Somehow I never saw this one before; sure it's funny to read now but I am wondering if people agreed with Mr. Landau's disappointment in 1971?

RS review



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-03 17:17 by Turner.

Landau makes a fool of himself here. A lot of rubbish and time was not on his side.
Most reviews I remember from that time had been very favourable and most people liked the album from the start.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-03 18:19 by SweetThing.

according to Wikipedia:
He is currently the head of the nominating committee for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

I almost fell off my chair when Landau complained of Jagger's 'mannered' singing. I kept waiting for him to also bitch that it was nasal. I'm surprised he didn't accuse them of being parodies of themselves for the cliche trifecta.

Landau is too cerebral for Rolling Stones music. John if you are not moved by "Sway" please stay seated and keep typing ...
Rock and Roll,
Mops

Symphony for the Devil??

Landau must be deaf, I think its a case of "I'll make a name for myself - take a brilliant album by a major artist' and give it a MIXED review!!!

It always amuses me when people respond to a negative review. They feel the need to put down the reviewer as if they insulted their own family or something. It's just one person's opinion. The Stones don't need defending.

I found it interesting that he was dissecting Brown Sugar. How many times in the past did you listen to a new Stones single and sort of dismiss it, only to give it a few more listens and it grew and grew on you? That's part of their genius. All the moving parts sound at first like it might not work, and then repeated listenings reveal an inner core.

Sticky Fingers was a very popular album, one of their absolute biggest sellers. Jon Landau picks out the phoniest, campiest 'You Gotta Move' as one of his two favorites. Mick does an almost offensive Amos & Andy bull niggra voice on the song, and that's Landau's favorite? Cerebral my ass.

How is Sway "vaguely reminiscent" of Stray Cat Blues? The only thing they have in common in my mind is that they're both in open tunings, though not the same one. By that logic Start Me Up and Honky Tonk Women are vaguely reminiscent of Stray Cat Blues.

Stray Cat Blues in open tuning??!

Quote
lettingitbleed
Stray Cat Blues in open tuning??!

The studio version. Or at least I, and the few other people I know who play it, play it in Open D. The Ya-Ya's version is in standard, I can't think of any way to play the studio version in standard though, but you could possibly find some other alternate tuning I suppose.

I wonder if, given the benefit of time and 'repeat listenings', whether Landau would stand by his review or disavow it.

As far as sounding 'cerebral' I do believe he is trying to sound cerebral but it's all a bit of window dressing. He's trying too hard to find fault, and they are all in the wrong areas.

Just my review of his review.

Quote
treaclefingers
I wonder if, given the benefit of time and 'repeat listenings', whether Landau would stand by his review or disavow it.

I had the same thought about Stanley Kaufman's thumbs-down review 1972 of The Godfather...

[www.tnr.com]

Quote
treaclefingers
I wonder if, given the benefit of time and 'repeat listenings', whether Landau would stand by his review or disavow it.

I don't know anything about this guy, but from my observations Rolling Stone reviewer are pretty set in their ways and would rather die than admit they were wrong.

The magazine itself isn't as set in their ways and will revisit a review (because sometimes you kind of have to), but you'll often see the revised review written by a different critic as opposed to the original critic eating their plate of crow.

When "Pinkerton" by Weezer came out Rolling Stone gave it probably the most scathing review I've ever seen of an album. I mean, they blew the thing out of the water. But after a while it started getting the credit it (in my opinion) deserved and is now considered a modern classic. In response to all the people beginning to love and respect the album Rolling Stone put out a revised review, by another critic, giving it 5 Stars, adding it to the "Rolling Stone Hall Of Fame" and added it to their "100 Greatest Albums Of The 90's" list.

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
treaclefingers
I wonder if, given the benefit of time and 'repeat listenings', whether Landau would stand by his review or disavow it.

I don't know anything about this guy, but from my observations Rolling Stone reviewer are pretty set in their ways and would rather die than admit they were wrong.

The magazine itself isn't as set in their ways and will revisit a review (because sometimes you kind of have to), but you'll often see the revised review written by a different critic as opposed to the original critic eating their plate of crow.

When "Pinkerton" by Weezer came out Rolling Stone gave it probably the most scathing review I've ever seen of an album. I mean, they blew the thing out of the water. But after a while it started getting the credit it (in my opinion) deserved and is now considered a modern classic. In response to all the people beginning to love and respect the album Rolling Stone put out a revised review, by another critic, giving it 5 Stars, adding it to the "Rolling Stone Hall Of Fame" and added it to their "100 Greatest Albums Of The 90's" list.

Good example...and yes, there is no way he'd 'reevaluate'.

Landau just had to wait another 3 years for his personal revelation "the future of RocknRoll" Springsteen. But Landaus R&R has never been the same as mine . .

"Sway" lacks intensity. It never reaches a goal because it doesn't seem to have one. Rather, it remains a series of riffs whose lack of content is obscured by prolonged and indifferent guitar semi-solos and a fine string arrangement that suddenly enters towards the end."

Wow! This review is full of Taylor-bashing. What did Laundau have against Taylor?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-04 12:48 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
rollmops
Landau is too cerebral for Rolling Stones music. John if you are not moved by "Sway" please stay seated and keep typing ...
Rock and Roll,
Mops

I'm staying seated and keeping typing. (Yes, I know: heresy and blasphemy. Just send the Music Police round).

Doesn't everybody hate it when some smartarse reviewer tells you why you shouldn't have enjoyed what you enjoyed? When it turns out that he (and it's usually he) thought your favourite track was rubbish and praises the one you couldn't stand to the skies? 24FPS has a good point: lots of Stones tracks take some time to love, and a music critic generally hasn't got it, so "growers" often get poor reviews. And I'm used to listening to a new Stones track and thinking "poor stuff, this" for the first minute - then by the end I don't want it to stop. That's how Stones music is: it shouldn't work, but it does.

Anyway, he got it wrong. He obviously liked early Stones, so maybe he was one like me who took some time to adjust to a different style. How dare the poor man make a mistake! There's nothing so unforgiving as a music fan...

For many that loved the Stones in the early 60s, it probably took some time to adjust to their new sound, starting with BB?

Just my two cents, I was born the year SF came out, so what do I know

Yeah, the author was clearly not ready for it.
I hope for him he spent some bits of his life after writing this review to listen to the album
again. I am sure even he would enjoy it one time, dispite himself.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

Clearly Landau just didn't get it. He pontificates with his cerebral analysis, missing the main point. Sticky Fingers is a great rock and roll album. He rambles on about mostly nothing, and again missing the subtle beauty of the album, and the in your face swagger. Really, discounting Brown Sugar because it has an acoustic guitar on it? That is ridiculous and again, missing the beauty of it.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
For many that loved the Stones in the early 60s, it probably took some time to adjust to their new sound, starting with BB?

Just my two cents, I was born the year SF came out, so what do I know

Maybe a little bit. But not really. I followed them from mid-60's. There certainly were some "surprises" along the way but generally you have to consider how much all of music was changing at those times. So it was never only the Stones. Great era of Rock music . .

From another "cerebral" reviewer at the time,

Quote
Robert Christgau- Sticky Fingers [Rolling Stones, 1971]

Sticky Fingers [Rolling Stones, 1971]
You'd think some compensation was in order a year and a half after the fact, but that old evil life's just got them in its sway. From titles like "Bitch" and "Sister Morphine" and (the one Altamont reference) "Dead Flowers" through "Brown Sugar"'s compulsively ironic and bacchanalian exploitation/expose to the almost Yeatsian "Moonlight Mile," this is unregenerate Stones. The token sincerity of "Wild Horses" drags me. But "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" and "I Got the Blues" are as soulful as "Good Times," and Fred McDowell's "You Gotta Move" stands alongside "Prodigal Son" and "Love in Vain." A

Dead Flowers an Altamont reference??
One must have been seeking for something that was not to be found.
Unless of course there is a link between Kentucky Derby Day and the race track of Altamont.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

I think he was spot on. I never listen to it and I remember having the same opinion about the songs with one exception, You gotta move, which came alive in 1975. I think its an honest review.

I take that review as seriously as I do the Stones-bashing comments so often posted here. (Like maybe I'm not wrong for loving the new tracks on FORTY LICKS.)

"Symphony for the Devil", ha,ha, I profound expertise by a profound expert.

Let's have a look then:

"SIDE ONE "Brown Sugar:" It begins with some magical raunch chords on the right channel. In the tradition of great guitar intros ("All Day and All of the Night," "Nineteenth Nervous Breakdown," and "Satisfaction" itself) it transfixes you: instant recognition, instant connection. Suddenly the electric guitar is joined by an acoustic guitar on the left channel, an acoustic that is merely strumming the chords that the electric is spitting out with such fury. It washes over the electric to no apparent purpose, stripping it momentarily of its authority and intensity. and so, in the first 15 seconds of the albums first cut we are presented with its major conflict: driving, intense, wide-open rock versus a controlled and manipulative musical conception determined to fill every whole and touch every base."

Comment: I first heard the LYL version of BS and now I'm used to the studioversion and prefer the "videoversion" with new vocals, the Top of the pop version. When I first heard the studioversion I felt it lacked something in the sound. The riff drowned in the mix. The acoustic is to blame. Keiths electric and Micks vocals over the drums and bass would have been enough.