It was 'Here My Dear' by Marvin Gaye - he shredded it in a long review and then a couple of months later published a new review/full retraction/praise to the skies. He must have pleaded with his editor to be allowed to do it. About 1979? For some reason I'm thinking it was Colin Irwin but he was more folky wasn't he? Whoever it was I was very impressed by the simple humanity of the act - and its a wonderful if distressing record, perhaps hence the mea culpa

...is not because you're right and I'm wrong (or even the other way round). Neither is it because you've listened to it more times than I have. There might, however, be a clue in your observation that you couldn't reconcile the lyrics of "The Boy In The Bubble" with the jauntiness of Paul Simon's recording. It's precisely that jauntiness that I love and I thought Gabriel's slowing it down was a pointlessly showy attempt to make it clear that he was mining "the dark side". That's called a difference of taste and that's fine.

FWIW I listened to that record ten times before I wrote about it. That's ten hours, which is a lot of your life to give to something that you're not that bothered about. And the longer you spend in the company of something you don't like the more your indifference can turn to outright hate. It didn't in this case but it could have. Then I had to write it, which took me about five hours.

I've changed my mind about lots of records. All reviewers do. They get it wrong some of the time, which is why most of the time they write variations on "all right if you like this kind of thing, three stars".

The reviewer has to make a fairly snap decision, and how many of us have heard something which didn't impress, then gone back to it later and loved it so, I think we should treat reviews as first impressions and nothing more. Personally, I remember scratching my head a bit when Led Zep III came out and now it's probably my favourite Zep album.

Remember when "Standing On The Shoulders Of Giants" was The Future (according to the bulk of the music press)?

that if you've been listening to music a long time, you get a sense of an album's potential straight away, even if you don't necessarily 'like' it the first time you listen to it. Steve mentions changing his mind about the Gabriel album, but I'd wager there was something that persuaded him to persevere, and it was experience.

When listening to any piece of music, our appreciation of it can not help but be influenced by external factors. Mood, health, time of day, school run, bad day at the office, holiday etc etc.

David Hepworth's dedication to the cause (ten hours) is admirable. Presumably, these were not ten consecutive hours but spread out over a few days. This would give ample chance for all the external factors to even themselves out and allow for a considered response.

There must be so much music that I have dismissed simply because I heard it at the wrong time of day or possibly the wrong time of life. I've introduced prejudices into my world based upon a brief exposure to a sound that I wasn't ready or willing to hear.

Recently there have been suggestions on the site to explore the world of Miles Davis. I could never get on with this stuff, based upon the premise that I don't like Modern Jazz (maybe because I once felt irritated by some). However, "a kind of blue" through the headphones, in darkness, late at night is now not only tolerated but enjoyed.

Having an objective opinion is clearly more desirable for reviewers than it is for listeners. If the word standard is 10 hours for a feature review, I'm impressed!

...the only albums worth their salt are the ones you don't like straight away.

If you drove from Lands End to John O'Groats with just one CD that 'isn't your thing' on repeat, you will get to really like bits of it. But hey, life's too short and we have probably all missed out on really great albums/artists.

...if Charles Shaar Murray regrets the 9/10 for "Be Here Now". I snorted loudly when I read about that in this month's issue.

One by someone who really likes the album in question and the other by someone who detests it. I'd enjoy that.

I felt the review was less about the record and more an opinion piece about DH's dislike of "stripped down" cover versions.
Could not a lot of David's points be made about Johnny Cash's last recordings or is he off limits to that sort af criticism.

Vague memories of this being panned in Sounds on its release (too many songs, too short, all sound the same etc) and the reviewer doing a 180 degree turn in his opinion a few months later once it had been decreed a Very Significant Record.

I wasnt suggesting you were right and I was wrong or the other way round. I was however curious as to the reviewing process and how long you took to reach your viewpoint. 10 hours is very impressive although I doubt you would spend that amount of time on something you instantly and strongly disliked so I make the assumption that Gabriel did have some redeeming points.
I love Paul Simons The boy in the bubble but despite being aware of the words I always associated it with the sounds of summer. I guess this was because when Graceland was released I was living in Miami. Peter Gabriels version made me look at the song in a whole new light and for this reason alone I think the album is a worthwhile release. There are additional songs on the album that strengthen this view.

...the length of the review. David Hepworth's Gabriel review ran two pages, which means that he also got a proper paycheck for it. Under those circumstances it would have been very stupid to not listen to the album properly several times. But it's much more problematic when you have to write a 150-word capsule review about an album you're not very interested - then it's much more tempting to just base the review on your early impressions, because why bother getting into the album when you don't have much space to write about it anyway and in any case you won't get a proper pay for it.

David , why else would you give the Peter Gabriel album two pages?

that says, "You stated in 1983 that xxxxx but now you've changed your mind. You're flip flopping blah blah blah." The truly surprising thing would be if reviewers never changed their minds and I suspect most of them would cheerfully acknowledge this. Maybe all those end-of-year reviews should feature a, "Record I've had a 180 degree change of mind on" spot.

…is a funny old business. Sometimes you'll have a couple of days to file a sizeable review, so for perhaps a weekend, you'll get absolutely immersed in a record which might be of not much importance in the great scheme of things but after 48 hours it seems like it is. Which, as D Hepworth says, tends to heighten your opinion one way or another.

In defence of Word reviews, I think they grasped much earlier than most that the whole traditional review saying 'this is definitively good/bad' was fairly pointless in a world where everyone could post a review like that somewhere online. The real skill - and something readers (me, at least) will pay money for - is with someone who can actually contextualise a work, unpick the technical details behind it and perhaps leave the conclusion open ended. Mark Kermode often does this with film reviews, and Alexis Petridis on music in the Guardian. It's much harder writing to do as you have to REALLY know your stuff, rather than just weighing in with an opinion and a mark out of ten.

I now only read most reviews for the review themselves rather than as a guide - Uncut left me scarred and with shelves of stuff I didn't like.
I think Adam Sweeting was music writer for the Graunaid when it relaunched (before the Berliner relaunch) and I endeavoured to buy the album of the week every week for a few weeks(circa 1999). It was a means of educating myself or keeping abreast of the current trends.
However, I sacked that off after about six weeks as none of the records were for me.
But, I still love reading the reviews in the Guardian, The Times, The Independent every week and despite being immersed in the blogosphere for my professional duties - I prefer the papers.

Is more like it!