have thought a band with their longevity, chops, and brains-- backed by a loyal and surprisingly huge following, endearingly captured in "I Love You Man"-- would have gotten a lot more ink.
And since it's Friday and I'm feeling frisky, I'll throw in an undoubtedly partisan opinion about another band. So many of the younger artists and critics I read these days trip through the field of "mental health" in some way or another-- every goddamn record is a therapy session, every young critic wants to "platform" people to share their "journeys", everyone's got trauma and sickness to broadcast-- and yet there seems to be a deaf spot for the one band which, for better or worse, laid a lot of the groundwork.
I'm talking about The Smiths. These days they're unceremoniously dumped in the same "80s legends" bucket as your Cars 'n' Cures. I'd have thought they're due a wee bit more serious critical attention. Of course, there's no mystery as to why they don't get anything but cursory mentions: the singer is problematic. Amazing to think that a figure who in the Reagan/Thatcher 80s stood for non-binary sexuality, feminism, anti-capitalism, vegetarianism, unashamed avowal of illness, and loving acceptance of self should be totally ignored today. (If he'd just had one more "anti" on his resume...!) It's an interesting form of ideological deafness, and I'm sure there are other cases.
I definitely have the sense that trying to embrace everything (especially if it's popular and made at least 15 years ago) is one of the main problems with contemporary music criticism. Really, it's OK to hate Nickelback, Creed and Limp Bizkit! For heaven's sake, the Guardian ran an op-ed accusing everyone who dislikes Nickelback of dishonest contrarian posturing. You can really feel the hand of the market here.
ReplyDeleteThey are easy to spot in hindsight. For the post-punk / soul / jazz / funk NME crowd of the early 80s, it was the NWOBHM and its antecedents: Saxon, Maiden, Motörhead Whitesnake. Status Quo. IIRC US punk was completely ignored, too. Black Flag, Minor Threat, the early stirrings of Husker Du. Bad Brains. And then a lot of indie music. As I remember it, the real hipsters absolutely hated the Smiths. And I think the feeing was mutual.
ReplyDeleteThen of course the inkies insulted or ignored hardcore techno in the early 90s and UK Garage in the late 90s, with Simon just about the sole defender.
As you say, though, for reasons both ideological and commercial, it is really hard for those blind spots to exist today. In a world where the new Taylor Swift album can get a 100% grade from Rolling Stone, there seems to be no music that won’t be championed by somebody.
(Although apparently everyone has decided it’s OK to hate the new Tame Impala album, for reasons that are not really clear to me.)
Sabbath (deservedly) enjoyed a critical rehabilitation during the 90s (Led Zep too) - the similarly reviled Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Saxon et al remain in critical purgatory, and one suspects if reassessment was going to happen, it would have happened by now.
ReplyDeletePaul McCartney's early solo work seems to be enjoying new found respect though - I've seen "Ram" hailed as the first ever indie album.