By Noah Hubbell
By Kiernan Maletsky
By Tom Murphy
By Noah Hubbell
By Alex Distefano
By Darryl Smyers
By Jon Solomon
By Britt Chester
When Under the Table and Dreaming first appeared in 1994, it garnered mostly positive reviews: People hailed it as sporting "a beguiling sound all its own," while the New York Post dubbed it "hypnotic." But within a matter of months, all that changed. In the years since, People called Matthews's work "too precious and ephemeral," the New York Times repudiated it for being "scattered and unmemorable," and the Boston Herald described Matthews's once-lauded voice as a Sting knockoff.
What caused this switch? Westword posted that question in various Dave Matthews Band chat rooms accessible via the Internet and received more than a hundred responses. "Dave Matthews doesn't fit into traditional pop-music genres," wrote one Matthews defender. "Critics have their own idea of what the family tree of pop music should look like. They helped determine a lot of the early roots and branches. They are still desperately trying to connect and categorize every band to that tree. The Dave Matthews Band doesn't fit in, so how can he be important, or great, if it doesn't fit into their system?" Another correspondent argued that Matthews's way with a hook leads scribes to underrate him: "Why do critics lump them with bands who don't [have talent]? I believe it is because many of their songs have a catchy effect that draws in the average listener, just like Hootie & the Blowfish. This effect is created by patterns in chord progressions that are pleasing to the ear of the average listener. What sets Dave Matthews and his band apart is the fact that those chord progressions are accompanied by very different instruments and harmonies, and they all flow together very nicely due to the talent of the members."
Other Matthews aficionados charged that journalists began jumping on the Get-Dave bandwagon after the appearance of a single influential review: a slam from the pen of Jim DeRogatis, then a senior editor at Rolling Stone, that dismissed Crash as "typically banal" and charged the Dave Matthews Band with "vying to continue the ideals of [the Grateful Dead]." DeRogatis allowed that Matthews had "a slight edge over his peers" but noted, "That's sort of like saying you prefer vanilla ice cream to vanilla frozen yogurt."
In conversation, DeRogatis, now a Minneapolis-based freelance writer who regularly contributes to Westword's sister paper, the Los Angeles New Times, has even more nasty things to say about Matthews. "Dave Matthews's music is weak, boogie shit. It's characterless, bogus nostalgia for a time that was never that great to begin with--just Sixties bullshit." As for Matthews's place in music history, he notes, "I have this theory that it all has to do with lame-ass white people who couldn't dance--who were doing that Grateful Dead wriggle dance. It's like pseudo-hippie, but it's really people who are fucking stockbrokers putting on tie-dyed shirts and going to this concert and drinking Bud Light and thinking it's a psychedelic experience."
If DeRogatis sounds bitter about Matthews, he has a right to be: The circumstances surrounding the Crash review eventually cost both him and his editor, Keith Moerer, their jobs at Rolling Stone. He now refers to the event as "the great Hootiegate incident of '96."
As DeRogatis tells, Moerer (who also writes for the L.A. New Times) originally assigned him to write a joint review of new releases by Matthews, the Spin Doctors and the aforementioned Hootie & the Blowfish intended to "get to the root of why all this stuff sucked." Then, shortly before the issue containing the piece was scheduled to go to print, Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner "blew a gasket," DeRogatis reveals. "Originally, what Keith thought was that he didn't want to put Hootie in with these other two bands because it was too big a record. So I retooled the review and took Hootie out, and I said separately that Hootie sucks and kept Matthews and the Spin Doctors together and said they sucked, too."
To put it mildly, Wenner was not placated. He screamed at DeRogatis that he couldn't say such awful things about Hootie, a band that, after all, had sold thirteen million copies of its debut recording. (DeRogatis notes that Wenner didn't mention Matthews in his tirade because by comparison with the Blowfish, "he didn't sell any records.") Wenner subsequently assigned another critic to write a more positive review of Fairweather Johnson, the Hootie album in question, and showed DeRogatis and Moerer the door.
As a result of this power play, DeRogatis's review of Crash was his last for Rolling Stone. But plenty of people still recall it--including Matthews. "Yeah, he gave us two stars, I remember that," he confesses. He's conciliatory about reviewers in general: "It's a difficult thing--to be a critic and to have your own voice. Who's to say what makes a good critic? It's a job I'm happy to leave up to you all." But, he adds, "when you get a vicious critic, well, maybe he didn't get laid the night before." As for DeRogatis's opinions about Crash, Matthews says, "The first possibility is that he just generally thought we were bullshit, which is more unfortunate for him than it is for me, because I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. My advice to someone who is so embittered--because he seemed angry--would be to make his own record so he can do it right."