Trust me, I will be writing reviews of each band’s respective albums but I believe I have to say something about other criticisms of them. I’m not going to cite any specific reviews but I will comment on the one recurring criticism that I think is unfair.

There have been a lot of ’90’s bands that have reformed over the last five to ten years and made new albums. Some of them have been underwhelming, some have been good tries and some have been outstanding. It kind of confuses me how critics seem to be treating each individual band as one thing. The criticisms always have the same theme: Is this album as good as their earlier ones and are they back to form?

This would be a fair question if it was handled realistically. When answering this question they seem to come to one of two conclusions:

1.) Their sound isn’t the same.

2.) The album is really good but they sound like the same band (or the common observation: This could have been released in the 90’s and fit in with their catalogue).

Neither of these comments should be a negative on their own. If they don’t sound the same (this criticism has been leveled at Ride for some reason) maybe that’s a good thing unless you think the band sounds tired and may have lost too much momentum. If not, it may be a good turn but it’s not what you expect. I like surprises and left turns. I’m strange that way.

The second common criticism doesn’t make sense to me. This is the one most leveled at Jesus and Mary Chain and Swervedriver. Both of their albums are excellent.

Jesus and Mary Chain’s “Damage and Joy” does continue from where they left off but I disagree that it is “Munki” part 2. It is much more cohesive and focused. The fact that it could have been released right after “Munki” and fit right in is irrelevant. Jesus and Mary Chain have their own distinctive sound so if they continue to be themselves and not simply repeat, why is that a negative? No band should “update” their sound just for the sake of doing it. So much music now is derivative anyway. If a new band came out with the same album they would be applauded even though they copped someone else’s style and identity. It’s a bizarre double-standard.

Swervedriver has released two albums in the last five years. Not only have they kept the same sound but they have expanded it. When you hear it you know it’s Swervedriver but they are somehow different. Their album “Future Ruins” is a departure without being a departure. Yet, somehow this is a big disappointment because this album would have still done well in the ’90’s.

Why is this a bad thing? Bands have been making albums that aim for sounding like they are in the ’60’s for decades yet many get glowing reviews. The questions should be:

1.) It it a pale imitation of what was?

2.) Is it boring?

3.) Is it lifeless with no originality?

Negative criticism for the sake of negative criticism is ego-driven and nonsense. One doesn’t have to invent a fault to write a good review.

So smile, write, enjoy and be honest. If it’s rubbish, say so with some intelligence. After all, making an honest album is by no means easy (let alone one that sells).