didn't exactly set the hacks running to their typewriters with superlatives aplenty upon release, but now it's regarded as an all-time classic by many.

By Gary Numan is a classic example. The music journos hated it but it's now enjoying a rennaissance of popularity thanks to Sugababes, Basement Jaxx etc and he's touring a show where he performs the whole thing.

Talk Talk's Spirit of Eden is slowly being realised as a classic - despite spending a lot of time in bargain bins the first time round thanks to mixed reviews.

Perversely Oasis's Be Here Now was largely applauded by all music press but then years later history was rewritten and everybody pretends they never liked it.

Me? I like it. Still do. It might even be my favourite Oasis album.

I agree about Guillemot's latest - packed full of tunes and ideas. Reviews I read were good though, but then I've only read a few.

Other mixed reviews then re-appraised:

Bowie - Low. Now thought to be one of his best.

Lou Reed - Berlin. Initially maligned now supposedly classic. This is meant to explain his hostility to music press. Personaly I rate it but for me his best work was with Velvet Underground.

These two would be case of critics being thrown by changes of direction I guess.

Was actually a masterpiece from day one. The mystery is why those who were paid to review music for us took their ears off the ball.
The great thing about Dexys was that those who knew, knew from the off.

Fetch the ladders I need to get off my high horse.

Massive Attack's mighty sonic cathedral of sound was greeted with some fairly indifferent reviews on its release, but within a few months the past was being hastily rewritten. Either Q or Mojo gave it a lukewarm reception, and three stars, but then gushingly included it in their "Best Of The Year" feature a few months later.

...that's the all time classic example of reviewers back-tracking.

is a reverse example for me. Critically lauded but I cant listen to it. For me Radiohead ceased to become important after The Bends - guess I had better put me tin hat on!!

I just finished reading "Rebels on the Backlot" about young film-makers at the end of the 90's.

The book tells in some detail the tortured process involved in getting a handful of movies to the screen.

One of them was "Fight Club" according to the book the initial reviews were almost universally hostile. However by the end of the year it appeared on most "Best of the year" lists. The appraisal went from "THIS is what society's come to?" to "This IS what society's come to."

I'm only guessing but I think some critics may have been shamed by the reaction their reviews got. People probably said to them, "You just did not get it, did you?"

No one wants to appear out of touch. Especially since it's their job to be in touch.

Critics are given way too much credit. If life is like one big school with principals, head teachers, committees, prefects, bullies, victims, concerned parents etc, then critics are just the lollipop ladies standing outside. Stop, go, stop, go.