"Remember, you heard it here first!"

Can anyone recall examples of journalistic predictions/statements that turned out egregiously wrong?

I was thinking of Rolling Stone's first cover story on Culture Club (RS 408, 11/10/83), in which the writer stated that the group's success, by that time, had elevated them "beyond the level of fad or fashion."

Delvin wrote:

> Can anyone recall examples of journalistic
> predictions/statements that turned out egregiously wrong?

Delvin wrote:

> Can anyone recall examples of journalistic
> predictions/statements that turned out egregiously wrong?

How about virtually everything that William Kristol has written in his lifetime? Or are we only doing music?

Quote

How about virtually everything that William Kristol has written in his lifetime? Or are we only doing music?

I can't claim to read every thread here, but I did read this one. Perhaps I glossed over this entry or originally decided to take the high road and not offer any comment on the subject. Imagine that.

To paraphrase Twain - Restraint is a valuable commodity - so I'll be conservative about it.

Let me offer my two cents on his type. Their talk reminds me of when I was a kid and some anus would try to convince me that a nickel was worth more than a dime - because it was bigger.

"C'mon! You know you wanna trade!"

We know the devil ... we've met him and shaken him by the hand ... embraced him and thought his stinking breath was fine perfume."

...

Is this Exhibit ___ for keeping politics off the board? It's unhealthy (perhaps?), given the context. Sorry in advance, Bono.

Regrettably, the multitudes who predicted the end of the "career" of one Britney Spears have been proven wrong.

> Or are we only doing music?

Well, I kind of assumed that, yes. But that's what I get for assuming.

In 1985 the LA Times (and others, judging by the TP entry) declared Lone Justice to be the Next Big Thing - A Springsteen-sized monster that would dominate sales and Grammys for years to come.

No, I can't think of any of their songs off the top of my head, either.



Trouser Press, 1979: New Wave is dead!

"I've seen the future of music, and its name is Frankie Goes to Hollywood." - Clive Barker

Two different reviews in the 2nd Rolling Stone Record Guide, both by Dave Marsh: The Clash and Bob Seger, after they released Combat Rock and The Distance, respectively. They both end by saying both bands would be a force to be reckoned with in the 80's.

RS Record Guide re The Replacements "Sorry Ma": "Will we ever hear from these guys again? Who cares?"

NEVERMIND
NIRVANA
DGC
Despite the hand-wringing that fills fanzines each time a beloved indie-rock hero signs a major-label deal, righteous post-punk stars from Husker Du to Soundgarden have all joined the corporate world without debasing their music. More often than not, ambitious left-of-the-dial bands gallantly cling to their artistic principles as they plunge, lemming-like, into the depths of commercial failure. Integrity is a heavy burden for those trying to scale the charts.
Led by singer/guitarist Kurt Cobain, Nirvana is the latest underground bonus baby to test mainstream tolerance for "alternative" music. Given the small corner of public taste non-metal guitar rock now occupies, the Washington state trio's version of the truth is probably as credible as anyone's. A dynamic mix of sizzling power chords, manic energy and spacious sonic restraint, Nirvana erects sturdy melodic structures--singalong hard rock, as defined by groups like the Replacements, Pixies and Sonic Youth--but then attacks them with frenzied screaming and guitar havoc. When Cobain revs into high punk gear, shifting his versatile voice from quiet caress to raw-throated fury, the decisive control of bassist Chris Novoselic and drummer Dave Grohl is all that keeps the songs from crumbling into chaos. If Nirvana isn't on to anything altogether new, Nevermind does possess the songs, character and confident spirit to be much more than a reformulation of college radio's high-octane hits.
Nirvana's undistinguished 1989 debut, Bleach, relied on warmed-over '70s metal riffs, but the thrashing Nevermind boasts an adrenalized pop heart and incomparably superior material, captured with roaring midrange clarity by co-producer Butch Vig. Cued in with occasional (and presumably intentional) tape errors, most of the songs--like the handsomely harmonized "On a Plain," "Come As You Are," an impressive showcase for Novoselic's nimble playing, and "Territorial Pissings," an anti-sexism rant introduced by a demented goof on the Youngbloods' "Get Together"--exemplify the band's basic skill at inscribing subtlety into dense, noisy rock. At the album's stylistic extremes, however, "Breed" and "Stay Away" race flat-out (the latter ending in an awesome meltdown rumble), while "Something in the Way" floats a translucent cloud of acoustic guitar and cello.
Too often underground bands squander their spunk on records they're not ready to make, then burn out their energy and inspiration with uphill touring. Nevermind finds Nirvana at the crossroads of exuberance and skill, scrappy garageland warriors setting their sights on a land of giants. --Ira Robbins



Post Edited (09-15-09 22:22)

Dangit. You beat me to it, Ira.

you know, i used to be really embarrassed about that review, but the unedited version (which i posted), is pretty on the money. Somehow, the version that ran in Rolling Stone makes me seem like a much bigger idiot. I don't think I've ever A-B'ed them, but I probably should do that now.

Ira, The review was on the money. The only humor comes from the fact that you happened to review the album in a level-headed manner--in Rolling Stone, for that matter--before it got all zeitgeist-y--and while it was devoid of soon-to-be historical context. I never purchased the album, and still consider it to be, well, pretty much as you described it. How about SPIN magazine, who dubbed Teenage Fanclub's "Bandwagonesque" to be the album of the year, over Nevermind?

And we all know the album of the year was Spiderland anyway....

Nope, what i've posted here is pretty much what the magazine ran. not so bad...

I always thought the review itself was accurate and recognized the fact that the album could be something important. It's the fact that it was then only assigned 3 stars that people always point to as having been off the mark. Did the writers award the stars back then, or was that just a product of the Rolling Stone "three stars never means having to say you're sorry" editorial policy that DeRogatis mentioned in one of his books?



Post Edited (09-16-09 17:46)

when i was doing stuff there, the stars were assigned by writers and the adjusted by editors based on (a) their sense of the review's enthusiasm and (b) the significance placed on the record. So when I did a lead review on the Replacements' Don't Tell a Soul and gave it a lukewarm 3 stars, i was adjusted to 3.5 so that it wouldn't look like they had devoted a whole page to an album that wasn't so great.

I actually wondered about that stuff. Thought the 3 and a half was pretty accurate.

I'm shocked. You're telling me Rolling Stone bumps up the star reviews for releases from major artists to be proportionate with the lines of print devoted to said artist ?! I simply refuse to accept that.

Back to the "importance" of Nevermind...

Was it important because it was popular, or was it popular because it was important? Did Nirvana do something different with that album that really hadn't been done before to make it so "important?"

I was only six years old when Systems of Romance came out, so I can only read about it with the perspective of 30 years hindsight. But most of what I read mentions what an "important" album it was. Did anyone think so at the time? It's lack of success was one of the reasons Foxx left Ultravox if I'm not mistaken.



Post Edited (09-18-09 16:14)

Nevermind--as derivative as it was--was like an enema for the last vestiges of hair metal (because of its popularity). I mean, the guys in White Lion and Warrant must have watched that video and thought, "Damn. It's over."

I've always been indifferent about Nirvana's music. Intellectually, I can understand its appeal, but it never moved me (see also: Zeppelin, Led). At the time, I was hopeful Nirvana's breakthrough was going to spell some sort of big-time change for the better, but we ended up with Commercial Alternative (or whatever the term is/was) instead.

It seems like things went from Surfer Rosa to Nevermind to Limp Bizkit covering George Michael in the blink of an eye. The last ten years have been more interesting to me.

I'll take Bandwagonesque over Nevermind any day of the week.

I'll take Bandwagonesque too.

I've quoted Michael Azerrad's essay on this topic before, but it bears repeating here, as a response to Zoo's question:

"... Truth to tell, Nirvana's sound wasn't all that inventive to begin with. It was just an amalgam of other bands that Cobain liked — the Beatles, Sabbath, the Pixies, Hüsker Dü. But it was inspired."

> Did Nirvana do something different with that album that really hadn't been done before to make
> it so "important?"

The "Teen Spirit" video landed some very heavy rotation on MTV. That's not something that hadn't been done before ... but at the time, it was really "important."

I've always stated that I think In Utero is a better album, even with its flaws, but that's because it's more interesting, and more chance-taking. That, and "All Apologies" is one of the greatest things ever. I remember hearing "Smells Like..." on Top 40 radio for the first time -- the very first time I heard it -- and thinking, "Well, kick ass. That's a good sign." It was nice to hear it bumping up against Milli Vanilli and Color Me Badd, but I didn't think too much of it until I saw the video and realized that it was actually going to cross over big time, which I thought was going to allow the bands that obviously influenced them -- The Pixies, etc. -- to finally cross over. No chance. Pearl Jam hit next (and I wasn't really into them until their 3rd, 4th album) and then the grunge wave hit: Candle-fucking-Box. So, I consider it an important door-opener, but one that failed to open the correct door. Instead, it showed how the new sound could immediately be codified and commodified so the people who wanted to sound just like Nirvana -- but not its influences -- could smash the charts. In Utero proved to me there was something much more to the band, but they never got the chance to keep going.

But they stiffed a old acquaintance of mine who had booked and pre-paid for a show scheduled for them in Norman, right before they hit it big, and they skipped out. He lost a good chunk of money, but has since gotten it back via an Oklahoma band that has been doing pretty well lately: The Flaming Lips.

Just remembered another one: SPIN predicting the imminent breakup of the Rolling Stones on the cover of one of their mid-'80s issues.