| From Golden Greats |
![]() |
|
|
Letter
from the Editor-Cher: Critically Revised It's
been four years since A
Cher Zine 1 and
since then, I’ve noticed a new trend, mainly a shift in how Cher’s
music is perceived by critics. Exiting is the disdain of the 70s, which
evolved to a neglectful omission in the 80s, to a begrudging gloss-over in
the 80s. A revisionist rethinking of her contribution as a female rock act
has arrived today. Her acting reviews have largely been good. She’s
naturally sincere on screen. But her music has been largely panned over
the decades by everyone except a small army of stalwart fans who keep
serious commentary alive in music magazines like Goldmine.
They haven’t become fans yet; but lately, critics have stopped ignoring
Cher. Records she’s broken over the last four years, with her single
“Believe,” her Farewell Tour, and her most recent greatest hits
package, have caused the critical establishment to reconsider her place in
music. And
when she makes VH1’s “Best Of” lists and when she’s spoken of in
women-in-rock anthologies, she’s spoken of as more than an act that has
lasted by fluke, which was largely her footnote in the 90s. Today, her
image as a female Lazarus in the hard-knocks rock biz and her musical
influence on younger acts is considered. She has appeared on a remarkable
number of VH1 Top 100 Lists of the Millennium, including best dance songs
of all time, best love songs of all time, best music videos of all time,
greatest TV moments of all time, most sexist artists of all time and top
100 pop icons of all time. And most interestingly, she made the top half
(#43) of the
100 Greatest Women of Rock & Roll, a list compiled by contemporary
female artists. In the 70s, such an idea was inconceivable. No one took
Cher seriously. The same phenomenon is occurring in female rock history
books. I’ve come across her name in respectful blurbs in She
Bop: The Definitive History of Women in Rock, Pop and Soul by
Lucy O'Brien, Women
and Popular Music: Sexuality, Identity and Subjectivity
by Sheila Whiteley, and We
Gotta Get Out of This Place: The True, Tough Story of Women in Rock
by Gerri Hirshey, about which one reviewer stated artists like Cher were
finally getting their due. Keep in mind, her mentions are still small at
this point. But they’re there. They’re respectfully there. And
that’s s big deal. That there are music anthologists out there who care
if Cher gets her due is a 180
degree
turn from the way we were. So
what’s up? For one thing, the critical guard has changed ranks. Children
of the 70s and 80s are working Cher into these lists and anthologies. And
her harshest critics, ones who have been dissing her for years, are late
60s baby boomers who are wearing loose fitting jeans right about now,
still lamenting the capitalization of the new Woodstock and the
proliferation of hip hop. Their voices are diminishing as they retire.
Even more significantly, younger acts are finally calling Cher out as an
influence on their style or music, artists ranging from Tracy Chapman to
Britney Spears. But
even elder critics like Los
Angeles Times rock-critic
Robert Hillburn have devoted critical space to revisiting Cher in a
musical context. His August 2002 re-evaluation, called “Cher Could Have
Been a Contender,” was significant by its very existence. That one of
rock’s biggest critics would consider Cher’s potential, regardless of
whether he sees it as a lost cause, is a seismic shift alone because it
acknowledges her raw talent. Hilburn’s theory, which has been consistent
from his reviews of Cher from way back to 1975, is that the only good Cher
is the 60s Cher, the Cher who stuck with Sonny Bono, the Cher who Hillburn
claims was a possible influence on Chrissie Hynde, who at 13 played
"I Got You Babe" over and over again in her bedroom. Hillburn
fails to speak to the fact that Sonny was removed as Cher’s producer by
two labels, not by Cher herself, because his singles for Cher were failing
miserably on charts and with critics. Their act was considered a joke by
the entire psychedelic rock establishment. Hillburn calls Cher’s
revamped, early- 70s sound passionless and plodding but ignores the fact
that it was Sonny himself who revamped Cher’s sound this way. How does
Hillburn feel about the poorly received Sonny-produced material on Foxy
Lady
in 1972, and Bittersweet
White Light
and Mama
Was a Rock and Roll Singer
in 1973? He doesn’t say. In Hillburn’s sketchy review of Cher’s
musical history, he conveniently creates a Sonny Bono musical wonderland
that somehow ended disappointingly when Cher decided to “go pop” in
1971. But Hillburn
went against the grain to speak of Cher as if she were worthy of
discussion at all. At least he has proposed a theory of Cher a fan like me
can seriously argue with. Once he claims Cher could have been a contender,
the game is on. A sacred seal has been broken. We can now discuss her
thoughtfully. Many
critics claim Cher has only survived due to her skill in marketing
herself. If only this were true. More of her albums have failed than
succeeded due to a lack of any marketing heft behind them. In fact, Warner
Bros. failed to put any effort behind even the “sure thing” follow-up
single to “Believe.” It can’t be said she stayed on top through
savvy marketing because she never stayed on top in the first place. She
crawled back up every time. She simply isn’t part of the show biz
marketing machine like the boy bands and the new blonde divas of the 90s.
And she’s never made alliances with powerful rock insiders to get ahead.
She’s never even had the security of one label who supports her and
believes in her. She’s had to bounce around, almost homeless, from label
to label even to this day. Remarkably,
Cher exists as a hardy example of niceness in a seedy, male-dominated rock
world. She could have melted down under the pressure, becoming either an
egomaniacal diva or a substance abuser. But she didn’t. In many ways,
this makes her a stronger figure than most of rock’s infamous tough
chicks. She stuck to her guns, regardless of ridicule and pressure to
conform to rock and roll’s own strict stereotypes. She’s never subdued
her style of outrageousness, even though critics punished her for it in
ways they never punished Patti LaBelle or Elton John. She could have
catered to rock’s elite by playing by the rules, which means hitting
rock bottom at some point with a drug or alcohol abuse drama. If we’ve
learned anything at all from VH1’s Behind
The Music
library, it’s that serious rock acclaim only comes from hard living. All
of Cher’s scandals are scandal-lites in comparison. If you want the
righteous artifice of rock and roll glory, follow the recipe: get
arrested, trash hotel rooms. If you want to be accepted with the in-crowd,
you must succumb to appetites, show-biz-sanctioned appetites, not
necessarily legitimate or organic ones. Your appetites must be
self-destructive and you must rise from them like a phoenix or be untimely
undone by them and heralded into the well-respected pantheon of rock and
roll tragedies. Ironically,
there is one legitimate badge of rock and roll honor Cher deserves but has
eschewed, the badge other female rock stars wear like notches on a
bedpost. Battle scars. Cher adheres to the wrinkle-free face, which is a
shame because after all the shunning and ragging and tabloid slapping
she’s endured and survived, she’s earned every one. She’ll end up in
the rock canon anyway, without pandering to rock’s insiders. She’s a
true rebel outsider in a world of desperate posing insiders. She’s
beginning to get more respect for it these days. I saw one of the most surprising subliminal bits of praise for Cher recently in a small catalogue insert, an ad for 2003’s “Best Of” compilations. The small ad was a virtual who’s who of rock legends. The list in its entirety: Fleetwood Mac, R.E.M, The Monkees, The Eagles, Paul Simon, Chicago, The Doors, America, Rod Stewart, James Taylor, Linda Ronstadt, Warren Zevon, The Doobie Brothers, War, Simon and Garfunkel, The Grateful Dead ….and Cher. (Cher
Scholar, 2004)
To purchase a copy of Golden
Greats --
|