The Hollies: "Butterfly"

The first piece here may not be the most typical example, as "Butterfly" did indeed get rather good critics and is even mentioned in "The Mojo Collection".

The fact that it is rarely mentioned in those all-time-lists probably has more to do with the fact that it was a Hollies album rather than people finding this a particularly bad album. In fact, the only ones who were truly alienated by "Butterfly" may have been several of their own fans.

But then, this isn't just a great album, it is probably one of the very best out of all the 50s albums in my list here. Simply a matter of an English light pop band trying out light psychedelia. It is hardly a freakout like "Piper At The Gates Of Dawn" or even "Sgt. Pepper", but there are some really nice experimental tracks here, even though first and foremost it's a nice pop album like most Hollies albums.

In America, the album was renamed "Dear Eloise/King Midas In Reverse" - also including the latter single which may be their best ever moment. A single that starts off an acoustic ballad, but which adds several psych effects.
Still, the most freaked-out moments here are probably "Maker" and "Try It".
"Maker" is crowded with psychedelic effects and a very nice sitar. "Try It" is crowded with sound effects and some percussion recorded backwards. Plus lyrics that some people claimed were pro-LSD (which is probably why the track never made it to the US version of the album).

The rest of the album is typical The Hollies pop: Sunny, melodic and with some wonderful harmonies. And I guess there's where people have problems with it, like with everything else they did. The Hollies were, from the beginning, seen as Beatles copycats. And while Beatles became gradually "darker" and more "rock", The Hollies sort of went the opposite way. Their other 1967 "Evolution" had, with the exception of a track or two, been a rather typical light pop album, with few elements that reminded the listener the year was 1967. "Butterfly" was more of a psych album, but still largely light pop. The Hollies were the band that parents and teachers would accept. Nice guys with nice and pretty songs about love. They were great, but probabluy not provocative or rebellious enough to earn "credibility" with the hipsters.

But anyway, it's so great, it would have deserved to be up there with great English psychedelic classics such as "Sgt. Pepper", "Odessey & Oracle", "The Who Sellout", "Ogden's Nut Gone Flake", "Mr. Fantasy" and "Piper At The Gates Of Dawn". When it isn't, it is probably because of The Hollies reputation as "nice guys". They were too twee for the hipsters to accept them.

50 classic underrated albums that critics and hipsters have never understood

Pretty strong words, I know.

Anyway, the point of this post (and the blog for some time to come) is to bring attention to some masterpieces that have been unjustly underrated, particularly by critics but at least over time also by audiences. I am going to write a piece on every single one of them, but let's now just do a giant spoiler and list all of them, in a roughly cronological order, like the articles will also arrive:

Butterfly – The Hollies
Their Satanic Majesties Request – The Rolling Stones
Tales From Topographic Oceans – Yes
Everyone Is Everybody Else – Barclay James Harvest
Hope – Klaatu
Ocean – Eloy
The Grand Illusion – Styx
Equinoxe – Jean Michel Jarre
Toto – Toto
The Turn Of a Friendly Card – Alan Parsons Project
QE2 – Mike Oldfield
Time – ELO
Music From The Elder – Kiss
Level 42 – Level 42
Tug Of War – Paul McCartney
Love Over Gold – Dire Straits
Quick Step And Sidekick – Thompson Twins
Script For a Jester’s Tear – Marillion
True – Spandau Ballet
No Parlez – Paul Young
Observations – Mezzoforte
The Works – Queen
Human’s Lib – Howard Jones
Forever Young – Alphaville
The Riddle – Nik Kershaw
So Red The Rose – Arcadia
No Jacket Required – Phil Collins
Strength – The Alarm
Scoundrel Days – a-ha
Dancing On The Ceiling – Lionel Richie
Romancing In The Dark – Freiheit
Cloud Nine – George Harrison
Bete Noire – Bryan Ferry
Tango In The Night – Fleetwood Mac
Turn Back The Clock – Johnny Hates Jazz
Bellybutton – Jellyfish
Play – Squeeze
Doubt – Jesus Jones
Brutal Youth – Elvis Costello
Moseley Shoals – Ocean Colour Scene
Free Peace Sweet – Dodgy
Beware of Darkness – Spock’s Beard
Wild Mood Swings – The Cure
It Doesn’t Matter Anymore – The Supernaturals
I’ve Been Expecting You – Robbie Williams
The Invisible Band – Travis
Holes In The Wall – Electric Soft Parade
Life On Other Planets – Supergrass
Paradox Hotel – The Flower Kings
Twelve Stops And Home – The Feeling

These 50 albums, ranging in date from 1967 until 2006, are all marvellous albums IMO, and really deserve more attention. Yet, if you look at lists of best albums ever made, few of them are ever represented. Some them are downright hated by critics and hipsters, others are just ignored.
In fact, even on the Acclaimed Music list (http://www.acclaimedmusic.net - nevertheless a wonderful site that is recommended for all to check out), where they have collected no less than a Top 3000 from critics lists through time, very few of these albums are represented at all.

So, why do these albums get so hated then, if they are actually good?

OK, so let's have a look at what they have in common.
I think I could safely say there is nothing wrong with the musicianship on most - if not all - of these albums. And, I mean, in an objective way. The people behind the albums are all good musicians, they are more musically gifted than average, and most of them also sing quite well from a technical point of view. The production is rather well done, again technically, and there aren't too many technical flaws. Obviously, there is nothing wrong about the skills here.

But then, to some people, maybe that's exactly the reason why they are hated? Music criticism is still largely based on the values of punk, values that told anyone can start a band, that you don't have to be a music expert to make rock'n'roll. Hip-hop, although less outspoken about it, shares some of the same values, not least through African traditions where everyone was supposed to participate in music in some way (either through playing, singing or dancing. Or all of them at the same time)
And, well, fair enough that some people think that. But is that a valid reason for turning this into sort of a universal way to judge music? Is it right to consider something bad just because it's (technically) good?

To explain this further, I think you have to look at the very start of rock history, the very roots of rock music, and modern popular music. And the keyword here is rebellion.
Most of these albums are not very rebellious, they aren't the kind of albums your parents or your teacher are most likely to hate. Thus, they may be sort of construed as a threat towards the entire rebellion or generational crash thing in pop (not to mention rock and R&B) music. They are simply just too likely to be liked by 30 somethings for restless rebel souls to like them. And for some weird reason, restless rebel souls have come to define what is good and bad in pop music criticism.

There is also another element here, and that is an element that has been existing in music criticism since way before rock. For instance, it is a key element in virtually all of Theodor Adorno's writings, and his rejection of anything from Stravinsky to Tin Pan Alley pop.
I am speaking about the idea of innovation. That all music has to be extremely innovative or cutting edge to have any value, and that anything that sounds like something that has been made before is not worthy.
Obviously, most of the albums in the list above are, or were, not at all particularly innovative at all. Their artistic merit lies in skills rather than in innovations. There are some great melodies, some great arrangements, some great vocal harmonies at times, a great, slick, production. A lot of reasons to like them, even for people who have listened to more music than average. But they may not be the kind of albums that make you virtually angry all the time.
I mean, not that I find that interesting at all. There is nothing wrong with being innovative (case in point: The Beatles), but it has to sound nice in addition - it has to work. Personally, I rather listen to the "derivative" music of Dodgy, Ocean Colour Scene or The Flower Kings than some unlistenable dreck by, say, Public Enemy, Velvet Underground or Captain Beefheart. They may have been be innovative, but they are just annoying to listen to, and lack everything that good music should have. Believe me, I have tried to get into a lot of that stuff, but I just don't find much value in it. I doesn't contain what I want my music to contain!

All in all, I guess the values I list here sort of fit into the softrock revival thing that has been kind of fashionable yet. Or Guilty Pleasures, as it's usually called. And surely, there are a lot of softrock-like albums here. Not all of them, but some of them. Particularly from the late 70s.
That being said, I don't really understand the "Guilty Pleasures" thing, for a number of reasons:

- There is no reason to feel "guilty" for listening to that stuff. In fact, a lot more people should, because that's what music should be like
- Whenever I see a list of "guilty pleasures", the picks are usually unimaginative, largely consisting of albums that are generally agreed upon to be good albums, albums that received good reviews upon release, and that have continued appearing in lists of best albums of all time from time to time - at least if that list contains slightly more than 100 albums.
I mean, nothing wrong about "The Original Soundtrack", "Out Of The Blue", "Boston", "A Night At The Opera", "Arrival", "Rio", "Crime Of The Century" or "Bad Girls". They are all most excellent albums that are highly recommended for anyone to check out. But they are considered generally good to such an extent that it isn't particularly original to mention them. And there is more out there that is just as excellent. Stuff that the "guilty pleasures" people don't seem ready to rehabilitate even though it would be just as deserved.

So, then, I will do a piece on each album. But let this be my initial rant. And, yes, those 50 albums are all highly recommended. See more of them when I start writing pieces on each album!