Is it true that critics disliked hard rock in the 70's?!
Question: Wikipedia claims that "critics overwhelmingly disliked the genre". Is this claim true? I've done some searching and haven't found much evidence. Does anyone have some source to support or to deny this claim?
Answers: Wikipedia claims that "critics overwhelmingly disliked the genre". Is this claim true? I've done some searching and haven't found much evidence. Does anyone have some source to support or to deny this claim?
Nope, it isn't.
This was the heyday of bands like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Aerosmith, and many others.
It's highly unlikely that mainstream rock critics (and we're not talking about jazz reviewers here!) would have reviled them all on a consistent basis.
It may be that the guy who posted it was talking about the birth of punk in the mid-to-late 70s and how it "killed off" what were perceived as bloated "rock dinosaurs". But it needs to be qualified, because "critics overwhelmingly disliked the genre" is just too sweeping a statement.
EDIT: OK, now you've given us a little context, at least.
I would take issue with the claim that RS magazine was biased against hard rock. Here's a review from 1976 of the Led Zeppelin album "Presence". I've chosen this for two reasons:
(a) It's one of the three crappiest official Zep albums ever made, in the opinion of the majority of Zep fans;
(b) 1976 would be when critics would be starting to develop a disaffection for hard rock. Punk and disco were beginning to take root, and it was becoming fashionable to decry the rock genre (much more than in 1971 or 1972, for example).
In theory, then, the RS critic should have slaughtered the album in his review (add to that, the hypothesis that RS "may have not particularly liked hard rock to begin with").
And yet:
http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ledz...
A well-balanced, fair review that highlights both weaknesses and strengths.
I'd give respected rock critics (RS has had a few of those) more of the benefit of doubt. I'm sure there were albums that got panned (this guy was too kind to "Presence"!) but that's the same as any genre.
EDIT: Good point, LOL!
well never EVER trust wikipedia!
* That is partially true. Obviously, not ALL the critics had to love hard rock in the 70's, right?
* But what's definitely not true in that statement is how "overwhelmingly" is there.
Well, I would probably agree. Because with the kind of lifestyles these bands have displayed (the Who, Led Zeppelin, etc.) which exhibit nihilism, decadence, and just plain destructive behavior, no wonder critics and the mainstream society would hate them at a certain degree.
Have you ever scene KISS on the cover of Rolling Stone.Geez they put Britney on the cover.What's next the Jonas Brothers.
thats so nottt true
I would say it's a partial truth. Critics never gave good reviews to Grand Funk Railroad and Uriah Heap
my opinion, hard rock was not liked. It was really not understood because disco, pop, and plain easy listening were what was played. Little did they know how popular heavy metal/ hard rock would become in the 80's
I do remember this period and yes, the critics did dislike hard rock for the most part. I recall reading scathing reviews of albums by Led Zeppelin, Van Halen, Deep Purple, Grand Funk, Foghat, Kiss, and The Who. It was the public who loved these groups, not the critics. Many of their fans were very young when these groups first started out. In fact, they really weren't much different than the teens of today who love rap music while their parents can't stand it. The music critics were older adults who grew up in the period of early rock and roll and in general, preferred the music of Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, and Little Richard to these newfangled groups.
"Overwhelmingly" doen't mean every critic disliked hard rock, just that most critics did. I would say that, by and large, this was the case. Rolling Stone as an entity disparaged most music made by people that Jann Wenner wasn't "personal" friends with, or that he felt slighted by. Then again, Wenner always was a petulant starfucker. Nevertheless, respected journalists at Rolling Stone also disliked hard rock, including Jonathan Cott, Greil Marcus, etc.. Robert Christgau, critic for the Village Voice (he also wrote for the Stone) was a bit more tolerant, but generally disliked it as well. Lester Bangs, probably the best rock critic there has ever been, liked lots of it, but not all. I have to say that the term "hard rock" was not widely used until after the fact, and even now what qualifies as hard rock is open to debate. Heavy Metal was a more common term, and meant something slightly different then than it does now. -------My source is myself. I have spent 30 plus years researching rock & roll, have 12,000 records, the first 500 issues of Rolling Stone (which I've read cover to cover) All the Rolling Stone, Trouser Press, Robert Christgau record guides, hundreds of additional books on rock & roll, inculding many by all the well known critics/journalists, AND I lived through the period in question (my first concert was Grand Funk Railroad, which I am neither proud nor ashamed of!)
I think that critics disliked rock in the 70's. Visit the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland. They don't pay tribute to bands like Kiss or 80's bands like Def Leppard. It's all about Woodstock era bands and they trhow in a few Britney Spears items to appease the children of flower-power hippies.