In the SAME SENTENCE!?!?!
Sorry. I had Robert Plant in mind but that wasn’t as compelling. Plant is 4 years older than Feiger.
I am going to listen to the Knack, based on the recommendations here.
But at the time there was this feel from them of “Let’s get some of that power pop $. We want our groupies too!”
I’m convinced all music is created in the aim to get that pussy.
A a person who was the right age to be the target audience for that album, I must say, we didn’t need critics to slag it. We could tell all by ourselves.
But to answer the main question, rock critics don’t write to actually review songs or bands. Critics write for each other. It’s like the secret nerd club, and you can get in if you hate what they hate. So of course, critics are going to slam The Knack, whether they were good, bad, or whatever. They were an easy target. If they can get average people to agree, it’s like the ultimate trolling.
I realized rock critics were useless when I read the Rolling Stone review on Triumph. They slammed the band’s entire output with a one-sentence review based on one song. Like the, hate them, think them a second-rate Rush, they deserve a bit more effort in a review than that.
Which, of course, puts to mind the famous Spinal Tap moment.
When the first album came out I was the target age. We could see the packaging and the hype - but the music was good. Perhaps it was management, perhaps it was something else. I saw them in concert. They presented themselves as mid 60s Beatles. A good energetic set. Short. Very short. If there was an encore - that was short. The tickets, however cost More than normal. When we all realized the show was over - that’s when the “13 year old” hating started. Can’t speak for others but u suspect this cash grab cost them any traction for a sustained career. Good album though.