Mfw reading some contemporary reviews of Led Zeppelin from the early 70s

>mfw reading some contemporary reviews of Led Zeppelin from the early 70s
Man, they were trashed by Rolling Stone and most other major music mags. What gives?

Other urls found in this thread:

rollingstone.com/music/news/the-durable-led-zeppelin-19750313
youtube.com/watch?v=iaFK6AHhU8s
rollingstone.com/music/pictures/10-classic-albums-rolling-stone-originally-panned-w429731
youtube.com/watch?v=Zp-LBD_q0sQ
myredditvideos.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

critics have no idea what young people dig, what's new?

>Rolling Stone
>Viable music criticism
And don't even give me the SJW's took over bullshit. They were always garbage

Wonder which critically trashed artists of today will get a cult following in a few decades

A lot of critics in the 70s hated prog and most hard rock because it was self-indulgent wank for meathead stoners.

most trash artists already have a cult following

heres an article by Cameron Crowe from 1975 discussing just that.

rollingstone.com/music/news/the-durable-led-zeppelin-19750313

Not on the level of led zeppelin.Go visit a reddit thread about them and see the insane bullshit people post.Their albums are really overrated

Easy. They saw through the charade that Zeppelin were playing stolen blues songs and turning them into a carnival show. Their stoner 14 year old fanbase might have been impressed, but not anyone in the know.

>OOOOOHHH YYYEEAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
>OOOOOH OOOOOOH OOOOOH OOOOH
>AAAAAAAAAAAHHHH
Led Zeppelin's entire lyrical contribution, summed up.

A lot of new artists get trashed because reviewers tend to act on impulse and it takes a number of years before an artist's legacy can be properly judged. For example, everyone and their mother hated Soulja Boy in 2007 since it wasn't apparent that he singlehandedely brought trap to the mainstream (it had been percolating in the Atlanta hip-hop scene for a while at that point).

They just reviewed their first album poorly. Citing it's bad production and passing them off as another blues-rock band which there were already too many of. Their 2nd album got a good review.

>comparing Soulja Boy to Led Zeppelin

He lasted exactly as long as the Sex Pistols. :^)

Critics were weary of hyped-up supergroups that were everywhere when LZ debuted, and they saw them as just another one. It's actually kind of understandable from that perspective. If you think about how many big-name vanity projects were popping up in the late-60s/early-70s, most of them underwhelmed and burned out while only a few like CSNY survived. To those critics any new band that broke off from another band (Yardbirds) a lot of hype around its debut smelled fowl.

Christgau was always pretty favorable to them. The lowest rating he ever gave a LZ album was a B minus on Presence, which admittedly deserved a C. In fact he was one of the few people who didn't think ITTOD was a steaming pile of garbage.

IDK, they didn't like Grand Funk Railroad much either, although that band has been forgotten today.

It's called an analogy you halfwit. Would you have preferred a food related one?

It's called an awful analogy. Go back to your shitty emo-rap threads and stay there.

How is it an awful analogy?

So Christgau was right?

Because people still hate Soulja Boy and no one cites him as an influential musician. He'll never have the legacy Zeppelin has. There are better rappers you could use as an example.

The entire point of the analogy is to compare the underlying idea of critics lacking foresight when looking at current musician, which was the clearly the topic of conversation in the first place. Not to bring up random artists and compare them on merit for not fucking reason. Maybe you should get off the internet for a while and pick up some literature, learn some basics of proper rhetoric instead of shoveling your brain full of shit and and perpetuating its rot by indulging yourself in whatever asinine memes you're so found of you pathetic bugman.

this. led zeppelin is awful. wtf is this thread?

>caring about lyrics
Dude go read poetry.

nah. they're pretty good.

>it wasn't apparent that he singlehandedely brought trap to the mainstream
what the fuck are you on, are you forgetting about TI and fucking gucci mane and other southern rap artists?? Soulja boy is just the first rap artist or really any artist to have made it professionally through the internet

>caring about lyrics
>Dude go read poetry.
And that Dylan fella should've just written a book, pretentious wanker.

>Led Zeppelin's entire lyrical contribution, summed up.

not in any way an accurate representation of reality....

good luck with that.

>not in any way an accurate representation of reality....
Of course not, although it's not as if they were on the level of Bob Dylan.

wait...Soulja boy is a trap??

>level of Bob Dylan

indeed. but then again...Bobbie was no Jimmy Page either...

He probably should have. He's more of a poet that picked up a guitar.

It's not like he was backed by John Paul Jones and John Henry Bonham killing it in the rhythm department.

youtube.com/watch?v=iaFK6AHhU8s

If you listen to this and focus on the singer, you might actually be gay.

>Bobbie was no Jimmy Page either...
What? Obviously, he wasn't. And he didn't need to be, given that his genre is folk.

>all I really want to doooOOOOooo
>is baby be friend with youuuu
Dylan wasn't on the level of anything other than shit

wtf I hate Dylan, Page and Soldja Boy now

...

That wasn't intended as a serious reply. At this point of, someone taking it seriously on this sad excuse for a board isn't surprising.

>>If you listen to this and focus on the singer, you might actually be gay.
wat

Come on, at least make me chuckle.

>a guy strumming and singing on guitar while making mad buck off his own intellectual property which is nothing more than a capitalistic commodity
>"folk"
lmao fucking americans

This is my first time on this board in years. I came because I had a sudden desire to discuss music, and I didn't expect the "oh I'm tool cool for everyone" sarcastic bullshit.

Honestly, people like you are the problem with this board, not the other guy. Anyone who wants to have a discussion is mocked because "lol that dude took something somewhat seriously fucking loser"

I give you this. Critics in the 70s at least weren't afraid to say what they actually thought of an artist. Today it's like you're not allowed to give anyone a bad review, especially if they're a popular, big-name act. You should see modern-day Rolling Stone Mag, they rarely give anything less than 3 stars.

...

In the 70s, you would have just had Donny Osmond instead of Justin Bieber.

Led Zeppelin described making love to a woman sweetly. Biebs doesn't know how to do that.

I didn't antagonize anyone, nor did I attempt to. You two on the other hand... This board is simply beyond saving. There's nothing to do. Neither of you are interested in having discussion. One-upping another guy on this board is meaningless.

Rolling Stone gave the new U2 album an almost perfect rating, despite literally every other critic out there trashing it. That tells you everything you need to know about the current state of the magazine.

They had their pets in the 70s like the Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan who never got bad reviews, but it wasn't anywhere near like today.

This is pathetic. I bet they also gave the new Feminem album five stars.

They revised it

What the fuck are you talking about? I brought up the strength of Zeppelin's rhythm department and posted an example of Bonham's polyrhythmic jams to constrast that poster's odd fixation on lyrical content.

I guess that's not up to your standards of discussion, right? Too good for everyone on the board yet you're still here.

They finally came around to Black Sabbath a good 30 years after their heyday. The 2004 edition of the RSM Record Guide was the first one since the original 1978 edition to not pan their entire discography.

It's hard to tell when bands first start out whether they're going to be just another wanky blues band or become something great. I'd hate to be a critic, seems like a lot of pressure on them to predict what albums will be classics and what will be forgotten.

And some like Christgau never did figure Sabbath out.

>the Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan who never got bad reviews

They gave Exile on Main St a bad review, also gave Blood on the Tracks a bad review. They even gave Jimi Hendrix Experience a bad review. How the fuck did they become the most famous music magazine in the first place?

rollingstone.com/music/pictures/10-classic-albums-rolling-stone-originally-panned-w429731

Some of their reviewers criticized the Stones and Dylan. For example, the original review for Self Portrait began with "What the fuck is this shit?" However, Jan Wenner immediately retracted those reviews in the next issue and wrote one himself that gave the shit five stars.

>d prog and mos
>jams
>polyrhythmic jams
>dude
>rhythm department
>odd fixation
>fixation
>lyrical department
>lyrical
>jams
Hahahaha... now fuck off you utter cunt

Europoors can't into folk music, sorry

you're so salty. he's spot on.

Go back to r*ddit then you nigger

who cares, led zeppelin sucks

Bieber has fucked more chicks than you will in your entire life. If he doesn't know how to do that shit, then good luck yourself.

Well discussed. You sure lead by example.

Because critics mainly being journalism or English majors preferred literary logos-driven elements in music. This is one of the reasons they favour hip-hop now, but during the seventies it was singer-songwriters.

Bangs called the MC5 'two chord primitives' and Zeppelin, Mountain, MC5 or Blue Cheer were judged in much the same way, as watered down versions of the Kingsmen, Cream (also moderately disliked) or the Who. Sabbath were considered a bad joke, Bangs words being 'unskilled laborers'. Unless a hard rock song came from the Beatles, Stones or the Who it was usually derided (all of them had built their reputations up, were connected to the literati and had themes hinting at revolution vaguely in their music). It took critics years to recognise the Yardbirds made the first true psychedelic song to rocket into the charts

pathetic

>Because critics mainly being journalism or English majors preferred literary logos-driven elements in music

This. What the hell happened to music being actual music and not just an excuse to read pretentious poetry?

>he was one of the few people who didn't think ITTOD was a steaming pile of garbage.
one of my favorite albums actually

I'm not . I've said everything I wanted to say.

no. no he is not. nor you.

MacDeLaMarco

Good for him, ITTOD is great

With Blood on the Tracks they had two reviews in the same issue, one negative and one positive.

Crazy Horses is my jam

That's not what his post implied. It's fine if you just want to dance to a genre of music, but don't overromanticize.

That thing won't be remembered in two years

Even Page and Plant themselves hate ITTOD, although given the circumstances surrounding its recording, I can understand why.

lots of people hate their own work. ittod was different but it had some great songs on it

>all of them had built their reputations up, were connected to the literati and had themes hinting at revolution vaguely in their music

It was inevitable that a guy like Charles Manson would take them the wrong way.

>This is one of the reasons they favour hip-hop now, but during the seventies it was singer-songwriters

Not really. Most singer-songwriters in the 70s were flayed as hard as rock groups were. The stuff said about James Taylor and Cat Stevens back in the day was pretty harsh. Again, only Bob Dylan got universal praise for same reason--established reputation, Bohemian cred, and lyrics hinting at revolution.

I understand completely why Black Sabbath weren't liked by critics. They sang about wanting to escape from a hopelessly corrupted society (like in "Into the Void") and that didn't jibe with what critics wanted to hear, which was about making revolution in the street and overthrowing a hopelessly corrupt society instead of running from it.

Fool in the Rain and All Of My Love are two of their best songs. The rest of the album was pretty forgettable though.

He was right though and you seem like a cunt.

you need to go back

You’re an absolute fucking prick and I think deep down you know it. Goodnight.

Shut the fuck up cuck

What an insightful post

My favorite Rolling Stone review is the one for Queen - Jazz

>There's no Jazz on Queen's new record, in case fans of either were worried about the defilement of an icon. Queen hasn't the imagination to play jazz — Queen hasn't the imagination, for that matter, to play rock & roll.

>"Fat Bottomed Girls" isn't sexist — it regards women not as sex objects but as objects, period (the way the band regards people in general). When Mercury chants, in "Let Me Entertain You," about selling his body and his willingness to use any device to thrill an audience, he isn't talking about a sacrifice for his art. He's just confessing his shamelessness, mostly because he's too much of a boor to feel stupid about it.

>Indeed, Queen may be the first truly fascist rock band. The whole thing makes me wonder why anyone would indulge these creeps and their polluting ideas.

King gizz

King Gizzard aren't critically trashed sweetie

Critics like them though

Yup you're definitely the cunt

lil peep

Unironically mike e clark the producer of insane clown posse

Oh wait. You're serious. Let me laugh even harder.

Lead Blimp just plain SUCK!
End of discussion!
End of thread!

>stolen blues
lmao you fucking tard

In The Evening's pretty decent, but yes Fool in the Rain is god tier
youtube.com/watch?v=Zp-LBD_q0sQ

Yeah only you would know what a Reddit thread is like, newfag.

Fool in the Rain is god-tier. Really underrated.