Bands that kicked ass that got slammed by the critics

[Unchainme]

Was curious how many of them were out there.

I recall reading that Rolling Stone sort of eye rolled them when their debut album came out and continued to not really give them much attention until 1984 came around and they were too big ignore.

shockingly enough, I saw that the Rock Critics back in the day DESPISED Rush and considered them rather mindless and considered them quite nerd-rock to a degree.

I know that bands like Maiden, Priest and the other metal groups of the time were sort of branded as mindless and stupid.

On the flipside, which groups did the media constantly seemed to have their mouths on their dicks during this time and still do this day? and what other bands other than the aforementioned were subjected to the same treatment?

[FORD]

How about bands that are totally ignored by the critics? :(


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T9P0A3FPdk

[kwame k]

Here's one the critics hated.............................

The Mighty Zep!

[chefcraig]

Here's one the critics hated.............................

The Mighty Zep!

Rolling Stone sure hated them, mainly because the band appealed to the younger brothers and sisters of the jerks that came of age in the sixties. The dismissive self-importance held by these posers (I mean, shit... they even arrogantly referred to themselves as the "Great Sixties Generation" :umm:) lead to the magazine panning everything the band did. That is, until it dawned on them that by putting Zeppelin on the cover of the rag, they could sell more copies. This reached embarrassing proportions in the eighties when the band was once again immensely popular (thanks to the boxed CD set), so some of the very same writers that once slammed the group found themselves writing articles wreaking of revisionist history and ultimately proving what a bunch of opportunistic assholes they (the writers) truly were.

[kwame k]

I love how the critics use the classic, "upon further review", tag line to totally do a 180 on what they wrote before. Kinda like certain trolls..........they completely forget the fact that they are on record saying the complete opposite of what they're saying now. Funny thing is.......a critic usually changes their mind directly based on the popularity of a band.

John Mellencamp is a classic example of that......... American Fool was panned by most critics when it first came out but after it became a huge album most critics, "upon further review", changed their tune.

[FORD]

I think the critics were stumped by "American Fool" because they were used to the "Johnny Cougar" glam rocker persona, which was more the idea of his management at the time, who were Bowie's ex managers, and trying to copy his success. It's no coincidence that the "new" image came right after he split with MainMan. Critics probably thought the "new" John Mellencamp persona was an attempt to move in on Springsteen's territory, while in reality he was just getting back to his actual roots, literally those of an Indiana farm boy.

[lesfunk]

Rush
Sabbath
Deep Purple
etc....

[kwame k]

Very true, FORD and after American Fool he forced the record company to use John Cougar Mellencamp until the 1990's when he recorded under John Mellencamp. I also believe the album after American Fool, Uh-Huh, was recorded in John's own studio in Jackson County, Indiana.

[sadaist]

I never read a review to base a purchase off of. The only time I ever read reviews was if it was of an album I already had & was curious if someone else had the same opinion of it as me.

[Mr. Vengeance]

KISS, Alice Cooper, Ramones, Sex Pistols...

All got trashed when they started. KISS still does to this day.

U2 gets their balls slathered endlessly. They can do no wrong, even though they suck cock.

[lesfunk]

U2 gets their balls slathered endlessly. They can do no wrong, even though they suck cock.

noice!

[Unchainme]

The "army" characteristic of Aerosmith fans (and hard rock fans in general) in the 1970s was also often alluded to in the press. A Rolling Stone magazine review described fans arriving at an Aerosmith concert in Pontiac, Michigan as "a boozy army of hard hats coming to dismantle the place. They looked like hell. Nobody dresses up for concerts anymore."[2]

wow even aerosmith back in the day.

[Terry]

Rolling Stone sure hated them, mainly because the band appealed to the younger brothers and sisters of the jerks that came of age in the sixties. The dismissive self-importance held by these posers (I mean, shit... they even arrogantly referred to themselves as the "Great Sixties Generation" :umm:) lead to the magazine panning everything the band did. That is, until it dawned on them that by putting Zeppelin on the cover of the rag, they could sell more copies. This reached embarrassing proportions in the eighties when the band was once again immensely popular (thanks to the boxed CD set), so some of the very same writers that once slammed the group found themselves writing articles wreaking of revisionist history and ultimately proving what a bunch of opportunistic assholes they (the writers) truly were.

Even more cringeworthy was how Rolling Stone would continue drooling over everything these aging 60's icons did as the years wore on (I'm by no means the greatest Eric Clapton fan, but I'd be hard pressed to imagine someone saying that his 1980s output was nearly as praiseworthy as Rolling Stone claimed it was) and it was clear the bulk of their most evocative artistic work was years behind them. I mean, when the Rolling Stones regrouped and put out Steel Wheels in 1989 you would have thought it was among the best work the Rolling Stones had ever come up with to hear it from the mainstream press.

A critic is just one person and their opinion. If people can't think for themselves and need someone else to tell them if something is worth checking out, they get what they deserve. One of my first memories of realizing this was when 5150 came out and virtually every media mag claimed the band was better off with the addition of Hagar because the music was "better", citing strong sales figures of Van Hagar's first album as proof of this, as if music is some sort of contest. If a person states that they prefer Van Hagar over CVH, that's one thing (no accounting for or reason to defend personal taste). Years later, most of these same critics now claim that CVH was the better lineup all along.

Seems silly to even give much of what contemporary record reviewers say creedence anyway, since the bulk of them have to give multiple albums maybe two spins worth each at best, then write a review. Shit, I can barely get familiar with some records in two spins, and some of them take several listens just to get a handle on. I remember when Appetite For Destruction first came out, and a bud of mine was telling me how great it was. The first two times I heard it, I thought it was the most disorganized jumble of shite I'd ever heard. The more I heard it, though, the more I liked it.

[twonabomber]

Even more cringeworthy was how Rolling Stone would continue drooling over everything these aging 60's icons did as the years wore on (I'm by no means the greatest Eric Clapton fan, but I'd be hard pressed to imagine someone saying that his 1980s output was nearly as praiseworthy as Rolling Stone claimed it was) and it was clear the bulk of their most evocative artistic work was years behind them. I mean, when the Rolling Stones regrouped and put out Steel Wheels in 1989 you would have thought it was among the best work the Rolling Stones had ever come up with to hear it from the mainstream press.


Steel Wheels was better than Undercover and Dirty Work. that wasn't too hard to accomplish though.

i dunno...i buy what i like, not because some turd gushes over it. more likely if they gush over it then i'm out. kind of like the whole Nirvana thing.

i trust most of the members here (and old DDLR posters) recommendations on stuff more than i will a critics'.

[Kristy]

Rolling Stone sure hated them, mainly because the band appealed to the younger brothers and sisters of the jerks that came of age in the sixties.

But it wasn't just the media of the day that detested the joke that was Zeppelin. Many other bands did as well. There was story I recently read where Zep was touring with the Allman Brothers and either it was limey arrogance or southern hostility of the day, but when Dwayne first saw Plant in his tight velvet pants plagiarizing and what both Dwayne and Greg thought was mocking their fav blues singers they threatened to beat the shit out of him. In fact, they dropped playing with Zep ever again.

Zep did deserve a lot of the critic bashing they received. I just can't sand them. Not discounting their ability to play their instruments (well, the bass player and drummer) Page was one of the most shitty producers, EVER! He seem to get by by having the money to hire the best engineers at the time (i.e., Eddie Krammer, Glen and Andy Johns), but the music always sounded thin, greasy and uninventive relying upon riff bashing and Plant's highly annoying testicles recently cut off singing tactics spewing out the most inane lyrics. I'm sorry, but songs about Hobbitville do nothing for me. And, if you learned anything about da blooz (particularly electric Chicago and Delta blooz) by listening to Zeppelin then your life is very sad indeed.

[chefcraig]

And, if you learned anything about da blooz (particularly electric Chicago and Delta blooz) by listening to Zeppelin then your life is very sad indeed.

While I'd agree that Zeppelin's ham-fisted, bombastic take on the blues pretty much destroyed the idiom for decades by inspiring/launching solo heavy nonsense bands, I'd also have to point out that the band did manage to do some good by influencing many astute listeners to check out the original sources of the music and performers that Zeppelin so shamelessly ripped-off. Even so, the band's taste was inexplicably bizarre at times when they did bother to mention their inspirations in interviews. For instance, Jones and Page both mentioned Muddy Water's Electric Mud, an album widely considered the worst piece of dreck that Waters ever recorded. (Trust me, I bought the album years ago. What you get is a bunch of horribly over-modulated, Hendrix-like guitar noise played on top of an over-loud rhythm section with Waters vocals superimposed over that, leading to results that are pretty much unlistenable.) Even though Page stole the Jeff Beck Group's sound lock, stock and barrel, it is interesting to note that Electric Mud preceded Beck's Truth album by several months in 1968.

The fact is, the entire "We are better than anyone else" attitude required by some groups to remain competitive and actually make it in the business is what ultimately killed the band. They became arrogantly insular, living in their own strange little world and oblivious to outside interests (like, you know... music) that would have allowed them to grow further. The escalating drug use by half the band towards the end suggested just how far removed they had become from the rest of the planet, and the punks of the time (justifiably) derided them for it. Ultimately, they have no one to blame for the critical broadsides (from the media as well as other bands) but themselves.

But Rolling Stone sucked and still does.

[Kristy]

I didn't mean that sentence as personal insult, Chief. It was more of a generalized statement. I could never fathom the fact that Zep was somehow the savior of (American) blues when a they were doing was stealing from it without any shame. Page once said he wanted Zep to be the "bastard children of Howlin' Wolf." Now that is an insulting statement. Page and Co. were white middle-class, suburban kids who as I bet and even Clapton said this, "had never seen a black person in their life" much less a cotton field or the ever witnessed the racial poverty and segregation of the deep south. Zep struck me an insular and sheltered band who found a formula (via Page) by taking every blues riff they could find and amplifying it with a white slant; they played largely to white audiences in safe clubs while they toured America in the early days. And when you take into account the racism of the times there wasn't a lot of American white kids knowing who Muddy Waters, Sonny Boy Williamson, Little Milton, Chester Burnett, or Wilie Dixon was. What Page did was shameful not only in plagiarizing sense but in ways he kept his audience ignorant - the riffs and lyrics were nothing more than highway theft in much of Zep's work. Come off of it - they never influenced anyone they could not fool.

It seemed like a perfect crime to me. Take a look of what else that was going on in England at the time (pre prog rock): either "skiffle" music (safe suburban muzak), "mod" which was a fondness for Motown or every other band trying to be a Beatles incarnate. Suddenly there was something new (although it really wasn't) about hearing tunes of your woman doing you wrong, drinking in barrel houses, or songs about being cheated by THE MAN, chasing pussy into the wee hours, sex, sin and murder. Screw off this bullshit Johnson selling his soul to the Devil (boring and over rated) when folks like Leadbelly was plotting homicide against his wife and ended up actually doing it. All Zep did was play into the politics of the blues without ever actually having to live it. Page never invented shit. I heard people tell me when they listening to a Lightin' Hopkins song "Oh my gawd! He's copying Jimmy Page!" What they [Zep] ended up doing was watering it down turning it into a riff mush. Listen to 'Black Dog' apart from it being one of the most annoying tunes ever recorded the tune is basically a series of riffs sung to Plant's penis lust retarded lyrics. There is nothing blues inspiring there that I can see. Yet it sold in the millions.

As for the Muddy Waters Electric Mud album I'm quite familiar with it. Maybe Muddy going psychedelic was his last resort to reach a wider audience. It is one strange album. Maybe Page and Co. slammed it because there was nothing they found plausible to steal off of it? I wouldn't put it past them.

[Terry]

I wouldn't say it would necessarily be a sad thing to have Led Zeppelin as one of the bands used as a starting point toward looking backwards and discovering the blues. If you were an American kid born in the late 1960s or early 1970s, it might be natural to have heard of bands like Led Zeppelin or The Rolling Stones before hearing about the blues players who inspired them (it's not as if Howling Wolf or Muddy Waters got much airplay back then...or now). I mean, I may have misconstrued the comment...but bands like the Stones and Zeppelin used their exposure to Elvis Presley as one of their jumping-off points for their own explorations into the roots of American blues.

I would agree that much of Zeppelin's blues-based tunes DO have more than a bit of an uncredited rip-off quality to them. However, blues-based heavy rock was but one aspect of the ground Zeppelin covered (I mean, LZ ripped off quite a few fairly unknown folk artists and traditional folk tunes as well:biggrin:).

[chefcraig]

I wouldn't say it would necessarily be a sad thing to have Led Zeppelin as one of the bands used as a starting point toward looking backwards and discovering the blues. If you were an American kid born in the late 1960s or early 1970s, it might be natural to have heard of bands like Led Zeppelin or The Rolling Stones before hearing about the blues players who inspired them (it's not as if Howling Wolf or Muddy Waters got much airplay back then...or now). I mean, I may have misconstrued the comment...but bands like the Stones and Zeppelin used their exposure to Elvis Presley as one of their jumping-off points for their own explorations into the roots of American blues.

I would agree that much of Zeppelin's blues-based tunes DO have more than a bit of an uncredited rip-off quality to them. However, blues-based heavy rock was but one aspect of the ground Zeppelin covered (I mean, LZ ripped off quite a few fairly unknown folk artists and traditional folk tunes as well:biggrin:).

Essentially, my point was that if you did your homework in tracking down the sources of Zep's tunes, you'd be richly rewarded. The problem was, it was a pain in the ass. You'd go into a record store and ask the guy at the counter about this or that Zeppelin song you were curious about, and he'd roll his eyes at you as if to say "You ignorant kid, that's a cover of an old blues tune." (The same thing happens today, so I guess it will never go away. Some young kid will ask an older person about a new song, and the adult will say "You dumbass, that's an old Bad Company song.")

What got me at the time is that other than rarely including the proper writing credits on the record label (and more often than not us the word "traditional" in order to put their own names on a tune and pocket the royalties), the band would always be hazy about the songs they supposedly wrote. Page would be happy to tell you that the first tune to get him charged up about rock and roll was Presley's "Let's Play House", but wouldn't own up to the fact that he'd stolen "Stairway To Heaven" from Spirit. I mean, seriously...how in the fuck can you perform a note for note cover of Sonny Boy Williamson's "Bring It On Home" (complete with a rather crude and insulting imitation of the man's voice), then claim that you wrote the song yourself? Fortunately, the song's writer (Willie Dixon) found out and sued the band in the mid-seventies.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jH6WkydTMk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihWhTvHVLAM


So I can honestly say I'd probably never have heard of Willie Dixon, Sonny Boy Williamson, Robert Johnson, ect. if not for Led Zeppelin. But the band certainly could have made my research a shit load easier (back in those pre-internet days) if they'd just admitted that was where they got their tunes from in the first place.

[Mr Badguy]

Every single second of progressive rock always gets shot down as a load of pretentious nonsence.

Consistantly.

[Seshmeister]

Pass me my elephant gun... :)

<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AXlZ0x0Ghrk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0 x9461ca"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AXlZ0x0Ghrk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0 x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>

[FORD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrKzfYl3hgI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbnFIPtxo3s

Yes, I do actually own this album. Bought it at Goodwill for a buck.

[Mr Badguy]

I know there is a shit load of prog that is a load of wank, but the point I'm making is that most critics will tell you that there isn't a single SECOND of progressive rock that is worth hearing.

Year zero revisionist bullshit.

[ODShowtime]

"Page was one of the most shitty producers, EVER! the music always sounded thin, greasy and uninventive relying upon riff bashing and Plant's highly annoying testicles"

This is just false. If you could point to an example of good producing I'd like to see it.

I can just point out Led Zeppelin III. One of the deepest, best sounding albums ever. Recorded on a mobile in an old mansion.

You're totally 100% wrong. And I'm also calling bullshit on your Allman Brothers story.

[ace diamond]

Was curious how many of them were out there.

I recall reading that Rolling Stone sort of eye rolled them when their debut album came out and continued to not really give them much attention until 1984 came around and they were too big ignore.

shockingly enough, I saw that the Rock Critics back in the day DESPISED Rush and considered them rather mindless and considered them quite nerd-rock to a degree.

I know that bands like Maiden, Priest and the other metal groups of the time were sort of branded as mindless and stupid.

On the flipside, which groups did the media constantly seemed to have their mouths on their dicks during this time and still do this day? and what other bands other than the aforementioned were subjected to the same treatment?

black sabbath, alice cooper, deep purple, kiss, rush, led zeppelin.....they've all been totally shit on by critics but they kicked major ass in their hey day.
just goes to show what a bunch of dumb fucking burned out clueless retards critics are. bitter fucking assholes that failed miserably or gave u on trying to be rock musicians so they feel the need to tear everyone else down because misery loves comany.
fuck critics, they are stupid fucking idiots and i don't give a flying fuck what they have to say.
they don't know shit from shine-ola.

[lesfunk]

Essentially every rock band I ever liked was despised by critics