Know of another famous album critics hated? Leave a comment and let everyone know! Click below to hear music from each album: AC/DC - “It’s A Long Way To The Top (If You Wanna Rock ‘N’ Roll)” = czcams.com/video/-sUXMzkh-jI/video.html Andrew W.K. = “Party Hard” = czcams.com/video/WccfbPQNMbg/video.html Black Sabbath - “Black Sabbath” = czcams.com/video/0lVdMbUx1_k/video.html The Killers - “When You Were Young” = czcams.com/video/ff0oWESdmH0/video.html Oasis - “Champagne Supernova” = czcams.com/video/tI-5uv4wryI/video.html Pearl Jam = “Alive” = czcams.com/video/qM0zINtulhM/video.html Pink Floyd - “Wish You Were Here” = czcams.com/video/01izSmWzgeI/video.html Queen - “Don’t Stop Me Now” = czcams.com/video/HgzGwKwLmgM/video.html Radiohead - “The National Anthem” = czcams.com/video/hTzRliW3iFs/video.html Weezer - “El Scorcho” = czcams.com/video/okthJIVbi6g/video.html Please check out more videos from our channel below: 8 Big Comeback Albums = czcams.com/video/TYek7sSm16c/video.html When Bands Stopped Shows To Saved Fans = czcams.com/video/aFv_O99LTy4/video.html 10 Bands That Changed Singers (That It Worked) = czcams.com/video/aS1YxAhpt8Q/video.html
The one thing I hate about pitchfork is how sometimes, they don’t even write a REVIEW. They write words, they write a lot of words but there is rarely a review.
Seeing Wish You Were Here on here does definitely surprise me, the entire album was meant as a heartfelt tribute to their mentally-departed bandmate Syd Barrett so hearing some of these reviews was certainly interesting. Also, holy shit some of these reviews were freaking harsh back then. Like, my God people really had sticks up their asses when writing these reviews
IKR. Honestly most of these reviews were rarely "reviews" in a musical sense, but just nonsensical attention-craving rants by music journalists who wanted to generate a quick buck by writing some vague "In muh good old times we didn't need this!"-BS with almost no actual information about the music itself. The most hilarious thing was certainly Queen getting called fascist for putting out Jazz. Dumbest "Review" ever.
One of the central parts of the film "Almost Famous" is all centred around how the critics matter more than the music, and how the bands worked/were 'supposed' to work harder on their perception and reviews than performing or writing.
Much if that stemmed form it being the follow-up to arguably one of the best albums ever made - Dark Side of the Moon. Seriously, how do you follow that? That is documented by the band if you watch the videos. That being said, Wish You Were is an amazing piece of work and I love how the common theme here is that those idiot reviewers go back and redact their previous take.
Hard to believe now, but both Wish You Were Here and Animals got SLAMMED by critics here in the States, especially Animals. Zeppelin's entire catalog got hit pretty hard, too.
Nirvana were extraordinarily good though. Cobain was an absolute master of his art. I'm a Tool fan, but for all the mind-blowing complexity in their albums, you also can't deny the beautiful simplicity of what Cobain achieved. The tone he got from his music and the song writing is unrivalled. Nirvana were one of the absolute greats. We all still want new Nirvana music
The Pitchfork reference reminded me that "review" of Audioslave's debut, although the Tool's Lateralus one was way worse. That Crash Thompson video dedicated to the worst reviews from Pitchfork is spot on.
It's sad that Black Sabbath's debut was scorned so badly, because it gave the world a whole new genre, but at the same time I can kinda understand why. It was just so anti-everything that was popular at that time. Like, the gloomiest, darkest shit came right on the heels of the frickin' Beatles; there's no way that was ever gonna get a warm reception at the time.
Rolling Stone wasn’t kind to Led Zeppelin 2. Basically saying it was their worst album. They gave 5 stars to Zeppelin 1,3, Physical Graffiti and Zeppelin 4. Only 4 stars to Zeppelin 2. Later changed it to 5 ⭐️ stars.
@@danapaul3216 You realize Rolling Stone didn't use star ratings until 1981, right? They savaged Zeppelin 1, 2, & 3. It wasn't until Zeppelin IV that they started to come around.
Stone Temple Pilots' debut album Core was initially trashed by critics as a complete Pearl Jam ripoff, which makes the negative reviews PJ's Ten got even more hilarious in hindsight. So basically, any band that came out with that sound during that time period was accused of ripping off the previous band that had come out with that sound during that time period. Is it me or were critics the ones who were lazy and lacking imagination during the grunge years ?
The whole grunge movement was disparaged. Cobain dies, and suddenly, it was an important movement. It's really that simple - someone had to die for some of the old-guy writers of the time to finally come to terms with the new music that had passed them by.
@@bryanc1984 Which is funny because Purple is the album where STP truly stood out as their own sound. There was still some grungy stuff, but they started mixing in a lot of psychedelic rock sounds.
the music lacked imagination. it was the dark ages of guitar playing, and it effectively killed rock music. you can't have 40 bands playing the same three songs and not expect people to get tired of it.
It actually got worse for AC/DC later, the following album Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap was basically banned from releasing in US from 1976 to 1981 due to being “Commercially Unviable” according to Atlantic Records.
Because of the cult following High Voltage cultivated, a bunch of record stores began importing copies of Dirty Deeds It had a fanbase by the time Atlantic approved of its American release in 1981.
A hundred or so years ago some theater director sent a reply to a critic who had savaged the play; "I am sitting in the smallest room in the house. Your review is in front of me. Soon it will be behind me".
The critics kinda came around on Rush by the time Counterparts was released. The only one of those last 5 Rush studio albums that got bashed in the press was Vapor Trails, and it was almost always the overall mix that got savaged, not the songs.
U.S. critics have always hated, and talked shit, about Queen. It all started with Queen's A Night at the Opera album. Critics are hardly ever right, sure they get it spot on once in a blue moon, but music is subjective. If you have a critic that loves soft rock reviewing a heavy metal album, of course that critic is going to talk shit about heavy metal.
I'm pretty sure Hybrid Theory is getting reevaluated now. Since it was nu-metal, the critics hated it, but when the 20th anniversary box set came out, I saw a lot more positive reviews, even if some were like "eh, I still don't like it, but I can see why others do". Pitchfork gave the box ser something like a 7.4, which is REALLY GOOD for Pitchfork. The only nu-metal bands they had ever given positive reviews for before were System of a Down and Deftones. Another reason I think HT is being looked more fondly at now, is unfortunately Chester's death. I know a lot of people who made fun of the angsty, depressing lyrics, but when he committed suicide, those people were like "oh, he was serious. Crap".
I remember the first time sitting down and listening all the way through in one hit in my room. I think it was the first time I was really, really emotionally moved by an album.
Led Zeppelin's first two records were trashed by RS. Edit... now that I think about it, their first three were and overall were never a critical darling. Nevertheless they're among the top 10 greatest selling artists of all time. Top five if you're just counting rock acts.
@@marshallfarstad3770 Had to look it up, and yep Devil Without a Cause had a good amount of favorable reviews. I'm surprised. All music gave it a 4.5/5 stating "it's the greatest hard rock album of the late 90's"
Phil Collins - No Jacket Required. I’ll admit it was overrated at first, but not as much as its been underrated in the 2000s. And IMO the songs are actually quite good, it just sounds very dated. Christopher Cross - self titled. Lauded on release, ive seen it get tons of stick nowadays. Mainly due to it being cool to hate soft rock, and the fact it beat The Wall to Album of The Year. To a degree , Blur - The Great Escape. Universally lauded on release, these days critics tend to give it a marginal thumbs up. However the band have stated their dislike of it.
The Vines' debut album "Highly Evolved" received ridiculous levels of praise by some critics at first, hyping the band as "the next big thing in rock". The public had a way more tempered reaction to it, and the band's subsequent albums have not had much success at all. I remember reading at least one critic apologizing for jumping on this rather irrational hype bandwagon for that band.
"We Paid A Freelancer To Say A Thing You Like ls Bad Because The Google/Facebook Duopoly Ate The Whole Digital Ad Market And Now Harvesting Hate Clicks Is The Only Viable Business Model For Online Media"
Rolling Stone is just full of classy people and big brain opinions like that. I distinctly recall that their take on lesser known grunge band Hammerbox was, more or less in its entirety, "They're not as good as Hole which is the other famous grunge band with a woman vocalist so don't bother." Right, because clearly _two_ grunge bands fronted by women is too damn many and we must make them battle in the arena until only one survives. It's not like they even sounded like Hole.
I'm still perplexed by how anyone can call a band fronted by a gay Parsi man singing about love, hope & perseverance "fascist". Is it the leather? Did nobody at Rolling Stone know who leather daddies were in the late 70s?
While this happen afterwards, Queen did infamously play South Africa during the height of the apartheid. This got them blacklisted in England for a while and is the real reason they were initially not included on the live aid line up (funny how they changed that for the movie). So while the quote from review is clearly The Rolling Stones writers making hot takes (act surprise), there were people with major issues with the band back in the day.
This is my problem with music critics - what they say has basically no connection to whether I like the album or not. After some time I just stopped taking those reviews seriously
I only read music and movie critics by accident. They have no idea what they are talking about with regards to anything that is different from the status quo.
That review of 'Jazz' by David Marsh at Rolling Stone still makes my blood boil. Even worse was his review of Queen's 'A Day At The Races' album, in which he said that Freddie's vocals were 'passable' and that he had a 'pedestrian pop voice'. What the actual fuck?! This is an album that features Tie Your Mother Down and the immortal Somebody To Love. And Dave MArsh thinks those vocals are 'pedestrain' and 'passable'? Fuck. That. Guy.
It’s not a problem that the guy doesn’t like Queen. But what did he write about those albums that made you so furious? I’d have to read it to understand
@@ryplay08 In his 'Jazz' review, he called Queen a 'fascist rock band' in relation to the song 'We Will Rock You'. Not only was that a cheap shot, but 'We Will Rock You' isn't even on that album! And I can't believe that anyone could credibly describe Freddie's vocal performances on 'A Day At The Races' as 'pedestrian'. I don't expect critics to like the same things that I like, but I do expect them to do their job (like, you know, actually bloody listen to the record that you are supposed to be reviewing).
@@lewisclark1122 Yikes. I’m not a Queen fan but that’s just harsh, even I wouldn’t say that about Freddie or Queen in general. That critic obviously never listened to any Queen albums because yeah, ‘We Will Rock You” is on News Of The World
Speaking of Radiohead, The Bends did get some praise on release but also got its share of bashing, especially in the US. 5/10 from Spin (who called it "nodded-out nonsense mumble), C grade from The Village Voice, 1 star from the Chicago Tribune. Needless to say, the album has held up a lot better than any of those.
Nowadays you'd be hard-pressed to find a bad review of any new Radiohead album. Either critics are too afraid to cop the backlash from fans or too gutless to go out on a limb and be different from anyone else.
Suggestions for "songs people get the meaning of wrong" Born in the USA-Not a patriotic anthem, more of a lament of a vietnam vet The Stroke-Not a sexual song, a song about record companies stroking the egos of musicians Suicide Solution-Not about suicide, it's about how drinking too much will destroy you Number of the Beast-Not a satanic anthem, it's about a nightmare Steve Harris had
The entertaining part about Number Of The Beast is that the backlash to it from reactionary Christian groups annoyed Bruce Dickinson enough that he wrote an _actual_ occult song in Revelations but it was so esoteric that it went right over the fundies' heads and they never noticed. (Amazing song too.) Bruce is great like that. He would later go on to write his own version of William Blake's Milton prelude aka And Did Those Feet/Jerusalem because he hated how much the popular hymn totally perverted the meaning of the original. Blake was _not_ a friend of nationalists and the establishment to the point he barely skated by being convicted for sedition.
I met the Drummers Mom from The Killers in Las Vegas!! One of their songs came on in Caesar's Palace and this beautiful waitress came up to me and said 'my son is the drummer for this band'!!!! She was so excited and proud 😍😁😀
My favorite part about the Pearl Jam review is the idea that they were capitalizing on a trend despite two members being in mother love bone and green River. Way to know about the music you’re reviewing, guy.
I was admittedly surprised about Ten being hated back in the day, only because (if my memory serves correctly), Core by Stone Temple Pilots was criticized for apparently trying to sound like Pearl Jam. I don't know how long it took for some people to come around on Ten, but that is confusing how critics would've been upset by that.
Funny how that works out, right ? It's like some critics back then were on autopilot mode and would just call any new band a "ripoff" of the previous band they had also accused of ripping off someone else.
@@evandemers3753 Yeah, exactly. Stuff like this is why I always just go with my initial thoughts on albums (films and video games, too, honestly) and tend to care more about actual enjoyment than how original something is, especially since most music is using some sort of influence from older times to help guide them.
Ten was hated because people stupidly believed Pearl Jam were trying to rip off Nirvana since Ten only became popular after Nevermind became huge. It's stupid because Ten was recorded and released BEFORE Nevermind. Also some critics didn't like it because to them it sounded too much like a hard rock album instead of a grunge album due to the prominent guitar leads and several solos. Even Kurt Cobain hated Ten. And ironically, Ten outsold Nevermind in the US.
@@rockingbirdey I wasn't aware that Ten outsold Nevermind, but honestly, I'd rather take Ten any day over Nevermind since compared to a lot of people, I'm not the hugest Kurt Cobain fan and Ten is one of the first albums I tried hearing start to finish. I could go into other reasons why I personally think Ten is better than Nevermind, but it would probably take too long and I'd rather not have several debates over that.
Led Zeppelin, Def Leppard, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Green Day, Aerosmith, Jimmy Eat World, Rush, Bon Jovi, Stone Temple Pilots, and so many others were misunderstood.
If anyone hated "Wish You Were Here" when it first came out I would have expected it to be Pink Floyd fans, not music critics. Floyd's music was frequently a bit strange and artsy. "Wish You Were Here" is probably the most straightforward, mainstream album they ever made.
All Pink Floyd albums from Umaguma ,to The Wall when they first came out was such a new listening experience for me . I’d play both sides and go Wow that’s too much ! Put it away for couple of months... bring it back out and play it constantly! 👍
@@greatdaneacdc I had this problem with Yes. When I accidentally received Relayer from a record club I absolutely hated it the first time I played it. By the third time I had gone to loving it.
I like the redux a little better honestly. Brendan O'Brien has done every other Pearl Jam album and doesn't drown everything in reverb, I prefer his style.
Critics like their confort zone, the average, they fear things that challenge their perception of quality, so anytime any media goes out of the norm, critics freak out and slander it nonstop. Radiohead's Kid A and Black Sabbath's self tittled album are great examples of this.
@@miserirken... I gotta agree , anything 'outside the box ' seems to bring out the worst reviews well not really a review , more like a popularity contest 😆 but you know what I mean... Like Rush's 2112 got thrashed by critics and that was a GREAT album lol I remember one called Rush the ..... "Newest band in the 'Hey, lets learn 3 chords & become the next Black Sabbath' category" lmao Still a very influential album .
@@yaboi2500 Actually your comment just jogged my memory, I'm pretty sure it was in 'Hit Parader' Magazine . Wonder if they're even a magazine anymore 🤔 The more I think about it . They weren't really a magazine then either. 😂
Genuinely shocked that Wish You Were Here was disliked initially. The whole album is just an absolute delight. I'm especially a fan of Welcome To The Machine and also Shine On You Crazy Diamond (Pts. 1-5.) Seeing the cover on the thumbnail made my jaw drop.
One album that more or less got mixed/positive reviews but probably needs to be reevaluated is RHCP’s One Hot Minute. The “red headed stepchild” between BSSM and Californication.
It was the last good RHCP album. The corporate shite they put out after that with junkie pedo trying to sing is not the worst music ever, but it's uninspired and boring, and the terrible vocals just kill it. At least when Little Girl Lover was trying to do the rap thing it was a fresh and different take, along with their instrumentals
Thanks for the comments, love and support may God continue to bless you some more and you can always text me on my private tour mail or burner cell number:Echurch522@gmail.com +1 (770) 852-5981
Exactly, it’s what introduced me to grunge (other than the few songs I heard by Nirvana before) and became and actually still is my favorite album of all time.
@@Soldano999 i feel like virology and yield are more corny, its like they were trying to hard to not remake 10, 10 just more raw, obviously not from a production stand point but just from a writing standpoint it just sounds like the songs had flowed out of them were as later albums sound more forced
Stone Temple Pilots debut album Core being hated & panned by critics was always baffling to me. That album was responsible for starting my love of rock when I was only 10 years old after borrowing my Dad’s tape on a trip. It’s fantastic and remains one of my favorite albums of all time.
Lou Reed's Berlin is another that critics have changed their tune on. And if I remember right Bowie's first album was expected to be a flash in the pan, not sure if it was panned by critics, but they thought Bowie was just following trends and would do nothing more after having a lucky hit with Space Oddity.
Rush - Caress of Steel My favorite RUSH album was brutally beaten down by a bunch of "critics" who could no more recognize quality and depth of professional material than a rusty spoon.
I can kinda see why Caress would be very polarizing. It constantly toes the line between flippantly funny (an ode to growing old? The slight humor in "The Necromancer" and "The Fountain of Lamneth" also counts - a prog band that doesn't take itself so seriously) and being Rush as we knew them from the first two albums. And it's very on-the-nose, even when compared to 2112 and Hemispheres.
Styx's entire Wooden Nickel label offerings were universally panned as well. The early stuff (1,2, Serpent is Rising and Man of Miracles) was better than most of their post Kilroy crap.
I always thought ir was funny that Floyd, Yes, Rush and Radiohead were the bands that were always called pretentious and they probably are my favorite 4 bands not sure what that says about me.
The first 5 or 6 Led Zeppelin albums were panned by critics on both sides of the Atlantic. With each new release that sold millions and was loved by fans the critics stubbornly doubled down, tripled down and quadruple, quintuple and sextupled down on their disdain for one of the three greatest rock bands of all time.
It went to the point that Page and Plant decided to release IV without any mention of the band or title on the cover just to prove that the critics were thrashing the band and not the music.
Many Queens of the Stone Age albums.. but I’ll say the one that sticks out to me the most is Era Vulgaris. I didn’t get that album at first but one day it just clicked. The same for Lullabies and Villains. stellar albums in their own right if you are listening to them the way they’re meant to be heard.
John Prine - “Pink Cadillac” wasn’t popular with fans or critics when it came out. But it grew on everyone over the years. John said it was one of his favourites a few years before he passed away from Covid.
Red Hot Chili Peppers- One Hot Minute Green Day- Warning Neutral Milk Hotel- Into The Aeroplane Over The Seas Daft Punk- Discovery Michael Jackson- Bad Van Halen- Women & Children First Rush- 2112 The Beatles- Abbey Road Also FYI Schreiber wasn't so kind to Audioslave's debut album either. ( & I quote, "At it's worst, this project is just plain RETARDED.") Edit: Rihanna's Rated R was also critically panned despite the fact that many people consider that one of her best albums.
@@mmsiphonevinyls1027 it could probably still be considered as a lot of people now of days think the opposite is true, And that bad is better than thriller.
I wonder if there is a flip side to this, albums critics loved when they came out but have not aged well. I remember seeing in every magazine review I saw of St. Anger it was 4 stars out of 5.
Oasis - Be Here Now? Todd In The Shadows did a video on that album, and included side-by-side comparisons of reviews from then & now. it's mind-blowing how much their views changed
@@ideitbawxproductions1880 I had to conclude that there’s a nostalgia factor, plus the hooks are still classic Oasis. Stay Young should’ve been on the album.
Once critics have put something in a pantheon it's hard for them to remove it, that would be like shooting themselves in the foot and admitting they just followed the trend that was pushed.
It was an extremely uncharitable reading of We Will Rock You/We Are The Champions. Which isn't even on Jazz, so God knows why it was brought up in the review
@@SonofSethoitae Accuracy is clearly not a priority of rock "critics". I never say this about criticism except when it comes to movies and popular music, where one need not be an expert in the field and just merely have tastes, but when it comes to rock "critics", they couldn't DO, so they WRITE. And badly. I mean, at some point, words have to mean something. I don't think of Freddie Mercury when the subject of right-wing authoritarian governments comes up.
Critics hated Paul McCartney’s RAM album when it came out in 1971. I don’t know if it was just because it was ahead of it’s time and critics didn’t get it, if they decided to join the John Lennon side of the John vs Pail post Beatles drama, or both. When it was rereleased not too long ago critics started calling it Paul’s “masterpiece”
Okay, so, if a band's album comes out, these critics just fucking hate them, if a band's album become really popular, these critics will 'like it'...because that's all I understand from this video...These critics man 🤦🏻
There's so many of these that we could easily do ten lists like this. All the Stooges albums immediately come to mind, but especially the first one. I think Lester Bangs was literally the only critic that didn't want to go on a murder spree after hearing it when it first came out. Now we recognize it as the landmark it was. In 1969 though, critics thought it was the death of rock and roll and a sign of the end times
@@dancalmpeaceful3903 I love Raw Power as much as Fun House, honestly. That's because I was first introduced to the Stooges through Monster Magnet's amazing cover of "Gimme Danger", which of course comes from that album. It's not a bad album even if you take off the nostalgia goggles though. James Williamson's guitar playing isn't as raw or experimental as Ron Asheton's, and you can tell no one in the band was in the best place at the time. It sounds like a band about to tear each other apart. But all the individual performances are still really fucking good though, especially Williamson and Iggy. That's the other thing about the Stooges albums, is each tells a story in the sound. The first album is a band of kids literally learning to play as they went. That's the raw, experimental power of Ron Asheton I spoke of. The riffs and solos are so cool and so out there because it's Ron learning how to write riffs and play solos and as a result not really caring if things sound "right" so long as they get on tape and feel good in the moment. Fun House is a band that's learned how to play, and is making an album for other musicians to show how far they've come in such a short period. The first album is youthful violence, while Fun House is mocking dread. Raw Power is a band imploding on itself, but having one last brilliant supernova moment before going black hole
@@princealigorna7468 I admit, I kind of like Raw Power (in fact I have the deluxe CD version)...but just not as much as Fun House. I would agree...Raw Power does sound like a band about to rip itself apart...but it is still a classic.
High Voltage, Morning Glory, and Wish You Were Here are literally some of my favorite ever albums. In my opinion Wish You Were Here is the best album of all time.
Watching this I have one thought bouncing around my head. “God it’s entertaining to see douchey, self important writers write retractions and see the Olympic level gymnastics they try to accomplish to make it sound like they were both right and wrong simultaneously”. 😂
Thanks for the video, it was pretty fun, even if I knew about plenty of those already (minus these Kid A and Sam's Town, reviews, especailly Kid A one, Jesus Melody Maker, what's wrong with you?)
Melody Maker calling Oasis "laboured and lazy". This was the same magazine that gave Britpop rivals Blur's 'The Great Escape' a 12/10 released a month before 'What's the Story?' You can see who they were backing in their peak back then.
The first time I saw Rush was the Hemispheres tour although I will admit I saw Yes the year before and thought they jammed a lot more as opposed to Rush who sounded just like the studio records which can be a good thing but listening to yes jam their asses off was a better show in my opinion.
Music critics at the time in the early seventies.. Had no idea what they were dealing with.. There's still under the shock of 50'd and'60s Rock.. Black Sabbath led Zeppelin and deep purple was blowing their minds.
A lot of these albums are debut albums, or came after a very successful one, or have a notorious change in style compared to past works. So basically, critics lambasted these albums because they sounded different, out of the ordinary
Did any of these so-called mainstream outlets review (now classic) black or death metal albums? I'd love to hear what they said about Morbid Angel's "Alters of Madness" or Emperor's "In the nightside eclipse" for instance. Or, what did these people think when Kill 'em All came out?
Ram by Paul McCartney. The critics heard one record and panned it. I heard a completely different album, and loved it from the start. Funnily enough, 50 years later, it's now seen as one of his best solo efforts
The Melody Maker (and fellow nemesis New Musical Express) spend most of the early nineties hyping young bands, sometimes before they even recorded something (for exemple Suede, Shed Seven) just to thrash them after the second or third album.
Lot's of people hated Greta van Fleet's debut album, including critics. Maybe time will tell if this album will become a classic or the band will be forgotten. Who knows.
They will be forgotten because they're a cover band. The singer's Robert Plant impression is obnoxious. No one is going to remember a band that only received any attention at all for sounding like a band that came out over half a century before.
@@The_ScapeGoat Led Zeppelin started as a cover band and were hated at first. All the historically best bands were bashed. So your opinion is irrelevant
Usually when critics dislike a record that fans love, it’s because the music is slightly ahead of its time and critics just want something that’s instantly accessible. They lack patience and foresight
I don’t know.......... I get the feeling that some of those music journalists ”holier-than-thou/besserwisser” attitude comes from their own inability to create music themselves. The best negative review I’ve read was something along the lines of : ”This sells and is admired by thousands. It’s not my kind of music , but it appeals to many others”.
The reception for Jazz isn't that surprising. Punk was king at the time and little else was given the time of day. Also, even before that, Queen were considered a little suspect by the music press (too heavy for Glam, too glam for HR/HM, so hard for them to pigeonhole).
Paul McCartney’s 1971 album “RAM” was blasted by Rolling Stone despite it sounding just like Paul’s half of a usually unanimously-praised Beatle record. It’s worth noting though how Jann Wenner and that magazine as a whole really loved to spin John Lennon as a musical messiah that was held back by Paul’s contributions (and would often make Paul out to be the villain that broke up the band), so I guess that had something to do with it.
Know of another famous album critics hated? Leave a comment and let everyone know!
Click below to hear music from each album:
AC/DC - “It’s A Long Way To The Top (If You Wanna Rock ‘N’ Roll)” = czcams.com/video/-sUXMzkh-jI/video.html
Andrew W.K. = “Party Hard” = czcams.com/video/WccfbPQNMbg/video.html
Black Sabbath - “Black Sabbath” = czcams.com/video/0lVdMbUx1_k/video.html
The Killers - “When You Were Young” = czcams.com/video/ff0oWESdmH0/video.html
Oasis - “Champagne Supernova” = czcams.com/video/tI-5uv4wryI/video.html
Pearl Jam = “Alive” = czcams.com/video/qM0zINtulhM/video.html
Pink Floyd - “Wish You Were Here” = czcams.com/video/01izSmWzgeI/video.html
Queen - “Don’t Stop Me Now” = czcams.com/video/HgzGwKwLmgM/video.html
Radiohead - “The National Anthem” = czcams.com/video/hTzRliW3iFs/video.html
Weezer - “El Scorcho” = czcams.com/video/okthJIVbi6g/video.html
Please check out more videos from our channel below:
8 Big Comeback Albums = czcams.com/video/TYek7sSm16c/video.html
When Bands Stopped Shows To Saved Fans = czcams.com/video/aFv_O99LTy4/video.html
10 Bands That Changed Singers (That It Worked) = czcams.com/video/aS1YxAhpt8Q/video.html
I think Led Zeppelin 1 was hated by critics at first
Core by Stone Temple Pilots
@@kiashangovender5221 Rolling Stone shat on every single LZ album til Physical Graffiti.
Critics bashed All The Right Reasons, and yeah that is one You and I might agree with that.
This might be region specific, but I remember RHCP's Californication got poor critical reception here in Sweden.
The one thing I hate about pitchfork is how sometimes, they don’t even write a REVIEW. They write words, they write a lot of words but there is rarely a review.
Their Lateralus review is proof of this.
@@RockedNet very true. They are incredibly pretentious
Check out the review they did of a Jet album. Its a 0 star rating with no words, just a video of a monkey peeing in its mouth
@@yenkocamaro6965 i mean… it’s jet. Probably accurate
@@tpags7398 They aren't that bad, compared to a lot of other one or two hit wonders
Seeing Wish You Were Here on here does definitely surprise me, the entire album was meant as a heartfelt tribute to their mentally-departed bandmate Syd Barrett so hearing some of these reviews was certainly interesting. Also, holy shit some of these reviews were freaking harsh back then. Like, my God people really had sticks up their asses when writing these reviews
IKR. Honestly most of these reviews were rarely "reviews" in a musical sense, but just nonsensical attention-craving rants by music journalists who wanted to generate a quick buck by writing some vague "In muh good old times we didn't need this!"-BS with almost no actual information about the music itself.
The most hilarious thing was certainly Queen getting called fascist for putting out Jazz. Dumbest "Review" ever.
One of the central parts of the film "Almost Famous" is all centred around how the critics matter more than the music, and how the bands worked/were 'supposed' to work harder on their perception and reviews than performing or writing.
Much if that stemmed form it being the follow-up to arguably one of the best albums ever made - Dark Side of the Moon. Seriously, how do you follow that? That is documented by the band if you watch the videos. That being said, Wish You Were is an amazing piece of work and I love how the common theme here is that those idiot reviewers go back and redact their previous take.
"The band is just fantastic, that is really what I think.
Oh by the way, which ones Pink?"
Lester Bangs or Banks or whatever his name is (critic at Rolling Bone) should be called "Lester Useless" or "Lester Deaf"......
I've always disliked Rolling Stone. Now I truly hate them.
Why???
Magazine
They it gimmick has always been, what's popular?! Let's agree with that.
And also lazy lazy politics.
Yeah they just lower themself for the masses while giving half assed and lifeless critiques on topics they clearly don’t understand
The magazine that gives ALL Yoko Ono albums 5 stars!!??
Hard to believe now, but both Wish You Were Here and Animals got SLAMMED by critics here in the States, especially Animals. Zeppelin's entire catalog got hit pretty hard, too.
To be fair, Animals isn't all that good.
@@nl3064 Honesty, Animals is my favorite Roger Waters-written album followed by Amused To Death.
@@nl3064 you are crazy, animals is amazing.
Especially Zeppelin 2. Rolling Stone had it in for that album. That’s when they became irrelevant to me.
@@nl3064 Your right !... it isn’t all that good .... it’s Great 👍
I love Nirvana, but critics at that time were so far up Cobain's ass. They trashed so many good bands just cause they weren't Nirvana.
People still are up his ghostly arse. It seems that dieing makes one non critiqueable .
"at that time"? Smell like teen spirit is literally in the 9° place in "500 greatest songs".
And because critics were so far up his ass, that's why imo Nirvana are OVERRATED
Ease up please. He has entered god phase for real
Nirvana were extraordinarily good though. Cobain was an absolute master of his art. I'm a Tool fan, but for all the mind-blowing complexity in their albums, you also can't deny the beautiful simplicity of what Cobain achieved. The tone he got from his music and the song writing is unrivalled. Nirvana were one of the absolute greats. We all still want new Nirvana music
The Pitchfork reference reminded me that "review" of Audioslave's debut, although the Tool's Lateralus one was way worse. That Crash Thompson video dedicated to the worst reviews from Pitchfork is spot on.
Zappa summed up music critics well, ' Writing about music is like dancing about architecture..'
Good one
It's sad that Black Sabbath's debut was scorned so badly, because it gave the world a whole new genre, but at the same time I can kinda understand why. It was just so anti-everything that was popular at that time. Like, the gloomiest, darkest shit came right on the heels of the frickin' Beatles; there's no way that was ever gonna get a warm reception at the time.
50 years later, it has become one of the most important albums ever.
Master of Reality got shitty reviews as well.
@@gergonikk The only good reviews I ever remember Sabbath getting back then were for those first 2 albums with Dio.
@@cletusbeauregard1972 Yep. Critics hated them from the beginning all the way up to the Dio years.
Because the dork of darkness can’t sing, just brutally bad. Every frontman after him sang all the 70’s songs the right way
Just more proof that *Rolling Stone* magazine was always trash.
If it isn’t obnoxious obscure jazz or noise music, it’s trash in the eyes of Rolling Stone.
@@AssfaceOmega "grr Ornette Coleman and black midi bad"
- you
Its a lib mag
Rolling Stone wasn’t kind to Led Zeppelin 2. Basically saying it was their worst album. They gave 5 stars to Zeppelin 1,3, Physical Graffiti and Zeppelin 4. Only 4 stars to Zeppelin 2. Later changed it to 5 ⭐️ stars.
@@danapaul3216 You realize Rolling Stone didn't use star ratings until 1981, right? They savaged Zeppelin 1, 2, & 3. It wasn't until Zeppelin IV that they started to come around.
Stone Temple Pilots' debut album Core was initially trashed by critics as a complete Pearl Jam ripoff, which makes the negative reviews PJ's Ten got even more hilarious in hindsight. So basically, any band that came out with that sound during that time period was accused of ripping off the previous band that had come out with that sound during that time period. Is it me or were critics the ones who were lazy and lacking imagination during the grunge years ?
Critics didn't like "Purple" that much either, if I'm not mistaken.
The whole grunge movement was disparaged. Cobain dies, and suddenly, it was an important movement. It's really that simple - someone had to die for some of the old-guy writers of the time to finally come to terms with the new music that had passed them by.
@@bryanc1984 Which is funny because Purple is the album where STP truly stood out as their own sound. There was still some grungy stuff, but they started mixing in a lot of psychedelic rock sounds.
IIRC, Nirvana's albums were thought of as lesser before Cobain's suicide
the music lacked imagination. it was the dark ages of guitar playing, and it effectively killed rock music. you can't have 40 bands playing the same three songs and not expect people to get tired of it.
'The reason why critics prefer the music of Elvis Costello over Van Halen is because most critics look like Elvis Costello' - D.L.R.
Remains the best slam on rock critics
I mean I’ll take Elvis Costello’s my aim is true over any van Halen album…
@@TokyoBalletReprise I'll take neither, tbh
@@TokyoBalletReprise you write Taylor Swift lyrics in birthday cards, don't ya bud
@@princeofpcos9804 Nah, Elvis Costello’s album is just more fun and interesting.
It actually got worse for AC/DC later, the following album Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap was basically banned from releasing in US from 1976 to 1981 due to being “Commercially Unviable” according to Atlantic Records.
Proving once again that middle age men maybe shouldn't be the gatekeepers of what culture the youth should or should not consume
Because of the cult following High Voltage cultivated, a bunch of record stores began importing copies of Dirty Deeds
It had a fanbase by the time Atlantic approved of its American release in 1981.
I bought it when it came out in 1976
And the funny part? They're one of the highest selling bands in the world!! Goes to show that they had no idea!
Neal Schon: "The only thing I use the Rolling Stone for is toilet paper when I run out."
A hundred or so years ago some theater director sent a reply to a critic who had savaged the play; "I am sitting in the smallest room in the house. Your review is in front of me. Soon it will be behind me".
Rush's entire discography could be on this list. lol
I totally agree. Geddy said that if you really want to enjoy RUSH you need to invest a lot of time into it.
All of prog can be on this list
Christgau HATED In the Court of the Crimson King. Let me remind you of that.
The critics kinda came around on Rush by the time Counterparts was released. The only one of those last 5 Rush studio albums that got bashed in the press was Vapor Trails, and it was almost always the overall mix that got savaged, not the songs.
Except the conventional wisdom hasn’t changed. Rush is very controversial in that a lot of us still don’t like them
Alex Lifeson’s blah, blah response to critics is probably the finest FU to be captured on film.
U.S. critics have always hated, and talked shit, about Queen. It all started with Queen's A Night at the Opera album. Critics are hardly ever right, sure they get it spot on once in a blue moon, but music is subjective. If you have a critic that loves soft rock reviewing a heavy metal album, of course that critic is going to talk shit about heavy metal.
I'm pretty sure Hybrid Theory is getting reevaluated now. Since it was nu-metal, the critics hated it, but when the 20th anniversary box set came out, I saw a lot more positive reviews, even if some were like "eh, I still don't like it, but I can see why others do". Pitchfork gave the box ser something like a 7.4, which is REALLY GOOD for Pitchfork. The only nu-metal bands they had ever given positive reviews for before were System of a Down and Deftones. Another reason I think HT is being looked more fondly at now, is unfortunately Chester's death. I know a lot of people who made fun of the angsty, depressing lyrics, but when he committed suicide, those people were like "oh, he was serious. Crap".
Hybrid Theory has definitely aged surprisingly well. That and Meteora still jam.
@@alessandroscuderi7300 the lyrics havent aged well but the instrumentation and compositions are genius so it makes up for it.
I knew Pinkerton would make a spot on this list, but I was surprised to see critics, at first, lambasted Ten by Pearl Jam. Learning something new.
I was surprised by many of these when doing research.
@@RockedNet same here. Just goes to show that albums that stand the test of time are still lambasted at the time
Oh, I remember Ten getting blasted by most reviewers, especially this one dude who called them a Bad Company wannabe band.
I remember the first time sitting down and listening all the way through in one hit in my room. I think it was the first time I was really, really emotionally moved by an album.
I can see why the critics didn't really like Andrew WK, he's sort of a cartoon character, that's his whole thing.
I'd say less of a cartoon character and more of a stuffed bear toy that was being used to smuggle cocaine and suddenly gained sentience.
@@ELSTERLING that is the most perfect description I've ever heard of Andrew wk.
Led Zeppelin's first two records were trashed by RS.
Edit... now that I think about it, their first three were and overall were never a critical darling. Nevertheless they're among the top 10 greatest selling artists of all time. Top five if you're just counting rock acts.
And so was Rush's first album, criticised for being too much like Led Zeppelin.
Wonder if the opposite could be done. Albums crtics loved/liked at first but later became hated. Oasis Be Here Now would fit.
Definitely that kid rock album with “bawitdaba” on it
@@marshallfarstad3770 Had to look it up, and yep Devil Without a Cause had a good amount of favorable reviews. I'm surprised. All music gave it a 4.5/5 stating "it's the greatest hard rock album of the late 90's"
Phil Collins - No Jacket Required.
I’ll admit it was overrated at first, but not as much as its been underrated in the 2000s. And IMO the songs are actually quite good, it just sounds very dated.
Christopher Cross - self titled. Lauded on release, ive seen it get tons of stick nowadays. Mainly due to it being cool to hate soft rock, and the fact it beat The Wall to Album of The Year.
To a degree , Blur - The Great Escape. Universally lauded on release, these days critics tend to give it a marginal thumbs up. However the band have stated their dislike of it.
The Vines' debut album "Highly Evolved" received ridiculous levels of praise by some critics at first, hyping the band as "the next big thing in rock". The public had a way more tempered reaction to it, and the band's subsequent albums have not had much success at all. I remember reading at least one critic apologizing for jumping on this rather irrational hype bandwagon for that band.
Maybe Limp Biskit?
Crash already mentioned this one but the Pitchfork review of Tool's Lateralus is the worst thing I've ever read.
Seeing Ten in the thumbnail made me watch. I can’t believe anyone would trash that album. Literally a masterpiece. My personal favorite album.
Pitchfork: Everything you like sucks and we’re better people than you
Pitchfork = Music GloboGym
@@davidyurch4446 Right?! When I saw that, I instantly thought, "We're better than you, and we know it."
They have a hate-boner for Smashing Pumpkins too along with AlternativeNation.
"We Paid A Freelancer To Say A Thing You Like ls Bad Because The Google/Facebook Duopoly Ate The Whole Digital Ad Market And Now Harvesting Hate Clicks Is The Only Viable Business Model For Online Media"
Rolling Stone is just full of classy people and big brain opinions like that. I distinctly recall that their take on lesser known grunge band Hammerbox was, more or less in its entirety, "They're not as good as Hole which is the other famous grunge band with a woman vocalist so don't bother." Right, because clearly _two_ grunge bands fronted by women is too damn many and we must make them battle in the arena until only one survives. It's not like they even sounded like Hole.
It's friggin wild how they could get is so right on some albums, and so wrong on others.
they all fucking hated Hole too. Especially once Kurt died, they all blamed his wife, like she wasn't going through enough.
I'm still perplexed by how anyone can call a band fronted by a gay Parsi man singing about love, hope & perseverance "fascist". Is it the leather? Did nobody at Rolling Stone know who leather daddies were in the late 70s?
While this happen afterwards, Queen did infamously play South Africa during the height of the apartheid. This got them blacklisted in England for a while and is the real reason they were initially not included on the live aid line up (funny how they changed that for the movie). So while the quote from review is clearly The Rolling Stones writers making hot takes (act surprise), there were people with major issues with the band back in the day.
@@BoyNamedSue4 they played to mixed audiences there, this is why Mandela was involved with the 46664 thing later on.
You know nothing
@@JonnyInfinite literally nothing you said contradicts any of the history facts I mentioned.
@@BoyNamedSue4 your 'major issues' is a nonsense
Yee
This is my problem with music critics - what they say has basically no connection to whether I like the album or not. After some time I just stopped taking those reviews seriously
I only read music and movie critics by accident. They have no idea what they are talking about with regards to anything that is different from the status quo.
Funny hearing "knackered" in a American accent, very British/Aussie thing
[gives algorithm a doggy treat and head pats] now you be good and push Luke’s video.
That review of 'Jazz' by David Marsh at Rolling Stone still makes my blood boil.
Even worse was his review of Queen's 'A Day At The Races' album, in which he said that Freddie's vocals were 'passable' and that he had a 'pedestrian pop voice'.
What the actual fuck?! This is an album that features Tie Your Mother Down and the immortal Somebody To Love. And Dave MArsh thinks those vocals are 'pedestrain' and 'passable'?
Fuck. That. Guy.
To me Day at the races is Queens best album
It’s not a problem that the guy doesn’t like Queen. But what did he write about those albums that made you so furious? I’d have to read it to understand
@@ryplay08 In his 'Jazz' review, he called Queen a 'fascist rock band' in relation to the song 'We Will Rock You'. Not only was that a cheap shot, but 'We Will Rock You' isn't even on that album!
And I can't believe that anyone could credibly describe Freddie's vocal performances on 'A Day At The Races' as 'pedestrian'.
I don't expect critics to like the same things that I like, but I do expect them to do their job (like, you know, actually bloody listen to the record that you are supposed to be reviewing).
@@lewisclark1122 Yikes. I’m not a Queen fan but that’s just harsh, even I wouldn’t say that about Freddie or Queen in general. That critic obviously never listened to any Queen albums because yeah, ‘We Will Rock You” is on News Of The World
Speaking of Radiohead, The Bends did get some praise on release but also got its share of bashing, especially in the US. 5/10 from Spin (who called it "nodded-out nonsense mumble), C grade from The Village Voice, 1 star from the Chicago Tribune. Needless to say, the album has held up a lot better than any of those.
I love the second incarnation of them. Not sure why but but I do..
Nowadays you'd be hard-pressed to find a bad review of any new Radiohead album.
Either critics are too afraid to cop the backlash from fans or too gutless to go out on a limb and be different from anyone else.
It makes you wonder why anyone ever gives any credence to the likes of "Pitchfork" and "Rolling Stone. "
Suggestions for "songs people get the meaning of wrong"
Born in the USA-Not a patriotic anthem, more of a lament of a vietnam vet
The Stroke-Not a sexual song, a song about record companies stroking the egos of musicians
Suicide Solution-Not about suicide, it's about how drinking too much will destroy you
Number of the Beast-Not a satanic anthem, it's about a nightmare Steve Harris had
"Every Breath You Take" is not a love song...
The entertaining part about Number Of The Beast is that the backlash to it from reactionary Christian groups annoyed Bruce Dickinson enough that he wrote an _actual_ occult song in Revelations but it was so esoteric that it went right over the fundies' heads and they never noticed. (Amazing song too.) Bruce is great like that. He would later go on to write his own version of William Blake's Milton prelude aka And Did Those Feet/Jerusalem because he hated how much the popular hymn totally perverted the meaning of the original. Blake was _not_ a friend of nationalists and the establishment to the point he barely skated by being convicted for sedition.
@@jordanthejq12 And neither is "Better Man".
@@jordanthejq12 While I'm at it, neither is "The One I Love".
@@MmadA-lg6ix On the subject of REM, "Losing My Religion" is not about actually losing one's religion. It's about unrequited love and obsession.
I met the Drummers Mom from The Killers in Las Vegas!! One of their songs came on in Caesar's Palace and this beautiful waitress came up to me and said 'my son is the drummer for this band'!!!! She was so excited and proud 😍😁😀
My favorite part about the Pearl Jam review is the idea that they were capitalizing on a trend despite two members being in mother love bone and green River. Way to know about the music you’re reviewing, guy.
I was admittedly surprised about Ten being hated back in the day, only because (if my memory serves correctly), Core by Stone Temple Pilots was criticized for apparently trying to sound like Pearl Jam. I don't know how long it took for some people to come around on Ten, but that is confusing how critics would've been upset by that.
Funny how that works out, right ? It's like some critics back then were on autopilot mode and would just call any new band a "ripoff" of the previous band they had also accused of ripping off someone else.
Especially considering Ten was related slightly before Nevermind
@@evandemers3753 Yeah, exactly. Stuff like this is why I always just go with my initial thoughts on albums (films and video games, too, honestly) and tend to care more about actual enjoyment than how original something is, especially since most music is using some sort of influence from older times to help guide them.
Ten was hated because people stupidly believed Pearl Jam were trying to rip off Nirvana since Ten only became popular after Nevermind became huge. It's stupid because Ten was recorded and released BEFORE Nevermind. Also some critics didn't like it because to them it sounded too much like a hard rock album instead of a grunge album due to the prominent guitar leads and several solos. Even Kurt Cobain hated Ten. And ironically, Ten outsold Nevermind in the US.
@@rockingbirdey I wasn't aware that Ten outsold Nevermind, but honestly, I'd rather take Ten any day over Nevermind since compared to a lot of people, I'm not the hugest Kurt Cobain fan and Ten is one of the first albums I tried hearing start to finish. I could go into other reasons why I personally think Ten is better than Nevermind, but it would probably take too long and I'd rather not have several debates over that.
Led Zeppelin, Def Leppard, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Green Day, Aerosmith, Jimmy Eat World, Rush, Bon Jovi, Stone Temple Pilots, and so many others were misunderstood.
If anyone hated "Wish You Were Here" when it first came out I would have expected it to be Pink Floyd fans, not music critics. Floyd's music was frequently a bit strange and artsy. "Wish You Were Here" is probably the most straightforward, mainstream album they ever made.
All Pink Floyd albums from
Umaguma ,to The Wall when they first came out was such a new listening experience for me . I’d play both sides and go Wow that’s too much ! Put it away for couple of months... bring it back out and play it constantly! 👍
@@greatdaneacdc I had this problem with Yes. When I accidentally received Relayer from a record club I absolutely hated it the first time I played it. By the third time I had gone to loving it.
Pitchfork also hated Ten's remix/redux. What a surprise.
@Bloom Tik Bloom I somewhat agree but it didn't deserve to be ripped apart.
I like the redux a little better honestly. Brendan O'Brien has done every other Pearl Jam album and doesn't drown everything in reverb, I prefer his style.
I liked the redux. You could hear more. Especially during the solo of Even Flow
They both sound good to me. Pitchfork is just pretentious.
The redux definitely sounds a lot fuller mix wise.
Albums that stand the test of time tend to be hated the most by critics
Critics like their confort zone, the average, they fear things that challenge their perception of quality, so anytime any media goes out of the norm, critics freak out and slander it nonstop. Radiohead's Kid A and Black Sabbath's self tittled album are great examples of this.
@@miserirken... I gotta agree , anything 'outside the box ' seems to bring out the worst reviews well not really a review , more like a popularity contest 😆 but you know what I mean... Like Rush's 2112 got thrashed by critics and that was a GREAT album lol I remember one called Rush the ..... "Newest band in the 'Hey, lets learn 3 chords & become the next Black Sabbath' category" lmao Still a very influential album .
@@Mr.CliffysWorld A critic legit called them that? You can tell they didn’t listen to any of their albums.
@@yaboi2500 Actually your comment just jogged my memory, I'm pretty sure it was in 'Hit Parader' Magazine . Wonder if they're even a magazine anymore 🤔 The more I think about it . They weren't really a magazine then either. 😂
Although I love "Wish You Were Here," several friends dismissed it, back in the day, by saying that it wasn't as good as "The Dark Side of the Moon."
Genuinely shocked that Wish You Were Here was disliked initially. The whole album is just an absolute delight. I'm especially a fan of Welcome To The Machine and also Shine On You Crazy Diamond (Pts. 1-5.) Seeing the cover on the thumbnail made my jaw drop.
I don’t know if it was a lot of people but I remember seeing people say the Joshua Tree was extremely mediocre at first
One album that more or less got mixed/positive reviews but probably needs to be reevaluated is RHCP’s One Hot Minute. The “red headed stepchild” between BSSM and Californication.
My uncle actually liked that album when he first heard it.
Warped is still one of my face rhcp songs.. I really don't mind ohm
Well, it doesn't help that Anthony Kiedis pretty much disowned it in at least one interview.
It was the last good RHCP album. The corporate shite they put out after that with junkie pedo trying to sing is not the worst music ever, but it's uninspired and boring, and the terrible vocals just kill it. At least when Little Girl Lover was trying to do the rap thing it was a fresh and different take, along with their instrumentals
It's actually one of their best.
This band has a LOT of filler
Next can you do the list of albums critics loved but fans hate?
Thanks for the comments, love and support may God continue to bless you some more and you can always text me on my private tour mail or burner cell number:Echurch522@gmail.com
+1 (770) 852-5981
good idea
Any newer album from a band that has been around for 20+ years.
How tf can you hate “Ten” by Pearl Jam? That album was an absolutely masterpiece
Exactly, it’s what introduced me to grunge (other than the few songs I heard by Nirvana before) and became and actually still is my favorite album of all time.
I really hate it, it's boring corny and way over-rated. I much prefer Vs Yield and Vitalogy.
@@Soldano999 yeah its kinda corny sometimes, but very well written, idk
@@Soldano999 i feel like virology and yield are more corny, its like they were trying to hard to not remake 10, 10 just more raw, obviously not from a production stand point but just from a writing standpoint it just sounds like the songs had flowed out of them were as later albums sound more forced
Or Core by Stone Temple Pilots. That album was like a greatest hits album.
Hearing that Queen review just reminds me of twitter now.
Anything Pink Floyd put out right after Dark Side that wasn't Dark Side probably would have been shit on.
Stone Temple Pilots debut album Core being hated & panned by critics was always baffling to me. That album was responsible for starting my love of rock when I was only 10 years old after borrowing my Dad’s tape on a trip. It’s fantastic and remains one of my favorite albums of all time.
The critics absolutely loathed Stone Temple Pilots. Good thing fans simply don’t care.
Good thing STP did Purple and Tiny Music to prove that, no, they are not a Nirvana clone
Lou Reed's Berlin is another that critics have changed their tune on.
And if I remember right Bowie's first album was expected to be a flash in the pan, not sure if it was panned by critics, but they thought Bowie was just following trends and would do nothing more after having a lucky hit with Space Oddity.
Rush - Caress of Steel
My favorite RUSH album was brutally beaten down by a bunch of "critics" who could no more recognize quality and depth of professional material than a rusty spoon.
Thank goodness Rush decided to go down swinging by making 2112 and changed everything forever.
I can kinda see why Caress would be very polarizing. It constantly toes the line between flippantly funny (an ode to growing old? The slight humor in "The Necromancer" and "The Fountain of Lamneth" also counts - a prog band that doesn't take itself so seriously) and being Rush as we knew them from the first two albums. And it's very on-the-nose, even when compared to 2112 and Hemispheres.
Styx's entire Wooden Nickel label offerings were universally panned as well. The early stuff (1,2, Serpent is Rising and Man of Miracles) was better than most of their post Kilroy crap.
Master of Reality wasn’t well received by contemporary critics at the time of its release either. IIRC Rolling Stone gave it 1 star
“Master of Reality” is my favorite Black Sabbath album, so hearing that makes me hate music critics even more.
Good album tho..
You can honestly include any 70s prog rock album. Critics’ favorite word back then was “pretentious” even when it wasn’t warranted.
I always thought ir was funny that Floyd, Yes, Rush and Radiohead were the bands that were always called pretentious and they probably are my favorite 4 bands not sure what that says about me.
@@jameshannagan7830 It means that you have good taste.
The first 5 or 6 Led Zeppelin albums were panned by critics on both sides of the Atlantic. With each new release that sold millions and was loved by fans the critics stubbornly doubled down, tripled down and quadruple, quintuple and sextupled down on their disdain for one of the three greatest rock bands of all time.
It went to the point that Page and Plant decided to release IV without any mention of the band or title on the cover just to prove that the critics were thrashing the band and not the music.
As I'm watching this, I'm coming to the conclusion that Rolling Stone is the music industry equivalent to Rotten Tomatoes.
I have the “wish you were here” album it’s hilarious especially how much these original vinyls go for.
Many Queens of the Stone Age albums.. but I’ll say the one that sticks out to me the most is Era Vulgaris. I didn’t get that album at first but one day it just clicked. The same for Lullabies and Villains. stellar albums in their own right if you are listening to them the way they’re meant to be heard.
Yep - the Queens haven't seen very many good reviews since Rated R.
John Prine - “Pink Cadillac” wasn’t popular with fans or critics when it came out. But it grew on everyone over the years. John said it was one of his favourites a few years before he passed away from Covid.
Red Hot Chili Peppers- One Hot Minute
Green Day- Warning
Neutral Milk Hotel- Into The Aeroplane Over The Seas
Daft Punk- Discovery
Michael Jackson- Bad
Van Halen- Women & Children First
Rush- 2112
The Beatles- Abbey Road
Also FYI Schreiber wasn't so kind to Audioslave's debut album either. ( & I quote, "At it's worst, this project is just plain RETARDED.")
Edit: Rihanna's Rated R was also critically panned despite the fact that many people consider that one of her best albums.
And yet somehow Schreiber isn't even the worst reviewer Pitchfork has ever played host to. They truly are awful.
@@ELSTERLING To be fair, they're kind to Radiohead.
@@hellonurd8957 NOW they're kind to them !!
I dont know if Bad was hated by critics. A lot of them called it not as good as Thriller, but most of those reviews still called it good.
@@mmsiphonevinyls1027 it could probably still be considered as a lot of people now of days think the opposite is true, And that bad is better than thriller.
The 1st 4 Zeppelin albums were trashed by critics
I dont have any articles to reference but wasn't Nirvanas In Utero generally thought of negatively at first because it sounded nothing like Nevermind?
U2 - Achtung Baby. After The Joshua Tree and Rattle and Rum in the late 80's, critics and many fans thought WTF when this came out.
I wonder if there is a flip side to this, albums critics loved when they came out but have not aged well. I remember seeing in every magazine review I saw of St. Anger it was 4 stars out of 5.
Oasis - Be Here Now? Todd In The Shadows did a video on that album, and included side-by-side comparisons of reviews from then & now. it's mind-blowing how much their views changed
@@ideitbawxproductions1880 I had to conclude that there’s a nostalgia factor, plus the hooks are still classic Oasis. Stay Young should’ve been on the album.
Once critics have put something in a pantheon it's hard for them to remove it, that would be like shooting themselves in the foot and admitting they just followed the trend that was pushed.
Wish You Were Here is the product of collective musical genius.
Queen's "Jazz" was considered "fascist"? I'm laughing as I type that.
Mussolini LOVED that album!
It was an extremely uncharitable reading of We Will Rock You/We Are The Champions. Which isn't even on Jazz, so God knows why it was brought up in the review
@@SonofSethoitae Accuracy is clearly not a priority of rock "critics". I never say this about criticism except when it comes to movies and popular music, where one need not be an expert in the field and just merely have tastes, but when it comes to rock "critics", they couldn't DO, so they WRITE. And badly. I mean, at some point, words have to mean something. I don't think of Freddie Mercury when the subject of right-wing authoritarian governments comes up.
Also, Led Zepplin I and the first Queen album got panned by critics.
Critics hated Paul McCartney’s RAM album when it came out in 1971. I don’t know if it was just because it was ahead of it’s time and critics didn’t get it, if they decided to join the John Lennon side of the John vs Pail post Beatles drama, or both.
When it was rereleased not too long ago critics started calling it Paul’s “masterpiece”
Rolling stone magazine pretty much let John Lennon write the review for his first few albums.
Sams Town is a brilliant album. My fave by Killers
Okay, so, if a band's album comes out, these critics just fucking hate them, if a band's album become really popular, these critics will 'like it'...because that's all I understand from this video...These critics man 🤦🏻
Funny, as you were talking about Radiohead's Kid A, I was thinking "sounds a lot like Pink Floyd's reviews"...the next album was Wish You Were Here.
Rolling Stone Magazine also trashed Led Zeppelin's debut🙄
Don't Stand Me Down by Dexy's Midnight Runner's comes to mind.
There's so many of these that we could easily do ten lists like this. All the Stooges albums immediately come to mind, but especially the first one. I think Lester Bangs was literally the only critic that didn't want to go on a murder spree after hearing it when it first came out. Now we recognize it as the landmark it was. In 1969 though, critics thought it was the death of rock and roll and a sign of the end times
Love the first two albums - Rock n Roll masterpieces......Get the deluxe CD edition of Fun House...it's awesome.
@@dancalmpeaceful3903 I love Raw Power as much as Fun House, honestly. That's because I was first introduced to the Stooges through Monster Magnet's amazing cover of "Gimme Danger", which of course comes from that album. It's not a bad album even if you take off the nostalgia goggles though. James Williamson's guitar playing isn't as raw or experimental as Ron Asheton's, and you can tell no one in the band was in the best place at the time. It sounds like a band about to tear each other apart. But all the individual performances are still really fucking good though, especially Williamson and Iggy.
That's the other thing about the Stooges albums, is each tells a story in the sound. The first album is a band of kids literally learning to play as they went. That's the raw, experimental power of Ron Asheton I spoke of. The riffs and solos are so cool and so out there because it's Ron learning how to write riffs and play solos and as a result not really caring if things sound "right" so long as they get on tape and feel good in the moment. Fun House is a band that's learned how to play, and is making an album for other musicians to show how far they've come in such a short period. The first album is youthful violence, while Fun House is mocking dread. Raw Power is a band imploding on itself, but having one last brilliant supernova moment before going black hole
@@princealigorna7468 I admit, I kind of like Raw Power (in fact I have the deluxe CD version)...but just not as much as Fun House. I would agree...Raw Power does sound like a band about to rip itself apart...but it is still a classic.
High Voltage, Morning Glory, and Wish You Were Here are literally some of my favorite ever albums. In my opinion Wish You Were Here is the best album of all time.
Watching this I have one thought bouncing around my head. “God it’s entertaining to see douchey, self important writers write retractions and see the Olympic level gymnastics they try to accomplish to make it sound like they were both right and wrong simultaneously”. 😂
And then you realize that Doug Walker still makes content. Ugh.
What about critical acclaimed albums or band no one knows. Do critics know anything? Don't always trust the critics.
Thanks for the video, it was pretty fun, even if I knew about plenty of those already (minus these Kid A and Sam's Town, reviews, especailly Kid A one, Jesus Melody Maker, what's wrong with you?)
Yeah, Melody Maker was legit crazy for posting that about ANY album. Yikes.
"Come in here dear boy. Have a cigar. You're gonna go far."
Wish You Were Here and High Voltage are 2 of the best LP’s ever recorded. Listen to Packard Goose by Zappa about his feelings on ‘critics’. :)
Melody Maker calling Oasis "laboured and lazy".
This was the same magazine that gave Britpop rivals Blur's 'The Great Escape' a 12/10 released a month before 'What's the Story?'
You can see who they were backing in their peak back then.
Well the second verse of nearly all of their songs were the same words as the first verse. That's pretty lazy.
Pretty much every RUSH album. Famous for live concerts, that no one ever saw.
The first time I saw Rush was the Hemispheres tour although I will admit I saw Yes the year before and thought they jammed a lot more as opposed to Rush who sounded just like the studio records which can be a good thing but listening to yes jam their asses off was a better show in my opinion.
@@jameshannagan7830 Rush wrote their songs with the intend to to perform them the same way live, so maybe that's why.
'One becomes a critic when one cannot be an artist, just as a man becomes a stool pigeon when he cannot be a soldier.'
Gustave Flaubert
Music critics at the time in the early seventies..
Had no idea what they were dealing with..
There's still under the shock of 50'd and'60s Rock..
Black Sabbath led Zeppelin and deep purple was blowing their minds.
A lot of these albums are debut albums, or came after a very successful one, or have a notorious change in style compared to past works. So basically, critics lambasted these albums because they sounded different, out of the ordinary
Did any of these so-called mainstream outlets review (now classic) black or death metal albums? I'd love to hear what they said about Morbid Angel's "Alters of Madness" or Emperor's "In the nightside eclipse" for instance. Or, what did these people think when Kill 'em All came out?
Ram by Paul McCartney. The critics heard one record and panned it. I heard a completely different album, and loved it from the start. Funnily enough, 50 years later, it's now seen as one of his best solo efforts
The Melody Maker (and fellow nemesis New Musical Express) spend most of the early nineties hyping young bands, sometimes before they even recorded something (for exemple Suede, Shed Seven) just to thrash them after the second or third album.
Lot's of people hated Greta van Fleet's debut album, including critics.
Maybe time will tell if this album will become a classic or the band will be forgotten. Who knows.
They will be forgotten because they're a cover band. The singer's Robert Plant impression is obnoxious. No one is going to remember a band that only received any attention at all for sounding like a band that came out over half a century before.
@@The_ScapeGoat Led Zeppelin started as a cover band and were hated at first.
All the historically best bands were bashed. So your opinion is irrelevant
I'd never heard of Pitchfork before today, and I'm almost as old as Black Sabbath debut album. 🤣
Usually when critics dislike a record that fans love, it’s because the music is slightly ahead of its time and critics just want something that’s instantly accessible. They lack patience and foresight
I don’t know.......... I get the feeling that some of those music journalists ”holier-than-thou/besserwisser” attitude comes from their own inability to create music themselves. The best negative review I’ve read was something along the lines of :
”This sells and is admired by thousands. It’s not my kind of music , but it appeals to many others”.
The reception for Jazz isn't that surprising. Punk was king at the time and little else was given the time of day. Also, even before that, Queen were considered a little suspect by the music press (too heavy for Glam, too glam for HR/HM, so hard for them to pigeonhole).
Critics made it up to Oasis by conning the public into thinking Be Here Now was good. Critics are useless.
Was There Then. So boring.
I remember an RS review of "Dark Side of the Moon" calling it "Qualude Rock".
Paul McCartney’s 1971 album “RAM” was blasted by Rolling Stone despite it sounding just like Paul’s half of a usually unanimously-praised Beatle record. It’s worth noting though how Jann Wenner and that magazine as a whole really loved to spin John Lennon as a musical messiah that was held back by Paul’s contributions (and would often make Paul out to be the villain that broke up the band), so I guess that had something to do with it.
Slowdive- Souvlaki.
It was panned by critics in initial release and now it’s regarded as a classic in the shoegaze scene
you may hate pitchfork now, but just check their A Fever You Can't Sweat Out review. Will make you loathe them more.
Holy shit, I about died when that pic of Kenan Thompson popped up in context. Like, "Damn! Tell us how ya really feel!"
Led Zeppelin were hated by critics too as I recall