Time Heals All Wounds: Albums That Have Reclaimed Critical Acclaim
A case study of commercially and critically scorned records that have redeemed themselves as important milestones in music history.
Rotten Tomatoes scores movies using two distinctly separate rating methods: the “tomatometer” or critical review, and the “audience score”, which gathers verified ratings from casual moviegoers to compile one average percentage. This often leads to disparities in a film’s public perception, as critics may praise a director’s avant-garde use of plot misdirection or sole reliance on visual effects, while the everyday viewer leaves the theater confused and underwhelmed by the entire motion picture. Expectedly, the creative adjacent world of music functions in a similar way, with trusted music critics reviewing new albums and publishing their opinions on Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, Billboard, and more as tastemakers for the general public. Despite the accreditation of such sources, there remains a prevalent phenomenon of now acclaimed albums underperforming both critically and commercially upon release. Are these critics overly pretentious as to what makes “good” music, or do they simply have the aural experience to know what is fresh and what is not for the time? Various factors contribute to this situation in which albums, despite receiving laudatory reviews and even support from their dedicated fanbases, fail to achieve significant commercial and/or critical success when they come out. Given time, however, critics, casual fans, and larger musical trends tend to align, allowing once scorned records to redeem themselves as important milestones in music history.
Perhaps the most illustrious rock band of the last 30 years, Radiohead has swept back and forth across the musical landscape repainting it with bold, massively experimental brushstrokes since their debut in 1993. But by the year 2000, the group was faced with the proverbial ‘fork in the road.’ On one side, a concise and heated follow up to 1997’s OK Computer. After all, it had net them a Grammy for Best Alternative Album the following year and was immediately recognized as a groundbreaking dismantlement of both 90’s grunge rock and the looming digitization of global society. On the other side, a departure into the unknown, one that is now referred to as “the greatest left turn in music history”; Radiohead’s fourth LP, Kid A (Middle 8, 2019). Kid A departed significantly from the band’s raucous rock-centric sound, embracing experimental and electronic elements that initially baffled both critics and fans alike. Rolling Stone called the album “a musical gamble that paid off critically but leaves many fans bewildered” (Rolling Stone, 2000). Similarly, The Guardian noted its alienating qualities, arguing that it was “a record made with the assumption that its audience would catch up” (The Guardian, 2000). Despite debuting at number one on the Billboard 200, the album’s deeply experimental nature meant it was less accessible to a mainstream audience. This initial commercial hesitation can be seen in its early sales, clocking in at 207,000 in the year of its release with a stark plateau after the first week. While this figure did represent growth compared to their last LP, it paled in comparison to other releases from less established artists. Albums such as Nelly’s Country Grammar, Britney Spears’ Oops!... I Did It Again, and D’Angelo’s Voodoo all outsold Kid A by a large margin, representing the mainstream trends and commercial viability the band purposefully ignored in the release of the album. Aside from sales, Kid A maintained a similarly unconventional promotional strategy, eschewing traditional marketing techniques and opting instead for a series of enigmatic internet broadcasts and minimal press interaction. This approach generated intrigue but also confusion, as many potential listeners were unsure what to expect from the new album. Music magazine NME highlighted this strategy in their review, stating that “Radiohead's refusal to engage in the usual promotional activities was both a bold statement and a risk” (NME, 2005). The band's reluctance to release singles or music videos that could provide entry points for new listeners further limited the album's commercial reach. For example, the lead single “Optimistic” was not accompanied by a music video, a clear detriment and extremely unusual for a major release at the height of programs like MTV. Further diminishing the album’s commercial success, the release coincided with the height of music piracy site Napster. Why pay for an odd, difficult to listen to album when it is free online? This question plagued not just Radiohead but countless artists at the dawn of the 21st century, scalping album sales with each new release.
Despite its initial commercial challenges, Kid A has undergone significant reassessment in its 24-year-old lifespan. The album's innovative approach and willingness to defy genre conventions have earned it a revered place in modern music history. The album's subsequent inclusion in numerous "greatest albums" lists also underscores its enduring legacy and the eventual alignment of critical and commercial perspectives. These reassessments underscore the idea that an album's true impact can often only be felt once it has sat within the public sphere for an ample period of time, and that a commercial “flop” may ultimately become a critically acclaimed masterpiece.
The connotation of an album “flop” implies that upon release, people were displeased with the record and its overall sound. However, in the case of Fleetwood Mac’s 1979 album Tusk, its status as a notorious “flop” is much more nuanced than simply a bad batch of songs. In 1979, Fleetwood Mac was riding the wave of immense popularity following the release of Rumours, an album that sold over 10 million copies within the year of its release (1977) and became emblematic of the era; characterized by polished production, catchy melodies, and themes of romantic entanglements that resonated deeply with a mainstream yet diverse audience. Therefore, the anticipation for Tusk was enormous, with fans, critics, and the band’s record label alike expecting another commercially accessible golden egg. Instead, Tusk represented a vast departure from the sound and style of Rumours. Tusk was highly experimental, incorporating elements of punk, new wave, and world music, and shifted towards a more stripped-down production aesthetic that contrasted sharply with the polished sheen of its predecessor. Lindsey Buckingham, who spearheaded much of the album’s experimental direction, wanted to push the band’s sound in a new, unconventional direction; intentionally diverting from the “lightning in a bottle” quality of the songs on Rumours (Zoladz, 2019). This overt eclecticism alienated fans who were looking for another easily accessible group of catchy songs. Such a substantial shift in musical direction, while artistically ambitious, did not align with prevailing market dynamics that favored the more accessible and radio-friendly sound of Rumours. Just as well, the album’s budget was reportedly over $1 million, making it the most expensive albums ever produced at the time (Zoladz, 2019). Warner Bros. Records relied on the band’s established popularity to drive sales; however, the album’s lead single and soon to be title track was a far cry from the radio ready nature of songs like “Landslide” and “Dreams”, featuring a marching band and avant-garde arrangements that soured many listeners and radio programmers to the upcoming record. Once the record was out, Tusk received mixed reviews. Some critics appreciated its boldness and innovation, while others were confounded by its departure from Fleetwood Mac’s signature sound and its lofty double album run time. From a commercial perspective, Tusk peaked at a mere number four on the Billboard 200 and sold only 4 million copies in its first year, less than half of Rumours. While these numbers are impressive by most standards, they fell short of the astronomical success of their last record and was therefore perceived as an unfortunate commercial underperformance; a successful album that did not meet the exceptionally high expectations set by its predecessor.
Once again, however, time has proven to be the true test of an album’s reception. Critics and fans alike often view it as one of Fleetwood Mac’s most daring and innovative works. The album’s willingness to experiment and push boundaries has been recognized as a precursor to many modern music trends and the forefather of post-punk as a genre. In a 2019 retrospective on the album, author Justin Chadwick called Tusk “an immersive and fascinating listen” and “imperative for an expanded understanding and appreciation of the band’s musical history” (Albumism, 2019). Moreover, songs like “Sara” and “Sisters of the Moon” have become enduring fan favorites and staples of the band’s recent tours, overshadowing the initial commercial disappointment with its bold artistic vision and lasting influence. Tusk serves as a reminder that commercial success and critical acclaim do not always align, underscoring the complex interplay between artistic ambition and commercial viability in the music industry, and the value of creative risk-taking.
In rounding out the previous case studies, one album offers a perfect encapsulation of the difficult divergence between critical acclaim and commercial success: Weezer's Pinkerton. Released in 1996 following the multi-platinum success of their debut LP, Weezer (commonly known as “The Blue Album”), expectations were high for the nerdy indie rock band’s next musical effort. Unfortunately, Pinkerton was quickly met with lukewarm reviews and poor sales. A deeply personal and raw album, Pinkerton reflected frontman Rivers Cuomo's emotional turmoil and disillusionment with fame, focusing on themes of loneliness, frustration, and unrequited love conveyed through abrasive guitars, noisy production, and confessional lyrics. This was the polar opposite of the band’s previous record, with catchy, lighthearted hits such as “Buddy Holly” and “Undone (The Sweater Song).” The lead single, “El Scorcho,” failed to resonate with mainstream radio audiences and garnered little to no airplay, crippling the album’s much needed promotional push. Upon release, Pinkerton peaked at number 19 on the Billboard 200, a respectable position but a significant drop from the top 20 hits of “The Blue Album.” The record quickly fell off the charts, and its sales figures were disappointing, taking several years for Pinkerton to be certified gold by the RIAA, a far cry from the multi-platinum success of its predecessor. To add insult to injury, Entertainment Weekly gave the album a disappointing B rating, criticizing it as painfully contrived (Entertainment Weekly, 1996). Further extraditing the record from the mainstream was the commercial obsession with grunge. The broader cultural context of the mid 1990s was dominated by polished alternative rock and grunge sounds, which favored slick production and accessible melodies that Pinkerton’s raw, confessional nature was out of step with.
In recent years, however, Pinkerton and Weezer’s larger discography has gained a cult following, with people finally resonating with Cuomo’s deeply introspective and honest lyrics. Many contemporary critics now consider it Weezer’s best work, with Pitchfork, in a retrospective review, awarding Pinkerton a perfect score, praising its emotional intensity (Pitchfork, 2010). Similarly, Rolling Stone revised its initially poor assessment, placing the record on its list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time (Rolling Stone, 2023).
The underperformance of critically acclaimed albums can be attributed to a confluence of factors including market dynamics, timing, audience expectations, promotional strategies, societal context, and evolving consumption patterns. Understanding these factors highlights the delicate balance between artistic expression and commercial viability in the music industry. Despite initial misgivings and poor receptions, these albums and more have left an indelible mark on the cultural and artistic landscape, underscoring the enduring value of time weathered critical acclaim in the face of market realities, showing that the true impact of an album is often measured not in immediate sales but in its lasting influence and the way it shapes artistic conversations over time.
Works Cited
“The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time.” Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone, 23 Dec. 2023, www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/best-albums-of-all-time-1062063/.
Chadwick, Justin. “Revisiting Fleetwood Mac’s ‘Tusk’ (1979): Retrospective Tribute.” Albumism, Albumism, 9 Oct. 2019, albumism.com/features/fleetwood-mac-tusk-turns-40-anniversary-retrospective#:~:text=Sounding%20far%20removed%20from%20any,of%20the%20USC%20marching%20band.
Cohen, Ian. “Weezer: Pinkerton [Deluxe Edition] / Death to False Metal.” Pitchfork, 3 Nov. 2010, pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/14817-weezer-pinkerton-deluxe-edition-death-to-false-metal/.
Fricke, David. “Kid A.” Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone, 12 Oct. 2000, www.rollingstone.com/music/music-album-reviews/kid-a-185607/.
Gordinier, Jeff. “Pinkerton.” EW.Com, Entertainment Weekly, 27 Sept. 1996, ew.com/article/1996/09/27/pinkerton/.
“I Think I’m Meant to Be Dead ...” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 22 Sept. 2000, www.theguardian.com/friday_review/story/0,,371289,00.html.
Middle 8. KID A, The Greatest Left Turn In Music History. YouTube, 27 June 2019,
NME. “Radiohead: Kid A.” NME, 12 Sept. 2005, www.nme.com/reviews/reviews-radiohead-2944-317559#:~:text=Thus%20far%2C%20’Kid%20A’,it%20rather%20loses%20its%20nerve.
Zoladz, Lindsay. “‘Tusk’ at 40: On Fleetwood Mac’s Defining Record.” The Ringer, 14 Oct. 2019, www.theringer.com/music/2019/10/14/20913040/tusk-fleetwood-mac-40th-anniversary-stevie-nicks-mick-fleetwood-lindsey-buckingham.