Number 751 - The Cult
"1985's Love by the cult displayed a marked improvement over the Cult's early material, and though it remains under appreciated in America (worldwide it was a smash), this exceptional record has actually aged better than the band's more notorious (and equally important) releases: Electric and Sonic Temple. Equal parts psychedelic hard rock and new wave goth, the songs on Love emanate a bright guitar sheen, tight arrangements, crisp drumming, and a command performance from vocalist Ian Astbury, who as usual says a lot more with less than most singers. Overall, the album benefits from a wonderful sense of space, thanks in large part to guitarist Billy Duffy (who is much more subdued here than on future releases), whose restraint is especially notable on "Revolution" and the remarkably uncluttered title track. Duffy also provides compelling melodies ("Hollow Man," "Revolution"), driving riffs ("Nirvana," "The Phoenix"), and even a U2-like intro to "Big Neon Glitter." Also on offer is the near-perfect "She Sells Sanctuary" and the smash hit "Rain," quite possibly the band's most appealing single ever. Considering the musical schizophrenia that would plague each subsequent Cult release, Love just may be the band's purest moment." ~ Ed Rivadavia
"Just what the world needs – a postpunk Grand Funk Railroad. The dark, scraping guitar and paisley trappings of Love, the U.S. debut of current British sensations The Cult, suggest a hip marriage of Joy Division's introspective angst and the colorful expansions of Sixties psychedelia. But don't let singer Ian Astbury's love beads and the pseudo-Egyptian typography on the cover fool you. Love is a bummer, New Wave bravado masking a devolutionary return to the static riffing and Cro-Magnon thud of early Seventies arena rock."
"Much of Love, in fact, is just leaden Zeppelin. Astbury and guitarist William Duffy, the band's songwriters, rarely take the fateful step from a basic chord sequence into real melody. For nearly seven minutes, they stretch the hazy cosmic vision of "Brother Wolf, Sister Moon" over Duffy's treadmill strumming – a dreary rhythmic landscape broken only by brittle single-note guitar spires. The lumbering blues-rock stomp and agitated but unengaging guitar fills of the LP's title song recall those glory days of Bloodrock and Captain Beyond. Duffy, in spite of his limited tonal ambitions, is at least a spirited guitarist, and when guest drummer Mark Brzezicki of Big Country puts a little pedal to their heavy metal in "Rain," the Cult finally achieves liftoff with a jolt of U2-like energy and a simple but riveting chorus. "The Phoenix" also opens with great promise – a venomous flourish of wah-wah guitar over scimitar chording and zoom bass, mimicking the ferocious intro to the Stooges' 1969 proto-metal classic "I Wanna Be Your Dog" – before lapsing into undistinguished Blue Oyster-style Cult. But Astbury's hammy bellowing, a sorry lack of killer licks and too many empty gestures deep-six this album from the start. The Cult may believe they are headed for a brave new rock world; Love, however, is strictly nowhere. "(RS 467) ~ DAVID FRICKE
Once again Ouch Ouch and OUCH!!!!
So Rolling Stone think The Cult's "Love" album as Strictly Nowhere! I tell you what... i am so glad i don't have to survive in the world worrying about what Rolling Stone have to say about me (i bet it isn't nice either). But as for their condemnation on The Cult, well, is overboard and strictly nowhere!
Oh yes, and by the way, i understand it is one mans opinion writing for a Rock n Roll Magazine and its purley his views on the album & artist. What i struggle with is, that the masses of Joe Public bought the "Cults" album in bucket loads, while one mans written word was completely the opposite to the punters. So then, is the "review" then accurate? No. Is it fair? No. Then should they stop people reviewing albums until the sales figures are released? Sigh .. No.
What i say is, if the reviewer gets it so wrong, then there should be a retraction and another review and probably best of all ... an apology to the band/singer. Because at the end of the day we need Rolling Stone to do us (we) a service, thats what we pay them to do, thats what we want them to do, review a album and artist and say if its good or shite. What do you think?