In 1991, basically after the band had already broken up, Spacemen 3 released their final studio album titled Recurring. At that time, it wasn't considered much more than a dud. But listen to Recurring today and damned if it hasn't aged well.
What else falls into this category?
Comments
"kamakiriad"
Definitely on Here My Dear. And I had never listened to any of that Fagen album until you mentioned it. Now that I have skimmed it, I will say that at the very least the opening song is really, really good. So thanks for the heads-up.
i sort of got into that album one song at a time over several years but it really works as a sci-fi concept. check out "snowbound" which has walt becker on bass, guitar and production.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/led-zeppelin-ii-19691213
And Houses Of The Holy (which is probably my favorite of theirs):
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/houses-of-the-holy-19730607
This song rules! Just peeped the video too. Thanks for the recommend!
Speaking of which, the entire David McCallum catalog. But man did we love Napoleon Solo.
Yeah it is overly harsh, but if I had heard "The Crunge" and "D'Yer Maker" on that album when it had just dropped I would've been mad too (probably the most embarrassing moments in their catalog, alongside "Stairway").
"trans-island expressway" - that first track you were talking about harv - (bass, drums, vocals)
http://www.divshare.com/download/1943659-1a6
"snowbound" (bass, drums, vocals)
http://www.divshare.com/download/2057172-17e
no one was feeling these when they came out.
Critics OR fans.
Nowadays they definelty have some legs.
I listened to my copies.
Actually the response kinda yo-yo'ed on this one, as the faddish sounds 1st caught on, then repelled the moment they started getting stale, according to what I've read - here's what wikipedia says:
I think his next, and last lp for Chess was the Woodstock Album. It is great and has members of the Band and other RSO Allstar type folks.
Critics liked Here My Dear?
I dont recall hearing one song on the radio even if that isnt a reflection of positive criticism.
I would say that those two factors are separate matters entirely. Critics have never had a problem loving an album w/no hit singles.
I don't know now whether what I said is true or not though - I had just read the snopes article on the album a couple weeks ago so that's what my response was based on:
http://www.snopes.com/music/hidden/heredear.asp
Looking back on that now, as well as the wikipedia page on it, it looks as if the critics' opinion was "divided" on it, so I may have overstated by saying it was reviewed positively. I do think that the idea that most people hated it and that it was recently reevaluated as great is revisionist, however.
although the few people who reviewed this LP loved it, it was a flop, no one bought it, very few heard it. Mainly due to the fact that the label, Ardent, was distributed by Stax. Stax had no idea how to market a white pop/rock band. Most promos were sent to the usual radio stations and folks who got other Stax releases...so I'm guessing this was included in promo packs along with Rufus Thomas, Jean Knight, etc...obviously none of the stations that would play R&B/Soul was going to throw this on in rotation, so it died on the vine and went unnoticed for over a decade....then in the 80s a cult following emerged for this band/record and its member, Alex Chilton...nowadays it is rightly regarded as a masterpiece and has influenced dozens if not hundreds of other bands.
I think it's because you used the word 'dismissed' in the title.
Critics dismiss things, the public just ignores (or doesn't buy) them.
One thing to remember is that in the 70s, even as late as 78, there were not a lot of publications doing rock/R&B reviews.
The lp [Here My Dear] sold fairly well.
So did Fleetwood Mac Tusk and Springsteen Live box other dismissed and ignored lps.
It was neither a radio, or in my experience, a turntable hit.
I think the analysis that fans found it too dense and too dark is fairly accurate.
As a listener I did, but I also felt that there was something hiding in there if I could just breakthrough and find it. I never tried that hard.
I remember Songs In The Key Of Life getting a brutal review in Rolling Stone*, but like those Zeppelin discs fans and radio paid no attention to the reviews.
*http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/songs-in-the-key-of-life-19761216 My memory is not that good, more of a stupid review, which really almost all reviews are. I like that he doesn't mention Sir Duke, most likely because he doesn't know who Duke Ellington is.
Speaking as someone who ignored it at the time, I have no problem admitting I was wrong. It's absolutely right that it's since been recognised as one of the landmark records of the last twenty years.
Wow! Rolling Stone 'dismisses' The Stones and Led Zep in one go (review from june 1973):
I thought we started calling The Stones 'senior' rock only about a decade ago...
also
"bizarro-perversion band"...
now that's my kind of music!
Will cop when i see it - thanks for sharing!