Critics Getting It All Wrong ….
— What’s wrong with us? Will humanity ever become alien-worthy?
Today on Facebook, my friend and fellow musician Cal Cali posted the below Ed Sullivan 1964 review regarding the Beatles. I don’t know which publication published the Paul Jones As I See It review, but likely it was printed as a small media market syndicated column.
Anyway, what you’ll read is a major example of getting it all wrong!
So having read that and becoming amused, I decided to delve deeper into examples of critics getting it all wrong. I found some interesting examples.
New York Times vs. Elvis
In 1956, NYT writer Jack Gould thought he had the whole skinny on Elvis. He wrote: “Mr Presley has no discernible singing ability. His specialty is rhythm songs which he renders in an undistinguished whine; his phrasing, if it can be called that, consists of the stereotyped variations that go with a beginner’s aria in a bathroom. For the ear, he is an unutterable bore.”
Understanding Kate Bush
>>>Some artists are so far ahead of their time, it can take critics a while to catch up. But the issue when Kate Bush emerged in the late-70s was different. She was unlike any British artist before or since — a complete original — and, if anything, she was accused of being behind the times, not ahead of them.
Her debut single, Wuthering Heights, came out in 1978 — after the punk explosion — to much head-scratching from the press. As the Guardian reported, “Her odd combo of artiness and artlessness, and the way she came across in interviews — at once guileless and guarded — made her a target for music-press mockery. Her music was often dismissed as a middlebrow soft option, easy listening with literary affectations.”
The assault was typified by Charles Shaar Murray of the NME in a review of a 1979 gig, which he described as “all the unpleasant aspects of David Bowie in the Mainman era…. [Bowie manager] Tony DeFries would’ve loved you seven years ago, Kate, and seven years ago maybe I would’ve too. But these days I’m past the stage of admiring people desperate to dazzle and bemuse, and I wish you were past the stage of trying those tricks yourself.”
The public paid no attention. Wuthering Heights was a №1, and Kate had two other Top 10s before 1980 was over. Come her second flurry of hits in the mid-80s, with songs like Running Up That Hill and Hounds of Love, the press made a dramatic U-turn. Kate suddenly became critically adored, as well as commercially successful. (Phil Hebblethwaite)<<<
It’s Not Just Music … Movies & Books Too!
Unfortunately, we’ll never know if this negative Wizard of Oz reviewer would have changed his mind. Sadly, and heroicallly, he died in World War II four years after he wrote his scathing review. Set back and imagine this review of The Wizard of Oz, written in 1939, by Otis Ferguson of The New Republic:
>>>The Wizard of Oz was intended to hit the same audience as Snow White, and won’t fail for lack of trying. It has dwarfs, music, technicolor, freak characters, and Judy Garland. It can’t be expected to have a sense of humor as well — and as for the light touch of fantasy, it weighs like a pound of fruitcake soaking wet. Children will not object to it, especially as it is a thing of many interesting gadgets; but it will be delightful for children mostly to their mothers, and any kid tall enough to reach up to a ticket window will be found at the Tarzan film down the street. The story of course has some lovely and wild ideas — men of straw and tin, a cowardly lion, a wizard who isn’t a very good wizard — but the picture doesn’t know what to do with them, except to be painfully literal and elaborate about everything… [The New Republic]<<<
How Could Anyone Be Against Lord of The Rings?
One of the best-selling books of all time, J.R.R. Tolkein’s Lord of the Rings (volume one of the trilogy) was published in 1954. Over the years, this famous table-setter of science fiction masterpieces actually achieved many one-star reviews. Here are some of ‘em (typos included):
- I tried and tried again to get through these books in their entirety but haven’t been able to do it. Who wants to read about this stuff anyway? The answer is: WEIRDOS! Stay away not only from these books, but from the people who read them.
- Elves and dwarves are lame. Tom Bombodil is more annoying than Jar-jar Binks.
- This book is so boring!!! I think this is the most boring book in the world. I don’t this thing should be a book!
- Tolkien is recognized for his revolutionary writing style. But the book moves too slowly as his vivid sensory details extend the book that ultimately is about a long walk. I love the movie because it gives a better sense of the characters emotions. But the book was too slow for me.
- Where can I start with this? First off, the book is an extremely dry read. It takes around 20 pages just to start, and when it finally does, it drones on and on, irrelevantly about Bilbo. I honestly thought I was being punked. Turns out, around page 66 is when Gandalf finally does his infamous scene telling Frodo to take The Ring.
- The books have super detailed descriptions of the geography of the places, which made the reading way too tedious. Besides, heroes are supposed to act like heroes, not like cowards. And that IMO is what Frodo is: a coward forever denying his mission.
- Its about as exciting as reading the dictionary and just as long. Tolkien was one messed up dude. ITs more like descriptions of places and things more than an actual story. I’d rather read the back of a bottle of shampoo.
- This book is SLOW. The characters aren’t real at all, and they each have about 50 names. Take Aragorn for example: Strider Aragorn, Estel, King Ellisar, Plain Ellisar, etc. The names are unoriginal, like Arwen and Eowyn, different by one syllable. The book is rather confusing by itself, then if you read all the appendixes, you don’t know who is who. The whole book is simply fighting and killing, with an occasional appearence by Gandalf. Merry and Pippin are the only source of humor, if they ever come up in the book. Did I mention that the characters are totally fake? Their actions are random and unpredictable, even for a fantasy, their speech is ridiculous. The “Greatest Fantasy Epic of our time” is a silly name for a book this long and boring. Totally overrated, this book stinks.
- With respect to you Tolkein fanboys out there, this book is garbage. I wouldn’t line a litter box with this junk. If you enjoy being bored to tears by minutia, this book is for you. Everyone else, stay the hell away!
- It is a disquised South African White supremist fairy tale.
- I desperately want to drench this book in oil, light it on fire, and throw it into oncoming traffic.
- I have read a great deal of boring books in my life, but this one might take the cake. When the reproductive cycle of algae is more interesting than this work of fiction, you know you’re in trouble.
- Let me sum up the plot of this 400+ pg book for you: Frodo and co pack their bags, rest, eat a good meal, and walk. Walk, walk, walk through the forests, walk to Elrond’s house, walk to Moria, walk to where the elves live. AND NOTHING EVER HAPPENS.
- Tolkien would have used his time much better if he had used it to cut the grass for an elderly lady, work as a volunteer in a soup kitchen, or collect money for the blind.
Yes, It Happens in Politics Also!
These, of course, would become the really bad reviews!
Yellow journalism, corporate monopolized journalism, CIA media stenographic reporting and bad reviews in general often in history would lead to war, especially when the reporting got based on inaccurate information coupled to a need to make money from war: The Sinking of The Maine, The Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin, Iran-Contra, Saddam’s WMD and, more recently, Russiagate contributing to current day conflict over Ukraine? It’s never been, and is not today, a pretty picture.
No matter the critic, truth always becomes victimized from the need for war!
Trump as Chief Media Critic
Then there is the mind-boggling condition whereby America’s corporate media managed to elevate Donald J. Trump as the world’s chief media critic. Trump incessantly made claims about fake news that got published in the manner of daily routine. No matter how absurd Trump’s claim or no matter how important and expansive the issue, it would be Trump’s criticism that would reign supreme.
Thus, the corporate media (five corporations controlling 90% of all media) — which had fired all its once-prestigious ombudsman critics and severely dampened investigative reporting— discovered a skillful tactic by which to publish and do whatever it wanted. These days, if necessary, the media easily could resort to lies, distortions, omissions and perversions of truth — it no longer covered the news; it controlled the news!
With Trump perceived as the chief critic, corporate media would only have to answer to his wild claims while ignoring true and comprehensive media criticism and analysis from the likes of Noam Chomsky, Seymour Hersh, Medea Benjamin, Chris Hedges, Margaret Kimberly, Cornell West or Andrew Cockburn. Of course, Trump’s criticism would always wash like water over a duck; while the criticism of the others would get no primetime play and thus would go unnoticed, if heard at all.
Consider what happened to Wikileaks publisher, Julian Assange!?!
War Critics Claimed Russia Would Invade Ukraine Today
We were told Russia specifically, on February 16th, would invade Ukraine. This allegation was presented after a nearly two full months of daily reminders Russia would be invading. This was despite Russia’s daily reminders, and its declared promise to the UN Security Council, it had no such plans. But, paradoxically, when it is the US president providing the review, what with multiple Western media sources, a corps of stenographers, the whole world must hear.
So it goes ….
Anyway, the February 16th Invasion Day just ended here on Boston, Massachusetts time. Who could have known? There was no Russian military invasion!
However, in Kiev, when the start-the-war date rolled around, what was heard echoing throughout the Maiden Independence Square — located in Ukraine’s capitol city of Kiev — was the Russian national anthem. So I guess, technically, and musically, Russia did invade. So I guess this opens the door for a music critic … which brings us back to The Ed Sullivan Show!
Conclusion
Feel welcome to respond with your own accounts of bad reviews, whether in music, movies, books or politics.
