|
nme gave the
album 7 out of 10 possible points (a new morning got the same
later). the reviewer, as most of the head music reviewers in
fact, did write with a slight smirk on his face – especially when
it comes to brett’s vocabulary and all that (and he naturally has
to mention the house mouse line), but tried as he might have, he
couldn’t dislike the album. it’s “hair-rising pop” after
all.
magazines such as select, the
face and uncut welcomed suede back with open arms,
dedicating covers and dozens of pages to them.
brett might have had one or two problems
with the face a few years earlier, but edward harrison’s
1999 article (“sleaze! – what have suede been up to?") is written
with an apparent understanding of what suede were about – thus
also seeing the relevant factors of head music. a little
funny is his statement that “finally, the rest of the world has
caught up with suede. – they arrive in 1999 more loved and valued
than ever, and more in tune with their times.” was it really their
year to that extent? daft me who thought they’d been pretty
popular and influential since a couple of years before.
roy
wilkinson’s story in select is almost as understanding,
bringing up in several places how suede “stand as unchanging as
granite” and how head music is “suede but more so”.
wilkinson treats the songs he hears like they’re little babies: a
tad silly, but what’s not to love about silly babies. (he also
makes a comparison that i think is one of the most fitting attempts
to describe the album, saying head music sounds like the
result of prince having been forced to produce placebo. indeed!) head
music gets to number 14 in select’s “albums of the
year” chart. “a misunderstood masterpiece” it was called even
then.
uncut’s tom sheehan salutes
suede with an 18-page retrospective article. he starts the story
from, well, from the very beginning, goes through the ups and downs
and |