Why are bands with so much talent so often panned by lesser musicians with so little talent or, worse yet, critics with no talent?

I considered this "method of panning;" taste can't be argued, but talent can. My only answer to that question has to be that both bands had big heaps of songwriting talent and musical/technical ability. Whether or not you find them great is up to you.

I could find you dozens of Classical or Jazz snobs who'd argue about your subjective definition of talent.

You know what? Some people don't like your favourite bands. Boo Hoo.

Sure. Fashion is about the stupidest concept ever. A lot of music criticism is just fashionable opinions, anyway, so good comparison.

The tendency to oversimplify an issue or a problem by ignoring complexities or complications.

This is along the same lines as criticizing clothes. A table is either level or not. Clothes either fit or not. Music is not remotely the same. Flipper were miserable "carpenters" or "seamstresses" compared to Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin, and I can actually pan them on those grounds. But, of course you wouldn't pan Flipper on grounds of talent. As I said, these terms only apply to mega-popular acts.

You do if the egg is fresh.

Does this phrase "wilful obtuseness" mean anything to you?

http://prehistoiredufolk.free.fr/images/SillyWizard.SoMany....JPG

How about "devil's advocate?" Just because we're arguing differently doesn't mean I can't continue to play along.

x-post but would you deny that the magic and talent are linked? It is the presence of magic that forces us to ignore the talent.

Is that really the only way you judge a table? What about it's finish, it's aesthetic appeal, it's use of veneers and marquetry, it's use of space and material. Carpentry is every bit as complex/simple and value bound as music. If that's what you think about making a table then I'd take Dr Johnsons opinion on Zep/Floyd or whoever above yours.

No, not "like" but agree on if the artist has talent and what kind of talent. If I go to a music school and my instructor is teaching me that the Sex Pistols had more talent in their little finger than Mozart, I'm going to question his sanity.

1. Personal opinion is irrelevant when measuring talent.
2. Measuring talent is based on the personal opinions of a large group of people.

You'd be talking out of your ass by saying, for example, that a band has "mindless, common verse-chorus-verse songwriting" if you are a frustrated musician who can't write a single catchy song in the manner you are panning in the review and happen to be fixated on Zappa at the moment and the concept of writing nontraditional songs due to your complete inability to craft a decent "standard song." Your review could be more about your own goals, expectations and frustrations rather than the music itself.

1. Personal opinion is irrelevant when measuring talent.
2. Measuring talent is based on the personal opinions of a large group of people.

That's an oversimplification, obviously, but there's nothing wrong with that argument.

You can see for yourself by simply reversing it:

1. Because I said so.

This sort of opinion means something in regards to taste, but it sounds pretty arrogant regarding talent.

-- Nöödle Vägue (noodle_vagu...), October 16th, 2005.

It's more of a logics issue than a criticism. More philosophical than opinionated.

Why are they judged so harshly critiqued compared to other acts when they are obviously highly regarded enough by enough people to warrant them some level of dignity?

http://photobucket.com/albums/y117/ledzeppelinorg1/multimedia/photos/bonzo1/bonzo19.jpg

Right, I have no problem with that. That's an issue of taste. But there are people who go out of their way to tear it down and yet they like other underground music that is so similar it's comical. It seems like it's more of a reaction to the idea of the music and the people associated with it than it is the music. And it seems endemic to mega-popular acts is my point.

How are you able to make this judgement when (I presume) you're either

a lesser musician with so little talent or, worse yet,
a critic with no talent?

That's not the issue. There's good criticism and there's bad criticism. This thread is obviously discussing bad criticism as discussed from the first post in this thread.

a lesser musician with so little talent or, worse yet,
a critic with no talent?

Popular opinion.

Few would actually publish the opinion that they were talentless hacks. Sure, back in the day, LZ were panned quite regularly. This just proves how idiotic criticism can be. Bands that were once critics' darlings sometimes become nobodies long forgotten or remembered not fondly but curiously and bands that were pariahs become highly regarded a decade later in the same publications. Phish and DMB are good examples of this. Phish used to get panned by Rolling Stone and DMB used to get good reviews, I think. Now Phish gets a certain amount of respect and DMB is on the wane, no? But, the harsh criticism of Phish that I read was well-placed. I'm not so sure if the harsh criticism of LZ was because I wasn't around to read it.

This is what I suspect, but I did not want to make the statement because surely it will elicit the response from someone that both bands just suck in a vacuum.

-- scott seward (skotro...), October 16th, 2005.

It's just an example of "punk vs. hippie" in keeping with some earlier recent threads on this board.

You don't like cakes and rain?

also did I miss the general beatification of Flipper at some point cause you seem to have a stick in your ass about how all the critics are constantly beating off to Flipper records, which to the best of my knowledge is a gross exaggeration of Flipper's actual critical standing

This leads to breaking down every song into a hopeless morass of soloing and grandstanding in the case of Zep, and the slow pondorous enunciation of utterly toe-curling banalities in both. Of the two, I prefer Zep: their music has a texture that occasionally reminds you they used to be the Yardbirds, and 'Rock'N'Roll' could almost have been a T.Rex b-side.

But the hell with them both. They were technically very competent musicians. So what? Should I read a writer becase they could REALLY type? Oh yeah, and FLIPPER RULE!

Oh, I'm sure someone would.

also did I miss the general beatification of Flipper at some point cause you seem to have a stick in your ass about how all the critics are constantly beating off to Flipper records, which to the best of my knowledge is a gross exaggeration of Flipper's actual critical standing

Way to misconstrue some nonspecific hypothetical generalizations (this also pertains to your first point). I am not, was not "correcting" ILMers and I could not, would not in a parallel universe.

two friendly suggestions:

1. read some actual criticism
2. listen to some actual records

If anything, I've been overly-indulgent in maintaining a discussion when posed with bad faith arguments.

also, a quick glance through the criticism of the '70s will reveal that actually LZ wasn't hated, but don't let reality interfere with your the-talented-are-persecuted-by-the-envious fantasy. Here's Christgau, end-of-year, on ZOSO:

More even than "Rock and Roll," which led me into the rest of the record (whose real title, as all adepts know, is signified by runes no Underwood can reproduce) months after I'd stupidly dismissed it, or "Stairway to Heaven," the platinum-plated album cut, I think the triumph here is "When the Levee Breaks." As if by sorcery, the quasi-parodic overstatement and oddly cerebral mood of Led Zep's blues recastings is at once transcended (that is, this really sounds like a blues), and apotheosized (that is, it has the grandeur of a symphonic crescendo) while John Bonham, as ham-handed as ever, pounds out a contrapuntal tattoo of heavy rhythm. As always, the band's medievalisms have their limits, but this is the definitive Led Zeppelin and hence heavy metal album. It proves that both are--or can be--very much a part of "Rock and Roll."

I thought you meant YOU were being willfully obtuse.

you don't mean "bad faith arguments" at all, either, you mean "arguments that contradict my untenable position that technical achievement is some be-all of music"

Not at all. I was separating two issues: taste and talent. I was pointing out that people often judge popular bands by a different set of criteria, quite irrationally.

Hating on bad critics, you mean? I had not actually even considered real critics until the thread started shifting that way. I was talking about your average guy in the kitchen at a party. Everyone's a critic.

Also, why do people who have obvious problems with reading comprehension get all huffy?

not huffy: just annoyed by bad faith arguments. The world in which "critics" dismiss Zeppelin and Floyd doesn't really exist, but you'd like to imagine it does. Cool! Go for it! Make sure Flipper is some critical darling in this world for good measure!

Or, I should say, that I thought Noodle Vague was pointing out that the people replying to me were being willfully obtuse and that I was a moron for not getting the joke and continuing with the thread.

The issue I brought up is rather uncontroversial and I have not swayed from it. People will call Band A "talentless hacks" who are merely aping a previous band in the same breath that they suggest Band B (who is also merely aping) does the whole shtick much better. So, does that not make Band B also talentless hacks?

yup...these critics with no talent, especially Lenny Kaye, sure did hate on the ol' Zepmeisters

so do people standing around the water cooler, everybody just hates on Led Zep all day

This leads to breaking down every song into a hopeless morass of soloing and grandstanding in the case of Zep, and the slow pondorous enunciation of utterly toe-curling banalities in both. Of the two, I prefer Zep: their music has a texture that occasionally reminds you they used to be the Yardbirds, and 'Rock'N'Roll' could almost have been a T.Rex b-side.

But the hell with them both. They were technically very competent musicians. So what? Should I read a writer becase they could REALLY type? Oh yeah, and FLIPPER RULE!

-- Soukesian (byakhee200nospa...), October 16th, 2005.

Not according to scott seward: MOST critics have nothing but good things to say about led zeppelin.

I wouldn't like to "imagine" this world exists. As I said, real critics don't use such panning language. But, everybody's a critic and the guy in the kitchen at the party will dismiss Zep, Floyd, and whoever else in the blink of an eye as "talentless hacks." This is the "world" I'm talking about, FFS.

xpost: LESTER BANGS, that is who I was talking about before. Couldn't think of his name.

No, not if they're doing it so much better than Band A, perhaps adding different elements then it doesn't seem such a strange thing to say. What's so difficult to understand about that to use Zep as an example hundreds of bands were using the blues as a basis from which to develop a sound in the early 70's. Just because they all listened to Cripple Melon Robertson doesn't mean that the results are going to be of equal worth.

the horror!!

Talent: A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment.
1. Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality.

I'd like to know how this contradicts my statements about popular opinion regarding talent, as opposed to taste. One person proclaiming something "superior" is the equivalent of someone saying something is great "because I said so," which is really more of a taste issue. This is what bad critics do. Popular opinion declaring something of superior quality is the very essence of how we coin words and phrases that mean anything we can all agree on.

No, I'm afraid I thought you were being wilfully obtuse. I'm not so sure now, but the point is that your original question looked to me and everybody else here like you were saying that unless you've sold millions of albums you're unqualified to criticise an artist who has. That's nonsense, and you didn't defend your argument that talent was objectively measurable either. What seems to be left is that some people sometimes make badly thought out criticisms of bands. That's not news. I think you ought to consider the difference between rhetoric and truth statements, too.

Anyone who disagrees is a dismissive kitchen guy at a party type critic.

Pink Floyd? They just suck. B I G T I M E ! ! !

Get me a beer - you are all my bitches.

Ha, I read that backwards. Sorry for the misquote, Scott. I was thinking about how they were generally panned in the 70s (so I hear) and thought you were referring to this.

Zep Floyd: You are now seeing what happens when you set up a bunch of straw men and then proceed to beat the hell out of them. Where are your "everyone hates Zep/Floyd" quotes? Where's your evidence that those people are indeed hacks and lesser musicians? Just saying that if you praised Led Zep, you're sure someone would call them douchebags doesn't count as an argument. Now stop being retarded and fighting imaginary Zep hating enemies. Christ.

With smaller indie or punk acts, it's almost chic to be reminiscent of something else. They are not always accused of being talentless hacks that steal licks and ideas off prior musicians. They are congratulated for it.

Of course there is a fine line (see Strokes, Interpol, White Stripes)... or does this center around mega-popularity status and hype, too? Remember Kingdom Come?

As you said above 'Talent: A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment', so if Band B is producing work which people find more artistically accomplished than Band A then they are more talented.

I never specifically said the guy in the kitchen was the guy talking about Flipper. I was actually thinking about a middle aged friend of my woman's dad who plays in a cover band and is constantly calling bands like Zeppelin or Floyd "talentless hacks." Back in college, I did know plenty of people who would go on about Flipper and pan Led Zeppelin, but as I said, this was just a "punk vs. hippy" example.

Zep Floyd: You are now seeing what happens when you set up a bunch of straw men and then proceed to beat the hell out of them. Where are your "everyone hates Zep/Floyd" quotes? Where's your evidence that those people are indeed hacks and lesser musicians? Just saying that if you praised Led Zep, you're sure someone would call them douchebags doesn't count as an argument. Now stop being retarded and fighting imaginary Zep hating enemies. Christ.

"Straw men." Use other words, please. As for the rest of this dribble, by the responses thus far, it is clear that many of us are generally aware of the situation. Can't you have a conversation without being a didactic tool? Always with the "straw men arguments" and the "backpedaling" on the internet.

If that is the case, but it isn't always.

Again with the strawman. In this case, you've got the "strawman" arguement wrong, though. I am not using talent as a yardstick to judge acts. I am simply differentiating talent and taste. I judge based on taste, personally.

They were not generally panned in the seventies. I have provided a couple of examples already; more are readily available. There was the occasional pan which you will also be able to dig up, but the general reception was favorable. That's why people are saying "straw man": your premise is only valid in an imaginary world of angry failed musicians who criticise others out of frustration. Most critics are actually people who enjoy writing about music, trying to understand and describe why they do or don't like it. And JC is on the money: a "discussion" that involves a false premise and the spirited defense thereof really isn't a noble end.

I should say "I wasn't ORIGINALLY talking about professional critics or talented critics" but the discussion drifted that way due to misunderstanding.

you were wrong when you said that, too, though! of course they do!

http://leacasey.tripod.com/eaturnips/thumbnails/400x300/catinabottle.jpg

No they don't, not real critics. And I did qualify that statement, so please don't come back with a quote from some college kid writing for Shockscrotum.

But now, in your catalog of fallacies, you're "begging the question."
Bad critics are ones that use phrases like "talentless hacks" and using "talentless hacks" makes you a bad critic.

But yeah, you just swing away, dude. Never admit you're in a quagmire.

Ben Foster certainly had a knack for getting his opinions across in an entertaining and often convincing fashion in Maximum Rock N' Roll, but the fact that he can write an entertaining piece of trash does not make him a good critic. In fact, he's quite a bad critic, despite the fact his opinions may be revered and respected by some people. He also coincidentally wrote the song "I Hate Led Zeppelin." Henry Rollins is also quite an opinionated and expressive chap, but I'm I supposed to take his opinions as seriously as I would Ebert & Siskel? Because I doubt he is as objective.

Signed,
The Real Zep Floyd.

Signed,
The Real Zep Floyd

others: zep floyd the basic assumptions on which you've built your argument are false!
zep floyd: victory is mine!

1.) Much agreement was had by all midpoint in this thread when Noodle Vague summed up my point thusly:

Some people sometimes make badly thought out criticisms of bands. That's not news.

2.) "Because I said so" is a bullshit assessment of talent, which is what one person's assessment of another's is.

3.) Any critic that succumbs to panning tactic in point 2 by calling someone a "talentless hack" is therefore a talentless hack of a critic.

Banana, you never pointed out "X being the case" while actually being correct therefore of course I denied it. Read title: "critics with no talent." Reread first post, also. It says everything that needed to be said. Everything I have responded to was you people reading into things and letting your imagination take the reins on a wild goose chase.

Signing off, losers who keep on a-registering my names!
— The Real Zep Floyd

(you can't "beat" me fairly, so I guess you have to cheat... you're pathetic.)

blount that was pretty opaque

"3.) Any critic that succumbs to panning tactic in point 2 by calling someone a "talentless hack" is therefore a talentless hack of a critic."
Which makes you a talentless hack critic critic! OH NO! INTERNET RECURSION SINGULARITY WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

Pffft. Give me one break, as you kids like to say. I win, you lose. I'm top gun.

http://www.forat.com/pictures/mpc/1%20Forat%20Clients%20folder/Slaughter.jpg

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/couriernews/focus/temple/album.jpg

Now, is that what was discussed here at all, you little nimrod?

xpost: Spirit is barely okay. Actually, not really. I don't like them. I wanted to, but I don't.

http://www.freeih.com/imgs/OMG.JPG

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000002NIH.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

http://www.dvdes.ch/images/pics/b_1000167502.jpg

It must be lonely to be a fan of all that dumb obscure shit and a fan of Pink Floyd's, too.

I guess somehow this is relevant to the discussion because it involves music, right?

Now, is that what was discussed here at all, you little nimrod?

Actually, yeah, it was. Can't you fucking read?

Actually, no, it wasn't. Can't you fucking read? If a critic doesn't subscribe to PUBLIC OPINION re: talent, etc. then they are a bad critic. Public opinion obviously holds an opinion re: "talent." And that opinion is precisely the standard by which I judge what "talent" is.

What's the matter, couldn't be bothered to find the picture? It's oh so much more clever when someone goes to lengths to express oneself with just the right picture of a guy holding a sign.

I don't like mittens. I prefer gloves.

This is literally the most idiotic thing I have read in months, except for that love letter from your dad.

http://b4ta.com/images/jealous-cats.jpg

Because you're a complete imbecile, I can help you. A single person's opinion regarding "talent" = "because I said so," which is no standard to measure anything by. Therefore, it is reduced to a matter of personal taste. Public opinion = overwhelming consensus and it is overwhelming consensus that arrives at the meaning of certain words like "talent" in the first place.

http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/cuttysark/156/roger1.gif

http://mccullough.smugmug.com/photos/13018627-M.jpg

Relevance? None.

I know this because a great many people told me so, and I respect their opinions enough to not form one myself.

Who were these people and was it indeed the majority? Because, if so, you are mistaken and therefore your idiotic joke is pointless.

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/232/4656/640/air%20guitar.jpg

Were these people a majority? Yes, I counted. And when Venom and Bach were introduced, they still remained the largest plurality. Though we counted Dokken as "undecided."
You say that Mozart was better than Slaughter, but what makes you an expert? Were Slaughter just talentless hacks to you? NOW YOU MUST DEFEND SLAUGHTER OR YOU WILL BE A BAD ROCK CRITIC!

That wasn't directed at you by the way, just a general comment.

And speaking of shit that doesn't matter: If some critic/musician doesn't like LZ/PF and is lazy in forming an opinion, who cares? Obviously s/he wasn't trying to carefully argue against the band, was merely preaching to the converted. And if the argument seemed sound, would that invalidate however many years you've enjoyed the music? No.

Yep Slaughter is better than Mozart in other ways too. Their mastery of electrical guitar and bass alone proves that. Mozart = zero electrical guitar skill. Case closed.

polyphonic, this is not about Led or Floyd. You must realize this thread was vandalized by morons.

This is a common slam against hip hop music, too. Some yokel will mouth off that they don't even play instruments, they just yell over some records. Yet, as many musicians will tell you, it's pretty fucking hard to get anything that sounds like music out of those dj electronics.

Politicians also inspire the same kind of polarized response - this could be for any number of reasons, but the most important factor is that the more people are aware of a concept, the more opinions are generated. There are probably a lot more Pink Floyd haters than Boredoms lovers, but who's to say that's not just because millions more people have *heard* Pink Floyd than Boredoms.

This also doesn't taken into account the number of haters who were, at one time, lovers - or the number of people who started out just not caring, but after 30 years of overexposure, are now haters. Pinning hate on just a couple of things (like jealousy or rebellion) is like pinning love on just a couple of things. It's reductive to the point of making three-dimensional phenomena two-dimensional.

"Banana, you fool!"

In any case, if I was going to guess why someone did or didn't hate a band, I'd be more likely to start with external things, like the circumstances they first heard the music, or the music their friends were listening to, or etc etc sociology etc, rather than just saying "you're just jealous" or "you're just rebelling".

am I right in guessing that you've had this theory for a while now and that it totally sucks to learn that it's not really valid?

i still can't figure out what the Original Zep Floyd is trying to get out. but pally, you just better get some better definitions of talent and art or yr ulcer's just going to get worser and worser. and untill you start to realize that social context has EVERYTHING to do with how people form opinions on music and bands and then how they voice them, there is no point in arguing. it's quite a minefield you've created and strolled back into.

and damn you anthony miccio for gettting to the laughter joke so before me

it may be, perhaps, the well over 100 pages dedicated to Zeppelin/Floyd in Mojo and Uncut (alone) every year, when pleanty of other things are going on that drives the attacks by bad critics, non-musicians, etc.

nothing really to do with talent at all, a lot to do with boredom.

christ, now i feel like johnny rotten.

No it wasn't. We already covered this in the beginning of the thread when someone asked how many records you had to sell before you were "critic-proof."

I thought the dictionary definitions would be good enough. Hmm.

and untill you start to realize that social context has EVERYTHING to do with how people form opinions on music and bands and then how they voice them, there is no point in arguing.

Realize? Friend, that's exactly what this thread is about.

A: Who cares?

silly Alice, you can't trust books. not with all these people walking around.

So, o.k. if were talking social context, you are going to have to toss out the notion that you can define good or bad and/or talent or hackability.
People are going to knock on yr fave's. And they're going to use terms like "no talletns hacks" "ham-fisted" "ego worshiping" and so forth to refer to the bands they feel are esclipsing a band/genre they find far more complelling.

Sadly, this is just the way it is.

Just like the fact that old pillars of rawk are gonna hang around and make it hard for other "otherly-talented" musicians to grab an ear. If you honestly want to talk about why you think Zeppeling rocks (and damned straight, they can do) then do it. But right now yr, just encouraging the culture of complaining.

This sentence pretty much tells me everything I need to know about this thread.

Please direct me to exactly where I made the claim that public and critical opinion did not support Led Zeppelin. In fact, I have stated just the opposite repeatedly by saying pulbic opinion approves of them and agrees they have talent. That is the point.

the ultimate answer:

because they can.

http://content.ytmnd.com//60000/60849/image.gif

Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen, 251 answers and we're back to where we began!

Floyd and Zep get "panned" for being bloated, pompous rock dinosaurs who fatuously wallowed in needless rock excess and became intolerably boring as a result. Their talent isn't really the point. They, and many of their prog/arena peers represent an old guard that was sorely in need of being put out to pasture.

Well, I'm not talking exclusively about their sound (and, by the way, I'm a fan of both Zeppelin and Floyd -- I don't condone the "Year Zero" mentality -- and that's what this is, btw -- I'm just trying to explain it), I'm talking about their whole aesthetic. That Zeppelin sold albums dressed up in with hugely complicated sleeve art (witness the spinning cover of Led Zeppelin III or the multi-faceted covers of In Through the Out Door) and travelled around in their own jetliner (dubbed "the Starship") and partook of groupie-exploitation worthy of pillaging Visigoths,....all of that stuff makes them guilty of being the very breed of rockstar that was giving "rock" a bad name. How can John Q. Greasemonkey working at Abe's Autobody relate to Robert Plant and Jimmy Page when they're prattling on about Kashmir and getting blown by Pamela Des Barres while sniffing a swastika of fine, Peruvian cocaine off of her comely decolletage? This is why god invented the Ramones.

LZ usually had pretty great ones though.

Also the "Punk = prole" argument I don't think has ever really held water because it's always been an elite form and subculture (a hell of a lot more eggheads own Ramones albums than J.Q. Greasemonkeys did/do and the freak/weirdo/intellectual set were way quicker to latch onto them than "the kids" were, as Joey has noted).

If that don't say it all.

Well, so do I. Once again, I don't subscribe to the damning of rock dinosaurs,...especially so long after the fact. The first time I saw Public Image Ltd. (at the since-torn down Palladium on 14th Street on the Album tour, the band -- with Lu Edmonds and Joh McGeoch both on guitar -- before Lydon came out, the band busted into a rendition of "Kashmir" (Lydon didn't sing, sadly). Maybe this was a piss-take, but I doubt it. Lots of the strident Punks had prog skeletons in their closet (Pat Smear of the Germs was a closet Yes fan, Lydon loved Beefheart and Van Der Graff Generator, Big Paul Ferguson of Killing Joke cites King Crimsona and Yes and influences, etc. etc.)

Zep and Floyd are simply easy targets. You'd be hard pressed to launch an argument that a player like Dave Gilmour was "talentless". It's what Zep, Floyd and their ilk represent that earns them spite from certain quarters.

Flipper were great, but comparing them to Floyd and Zep is like comparing a power drill to a rowboat. Apart from both using somewhat similar instrumentation and both being comprised of white males, they have absolutely nothing in common.

Fair point. Still, regardless of one's intellectual or social stature, the then-novel simplicity and urgency of Punk still conceivably held a refreshing appeal over the then rather trad and tired likes of the bloated arena rock.

ha! I love this!

AC/DC: 4 albums reviewed, zero stars each.

Led Zeppelin: 8 albums reviewed; 1 gets five stars, 4 get four stars, 3 get three stars.

Pink Floyd: 12 albums reviewed; 1 gets five stars, 2 get four stars, 4 get three stars, 3 get two stars, 2 get one star.

What was the question again?

You don't like "In the Evening"? What are you, a communist?

Well, it was inspired by the Troggs tape, Motorhead, Jeff Beck and Saxon, or so legend has it.

no matter how talented zeppelin were (and there just can't eb a fight there), there is plenty of stuff out there as good made by musicians as talented. theres shedloads of art out there (and oceans of nonart). the problem with the dinosaurs is that they stand at the end of a very straight yardstick.

And In Through the Out Door is a great album.

Probably so. I think classic rock grew older with the audience and by the time things started to shift that audience was probably not a bunch of kids anymore and some of the people who had stuck with it might've been bored by it at this point. When I was young, I thought LZ and PF really sucked. I just didn't get it. I remember I instantly liked the Stones, though (Undercover of The Night, Waiting On A Friend, Start Me Up) and Black Sabbath (Luke's Wall), but what kid wouldn't be attracted to these direct themes and simple, catchy beats? When I heard LZ or PF, I just remember wondering what the point of it was. The punk vibe must have been refreshing to hear back then. None of this matters much to me now of course. I grew up on punk.

That is amazing!

Led Zeppelin: 8 albums reviewed; 1 gets five stars, 4 get four stars, 3 get three stars.

That's more like it. And here I was just reading the other day on ILM that they got a lot of shit from critics and it wasn't until much later that they got so huge.

Robert Plant says stuff on the live bootlegs a lot about what people are writing about them. He doesn't make much of a point though, so I don't know what he means by anything. And then he turns around and calls John Bonham "Joan Baez" and says they invented punk when they were teens in 1971 and appears to mock peace-loving hippies, so I have no idea what they were all about, really.

What was the question again?
Why are bands with so much talent so often panned by lesser musicians with so little talent or, worse yet, critics with no talent?

Actually, they were pretty well reviewed in their day, for the most part; I'm not sure why people think otherwise.

Black Sabbath (one 2-star album, seven 1-star albums) and Nazareth (one 2-star album, eight 1-star albums) do almost as bad as AC/DC in that book. (And actually, more than a quarter century later, most rock critics *still* have no idea how great Nazareth were.)

I think "Love Hurts" threw the scent.

My God, you can't understand how Zep was bloated?

I own zero LZ cds and only 2 cassettes. Only recently did I bother to download some live shows. It is possible that the album you speak of is "bloated," but I wouldn't know. My familiarity with LZ comes in the form of roommates' box sets as opposed to albums, the live shows I've downloaded and watching the Song Remains The Same once. The question for me is, "bloated compared to what?" It seems like anything that aspires to more than 3 chords is bloated.

And they stole the melody from Howard Werth and the Audience.

Here's something I just found about the infamous Tolkien references:
by ramthar on 07-29-2002 @ 05:20:53 PM
there are no songs by Led Zeppeling that are exclusively ABOUT Lord of the Rings or any of Tolkien's work, but "Ramble On", "Misty Mountain Hop", "No Quarter", "Stairway To Heaven", "Battle of Evermore", and "Over the Hills and Far Away" are all Zeppelin songs that have allusions to Tolkien. the Tolkien allusions are but one ingredient in the soup of themes that make up many Zeppelin songs. Zeppelin also takes from various things in the occult (magic, tarot cards, etc..), personal experiences, history of Scotland, Wales and the rest of the U.K., C.S. Lewis, WW II, American and British Folklore, and innumerable other experiences. and thinkitbeit is right, this song can be about anything IF you try hard enough, but that certainly doesn`t mean that is the true meaning or original basis for the song. few if any songs are really meant to "mean whatever you want it to mean, man", but people always seem to want to stretch and mold songs written by others to mean something different to them, but that doesn`t make it right.

And this sentiment is certainly expressed by the band in interviews when they "explain" their work.

Revisionism.

So... Basically, this thread is all "I just discovered Led Zep and I don't understand why people make fun of me for thinking that the drum solo in Ocean should be, like, 14 minutes longer!"

The reason? Because not everyone who listens to it is high. Though everyone playing it certainly is.

I had a coworker who could related EVERY Zep song to Tolkien, and made it into a pretty good riff.

Ha, no not at all. It was just a concept for a thread and I used these as examples. I like how your immediate first response is that I must be a diehard LZ fan and when you find out I'm not, you assume this other crap. This thread was not really about LZ and PF. Get it through your head.

Neither. It's the music and the singing, not really the lyrics. Although those examples you cite elicit spring and renewal, which are not bad lyrics, imo and overall the pastiche of the lyrics is suitable and lovely. I prefer it to those of "Highway To Hell."

Revisionism.

It's not revisionism in the slightest, Alfred. All that crappy pop music you lap up like a deluded kitten has gone to your brain. How else do you explain the appeal of Punk Rock? People were tired of the trad, bloated norms and perked up when they heard something comparatively fresh and different.

I prefer it to those of "Highway To Hell."

You keep coming back to the AC/DC comparisons. Zep and AC/DC are completely different bands, man. Yes, they're both heavy and blues-based, but Zep aspired to musical terrains AC/DC couldn't give less of a fuck about.

What I assumed is that you set up a straw man, commenced beating him, and then were annoyed that no one else wanted to join in. At least I learned that Slaughter was better than Mozart (though, honestly, I've never seen Mozart live. Slaughter knew how to rock though.)

We're not talking about these guys, are we?

http://www.cdshakedown.com/1994_pictures/mozart.jpg

...who later changed their name to the Flys and "went alternative".

My grandmother could rock harder than Slaughter.

Well sure, some people were...but even a cursory glance at sales figures should tell you that Animals sold a hell of a lot more (and to this date probably still has) than The Clash.

x-post.

For a start, she was Granny, not Gramma, and she passed away before ever hearing the `Joke, but she used to kick out the jams to Edith Piaf and Jacques Brel.

>Everyone knows that Back in Black is AC/DC's magnum opus. <

Wrong two times.

I'm home now; don't have the RS guide with me anymore. Will try to remember to look up Queen and Gentle Giant and Grinderswitch tomorrow.

This perception has always been hysterically entertaining groupthink. Punk rock had no or virtualy no audience in the hinterlands when it was in the offing, at the time everyone posits there was this big turnaway from "trad, bloated norms." It didn't replace anything. The stock arena draws were still stock arena draws from '77 to well into the 80's and punk rock wasn't on the ticket much. This was when bands like Styx, Journey, Ted Nugent, Journey, ZZ Top Halen were huge. Even the Blackfoots did better than punk rock. Any basic classic hard rock boogie band could do better -- the Head Easts, the Kansases, the Shooting Stars and REOs, had fans or fans as young, and did do better.

And I liked a lot of punk rock.

Often, I'll see second and third tier classic rock bands reminiscing on their websites -- if all the members are still alive and often even if not -- about punk rock or disco supplanting their careers. Usually, this wasn't the case, it was a convenient excuse. Their record company killed their careers by getting tired of them or deciding to part ways after eight albums without any breakthough point.

I don't think so. I don't think it was until MTV and the invention of the "Rock of the '80s" radio format that new wave even started to have much of an impact if we're talking about "kids." In the U.S., anyway.

xp

-- Tim Ellison (thefriendlyfriendlybubbl...), October 17th, 2005. (Tim Ellison)

I meant it came in at the same time and place in their lives - 13, 14, 15 years of age. I know in my case, from about 1979-1984 I went straight from MOR top 40 to disco to punk rock.

And as for the MTV-Rock of the '80s effect, George is, after all, talking about groups such as Styx, Journey, ZZ Top and Van Halen, who would fit right in with that starved-of-new-fans-by-new-wave-and/or-punk timeline, no?

No, basically that didn't happen in my neck of the woods for the first gen bands and even the nascent punk rock bands out of LA in the late '70's and early 80's. Why? Most of the acts just didn't have any distribution or publicization that reached that potential audience. Certainly not like the classic rock acts. Being hailed in Creem magazine or the beginning section of Rolling Stone didn't do anything for people.

Well into the end of the Eighties and even the early Nineties the Ramones weren't by any means an arena draw. They had worked up an audience by then, and it was a reliable and fanatical one, but it wasn't made up of younger kids who at the time who had gotten into them because it was a different music than their older siblings. It was much more complicated with a substantial number of fans still accumulated from those who bought their first albums.

So they could draw 250-500, sometimes even 750, reliably in dirt bag large clubs in Pennsy during the time. That's good but not tremendous and lots of declining classic rock bands did way better during the same period. I covered them for the local newspaper and the audience was always the same -- remarkably stable for a long period with no obvious growth. There would be younger kids getting into them but it was never a case during that long period of a younger generation discovering them as their older family members had gotten into Kansas or Journey. Never happened.

Which third-tier classic rock bands think is a bad thing (because it deprived them of a next - not quite a generation, but a sub-generation - of fans).

Yeah, agreed, many did. But that was delusion. Mostly, they didn't have a strong enough audience to sustain in the first place and were often supported by the ability to tour regularly and get on large bills. Classic examples were Grinderswitch, whom I've mentioned, and even better, The Rockets out of Detroit. The Rockets were musos and highly regarded and, for their second album, scored some significant airplay nationwide -- not really a hit -- with a remake of "Oh Well."

That got them into sales statistics in excess of most punk rock bands and into the arena circuit as regular supporting act. But they were never able to build upon that and after half a dozen records or so record companies ran out of patience with them and the band broke up.
And it wasn't because of disco or punk rock. It was just normal business, the long shot of making a go of it.

And (in accordance with my mention the Reds every chance you get policy), I'm kind of cheating by mentioning the Reds, since I only heard "Self Reduction" on commercial radio ONE time. ("Who Listens to the Radio" by the Sports? Maybe four or five times, tops. And I listened to the radio CONSTANTLY that year.) (One record that WAS bigger than younguns might realize was Ian Hunter's *You're Never Alone With a Schizophrenic,* oddly -- but then, more than a couple old hard rockers had been Mott the Hoople fans, I presume.)

And JS, yeah, by 1980 or so you could dance to B-52s or Devo at the bowling alley disco near 15 Mile (see also: *Freaks and Geeks*), and by 1981 (if not sooner) Electrifying Mojo was playing them alongside Prince and Kurtis Blow and Billy Squier and Kraftwerk and Yellow Magic Orchestra on his Midnight Funk Association show on WGPR (for funk fans, though, not for very many rock fans, which is important.) And Mike Halloran started up a special Sunday night show called *Radios in Motion,* and you could also go see punk bands at Bookie's, duh, and maybe later if you went to see Depeche Mode or Bauhaus or whatever you'd see Derek May or Kevin Saunderson or Juan Atkins standing in the corner (or so people tell me). But compared to the Pine Knob Seger and Journey and Styx fans, the new wavers were never all that big a group then, believe me. (Trust me, I was one.)

What kind of reviews did Rolling Stone give Alice Cooper and Motorhead?

What I assumed is that you set up a straw man, commenced beating him, and then were annoyed that no one else wanted to join in.

One of many assumptions you've made that are all pointless and irrelevant.

xxpost: Zep Floyd: My assumptions are pointless? If I had a point like yours, I'd wear a hat.

That's funny because he told me he was in it for the dudes.

Floydster: No, that was why he was into Mott The Hoople.

Let me get to your major beef here, jackass, so you can go die in peace.

Where are your "everyone hates Zep/Floyd" quotes? Where's your evidence that those people are indeed hacks and lesser musicians?

Had I known this conversation was going to happen, I would have begun taping all the evidence for you back in '92.

As for my evidence that "those people are indeed hacks and lesser musicians"... who did I say that about? Any critic who would use the phrase "talentless hack"? Or Flipper? Slaughter? You may have inferred something which I didn't say because I like Flipper and I don't believe I came out and said anything bad about them. Rather, I pointed out that I have experienced the exact opposite in the past: Flipper fans putting down Led Zeppelin, specifically. I hung out with a lot of punk-oriented people and some of them read Maximum Rock N' Roll. But, this is only one example out of dozens: "Eric Clapton is god, Jimi Hendrix was a hack," "Allman Brothers were alright, but Grateful Dead sucked, but neither could hold a candle to blah, blah..." These conversations happened. I'm truly sorry for you that you are so distrustful that you suspect this is all some highly unlikely fantasy I've thrown together to... do what now? Create my own argument that I can win? Are you paranoid or something?

Just saying that if you praised Led Zep, you're sure someone would call them douchebags doesn't count as an argument.

It wasn't meant to be an argument. I thought was a self-evident, off the cuff remark. Certainly enough people piped in here just to share that same sentiment.

Now stop being retarded and fighting imaginary Zep hating enemies. Christ.

Have you ever heard the song "I Hate Led Zeppelin?" Have you ever been to my inlaws house on Christmas eve? Were you secretly always there behind me and have you seen my pp? Because it shrinks, you know.

"As for my evidence that "those people are indeed hacks and lesser musicians"... who did I say that about? Any critic who would use the phrase "talentless hack"? Or Flipper? Slaughter? You may have inferred something which I didn't say because I like Flipper and I don't believe I came out and said anything bad about them."
Uh... I believe that you said that about people who pan bands that you like. If you can just look up at the top of the page for a second, right where that title is... Yeah. Thanks.
But we all like Flipper. That's good to know.

"Are you paranoid or something?"
I'm not the one who has to create arguments that they can win on the internet, man.

"Have you ever heard the song "I Hate Led Zeppelin?" Have you ever been to my inlaws house on Christmas eve? Were you secretly always there behind me and have you seen my pp? Because it shrinks, you know."
Nope. Nope. Nope. And I'm the paranoid one? Sorry to hear about your cock, though.

"Flipper fans putting down Led Zeppelin, specifically."

Those damned Flipper fans, always making fun of Led Zep! Hey, maybe they just don't like the Zep. That is possible, y'know? But there's no evidence that they're lesser musicians for believing so, and there are scores of lesser musicians that love the Zep. So I think you're exaggerating this epidemic of Zep hatred. Especially when you consider that there's, like, one Flipper fan for ever 10,000 Zep fans.

"I hung out with a lot of punk-oriented people and some of them read Maximum Rock N' Roll."
I hung out with Mexican dishwashers, and they hated Motley Crue. I'm not sure how many of them read Maximum Rock 'n' Roll. (I know that I barely ever read it, since there were always better magazines out there...)

I had thought you realized what a douche you were before, but since you began harping on the same ill-conceived issues, I realized I was wrong.

Uh... I believe that you said that about people who pan bands that you like.

Wrong. Bands "with so much talent" does not equal "bands I like." Getting it yet, twat? Remember how we got into that whole thing about "what is talent" and "how do you judge talent?" Remember how I explained why I don't call bands that I simply don't like "talentless hacks" for, like, 2/3 of this thread and how I differentiated between "talent" and "taste" without once confusing the two?

I'm not the one who has to create arguments that they can win on the internet, man.

I believe you are, actually. You created an argument that previously didn't exist. When we get down to it, nothing but agreement was had on your points of contention.

Those damned Flipper fans, always making fun of Led Zep! Hey, maybe they just don't like the Zep. That is possible, y'know? But there's no evidence that they're lesser musicians for believing so, and there are scores of lesser musicians that love the Zep. So I think you're exaggerating this epidemic of Zep hatred. Especially when you consider that there's, like, one Flipper fan for ever 10,000 Zep fans.

Actually, you see, this is what happens when YOU try to piece together both sides of an argument YOU made up. The "lesser musicians" I was talking about were 40-something year old guys in cover bands, not the Flipper kids. Although the Flipper Kids didn't know anything but power chords, if that, so it's fair to say that they were lesser musicians than Led Zeppelin, too.

I think it is you who is exaggerating this "epidemic" of Zep hatred because I never called it an epidemic or made anywhere near as big of a deal out of it as you have. PF and LZ were two convenient examples, that is all.

"Wrong. Bands "with so much talent" does not equal "bands I like."

Right. It involves bands that you have decided are talented, according to a democratic consensus. Which means that as long as anyone can back up why they think that these bands aren't talented with a reasonable argument, they're just as entitled to that opinion.

Then you bloviated for a while, called me a twat, and basically twisted your panties until you were unable to sit.

"I think it is you who is exaggerating this "epidemic" of Zep hatred because I never called it an epidemic or made anywhere near as big of a deal out of it as you have."
You posted about it, not me, drama queen. If it wasn't some trend or something you thought merited discussion because it was a common enough experience, why the fuck did you post it?
I would advance my "like to make up arguments to win on the internets" hypothesis again.

Basically, the question I posed was intended to express exactly these sentiments: "Being a lesser musician now for the last 20 years, it wouldn't seem right for me to pan any accomplished musician as a 'talentless hack,' but I see lots of other arrogant SOB's doing it. Where does it come from, this arrogant sense of superiority? What is this all about that someone who (for instance) can't play a lick of music, knows nothing about music theory and has only been on this planet for (let's say) 20 years thinks he knows fuck all about music? That he thinks he is fit to even judge Kenny G., John Tesh or some other easy target? Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd are classic easy targets, but why? Is it jealousy? Rebellion?"

Anyone is entitled to any opinion regardless of how wrong they are. This issue was never in question.

And the answer to that is "People often call bands they don't like 'talentless hacks' the same way I call you a 'douchenozzle'— in a figurative and descriptive way." You're clearly not literally a retard, and yet the way you're acting reminds me of one.
Further, since there are just as many talentless (or "lesser talented" if we must be PC) musicians who love great bands, talented bands, and shitty bands, untalented bands, that there's no real correlation between anything here. Why do some people call President Bush an moron? He's clearly intelligent enough to get elected and exercize power, even though I disagree with his policies. Should only presidents who have won two terms be allowed to call him a moron?
Why do you even care?

Please prove that. Come on, where's your proof?! We need evidence, man! Evidence! Remember? I happen to know for a fact that the people I'm thinking of were not being figurative and descriptive, but completely condescending and dismissive.

Why do you even care?

More importantly, why do you? You jumped in with both feet. I didn't push you. And you're clearly enjoying yourself. So get off the high horse.

I just find it interesting. Bizarre. And annoying if I get sucked into a real heated debate about Jethro Tull vs. Grateful Dead and I can't leave, don't really care either way, but find myself biting my tongue as I'm getting drunk, which is a time I don't want to be censoring my thoughts and watching I don't offend one of your inlaws.

Conversation generally goes like this:
A: so and so is a talentless hack
B: yeah?
A: yeah, its bullshit, man, do you like 'em?
B: they're alright
A: oh, they suck
B: well, I like 'em
A: it's all just scales, anyone can do that shit... and off-key... oh you should've seen some of the shows I got dragged to...
B: well, they still wrote and recorded the songs
A: pfft. yeah and they suck!
B: but I like 'em (laughing, frustrated)!
A: anyone can write songs like that
B: you keep saying that, but if anyone could everyone would--
A: and everyone DID, that's what I'm saying!
B: no they didn't, I don't know anyone who sounds like that. Did YOU write any songs like that? How many of your songs were hits?

etc.

This is great. I just noticed this. You're still trying to correlate a level of talent with a matter of taste, as if what I was suggesting is that panning talented musicians is only something untalented people do. I mean, that's hilarious! You still can't understand the actual words in the thread title!

Here's a riddle for you (and for you, it definitely is a riddle):
If you know nothing about biology, do you have any reason to feel you are a superior biologist? If you know nothing about biology, is it WRONG to appreciate a biologist's knowledge?

http://www.furry.org.au/Drhoz/other/biology/elleand%20flipper.jpg

You're back to your bullshit assertions. Lemme go a little Tolstoy on you: A musician is a talentless hack if he can't make me appreciate, with no musical training, the point of his composition.

And hey, you know nothing about being a critic. How can you judge whether someone's assertion that, say, Zep are talentless hacks, is good criticism until you know how to be a critic?
"Ah," you froth back, massaging your cock for emphasis, "the underlying act is creating the music, not critiquing it."
"Bullshit," I reply, watching you grasp for inarticulate ways to insult me, "the underlying act is appreciating the music. Communicating that is the secondary act, and by describing someone as a 'talentless hack,' I'm communicating my feelings on their performance. You can agree or disagree based on what you know of my tastes and the music."

But maybe if you had the balls to say that you liked something that someone else didn't like to their face instead of trying to set up bullshit wankfests on the internet, you wouldn't have all these discussions where the bad man asserts that someone you consider talented isn't. Disagree and give your reasons, or shut the fuck up and go back to crying yourself to sleep, cuntflaps. Either way, get offa the damn internet, since you're too much of a pussy to be on it without whining about some guy who likes Flipper making fun of your band or haircut or whatever.

Talk about a "bullshit argument"?!

You say: "How can you judge whether someone's assertion that, say, Zep are talentless hacks, is good criticism until you know how to be a critic? "the underlying act is appreciating the music. Communicating that is the secondary act, and by describing someone as a 'talentless hack,' I'm communicating my feelings on their performance. You can agree or disagree based on what you know of my tastes and the music."

This is why I brought Ben Weasel up immediately. Entertaining. Relevant. But not open-minded and well-rounded. Not a good critic. Someone you trust because he feels the same way as you. But who the fuck are YOU? You have every right to state your opinion, of course. But who the fuck are YOU, you worthless little worm?

Been drinking tonight?

*whispers* Guess what? I win, you lose. Still. Again. Repeatedly.

Let me pose a question for you that you can comprehend. It's not anything I'd normally bring up, but it's something you might normally infer, so here goes: Do talented people have any interests whatsoever?

go to bed.

It really is like that from my point of view. Hey, check out the first ever ILX post. You might learn something.

It's worse than I could've possibly imagined. I'm so sorry for you. I missed this before. I can understand now how you could be so pathetic and ridiculous... the chip on your shoulder, everything. I don't know what your relationship is like these days, but if you're still hogging and slumming with mumsy, tell her I said hello.

And aww, don't go slaggin' your ma just because I boned her. Your ma's been fucked by plenty of nice people. Even Wilford Brimley! He got that moustache in all right.

No, not when Tom quit his job; when Nude Spock preferred to lick peanut butter off his dog's balls.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/a/e/aes205/jackass.jpg

A : steve austin

Q? BU T WHAT ABOUT BIONIC WOMEN????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!

AHA! I HAVE PROVEDEN MHY POINS.

Anyway. Rolling Stone red book again:

Gentle Giant: one 4-star album, three 3-stars, three 2-stars, one 1-star.

Grinderswitch: four 2-stars.

Queen: three 3-stars, four 2-stars.

Alice Cooper: one 5-star (greatest hits), one 4-star (love it to death), three 3-stars, four 2-stars, three 2-stars, one 0-star (lace and whiskey)

Motorhead: No entry. (As I expected. As far as I can tell, nobody gave a shit about them in the States until the early '80s, at least.)

I won't repeat most of the tired arguments in this thread, but outside of the Bowery hardly anyone was listening to punk rock in the U.S; so the trad, bloated norm not only persisted well into decade's end, but never went away.

Ha, ha, man how apropos!

Thanks for the Rolling Stone updates. It almost seems to me as if they were out of touch back then, but surely they weren't. Things have just

out differently.

Enough people were, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it here today.

Bollocks