Genesis, Nursery Cryme and their critics

On November 11, Rolling Stone magazine posted an interesting article celebrating the 50th anniversary of Genesis' Nursery Cryme, ironically an album that received a mediocre review from Rolling Stones when it was released. The article's author acknowledges this rather negative review, yet attempts to justify or make excuses for it, rather than just admit Rolling Stones was wrong. No serious attempt is made to reassess the album though he recognizes The Musical Box is masterpiece. In fact, Nursery Cryme is of course seen as a milestone in progressive rock, notably ranking #13 on this web site among the top 100 albums and was voted #40 of progrock albums by readers of Prog magazine. The negative reception by "professional critics" of early Genesis was not limited to Rolling Stone or Nursery Cryme.
Tresspass was of course even more dismissed by music critics both at the time and retrospectively. Only by the time of Foxtrot did critics start become more favourable to Genesis, but even then, Rolling Stone rated Selling England By the Pound 2/5 stars. So question is, why were early Genesis albums now considered classics relatively under-appreciated by critics? This was not necessarily a lack of appreciation for prog-rock itself as early prog albums by ELP, King Crimson and Yes were generally well received by critics. But when it came to Genesis, it seems the critical establishment had a blind spot. Such blind spots are of course not limited to Nursery Cryme or Genesis, but I thought this would be a good way to frame this discussion.

Rolling Stones sucks. I don’t really like Nursery much though apart from Hogweed

Interesting answer and analysis, Nick.

I would say I've lost some respect for the magazine, but alas, I never really had any to begin with.

Rolling Stone is unadulterated fetid afterbirth. Not only are they very nearsighted and provincial in their reviews (for instance, their tendency to rate bands/performers from the NY area higher), they have an annoying habit of revisionism when their original reviews so missed the mark that it becomes an embarrassment later on. 

Thanks to all who have responded to my post! Very interesting responses. While I agree we should not be too concerned about reviews by RS (though you have to at least hand it to them that they put out an article on the 50th anniversary of NS), a couple of points on this. Firstly, I used RS as an example mainly because of the article mentioned, but mediocre reviews of early Genesis are not limited to RS. For ex, Village Voice/Robert Christgau wrote an even more dismal and particularly sarcastic review of NS at the time (see wikipedia). The retrospective review by All Music is more positive, 3.5/5 stars, but when you consider they give 4 stars to Brtiney Spears' first albums, this does not mean that much. Secondly, whatever we think of them, these music critics do have some influence in guiding people towards certain albums and bands. One wonders how much they have contributed to innovative, worthy music being ignored because of their obtuseness, or to the time it took for Genesis to break out as a major act. The point about Genesis being too British for American critics is a good one. Thanks for that information on British reviews of NS. I had not noticed it before but Trespass (largely ignored outside of Belgium at the time of its release) did also receive a few positive reviews from the British press. Further supporting that theory, Selling England by the Pound received a negative review from RS apparently because it had too many British pop culture references (which ranks as one of the stupidest arguments I've heard for putting down a piece of music). As a Canadian who started to listen to rock music in the late 70s, I had never thought much about the Britishness of Genesis. SEBTP had gone platinum in Canada by that time, and several of its tracks, along with The Musical Box, were getting heavy AOR play and seemed to define the varied classic rock landscape of the time. The point made on Genesis being too theatrical for some listeners is another really good one. It seems some people get stuck on the theatrics and fail to see the brilliant music and talented musicianship behind it. Still, I think there is a little bit more than that but will come back on this point after seeing a few more posts.

Philchem8 wrote: Thanks to all who have responded to my post! Very interesting responses. While I agree we should not be too concerned about reviews by RS (though you have to at least hand it to them that they put out an article on the 50th anniversary of NS), a couple of points on this. Firstly, I used RS as an example mainly because of the article mentioned, but mediocre reviews of early Genesis are not limited to RS. For ex, Village Voice/Robert Christgau wrote an even more dismal and particularly sarcastic review of NS at the time (see wikipedia). The retrospective review by All Music is more positive, 3.5/5 stars, but when you consider they give 4 stars to Brtiney Spears' first albums, this does not mean that much. Secondly, whatever we think of them, these music critics do have some influence in guiding people towards certain albums and bands. One wonders how much they have contributed to innovative, worthy music being ignored because of their obtuseness, or to the time it took for Genesis to break out as a major act. The point about Genesis being too British for American critics is a good one. Thanks for that information on British reviews of NS. I had not noticed it before but Trespass (largely ignored outside of Belgium at the time of its release) did also receive a few positive reviews from the British press. Further supporting that theory, Selling England by the Pound received a negative review from RS apparently because it had too many British pop culture references (which ranks as one of the stupidest arguments I've heard for putting down a piece of music). As a Canadian who started to listen to rock music in the late 70s, I had never thought much about the Britishness of Genesis. SEBTP had gone platinum in Canada by that time, and several of its tracks, along with The Musical Box, were getting heavy AOR play and seemed to define the varied classic rock landscape of the time. The point made on Genesis being too theatrical for some listeners is another really good one. It seems some people get stuck on the theatrics and fail to see the brilliant music and talented musicianship behind it. Still, I think there is a little bit more than that but will come back on this point after seeing a few more posts.

Thanks Progaardvark for directing us to the actual review from RS and putting things in more perspective. I agree the review itself was not that negative but taken with the 2/5 stars ratings from the Rolling Stone Album Guide (though not clear if this is related to Cromelin's review), I find it on the mediocre side. However, my original point was not that the review was bad, but that it greatly undervalues an album that, while maybe not considered a masterpiece, is usually highly regarded by prog fans and rock audiences generally - otherwise, why is RS still talking about it 50 years later? And that the rather underwhelming critical response to early Genesis (maybe more symptomatic of American critics) goes beyond NS. I think that it's only by The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway that major US critics started recognizing the group's talent, which in hindsight should have been obvious from Trespass. I do agree the production on both Trespass and NS is not great (I particularly find the vocals on The Fountain of Salmacis annoyingly buried beneath the music, something partly rectified by the remastered version), but overall, this did not prevent me from appreciating the quality of the music itself.
One question:I'm new to Progarchives and this was my first attempt to launch a discussion forum, but my intention had been to post this on the Genesis page. Does anyone know if there's a way to link the discussion so that it appears under the Genesis page?

Early Genesis is generally overrated (I say this as someone who puts them in my top five bands). A comment by Silly Puppy above suggests they 'came of age' with SEBTP yet this is the album that contains Battle Of Epping Forest (too much larking about , if ELP did this they would have been panned beyond reason) , More Fool Me and I Know What I Like (yawn) . Fantastic other tracks admittedly but is it really enough? Possibly the only real masterpiece in the Gabriel era could have been Lamb if has been about 10 minutes shorter. They were the band of the 'filler' material but somehow they get away with a lot more than other bands (ie ELP) who had less filler and more technically innovative. It is correctly pointed out that the production of NC was Muddy . Yes it really was although it was fixed in 2007 thankfully.