the crits hated Sabbath and Zep, so…

some people do not like Sab and Zep, just as some folks don't like ice cream or television. the point is that, if there is a consensus, then that consensus is that the crits were wrong about Zep and Sab.

(Making this up, I could be completely wrong)

Do they own a Tool t-shirt?

and to the Mods: I tried to look up a similar thread, but could not find something similar, and i wasn't sure what to search for…

I mean, I suppose they didn't hate them, but they sure didn't realise how important they'd become.

http://robertchristgau.com/xg/pnj/pjres71.php

physical graffiti, #25 pazz and jop in 1975:

http://robertchristgau.com/xg/pnj/pjres75.php

trans europe express, #30 pazz and jop in 1977:

http://robertchristgau.com/xg/pnj/pjres77.php

but yeah, sabbath never finished.

xpost

http://www.dickdestiny.com/blog/dickdestiny.html

It would also make it easier to spot likely-to-be-overlooked modern equivalents, if that's your bag.

In my unscientific recollection the line negative reviewers took on "Like A Rolling Stone", "Cold Sweat", Kraftwerk etc. is "This is very interesting/brave/a bold departure, but not actually good".

So that's the angle futurologists should look out for rather than "This suXoR".

Soo.... uh, Radiohead, then? ;-)

::ducks from ILX beatdown::

Although the critical consensus is more of a shrug than outright condemnation, and I genuinely can't imagine anyone being passionate about them in thirty years time - they'll be remembered as 'that band who did a number of pleasant songs that all sounded the same'.

http://www.creemmagazine.com/BeatGoesOn/BlackSabbath/BringYourMotherPt001.html

I don't know about the US press, but, from the bits and bobs I've read, the 70s UK rock press's take on James Brown was "This stuff all sounds the same/ he can't sing, he just makes funny noises/ where's the tunes?". Also reggae was repetitive and banal and just novelty pop music basically. Geir was born too late.

Actually, I came here to point out that Bangs got it right about Sabbath (and The Stooges... and VU... and "96 Tears"), but he made a career of being right about his unpopular choices, so I'm not sure he can be used as a bellweather of critical acclaim.

I liked your Stooges entry Scott, don't think I saw the Sabbath.

That first record was universally panned, but it's held up remarkably well. Hey Jealousy still sounds better than anything else on the radio.

Also, I hate to say it, but: Dave. Matthews.

Opeth on Damnation album, as 00s Led Zeppelin ?

Opeth and Mastodon are critics' bands, for crissakes.

James Brown wasn't taken remotely seriously by critics until the late '70s at least. Part of the reason was that the vast majority of his classic-era albums (most notably 'Live at the Apollo') were long out of print, and there were no decent singles comps to speak of. Plus, his impact on white radio (FM and AM) was negligble throughout his career.

But once a few prominent critics started pointing out that he really did have a hand in starting just about every R&B-related trend, and Polydor started getting his old stuff back on the market, the proper recognition came quickly.

They're pretty popular in Scotland too chuck.

Good thing too.

[Maybe faves with Metal/Rock writers, but not your typical "Indie Rock Robot" critic]

I don't see them in the top tier [top 40 albums] of Pazz & Jop !

60: Mastodon - 2004 Album
http://www.villagevoice.com/specials/pazznjop/04/albums_winners2.php

and

Opeth - Damnation
http://tinyurl.com/hxrkm
Only 3 critics voted for it, and one of them is on ILM [Scott Seward]

I don't think there is an equivalent to sabbath & zeppelin, anyway. Music, and music criticism is so different now - there's so much more of both of it, for one thing. I don't think there is a universally slated band like there used to be.

I checked out before the bitter end of last night's segment. Metal Mike Saunders certainly didn't have metal or Black Sabbath. We had gone over the issue of critical dismissal -- which was true but not all inclusive -- with producer Michael Warren in a weeks long series of private on-line discussions well ahead of the show. He was fair about it and since Saunders declined to go on TV, there was a limit
to what he could be included, which he said frankly. He flashed the picture of Saunders in 72 in Hollywood which was sent on the discussion list and took copy directly from what was posted. I have the transcript and there's no mistakes. It was an honest effort.

However, there were other howlers in the broadcast.

Deep Purple got shut out, so did Grand Funk, which everyone involved saw coming, sort of. So "Kiss Alive" was definitely not the "first live metal album." Both those acts had live albums prior to. Deep Purple was second-billed at California Jam in 1974 -- the festival drew around a quarter of a million and parts were broadcast on ABC -- and Blackmore and company were definitely on top of the game. DP's "Made in Japan" was '73, "Kiss Alive" was '75.

Another howler was Klosterman claiming all metal bands come from two "templates" -- right, dude -- either Sabbath or Zeppelin. The next major portrayal in the show was Alice Cooper. Explain that one, the Alice Cooper band being obviously its own animal, not influenced by either of the Brit acts.

The two write-ups prior to the show, on the critic coining of the term and some excerpts from reviews, are here:

http://www.dickdestiny.com/blog/2006/05/he-was-metal-man-before-you-left-in.html

http://www.dickdestiny.com/blog/2006/05/he-was-metal-man-before-you-ii-nothing.html

Metal bands finishing #79 and #60 in Pazz and Jop are critics bands by definition, believe me. (And how many negative Opeth or Mastodon reviews have you ever read, Martian?)

Seems to me 2pac gets a free ride as well, but what do I know.

2003
#15 albums - Get Rich or Die Tryin'
#5 singles - "In Da Club"

2005
#11 singles - "Hate It Or Love It" (The Game f/50 Cent)

He's received some particularly gushing reviews, too, such as this one from Rolling Stone on The Massacre.

anyway unfortunately some/most "Indie Rock" critic centric publications [both print/ webzines] pretend that Opeth and Mastodon don't exist by ignoring them and not reviewing their albums.

Pitchfork didn't even review Ghost Reveries.

Metacritic http://www.metacritic.com/music/
doesn't rate any Opeth or Mastodon albums.

rateyourmusic.com: top rated albums of the decade: 2000-2006
http://rateyourmusic.com/top_albums/b1_is_2000_and_b2_is_2006

including the 2nd most rated album of the decade:
Opeth - Blackwater Park (2001)

"Sabotage is not only Black Sabbath's best record since Paranoid, it might be their best ever. Even with the usual themes of death, destruction and mental illness running throughout this album, the unleashed frenzy and raw energy they've returned to here comes like a breath of fresh air."

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/blacksabbath/albums/album/170807/review/5946986/sabotage

Gordon Fletcher on Sabbath Bloody Sabbath:

"That's what Black Sabbath have always done for this believer, and in doing it again, Sabbath, Bloody Sabbath is nothing less than a complete success. Call it the blues of the decade, or heavy-metal—whatever the name for their music, Black Sabbath are a true Seventies band. (RS 154)"

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/blacksabbath/albums/album/227113/review/5946174/sabbath_bloody_sabbath

I'm having a hard time finding a *negative* Sabbath review from back in the day. Yeah, Christgau, but it's an admitted blind spot, and in his Mater of Reality review he points way back to 1971 as the year when critics learned to love them some Grand Funk.

"All Eyez On Me" received rather favourable reviews, didn't it?

Yet, 2Pac is still way bigger among his fans than among critics. (But so are Marillion, Rush, Grateful Dead and Michael Jackson too)

so jam bands and Dave Matthews are what the crits will be proved wrong about?

1) Huge fan base
2) Long career
3) Critically derided pretty much across the board (though there have been isolated exceptions, like always)
4) A musical innovator (even if everybody here, me included, hates his innovations)

So yeah, he's my pick for sure.

I don't think even today that they've since become critic darlings, but they've certainly gotten some degree of "seminal" status, despite being dismissed back in the day.

Yeah, from themselves and their label.

so maybe "Fall Out Boy is today's Nirvana" is OTM.

this is also the story of aerosmith, for what it's worth ...

I pointed out in the blog entries on Mike Saunders and the coinage of "heavy metal" that Michael Warren was never less than gracious. Saunders is a tough coot, always has been, but exchanges were never less than unfailingly sincere on both sides. A lot went back and forth.

However, what was left out -- whether it's the result of sins of commission or omission -- points out the limitations of a TV rockumentary. In a book or an article, no one's stuck with having ungranted permissions knee-capping the presentation. There are ways to work around it.

On the other hand, if you can't get rights to play music or rebroadcast film and tape, you can always find someone willing to talk about it. But I reckon it's a daunting job, maybe one a committee of superiors wouldn't always be supportive of.

My impression of the first segment is that it was boiled down to point to two tap roots of heavy metal -- Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin. That's simplistic and it's not really necessary to kick someone to death over it, it's just a fact. Ozzy, Iommi and Jimmy didn't invent everything. Lots of bands that were significant sellers at the time, or made significant records, either were left out, or had to be left out (?).

Grand Funk was a glaring omission. And if you bring in Grand Funk, you more or less have to talk briefly about Cream. The Yardbirds
influence was fairly easy to hear in big early metal bands, like Blue Oster Cult. Personally, I'd have liked to see something on the influence and inspiration of amp manufacturers, which was significant in shaping the sound. Early 70's metal wouldn't exist without Jim Marshall and imitators.

that first episode rilly sailed right through the '70s. next up is Priest and maiden, and I'm sure the remainder will linger on the sunset strip. not that that bothers me, but I woulda stretched it out a bit. that said, the hair days of sunset strip is one of VH1's big memes.

yeah, that occurred to me, yikes. red hot chili peppers (cringe) too, though i suppose they do have their critical backers. and as somebody said up above, tool. (i hate all of these bands. and honestly, i only trust people on this thread who are nominating music they *don't* like. much less conflict of interest that way.)

The analogy kinda fits, at least in that both were counterpoints to teen dance pop, but it seems nu-metal is taken far more seriously by its strongest adherents than stuff like Motley Crue. Hair metal was completely open about its own frivolousness; it is/was blatantly about nothing more than drugs and sex and booze and, just every one in a while, demon worship. Much of the nu/rap-metal took itself extremely seriously, though, as did a certain subset of their fans. That lame "they're saying what my black soul feels!" reaction could lend this shit greater weight and an unearned importance in the minds of those future kids, the very same future kids who will one day be making and/or criticizing whatever rock'n'roll evolves into.

they're unwillingness to fade away reminds me more of Aerosmith...also Keidis/Flea are sort of a Bro-Cal Steve Tyler/Steve Perry....

And I doubt any right-thinking person would. But I'm sure we all knew those dudes in high school who thought those inscrutable lyrics possessed great meaning. It's not the same as those people who thought Staind were singing for them, but in both situations too much emphasis is placed upon idiotic lyrics.

Okay, how about this: nu-metal in general may not be vindicated in the end, but a band like Korn might. They're still heinous, but they do still exist, and they have a sizable cult of completely obsessive fans. Of course they also better reviews than most of their peers, I believe.

and it seems very troubling that "they're saying what my black soul feels" is the standard by which every big teen-friendly rock group is judged. whether its rap-metal or emo, its not acceptable to evoke partying and pussy—the kids cannot let go of the idea that Nirvana was "real" and "important," and hair-metal was somehow false.

but I dunno—Kid Rock seemed to make partying and pussy appealing, but maybe the kids think he's played out. And do Fall Out Boy and the commercial emo bands ever sing about having a good time?

Manowar?

they won't talk about Manowar on the VH1 show. sigh.

Totally agree with you here. I'm not saying that hair metal is inferior to nu-metal, or any less serious in and of itself. Shit, Korn and Staind and the woe-is-me crowd just wants the public to think they take themselves more seriously than the Bullet Boys. I do think the Bullet Boys (or even bands that did it well) are probably less likely to passionately inspire people to make or write about music than something that tries to appeal to emotions/experiences beyond physical pleasure. And that inspiration is more likely to lead to future canonization of something we all know completely fuckin' sucks.

Anyway, I've easily exceeded my self-mandated word limit for the day.

The most recent example of this is U2 and I would imagine that Radiohead will receive the same treatment in a few years. Critics will ignore any pretentious and inane mistakes and treat it all as being brilliant and worth reading into.

And if current teenage boy trends get enough steam I would imagine Dream Theater getting acclaim along with Tool.

Ken Tucker - "former rock music critic at the Los Angeles Herald Examiner" - gives one star - "poor: records in which even technical competence is at question, or which are remarkably ill-conceived" - to every Black Sabbath alb from the debut up to Mob Rules (1981) in my revised (1983 blue cover) edition of the NEW Rolling Stone Record Guide 1983 eds. D. Marsh and J Swenson - Review begins "These would-be English Kings of Heavy Metal are eternally foiled by their stupidity and intractability" - it's a gd job, ken, that yr own s + p hasn't held YOU back!

In Christgau's record guide current hip untouchables like Can and John Fahey are relegated to a fairly unenthusiastic/indiff gloss in the back of the bk - so my guess is that some arty but largely ignored - if not actually despised - 'post' rock group/outsider will, in 20 years or so, seem ludicrously left out/marginalised

Somebody please post that godawful Rolling Stone pan of their second album PRONTO.

Moby. And Ween.

> Deftones?

Have the Deftones gotten bad reviews?

More critics bands. (And Moby fucking WON Pazz & Jop, for crissakes.) (Or finished second maybe? Well, one or the other.)

I think Dream Theater are a great nomination, though.

There's already a bit of this going on, with people praising the '94-'96 era of No Limit.

shit 98 was a real good year for this label. balls and my word, life or death, give it to em raw ------- solid classics

In metal circles, this is happening with records like Transilvanian Hunger, Hvis Lyset Tar Oss, In The Nightside Eclipse, None So Vile, The Oath Of Black Blood, Turn Loose The Swans - nowhere to be found in the annual lists of the metal mags at the time (which were filled with the likes of Machine Head, Fear Factory, Soundgarden, Obituary, The Almighty, Grip Inc, Corrosion of Conformity, etc), but they regularly turn op in retrospective best-of-90s lists. Also, deliberately lo-fi acts like Venom, Bathory and Hellhammer certainly had far more detractors in the early 80s than they have now.

Predicting is difficult, although "prole" dance producers are a safe bet. Marc Arcadipane already has his reappraisal, I guess producers with long careers like M.I.K.E., Laurent Veronnez, Tomcraft, Eric Prydz, Angello & Ingrosso, Gabry Ponte, Westbam or Full Intention are bound to get revalued sooner or later?

Gary Numan had one bad album after another between 1984/85-94.

I bet Tupac's rep follows the trajectory of the Doors rather than Zeppelin. He'll be absurdly over-romanticized by a certain group of high school kids (of all ages) and remembered for a few great singles by the rest of us.

In what world is Randy Newman not rock?

Going back to the original question, I think it was age than cleaved the great divide between rock critics and fans. The Marcus/Landau/Christgau generation were generally appalled by the music favored by emerging adolescents at the turn of the 60s/70s. Heavy rock sounded like a crude devolution of psychedelia to the first wave of baby boomers. What hath our counterculture wrought?

Greil Marcus reviewed Costello's first album in Rolling Stone as a double review with Newman's Little Criminals. So the future was here in 1977.

>Toby Keith...puts out great singles<

Not to mention much better albums (and singles) than Tupac. (But then, so did the Doors. The Doors/Tupac analagy sounds right, though.)

Ha, like Stephin Merritt! But I was referring to:
"No one even considers Randy Newman rock any more, do they?"

I think the "no one" is an overstatement, that's all. I'm guessing most under-thirties have only heard his goopy soundtrack stuff anyway, maybe "Short People."

this isn't really true--he had a steady run top 20 singles from 1965-70

had guitarist Steve Hunter, pre-Lou reed and Alice, and Johnny "Bee" Badjanek on the drooms…

http://robertchristgau.com/xg/pnj/pjres71.php

The real question is who today is the new "Joy of Cooking"- ranked #6 here, above Joni Mitchell, David Bowie, Sly Stone, Mahavishnu Orchestra, etc, etc...

So (as I look over the P&Js of yore), that'd be Shelby Lynne (2000), Manu Chao (2001), The Roots (2002), Drive-By Truckers (2003), hmmmmm The Arcade Fire maybe? (2004), and M.I.A. (2005), then?

Fantastic record. I love it about as much as I love all of Seger's pre-System singles, which I believe people around here were/are looking for. About three years back, I bought a nicely done CD-R at Rockitscientist (sp?) in NYC that was a compilation of, I believe, all his pre-System singles from '64 to '69.

it's not that it's a daunting job, it's that it goes against the very nature of the medium. doesn't matter which committee of superiors you have to deal with. when you're making tv, you need visuals. and when you're making music television, you need sound too.