Let’s just dive right in:
As Published In:
Rolling Stone:
September 17, 1970
The Critic:
Lester Bangs, with a review of Black Sabbath’s debut album
“Over across the tracks in the industrial side of Cream country lie unskilled laborers like Black Sabbath, which was hyped as a rockin’ ritual celebration of the Satanic mass or some such claptrap, something like England’s answer to Coven.”
“Well, they’re not that bad, but that’s about all the credit you can give them. The whole album is a shuck — despite the murky song titles and some inane lyrics that sound like Vanilla Fudge paying doggerel tribute to Aleister Crowley, the album has nothing to do with spiritualism, the occult, or anything much except stiff recitations of Cream clichés that sound like the musicians learned them out of a book, grinding on and on with dogged persistence.”
“Vocals are sparse, most of the album being filled with plodding bass lines over which the lead guitar dribbles wooden Claptonisms from the master’s tiredest Cream days. They even have discordant jams with bass and guitar reeling like velocitized speedfreaks all over each other’s musical perimeters yet never quite finding synch — just like Cream! But worse.”
Lester Bangs would not likely have changed a word of this given the chance today. But most folks can now look back and say that there was way more going on with this band than just stiff recitations of Cream cliches.
Sure, they had their influences, but they also had their own thing happening and were on the verge of transforming heavy music as anyone knew it.
They were not run of the mill “unskilled laborers.” And one can question whether or not it delivers on its dark, mystical packaging, but calling the whole album a shuck, in other words, a fraud or a scam, when it is now considered a foundational text in heavy metal seems, well, off.
As Published In:
The New Musical Express:
November 8, 1975
The Critic:
Charles Shaar Murray, reviewing a gig at The Performance Studios with Blondie and The Ramones
“She [Debbie] has what could politely be described as a somewhat suspect sense of pitch, but her charm lies in the fact that she’s a kid who’s pretending desperately hard to be a star and who’s aware of it.
“Sadly, Blondie will never be a star simply because she ain’t good enough, but for the time being I hope she’s having fun.”
A critic’s job is to report on what they see and hear. And Blondie did not have their act together at that point compared to where they would be when the rest of us got to hear them.
With that in mind, can we let Charles off the hook for this? If he had kept his review in the present, maybe, but he didn’t just report on what he witnessed. He confidently predicted the future, proclaiming that Debbie Harry would never be a star.
And as we all know, he turned out to be dead wrong.
And the snark that came with the errant prognostication only made him look all the more foolish as the band racked up #1 hit songs, and Debbie Harry became a pop icon for the ages. Also, he called her a kid when she was already 30 years old.
In 1976, Murray was even more ruthless in this review of an early appearance by the Clash at the Sex Pistols’ “Screen on the Green” concert.
“The Clash are the kind of garage band who should be returned to the garage immediately, preferably with the engine running, which would undoubtedly be more of a loss to their friends and families than to either rock or roll.”
Aside from the fact that the Clash would become one of the most important and beloved bands of the punk era, I have deeper issues with this review. Why was it ever acceptable for a published music critic to wish death upon a band because they judged their music to be bad?
Joe Strummer certainly had something to say about it.
He wrote the song “Garageland,” off of their debut album, in response to the review.
“After our second gig a critic in New Musical Express wrote that we should be returned to the garage and locked in with a motor running so that we died. “Garageland” is about that. I was trying to say that this is where we come from and we know it, and we’re not going to get out of our depth. Even though we’ve signed with CBS, we aren’t going to float off into the atmosphere like the Pink Floyd or anything.”
As Published In:
Rolling Stone:
December 16, 1976
The Critic:
Billy Altman, reviewing AC/DC’s debut album, High Voltage
“Those concerned with the future of hard rock may take solace in knowing that with the release of the first U.S. album by these Australian gross-out champions, the genre has unquestionably hit its all-time low. Things can only get better (at least I hope so).
“A band whose live act features a lead guitarist (Angus Young) leering menacingly while dressed in schoolboy beanie and knickers, AC/DC has nothing to say musically (two guitars, bass and drums all goose-stepping together in mindless three-chord formations). Lyrically, their universe begins and ends with the words ‘I,’ ‘me’ and ‘mine.’ “
“Lead singer Bon Scott spits out his vocals with a truly annoying aggression which, I suppose, is the only way to do it when all you seem to care about is being a star so that you can get laid every night. And that, friends, comprises the sum total of themes discussed on this record.”
“Stupidity bothers me. Calculated stupidity offends me. “
I picture AC/DC’s manager reading this review to the band. After listening thoughtfully, the lads look at each other and quietly nod in agreement until one of them says “He really gets us”.
Altman seemingly forgot what he was reviewing. I am all for elevating the art form, but trashing a rock band for being loud, crass, playing mindless 3-chord formations, and being in it for the girls is pointless and elitist.
It doesn’t have to be all there is to rock and roll but it comes with the territory.
AC/DC never evolved much further beyond from what was described here, and though they are not exactly my thing, I can’t picture rock without them. Describing them as the rock bottom point of rock and roll made no sense then and it certainly doesn’t resonate now.
As Published In:
The Boston Globe:
September 13, 1964
The Critic:
William F. Buckley, Jr. on The Beatles, post-Ed Sullivan
“As evidence of my final measure of devotion to the truth: The Beatles are not merely awful, I would consider it sacrilegious to say anything less than that they are godawful.”“They are so unbelievably horrible, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive, to the magic of art, that they qualify as crowned heads of anti-music, even as the imposter popes went down in history as ‘anti-popes.’”
“If our children can listen avariciously to the Beatles, it must be because through our genes we transmitted some tendency of disorder toward the kind.”
Being that William F. Buckley was a conservative commentator, not a rock critic: one could dismiss this as another typical cranky rant from the older generation that didn’t consider any rock and roll to be real music.
Buckley, however, makes it clear elsewhere in the article that he is open to new musical sounds and ideas and that he considered Elvis Presley worth listening to, so this is more than that.
His problem in the review wasn’t with rock and roll as a whole. It was with the Beatles themselves.
Sure, their early compositions were fairly primitive compared to what they would eventually accomplish, but even then, anyone claiming to have a discerning ear for music should not have characterized the band anywhere near the way he did.
They were none of the things he described. Not even close. Beyond the hairstyles and the exotic accents, the average kid knew this music was good at the very least, and time has only revealed more so just how far off the mark Buckley was in his assessment.
As Published In:
Rolling Stone:
March 15th, 1969
The Critic:
John Mendelsohn, reviewing the debut album by Led Zeppelin
“The latest of the British blues groups so conceived offers little that its twin, the Jeff Beck Group, didn’t say as well or better three months ago, and the excesses of the Beck group’s Truth album (most notably its self-indulgence and restrictedness), are fully in evidence on Led Zeppelin’s debut album.
“Jimmy Page, around whom the Zeppelin revolves, is, admittedly, an extraordinarily proficient blues guitarist and explorer of his instrument’s electronic capabilities. Unfortunately, he is also a very limited producer and a writer of weak, unimaginative songs, and the Zeppelin album suffers from his having both produced it and written most of it (alone or in combination with his accomplices in the group).”
I was not old enough to experience this album in real time, and I can’t imagine anyone listening to the first song on the album, “Good Times, Bad Times” bursting out of their speakers for the first time and not running around like their hair was on fire.
Everything that would propel Zeppelin to the stratospheres of rock and roll was present from the opening verse and chorus, fully formed.
How someone who listened to rock music for a living could describe this as weak and unimaginative songwriting just seems unfathomable.
“[The first Rolling Stone review] was really hurtful,” John Paul Jones admitted in 1990, “because we knew we’d done a good record. It helped foster my general hatred of the press.”
As Published In:
Rolling Stone:
October 1, 1970
The Critic:
Melissa Mills, reviewing Uriah Heep’s debut album, Very ‘Eavy, Very ‘Umble
“If this group makes it I’ll have to commit suicide. From the first note, you know you don’t want to hear any more.”
This worries me. Uriah Heep did indeed “make it.” And after an extensive search of Melissa Mills on the internet, I found no trace of her past the early 70s.
As Published In:
Rolling Stone:
May 4, 1978
The Critic:
Charles M. Young, reviewing Van Halen’s debut album
“Mark my words: in three years, Van Halen is going to be fat and self-indulgent and disgusting, and they’ll follow Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin right into the toilet. In the meantime, they are likely to be a big deal.”
This is the opening line of the review, which is actually positive overall. He basically seems to like the album, but it’s this dire prediction that whatever is good about the band in the present will only have a three-year shelf life, followed by the dramatic description of their demise that is just really funny.
As Published In:
Seattle Daily Times:
May 27, 1974
The Critic:
Patrick McDonald, reviewing a May 25, 1974 concert:
“I hope the four guys who make up the group, whose names don’t matter, are putting money away for the future, the near future,”
“Because Kiss won’t be around long.”
KISS was well aware of this review and have never forgotten it, still bringing it up in interviews and on social media to this day.
The above quote was even printed on t-shirts for their 2000 farewell tour (?!?).
Sometimes, the band gets the last laugh.
Let the author know that you liked their article with a “Green Thumb” Upvote!
Thank You For Your Vote!
Sorry You have Already Voted!
Views: 97
Not to forget the most infamous one of all!
https://www.stereogum.com/2078559/the-number-ones-olivia-newton-johns-magic/columns/the-number-ones/
#justiceformagic
Perfect!
Thanks, DJPD. I re-read this today because of your link, and what strikes me most is Tom’s unusual arrogance in attacking Xanadu the move while admitting he never watched it. The reason I say “unusual” is that he typically seems to have a good work ethic when it comes to his music and culture criticism. But this one was really half-baked, no matter how he tried to play it off as not a good use of his time to watch it. (I will say it’s got a lot of flaws, but I have seen it, more than once, and there are parts of it I flat-out love.) The song is not a 3/10 but that particular column is at most that.
Tom has always been at his weakest when it comes to TV shows and movies he references that he hasn’t seen but assures us they’re probably bad and/or forgettable. I’ve gotten on his case in the comments for his ignorant dismissals about the original Wild Wild West and The Nutty Professor and maybe a few others.
https://youtu.be/IVP9WUGdgPg
Great subject and well done on digging out some fine examples. I thought the British music press had a hold on tasteless wishing ill of the acts that had wronged them, generally done in the name of so called humour but apparently it’s universal. The Blondie review is just asking for trouble, commenting on future success when a band is still finding their feet is not always going to end well for you.
Famously over here, the reviews for Oasis; (What’s The Story) Morning Glory were lukewarm to hostile. Melody Maker opened their review with ‘Some might say they’ve already blown it.’ It went onto say the album ‘is occasionally sublime but too often laboured and lazy. On this evidence, Oasis are a limited band.’ It concluded ‘Oasis are fallen, fallen short of the stars. They sound knackered.’
Cue swift revisionism within weeks as it became a cultural phenomenon and the 5th biggest selling album ever in the UK.
Which led to further problems when Be Here Now came out as the music press didn’t want to be caught out again and went all in on its greatness.
Mojo said ‘This is Oasis’ World Domination Album’
Daily Telegraph; ‘Right here and right now is the place to be’
The Guardian; ‘validates most if not all the Gallaghers’ boasts about their greatness.
Cue further swift revisionism within weeks as it became apparent this was not a cultural phenomenon. If they swapped things round and used those comments from the Melody Maker Morning Glory review they’d have fitted perfectly.
Another one I remember is Robbie Williams second album, I’ve Been Expecting You. I think it was Julie Burchill in an opinion piece for The Guardian doing a hatchet job on how Robbie was already washed up. She used the fact that he collaborated with Pet Shop Boys on one track as part of her evidence. The reasoning being that Pet Shop Boys were long past their best and way too old for any self respecting music idol to be associating themselves with.
I’ve Been Expecting You went 10 X Platinum and is the 28th biggest selling album ever in the UK. While 20+ years on Pet Shop Boys continue to be critically acclaimed for their output and still sell a decent amount for their new records.
These are great examples and I’m sure there are many more. I did try to include at least a couple of examples from your corner of the world, JJ. Isn’t NME British?
NME is British. They and Melody Maker were weekly publications that could be brutal in their taking down of acts. There was a phrase ‘build them up to knock them down’ describing their tactic of lauding a debut album or even just early singles and then giving them a good kicking on the follow up whether they deserved it or not.
There’s got to be plenty of examples from both of those publications that fit your theme but finding them is another matter.
A lot of people gave Black Sabbath’s debut album negative reviews. Robert Christgau hated it.
A number of bands here were loathed by many critics and could have had an article solely devoted to them.
I’m seriously impressed by your research work here, rollerboogie. Man, these haven’t aged well. It’s OK to be wrong, but being mean isn’t criticism. It’s just being mean.
That says more about the critic than the criticized, but some critics want to be the stars of their reviews anyway. That’s why they’re overly clever with language sometimes. But when those sorts of critics are mean, even if they’re the stars of the story, they’re not the heroes.
Thank you and agreed on unnecessary cruelty. It was pretty rampant (and it hasn’t completely gone away). There were some I considered covering that I left out because they were so mean, I didn’t feel comfortable quoting them.
I used to buy Creem magazine just to read Lester Bangs. 15-year-old me thought that he was brilliant.
I’ve been searching for years online to try and find one specific quote from him. He was doing a quick one-liner review about some band or performer, and said something to the effect of “so-and-so is annoying, so will someone please shoot him?”
At the time, hilarious. Now, not so funny.
I’m pretty sure I didn’t dream this; I’ll continue to look for it in order to get the proper name of the artist.
I dunno, I only agree with Robert Christgau half of the time, but some of his negative reviews of albums I love made me laugh out loud. “Words as swords” he might say. Cutting, sure, but sharp!
This reminds me of Esquire’s Dubious Achievements Awards of 1966, honoring the supposedly least auspicious activities that occurred in 1965. The writers singled out one record in particular as having horrible lyrics: “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction” by The Rolling Stones. Recording the history of the awards decades later, the magazine’s editors apologized for the choice.
Also, the Beatles drew a lot of hilarious condemnation in retrospect. The most amusing to me was the Atlanta Journal Constitution TV critic, who in 1971 when The Ed Sullivan Show ended wrote a column bemoaning how the host gave the group its American TV debut in 1964. Talk about long-term butthurt!
Yes, SO much Beatles backlash after Ed Sullivan, most of it looking really foolish in retrospect. One of my favorites that I didn’t include is this one from George McKinnon, Boston Globe
“Don’t let the Beatles bother you. If you don’t think about them, they will go away, and in a few more years they will probably be bald….”
Indeed. Backlash is a difficult thing to avoid as a critic. But I will say, in my opinion, the Beatles would get a lot better very soon (like, by the end of 1964 and 1965), so I’m not sure my initial opinion would’ve been stellar, either. But once I heard “I Feel Fine”, “Hard Day’s Night” and “If I Fell”, I think that I would have been quickly converted.
Great article, rb.
Lester Bangs actually changed his mind quite a bit over the years, going from detesting David Bowie to suddenly getting him. And going back and forth on various Miles Davis albums, finally getting his fusion period in the midst of the punk era.
And he eventually came around on Black Sabbath as well. In his write-up of Paranoid he gives them pretty high praise, even in his take on the first album.
Incidentally, he said they were the first credible Catholic rock band, “the first group to completely immerse themselves in the Fall and Redemption: the traditional Christian dualism which asserts that if you don’t walk in the light of the Lord then Satan is certainly pulling your strings, and a bad end can be expected, is even imminent.”
Maybe something that Ozzy wouldn’t necessarily agree with, but it makes sense.
Edit: One exception to Lester’s rule was Blondie. He always hated Blondie. He wrote an entire book about how he hated Blondie. But his take could be summed up by the witty title of one anti-Blondie article: “On the Merits of Sexual Repression.”
Great to see you, Phylum!