Artists that critics got wrong

Are there any artists that you feel critics got wrong? I mean, are there any critically praised artists that you feel shouldn't have been and critically panned artists that shouldn't have been?

One example are Vanilla Fudge--back in the day, they were accused of tasteless bombast and are today written off as a cheesy artifact of the counterculture era. They never got their critical due for being the first band to use those long symphonic instrumental intros employed so extensively in later years by Yes, King Crimson, ELP, Deep Purple, Kansas, and others, and therefore being a seminal influence on prog (which critics hate anyway, but that's aside the point)

Other urls found in this thread:

robertchristgau.com/xg/rock/mygen-93.php
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Radiohead,derivative and overrated. Like him or nor Scaruffi was right about them.

Every critic got ITAOTS wrong.
P4k gave them a 8.6
Fantano almost didn’t consider it a classic because “memes” (not joking)
Christgau gave it a frownie face
Scaruffi gave it a 7.5

One of the greatest albums ever made, and it’s completely panned.

Depeche Mode never got a lot of love. For whatever reason, their sense of humor completely went over most critics' heads.

LMAO

As a prog fan, I always got so tired of the revisionist history put out by Christgau et al that it was nothing but cheeseball Tolkien/D&D shit and we should all thank punk rock for saving us from it.

7.5 is a great score though

Eh, there’s a ton of albums that Scaruffi has rated higher that aren’t nearly as realized or well made.

Judas Priest, another case of a band where critics didn't get their sense of humor or subversiveness (Rob Halford introducing white suburban teen America to leather daddyculture which barely anyone knew about back then)

this. often these kinds of criticisms don't even bother to see the diversity of the genre in it's heyday and various offshoots, or even consider the fact that there was actually a fair bit of crossover between "hip" stuff and some of the smarter prog rock folks like Peter Gabriel, Robert Fripp, Robert Wyatt, Fred Frith etc

Sringsteen sucks. Guy has a career spanning 30+ years with only 5 songs worth listening to.

And even with the five good songs he had, you still have to hear him singing (I use that term very loosely here).

Glory Days is a perfect example of his wonderful “singing”

I always say fuck what the critics think, the best way to judge an artist is how many artists they influenced and how many trends they set.

A lot of bands who were massively influential (like Sabbath and Priest) were critical punching bags back in the day. At the same time, there's other bands like Journey and Styx who are jokes and rightfully so. Not only did critics shit on them, I defy anyone to find a an artist who cites them as an influence.

Scruffy is a total jackass.
>"cop" and "filth" are way better than "to be kind" and "the seer"
fuck off

The Moody Blues were also shit on by critics despite being among the founding fathers of prog.

I always felt the problem with the Moody Blues is that they were just kind of these spaced-out hippies who sang about stuff they saw on acid and had no politics or edge to them. Plus they didn't have a standout personality like a Lennon or a Jagger and in the 60s-70s, the whole "gonzo guy" thing was what critics went for.

The OP pic is so annoying, you faggots know how to start an annoying thread.

Uh, Rush?

Grand Funk Railroad obviously.

"Neil Young devotees will probably spend the next few weeks trying desperately to convince themselves that After the Gold Rush is good music. But they'll be kidding themselves. For despite the fact that the album contains some potentially first rate material, none of the songs here rise above the uniformly dull surface."
Langdon Winner – Rolling Stone, October 1970

Lester Bangs's initial review of Exile on Main Street (that he later retracted) was pretty harsh.

Some of Rolling Stone's most famous reviews are those that trashed albums that later became massively popular. Their Led Zeppelin reviews are classics. They ran a very negative review of Abbey Road (alongside a positive one by Mendohlson that is still on the website), that started something like "Eeeck, it's the Beatles" and compared them to the Bee Gees. There was the review of Ram that called it the nadir in the degeneration of 60's rock. Goodbye Yellow Brick Road was the huge fruit pie that doesn't bake.

But how about giving Rolling Stone some credit for nailing a review. Remember David Fricke's review of Back in Black? AC/DC were never critics' favorites, and I was never a huge fan of heavy metal, but Fricke's review was so enthusiastic - the apex of heavy metal art, he said - that I had to try it. 40 million albums sold later, it's clear he was dead on.

"While the accidental death of singer Bon Scott last February was undoubtedly a big blow to AC/DC, Scott's untimely demise seems to have lit a roaring fire under this Australian band. Back in Black is not only the best of AC/DC's six American albums, it's the apex of heavy-metal art: the first LP since Led Zeppelin II that captures all the blood, sweat and arrogance of the genre. In other words, Back in Black kicks like a mutha."

>prog rock folks like Peter Gabriel
Peter Gabriel is adult contemporary, user.

Critics have a lot of albums to review and have to work under time pressure, so they often can't absorb the music properly. It's not as easy of a job as you think. Remember how Christgau had revised some reviews in his Consumer Guide series from the original ones he wrote back when the album came out.

This thread is a pile of retardation anyway. An album review can't be "wrong", it's an expression of someone's subjective aesthetic judgement. Do you disagree with the RSM reviewer who said that Led Zeppelin were a loud, stupid carnival show with fake whiteboy blues songs? Some of us find that opinion extremely true.

At what point did you stop taking RSM seriously?

>the apex of heavy metal art, he said - that I had to try it. 40 million albums sold later, it's clear he was dead on.
>sales makes something the apex of heavy metal
No thanks

Not true btw

I didn't think someone could be so objectively wrong

He's right though

All of them.
This type of music critics is useless.

AC/DC are hard rock anyway, I wouldn't call them a "metal" band even though they had a lot of crossover with the metal audience.

Lol Rolling Stone is the downright worst music publication, nobody takes them seriously except for out-of-touch dads who don't want to hear anything except "Dark Side of the Moon is the greatest album of all time"

this

only thing they spawn is waves of followers thinking of them as the head of some sort of cult/religion. it is a bit sad though, as people clearly will always need someone to tell them what to like in order to fit in to a certain grouping or category.

>5 stars

Galaxie 500 - On Fire
Zappa - Burnt Weenie Sandwhich, Weasels Ripped My Flesh, Uncle Meat
Beefheart - Safe As Milk, The Mirror Man Sessions
The Doors - Strange Days
Nick Cave - From Her to Eternity, The Firstborn Is Dead
Codeine - Frigid Stars
TVU - TVU&N
Nico - Chelsea Girl
Bruce Springsteen - The River
Swans - Children of God, Cop, Filth
Fugazi - Repeater
Pere Ubu - New Picnic Time
Mike Oldfield - Tubular Bells
Jimi Hendrix - Are You Experienced

I think there are way more, but this is a list I think is hard to argue in favor of over ITAOTS.

>yfw Keith Richards's opinion on this album was far closer to the truth

Yeh but there's a big difference between a band like Zeppelin that critics totally dropped the ball on versus a band like Bon Jovi that have always been a joke not taken seriously either by critics or people with a serious interest in music.

you have to credit them for consistency on panning every Queen album, but they ended up being heavily on the wrong side of rock history there

How is a 8.6 "completely panned"? Are you autistic

Queen were near-universally loathed by critics though.

>it's hard to argue that vu&nico and are you experienced are better than itaots

Devo were one of the best and most groundbreaking new wave/post-punk bands of their time but because they had a weird sense of humor critics dismissed them as a mere novelty act. They should be as praised as the Talking Heads.

Devo had the problem of pissing off the media in a big way by refusing to give straight answers in interviews and going off on weird tangents/discussing conspiracy theories. Journalists really didn't like their evasive, wise-ass attitude. One British publication called them "goose-stepping proto-fascists" although their songs were actually warning in a way of a global corporate syndicate stamping out individuality and turning us into 1984.

he was in Genesis tho.....

robertchristgau.com/xg/rock/mygen-93.php

Sometimes Christgau can be pretty prescient and he also wasn't retarded enough to give GITD a good rating.

It's too bad because Richie Sambora is an excellent guitarist. Too bad he wasted his talent with that garbage band.

Even Lester Bangs eventually warmed to Black Sabbath.

Goddess in the Doorway isn't actually that terrible, but it's certainly not deserving of 5 stars.

The first Rolling Stone Record Guide listed all three AC/DC albums up to when it was published (High Voltage, Let There Be Rock, and Powerage) as worthless. They gave one star to all Black Sabbath albums except for Paranoid (2 stars), which they suggested buying (if you must) instead of We Sold Our Souls because it was shorter and cheaper.

Differences in opinion are a little funny sometimes, for example Christgau worshiped Blondie but Bangs loathed them and wrote a bunch of ultra-sexist remarks about Debbie Harry.

>Nico - Chelsea Girl
he gave it a 5/10

^This. I don't mind reading a review on RYM or Encyclopedia Metallum, but fuck all the pretentious retards like Christgau who do this for a living.

>The first Rolling Stone Record Guide listed all three AC/DC albums up to when it was published (High Voltage, Let There Be Rock, and Powerage) as worthless.
Christgau put them in his Distinctions Not Cost Effective bin which means "there's some decent material here but hunting for it isn't worth your time".

I imagine he might have liked the LTBR title track.

>Most of their music was disposable, an inept imitation of the Velvet Underground occasionally decaying into childish mayhem.
Scaruffi on Les Rallizes Dénudés

Christgau is always wrong and finds reasons to dislike music that has nothing to do with said music

He's right though