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?

[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" ) 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" ) 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.