Quote:
Originally Posted by He's So Unusual
I don't think the fact that Tusk underperformed back when it was released in 1979 has affected its acclaim over the years, I think a lot of critics and music fans have re-evaluated it and have come to appreciate it a lot more. I remember when it was re-released about 10 years ago and most of the reviews were glowing.
|
Yep, this. Not only did they re-evaluate it, they in many cases fell in love with it. There are numerous music journalists who have re-written reviews of it, including Rolling Stone, who now state that it was some of the band's best material.
A similar story occurred with Weezer. Their sophomore album "Pinkerton" was a departure from the poppy college rock that came before it. Rolling Stone and a number of other magazines flogged the album -- hating the songs. So much, in fact, that the lead writer (Rivers) left the band for a while due to him not coping well to the critical failure. Only a few years later, after the fans had declared it to be the band's best work, Rolling Stone re-wrote a review and essentially rated it at the top of the chart. It's funny how fans and a little bit of time can change your perception and appreciate of an album.
Tango is similar. While it has a distinct 80s vibe (at times, a little cheesy), it was quite ahead of its time in terms of style and feeling. It still holds up to this day.
I love modern bands like Cut Copy who claim that both Tusk (and especially Tusk) and Tango were hugely influential in their musical process. It's nice to see brilliant albums still being regarded so highly. In retrospect, one has to wonder what music we might NOT have had if Tusk was never released...